Cool Pic

An Unbalanced Fight

I'm a student of the Civil War.  You know, THE Civil War.  It was a terrible and yet defining time in our history.  And no matter what anyone tells you about economics and industrial North vs agrarian South, etc., it was about slavery.  The scourge of slavery.  The same of slavery.  It was an overwhelming and oppressive issue that has defined us as a nation for centuries.  And we're still struggling with that legacy.  So what's happening today, while distressing, isn't close to the strife that gripped the country during the Civil War.  Not close.  And if something were to happen, the lopsided nature of the battle would be pretty bad.  I mean, this message contains some truth!

Motivation Monday

A friend posted this over on FB.  Thought there were some pretty motivating ideas sprinkled in here.  I highlighted a few that resonate with me.  You'll have your own.  Enjoy.

Saw this post online, don't know the author. Did some editing to generalize it. Good stuff.

Just a few things to remember...

• Travel light through life. Keep only what you need.

• It’s okay to cry when you’re hurt. It’s also okay to smash (some) things; but, wash your face, clean your mess, and get up off the floor when you’re done. You don’t belong down there.

• If you’re going to cuss, be clever. If you’re going to cuss in public, know your audience.

• Seek out the people and places that resonate with your soul.

• Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

• 5-second rule. It’s just dirt. There are worse things in a fast food cheeseburger.

• You do not need a significant other (But it is okay to want the right one, and you will find the right one at the right time, but don’t settle)

• Happiness is not a permanent state, Wholeness ought to be. Don’t confuse these.

• Pain is inevitable, but suffering is a choice. 

• Never, ever walk through an alley alone. 

• Be only as nice as you’re able to without compromising yourself.

• Can’t is a cop-out. 

• Hold your heroes to a high standard. Be your own hero.

• If you can’t smile with your eyes, don’t smile. Insincerity is nothing to aspire to.

• Never lie to yourself.

• Your body, your rules.

• If you have an opinion, you better know why.

• Practice your passions. 

• Ask for what you want. The worst thing they can say is no. 

• Wishing's okay, but then get to work to make them happen.

• Stay as sweet as you are.

• Fall in love often, with ideas, art, music, literature, food and far-off places.

• Fall hard and forever in love with yourself.

• Say Please, Thank You, and Pardon Me, whenever the situation warrants it.

• Reserve “I’m sorry” for when you truly are.

• Naps are for grown-ups, too.

• Question everything, except your own intuition. 

• You have enough. You are enough.

• You are amazing! Don't let anyone ever make you feel you are not. If someone does....walk away. You deserve better. Never forget that!

• No matter where you are, you can always come home. Always!!

• Be happy and remember your roots, family is EVERYTHING.

• Say what you mean and mean what you say. 

• Love is so much more than words.

• Be kind; treat others how you would like them to treat you.

Respect

Saw this post over on FB and thought I would share.  It tells of the author Laura Hillenbrand (she wrote "Unbroken") visiting a vet from WWII.

Like most Americans I've long been an ardent admirer of the generation who went off to war and saved the world.  There were so many who put it all on the line for the cause of liberty and freedom.  At the very top of a long list of heroes were those in the 8th Air Force who flew into the teeth of the devil every day.  If you're every in Savannah, GA stop in at the 8th Air Force Museum out by I-95.  It is incredibly well done and you can't help but be enthralled by their story during WWII.  They aren't called the greatest generation for nothing.

On Wednesday I traveled up into the Washington State hills, down a bumpy, winding one-lane road in thick trees, to a tiny grass airstrip cut out of the middle of a forest. There, in a little room in a hangar by this unlikely air strip, I met history, in the form of a smiling, gentle man named John Luke.

Mr. Luke is ninety-five years old. As a twenty-one-year-old, he was the ball turret gunner in the belly of a B-17 bomber called the Nine-o-Nine, fighting Hitler's Luftwaffe in the flak-blackened skies over Europe. It was perhaps the most dangerous job for American servicemen in World War II. It is said that on every mission, the men faced a one-in-ten chance of being killed. A tour was composed of twenty-five missions, making it statistically unlikely that airmen would ever see home again. When the crews gathered for pre-mission briefings, they were told where to fly and what to do; when they returned, there would be a bottle of bourbon on the table, a replacement for all the eleven-man crews that did not come back. In one raid of B-24 bombers, 54 planes were lost, killing 532 men. Mr. Luke, who watched his best friend go down when his plane was hit and split in two some ten feet away, made it through twenty-five missions alive, went home, and married his sweetheart. His beloved Nine-o-Nine survived an unimaginable 140 missions, believed to be the most in the entire 8th Air Force.

We spent some three hours talking with Mr. Luke, who told stories that had us spellbound. Some were hilarious: on the long missions, his crewmen would pee through the bomb bay doors, which would promptly freeze shut. Many were terrifying: His crew flew only daylight raids, giving the Germans ample time to see them coming and fill the air with artillery shells and the dreaded Messerschmitt BF-109 fighters, whose pilots were so brave and skilled that they flew directly through the tight formations of American bombers, making it impossible for Luke and his fellow gunners to fire on them lest they shoot down their own planes.

On June 6, 1944, Nine-o-Nine was sent out over a stormy English Channel to support the landing troops on D-Day. Luke sat in his cramped turret under his plane, looking out over the supreme moment of the 20th century, thousands of ships crowding the channel, the sea pitching so high some of them were foundering and breaking open. The breakers on Normandy approached, and Nine-o-Nine blazed low over the landing forces. Luke saw LSTs spilling men onto the beaches, and in the cliffs above them, hundreds of German pillboxes pouring bullets down onto them. As he fired into the pillboxes, trying to protect the Allied men below, history turned in Luke's hands. More than 4,000 Allied servicemen would die in the sand below him that morning, but the survivors made it up the cliffs, stormed the pillboxes, and began the long and bloody march to Berlin and the defeat of Hitler. As Luke spoke, we sat in rapt silence and goosebumps, listening.

You don't know John Luke, but you owe him everything.

Adventurers or Naive Idiots?

A friend sent the story below.  Hat tip to SC.  It's a really good cautionary tale about a couple who decide their life is boring and they strike out to bicycle through some very sketchy parts of the world. On first blush you might think it romantic or adventurous.  But in reality, it was deadly.  This is a good read and hopefully makes one think about the realities of the dangerous world we live in.

Death by Entitlement

On August 7, the New York Times ran a story by Rukmini Callimachi about Jay Austin and Lauren Geoghegan, a young American couple, both graduates of Georgetown University, who decided to quit their humdrum office jobs and go on an epic bike ride and camping trip that would take them all over the world. “I’ve grown tired of spending the best hours of my day in front of a glowing rectangle, of coloring the best years of my life in swaths of grey and beige,” Austin wrote. “I’ve missed too many sunsets while my back was turned.”

So in July of last year, they flew from Washington, D.C., to Cape Town, and from there bicycled through South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Zambia, and Malawi to Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. From there, they flew to Cairo, and after seeing the pyramids flew on to Casablanca, from which they cycled through Morocco, Spain, France, Monaco, Italy, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia, Bulgaria, and Greece, to Turkey. From there, another flight took them to Kazakhstan. They biked through Kyrgyzstan and entered Tajikistan. It was in that country that their journey came to an abrupt end this past July 29, when five ISIS members deliberately plowed their car into the two adventurers, killing them along with two temporary cycling companions, one from Switzerland and the other from the Netherlands. “Two days later,” wrote Callimachi, “the Islamic State released a video showing five men it identified as the attackers, sitting before the ISIS flag. They face the camera and make a vow: to kill 'disbelievers.'”

Austin, a vegan who worked at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Geoghegan, a vegetarian who worked in a college admissions office, were both 29 years old – old enough, one would think, to have some idea of just how dangerous a route they had mapped out. A number of the countries they passed through are considered either “not free” or “partly free” by Freedom House. In several of them, it's not uncommon for roving criminal gangs – or, for that matter, police or soldiers or border officials – to rob, rape, or kill innocent travelers without provocation and with total impunity. One assumes the two tourists had all their shots before leaving the U.S., but that's not necessarily enough to protect you from all the ailments you might be exposed to while biking along the back roads of southern and central Africa. Other perils include wild carnivores, extreme weather, unsanitary food preparation, and substandard medical care.

Both Austin and Geoghegan were seasoned travelers, who had separately gone on backpacking adventures in exotic lands and, together, had recently biked across Iceland as a sort of prelude to their odyssey through Africa, Europe, and Asia. Amanda Kerrigan, a friend of Geoghegan's, was concerned when she heard about the couple's plans for a longer expedition that would last over a year. “I said, ‘This is not the Lauren I know,’ ” Kerrigan told Callimachi. “Jay changed the trajectory of Lauren’s life.” Kerrigan was, writes Callamachi, “concerned for her friend, in part because of how bighearted she was and in part because she feared that Mr. Austin had a higher tolerance for danger than Ms. Geoghegan did.” But if Kerrigan was worried about their vulnerability on the road, that was precisely what appealed to Austin:   “With...vulnerability,” he wrote, “comes immense generosity: good folks who will recognize your helplessness and recognize that you need assistance in one form or another and offer it in spades.”

Even before Austin and Geoghegan met their untimely end, they had problems. In Namibia, Geoghegan picked up a stomach virus. (As Austin wrote on his blog: “she curls into the fetal position and rests, eyes closed, fighting chills and nausea and fatigue. There's little that we can do at the moment. I give her some ibuprofen.” Whereupon they resume biking.) Also in Namibia, they were almost hit by a car while bicycling along a highway. In Botswana, they both got sick. In Zambia, Austin had a serious bike crash that sent him flying and left him bleeding all over. In Malawi, he got malaria. In Tanzania, a man tried to bully him into forking over some money. In Ceuta, a driver tried to run him over, and another rear-ended him. In Spain, Geoghegan got conjunctivitis. In Marseilles, she had to be hospitalized for an ear infection that had rendered her deaf. Given the dangers they braved, indeed, they were fortunate to have made it as far as Tajikistan.

But to read Austin's blog is to see no hint of hesitation, on the part of either of them, to keep on cycling – no sign of fear that their luck might run out at any moment. Their naivete is nothing less than breathtaking. “You watch the news and you read the papers and you're led to believe that the world is a big, scary place,” wrote Austin during their trek. “People, the narrative goes, are not to be trusted....I don't buy it. Evil is a make-believe concept we've invented to deal with the complexities of fellow humans holding values and beliefs and perspectives different than our own.” This rosy view of humanity suffuses Austin's blog: “Malawians and Zambians are fantastically friendly people.” And: “All throughout western Europe, when folks asked us where we were headed and we'd say Albania, their faces would drop and they'd start muttering 'Oh, no, no, no.' Albania, they'd tell us, is dangerous. The people of Albania will steal your spleen....The Albanians we come across are perhaps the warmest, friendliest, smiliest...people we've met on the continent.”

Austin's blog also provides a window on his (and presumably her) hippie-dippy worldview and ultra-PC politics. Elephants, writes Austin, “may very well be a smarter, wiser, more thoughtful being than homo sapiens sapiens.” When white South Africans tell them “that the nation and its redistributionist government are making poor, ignorant choices,” Austin sneers at their “Eurocentric values” and their failure to realize that “[n]otions like private property” are culturally relative. This is apparently a comment on the South African government's current expropriation of white farmers' land without compensation. (To be sure, when a friendly Afrikaans man advises Austin and Geoghegan to move their tent because they've pitched it too close to a black settlement and may antagonize the locals, they're quick to let him lead them to a safer spot.)

Austin also sneers at Thanksgiving, “a strange tradition built upon a glossy, guiltless retelling of a genocide, in which we show our appreciation for what we have by killing a quarter-billion turkeys, eating to the point of discomfort, queueing up outside shopping malls to buy electronics at reduced rates, and otherwise yearning for that which we do not have.” When President Trump announces his plans to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, Austin and Geoghegan are in Morocco, where the people are outraged. Yes, because they hate Jews. But Austin's response is to be so ashamed of his American identity that he tries “to disappear into the soft plush” of a couch cushion.

The Times article about Austin and Geoghegan drew hundreds of reader comments. A surprising number were by other people who'd bicycled or backpacked in far-off, dangerous places. Most saw Austin and Geoghegan as “heroic,” “authentic,” “idealistic,” “inspiring,” “a Beautiful example of Purity and Light.” Sample reactions: “Their candle burned brightly before it was extinguished.” And: “Good for them! They followed their dream.” Then there's this: “I only see the beauty of two people taking steps to live the life they envision....The good experienced in their journey far far outweighs any negative.” Easy to say when you're not the one in the body bag. “What is more dangerous,” asked yet another reader, “exposing yourself to the world and its dangers, and living a full vivid life, or insulating yourself in a safe box, in front of screens, where the world and its marvels and dangers cannot touch you? Jay and Lauren understood that safety is its own danger. They are awesome people.” No, they're mangled, decaying corpses. “Safe boxes”? That's what they're both in now: boxes.

Perusing all the reader comments, I found exactly two that mentioned Islam critically. Here's one: “Tajikistan is 96.7% Islamic. It is a dangerous place for American tourists....This is not Islamophobia. It is common sense.” Here's the other: “As a Western woman I have no desire to visit a majority Muslim country because of the religious and cultural bias regarding their treatment of women.” Both of these comments attracted outraged replies. (“Many parts of the US are not so kind to women either, particularly those states that have managed to close just about all their Planned Parenthood clinics.”) Several readers railed against “religion” generally, as if terrorism by Quakers and Episcopalians were a worldwide problem.

Indeed, this being the New York Times, moral equivalency was rampant (“Yes, they [the ISIS murderers]were brutal....But what about our treatment of prisoners in Guantamino Bay?”), as was a readiness to blame Islamic terrorism on America (“There are consequences to our nation's decision to murder Muslim civilians by the hundreds of thousands”) or, specifically, on Donald Trump. One reader comment, a “Times Pick,” read, in part, as follows: “A great story and an admirable couple. But those who condemn their killers as evil probably fail to recognize that ISIS fighters see themselves as being on the side of good. For them, these young Americans were an embodiment of the Great Satan....Instead of bandying around moral absolutes, perhaps we should recognize that good and evil are relative categories, dependent on your culture and your values.”

Gratifyingly, there were some voices of sanity. The words “naive” and “foolhardy” appeared several times. “Mr. Austin's understanding of people was not beautiful,” maintained one savvy reader. “It was fanciful.” Another saw the couple as examples of “hipster millennials who think the world is their playground.” This was wise: “Liberals are always so naive about human nature[;] conservatives...are realistic about it.” Austin's painfully puerile paeans to the goodness of humanity reminded one reader, as they did me, of a sentence Anne Frank wrote not long before the Gestapo came to ship her off to Auschwitz: “In spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart.”

Austin was willing to wager not only his own life but that of Geoghegan, a woman he purportedly loved, on the belief that people are all good – or, at least, that bad people are so rare as to be not worth worrying about. He apparently prepared for their trip by studying maps; he appears not to have bothered to examine any of the comprehensive human-rights reports that are issued annually by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the U.S. State Department about every one of the countries along their route (except, perhaps, Monaco).

Hundreds of Times readers, as we've seen, celebrated him as an inspiring idealist. One wonders what Geoghegan's parents feel about him now. He comes off, between the lines, as something of a Svengali, persuading Geoghegan, as her friend Amanda Kerrigan feared, to take risks she would otherwise have avoided.  One can only be glad that they didn't

Times readers called the couple heroes. No, the heroes are not these poor fools who stumbled into an ISIS-controlled area; the heroes are the soldiers from the U.S. and elsewhere – most of them a decade or so younger, and centuries savvier, than Austin and Geoghegan – who, while the two 29-year-olds were on a year-long cycling holiday, were risking their lives to beat back ISIS. What, then, is the moral of this couple's story? In the last analysis, it's a story about two young people who, like many other privileged members of their generation of Americans, went to a supposedly top-notch university only to come away poorly educated but heavily propagandized – imbued with a fashionable postmodern contempt for Western civilization and a readiness to idealize and sentimentalize “the other” (especially when the latter is decidedly uncivilized). This, ultimately, was their tragedy: taking for granted American freedom, prosperity, and security, they dismissed these extraordinary blessings as boring, banal, and (in Austin's word) “beige,” and set off, with the starry-eyed and suicidal naivete of children who never entirely grew up, on a child's fairy-tale adventure into the most perilous parts of the planet. Far from being inspirational, theirs is a profoundly cautionary – and distinctly timely – tale that every American, parents especially, should take to heart.

Friday Funnies

Motivation Monday

Spent the last week in Jackson Hole on a family vacation.  This is about as motivating as anything...

Friday Funnies

Motivation Monday

Friday Funnies

It's called interservice rivalry.  It's all in good fun...but sorta true!

PC Gone Haywire

Almost every day something comes along that indicates our PC culture gone haywire.  And most of them come from academia.  Now a Sorority at Harvard is going "gender neutral".  You can read it here.  This is just nuts!  Just for fun I looked up the definition of Sorority and all sources had a variation of this theme: a society for female students in a university or college, typically for social purposes.  Some days I see something inspirational and have a lot of hope for the future for the next generation.  And some days I dispair.

The Ongoing and Never Ending Saga Called Trump

President Trump continues to flummox his liberal and media enemies, of which there are legion.  It has been pretty interesting watching people's heads exploding over both the large and important and small and inconsequential actions that he takes seemingly on a daily basis.  Quite frankly, I've been stumped as to why they can't figure him and his supporters out and develop strategies that would not only show their opposition but also move their ideas forward.  But instead, they have generally moved to a more radical position and thereby alienate any folks who might be attracted to an alternative.  Because frankly, Trump is exhausting.  His constant and obnoxious tweets are a tun off.  His name calling could and should be anathema to most reasonable people.  But many have clearly decided that the alternative is worse.  And there are many other explanations for his support.  I was surprised to see an article that a friend posted over on FB (hat tip to WC) from The Guardian of all places, which is reliably left wing, which provided a good analysis of the Trump support phenomenon.  You can read it here and I'm going to post it all below.  To be clear, I like many of the things he's doing and am not advocating against him.  I'm just surprised that so many smart people allow their hatred of him to obscure how to beat him.

What liberals (still) get wrong about Trump's support

After each outrage, progressives believe supporters will drain away. On the contrary: he is giving them what they want

Henry Olsen

Liberals and progressives are forever predicting Donald Trump’s political demise. After each purported outrage – Charlottesville, separating children from their immigrant parents, now Helsinki – they confidently contend that this latest event will finally force Trump’s supporters to abandon him. Yet not only does this not happen, Trump’s support has actually risen by 6% since late 2017. How do they keep getting it so wrong?

To quote Ronald Reagan: “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.” They presume that because Trump is so unconventional in style, his coalition must be equally unconventional. But it’s not. The data clearly shows that Trump’s political coalition is pretty much the traditional Republican coalition. And the often virulent behavior of anti-Trump partisans has made partisan Republicans especially unwilling to abandon their leader even when he stumbles.

The sheer ordinariness of Trump’s coalition is impossible to overstate. Data from the Voter Study Group show that more than 80% of his votes came from men and women who voted for Republican nominee Mitt Romney just four years before. This group contains the usual suspects among American Republicans: tax-cut advocates, religious evangelicals and Catholics, gun rights supporters and business types eager for deregulation. Trump has made sure to give each faction what they most desire just like any good politician would. That keeps them in his camp even as the media flays him with each supposed transgression.  It is impossible to overstate the degree of daily vituperation visited upon the president in the media

Evangelicals are a case in point. My work on Republican factions, contained in the book I co-authored with Professor Dante Scala, The Four Faces of the Republican Party, found that very conservative voters who highly value social issues comprise about 25% of the party. These voters today are very afraid that liberal and progressive judges will slowly circumscribe their ability to practice their religion in their daily lives. They tended not to support Trump during the primaries, instead backing the Texas senator Ted Cruz. Their support for Trump now is highly transactional: so long as he nominates the judges they think will protect their beliefs and way of life, they will overlook virtually anything else he says or does.

The recent nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the supreme court thus solidified their support, as social conservatives believe he is much likelier to back their views than the man he is replacing, Anthony Kennedy. They might be troubled by other things he says or does, but so long as he keeps his end of the bargain on their priority they will swallow hard and stick with their man.

Nor are Trump’s voters united by racism and sexism, as many on the left presume. Analysis by the libertarian Cato Institute’s Emily Ekins found that Trump’s general election support broke into five groups. Only one, the American Preservationists, contained a large number of voters who could be said to be generally hostile to racial and ethnic minorities per se. They were outnumbered by another group, the Free Marketeers, whose attitudes towards racial and ethnic minorities were as or more tolerant than the attitudes of Hillary Clinton supporters. Each faction’s continued support for Trump is based upon how he acts on their priorities, not on one overarching theme.

That doesn’t mean Trump backers are blind. Polls show an unusually high share of Republicans do not say they “strongly” approve of his performance; they are well aware of his many foibles and flaws. But in our bipartisan system, opposition to Trump means supporting the Democrats. Absent any indication that Democrats are open to Republicans’ views, these voters, sometimes reluctantly, remain in Trump’s camp.

Intense opposition to liberal views clearly impacted the 2016 election. Ekins found that each faction within Trump’s coalition strongly disapproved of Hillary Clinton. For some this was not mere partisanship: many former Democrats who voted for Trump had reported favorable opinions of Clinton in 2012. For others their dislike of Clinton was the single largest factor behind their vote for Trump. More than half of the Free Marketeers, for example, said their vote was more against Clinton than for Trump, the only Trump faction that said this. Animus towards Democrats and their nominee was a very strong predictor of Trump support even among those who also strongly disliked Trump.

My own work confirms this. The 2016 exit poll showed that Trump won because he decisively beat Clinton among the 18% of Americans who did not like either candidate. These voters tended to be suburban, college-educated, Republican-leaning men. These “reluctant Trump voters” were undecided until the very end of the race, but ultimately decided that the devil whose policies they liked was better than the devil whose policies they didn’t.  One can be outraged at how Trump is enforcing immigration laws without thinking eliminating enforcement is a good idea

Democrats have done nothing since Trump’s election to reduce these feelings. On issue after issue the Democratic party has moved to the left, catering to a progressive base outraged at Trump’s election and seething at how the Democratic establishment foisted a fatally flawed candidate upon them. The latest progressive cause célèbre is for eliminating America’s border enforcement agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice). One can be outraged at how Trump is enforcing America’s immigration laws without thinking that eliminating all border enforcement is a good idea. An idea like this keeps Republicans united in their support for Trump as it clearly shows how unacceptable the alternative is.

The news media’s behavior also keeps Republicans in line. It is impossible to overstate the degree of daily vituperation visited upon the president in the media. Comics and actors use their non-political programs to attack him, often to the implicit applause of the press. Virtually all coverage outside the conservative Fox News and isolated conservative outlets is negative, often couched in highly hostile terms. Virtually all of the columnists at the New York Times and the Washington Post, America’s two most respected dailies, despise Trump – and that includes nearly all of the conservative, libertarian and Republican columnists too. Trump supporters who follow news at all cannot escape the daily blast of negativity.  

This has, predictably, hardened the attitudes of many Trump supporters. As minor issues are blown up into major catastrophes, it’s not surprising that potentially major issues like Trump’s embarrassing and obsequious behavior towards Russian president Vladimir Putin in Helsinki get overlooked. It’s “boy who cried wolf” syndrome writ large; when the media cries “wolf” at every passing shadow, many Trump backers simply don’t believe them when they say that a wolf might actually be coming.

None of this is to say that Trump’s support is fixed. His job approval went as low as 37% in 2017 over his failures to repeal Obamacare or address trade imbalances. Trump’s current 43% approval rating rests upon a strong economy and continued work for his backers’ priorities. Should the economy slow down or he goes back on something his fans value, his support could easily drop. But it is very unlikely to drop much based on the sort of revelations liberals and progressives often revel in.

For better or for worse, much of what Trump says and does is already baked into the cake. And that might not only keep him politically alive, it might serve to re-elect him against a strong progressive candidate two years hence.

Henry Olsen is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and an editor at UnHerd.com. He is the author of The Working Class Republican: Ronald Reagan and the Return of Blue-Collar Conservatism.

Motivation Monday

Prison

Most of the time I go through life not realizing that there are portions of society that I have no clue about.  Like most of us, I live my life in familiar surroundings interacting with familiar people and take part in low risk, enjoyable activities.  I don't even think about sections of our society living a totally different life due to economics, background, race, priorities or a host of other things.  Or maybe saying I don't think about them is too strong.  I think about them, I just am not linked to nor do I do much more than see other strata of society different from mine in the media or from a distance.  Last week I was reminded of this fact in very stark terms.

In my life I've not had any major dealings with law enforcement or the penal system, thank God.  I like to think that it's a result of a good upbringing, a level of personal responsibility and a determination to live my life on the right side of the law.  Maybe that is true.  It could also be true that there is a fair amount of luck involved.  When you come face to face with what life could be like, what life IS like for people who have been dramatically and forever impacted by their actions, it can be sobering.

In the last few months I've become more involved with a group called Tender Loving Canines Assistance Dogs (www.tenderlovingcanines.org).  It is a wonderful organization that provides trained assistance dogs to Veterans with physical disabilities or PTSD, military kids with Autism, or groups who have needs like courthouses or hospices.  These dogs are trained for a couple of years at a prison or military brig by prisoners and then placed in appropriate homes.  It is such a win-win-win organization.  I've been asked to be a member of their Board of Directors and after getting my feet wet, the Executive Director asked me if I would be interested in going to Donovan State Prison to observe a class in which the prisoners are training the dogs.  I thought that it would be a good experience so naturally signed up to attend.  Last Wednesday was the chosen day.

I arrived at the prison after a long drive down to very near the border and then another rather long drive through fields and warehouses and nothing much to distinguish the landscape.  The area was stark, bleak, and anonymous.  The perfect place for a prison I guess.  I was ushered through the gate and found the parking lot of the yard which we would visit.  Myself and another board member rendezvoused with the ED and we proceeded to the entrance.  Along the way she explained that we would be visiting a Level II minimum security yard.  There are 6 levels of prison from level 6 Super Max to a level 1 "country club".  So I assumed that level II wouldn't be too oppressive.  I was wrong.

As we walked to the gate the ED informed us that the prison is a no negotiation facility.  In other words, if we were taken hostage, there wouldn't be negotiation for our release.  That gave me a bit of pause.  But after all, it's a level II facility so there would be nothing to worry about.  But still...  I won't describe all the gates and fences and sign-ins we negotiated to get into the yard but suffice to say it was formidable.  Several cypher gates and holding areas along with electrified fences and no-man's land later, we approached the door to the yard.

As we went through and closed the door, we were in the yard.  I hadn't formed any expectations of what it was going to be like but I definitely hadn't expected us to be immediately amongst the prison population.  Here we were, the ED with one of their dogs, Woody, myself and the other board member, the instructor, who is a great young woman, and another volunteer who is a retired military man just trying to give back.  And off we trekked across the yard.  They call it a yard because it is a huge (think the floor of a major stadium) area covered in concrete and gravel and benches of steel and concrete.  There are areas of free weights, stationary bicycles, a handball court, a track and gathering areas.  It is defined by buildings containing the cell blocks.  Like I said previously, for the uninitiated like me, it was an immediate assault on the senses.  It would have been pretty easy to turn around and walk out!  I was a bit non-plussed by the fact that we didn't have a guard accompanying us and we were surrounded by the prison population.  Admittedly it is level II minimum security and the prisoners who are there work hard on their behavior to get there and stay there, but still...

When we got to our destination, which was a cell block on the other side of the yard, we entered through more security doors and more holding areas and signed in once again.  The guards are stationed at central control station with 4 pods off that room.  We were headed for a classroom right off the center room but first we were invited to visit one of the pods where the cells are.  That room is two stories.  The first floor has steel benches, some steel tables with attached seating, a huge TV high on the wall, shower room, and other rooms that seemed administrative.  Maybe there were a few cells there, not sure.  We went to the second floor where most of the cells are to peek into one that was unoccupied for the moment.  It houses six prisoners and two dogs and their crates.  I was struck by the lack of privacy, but also by how each prisoner had somehow brought in things to make their small area more "homey".  There are things that they can buy at the canteen that help.  Bottom line was it wasn't great, but it wasn't terrible.  I wouldn't want to live there for years and years and years, but I lived in a similar room for 6 months on my first deployment as a young Naval Aviator.  But I always knew it would come to an end.  These guys don't.

We then spent about 45 minutes down in the classroom observing a class.  Dog food was handed out (they can only feed about a week's worth) and medicine was administered as needed.  There were 4 dogs in the room and about 20 prisoners.  The woman who is the trainer is so impressive.  She is definitely in charge and worked with these guys as if they are just folks off the street learning new skills.  She was heroic!  They broke into 3 groups working on crate training, distraction training, and nail clipping.  I had an opportunity to ask some questions and interact with all the prisoners.  I was struck by a couple of things.  First is that even though they are living a different reality, they are just people.  They are living a tough life, but it was obvious how important this dog program is to them.  When I say the program offers win-win-win I mean that first is that it's a huge win for the prisoners.  These dogs give them some focus, some purpose, someone to love and someone to love them back.  Maybe for the first time.  They also were very eager to show off their dogs and their skills in handling them.  It was impressive.  I asked one guy if he thought that the skills he developed here would help him when he got our someday he said, "well, I'm a lifer but if I ever get out, yeah".  What do you say to that?  But he was rather of matter-of-fact about it.  And after a while you almost forget where you are, who you are interacting with, and what the circumstances are.  But the reality that this program is vitally important never leaves you.  It makes me more determined than ever to make it a success.

Leaving the facility was a rerun of entering except this time I wasn't nearly as shell-shocked.  I began to see these guys living their life.  As we walked across the yard I noticed all the guys saying hi and smiling at Woody and by extension, us.  I began to wonder at the small steps in life that land me where I am and them where they are.  I don't think it's a narrow difference, but you never know about fate and circumstances.  It makes me wish that I could bring every high schooler I know into this facility.  To see the sights, to smell the smells, to feel the desperation and at the same time the humanity.  And to realize how important it is to do everything, absolutely everything possible, to avoid getting into a situation that results in being locked away.  It also made me wonder about the other side of a time in prison.  How could you live this life and then go live a normal, free life?  It would be monumentally difficult.  But above all I was thankful.  Thankful to have seen this part of our existence, even if late in life.  Thankful that I've never experienced it.  And thankful to be a very small part of a program that is making a difference.

Too Many Coincidences, Too Many Lies

A friend posted this over on FB.  With all the crazy goings on involving Republicans vs Democrats and Trump vs everyone it's sorta hard to keep track of who's who in the zoo.  I do know that it gets pretty disheartening to watch all this unfolding.  I keep telling myself that we've had many raucous times in our history with a lot of incivility, but what's going on now is pretty sad.  I know I've never seen such hatred as is exhibited against our President.  And I don't think I've ever seen such ignorance in otherwise  reasonable people who believe all the nonsense reported by his enemies and are filled with blind hate.  I also am amazed at how many in the Democrat party are embracing Socialism, guaranteed wage, abolishment of ICE, Medicare for all, etc.  It reminds me of that famous Margaret Thatcher quote, "The trouble with Socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money".

Anyway, check out this litany of disgusting behavior.  Maybe some of it is a stretch.  Maybe some of it isn't exactly right.  Maybe some of it is a coincidence.  But enough of it is factual that it should make the average American scratch their heads.  But this never gets reported.  Or if it is reported, it's done with a smugness that makes you wonder if you're an idiot for even thinking that this stuff could be true.  And that is one of the biggest problems.  We're not being told the truth and we're being lied to routinely by the media who have their own axes to grind.  All in all a shameful situation.

VERY INTERESTING READ..........BUT I AM SURE NO ONE IS SURPRISED ...

From 2001 to 2005 there was an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

A Grand Jury had been empaneled.

Governments from around the world had donated to the “Charity”.

Yet, from 2001 to 2003 none of those “Donations” to the Clinton Foundation were declared.

Guess who took over this investigation in 2002?

No other than James Comey.

Guess who was transferred in to the Internal Revenue Service to run the Tax Exemption Branch of the IRS?

Lois “Be on The Look Out” (BOLO) Lerner.

Guess who ran the Tax Division inside the Department of Injustice from 2001 to 2005?

No other than the Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Rod Rosenstein.

Guess who was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation during this timeframe???

I know, it’s a miracle, just a coincidence, just an anomaly in statistics and chances, Robert Mueller.

What do all four casting characters have in common?

They all were briefed and/or were front line investigators into the Clinton Foundation Investigation.

Now that’s just a coincidence, right?

Let’s fast forward to 2009.

James Comey leaves the Justice Department to go and cash-in at Lockheed Martin.

Hillary Clinton is running the State Department, on her own personal email server by the way.

The Uranium One “issue” comes to the attention of the Hillary.

Like all good public servants do, you know looking out for America’s best interest, she decides to support the decision and approve the sale of 20% of US Uranium to no other than, the Russians.

Now you would think that this is a fairly straight up deal, except it wasn’t, the People got absolutely nothing out of it.

However, prior to the sales approval, no other than Bill Clinton goes to Moscow, gets paid 500K for a one hour speech then meets with Vladimir Putin at his home for a few hours.

Ok, no big deal right?

Well, not so fast, the FBI had a mole inside the money laundering and bribery scheme.

Guess who was the FBI Director during this timeframe?

Yep, Robert Mueller.

He even delivered a Uranium Sample to Moscow in 2009.

Guess who was handling that case within the Justice Department out of the US Attorney’s Office in Maryland.

No other than, Rod Rosenstein.

Guess what happened to the informant?

The Department of Justice placed a GAG order on him and threatened to lock him up if he spoke out about it.

How does 20% of the most strategic asset of the United States of America end up in Russian hands when the FBI has an informant, a mole providing inside information to the FBI on the criminal enterprise?

Guess what happened soon after the sale was approved?

$145 million dollars in “donations” made their way into the Clinton Foundation from entities directly connected to the Uranium One deal.

Guess who was still at the Internal Revenue Service working the Charitable Division?

None other than, Lois Lerner.

Let’s fast forward to 2015.

Due to a series of tragic events in Benghazi and after the 9 “investigations” the House, Senate and at State Department, Trey Gowdy who was running the 10th investigation as Chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi discovers that the Hillary ran the State Department on an unclassified, unauthorized, outlawed personal email server.

He also discovered that none of those emails had been turned over when she departed her “Public Service” as Secretary of State which was required by law.

He also discovered that there was Top Secret information contained within her personally archived email.

Sparing you the State Departments cover up, the nostrums they floated, the delay tactics that were employed and the outright lies that were spewed forth from the necks of the Kerry State Department, we shall leave it with this…… they did everything humanly possible to cover for Hillary.

Now this is amazing, guess who became FBI Director in 2013?

Guess who secured 17 no bid contracts for his employer (Lockheed Martin) with the State Department and was rewarded with a six million dollar thank you present when he departed his employer.

None other than James Comey.

Amazing how all those no-bids just went right through at State, huh?

Now he is the FBI Director in charge of the “Clinton Email Investigation” after of course his FBI Investigates the Lois Lerner “Matter” at the Internal Revenue Service and exonerates her.

In April 2016, James Comey drafts an exoneration letter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, meanwhile the DOJ is handing out immunity deals like candy.

They didn’t even convene a Grand Jury.

Like a lightning bolt of statistical impossibility, like a miracle from God himself, like the true “Gangsta” Comey is, James steps out into the cameras of an awaiting press conference on July the 8th of 2016, and exonerates the Hillary from any wrongdoing.

It goes on and on, Rosenstein becomes Asst. Attorney General, Comey gets fired based upon a letter by Rosenstein, Comey leaks government information to the press, Mueller is assigned to the Russian Investigation sham by Rosenstein to provide cover for decades of malfeasance within the FBI and DOJ and the story continues

FISA Abuse, political espionage..... pick a crime, any crime, chances are...... this group and a few others did it.

All the same players

All compromised and conflicted.

All working fervently to NOT go to jail themselves.

All connected in one way or another to the Clinton's.

As of this writing, the Clinton Foundation, in its 20+ years of operation of being the largest International Charity Fraud in the history of mankind, has never been audited by the Internal Revenue Service.

Let us not forget that Comey's brother works for DLA Piper, the law firm that does the Clinton Foundation's taxes.

That's the end of the FB post.  But it doesn't even take into account the whole McCabe, Strozk, Page affair and all the shenanigans that occurred in an attempt to bring down the President.  It's been relentless and based on virtually nothing.  And yet the country is suffering through this on a daily basis.  The Democrat haters will point to indictments, plea deals, and convictions.  But none of that stuff has anything to do with Trump or his purported dealings with Russia.  It's mindboggling that this whole investigation got off the ground, let alone that it continues.  And given the linkages, it's mindboggling that Mueller is leading it with a cast of characters straight out of Democrat party casting.  Enough already.

The Immigration Mess

The hyperbole and outright lies regarding our immigration mess has been interesting to watch.  It seems that we've come to a place where everyone is pissed and no one is willing to anything about it. Except, that is, blame President Trump.  There's no doubt that his administration pulled some boneheaded action early on in the latest enforcement attempt.  But they are fixing that as best they can and hopefully will get to a static state.  I say hopefully because I don't really believe it.  It will continue to a dog's breakfast.

A friend who is a Priest and lawyer is retired from the Priesthood but is currently doing a lot of pro bono work in immigration law.  I admire this man quite a bit and he has written a paper to try and explain some of the quagmire.  I'm copying the whole thing here.  Read it and learn.

Asylum and the Migrant Crisis on Our Southern Border:

What’s Happening and How Do We Respond?

“The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent and respected stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all nations and religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges.” – George Washington, 1783

Few issues in the United States are as emotionally charged and divisive as how to handle the migrant crisis on our southern border. Protecting our borders and controlling the number of noncitizens who enter is always of concern. But so is upholding our nation’s values, the rule of law, due process, and providing opportunities for people escaping oppression. Since the end of World War II, the United States has provided a legal process for people coming to our borders seeking asylum. The horrors of the Holocaust led our leaders in the 1950s to recognize the pivotal role our country could play in saving countless lives. 

Today the United States is faced with thousands of migrants coming from poverty-stricken, violence-plagued nations seeking safety and security for themselves and their children. Most of these migrants are from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, but there also are a rising number from Nicaragua and Venezuela – two politically unstable countries with repressive governments. Only about 5% of the people claiming asylum are from Mexico.   

In this paper I will address three issues of primary concern. First, what is asylum? Second, what is happening on our southern border? And third, is there a better way to respond to the crisis?  

I. What is Asylum?

Asylum is a protection granted to foreign nationals already in the United States or at the border who meet the international law definition of a “refugee.” The United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 UN Protocol define a refugee as a person who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her home country, or cannot obtain protection in that country, because of past persecution or a well-founded fear of being persecuted in the future “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Congress incorporated this definition into U.S. immigration law in the Refugee Act of 1980.

A claim for asylum under present American law requires:

1. past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution

2. because of a protected ground: race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion

3. committed by the government, or by a persecutor the government is unable or unwilling to control

4. not subject to any bars in being admitted into the country

5. meets favorable exercise of discretion

Those seeking asylum must claim that they cannot return to their home country because of past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution by the government or by a non-government actor that the government is unable or unwilling to control. For example, being the victim of gang violence that the government cannot control would be a legitimate ground for asylum. 

Even in the absence of past persecution, an applicant may be eligible for asylum based on a well-founded fear of future persecution. Such a fear must be subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable. For example, if the asylum-seeker is gay, lesbian or transgender in a country where members of the LGBT community have been harmed or threatened with harm, an asylum-seeker could claim it would not be a safe option to return to the home country.

While race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, and political opinion are all grounds for seeking asylum, there are other commonly made claims that are not included. Economic hardship, for example, unless the result of government persecution is not a valid claim for asylum. Nor is ordinary spousal abuse, though there may be cases where a wife or partner could claim asylum if the abuse is reported to the authorities who are unwilling to safeguard the abused spouse. 

The Right to Due Process

Every person who claims asylum has the right to due process of law, which means notice and a full and fair opportunity to be heard. Due Process is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and extends to every person (not just a citizen or even permanent resident) in the United States, irrespective of immigration status. The Supreme Court for well over a century has expressly recognized a person cannot be deported without due process.

The Burden of Proof

In applying for asylum, the applicant has the burden of proving that he or she meets the definition of a refugee. To be successful in their claim, asylum-seekers need to provide credible evidence either of past persecution or that they have a “well-founded fear” of future persecution in their home country. The individual’s own testimony will be critical in the final determination by the immigration judge. The applicant must demonstrate before the immigration judge that it is more likely than not that he or she would be subject to persecution on one of the five specified grounds.

Asylum-seekers have a right to be represented by an attorney but not at government expense. This means that asylum-seekers must seek out and pay for an attorney or represent themselves before an asylum officer or immigration judge. Many lawyers represent asylum-seekers on a pro bono basis, but there are simply not enough lawyers to represent all the people claiming asylum. Thus, many migrants go without any legal representation and they are the most likely to be deported.

Moreover, being detained impedes asylum-seekers’ ability to find a lawyer. It also makes it more difficult for asylum-seekers to obtain corroborating evidence and expert witnesses, given that access to phones, the internet, and other vital resources is limited.

Asylum Protocols

In addition to the statutory requirements for asylum, there are strict protocols in place. All applicants are subject to thorough vetting, which includes fingerprinting and background checks. Certain factors bar individuals from asylum, including people with violent criminal histories, or who have committed aggravated felonies or crimes of moral turpitude, members of gangs, and people who are deemed terrorists or belong to a terrorist organization.  

The Asylum Process

When asylum-seekers present themselves to a U.S. official at a Port of Entry, they will be initially screened in what is known as a credible fear screening process with a Department of Homeland Security official. If the official determines that the asylum-seeker has a credible claim, the person will be allowed to remain in the country until there is a final decision on the case by an immigration judge. If the claim is rejected by the DHS official, the person will be deported, though the person does have a right of appeal to an immigration judge. This is not a loophole but due process and consistent not only with federal law but our international obligations to protect refugees and asylum-seekers.

The situation is more complicated for migrants who are caught near the border without passing through a Port of Entry. These people are eligible to be deported without having their case heard by an immigration judge, due to what is known as “expedited removal,” a part of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the use of which has dramatically expanded in recent decades. 

Expedited removal is an accelerated process which authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to perform rapid deportations of individuals. To ensure that there is no violation of international law or human rights, the credible fear screening process is available to asylum seekers in expedited removal cases. If the asylum officer determines the person does not have credible fear, the individual is ordered removed. Before removal, the individual may appeal the negative credible fear decision by pursuing review before an immigration judge. If the immigration judge overturns a negative credible fear finding, the individual is placed in further removal proceedings through which the individual can seek protection from removal. If the immigration judge upholds the negative finding by the asylum officer, the individual will be removed from the United States.

How Long Does the Asylum Process Take?

The asylum process can take years to conclude. A person may file an application and receive a hearing date years into the future.  At present, there about 700,000 open deportation cases for immigration judges to decide. On average, these cases are pending for 718 days – and many remain unresolved.

The Benefits of Asylum

A person granted asylum is protected from being returned to his or her home country, is authorized to work in the United States, may apply for a Social Security card, may request permission to travel overseas, and can petition to bring family members to the United States. Asylum seekers may also be eligible for certain benefits, such as Medicaid or Refugee Medical Assistance. 

After one year, an asylum seeker may apply for lawful permanent resident status (i.e. a green card). Once the individual becomes a permanent resident, he or she must wait for four years to apply for citizenship. 

II. What’s happening at Our Southern Border?

The crisis at our southern border has divided Americans as few other issues in recent times due to the separation of children from their families. The family separation crisis is the result of the federal government’s “zero tolerance” policy promoted by President Trump and ordered by Attorney-General Sessions. This policy instructed immigration officials to criminally prosecute anyone crossing the border other than through a Port of Entry into the United States, including those who came seeking asylum.

Migrants who come to the United States other than through a Port of Entry are criminally prosecuted and held in detention until their case is adjudicated. That process can take months, and even years, if it includes an asylum claim. The problem is the legality of detaining children with their parents for longer than 20 days.

A 1997 settlement in a California case, Flores v. Reno, mandated that families cannot be detained longer than 20 days. The Flores agreement requires that children be released from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody – preferably to a parent – without delay. When the child cannot be released due to a significant public safety or flight risk concern, the child should be placed in the least restrictive setting in a non-secure facility licensed by a child welfare agency. 

The Department of Justice has asked U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee, who approved the Flores settlement, to allow for longer detentions. According to the Department of Justice brief, “Tens of thousands of families are embarking on the dangerous journey to the United States, often through smuggling arrangements and then crossing the border illegally in violation of our federal criminal law. And as the government has previously stated, once those families are released into the interior, a vast segment fail to appear at their immigration hearings.” 

According to the Department of Justice, the Flores settlement has eliminated all practical availability of family detention after the 20-day period, “Thus creating powerful incentives for aliens to enter this country with children in violation of our criminal and immigration laws without a valid claim to be admitted to the United States.”

The Department of Justice has asked Judge Gee to “exempt the Department of Homeland Security from the Flores settlement agreement’s release provisions so that ICE may detain aliens who have arrived with their parent or legal guardian together in ICE family residential facilities.” Those residential facilities would be exempt from any state licensure requirements. 

Where will the asylum seekers and their children be detained? It appears that old military bases are being readied to accommodate large inflows of detained migrants and their children. Given the slow pace of immigration adjudication and the lack of a sufficient number of immigration judges, these people could be detained a year or two, or even longer. 

If President Trump’s Executive Order can stand, the result will be family detention in place of family separation. The Order instructs immigration officials to hold the entire family in detention centers together. Children would be indefinitely held in detention with their parents while their case is processed, a procedure that will likely take years.  

This treatment of asylum seekers only applies to people who cross the border illegally rather than to go through a Port of Entry. The question asked is, “Why do people with valid asylum claims not go through a Port of Entry, and thus avoid capture, arrest and prolonged detention?” There is no one answer to this question. Some migrants may believe their backgrounds will bar them from admission into the United States. Others come for economic reasons which are not grounds for asylum. However, we do know that Central American families who have attempted to apply for asylum through official channels since April have been forced to wait in line outside the border entrance for days, sometimes weeks, before being seen by immigration officers. This motivates some families to cross the border without documentation. Almost inevitably they are caught and detained. These are the ones in detention who have suffered separation from their children. 

III. A Better Way

How can we improve family detention? We can’t. ICE’s own 2016 advisory committee on this issue stated unequivocally that the system cannot be fixed. The only viable option is that the Department of Homeland Security “should generally exercise its authority to release family members, together as a family, as soon as possible.”

President Trump is not the first president to jail children. Time and again administrations have responded to surges in migrants by detaining families. In 2014, for example, President Obama responded to the surge of Central American immigrant children by ramping up family detention. The number of available beds jumped from 100 to 3,000. The government implemented a “no bond, no release” policy, holding families even after they passed asylum officers’ credible fear interviews. More than half of the 1,050 children who entered family detention in 2014 were six or younger. 

So, the issue of detaining migrants and their families is not a Republican or Democratic issue, nor is it a Trump or Obama issue – both administrations have done it, one quietly, the other proudly. Regardless, there is a better way that is humane, civilized and far less costly.

The family case management program was started in January 2016. It allowed families seeking asylum to be released together and monitored by caseworkers while their immigration court cases proceeded. Case managers provided asylum seekers with referrals for education, legal services and housing. They also helped sort out confusing orders about when to show up for immigration court and ICE check-ins. And they emphasized the importance of showing up to all court hearings, which can stretch over two or three years.

The case management program was implemented in five metro areas, including New York and Los Angeles, and it was a huge success. About 99 percent of immigrants showed up for their hearings. 

It also was financially cost-effective. The program cost $36.00 per day per family, compared with the more than $900 a day it costs to lock up an immigrant parent with two children.

Sadly, the case management program was cancelled by the Trump Administration in 2017. It should be reinstituted and monitored for five years. The cost and success rate make it an appealing alternative to detention. 

In addition to the case management program, ICE has two programs that use electronic ankle monitors, biometric voice-recognition software, unannounced home visits, telephone reporting, and global positioning technologies to track people who have been released from detention while their cases are being adjudicated. In 2013, 96 percent of those enrolled appeared for their final court hearings, and 80 percent of those who did not qualify for asylum complied with their removal orders. 

Both the ICE program and the case management program work. Along with adequate vetting of migrants and enhanced border security, the immigration crisis on our southern border could be alleviated. In addition, there is a need to expand access to pro bono and government-funded lawyers so that the immigration court process can be fair and just.

If a family loses its case and isn’t deemed eligible to stay in the United States legally, the federal government should issue a notice for them to present themselves to ICE for deportation. If they don’t show, give ICE the resources it needs to go out and arrest and deport the migrants. 

Law and order can go hand in hand with humane treatment. It’s the American way.

Motivation Monday

Friday Funnies

HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY!!!!

Motivation Monday