Friday, October 30, 2015

Issue 711 Policy of Envy October 30, 2015

You know, I have wondered why our country was full of envious people.  I mean we are the land of opportunity right?  Don't know what I am talking about?  Allow me to explain.


Policy of envy:  Our country is envious of those who succeed.  Well more precisely, those who made it big here in the United States.  This comes in the form of progressive income taxes where we tax richer people at a higher rate rather than the same rate.  Now if you do the math, people taxed at the same rate all pay different amounts, with richer individuals paying more than their less economically well off counterparts.  But they pay taxes at higher rates because they are being punished for their success.  

Another example I see is the gift and death taxes.  If you give a certain amount of money to an individual then the person you're giving the money to is taxed.  If you inherit a certain amount of wealth in the form of income or property you again are taxed.  The reason is because people are annoyed at instant millionaires due to someone's dad or grandad giving their money away to their heirs.  It is jealousy.  It is not our business, but yet we made it our business to be jealous and envious of these people who simply get lucky.


Conclusion:  I do not know about you, but this seems wrong.  It seems that it is people being envious of others and therefore want to bring these well off people down a notch.  Needless to say I think it is wrong.  So see if you see it my way, or if you don't agree with me, at least I made you think (I hope) for it could be you that is a victim of the people's envy.

Thursday, October 29, 2015

Issue 710 Population control 101 October 29, 2015

So what are the reasons people want population control and what methods are available to carry out such a task. That is what I will be discussing today.

Reasons for population control:  There are a few reasons for population control.  One of the first is due to natural resources.  A country or a planet has a certain amount of resources that are accessible to a population at any given time due to technology.  Governments are faced with the issue of insuring their populations remain small enough so that they do not outgrow the resources available or else famines, and starvation can occur (this is also a reason for conducting war).  This same reasoning is applied to things like climate change with us humans being the cause.  That if there were less of us, the climate would not be so messed up.  Basically it is all about preserving resources or the environment.  However, the other reason may be to get rid of undesirables.  In this case people of various races, ethnicities, religions, etc. may be subject to population control measures due to discrimination.

Methods:  Methods abound, the simplest one is immigration.  By not letting certain peoples into a country where they may thrive, it is possible to keep them in an unhealthy environment and thus limit how long they will live out their lives.  Or at the very least not strain the country's resources. Marriage and breeding laws.  It is possible to breed out certain segments of the population by promoting ideas of racial purity or similar, or even forcing people to get permission to have children.  Sterilization and government enforced contraceptives are another method.  It actually has been talked about in the U.S. to introduce a sterilizing agent into the water supply by radical environmentalists.  Abortion is another with respect to those who do not have permission to have children, or the advocating of pregnancy as a disease which Margaret Sanger once did as a means to eliminate Black Americans in her plan for voluntary genocide.  Even selective breeding and arranged marriages can be used as another means.  Of course execution/murder is yet another method where the most obvious targets would be criminals, or small minority groups like the mentally disabled (people who again drain resources or are undesirable).  Even willful neglect of the sick or infirm are potential methods. All methods work, but a careful propaganda campaign will be needed to make it all socially palatable.


Conclusion:  Obviously I do not believe in population control.  Not even a little bit as I would rather the inevitable famine and starvation than committing the act of murder.  However people really do advocate and do these things.  China being one of them with their one child policy (now experimenting with two children) and their forced sterilization of women and execution of criminals.  Hitler of course did the racial purity garbage, and he unfortunately was not alone as he got the ideas from Americans who believed in the Eugenics movement.  So why am I telling you about this?  Simple, in order to never allow this to occur again, you must be given all the knowledge of how atrocities are carried out.  You must see humanity's ugliness to prevent us all from becoming a menace.

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Issue 709 False Freedom Advocate October 28, 2015

A false freedom advocate is a person(s) who preach about giving and preserving people's freedoms, while at the same time taking them away when it suits their purposes.  Let us discuss.

False Freedom Advocate:  I have met and heard from a number of people who claimed to be lovers of freedom.  They have labeled themselves as liberals, conservatives, democrats and republicans.  All, however were hypocrites.  For example, I was discussing zoning laws with two real estate sellers at the Manhattan Institute. They complained about a man in Texas who built his house out of cans and bottles of beer, thus lowering the property values in the area including the ones that these real estate people wanted to sell.  As such, they wanted to use eminent domain to have the government seize the house and kick the man and his beer house off the property.  I disagreed for it was the man's property and thus his right to live on that property as he chose.  Their reaction was a look filled with disgust, and walked away.  Meanwhile, the event I was at was an event to hear conservative ideas as the Manhattan Institute is a conservative think tank.  So how can you let two people in who go counter to conservative values like that?  My answer came later when a guest speaker from the Security and Exchange commission was talking about his time working for the federal government.  He described how the commission punished a business who decided to stop producing napalm (an incendiary weapon used in war) during the Vietnam War.  The company chose to stop making it for reasons I do not know, and it was there choice, but the government did not like that.  The crowd with me listening to this were not aghast at the punishment, but to the fact that a business could be unpatriotic to stop making a weapon of war that also messed with the economy a little.  That is when I knew that self-interest and patriotic idealism ran that think tank.  Thus why they are a false freedom advocate.

Then there are those who claim to be liberal.  We heard it all before with them wanting to protect us and stop poverty.  They want to provide universal medicine. But do any of their policies actually work?  No.  If they truly wanted to help the poor they would have embraced true economic freedom via the elimination of trade boundaries between States, and the lowering of taxes or making taxes fair by not punishing those who make a little more.  They would use economics to spur businesses to grow which increases jobs rather than dependency.  Sure, not all of them are being a false freedom advocate as they really believe in what they are saying, but if you do not embrace economic freedom, then how do you expect me to have true social freedom?  Ah, that's right, it is not true social freedom they preach.  If you violate their rules such as smoking, or you are pro-life, you are shut down.  Isolated by idealists who value the collective over the individual.  Both sides know that poverty will always exist, and that progressive income taxes only incentives the people to make less so that they are not taxed more.  All that is ignored for their version of the greater good.  Their idealism.


Conclusion:  The world is full of advocates who think they know what is right.  They can all claim that they want to help, and that they only want to maximize your freedom.  However, save the obviously wrongful acts like Murder, assault, rape, and theft, should there be any laws? Do we need all that government who can take our rights away when it suits them?  Do we need people in government that seek to help but only make more laws that restrict our freedoms?  The answer is no.  Government was never meant to be used as a tool to remove people from their homes, to punish them for their successes.  It was meant to be applied to sponsor trade, and protect us from invasion.  It protects us from the obviously wrongful acts and acts as a neutral arbitrator in the form of a court of law.  It is meant to do so few jobs, yet people's selfishness made it grandiose.  We made it big and shoved freedom down the toilet.  Sorry, but if you think government should do something for you, then you may be a hypocrite.  A false freedom advocate.

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Issue 708 Trump Immigration plan: part 6 October 27, 2015

Finally the last one.  I can finally stop talking about Donald Trump for a while.  So let me hurry up and critique his plan.

Refugee program for American Children:  Trump wants to increase the standards of admission of refugees and asylum seekers.  He sees the system as abused and thus wants to fix it, while at the same time saving money because let's face it, refugees and asylum seekers bypass the normal channels to come into the country and they may be ill equipped to fend for themselves.  The saved money would be used to place American kids in safer homes and communities while also improving the safety of high crime neighborhoods.  Now I am in favor of what he is trying to do with this, but their of course is a problem.  Crime in a neighborhood is in part a cultural as well as an economic problem that is compounded by issues due to the drug war.  So unless he intends to do something about the drug war and other matters the improving of high crime neighborhoods is pointless.  Also, both the adoption and placement of kids, along with tending to local communities is not a Federal issue despite how nice it may look on paper.  Reason being is that adoption and such are almost exclusively State issues.  So I fail to see how well this will work, and it comes off as a wishy washy give me your vote’s gimmick.  But the Stricter standards for asylum and refugees works.


Immigration moderation:  Trump wants a pause to occur. Before any new green cards are issued to foreign workers to work in the United States, he would have the businesses of America hire from unemployed U.S. citizens, and legal residents so as to increase American employment.  Basically, no foreign workers will be allowed in for a set period of time so as to force businesses to choose from workers here in the United States.  This is how I am hoping it would occur.  The reason being is that the only alternative would be to force businesses by law to hire U.S. citizens and approved foreign nationals allowed to live in the United States.  Basically, if it is the latter, then we are evoking fascistic principles and potentially racial, ethnic and nationalist racism at that.


Conclusion:  Ok, so if you take these final parts of Trump's plan with the others I have already talked about, you get some good ideas, like raising the minimum wage of approved foreign workers so that they do not compete with lower skilled U.S. workers, and the refugee/asylum standards increase.  However, I see a lot of fluff and of course the potential unconstitutional consequences of altering the 14th Amendment, and the potential part of forcing U.S. businesses to hire people via law as opposed to the freedom of contract protected in the U.S. Constitution.  I thus cannot endorse Trump, not that I particularly think he is the right man for the job (so I am a little biased), as I prefer a different candidate who will not violate the Constitution.

Monday, October 26, 2015

Issue 707 Trump Immigration plan: Part 5 October 26, 2015

Ok, let us continue looking at Donald Trump's immigration plan.  This time dealing with people legally coming into the country.

End J-1 Visas:  Trump wants to end this particular type of visa that caters to foreign youth looking for a job.  Basically, no more job help for younger immigrants.  His reasoning is that this visa can be replaced with a resume bank which will hold the resumes of inner city youth (those affected most by poverty).  As such, these American youths would be able to be looked at to be potentially hired over a foreign national.  Though this does not stop illegals and other migrant youth already in the country from being hired.  Also, even if this does work, what happens to these foreign youth who are now jobless?  How are they to make a living?  If these youth are included in the resume bank I can understand, but if they are not then we doom these young teens and young adults to poverty.

Increase wages of H-1B's:  H-1B's is another type of visa geared toward foreign nationals being hired by American businesses.  These visas come with a minimum wage that makes them desirable to businesses who wish to fill entry level and higher jobs.  The idea to raise the minimum wage for these individuals to a level high enough that they are no longer considered to be hired by businesses for low skilled jobs.  As such, entry level jobs will be hopefully filled by American citizens looking for entry level positions and into low skilled jobs.  Things will not change for these visas for higher end jobs however which I think is intentional.  Trump and those like him (I believe) want skilled labor and highly intelligent immigrants to come and live in the country.  As such, keeping the wage high to attract these individuals and potentially make them citizens later is possibly what they are aiming for.

Hire Americans first:  Trump's numbers say that there are 92 million Americans out of work.  Our population is 300 million.  So almost a 1/3 of Americans out of work seems sketchy, but he wants to make it that businesses hire from American citizens who are unemployed first and foremost.  What Trumps definition of unemployed is debatable, but I understand where he is coming from.  But how?  How will he accomplish this?  Sure the ideas he puts forth will help, but all come at cost, or are not ideal as they potentially can cause legal migrants to turn to criminality just to survive, and thus we just end up deporting more people as per Trumps ideas for immigration reform.

End Welfare Abuse:  Immigrants coming into the United States will apparently be forced to certify that they can afford their own housing, healthcare and other basic needs.  This is Trumps answer to all of my criticisms so far.  Basically, if you cannot afford to live here, then you will not be allowed to come into the United States in the first place. While it makes sense, the standards will be set by national averages and thus people that could move here and be citizens (or just live here) may be unable to enter because the bar is set too high (there are places in America where it is really cheap to live and below the national average).  As such, I find this idea good in one respect, but it is geared toward bringing in the richest immigrants into the United States, the intellectuals and so on.  But our country is more than just a bunch a rich smart people.  If this was set up instead to find the most affordable towns for immigrants to live in where they will thrive, then I would agree.  But this is not that.  It is set up for elites to enter the country, not the people who dream or make up the backbone of the country.


Conclusion:  Trump annoys me due to these idealist plans that favor the rich.  Do not get me wrong, his ideas will work, but there will be negative consequences that may even reduce legal immigration to a standstill.  I think the H-1B visa idea is the best, and the national resume bank can be expanded to include all the unemployed to make that better.  But beyond other improvements mentioned already, I think Trumps ideas here just don't stack up well enough to solve our immigration woes.

Friday, October 23, 2015

Issue 706 Trump immigration plan: part 4 October 23, 2015

Ok, today we are going to look at probably the most powerful and tough part of the Trump plan on immigration.  It is the issue of birthright citizenship. Let us critique.

Ending Birthright citizenship:  Trump does not want to give automatic citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants if they were born in the United States.  He basically said that they go home with their parents no matter what, rather than have them get United States benefits with the newborns being used as tools to allow the parents to stay in the United States.  It should be noted that the United States is one of a select few countries in the world that have any version of birthright citizenship.  So should we agree that the kids get deported with the parents?  

Well it is not that simple.  The 14th amendment says that:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"

As such, many would interpret that as anyone simply born here can and will be a citizen.  But the amendment was put forth for former black slaves who were originally considered property.  It made sure that their children would be considered citizens.  It also insures that legal immigrants and their children and children adopted from overseas will be considered citizens too.  It really was never meant to be applied to people just visiting or here illegally.  However, court rulings and legal policy and law have applied it to them anyway.  As to whether this is good or bad, I do not really care.  I personally think that our immigration system should be set up to adjust for this interpretation, but I am a voice in the peanut gallery.  But Trump wants to subvert the constitution.  He will either ignore this interpretation, or try to force a vote to change the constitution which is nearly impossible based on the process (a very good thing).  However, we do not want the amendment changed as that could lead to a bad alteration which can cause issues with future immigrants where actual citizens can be deported like with the communist sympathizers who were kicked out of the United States in a flagrant disregard for the U.S. constitution back during the cold war.  As such, we should invest time, effort and money to do battle in court to settle the issue in the right way. A battle that will end up in the Supreme Court to hopefully settle the issue once and for all.


Conclusion:  It is a very bad idea to try to alter the constitution without some clear wording and that need not be re-interpreted by some judge in a courtroom.  Also, I do not trust congress to amend the constitution on just this one issue alone.  I want the court battle that will really settle the issue in the right way.  You cannot take the easy way out for we already discriminated against every immigrant minority in the country at one time or another, and we also discriminated against religions, ideology and race.  Adjusting the constitution in any way may give an open door, through the alterations wording, to racists and other people to kick out undesirables that they believe are harmful.  Obviously that is a dangerous proposition, and Trump saying he will willingly subvert the constitution (at least how I heard it) also is dangerous for the constitution then becomes meaningless leading to mass deportations anyway.  So I cannot support Trump on any part of his plan for the dangerous that arise from it.

Thursday, October 22, 2015

Issue 705 Trump Immigration Plan: Part 3 October 22, 2015

Trump is not the most likable guy, but whoever is advising him is giving him some good ideas for the most part.  So let us continue on with some more of "his" plan.

Cutting Funding:  You have heard the term sanctuary cities.  These cities refuse to turn over illegal migrants to authorities and even go as far as providing benefits and government services to those who come to the United States without permission.  As a punishment, Trump would deny all federal aid to any city that violates the law in this way.  This would to a degree work initially, but as cities should not be getting money from the federal government in the first place and these sanctuary cities get used to doing things with less money, this method will be less effective over time.

Overstaying Visas:  Some illegals actually have come to the United States legally and have gotten a document allowing them to stay called a visa.  However, these visas expire and some either forget or refuse to leave.  Trump wants to have these people brought up on criminal penalties for overstaying.  If local police find such individuals, Trump would have them hold the individuals in question until ICE authorities arrive to take custody of them.  However, in my opinion the only part that is truly usable is the ability for authorities to hold people who have overstayed their visas, and even other illegal migrants for that matter.  Trump also wants to add a visa tracking system as well, but how that would work confuses me.  Save for having a NSA like entity spy on these individuals, I do not see how it will work.

Cooperating with Law Enforcement:  A number of illegals, at least the dangerous kind, are part of gangs like MS-13 and La Familia.  As such, Trump wants ICE to be able to work directly with anti-gang task forces on conducting raids against violent street gangs.  My question is, why are they not already doing this?  And how far does this cooperation go?  Are ICE agents going in with gang task force members on raids, or are they merely part of the process to deport gang members who are found to be here illegally?  I don't know why, but my feeling is that this should have and could be happening already.  Additionally, the FBI used to fight organized crime like gangs, so ICE as another federal police force should have an anti-gang intelligence section already or at least access to FBI intelligence documents.  If not, then they really are lacking and thus a complete reform of the federal police agencies may be needed over simply having ICE work with local police.


Conclusion:  These ideas while smart, fall short once you think about it a little.  As such, I need something better than this to help us solve the immigration problem.  The visa over stayers need to be treated better in my opinion as we let them in.  They were invited and people given visas are given the opportunity to stay and even become a citizen.  So something better needs to be done here.  The cutting funding to sanctuary cities is something I agree with, but for all cities as we should not give money out to anyone so long as there is a national debt to pay off.  As to cooperating with law enforcement.  Why are they not doing this already? That has me concerned, but I am going to give law enforcement the benefit of the doubt here.  Any case see you tomorrow for part 4.

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

Issue 704 Trump's Immigration plan: part 2 October 21, 2015

Yippy, day two...of Trump.  Well let us see what part two of my critique has in store.

National E-Verify:  An accepted idea.  In this case, all people in the United States before they are hired will be checked to see if they are citizens or not.  Basically, this insures only people here legally and of course actual U.S. citizens (or legal residents) may be hired.  So more jobs for the 40% of Black teens, and 30% of Hispanic teens who are citizens but do not have jobs (his numbers, but how he got them, I am not sure).

Return of all Criminal aliens:  Basically, if the illegal has committed a crime in the United States like theft, rape and/or murder, they will be deported back to their home countries.  If the foreign government does not accept their citizens back, then the United States will suspend all visas for all of that country's legal residents in the United States and send them all back home.  While the enforcement mechanism is great, the idea is a little bit wacky.  Reason being is that these illegals who committed the crime will be sent home after a trial to be put in jail in their home countries.  Now, keywords here, "jail in their home countries".  Um, do we really think that the home country wants a citizen back who committed rape, or murder before they have done time. Do we really think they will honor another country's court system and place their citizen in jail?  Now if they served their time with hard labor and then were deported back, then I would say this would work.

Separate Offence:  Something I do not agree with, Trump wants to make it a separate and additional crime to commit an offence while here in the country illegally.  Last I checked, it was already a crime to cross the border illegally.  Also, theft is theft, murder is murder.  We do not need justice losing its blindfolds simply because the perpetrator is here illegally.  

End catch and release:  Trump also wants to make it so that if you are caught crossing here illegally, then you are detained and then deported.  No more releasing them.  This is in reaction to the almost 76,000 illegals who were released into the United States population and told to come back on a specific court date.  Of course, the majority never came in for their court dates.  While this makes sense, it will not work well for the people already here that already disappeared into the population.  Also, these people will be detained for long periods of time if done wrong.  At most currently 250,000 are deported each year out of the 11 million illegals here (source Fox News).  This is because they are hard to find in a country of 300 million people.  Also, Trump wants to be rid of all the illegals as he has stated in earlier statements.  But as the Supreme Court has ruled previously, all the illegals (individually) are entitled to a hearing for asylum or other purposes.  All those court cases, assuming the border is secure, would take 40 years and thus lots of money.  Hence why we either need a new Supreme Court ruling or we need to spend a lot of extra money to make a huge amount of courts to oversee each individual hearing at once.


Conclusion:  I will not say I disagree with the overall ideas that Trump and his team presents here.  However, some just do not seem practical.  As such, National E-verify and an alteration to catch and release where hearings are done almost immediately upon arrest for the new illegals coming in would work with respect to future illegals coming into the country.

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Issue 703 Trump's Immigration plan: part 1 October 20, 2015

I do not want Donald Trump to be President, but he makes great press because of his mouth.  As such, I am going to dissect and critique his immigration plan.  It will be seven parts, so that is seven days of Trump.  May it begin!

The Wall:  Trump wants to build the wall between Mexico and the United States.  Something that can potentially work if it resembles the Berlin wall.  This means a double wall/fence with patrols going in-between the two barriers.  Basically it is designed to make it very hard to cross the border by slowing the illegal entrants down long enough for a patrol show up to make an arrest.  However, he wants Mexico to pay for it.  Short of annexing Mexico, the only thing that Trump could do if he became President would be to kick Mexico out of the North American Free Trade Agreement and thus tax goods coming in from Mexico.  Trump did not say we would partner with Mexico, so this change in the status quo for trade relations and thus would create economic issues.

More ICE officers:  ICE officers are the men and women who handle illegal migrants that make it through the border.  However, according to Trump's stats, there are only 5,000 such officers that have to deal with well over eleven million illegal migrants.  Trump wants to use money that comes from tax cheats and others who have defrauded the government to pay for their expansion.  Those people who are considered "defrauders" are illegals who obtained tax identification numbers and claimed tax credits (this is apparently legal to do in the United States).  As such, no more tax credits would go to illegal migrants who were allowed to stay in the United States.   This we all can agree with as with respect to increasing law enforcement and ending tax credits.


Conclusion:  These two parts of his plan are the least controversial.  And thus are supportable by most Americans on both sides of the political aisle.  The only real issue here though is who is going to pay for the wall, and I think it is us the tax payers.

Monday, October 19, 2015

Issue 702 Are we responsible? October 19, 2015

When we vote for our representatives and our President, are we responsible for sending our soldiers off to war?  That is the question I ask in today's issue.

I think we are:  We the voters get enamored with our politicians, and we like only our representatives because they give us stuff.  But then they send our soldiers off to war in foreign lands.  It was the politicians that chose to send our troops into Vietnam, Iraq in Gulf War one and then again in Gulf War two to finally be rid of Saddam.  However, that left us going to fight in Iraq longer and the war spreading with us conducting strategic strikes in other countries like Yemen, and Libya amongst others.  In those conflicts we sent our soldiers into harm's way because we elected representatives and Presidents that were willing to send men and women in uniform into battle.   Yes, the soldiers are proud to serve and they are honorable warriors and heroes.  But when they get killed in action and they leave families behind, it is our fault.  We had no need to fight in Iraq and now we got ISIS/ISIL and other terrorist groups to fight as a result.  It was us who elected these scummy politicians who willingly send our brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, and sons and daughters off to war to a fight we did not start.  It was us who let these representatives send them off to war.


Conclusion:  The thing about representatives is that they represent us and we chose them.  Thus, to a degree it is our fault.  We chose them and then they send us to war.  As such, we should always keep this in mind when we elect our officials, for what they do is a reflection of things we want.  What results is also partly our fault.  The blood is on our hands too.

Friday, October 16, 2015

Issue 701 Smart Immigration October 16, 2015

So we talked about immigration yesterday, but that was on which system worked and was simple enough that avoided discrimination.  But today we are going to discuss smart immigration that can be applied to any immigration system. Let us begin.

Smart Immigration:  For those coming into the country to live here, whether they be non-citizen or a newly naturalized citizen, we want to prevent them from falling into poverty.  We all agree we don't want immigrants and non-citizens on welfare.  But not because they are not citizens or that they just became citizens and we dislike them.  The reason we don't want them getting welfare is because they should not need to be on it in the first place.  As such the government and businesses of all sizes should be able to look at and see if any people coming into the country have the potential to be hired.  Basically if the family member finds a job before they come here then they will be better off.  That is stating the obvious, but a job does no good if the neighborhood has taxes that are so high that it is unaffordable.  So an investment into the immigration system must be made to look at all the communities to find the most livable based on what the skills set of the family coming in and if that job(s) will provide the income they need to be able to thrive in the United States.  Things such as on the job training or training classes would and should be taken into account.  Community support such as local networking, churches/charities and food pantries in case the family falters economically should also be examined. Even establishing early communication between the incoming immigrant/legal resident with their new neighbors would do wonders to aid in making the new arrivals feel welcome.  Basically any support or method to insure that the family member(s) who will be working can support their families and establishing a welcoming community will need to be established.   Of course, if all else fails and the legal resident wants to leave, or the immigrant ceases to want to live in the U.S. and they cannot afford a way home, it should be up to the United States to give them a ticket home as that is the right thing to do.


Conclusion:  Some of these ideas have been discussed and attempted in various ways and in various capacities (most commonly adoption cases).  As such, we know that it can work, but the initial investment may be expensive as the current immigration support systems and ideas here will need to be integrated.  However, the result will be new citizens who can fend for themselves and thrive as part of our national community.

Thursday, October 15, 2015

Issue 700 Old Idea: Immigration October 15, 2015

At one point in American History, our immigration system was a bit different.  It relied on how long you lived in country as a guest without committing a crime.  After you lived in the country for the set amount of time, you became a citizen.  So could this idea work now?

Old School Immigration:  How the original immigration system worked was that you had to live in the United States for about ten years without getting into trouble before you became a citizen.  In order to even get into the country however you had to pass a screening exam for diseases, past crimes and if you were from a nation who was hostile to the United States.  Very simple right.  Today's system is more complex due to the politicians desire to have people of certain economic wealth and knowledge come into the country.  Which is understandable as we have a massive welfare apparatus that can be so overburdened that it would collapse under the pressure of population growth. This has resulted in the problems with our current system with respect to illegal immigration and why it leaves other good people who would be great as American citizens in the proverbial dust so to speak.  We have become too selective as opposed to the original systems quota system taking in a specified amount per year based on the country's ability to absorb the people into it at any given time.  But the old system made sense as it did not discriminate based on wealth (our current system is too expensive for people to immigrate by normal means), and you were screened prior to entry into the country to insure diseases were not present and that you were not there to kill us (past violent crimes, terrorists and enemy foreign agents).  Regardless though, both the old and new system were both abused to keep out undesirables. The old system was abused based on ethnic and racial discrimination and the new system we use discriminates based on poverty which to a certain degree also discriminates based on race and ethnicity as well.  However, the old system if followed in a way that does not discriminate such as just allowing a first come first serve based on immediate families during the application process would solve the entire issue of past and potential future racial and ethnic discrimination.  Basically a real line to decide when you could come and move in.  Also a set of rules that must never be broken must be established (basically specific crimes) that if violated would result in deportation.  Basically, do not commit theft, of a certain level, assault of a certain level, riot or murder.  If you can do that and last the full ten years living as a non-citizen who cannot vote and is denied a certain level of welfare (if that should be required) then you become a full-fledged citizen.


Conclusion:  The quota system works best as it ensures that the country can absorb the immigrants economically speaking which is a defining factor in any immigration system.  If the old system is modernized, it can ensure that entire families can come in all at once without each member having to apply separately as I have heard rumors of having to be done with the old and new system. No more separated families is a good thing (this may include grandparents too).  Also, as it is first come first serve, we have a real line for people to come in as opposed to our current systems economic and pseudo racial and ethnic discrimination.  It can work, but we need political will to do it.  So is it worth it to screen people who come in first, and then let them live here long enough to prove that they truly wish to be citizens? I certainly think so.

Wednesday, October 14, 2015

Issue 699 Group Prayer October 14, 2015

I write this issue as really a contrast to yesterday's issue on war room prayer.  I want to make it clear that individual prayer does not override or replace group prayer in any way.  As such, I want to provide essentially a contrast to individual prayer. Let us begin.

Group Prayer:  Group prayers only real disadvantage is that it lacks individuality.  People may feel like they are losing that personal connection because you are praying in a group.  However, people need that connection with each other.  They must know that they are not alone in their prayers.  As such, prayers in church can create a spiritual atmosphere, and thus that community can deepen one's faith.  Though the prayers at church should be followed by parishioners getting together afterwards to discuss the prayers, the sermons and even the days and weeks events.  Without that communication between the parishioners, the church itself could potentially become useless as the mass will become robotic and stale.

Alternatively, establishing group prayer for a common goal or prayer as a group directed toward a singular effort has potential to make things happen.  For instance, group prayer toward the health and wellbeing of an entire town has actually caused the town to become more peaceful with less crime.  This possibly is due to the town’s people wanting the prayer to come true and thus they subconsciously work together.  It can also be something else entirely such as God, or the spiritual wellbeing of each other rubbing off on each other.  But overall, people praying together provides a lot of power toward a goal and becomes a uniter of people with different ideals and views.


Conclusion:  Yes, I know my explanations are simplistic, but group prayer when applied really helps.  Just the fact that people know they are being prayed for like our soldiers gives them courage.  People who suffer knowing they are on the receiving end of prayer may get the strength to persevere.  Whether prayer has psychological or Godly power (I’m for the latter), it can help save people by giving them the strength they need to overcome and to achieve goals that they may otherwise feel are impossible.

Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Issue 698 War Room Prayer October 13, 2015

After watching scenes for the new movie "War Room" about how prayer can save people, I began to wonder why it was called war room.  Here is what I gleaned.  

What is a War Room:  With respect to war room, it is not a situation room in the White House or your own personal battle plans to kick serious butt.  Instead it is a room that you can shut yourself in and have your own personal and private discussions with God, study the Bible and apply that prayer and Bible study to issues in your own life.  Basically, when you are suffering, this room is a place to both escape and a place to find strength through God via prayer.   Does this work?  Well it depends on the person.  Some need solitude to solve issues and relying on God and prayer can indeed help people.  You can even post specific prayers and bible passages that apply to a given short term or long term stressful situation on the walls as it is meant to be your own personal space.  War rooms can take the form of a small room or even a closet.  Basically anywhere in the home or out of the home where you can have a private commune with God.  Though there are certain prayers and passages to would be appropriate to aid in situations and thus useful to you if you should decide to create and use your own war room, I am no expert.  My prayers typically are simply asking for strength to get through it and come out a stronger person or at the very least survive the stress or sorrow intact.  But there are guidebooks including those based on the movie which can aid you in finding which prayers to apply to each situation or hurdle in your everyday life.  Basically Prayer can be a powerful weapon in your arsenal.


Conclusion:  Do you need a War Room?  I sometimes did and thus used my room for that purpose when needed.  Others may need that relationship with God to be intimate all the time just to get through the day every day. Or simply because that is their faith and that a war room suits their prayer methods. Can an atheist use a war room?  Yes, but it is really designed around prayer.  So unless they are spiritual or have some other version of a deity that is not a deity, it will have issues working (unless they find some way to pray).  So all I can say is that if a war room is what you need, then go for it.  A little prayer when you need it most never hurt anyone.

Monday, October 12, 2015

Issue 697 HSA: Government Improvements October 12, 2015

Continuing from last week's issue on health savings accounts (HSA's), there are methods to speed up their adoption and make them more useful.  Of course as always it is up to the government to do it because they, as usual, are in the way.

What Government can do:  While HSA's will gradually take over as the primary payer for health coverage over time (my prediction), government can aid in speeding things up via a few methods.

Method 1) let generic drugs stay on the market longer:  By letting these drugs stay on the market longer, and potentially allowing more manufacturers to produce their own versions of these generics, it will flood the market with cheaper drugs.  As such, copays become cheaper, and out of pocket costs become cheaper thanks to greater supply of the drugs and choice of which manufacturer to buy it from.

Method 2) Auto-substitution:  In some States in the United States, pharmacists can substitute one drug with another on their own if the medication is of equivalent therapy.  As such, they can change one heart medication to another if the patient requests it without necessarily consulting the doctor.  This means that drugs that are not covered can be automatically switched out for those that are or are cheaper with respect to a needed therapy for the patient.  To gain this advantage in cost and time savings this ability of pharmacists can be made universal.

Method 3) Mass produce drugs:  Drug companies have to tell the FDA how much they will produce of a drug each year and if they wish to produce more or less of that drug, must get their approval.  This was primarily done to resist greedy drug companies causing price spikes by reducing the amount of drugs they produce to increase the price due to supply or undercut competition via price by producing more.  I could care less if they undercut competition as the patient's benefit, and thus eliminate the need to get FDA approval to produce more of the drugs which makes them cheaper.

Method 4) Sponsor more alternatives:  With respect to alternatives, this means the usage of doctors.  Midwives can replace doctors in delivery rooms, and nurse practitioners can replace doctors in clinics.  Sponsoring more people to be in these alternate professions that do the same job as a doctor makes health care cheaper.  We are not limited to just existing alternatives either.  Other more specialized or generalized positions in health care can be created to suit needs of the current health care system while working with colleges and hospitals to find out the health care systems overall needs.

Method 5) Unlock limits: The Congress makes the rules on HSA's and what they are allowed to cover (as far as my understanding goes).  As such, free up HSA's to have larger yearly limits, have that money roll over to aid in saving for future healthcare issues, and expand what they can purchase to certain over the counter items relating to healthcare like band aids, stomach acid medication and similar.

Method 6) More OTC drugs: There are a number of drugs that are prescription only that can potentially become over the counter items or even become an in-between like Sudafed products like Alive-D, Advil cold and Sinus and Zyrtec-D.  This makes even more drugs readily available to be purchased and thus cheaper to buy.


Conclusion:  As you can see, almost all of these methods revolve around making health care cheaper and thus more affordable.  By doing that, insurances can potentially lower premiums, or cover certain drugs less and use the HSA to do the grunt work with respect to coverage.  With an HSA's flexibility, cheaper drugs and doctor equivalents means more affordable health care

Friday, October 9, 2015

Issue 696 HSA's the future of HC October 9, 2015

An HSA is a Health Savings Account.  It is basically a credit card or even in some cases a debit card given by your insurance company or workplace that helps to pay the copays for doctor's visits and for your medicines at the pharmacy.  In my opinion it is the future of insurance, and here is my reasons why.

HSA's:  An HSA as I Stated is an account with money in it.  It is thus flexible in what it can purchase.  Therefor it can purchase medicines that would not be covered by your insurance.  A doctor not on your plan, then use your HSA to pay the full cost.  If you have a massive copay, then the HSA can cover that too.  Money you put in, your employer puts in and even the insurance puts in all helps to pay for your doctor and drugs.  It basically eliminates the need for approvals and disapprovals by insurance companies with the tradeoff of you having a limited amount of money to spend on the card.  My HSA has about $2,000 a year put on it, but I am healthy which means I hardly spend it.  What also helps is that the money (depending on the plan) acts like a bank account where the money rolls over per year allowing you to continue growing your HSA account.  It essentially rewards you for being healthy (so long as no caps on how much the account can grow are put in place).

HSA's are also cheaper for insurance companies and your workplace.  They do not have to worry about processing fees and taxes associated with traditional insurance.  Also, as they are placing only a certain amount of money per year in the account, which they can plan for and not worry about coverage for other more expensive medications that otherwise would cause their costs to rise (those costs are what you pay as a consumer).  Basically, your ability to budget yourself is what they are counting on, for you will see the larger costs due to the higher co-pays and out of pocket costs, and thus seek to use the cheaper options which saves your workplace and the insurance company’s money.

This also has the added benefit of making drugs and doctors’ visits cheaper.  By eliminating the fees, taxes and manpower associated with regular insurance, the costs at a doctor's office and pharmacy goes down as they can now afford to charge less.  Additionally, by allowing for higher co-pays and out of pocket costs for the most expensive medications, it shifts patients toward the cheaper options.  Pharmaceutical companies thus will lower their prices as much as possible so that they do not lose profit from their more expensive drugs.  This is all do to HSA's making the market for medicine more individual, and thus the market will accommodate the changes brought on by this which advances the power of you the consumer.  


Conclusion:  These are the reasons why HSA's are so good.  They eliminate denials, and paperwork and other components of healthcare that would otherwise make healthcare far more expensive.  With its natural impact on the market to also make drugs and doctors cheaper, it means all forms of healthcare will slowly become much more affordable as well.  So what say you?  Shouldn't more people be given HSA’s?

Thursday, October 8, 2015

Issue 695 Rioters and welfare October 8, 2015

So this past year, America has experienced a number of riots based primarily on race issues.  While some may claim this is free speech, it is not because rioting includes destruction of public and private property and potentially assault on regular people and officers of the law.  As such, what is a good incentive to keep these protests and other future ones from occurring?  In this case it is the denial of all forms of government assistance.  Let us discuss.

No Welfare for you:  Basically, if a person is caught rioting, or looting while on welfare (may include assault as well), they will be denied all forms of government assistance for life. This means that they will not get food stamps, or even potentially social security depending if it goes beyond the State level.  No Medicare or Medicaid either.  Basically, they will be completely on their own for the remainder of their lives for being so foolish.

The businesses they caused to suffer however, would still be suffering from losses.  As such, all the benefits of the welfare the rioter would have received would be converted to cash and given to the businesses damaged during the riots.  This would end only when the businesses have received all the money equivalent to their estimated losses. 

We are not evil however.  For one, any welfare for their children for going to schools, medicine and the like will not be denied.  So only the parents will be punished, not their kids.  Likewise, food pantries, and free clinics will still be useable by these individuals so that they may take care of themselves with regard to food and medicine.  So they will be inconvenienced despite being denied all other benefits.  Also, if they do not riot in future riots and show they are on good behavior by not committing any other crimes, once the businesses are done being paid back, they will be able to receive welfare again.  


Conclusion:  Good incentive for the poor who are on welfare not to riot at the very least, however, those not already on some form of government assistance may find a rude awakening if they lose their job for rioting or criminal acts as they will be denied unemployment.  But if they do not lose their job denying those not already on welfare the ability to use any form of tax breaks could serve as an additional incentive for these individuals not to riot.  Obviously as stated above, children's welfare will not be affected, and people can be forgiven once their debt to the businesses they helped destroy are repaid.  It makes a lot of sense, and can quell the violence at least in riots which may hopefully turn them into peaceful protests.

Wednesday, October 7, 2015

Issue 694 Spiked Debate October 7, 2015

So this is a modification that can be added to both the double blind debate in issue 686, and the triple blind debate in 693.  In this case we add body language and word experts to the equation.  Here is what it entails.

Spiked debate:  In this case you add a few experts to the equation in debates.  The primary group of experts will be fact checkers who will immediately fact check each candidate's answers and then those fact checks will immediately be revealed to the viewing audience.  This is the simplest one to implement as all they do is have to listen to the "facts" presented by the candidates.  Of course candidates will be allowed to defend themselves if they got a "fact" wrong.  The people need objective correct knowledge and this is what these experts provide even to the candidates.

The second group of experts will analyze the language and tone of the candidates.  They will be the sole group who will be allowed to listen to the answers unaltered by voice changing software, but they will not see the candidates they are critiquing to ensure objectivity.   In this instance, the experts on tone can tell us when candidates have stress, or potential for stress, and whatever other emotions they are showing.  Those experts that focus on word choice only will tell us if they are using coached wording, where they are using buzzwords or if they are improvising.  The goal here is to see what emotions they are showing and whether their emotions are real and if their answers are really their own as well.  Basically, it is designed to see if they are authentic in their answers, and their potential ability to handle pressure.

Our last group of experts will analyze facial expressions and body language.  This group will be the sole group to be able to see the candidates visually, but a group of them will not be allowed to hear the candidate’s answers while the others will.  The group who will not hear the answers is to create a control group to corroborate the experts’ analysis of body language and facial expressions from the group that can hear the candidate’s answers.  Basically, it ensures objectivity.  They will work with the tone and language experts to create a profile on each candidate to judge emotion, and authenticity of each candidate.  As such, these experts and those of the tone and language group will critique the candidates after a set number of answers are given, but will be allowed to give their analysis before the debate ends.  So about half way through would be best.  

All experts could even be handpicked and control groups who can see/hear the candidates will be paired with those who cannot.  Those that can see/hear, basically those who know the identity of the candidates will then be fact checked by the control group that does not know the candidates by voice, or visually.  For those who will see or hear the candidates or both, they can be used to create a profile on the candidates at the start of their campaigning to create a profile that looks for differences in behavior from Start to finish of the campaign process and how they are in debate settings as compared to other stressful situations.  Their analysis will provide indications of how honest and authentic candidates truly are, and if they have proper judgment on decision making via their reactions, word choice, and overall answers.


Conclusion:  These experts bring an entirely new dynamic to the debate scene.  Obviously these experts can be provided to all debate forms.  In my two types they become the sole group of people who will be able to potentially see and hear which candidate is answering the question first.  But this form of debate can even be enhanced further by hooking up heart monitors and other medical devices to see how the candidate’s bodies deal with pressure from a debate.  If lie detectors were actually more accurate and trustworthy, I would say add those in as well to see if the candidates believe in the stuff they are saying.  However, I doubt many candidates would agree to this set up save the fact checkers.  However, you can see how this will show how well candidates deal with stress, their emotional state, and their honesty.  And you know what?  We deserve a more honest and authentic president. 

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

Issue 693 Triple Blind Debate October 6, 2015

Inspired by my idea for a double blind debate in issue 686 and combining it with Glenn Beck's idea for an interview, I present to you a triple blind debate.  Let us begin.

A triple Blind debate:  First we must review the double blind debate.  The double blind debate for presidential candidates had the candidate's hidden and their voices changed so as to hide their identities while they answer questions.  No one would know who was who during the course of the debate to provide unbiased listening by the audience and limit the personal attacks by candidates as they would not know who they were talking to on stage, thus they can only react to what each candidate says.  The Triple Blind debate takes this a step further.  In this case, the candidates are completely sequestered first and asked questions.  All the questions are the exact same, but none of the other candidates will be able to hear the others answers.  This provides for answers that are less reactionary, and stick to the question at hand.  Then the candidates will be placed on stage to begin the debate.  However, they will not be asked questions.  Instead the footage of them answering each question (though their identities will be hidden in each video via voice changing, and blocking out their image) will be shown to them with them reacting to each and every video.  Which means they can potentially criticize themselves and their own answers.  But it allows for them to objectively react to each answer given as well.  At the end of each reaction by the candidates the audience can vote which person had the best answer to the initial question being asked in the videos (remember the candidates identities are hidden in the videos) and then the candidate who was voted best will be revealed.  This is meant to do two things.  Identify hypocrites and flip floppers amongst the candidates, and to provide an unbiased platform that eliminates race, color, sex, gender and other factors that cause bias in voters.  Basically, this debate type removes and destroys candidates who are not authentic and makes the audience rethink who they wish to vote for.


Conclusion:  So what do you think?  An objective debate as the candidates merely react to potentially their own answers, or agree with their fellow candidates answers.  Objectivity is hard to accomplish in a debate for President, but this helps to provide it in the same way as my double blind debate from issue 686.  We need to stop looking at labels and peoples exteriors, and instead focus on what these people really stand for.  That is what this debate type is designed to do.

Monday, October 5, 2015

Issue 692 European Social Security October 5, 2015

Europe is interesting.  They are united due to the European Union, but they have not gone and taken the steps necessary to take it a step further with respect to their welfare based systems.  Let us discuss.

European Welfare:  Let's discuss the advantages of uniting their systems of welfare first before we look at why they do not want to do so as of yet.  For one, the key advantage is money.  A greater money pool means more resources to distribute benefits for everyone.  Also, as they have the free movement of people there, a unified system helps to ease the transition of peoples if they are on welfare in one part and still need to be on welfare in another.  Basically, logistically, if you're a citizen in one country some may still be able to get benefits even if they are in another European Union country, or they will be denied benefits once they leave their home nation and have to go through hoops trying to get welfare in their new home country.  So by streamlining it, they fix those issues.  Another benefit is that if they unify the system to extend across Europe, that means local governments and national governments need not worry about such issues anymore. They literally free their national budgets up (if designed to do so), which allows the European nations like Greece to focus more on technology and infrastructure.  European welfare is also not that unique, but is not equal in each country.  As such migrants will generally travel to one country with the best welfare to freeload.  A unified system ends that.

But the European nations do not want to yet.  They like the autonomy and control they have over the welfare system.  It basically gives them power over some of the citizenry.  It is also a bit of nationalization where these countries like to lay claim that they can aid and help their own citizens.  Not to mention all these countries provide different forms of benefits and by giving it over to a unified system, they may inadvertently be denying benefits to their citizens.  As such riots may ensue.  Also, there is the issue that the system cannot keep up with growth of the entire European population, which means that the benefits of a unified system may need to be curtailed or denied due to lack of funds.  These are the reasons why they have yet to take the next step.


Conclusion:  Europe has a lot to gain from joining hands on welfare type programs.  A unified system would handle seniors in retirement, disability, unemployment/job training, medical and due to their brand of welfare and need for increasing native populations, there system will also handle child care and maturity leave.  They can also have the group that runs the program decide the number of hours per week a person is allowed to work, how much pay a person should get per week, and the number of breaks at work a person is allowed to have.  It can be means tested to insure fairness, and be contributed to via a separate tax on every European citizen so that they contribute to their own retirement and welfare in times of trouble.  They can do much here, and I think it is only a matter of time before they begin this shift toward a unified welfare system.

Friday, October 2, 2015

Issue 691 Europe Should Defend Itself October 2, 2015

Europe is in trouble.  The countries there in their European Union face destabilizing factors such as mass immigration, Russia annexing parts of neighboring countries and lack of a unified defense structure.  As such, Europe must begin to defend itself.

European defense:  Europe as it stands relies on NATO, a military organization which is led by the United States.  It was created as a means to counter Soviet aggression, but that enemy has changed to simply Russia acting as a bully via withholding fuel and annexing parts of neighboring countries.  Europe also faces issues of mass illegal immigration and facing off against terrorists.  The European governments do have a small defense force, but they specialize in peacekeeping missions due to pressure by the American and other governments for its feared destabilizing factors, or possibility to ignite aggression in neighboring countries.  Also, many European countries are neutral in all conflicts beyond their borders which hinders recruitment if the EU and the other European nations want to go to war.  Many of these countries budgets are small, so their military's are equally as small.  As such, Europe relies on NATO who will only counter some threats, but not all.  

Relying on NATO does not keep Russia from potentially turning aggressive and starting a new land war in Europe, and does not prevent terrorists from sneaking over the border.  As such, Europe needs a defense force which has a unified budget and standardized equipment to conduct the mission of defense.  This force can be started up with neutral nations like Austria, Ireland and Sweden who will control the extent of the missions they are allowed to perform which solves the issues of citizens of neutral nations being deployed overseas.  Then other smaller nations with military's can also join and those without their own defense forces, and other nations who cannot defend themselves can join.  This force will probably be used exclusively for defensive operations and interdiction of illegal migrants, handle terrorists, and perhaps conduct counter espionage and sabotage missions with special team(s) dedicated to hostage rescue.  Basically, it will be a hybrid between what the United States National Guard and the FBI.  The reason neutral nations should start this up first is because their laws prohibit the use of force save in defense of their own nation.  So by joining with their fellows, they can be assured that their citizens will not be used in a war abroad and other nations can be disarmed of the idea that Europe is rearming itself for war.  Likewise, nations in Europe that have tiny military's, no military or simply lack sufficient means to defend themselves will want to join up over time for mutual protection, but they must promise to become neutral, or to never deploy the defense forces overseas if they desire to have a say in defense policy.  By showing a unified force, the aggression of neighboring countries can be much more easily countered as opposed to the weak piecemeal approach they have now.


Conclusion:  Europe cannot afford to rely on other nations anymore.  America could not protect Ukraine or the Eurasian country of Georgia, so how can they expect their own countries to be protected as well.  It is time that the European nations show they have the muscle to defend themselves.

Thursday, October 1, 2015

Issue 690 Taxing goods October 1, 2015

Unlike services goods can be taxed.  The reason for this is as follows.

Taxing goods:  Goods are physical objects unlike services.  A services value can at times be hard to measure but is ultimately not refundable.  Once given, irrespective of its quality, it cannot be returned.  However, goods can be measured for quality and that value can change over time.  Basically it is easier to value than a service prior to it being purchased and thus makes it easier to decide a value that can be taxed.  You see, unlike services where the value of such can be arbitrarily decided, a good's value can be measured at all times such as a house, a car or a toy.  So there is less risk to the buyer.  However, this is not the primary reason why goods can be taxed even though it makes sure taxing it is actually fair to both parties involved (basically, less chances of being swindled).

The real reason why it can be taxed is due to the exchange of one person property for another's.  Yes, that small tiny state of limbo where you give your property to another person’s in exchange for theirs.    That tiny limbo state is when the people making the exchange both own and do not own the items. It is the reason it is taxable.  If there was no physical exchange of property (money counts as one's property), then it would never be able to be taxed.  As such, sales taxes are 100% legal and acceptable.  Sure, goods can be bought to aid in the expression of one's rights, but you are exchanging property.  Even the artist must be taxed for selling his art if it comes in physical form as a consumer goods such as in an art book or a sketch (an art project for a park, or for a company where they are commissioned would be an exception to this as that is considered a service).  Get it?  If you do not exchange property then you cannot be taxed, but as a good is property and money is property, you can be taxed if one is exchanged for the other.


Conclusion:  There are many ways to say it as I have done here, but goods can basically be taxed.  An exception could be your doing a service in exchange for that good, which would make that situation non-taxable under this premise.  However, say you exchanged a bottle of wine for a wedding cake?  Is that a taxable situation?  Yes it is for the items have value and there is an exchange of property occurring. Sure this example does not work in most of the United States but bartering still happens here in the United States like in Alaska, and in other parts of the world like Africa and Asia.  So money is not the only form of property that needs to be exchanged for taxation to take place.  It can occur when a good is exchanged for another good.  So I hope that helps to clarify why goods can be taxed. Feel free to read the previous issue on why services should not be taxed as well to get more clarification about taxation.  Hope you enjoyed reading.