Documents

  I realize I'm not a legal beagle, no expert in these matters, but I do understand some things. If you break the law you are subject to prosecution. Crossing the border to my country without the proper paperwork is breaking the law. You are subject to deportation. This being the United States you are extended the courtesy of a hearing and provided legal council. One can even request asylum and receive consideration. That should be done immediately after you enter the country! In that manner you are now "documented."  When you are documented you will not be subject to arrest, apprehension and detention for being, undocumented. Simple enough, right? 

  Everyone has the absolute right to request asylum. Asylum isn't guaranteed and eligibility requirements must be met. In fact, if you have been in this country illegally for more than one year you can not request asylum at all! No, you must apply within the first year. First you must obtain refugee status. Just wanting to come here to work or whatever isn't being a refugee. You have to prove that it is somehow unsafe for you to return to your home country. Because you have a neighbor that you don't like isn't reason enough. There has to be credible evidence that you would somehow be in grave and serious danger. Being a "dreamer" doesn't qualify.

  It's all about documentation. If you document your presence in my country, abide by all the rules and regulations, the odds are you will be granted asylum. Many are given a notice to appear. This notice instructs them to appear in court where they are given the opportunity to request asylum or refugee status. Essentially it is another chance to document your presence in the country. You will be interviewed and have a chance to plead your case. You have to show credible and reasonable fear of returning to your home. The simple act of applying for asylum does not guarantee you will get it! Asylum isn't a  right! Asylum is an act of charity. 

  It appears to me that the plan has been to overwhelm the system. That was the purpose of those caravans, strange you don't hear about them anymore, my guess is funding was cut. The result of literally hundreds of thousands of people flooding across the border has created a tremendous backlog. Now that the system has been overwhelmed claims of a lack of due process are flying. But here's the thing. The process goes like this. You either present yourself at the border, a port of entry, with all the necessary paperwork in hand, or you arrive there and immediately request asylum or refugee status. Failure to do either of those two actions triggers another process, deportation! That's the process, how it works. There is nothing in any of that process that allows for you to be here illegally for any length of time. Doesn't make a bit of difference if it a day or ten years. If you are here, undocumented you are subject to deportation. That's the process.

  The time, date and place of your birth is documented. That has been the practice of governments for thousands of years. Interestingly however, birth certificates only became a legal requirement in the early part of the twentieth century in the United states. It wasn't until 1933 that all states had a high incidence of recorded birth certificates. Why do you think birth certificates became mandatory? It all has to do with revenue. What a surprise. You have to know who is here if you want to tax them. 

  When you are documented, even just given a notice to appear, you can apply for a social security number, Medicare and Medicaid. With that social security number the doors are thrown wide open! Having a social security number can bring you a literal windfall if you came from some village in Mexico or Venezuela where you had little to nothing. Even though you are now required to pay into the system, pay taxes, the benefit far outweighs that. The process of being granted asylum can last for years. You can also bring your family members in. Truly, the doors are open. And that is why the concentration on removing all those that are undocumented. It's all about revenue. That's the real deal. You know just because you gather enough people to overwhelm the cashiers at the grocery store that doesn't mean you get to take the groceries home for free! If you're not standing in line, you are out of here! 

                                                                                       

                                           PRESENT YOUR DOCUMENTS 

  

What we do

 I'm laughing as I read the posts from those on the left regarding the National Guard troops picking up the trash in DC. I can only think it must be people that never served a day on duty in the any branch of the service. Picking up trash, "policing the area" is as common a thing to be doing as tying your shoes. Just what do you do with people that their training is for combat, when there is no combat? You keep them busy doing something constructive. Sometimes it isn't even constructive but it is something to do. It enforces discipline. The objective is to follow the orders of those appointed over you, no matter how trivial or unimportant you may think they are, that isn't your job, your job is to do as you are told. 

  It may be hard for some to understand, especially those that have never been in the service, but there is no, that isn't my job, when you are in the service. Your job is whatever you are told your job is! No, there's no saying, that's not in my job description, my union doesn't allow that, or any of that nonsense. You will do as directed by higher authority. You know it has been said that clothes make the man. It also true with places. If an area is neat and clean, orderly and groomed it inspires others to keep it that way. It also gives off a sense of security. It's all a part of the job. I can't speak for what the other branches do but I can tell you in the Navy "sweepers" is held twice a day every day. On ship you will hear this: "sweepers, sweepers, man your brooms, sweep down all lower decks, ladderbacks and passageways." It very well may be your job if you were assigned to do that. But I graduated Nuclear Power School, I have a college degree! Good, use all that education and training to get that broom moving! 

  This is one of my favorite anecdotes about policing the area and maintaining a clean, trash free area. I went to basic training at Great Lakes Naval Training Center in 1971. It was a a time when a smoke and coke break was part of the routine. Whenever the company commander felt like it he would say, smoke them if you got'em. We would all stop, sometimes a coca-cola was available although that was rarely the case but those packs of cigarettes would appear. We carried them tucked into the top of our socks. You were not allowed to carry anything in your shirt pocket except your military identification card and two report chits. Those report chits were for when you messed up and someone other than your company commander was going to report you. That chit would be take from you and given to the Brigade commander. Not a good thing to have happen to you at all. But, let me tell you the story.

  So we were having a smoke and coke break, all standing around the "butt kits" being real sailors. A "butt kit" is just a red bucket filled with sand where you are required to place your butts. Yeah, cigarette butts that is, don't get confused about that, that's a different story. One of the guys, acting all macho and sailor like just flicks his butt out on the ground. The company commander swoops in like a hawk and grabs him by the arm. Yes, they touched us then! Directing him to that butt he directs him to pick it up. Then he says , just stand at attention and hold that butt at port arms. He goes over to the butt kit, picks it up and tosses the entire contents on the ground. He starts screaming at the guy holding the butt see what happens when one of the troops goes off on their own! Everyone else wants to follow. You need to get them organized, back in formation and in the designated area for assembly. 

 The orders are to collect all the butts on the ground, organize them into squads, companies and battalions with the corresponding standard bearers. Once that is accomplished order them back into the butt kit. The rest of just stood there, at parade rest, watching as that poor guy tried to get that done. The company commander quizzing us the whole time on formations. After quite a bit of time had passed the company commander tells him to order those butts in to the can. He does, louder says the commander. Louder, try it again! Of course the butts aren't moving at all. At this point the commander is screaming at him, you can't even get a butt into the butt kit and you want to be in my Navy!! After some further berating he says you need some help from your shipmates. We are given our orders and soon the butt kitt has been refilled with sand and all butts returned. Those were the orders, that was my job. No, I wasn't the one that threw that butt on the ground and after that I made sure I never did. 

  When you are in the service, you follow orders, it's what you do. Things is this, you're getting paid no matter what you're doing. Being paid for picking up trash is better than being paid to stop bullets! Yeah there's no glory in it, I can't argue that point, but getting shot or you limbs blown off isn't all that glorious either. 

                                                                                    

                                                      

                                                              Forward March 

Entertained

  The entertainment district unit. A new unit in the Baltimore Police department. This unit is assigned to patrol and protect the Federal Hill area, select malls and businesses. The objective being to boost public confidence to go to those areas. Protecting the entire city equally is just an unreasonable thing to expect. The mayor has determined they should protect the "entertainment" sections first and foremost. This will increase tax revenue. Once the entertainment section of town is secure, patrols may extend to the less entertaining sections as well! 

  We all know we can't be profiling people when fighting crime. Everyone must be assumed as a possible suspect when it comes to that. But that issue was resolved a while back in Baltimore. A new Police commissioner, soon after assuming his duty, introduced a new plan; predictive policing. You don't look at certain groups or demographics, not profiling anyone. No, you just predict where the crime may take place based on past policing records. It doesn't target the offenders, just the possibility that a crime may take place in that area. Now it has been determined that most crime takes place where their is property, money and softer targets. Well at least the crimes that impact revenue that is, we'll be concerned with those just staying home, living their daily lives later on. That isn't hurting the cities coffers nearly as much as disrupting tourism or those wanting to eat out. 

  We shouldn't be building any walls, protecting the border from illegal entry, the mayor of Baltimore is adamant about that. But providing 24/7 armed police patrols around the "entertainment" district is a great idea. It's a virtual wall against crime! It's fine to protect your house but the neighbors have to fend for themselves. The governor of Maryland is currently engaged in a verbal battle with President Trump regarding the use of troops to protect the city. The governor is vehemently opposed to that idea! The city doesn't need that, there are protecting the entertainment district, ensuring the quality of life for those just wanting to have a good time. Federal Hill will be protected! The other neighborhoods will just have to make do as best they can with whatever police officers the city provides. The prediction being, criminals strike where they predict the money is. Imagine that. Still, no profiling allowed, just predicting. 

  So it appears to me that the area known in Baltimore as Federal Hill is receiving special focus and consideration. They have been given an entire unit dedicated to their protection. This is even being highlighted as a plus. The message seems clear enough to me, that area of the city is far more important than any other. That's where the "good" folks live, work and play. Those that vote for and support the city leadership. We can't have those folks being disturbed. We are not concerned with criminal activity elsewhere, we need to concentrate our force on Federal Hill.

  The mayor of Baltimore, in an interview when asked about the positive results the national guard has had on the crime in DC, had this to say. We don't know how many of those arrested where violent criminals! How many where just people going about their jobs, delivery people or whatever. What he didn't say was, everyone of those people arrested had committed a crime, that's why they were arrested. But when you policing policy is to only arrest "selected" criminals that's how you put that. In Baltimore you can break some laws, in some areas, and that's ok. As long as the crime isn't that bad. Hey, we can't be expected to enforce every single law now can we? Of course not, but we will protect the entertainment at all costs. 

  The entertainment district unit. I wonder what college graduate came up with that woke nonsense. It's the area in the city with the highest rate of crime! There is nothing entertaining about about! On the local news they have taken to calling them the "entertainment" police. When I first heard that I thought, why do we have cops entertaining people? I wondered if they dressed as clowns or something. The entertainment unit, that's how they are spoken of. If I hadn't explained their function what would you have thought? It is a less intimidating title isn't it. And isn't that the reason for choosing that name? Just change the name and you change the general perception. The Democrats have gotten that down to a science! Sometimes it is just a matter of pronouns and at others verbs. The action word here being, entertainment. And who wouldn't want to be entertained? Let's all head down to the district. It's safe there.   

                                                                                          

  

The condition

  Conditional compliance. It's the new decry from the left. Those that have spent the last few years demanding due process, quoting the constitution, striving for equal rights, equal treatment, diversity and inclusion. But now that includes civil disobedience as a civic duty. There are conditions under which abandoning the rule of law is perfectly acceptable, in fact a duty and responsibility. Those conditions are, anything the Trump administration supports. In those cases the rule of law no longer applies, unless it is a democratic judge issuing the orders that is. This is becoming blatant, there is no longer even a pretense of legality being promoted. No, just defy the law and make your demands. Protest, riot if you must and burn the place down! Laws should only be applied under certain conditions. If the law upsets you, offends you in some fashion, it doesn't apply. 

  Consider this condition. If you burn an American flag that is free speech! Any thought that it should be otherwise is immediately dismissed as a violation of the first amendment! How dare you! But, if you burn a pride flag that's a hate crime! You are subject to prosecution, fines and imprisonment! You may also be vilified on all social media platforms, exposed as homophobic, racist or maybe even Hitler! Why is that hate? Because it implies that you don't embrace the LGTBQ+ lifestyle, that why. It's just hateful to disagree with love! It's not hateful to burn or desecrate the national standard in any way if you so choose. No, that's just free speech. Hate is a conditional thing, it all depends. Mostly it depends upon what other people embrace. That is to say what others are willing to defend. Offend and defend, that's what I'm talking about. That's the conditional part in all of that. 

  Consider these conditions. Abrego Garcia, the illegal alien in the news, entered the United States illegally. He went to live with his brother. He made no applications for anything, just started living in Maryland with his brother. He got arrested outside a Home Depot because he was in the country illegally. Homeland security moved to deport him under title 8. At that point he gets a lawyer, provided by your tax dollars, and files for asylum. Well, now he is entitled to due process. He already had that in my opinion, he was given the chance to show he was here legally, he couldn't, therefore he is eligible for deportation. That's the law. I see it as no different from robbing a bank, then getting caught and your excuse is, I needed the money. He should have applied for asylum the moment he arrived in the country! That is the due process here! Those are the conditions. Compliance with the law isn't conditional upon circumstance. He has been in this country, illegally for ten years! 

  Conditional compliance and conditional morality. The same thing as far as I'm concerned. One can ask for forgiveness, that is true, but forgiveness itself is a conditional thing. Theological scholars all agree on that. You must be held to account for your wrongdoing. Due process provides a path for affecting change in criminal and civil law. It is the basis for an orderly society. If we circumvent that process anarchy is the result. Due process begins with the first step. It isn't a tool to be employed to delay accountability. In the case of Garcia he is in the country illegally. That's the straight fact of the matter. He could have applied for asylum at the border, the first step in obtaining due process of law in this country, but instead chose to ignore all of that. He set the condition. Now, he must face the consequences of that. 

                                                                                      

 Should now include, do the democrats support it. 

Trust me

  Heard on the news this morning that several people have filed suit against the makers of Ozempic. They have lost their sight and place the blame on that. The companies response is as expected, they claim their product is perfectly safe and could not be the cause. The news story continued about the safety of the drugs being sold, testing and the long term consequences. It's a battle between safety and profit. No doubt a great deal of money is invested in creating these miracles of science and the sooner you can get them to market the sooner you can realize a profit. I get that, I understand that, and I understand those that are willing to take a calculated risk. Promises can certainly be a very tempting thing. It's the heart of advertising.

  All of this hinges upon acceptable risk. The question is, who should decide upon that. Is it the function of government to regulate and control risk? How much of the responsibility should fall to the consumer? For me, it's like looking for someplace to place the blame. It's human nature to want to blame someone else, something else, for anything that goes wrong. It isn't limited to things we can control either, no we want to blame things we have absolutely no control over as well. In todays' litigious society we have entire legal firms focused on just that, placing the blame. The objective is to obtain justice. Justice in this case being some monetary reward for whatever misfortune has befallen you, because, it's not your fault. It's the object or another person or entity that is to blame. 

  We have all heard the list of possible side effects from the myriad of drugs advertised on television and the radio. There are fulfilling the legal requirements by doing so. If anyone reported a side effect of using that product it must be included in the listing of possible side effects. It doesn't matter how many or how few times that effect is experienced, it must be included. That's why you will hear terms like, rarely a serious side effect like death will occur! It's a legal shifting of responsibility, informing the consumer. Then you can decide if that medication is right for you. Really, are you willing to take the risk? We are told we have a choice. We are also told, this is the only thing that can help you, it's the only way to guarantee your quality of life! The side effect of not using the product will be death! It's up to you, consult your physician.

  If a company is aware of the possible side effect, informs you of that possibility, and you choose to use that product with the advice of your doctor, just who is liable? That's the whole question isn't it? In the case of this Ozempic drug blindness isn't mentioned as a possible side effect. Did the manufacturer know that it may do that? Should they have known? That's what the management of risk centers on. In the real world however how many of us read all the side effects, discuss that with our doctors, and make a truly informed choice. My guess is very few. We just rely upon our doctor. If he/she says I think you should take this, most of us will say okay. Mentally we shift the responsibility for that choice to them.

  We are urged to trust the science. In fact we are being told that science provides the only real solutions to the problems of the world. There is no divine intervention, no appeal to any higher power than science. Man has grown, increased his knowledge and understanding to a level above any gods. Any appeal to any god is just frivolous nonsense, a phycological trick to provide momentary comfort. There will be no healing! The difference being when science is wrong it can be sued and your god can not. Placing the blame on God won't put any money in your pocket! Heck, your wife and children won't get any money either! Some one has to pay! Well, except when the science says, I told you that might happen. Trust the science and Trust me. Same sentiment, Think about that. Yeah, trust me. 

                                                                                

An emotional journey

  The whole problem with social media is in getting caught up in the emotional wave it may create. The issue being, there is really no release from that. Unlike the real world I can't just punch you in the face. Yes, that's the release we all seek, at least metaphorical speaking. It is like that meme I see occasionally about the old days. When we had a telephone that we could slam down to let the other person know our feelings, it was a slap in the face. You just can't get that satisfaction on social media. It is just too impersonal, even when it becomes personal. Blocking someone just isn't the same as tackling them! You don't get the same feeling.

  I'm prone to getting caught up in all of that, it's a part of my personality. I do have a compulsion to offer my opinions, thoughts, and advice to the conversation. I can get caught up easily if I'm not careful. It has happened a few times. Then, once caught up in the emotion I go past that point, the point where there is no return. I said what I said, I meant what I said, and I'm not changing what I said because it upset you. Had I not allowed my emotions to get the better of me I wouldn't have said that, that may be true, but it doesn't change the truth of what I said. If I restricted myself to only saying what was necessary I would be silent 90% of the time. But, I'm not like that. No, I have a tendency to speak my mind. 

  I do not ride that wave of emotion for very long however. I'm not one to join a cult or protest, get involved with any of that. I view myself as one that just drops little truth bombs here and there and keep on walking. I'm not interested in viewing whatever carnage or damage I may created. Not interested in having anyone return to apologize to me, to pander to me. You can send me money though, I'll accept cash any time. What I'm trying to say is I just don't seem to have that same passion for social justice that so many claim to have today. For me, most social issues just come and go and have very little effect on my life. I'm just a very small cog in a very large world. I accept that, I'm good with that. 

  I hear a lot about people being on their journey these days. It's the new catch phrase of the decade. It is used as a tool to elicit sympathy, that's my view of that. Usually heard in the context of some life situation the person has faced like financial loss, a medical issue or some other negative thing. Then they have triumphed on their journey! They overcame some obstacle. Yeah, we all do that, it's called life. Don't get caught up in the emotion of that is my advice. I have written, on several occasions, that emotions are great motivators but seldom good guides. I stand by that observation. Emotions get us into more trouble, more precarious situations than anything else. It's emotions that get you smacked in the face! 

  That is the struggle of mankind, the controlling of emotions. We have tried, and continue to try, to create some device, some method or system to do just that. Religion and the law share equal billing in that endeavor. Those are the tools we apply. Science and the scientific method are also tools being employed, especially today. Emotional stability, what we call mental health these days, is the control of your emotional responses. We medicate that today and have been doing so for quite some time. In fact in 1963 Valium made its' first appearance and we have been actively medicating our emotions ever since. Yes, prior to that it was alcohol and some other drugs. The problem with them being a tendency for folks to get addicted to them. That's why a new drug was needed, The miracle of science provided valium. Our emotions are under control. 

  It's an emotional rollercoaster this thing we call life. That's the journey you will be on whether you like roller coasters or not. Personally I do not enjoy them. There's just something about riding in a cart, at high speed without the ability to either steer or put on the brakes, designed to twist and turn, sometimes inverted, that tests my confidence in the engineers that designed it. I have ridden them, giving in to peer pressure, an emotional response, and can definitively say, I didn't enjoy it! I'll be avoiding them on my journey from now on having gained control over that emotional response. Social media is a rollercoaster. I find myself standing in line and I question why. Like a moth to the flame I can't seem to resist. It's an emotional thing. Well, I'm on my journey. 

                                                                                     

  

Pretending

  This is just my view of things. None of this is intended to upset anyone, it's simply a conversation with myself. If I were in another room whispering you would most likely have your ear to the wall trying to hear what I was saying. But I'll save you from all of that and just post it publicly. Yes, Facebook and blogger are public platforms, even when you believe you are placing restrictions upon them. Anyone that really wants to view or read any of that can, if they have the technical ability. My guess is that AI will be able to do that in the very near future, if it doesn't already. But anyway, I'm just sharing the way I think about things. 

  What I'm thinking about this morning is cosplay. Have you heard about that? Now it's been around since the 1930's as an amusement. Thing is, it gained in popularity in the 1980's and is now a "mainstream" normal type thing to be involved with. Well, for a good number of folks it is anyway. I quit wearing costumes and pretending when I was about 12 or so. I only did it that long for the candy. But I'm thinking this whole cosplay thing is just getting out of hand. Now we are all concerned with our heritage and what costumes we should wear to celebrate that. Look, all I'm saying is you aren't what your ancestors where. If your great grandfather was a cowboy but you were born and raised in New York City, you aren't a cowboy. 

 Cosplay, costumed play, is all about pretending. For me so is a lot of this heritage stuff that I'm always seeing these days. For me it is an attempt, using a modern phrase, to appropriate the past. The hope is for some sort of gain, some preference, some entitlement today for what took place many years ago. My ancestry is largely German and Swedish. I'm neither of those. I'm am American, born and raised in small town America of blue collar workers with a conservative world view. Yes, I am a product of my environment, not the environment of my ancestors. It doesn't matter if my ancestors were Kings or criminals that has nothing to do with me. Would have been great if they had that "generational" wealth I hear others complaining about, well the ones that didn't get that anyway. 

  I knew a man once that made his living pretending to be an Indian. He did have some native American heritage, along with Hispanic and white. He was quite an intelligent man and leveraged all of that in making a name for himself. He was a survivor and a well respected man. Well, he never made it to the national level, there being no internet during his time, no chance to go viral. I knew him well and I can tell you for a fact he was no more an Indian than I am. True, he studied a great deal about that, he did have some first hand resources to teach him about Indian life and cultures, but believe me, he was no Indian. He just played one. He was convincing I'll give him that. He wasn't asking for anything though, he was just making a living. 

  Of course this was in a time before all this "political activism" and "celebrating our heritage" became popular. People still expected to have to work to earn a living. They even knew they had to pay back a loan when they borrowed money. He was well aware of any social and professional limitations that effected him. He was, in reality, what we now call an African American. He just reinvented himself as Red Thundercloud. Indians were far more accepted than African Americans in the 1950's through the 1970's. It was a very smart move . He wasn't demanding anything from anyone, he wasn't complaining about the white man stealing his land or any of that, he just took the white mans money and laughed all the way to the bank. If you google his name Wikipedia has quite a long article on him. In my experience with him, I believe most of that to be factual.

  I got off course just a bit with my story but included that as a reference point. That was a part of my environment, my experience growing up. It is a part of my heritage in a broader sense. Heritage is the culture of a particular society. There are many societies, down to what we may call, the other side of the tracks. My culture was just a bit different from the culture on the other side of those proverbial tracks even though I shared many cultural things with the town as a whole. Although I am descended from German stock I have no heritage regarding that culture. I am also descended from Swedish stock but I'm no Viking! None of that is my heritage. I have no desire or need to pretend otherwise. I can read about that, admire it, even maybe become fixated to the point where I want to "play" the part but it still won't be my heritage. It's all just stories to me. It's an amusement. 

                                                                                      

Red Thundercloud. In front of my childhood home. My heritage, my cultural influences. 

                                                                                                   

    

       

bona fides

  I read where a blog is supposed to be centered upon one topic, one area of expertise. I don't have that. I make no claims either publicly or privately to being an expert on anything. I have always had just a passing interest in things. Now, I have lingered longer over some things than I have others and so I would say gained more knowledge than the average person in that area. I just have never become fascinated or fixated on one thing. But it is a funny thing really, I write and post these blogs of mine, I share my thoughts and opinions on Facebook and sometimes get called a know it all. Someone that knows it all is apparently a very bad thing. I guess that is why you go to college and get those degrees, in that way having the proof that you don't know it all, but you do know whatever it is that you studied. Then you can compare that to what others in your field know and see who is the smartest one. Me, I'm not in the contest. 

  It's a common enough phrase, you hear people use it all the time when they are trying to avoid an argument, or trying to hide something, "that's all I know." I have used that phrase many times myself. I find I use it mostly when I just don't want to talk about the subject anymore. That's all I know about that. It's nonjudgmental and noncommittal. You could be right or wrong, I don't know. When I offer my opinion however I might get called a know it all. Well, the truth is there are some things that is all I want to know about that. No matter how many facts you present I'm not interested in learning anything more about whatever it is. I think of that as, having made up my mind. My philosophy in life is a simple one, you have to decide, make up your mind, and act upon that. And yes, some decisions are final. 

  I know, I know we should never stop learning. I can't argue with that, there is certainly something new to learn every single day of our lives. What you need to understand however, is that learning doesn't always mean agreeing with you. It doesn't matter how many advanced degrees you may hold, how many years of experience you have, or how long you have been doing whatever it is, you really don't know it all. You don't know anything until you have learned the lesson. I've known lots of people that just haven't leaned the lesson, although they can recite the textbook verbatim. With some folks the more information they receive, the more confused and indecisive they become.

 I do think we are all born with some innate abilities. Some of us will discover and develop those abilities while others will not. Seems to me the bigger challenge is in getting others to recognize your ability. That's the reason for your "bona fides" as they used to call all of that. It's the proof. We tend to think of that today as certificates, licenses, permits, deeds or whatever but the original meaning of "bona fides" was your honest intentions, your integrity, your word or bond. The proof was in the pudding, as the saying goes. The original version of that proverb was, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The meaning there being, that's all the evidence you need to present. Just let the person eat the pudding. They can then decide for themselves. It really doesn't make any difference if you like the pudding or not. 

 Well, that's all I know. I'm hoping to learn some more today, and tomorrow, and then I'll share that with you. You know you can learn things that simply reenforce and bolster what you already know. It is new information to you, it may or may not be new to someone else. Personally I find it comforting and reassuring when that happens. What I mean is learning something new about a subject that just validates what you have already determined. The only frustrating thing about that is you can't go around telling others, I told you so. That's when you will get called a know it all. Thing is, I don't know it all but I know enough. Enough to know better anyway. What's better for me may not be the best for you. And that, that's your problem, not mine. That's true even if what is better for me isn't the best that it could be. It's what I have decided upon that counts. 

                                                                                      

 

Crackers

  The latest upset I'm seeing is about the restaurant chain Cracker Barrel changing its' logo and the design of their buildings. I have eaten there a few times and enjoyed the food and atmosphere. It did remind me of being at a theme park, only without the rides. I'm old, but not so old that I was ever in a country store with an actual cracker barrel. I'm not that country I suppose but I've seen that in the movies. The menu I found to be normal American food, good sized portions and the food not too heavily seasoned. I did enjoy looking at all those things they have on the walls, old tools, gadgets and whatever. The country store section was full of Americana as well. 

  But now apparently the company has hired a new CEO and are changing the branding. I had heard in the past a few murmurs that Cracker barrel was a racist thing and some of their decorations were offensive. I wasn't really listening all that close and so don't know exactly what the problem were. Before I had ever set foot in a cracker barrel restaurant I was was expecting a "country" feel to the place. I knew, before ever looking at the menu, that they weren't serving soul food. I was attracted by the rocking chairs on the porch, the barrels with the checkers sets and the whole setting. The whole deal was an amusement. Of course I forget that I'm just an old white guy and don't see the racism involved with all of that. And now, I've heard that the whole thing is anti-gay as well. 

  So the restaurant has decided to remodel and rebrand much like McDonalds has over time. Burger king ditched the King, long before no kings day, but still hand out a paper crown. The cracker barrel has been removed from the logo, well everything except the name has been removed, so as not to offend I suppose. Well, the color looks like cheddar cheese and I for one am offended, what about white American cheese or blue cheese, why aren't they represented! And besides cracker barrels were brown in color, made of wood. Why not use a barrel as the logo. Or is that supposed to be a barrel lying on its' side? To be honest, I have never given any of that much thought, it's systemic!

  I had read where cracker barrel has lost 100 million dollars in stock value. Okay, if you say so. I also heard they have changed the menu. Has the cracker barrel I know and loved been replaced for a cheap imitator? The fact is I have never loved a restaurant, I simply enjoyed them. If they have decided to change it up, that's on them. Will I protest, boycott and refuse to go there? Most likely, no. If the mood strikes and I want to go to the cracker barrel and check it out I certainly will. If it has changed that much and I don't like it, I won't go back. That's how my boycotting works anyway. Granted I'm old and old people don't like changes but change happens anyway.

  That's the thing about all this social media though. It's a way to keep stirring the pot, sharing what we used to call, gossip. Today we hear about being informed, enlightened and raising awareness as the function of social media. Well 90% of the time it is just gossip and sometimes that is called misinformation. What us old people called a lie. It was, and remains, just stuff that people make up because they are bored or what to feel important. If you can tell a secret, you're important aren't you? Yes, you are, for that moment. First I heard that cracker barrel was just racist and now they are also homophobic! I won't be surprised to learn they bought their potatoes on Amazon. 

  I just find the whole thing amusing. A restaurant that had a theme based on the country store. It's like a tale of the old west. Did such places ever really exist? Yes they probably did, the corner store in more modern days, 7-11 or Royal Farms stores today. Memories are a funny thing when it comes to all of that. I remember going to the 5&10, that's what it was called. That store had wooden floors that creaked, wooden bins down the walls and in the aisles, and a donut machine making fresh donuts right next to the checkout counter. 

  That's what a 5&10 looks like. My Christmas tree had glass ornaments and tinsel with those big lights! That's what Christmas trees look like. I took my car to the garage to get fixed. One bay with a lift in it, a grease pit in the other bay, and a hose that rang a bell when you ran over it, or stomped on it to mess with the attendant. Think of the garage in Mayberry that Goober worked at. That's a garage. The cracker barrel restaurant. It'll look like I remember it and the food will taste the way I remember it. Well I remember when McDonalds had the golden arches and you ordered at a walk up window. Everything was better then. The burgers, fries and shakes were the best! Now I still stop by the McCafe for a latte and a vegetable burger every once in a while. Things change. Luckily Cracker Jack hasn't been found offensive, although there really should be a Cracker Jill or non-binary Jack I suppose. 

                                                                                     

      This is how I will remember that restaurant. That's the cracker barrel. 

In the middle

  I do watch the news and make an attempt to stay current and understand exactly what is going on in the world. It's all politics these days, at least that is the way it comes across to me. Perhaps in the past I just wasn't paying that much attention. I did comment a while back on the delegates from Texas fleeing to Illinois to prevent a quorum being obtained and blocking a vote. Well, I heard they returned home now and the vote happened. Texas has a new political district map. I hear now where other states are rushing to do the same in an attempt to "balance" the seats. It all has to do with how many seats in the house of representatives go to a political party, sort of. Representatives are still chosen by the vote and have to be elected in that manner. Well, sort of. This is where it all gets confusing and somewhat complicated. 

  I have never made any claims to fully understanding how all of that actually works. My thought is unless you are directly involved with that, have a degree in politics or a law degree, you probably don't know either. I doubt the average everyday citizen really has a good grasp on that process and exactly what it means. You just vote for the candidate of your choice and they either win or lose. Do you even know what congressional district you live in? I live in the first congressional district. My representative in Andy Harris. Why are the district lines so important? Well the short answer is, the people inside the lines vote for who represents them in congress. The lines are drawn by using data from the US census. Each political party wants their voters inside the line! It's really all about what the politicians believe about the population according to the census data. Who is going to vote for you! The objective of redistricting is simple enough to understand. You don't change the voters you just change the outcome of the election. Exactly how that happens is a bit more complicated, that's where that degree comes in handy. 

  The whole deal is about fair and equal representation. That's the reason for the electoral college as well. If we were a straight up democracy, something the main stream media would like you to believe, that representation wouldn't be fair or equal any way you look at it. The classic example is that the five boroughs of New York City could win the election every single time. Why is that? Because their concerns, wants and needs are vastly different than the ones in Fargo, North Dakota. Fargo has a population of about 138,000 while New York City has a population exceeding eight million! Just where do you want your district? And that is only the beginning of all of that. As I said I won't pretend I have a full understanding of the process but I do know the outcome of elections may be changed by redrawing the lines. I also know this, I want to be the one drawing those lines. That part I understand fully. 

  The thing is this. This has been an ongoing thing since the very beginning. When it is done, those not drawing the line will call it gerrymandering. Those that drawing the line will tell you it is to provide a fair and balanced representation of the people. Which political party will actually gain the advantage? Well, that all depends upon the voters doesn't it? In theory it should, but in actual practice will it? That is all dependent upon the accuracy of the census. what information can be gleaned from that census and some assumptions based on that data. Yes, assumptions have to be made. That's what they mean when they talk about their "base."  The demographic voting pattern is all important when it comes to district line drawing. 

  For more information about that I'm including this: How voting patterns changed in the 2024 election: A detailed analysis | Pew Research Center  

  Do I get it? No, not really. I do understand the necessity for all of that though. The politicians are playing chess and I'm still playing checkers. I'm just a little pawn in the game and I accept that role freely. I go to the poll and make my choice based on what I want and what I believe. Sometimes it goes the way I had hoped, sometimes it doesn't. If I don't like my congressional district I can move to another one. Or I can just wait and have the politicians change the lines. What if you could just vote in any district you wanted to? That would sure throw a wrench into the works. But, we have thousands of people that don't even want to be bothered going to the polls at all, just mail it in. And going strictly by the popular vote, a straight democracy surely would be unfair to millions of people in this country. The entire state of North Dakota has a population of just 800,000. Would they really be represented? About as much as a five year old in Harvard! Yeah, ain't no body listening to them. California has a population of 40 million, you really want them deciding on everything. The United States has a population of about 350 million. Forty eight million is California and New York City.  The guys in the middle. well not so much. It's tough being the monkey in the middle you just catch whatever you can, whenever you can. 

                                                                                      

In the room

  It's been said that life is a circle. You know what I mean, how you return to the things of your youth as you age. There are a lot of memes and comedians using that material. It's usually about teeth or toilet habits. The pharmaceutical companies are working overtime producing products to reverse all of that. It's a losing battle however and we all know it, just putting off the inevitable. It is something I have become increasingly aware of, but not in the physical sense, at least not yet, but in the way I am supposed to interact in society. When we were children we were to be seen but not heard. That's pretty much the way it is going now, except its' best if you're not seen as well. That's what we have life alert for. Technology will alert the proper authority if that becomes necessary. I heard their is some technology that will send "vital" data to your loved ones. It will alert them if you are having a heart attack or some other medical emergency. That way they don't have to actually check on you personally. It's more convenient that way.

  Have you noticed how people now respond to you? I mean they are either polite, although a bit condescending, or they act annoyed. Your questions are treated like they were when you were a child. You either get a carefully worded answer, or it is assumed you just can't understand the subject matter yet. You are asked, but not expected to actually answer. When there are gatherings of the family or perhaps a small party and you're invited, you aren't really supposed to say anything, just sit there and smile a lot. Others will wait on you, ask if you need anything, and after that pretty much ignore you. You are there to be seen, not heard. And you are sitting there, just watching and listening. You attendance is like when you brought your children to the party. You parade them out, brag on them a bit and then send them out to play or whatever. You'll check on them occasionally, make sure they aren't getting into any trouble.

  Yes, I have noticed I am now at the old folks table. Close to the bathroom, out of any drafts, and off to the side a bit to avoid the high traffic area. Folks will stop by that table every once and a while. It's usually to ask about something from the past, or talk about someone that has passed. There won't be any questions concerning current events. No one wants to get you "started" on any of that. Being at the old folks table is like being at an observation post. Just watch, listen, and later on talk it over with another old person. When I was a kid I would be sent out of the room. I always wondered what they were doing that I wasn't to know about. Turns out they weren't doing much of anything really. Now I just sit in the corner and smile a lot. It's like watching an old movie. You already know the story, but there are new actors. You are watching your understudies. Well, I thought I had taught them better than that.   

                                                                                   

  

allegiance

  Seeing an article regarding a policy instituted by the Trump administration regarding cooperating with immigration officials, I was left with this thought. Are we now to accept a conditional allegiance? What I'm thinking about are the words, I pledge Allegiance. To me that means loyalty, or making a commitment. Here in America everyone in political office, of any kind, takes a pledge, recognizes an allegiance, to the constitution of the United States of America. That allegiance includes upholding all the laws of the land, not just the laws they agree with. It isn't a conditional allegiance. The only thing conditional about that would be the individuals choice. They can choose to not be in office, in that capacity. That is the freedom afforded to them as Americans. 

  Now this new rule I read about ties monetary awards to helping immigration officers in the enforcement of immigration law. Twenty states and the District of Columbia have filed suit with the administration. What's the issue, the big problem? They have to enforce the immigration laws and cooperate with all government agencies in doing so. What they are saying is, it's a threat to sanctuary cities! Cities that exercise a conditional allegiance to the union! That's the way I see that. I get the whole "sovereign state" thing, same argument used when the confederates seceded from the union in 1861. Those states didn't like a law they thought might be established. Slavery was to be abolished! They would be forced to release their labor force! 

  They weren't immigrants, migrants or dreamers then, no, they were just imported good to them! Same issue today, they don't want to turn in their labor force. It wasn't cheap to get them here, those caravans are expensive! And that's not to mention all the legal battles to keep them here combined with all the "assistance" provided to them. Housing, clothing, medical care and teaching them a new language, it all adds up.  

  The argument being, the rule is illegal because Reagan didn't specify compliance with immigration laws was tied to the granting of those funds. I don't think that it needed to be said, to be explained or delineated. Compliance with the law and cooperation with every other government agency should be assumed. As I said, it isn't a conditional allegiance! Supporters of these sanctuary cities say that enforcing the law makes it less likely immigrants will cooperate with the law. If those immigrants are here illegally, they aren't interacting with the law enforcement agencies! Well, not until they are caught that is. Anyone here legally should have a vested interest in reporting anyone that isn't. Well, unless that person is a family member, a relative, or perhaps a business partner, then I'm not going to tell. I know nothing! It all depends, right. It's a conditional thing?

  We have all read that famous quote by Teddy Roosevelt regarding allegiance. It begins with these words, " There can be no divided allegiance here." Teddy is 100% correct in that statement. One nation. Indivisible. Liberty and Justice for all! All that are American citizens and pledge their allegiance to the United States of America that is! That's what he was talking about. Those that are protesting are quick to proclaim they fully understand what Teddy was saying, even the words that he never said! Hollering about him being a racist! He wasn't.  

  What he was talking about was supporting the United States of America, unconditionally. Our strength lies in unity, a common cause. We establish laws to maintain order, protect individuals, and establish societal standards. The intent being a stable and just society. Every citizen should strive for that. Every government agency should work, hand in hand, with every other agency in the pursuit of those goals. It's not some deep philosophical ideal, it's common sense. You don't need a law degree, a PhD in constitutional studies to understand that. 

 I pledge allegiance!  If you are unwilling to do that, get out! That's how I feel about that. You're welcome to join, but you do have to pledge your allegiance and abide by that pledge. Allegiance isn't a conditional thing! Don't confuse allegiance with alliance. An alliance is usually a temporary thing, a cooperation of convenience. Allegiance is a permanent thing, a lifetime commitment. 

"Permanent allegiance refers to the lifelong loyalty that individuals, known as nationals, owe to their state or country. This obligation is not simply a personal choice; it establishes a legal bond between the individual and the sovereign authority of the state. In the context of the United States, the question of whether a person owes permanent allegiance is significant, as it reflects their legal status and rights within the country." Permanent Allegiance: Understanding Its Legal Definition | US Legal Forms

                                                                             

On this day

  It was on this day in 1945 that the Japanese delegation landed on the island of Le Shima. This was just ten days after American forces had dropped the last nuclear bomb on the city of Nagasaki. That delegation was there to begin the process of surrender. It lies in the prefecture of Okinawa. The American journalist Ernie Pyle was killed on that island during the invasion by the 77th infantry division as part of the battle of Okinawa. A monument to him still stands there. The island was secured by American forces on April 21. The importance lies in it had an airfield. It is from that airfield my little story begins.

 My father was drafted in the Army Air force on the 12th of April in 1943. Following basic training he went to school to become a flight engineer for B-24 bombers. He was assigned to the 65th heavy bombardment group. His duties included monitoring the engines and systems on the aircraft while in flight and manning the upper gun turret when under attack. He ended up on the island of Le Shima in July of 1945. His bombing group attacking Japanese held territories. One of those places was Matsuyama. Between March and August of 1945 Matsuyama, which had an airfield being used by the Japanese to deploy their own bombers, Type 96 G3m, would be bombed 16 times. It was on the 12th of  August 1945 that my father would fly his last combat mission. Leaving Le Shima he flew a successful mission over Matsuyama, the last time that place would be bombed. My father had survived the war! This when the mortality rate of bomb crews was a staggering 71%, either killed in action or missing. I can only imagine the sense of relief those crews must have experienced.

 Just five days after that history was being made before his very eyes. He was there, watching as the American delegation, landed on the island of Le Shima, followed closely by the landing of the Japanese delegation in two Japanese "Betty" bombers. That delegation would board a C-54 Skymaster for the flight to Manila. In Manila General Douglas McArthur and his staff awaited their arrival. The purpose being the negotiation of unconditional surrender by the Japanese. The emperor of Japan had surrendered on the 15th of August, all that was left was the planning and execution of the official documents. Even wars aren't over until the paperwork is complete. 

 How it must have felt to be there, standing on that airfield, seeing your enemy just feet away, seeing those bombers land and those enemies get out. How it must have felt knowing, I have survived, the war is over. My father was twenty years old at that time. The formal and official signing of the unconditional surrender of Japan took place on the 2nd of September aboard the battleship Missouri. Seventeen days later my father would celebrate his 21st birthday.

 Eight years later I was born in July. I never heard my father speak of any of that. In fact, he seldom spoke of being in the war at all, just stories about the planes he loved. He did have an instructional manual all about the B-24 bombers he flew in. I read that quite a bit and as they would say today, we bonded over the engines described in that book. A twin row radial engine, 18 cylinders. Dad was amused that I knew the timing order for that engine and some other details, which I admit, I have now forgotten. But that was about the extent of the conversations regarding the war. After his death in 1990 I came into possession of some of his memories.  I call them his memories because he was the last to know the whole story behind those items. Those things are some pictures and a few articles that he had at that time. They have been tucked away for years. Including today, it has been 80 years and four days since he stood on that airfield on Le Shima, witness to history. 

 I feel some sense of responsibility in maintaining those memories. Those items are much more than a few pictures and some objects. I feel like the least I can do is leave an explanation of exactly what they are, to the best of my ability. Eighty years have passed since that day. The United States has only existed for 249 years, so that means about 1/3 of our history has passed since then. Eight years really isn't all that long ago in that context. Have we really forgotten? It would seem so to me. I hope these mementos and memories will serve as a reminder not only to myself but the generations succeeding me. I'm a great grandfather now, something my own father never got to experience. 

 What follows are a series of photographs. I hope you find them interesting. I can't say whether my father actually took any of these pictures but I can say with 100% certainty, he was there. I have the documents to prove that. 

That's a Japanese "Betty" bomber arriving on the island. There were instructed to be painted in a specific fashion and accompanied by U.S. fighter planes. P-38 lightening's. 

The delegation preparing to board the plane to Manila. 

Carried by my father on his missions over enemy territory. Made by his grandmother.

Matsuyama, the place of his final bombing mission. 

This is called a blood chit. It is a promise of reward for helping a downed airman evade capture. Imagine putting that in your pocket before going to work every day!

Japanese Type 96 bombers. 

                                                                                      

Dad, 21 years old home from the war. 
 

It's all about the "views"

  I like to comment in these blogs of mine about current events. I realized a little while back that I probably should include more context when doing so. So many things that seem important and pressing at the moment are quickly forgotten. In writing these blogs my hope has always been future generations may read them as a matter of curiosity. In the future many of these "current" events will most certainly be very old news, or perhaps the stuff of everyday life taken for granted much like we talk about the internet today. It is something I need to remind myself to do. 

 This morning I'm seeing and hearing about the Minnesota Vikings football team having a male lead cheerleader. The Minnesota Vikings are a professional sports team here in America. A member of the National Football League. I'm not certain about the entire history of cheerleaders for these professional teams but I'm fairly certain they have always been females. There purpose, according to official sources, is to serve as ambassadors of enthusiasm, amplifying the excitement, boosting morale and engaging the audience! They are an integral part of the team! The real purpose has and continues to be, eye candy. Take one look at the "outfits" these professional ambassadors wear to work and convince me otherwise. 

 There have been male cheerleaders in college and high school sports for a very long time. There purpose was to physically throw the girls into the air to perform certain routines. I don't recall ever seeing any of them dancing the routines however, like in a chorus line, but they very well may have. Generally speaking though, being a male cheerleader is consider to be quite effeminate. That is the issue with the cheerleader for the Minnesota Vikings. He is the "head" cheerleader according to the news. That seems a bit sexist doesn't it? First year on the team and he is in charge? But, beyond that it is a political issue. Everything is a political issue these days. Will there be a boycott? Could be that will happen but I have doubts.

  It's my feeling the Vikings did this to be "inclusive." That's the way of things today. I wonder where the pressure came from? I can't understand why a team would choose to have a male cheerleader knowing full well the controversary it would create unless there was pressure from somewhere. It must be a lot of financial pressure! I can't believe any board of directors, or whatever they use to make such decisions wouldn't be aware of all that. Given the track record of such stunts in the recent past, you would just have to know. For some context consider Dylan Mulvaney. A person detailing her gender transition whose picture appeared on a beer can. It cost the company an estimated 27 billion dollars for doing so. Think of Megan Rapinoe. The fast food chain Subway used her in an ad. The stores faced boycotts and some stores even closed as the result. The problem with Rapinoe? She advocates for LGBTQ+ people. 

  I'm just amused by the whole thing. I realize that here we are in 2025, raising awareness and all. The struggle for inclusivity and acceptance, along with equality top the list of social ills to be eradicated. We are not to view the opposite sex as objects of desire anymore! Heck, we are not supposed to even define what sex/gender a person is, you have to ask. Love is love! Yes, and guys bought Playboy magazines for the articles too! Here's some context. Playboy was a men's magazine first published in 1953. That's the year I was born. The big controversary? They had photographs of bare chested women! Yes, it was quite the scandalous thing. It is estimated that today 30% of the internet are pornographic sites. I suppose to amplify the excitement. I'm just laughing at the contradiction. 

 The purpose of those cheerleaders is to provide eye candy to the fans. The male fans do see them differently than the female fans. It is much the same way guys see other guys, not in the same way but as a comparison. Still, at the sporting events the primary purpose of those cheerleaders, in their skimpy little outfits is to gain the attention of the fans. The girls will certainly attract more "views" than any guys would. It is just a reality. Guys like to look at pretty girls. Girls will compare themselves to other pretty girls. That is the normal thing, the reality of this world. As I said, I'm just amused by the pretense, the facade, and the double talk. Yes, it's another great milestone, a moment in history, and will be remembered forever. Well, at least until some team hires drag queens for the halftime show, or some other such progressive thing. Enjoy the game. Currently eleven professional football teams have male cheerleaders. Twelve have been promised to promote gender equality. Yeah, ok. 

                                                                             

                                                 This guy cheers for the Carolina Panthers.                            

Steadfast

  Ever wonder how the United States became the world power that we are? How did we go from colonies to a nation? Oh, we all know the story, the way it was taught in school. Like a Rocky movie we fought against impossible odds and came out on top. It was indeed our Manifest Destiny. An 18th century ideology. That is what is being taught today with the implication being, it is a bad thing. It was Manifest Destiny that created this nation, like it or not. It is called American expansionism. Yes, we did expand from sea to shining sea. The most important aspect in all of that was the creating of "one nation" one people. Unlike Europe where all the different cultures and identities had to co-exist living next door to one another, in America we had only Americans. Try to imagine if each state was its' own sovereign nation, if there had been no union. 

  I find it interesting that today we hear about the importance, the necessity for Unions. Everyone attempting to form a union, even those that make cups of coffee for a living, what a union. A union will protect and serve your best interests! Unions ensure stability and financial success. They are advocates for workers rights! Sounds just like what the union that created America had in mind to me. Strangely however that concept is being maligned today. When we proclaim we belong to the American union that is a very bad thing. What is the purpose of the American union? To do all those things unions do for every citizen of the country. Just as being in the machinist unions will afford you certain rights and privileges so too should being an American, being in the American union. 

 What is the essence of a union? It the imposition of will upon others. Unions force others to comply with their demands, or suffer the consequences of not doing so. That is exactly what manifest destiny was all about and it was indeed, inevitable. The indigenous peoples were defeated and their land seized. That is also how European nations were formed over the centuries of wars, conflicts, treaties and just plain being conquered. The Roman empire was the majority of what we call western Europe today. They felt like they had a manifest destiny as well. The Roman union. It lasted between 500 to 1000 years depending upon who you ask. When conquered the people were usually offered some form of citizenship, sometimes even allowed to vote. It wasn't automatic, you couldn't just march into Rome and demand citizenship. You had to join the union. 

  Lincoln is famously quoted as saying a nation divided against itself can not stand. It's from the bible, that knowledge is that old at the very least. You can't have a union that is divided either. No, a union must focus only upon its' members. What is sometimes called, exceptionalism. That's a bad word these days when we are supposed to be all inclusive, diverse and non judgmental. Still it is that exceptionalism that formed America and made America one of the most powerful unions on earth! Yes, you have to be exclusive in order to be exceptional. One nation, one union, focused on one goal. The Republic was formed to represent that union, the citizens of the nation. Not for individual gain, not for individual rights, rather for the common good. The idea is to protect the individual, while promoting the union. 

 Is it doomed to failure as many scholars proclaim? History indicates that will be the final result. It won't be a failure of the system however, it will be a failure of the people. It really is as Adams said, only for a moral and religious people. We are seeing the destruction of both. It is being done in the name of progress, of enlightenment and inclusion. It's nothing new, that has taken place across all of human history. Interesting to note is that in our science fiction we have entire worlds united to form a union, a confederation to oppose other confederations. And what is always the evil of those other federations? Their morality doesn't align with our own. Even when there is no religious practices involved morality is the central issue. Doing what is right. The union, the federation will determine that. That is how we became America. We need to keep doing that!    

"Dreams are there to be realized, not to be dreamed. 

 To realize a dream, you have to stay steadfast in your strong will." ~ Gackt     

 

We can not remain long divided among ourselves. It isn't political ideology that is causing this divisive atmosphere. It is that we have forgotten what created us in the first place. As we proclaim America is a land of immigrants, we must remember and realize that it was those immigrants that joined together, formed the union and created America. They didn't do so by celebrating their individuality but rather by their desire to form one! Indeed it was those immigrants that expanded ever westward fulfilling the manifest destiny. That expansion began in 1803 after the purchase of the Louisiana territory. France sold it to us, they needed the money. The expansion began, immigrants arrived with the dream of owning their own land, living free from oppression, they embraced the American Republic and became Americans! We do need to remain steadfast in that dream! Be the exception!   

                                                                                      

You are required to raise your right hand while saying the oath of citizenship. It's a promise made. It does require a moral person to fulfill that promise. That is what Adams' was talking about.  

Weighing in

  Yesterday President Trump met with President Putin. It's rather an amazing thing when you think about that, two presidents, heads of state, and them just to meet being such a big deal. It's like fighters meeting each other at the weigh in. There is so much tension in the air and the reporters are there, stirring the pot, trying to get that big story. It's just the prelude though, the chance to sell more tickets to the show. A battle for what? That is the question in all of this political strategizing. The answer is the same as always, power and control. The ultimate prize being, commerce. To dominate the world economic markets and control the wealth of the world. That's the proverbial pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

  The meeting yesterday was promoted as an opportunity to negotiate a cease fire. President Zelensky of Ukraine wasn't involved in those discussions. It's reported he'll talk with President Trump, perhaps on Monday. No agreements were reached however and the war continues on. It has to be a tough spot for Zelensky. Imagine being the president of a nation involved in a war but you're not invited to talk about ending that war. Instead two other Presidents are talking that over, deciding on your fate. You are just a pawn to them. It has to be humiliating. But you're basically broke, not much you can do. There is some talk of all three meeting, when the other two decide on that. I see that like your parents talking, when they reach an agreement they'll call you in and let you have your say. The outcome isn't going to change but you're supposed to feel included.

  What is it that Ukraine has that Russia wants? Well the answer is simple enough, Russia wants to regain its' seat as a world power. Russia wants its' territory back under its' control. That means that NATO would have to stay out of their business. NATO is the biggest threat to Russian dominance of the world. That is what Russia really wants to do, but those pesky Americans are always interfering, dragging NATO into the fight. Perhaps, just perhaps, a deal could be reached with America and some ground regained. Force is always going to be the last resort. Neither side wants to say that line, " this is going to hurt me more than it is going to hurt you" just before imposing their will. In this case that may include intercontinental ballistic missiles! 

 The world of political intrigue. It isn't just in the movies, it is real life and is being played out before us. President Trump enters as the great deal maker. That is his claim to fame, he even wrote a book about the "art of the deal." President Putin fancies himself as a great CZAR, the leader of strength! He rides horses bare chested! Both have egos the size of elephants. Alpha males. What their personal motivations may be are anyone's guess. Is it simple ego? Why would you want to become the President? Is it the ultimate power position? Just why did Trump decide to enter the political arena? As for Putin I expect his motivation is simply power. He passed a number of "tests" imposed by Boris Yeltsin, his predecessor, to become the next President of Russia. Those tests indicated that Putin would not move toward a Democracy. Yes there will be elections in Russia, but the people don't get to choose the next leader. Vladmir Putin would defend against any nonsense like that happening. He would remain strong.

  There really are just the two of us, aren't there? It's the United States of America vs Russia. All the other nations in the world are just the pieces on the chess board. NATO was formed to provide protection for the pawns, for the lesser pieces. They can be sacrificed if it becomes necessary to do so. Russia certainly doesn't want Ukraine to be included in that blanket of protection. Will Ukraine be sacrificed? That's what President Trump and President Putin were talking about. It all really comes down to one thing; who can afford the loss? 

 You know it really is like Rocky said: it's not how many times you get knocked down, it's how many times you get up that counts. Can Russia be put down? Or will America eventually be the one that falls? The Russia we know today is very young, only 34 years old. But you could argue that Russia existed for well over a thousand years before that. America is 249 years old. What happens when Putin leaves office? The United States will continue on well after Trump. I have no doubt about that. The United States isn't opposing the king but we are opposing communism, socialism and a direct democracy. Our constitution will continue to ensure that. An article five convention will only strengthen that. I'm looking forward to it.