The Supreme Court’s Birthright Citizenship Ruling: Constitutional or a Supreme Blunder?

The U.S. Supreme Court has once again demonstrated their fallibility and shortsightedness with their recent 6-3 decision regarding “birthright” citizenship just like their infamous 2010 “Citizens United” blunder, which essentially declared that the U.S. government was “for sale”, which has turned our nation from a democratic constitutional republic into a neo-fascist corporatocracy and surveillance state.  

Originally the 14^th Amendment (adopted in 1868) was intended to offer citizenship to all formerly enslaved individuals in order to aid their full  integration into the society. It was never intended to provide legal cover for individuals attempting to sneak in our country in direct violation of both our immigration policies  and defiance of our national sovereignty or allow individuals born elsewhere to evade the steps to become a U.S. citizen while obtaining legal residency via a child born in the U.S., even if the parents are here in violation of our immigration laws.   

There’s no disagreement that a child born on U.S. soil of foreign parents should be entitled to American citizenship. However, should that still apply if the parents are here illegally, in violation of migration laws, and with no other intent than that of securing citizenship for their child in order to remain in the United States themselves? Thus, it appears the Supreme Court got lost among the trees and failed to see the forest much like it did with their 2010 Citizens United blunder.

America, like every other nation, has a strict immigration policy and process for anyone wishing to settle here. It also adheres to international law when it comes to asylum seekers. It’s worth mentioning that economic immigration (ie: finding a job or a better paying job) is NOT accepted as a legitimate reason to seek asylum.  

The United States also has the legal right as a sovereign nation to establish borders and enforce those borders. No different from any other country, including those from where these migrants originate (which, by the way, are far more stringent and brutal than anything we would impose).

The question now is what, if anything, we can do about it? The most obvious answer would be federal judicial term limits (as well as mandatory retirement at age 65). Restricting the amount of time an individual can remain on the Supreme Court would ensure the justices remained relevant not only of the current laws of this land, but also cognizant of the current political, economic, and social trends, as well as the mood of the country.

One justice latter admitted that a major reasons for the passage of Citizens United was their limited knowledge about money in politics.  I submit they may be equally ignorant when it comes to the cost of illegal immigration and the burden it imposes on the average taxpayer.

 As an aside, in case you were wondering, Congress itself conservatively estimates that the cost of illegal immigration in the United States is $183 billion dollars, up 37% since 2017. To put it another way, that’s roughly $8,776.00 per illegal immigrant annually. That’s how much you and I are paying out in tax dollars. The Supreme Court’s ruling just increased that costs that we must bear.

A second option, aside from mandatory term limits,  would be to transfer the costs of illegal immigration from the taxpayers to the responsible parties. Specifically, that means billing their country of origin the cost of absorbing their citizens. Now, I know some of you cynics out there are probably saying that they’ll never pay it, and you’re probably right.

However, to ensure that they do pick of the cost, we need only to deduct the cost from the foreign aid the U.S. State Department sends them annually. Not only does it keep some of our tax dollars at home, it provides a bit of “encouragement” for them to address the issue of illegal immigration from their end.

As an example, Mexico, which is the country of origin for most illegal immigrates, receives about $200 million dollars in foreign aid (remember again, that’s our tax dollars). Of that, $45.5 million goes directly to humanitarian aid which is supposed to address the immigration issue. By offsetting the cost to U.S. taxpayers, we would save that $8,776.00 we spend on each illegal immigrant, we also give them an added incentive to do more to prevent it on their end.

 As an aside, Nicaragua gets about $30 million each year in U.S. foreign aid. Honduras receives bout $200 million of our tax dollars annually in foreign aid  while El Salvador gets $230 million.  That’s a whole lot of money we---the American Taxpayer---could save by offsetting the costs.

Of course, we could impose a fine of the parents and require them to enter into a mandatory citizenship program which also requires that they learn English, and obtain gainful employment though a "Green Card to Citizenship" program, otherwise face deportation. Unfortunately, given today's political climate, this is unlikely to happen.   

Regardless of whether judicial term limits are imposed or we start passing on the cost illegal immigration back on to the country of origin, one thing is for sure. The American Taxpayer can not continue to bear the costs for governmental incompetence. We are not their “cash cow” to use whenever and however they want.

Issues like illegal immigration should be addressed by voters at the ballot box, along with other long term tax matters. Government (as well as both political parties) are supposed to represent us. Instead, it serves Wall Street. It’s past time that we remind them of that. What do you think?

 

The Cost of the Border Crisis Testimony to the House BudgetCommittee…May 8, 2024

Birthright Citizenship

Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship on Constitutionalgrounds

Justices Reject Trump’s Effort to End Birthright Citizenship

Birthright Citizenship Under the U.S. Constitution

Trump Getting Real with Zelensky: Find Peace with Russia or No More Money

 

Much has already been made of the heated meeting between President Vladmir Zelensky of Ukraine and President Donald Trump and Vice President  JD Vance.  President Trump, in effect, told Zelensky to make peace with Putin or he was taking away the keys to Ukraine’s war machine…and put a damn tie on where he’s at it!

Zelensky seems to believe that with U.S. financial backing, he will be able to stalemate Putin virtually indefinitely, perhaps even in the long run, obtain NATO membership. That’s something Trump opposes. Putin has attempted several overtures at peace, which Zelensky has essentially blown off like, and why not? He’s got the biggest bully in the world in his court, the United States.     

Trump used the meeting to make a very public statement to Zelensky, the people of Ukraine, to Putin, and to the world---no more money, no more armament and no mineral deal until Zelensky puts on his big boy pants and can set down for a serious discussion about peace with Russia, otherwise we walk, and he can deal with one very angry Russian bear.

 NATO, which also heavily depends on the US, can do as it pleases, but the US needs to set this one out thank you very much should they continue to poke the bear (and kudos to Italy’s Prime Minister, Georgia Meloni, for rejecting UK-French plan to send European troops to Ukraine). It’s one thing to come to the aid of ally being attacked, but when they bring it on themselves, maybe a lesson in “told-you-so” diplomacy is in order.

Putin, on the other hand, has committed much of his military to what amounts to a slow bleed of Ukraine’s economy and military. His has activated antiquated weapon systems (such as outdated tanks) and even employed North Korean troops in what amounts to a ”fight for food” deal for the bankrupt Communist state.

The only sensible reason for Putin to do this is one of taking a measured stance against Ukraine. Putin didn’t start the war. Zelensky and NATO did (with a little help from a former president’s son looking to score a big financial payday). Putin has been consistent his insistence that NATO missiles and armament will not be deployed along his border with Ukraine. Zelensky and NATO thought that by playing the U.S. card, Putin could be intimidated. That wasn’t going to happen

Putin is not a spineless leader of the sort that Europe has produced in abundance lately (for an example, look at their immigration disaster and its effect on crime and their culture). Putin is very intelligent. He was a senior KGB officer. He doesn’t bluff. Unlike European leaders, he doesn’t care if you call him names.  However, since the fall of the USSR and Soviet Russia, their leaders, starting with Mikhail Gorbachev, have tried  once again to build bridges to the West.

Ever since the days of Peter the Great, Russia has wanted to join with the West and act as a bridge between East and West. At one point,  they even asked to join NATO and was rejected out of hand and perhaps justifiably so. With the end of the Cold War, there had been a lot of talk about dismantling NATO.

Therefore, NATO’s justification for its continued existence depended on having a bad guy and that bad guy is Putin. It’s also why many neo-cons and policy gamers are anxious to start a new Cold War. War is profitable---cold or hot. It bears mentioning that the establishment of the Warsaw Pact came about only after the creation of NATO and then with the intention of being a defensive deterrent, presumably against the same military and industrial complex President Eisenhower spoke of in his 1961 “Farewell Address to the Nation”.   

In 1990, as the Warsaw Pact nations began to fall, Secretary of State James Baker informed Soviet Foreign Minister Edward Shevardnadze (in the presence of Gorbachev) that once the unification of Germany was complete, NATO had no intention of advancing “one inch to the east”, and yet within ten years, that’s exactly what happened. Gorbachev saw it as a time to restart and one of openness or as he called it, “Perestroika”. As Gorbachev said at the time, “we are duty bound to learn to live in peace”.

One by one, the former Warsaw Pact countries of Poland (1999),  Hungary (1999), Romania (2004), Czechia (1999), Bulgaria (2004), the Baltic states (2004), and so forth were admitted into NATO, and each time Russian leaders protested through all the proper international channels and were ignored.

At first, the Russians were assured there would be no more, until there was. But each time a country joined, NATO missiles were deployed all along their border. As a result, Russia was slowly helmed in. It would be like Russian missiles being deployed along our southern border, first in the numerous Caribbean islands one by one, until finally, in Mexico along the Rio Grande.

What if the Russians started deploying missiles along the Canadian border just like what happened after Norway and Denmark joined NATO in 1949, Finland in 2023, or Sweden in 2024.   How would you expect Washington would react?

Actually, you don’t even have to imagine. That was what the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis was all about. It was Russia’s response to U.S. nuclear tipped intermediate range “Jupiter” missiles previously being deployed in Turkey (which had joined NATO in 1952).

Amusingly, then Soviet Premier Khrushchev would walk visitors to his vacation home on the Black Sea to the balcony and hand them  a pair of binoculars, asking “what do you see?”. They typically replied, “I see the sky” or “I see the water”. He would then look through the binoculars and bellow “I see American missiles in Turkey aimed at my dacha!”.

It seems that everyone knew that a NATO presence in Ukraine would be the straw to break the bear’s back, yet they expected Putin to do nothing but grouse and saber rattle like the West does, but that didn’t happen. Putin secured the Crimea, which has been a Russian possession since 1783 when it was annexed by Catherine the Great. It has a majority Russian population. Strategically, the Crimea is the home of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, at Sebastopol, which is their version of our naval base in San Diego.

Russian is taught in its schools and it’s the common language of its people. It was followed by a plebiscite, asking the citizens whether they wanted to remain apart of Russia or the Ukraine. The overwhelming majority said “Russia”.

But this had nothing to do with the history of the region, the will of the people, national sovereignty, or even the long standing presence of the Russian military in and around Sebastopol. This was about oil and gas, which had been discovered in abundance in the Black Sea, and western oil companies wanted it.

In addition to large reserves of oil and gas, the Ukraine has vast deposits of key minerals, much of it in the disputed Donbas Region which is occupied by Russian troops. The deal President Trump was willing to sign with President Zelensky would have allowed a U.S. presence in the Donbas (technically still belonging to Ukraine) to mine for deposits valuable minerals, with each country splitting the processes 50/50. It would enable the Ukraine to begin paying the U.S. back some of the billions it owes us in aid, retain Ukrainian soil, and help Ukraine to rebuild its infrastructure.

In addition, it would be an incentive for Putin’s troops to either withdraw from the areas being explored and mined, or perhaps even pull back altogether. After all, Putin doesn’t want to kill or injure U.S. civilians at any cost. It would serve as a de facto “economic buffer zone” without the need for a single pair of U.S. military boots on the ground and each side wins.

However, Zelensky needed to agree to a peace talks with Russia, and that’s where he has repeatedly dropped the ball. When it comes to power politics, Zelensky is out of his league. He’s a standup comedian turned politician unlike others who are politicians turned fools.  Accordingly, he got a dressing down in his meeting with Trump and Vice President Vance. He was put on notice that the U.S. would not finance his war with Russia indefinitely or for free.

Even during the early stages of WWII, before the U.S. was directly involved, Prime Minister Churchill gave the U.S. 99 year leases to bases on their island possessions in the Caribbean as a “down payment” and “thank you “ to all the war material and economic support we provided to England under the Lend Lease Act of 1941 (the act also extended to the Republic of China, France, the Soviet Union and other allied nations).   As of 2024, we have given Ukraine $174.2 billion dollars in aid (military and otherwise) while the European Union has given about $18 billion.

President Trump announced during his speech to Congress on March 4^th, that he had received a letter from Zelensky finally agreeing to sit down with Putin and hammer out some sort of peace deal. It may not be entirely to Zelensky’s liking, or that of Putin’s, but it will mean no more killing on either side and ending the destruction of Ukrainian cities and villages.

In addition, President Zelensky said in his letter to President Trump that he was still willing to sign the minerals agreement, which would be a good thing for the Ukrainian economy. Ukraine is a country with vast untapped economic potential, from the oil and gas reserves it does control, to its timber and mineral wealth, and it possesses the most fertile soil in Europe and quite possibly the world. (hence the moniker “breadbasket of Europe”).

This was also an education of sorts for Zelensky about what Otto von Bismarck called “Realpolitik”. Never disrespect your benefactor or take them for granted. By that, don’t show up in casual slacks and t-shirt and “knock-around” boots to meet the leader of a world power and expect to be given a virtual blank check for a never-ending war without a plan to pay them back.  America isn’t your ATM. Show some humility. Even Churchill arrived dressed to the nines with hat in hand and he offered at least island leases!  

 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

  Zelensky vows to ‘make things right’ with Trump and negotiate peace

How Gorbachev was misled over assurances against NATO expansion

4 Lessons to be learned from Zelensky’s White House Meeting

 

What they said: Trump, Zelenskyy and Vance’s heated argumentin the Oval Office

NATO Members

Russo-Ukrainian War  

Controversy regarding the legitimacy of eastward NATOexpansion

Lend Lease Act

EU Assistance to Ukraine (in U.S. Dollars)

No suit, no lunch, no respect: Zelenskyy-Trump feud startwith a fashion dig

The War in Gaza: A Prelude to WWIII?

On December 3, 2023, a seven hour long attack on three commercial ship and the guided missile destroyer, the USS Carney, took place in the Red Sea as the U.S. warship patrolled the area. The attack by ballistic missiles came from Yemen in four separate waves. The Pentagon claimed the attack was the work of Iran, through which the terrorist Houthi organization carried it out. The Pentagon went on to claim that the USS Carney shot down three of the attacking missiles.

The U.S. Navy ship detected a "anti-ship ballistic missile" launched from an area controlled by the Muslim terrorist group directed toward the "M/V Unity Explorer", a 656 foot general bulk cargo ship built in 2016 sailing under Bahamas registration. Weighing in at 61,000 tons fully loaded, she recently departed Port Said in Egypt bound for Singapore. At the time of the attack, the Unity Explorer was carrying grain from U.S. based Cargill.  She is owned and managed by Ray Shipping of Tel Aviv Israel.

The "Number 9", also came under attack. Built in 2007, the cargo container sails under Panamanian registration.  Ironically, the 856 foot ship was sailing from Singapore and bound for Port of As Suways (Suez Port) in Egypt. The ship is owned by Number 9 Ltd/Cargo Harbor of England and managed by Bernhard Schulte Shipmanagement out of Newcastle-upon-Tyne in Northeast England.

A third ship, the bulk carrier "M/V AOM Sophie II", was also attacked by the Houthi missiles. Like the "Number 9", the AOM Sophie II, built in 2021, sails under Panamanian registration. At 751 feet, she has a 43,500  gross tonnage. Her registered owners are Kyowa Kisen Company, Ltd and Green Spanker Shipping S.A. while she is under the management of Cleanseas Shipmanagement, Inc., located in Manila, Philippines.  

The USS Carney (DDG-64), a heavily armed Arliegh-Burke guided missile destroyer, is part of the USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group operating in the region as part of a two prong U.S. naval carrier strike force which includes the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower. Each strike force consists of approximately eight warships plus one aircraft carrier and eight squadrons of attack aircraft plus one squadron of support planes and helicopters.  That's a helluva lot of firepower.

In addition, there is likely increased submarine activity, not to mention spy planes, drones, and dedicated satellites as well as communications monitoring.  The British also sent a carrier based strike group to the area along with a detachment of Royal Marines, as part of a coordinated military show of force as well as to provide air and naval support for Israel.              

Perhaps the key reason for the attack, other than its proximity to the war zone, is its ownership by Ray Shipping of Tel Aviv Israel. The sinking of cargo ship would have serious consequences for global shipping in the region since it could block all traffic going through the Red Sea. The Red Sea accounts for 30% of the world's cargo traffic.

However, Houthi military command in Yemen, while acknowledging the attacks, stated that their intelligence indicated the three commercial ships had ties to Israel. As indicated above, only one of the cargo ships has Israeli ties. The Houthi have previously sent guided missiles from Yemen up the Red Sea toward Israel settlements in the south. These missile attacks were successfully intercepted.

The Pentagon went on to say that it would pursue all appropriate responses in coordination with its allies and partners, which presumably means Great Britain, which has a carrier strike force offshore at Gaza, and the Israeli military, which is currently conducting military operations in Gaza. By the way, if Yemen sounds familiar, it might be because in 2000, Al Qaeda was almost successful in sinking the USS Cole while it was docked in Yemen's Aden harbor. 17 sailors were killed and 37 were injured.

Meanwhile, it should be noted that the International Criminal Court ("ICC") has initiated a criminal investigation for alleged war crimes against Israel under Article 31 of the Geneva Convention for the deaths of civilians in Gaza and the West Bank dating back to 2014.

These deaths result from not just military attacks, but also the alleged deliberate withholding of water, food, medicine, and electricity according to  the Chief Prosecutor for the ICC, Karim Khan. Mr. Khan, a British attorney, claims that some 2.3 million people have been affected.

The Israeli-Palestinian crisis, contrary to popular opinion, didn't start with Israel's 1948 Declaration of Independence. The situation actually dates back to the early 1900's when various Zionist organizations began lobbying in earnest for a Jewish homeland due to the centuries long progroms,  Many progroms restricted Jewish ownership of property, limited job opportunities and access to higher education, and resulted in numerous murders, rapes, and physical attacks.  The most notable of the Zionist Movements were led by Max Nordau, Chaim Weizmann, and Theodore Herzl.

Control of what was then called the Palestinian or British Mandate came about after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1918 and the seizure of lands by the British and French empires (between 1920 and 1948, the Levant was known as "Mandatory Palestine" per the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine). The earlier Balfour Declaration of 1917 guaranteed British support for the creation of Jewish homeland in Mandatory Palestine, but didn't say when.  

This was followed by the creation of the Zionist Commission for Palestine under Chaim Weizmann, president of the British Zionist Federation, in 1918 which aggressively promoted Zionist activities in the region such as smuggling Jews into Palestine to build up the numbers and give Jews a stronger voice for statehood. They also actively fundraised to raise money for Zionist programs.  While the British continued to drag their feet on the issue, World War II brought the matter to a head.

Capitalizing of the horrors of the Holocaust amid the Nuremberg Trials and an unrelenting public relations campaign by various Zionist organizations plus global support (especially from Hollywood, Wall Street, and other financial institutions), the British finally relented and agreed to the creation of a two part state known as the 1947 United Nations Partition with Jerusalem falling under a UN trusteeship.

While the proposal was rejected by the Arabs, David ben Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency for Israel since 1935 and part of the World Zionist Organization, declared independence for the new State of Israel on May 14, 1948. Ironically, some leaders at the time joked that had it not been for Hitler and the Nazis, it's likely there wouldn't have been ample support of the creation of a Jewish state, and thus Hitler should be credited as the step-father of Israel.

Immediately following the declaration, armies from Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, along with a composite of "volunteers" from Libya, Morocco, Iran, the UAE, and other Arab nations known as the Arab Liberation Army, invaded. Fighting with weapons scrounged from every corner of the world, including German WWII surplus, Israel bitterly fought back. 

Following a nearly ten month long war, a ceasefire was arranged. Israel retained all its land plus captured 60% of the land originally designated as part of the State of Palestine. The West Bank and East Jerusalem fell under the administration of Jordan and Gaza fell to Egyptian occupation. But the real losers were the Palestinians.

Approximately 700,000 Palestinians were either evicted or forced to flee from their homes in what became known as the "Nakba" (the "catastrophe"). Meanwhile, 260,000 Jews were evicted from various Arab nations with another 100,000 were trapped in Jerusalem.   Approximately 7000 Arabs were killed and 13,000 civilian (mostly Palestinians) perished. The Israelis lost 4,200 fighters and 2000 civilians.

This became the first of a long series of wars and terrorist attacks in which Arab nations have sought to "push the Jews into the sea" as former Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser once said, and yet while the damage and loss of life has been tremendous on all side, Israel remains.

Today, Israel still faces a number of enemies hell bent on its total annihilation, including Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon, the Houthi in Yemen, Boko Haram in Nigeria, the Taliban in Afghanistan, ISIS/ISIL in Iraq and Syria,  Al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia, the Al-Nusrah Front in Syria, along with dozens of others scattered around the world.  

However, the most threatening is the Islamic Republic of Iran, a extremist state if there ever was one. The Islamic government has repeatedly vowed to "wipe Israel off the map" by any and every means possible, including nuclear, even if it meant its own total destruction.

Iran regularly underwrites, trains, and arms the majority of these terrorist groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah (they refer to the Israel and the United States as "Little Satan" and "Big Satan"). And while the people of Gaza are regularly sent billions in global aide (the U.S. alone has sent $5.2 billion dollars), much of it is sidetracked by Hamas which it uses for its own purposes.

How is Hamas able to do this you ask? Simple. Hamas is the elected government in Gaza. In 2006, Hamas won the Palestinian legislative election for Gaza and the West Bank. In 2007, they militarily defeated Fatah, a secular nationalist political party which once dominated the governing Palestine National Authority. Politically, Hamas controls 44.45% of the legislative seats while Fatah has 41.43% of the seats. The balance are a hodgepodge of various, mostly Marxist, socialist, or theocratic oriented parties.      

So, where does this leave us? The United States has been itching to get at Iran ever since the hostage crisis in 1979 when 52 Americans were held hostage for a year. Attempts by the Carter Administration to free them failed, and in one particular case, horrendously. The fact that Iranian aided terrorist groups also helped bring about the defeat of U.S. and coalition occupation forces in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as flustered U.S. plans in Syria hasn't helped the situation.

The U.S. sees the situation in Gaza as another attempt by Iran to spread its influence (especially at the expense of U.S. regional allies like Saudi Arabia) and encircle Israel. There's no question the U.S. will do whatever it can to destabilize the Islamic State or that our naval presence is, in truth, little more than bait with a B1 bomber attached.  Whether Iran takes the bait remains to be seen.

But what about the Palestinians? They been used for decades as global pawns for an agenda which no longer belongs to them, and what do they have to show for it?  Tens of thousands are dead, maimed, disabled with millions living a Diaspora, and despite rhetoric to the contrary, they live under the iron boot of a military state. It's poverty rate is 31.9% and a quarter of the population are unemployed.

Meanwhile, Hamas get rich on the misery of their own people. It has an investment portfolio, including real estate, valued at over $500 million and a military budget of $300 million. Yet more Palestinians will die due to starvation, lack of medicine and medical care, potable water, or disease than the war. Why? Many blame Israel, but what about Hamas? Surely by now the time has come to beat swords into plowshares. If not, then when?

 

If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

Gaza War: US, British Marines 'Train for Action'; 2nd US Carrier Reported Near West of Cyprus

Total Causalities, Arab-Israeli Conflicts: 1860 - Present

Israeli Casualties of War

ODNI: Terrorists Groups

Gaza is plagued by poverty, but Hamas has no shortage ofcash. Where does it come from?

'Hell on earth': Israel unrest spotlights dire conditions in Gaza

International aid to Palestinians

Where Hamas gets its money and why it's so hard to stop, even as the U.S. steps up efforts

Biden's 'Sword of Damocles': Israel and Gaza. Is There No Way Out?

(NOTE: This is a evolving story). President Joe Biden is facing mounting pressure to withhold military and financial support from Israel until, at least, the situation in Gaza is resolved. The "Gang of Four" or "The Squad"--- Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), have all voiced their outrage at Israel and support for the Palestinians (including the actions of Hamas and its allies), along with a number of other Democrats such as Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI) . Many also opposed the $735 million dollars weapons sale to Israel a week prior to the missile attacks on Israel.

However, not all Democrats are taking an anti-Israel stand. Rep. Elaine Luria (D-VA) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) are among several Democrats who've spoken up about Israel's right to exist and right to protect itself. At the same time, Ben Rhoades, a top foreign policy advisor for Obama, is urging Biden to reconsider our relationship with Israel in light of changing political and economic realities (such as the rise of China, the increasing influence of Iran and the resurrection of the Taliban in Afghanistan).

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) has spoken in support of Israel, and has urged Biden to renew America's commitment to stand by the only democracy in the Middle East, and one of our staunchest allies. Senator Mitch McConnell, speaking on the Senate floor, harangued some of his fellow senators for their stance against Israel. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) spoke out in support of Democrat and New York mayoral candidate Andrew Yang's comments supporting Israel's right to defend itself, while coming under criticism from  fellow Democrats for "supporting genocide".

The conflict now unfolding in Israel is nothing new. It has existed since the moment of Israel's rebirth in 1946, after nearly 2000 years of Diaspora and a mere three years after the Holocaust. In fact, terrorist attacks began almost immediately after Great Britain, which controlled what was called "the Palestine Mandate" as it was known then, and the resettlement of Jews starting in 1946; many settling on self-sustaining farms called kibbutz's.  This lead to the formation of the para-military Palmach (along with the Haganah), the forerunner of the Israeli army.

Since 1948, Israel has fought eight wars, suffered the murder of its athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972, and hijackings (the most famous of which was Entebbe), faced numerous uprisings, and endured hundreds, if not thousands, of attacks on its civilian population by dozens of terrorist organizations; the majority of which sponsored by rogue states such as Libya, Iran, Egypt, and Syria; several of whom promising to "wipe Israel off the map". 

To date, over 3750 rockets, many of which containing construction grade rebar as shrapnel, have been launched at Israel by Hamas and its allies, with roughly 90% being intercepted thanks to it's "Iron Dome", which is comprised of a comprehensive system of interlocking missile batteries, artillery, radar, high energy lasers, supported by coastal "corvettes" ships (ironically, made in Germany) and air support (and likely, some satellite intelligence provided by a friendly nation or two).

But it's not good enough. Twelve people have been killed in Israel, including two children thus far. In Gaza, 232 individuals have died, of which 65 were children, 1900 were wounded, and over 58,000 displaced as a result of Israeli airstrikes. 

Although Israel has made peace with some of its former enemies, including Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain, the violence continues, but why? And why Gaza? Why would a tiny strip of land along the northern Sinai, bordering with Egypt to the west and Israel to the east, want to take on the massive military might of Israel? Isn't this about Israel's right to exist? Doesn't Israel have "clean hands" in this fight? The short answer is no. 

Israel is not without a measure of guilt. It can't hide solely behind its claim of right to exist or self-defense.  Gaza is a defacto imprisoned state.  Because Hamas remains committed to destroying and engaging in terrorist tactics, Israel, along with Egypt, imposed a blockade around Gaza in 2007, which extends to a three miles limits into the Mediterranean, and covers all air traffic in and out.

As a result of the blockade, Gaza is essentially isolated.  Only the most basic supplies are reaching the people inside, and even that is tenuous. According to a report by the United Nations, 1/3 of critical drugs remain out of stock at any given time. 35% of Gaza's farmland and 85% of its territorial fishing waters are completely or partially inaccessible due to the blockade. 54% of the approximate 1.6 million people living in Gaza are classified as "food insecure" and 75% receive some form of international aid.

In addition, of the 1.6 million living in Gaza, nearly 50% are under 18 years of age. 38% live at or below the poverty level. 26% of the eligible workforce is unemployed, including 38% of the youth. 85% of the schools are force to operate on a double shift, in part due to the sporadic availability of electricity.

Most of the major infrastructure has either been destroyed, is damaged or in need of parts, and rendered inoperative by the lack of fuel and/or electricity. As a result, 90% of the water from the Gaza aquifer is undrinkable. Just under 212 million gallons (80 million liters) of raw sewage is dumped directly into the Mediterranean daily.

All requests for aid, be it housing, infrastructure, hospitals, schools---whatever---must be submitted to the Israeli and Egyptian governments for prior approval. Thus far, only a tiny portion has been approved.  As a result, much of what enters Gaza is smuggled in.

 In fact, Hamas has invested much of its resources into digging tunnels and acquiring weapons. Many of the tunnels are used for both smuggling badly needed supplies into Gaza as well as arms, while armed terrorists sneak into Israel. As a result, Israeli troops conduct daily seek and destroy missions. The Israeli military also claims that Hamas regularly uses civilians as cover for their military operations, which, in turn, serves, as anti-Israel propaganda.

Case in point, Israel routinely alerts civilians of incoming missile attacks or shelling 24 hours prior via air leaflet drops and megaphones.  While civilians are "allegedly" forced to remain in place, Hamas often moves its operations to another location (usually at the very last moment while firing off one finally volley to trigger the Israeli response). The result is dead civilians. Sadly, the use of civilians, especially women and children, as a shield has long been a tool of terrorists.

So, what can be done? The situation between Israel and the Palestinians is untenable. It amounts to nothing less than a mutual death grip on the other. Terrorism is the last tool of the weak. Israel is the regional powerhouse. The only democracy in the Middle East, and a reliable friend of America's. Egypt, on the other hand, participates in the blockade while largely turning a blind eye to the smuggling, especially of Humanitarian supplies, while trying to keep out weapons as much as possible.

Our near unconditional support of Israel has earned us a lot of enemies around the world, but especially in the Middle East. The rise of extreme Islam is a indirect result of our support and Israel's existence. It was one of the reasons for the cowardly 9/11 attack, as well as the attack on the USS Cole, on our embassies (mainly in Africa), and U.S. troops everywhere.

The pro-Israeli lobby is one the most powerful in Washington, which can call on tens of millions of Jews and Christian Evangelicals throughout the country at a moment's notice. That's a lot of voters. It's also one of the wealthiest lobbying groups with hundreds of millions of dollars in its coffers.

Meanwhile, in Europe, which was once a diehard supporter of Israel, is now faced with millions of newly arrived Muslims; a silent invasion of Europe which has proven to be successful largely due to the naiveté of European politicians (I won't call them "leaders"), especially Germany's Angela Merkel. At the same time, radical Islam is on the rise not just in the Middle East, but in Africa and Asia (even China isn't immune. It's facing increasing problems in its northwestern provinces among the Uyghurs).  

Israel regards its situation with Palestinians as an internal security issue, and as such, it's own private affair. Yet, the same argument could have been made with Nazi Germany and the Jews (as it was for a time). Israel seems to have learned a lot from the Nazis, especially when it came to the establishment of ghettos (most notably the Warsaw Ghetto), and now is facing its own uprising in Gaza.  

Unlike Nazi Germany, it's not as easy to hide or cover-up in today's around the clock media coverage. At the same time, violence on civilians, be they Palestinian or Israeli, is never acceptable (and by "violence" I mean killings as well as depriving people of the basic necessities such as food, water, and medicine. It matters little to the desperate if they die fast or slowly).

Israel and Egypt needs to end their total blockade of Gaza while insisting on new free and fair elections which excludes terrorists. The people of Gaza deserve the right to live in peace without either a Israeli or Arab gun pointed at their heads. Humanitarian aid must be the first thing allowed in along with parts to repair water, waste, and electrical installations, along with hospitals. Territorial fishing and farming rights need to be immediately restored. Terror can only thrive in hopelessness.

Meanwhile, Gaza must guarantee no further attacks on Israel. Whether they want to acknowledge Israel or not is irrelevant. That's a child's game.  It exists and will continue to exist. Period. However, it will not tolerate attacks, be it by missiles or cowards in the night with bombs or guns. That means it must end its dealing with terror states like Iran, Pakistan, and China.  It also means aggressively removing terrorist organizations like Hamas from Gaza.

Israel and Gaza must build a new relationship with each other. Trade would be a great start. It would not only build both economies, but create relationships. Both sides need to treat each other with respect. They don't have to like each other, but mutual respect doesn't require "liking" the other.  Gaza must also be free to choice its own political and economic destiny without interference from Israel or any other nation (so long as that choice doesn't include the ability to wage war or engage in terrorism). 

The U.S. must encourage peace in the region with more than words. The best way to do this is do cutback on selling Israel offensive weapons. Israel already has its own weapons industry which also happens to be one of the best in the world. To paraphrase the Bible, let's sell plowshares instead of swords. Let's provide Gaza with the same economic opportunities too.

We must also stop trying to "Americanize" other nations. We need to accept that not everyone wants to like us, or even deal with us.  We invaded Afghanistan to pursue those responsible for 9/11. We found and killed most of them, except the one most responsible, Osama bin Laden. He was being protected by a supposed ally, Pakistan. Nevertheless, "justice" was served. At that point we should have packed up and left. We didn't, and more people died or were injured.

We invaded Iraq a second time to remove Saddam Hussein. Why? He was a spent force. Nothing but a loudmouth bully. We could have keep him pinned in indefinitely, but we wanted to create a potential launching pad against Iran. Defeating Iraq's military was easy. So was grabbing its oil and gas production. Establishing a lasting peace has proven to be almost impossible. Same with Libya. There are other ways beside war to bring rouge nations or their leaders to heel.

Israel and Egypt can do better than try and cut off Gaza from the world. Meanwhile, Hamas is not the spokesperson for the Palestinians. If anyone was in this situation, it was the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Meanwhile, the Israeli government needs to reel in these "settlers" who seek to kick families who just so happen to be Palestinian, off their land and out of their homes, citing their "right" to the land just because they're Jews, which is what started this round of violence in the first place.

Israel is a nation of laws. It has a duty to treat everyone---and I mean everyone---equally. Would they allow Palestinian settlers to remove a Jewish families because their family once lived there? Absolutely not. So why allow these Right Wing Jewish zealots to do it? Remember the quote from the great Jewish sage and rabbi, Hillel, "what is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole of the Torah. The rest is commentary".  Egypt and Jordan are friends with both Israel and the Palestinian people. Make use of that. They would be the perfect choice to negotiate a lasting peace between both parties.

Israel must decide if it's going to be a nation of laws and equality or a nation no different from Nazi Germany and it's warped concept of "Aryan Superiority". It cannot claim moral superiority while exercising immorality against any people, nor can Hamas claim victimhood while instigating terror or using its own people as hostages. The hatred and distrust may always remain, but the fighting and dying must stop once and for all. 

 

Democratic Divide Over Israel Puts Pressure on Biden

National Republicans Applaud Andrew Yang's Pro-Israel Stand Amid Its Conflict With Hamas

Biden followed pro-Israel precedent. But new critics shakethe status quo

Power Up: Biden Administration approves $735 million dollarweapons sale to Israel, raising red flags for some House Democrats

 

Why Do So Many Countries Hate Trump? A Global Perspective

Here we are, at the end of 2019, and what a year it's been. Like most everyone else I thought about doing a retrospective; taking a look back at perhaps the top stories we did for A/O or maybe a look at the year's leading stories, but that wouldn't be very original would it? So, instead I decided to look at how President Trump stacks up among some of our allies.

While they don't have a direct impact on our elections, their opinions do impact us through the perceptions they create. It also has an impact on our trade relations since their impressions reflect their confidence in the presidency and the government. Besides, Trump's Presidency began with the absurdity that somehow Russian President Vladimir Putin influenced the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election which kept Hillary Clinton from her coronation. So, let's take a look shall we?

In tenth place is Japan. An important economic partner of the U.S. which doesn't seem to like Trump. Since the beginning of the Trump Presidency, Japanese opinion has dropped 54 points. In addition, their opinion of Americans in general has fallen 15 points as well. The Japanese seem to equate Trump with their largely unpopular Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, who they see as having no sense of humor, a big ego, and militaristic. Additionally, like Trump, Abe was born wealthy and appears out of touch with most Japanese. At least Trump hasn't thrown up on Japanese PM yet unlike another certain U.S. President!

The ninth spot is our friends down under, Australia. Although 75% of Australians have a positive opinion of Americans, only 45% can say the same thing about Trump. The Aussies don't seem to be particularly confident of Trump being able to do the "right thing" when it comes to his foreign policy, especially on the topic of refugees or ability to comprehend the complexity of the situation on Nanru and Manus and ship based human smuggling.

Next is perhaps our closest ally, the United Kingdom. Trump's approval is down 57% from what it was under Obama. In fact, some of their media goes as far as to say that the Brits "really really hate" Donald Trump, but that's not all. Just 50% have a positive opinion about America and Americans in general.

The reason most cited was Trump's promise to minimize Muslim immigration into the US. Of course, the UK has been inundated by Muslim "migrants" as has Europe, much to their detriment I might add. In fact, several large cities in the UK, including London, Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds, have substantial Muslim populations, not to mention Sharia courts and "No-Go" zones, albeit unofficially.

Our northern neighbor, Canada, is next. So could those obnoxiously polite Canadians dislike about "The Donald"? Well, apparently everything. According to Pew Research, they regard the President as arrogant (92%), intolerant (78%), and dangerous (72%). 84% doubt he's qualified to be the president. They dislike his policies just as much as him personally, and for the first time since Pew began tracking opinions in Canada has Canadians polled over 50% in their dislike of Americans.

According to the survey, 57% of Canadians have a negative opinion of the U.S. while the remaining 43% apologized profusely (just kidding). As an aside, Mexico, our neighbor to the south, came in 14th with a 44% disapproval rating of Trump (mostly due to illegal immigration). Thus while Trump and America are viewed rather poorly by our two closest neighbors, it's Canada which has the worse opinion of us.

Spain is sixth on the list. Spain, which has become a major entry point for "migrants" entering Europe from Africa and the Middle East, not only strongly dislikes President Trump, they don't care much for Americans either. According to Pew, Trump is down 68% from former President Obama. The majority don't believe that President is capable or willing to do the "right thing" when it came to his policies.

They also believe that Trump doesn't understand the international situation well enough to be president. Regarding Americans, a whopping 60% of Spaniards had a unfavorable opinion of Americans while 23% had a very unfavorable opinion of the U.S.. The previous high has never exceeded 7%.

Next on the list shouldn't come as much of a surprise. After all, it's France, which has had something of a national "Napoleonic Complex" toward the U.S. since the end of World War II (you're welcome again by the way) and presidency of Charles De Gaulle. That's not to say the French People don't like Americans, they do...well, mostly. 73% of those polled had a favorable opinion though they admitted to getting a bit miffed when tourists show up and expect everyone else to speak their language. Trust me when I say that most Americans these days can relate!

Nevertheless, President Trump is down 70 points from Obama! To put it another way, the French hate Donald Trump more than Russian President Vladimir Putin, China's Xi Jinping, or even Germany's Angela Merkel (who is partly responsible for Europe's decline thanks to the importation of the "migrants"). France's current president, Emmanuel Macron (the other person most responsible for Europe's decline) has even tried to bill himself as the "Anti-Trump".

As for why the French hate Trump so much, it really covers about every one of his policies, from trade to terrorism to the environment, human rights and the global economy. They dislike his personality and just about everything else about him. The only thing they seem to like is his wife, Melania Trump (the French do love class and style and she exudes it).

Interestingly South Korea is fourth. Now with a nut job with possible nukes just a few dozen miles to the north, you'd think they would have a more favorable opinion of Trump. After all, he has been one of the few American presidents who hasn't been bullied into backing down every time Kim Jong Un throws a tantrum.

In fact, very few world leaders have actually stood up to Kim in the past, including presidents George W Bush and Barack Obama. In addition, the presence of U.S. troops in South Korea, as well as our strong trading partnership, are major reasons South Korea is still there.

Nevertheless, 71% of South Koreans have an unfavorable opinion of Trump compared to Obama. Many fear that Trump is using South Korea as a pawn in his dealings with Kim Jong Un. They also believe that Trump is "indifferent" about South Korea's role as an ally. If that was case, I doubt that Trump would have gone to bat for them as often as he has in the past. By the way, 75% of South Koreans still have a good opinion of America and Americans.

Now for Germany. Is anyone actually surprised? The only thing I found more surprising was that Germany wasn't higher than third on the list. Pew's poll showed a 75% decline in favorability from Obama to Trump; a drop which cuts across all of Germany's political lines.

Perhaps it's because Trump has been a vocal critic of Angela Merkel's disastrous policy of "open borders" of the so-called "migrants" into Europe (many Germans feel the same way except that "war guilt" seems to keep getting in the way of Germans doing the right thing for Germany and Europe). Merkel's immigration policies smacks of national suicide; a desire to destroy Germany's culture, traditions, and sense of national identity, even if that means taking Europe down with her.

Like Germany, the Netherlands has an equal distain for President Trump and like Germany, it's favorability toward the American President has dropped 75 points. Like the Germans, the Dutch believe that Trump is intolerant, arrogant, and lacks the practical experience of a world leader. They too, as others on this list have expressed, believe that Trump lacks the moral character to "do the right thing", be it pertaining to immigration, human rights, the environment, the Middle East, or just about anything else. On the plus side, 71% of the Dutch still have a positive opinion of Americans.

Finally, the number one spot. The country which hates President Trump more than anyone else is (drum roll please)...Sweden. Yelp, that ultra polite "Canada of Europe" dislikes Trump more than any other country in the whole wide world. It's hard to believe actually. Sweden is, after all, so damn polite. They are consistently listed as being among the happiest and healthiest people in the world. They are routinely ranked among the best educated people in the world. Sweden has one of the world's best social safety nets, top government infrastructure and environmentally friendly countries in the world.

Of late Sweden has been suffering from the influx of "migrants" coming into the country; many of whom are poorly educated and lack few, if any, transferable work skills. They've proven to be a huge drain on Sweden's economy, especially its once renown social safety net. Additionally, crime, particularly violent crime, has skyrocketed throughout Sweden, particularly in major cities like Stockholm.

In addition, there has been increased demands by these "migrants" for the implementation of Sharia law (including Sharia courts) as well as curtailing Sweden's traditionally liberal social standards. Many political scientists have proclaimed that Sweden, as a solidly liberal society, may be the first large country lost to the "demographic replacement" of Europeans along with Holland and Belgium.

As a result, we have a nation caught in the grips of a transitional crisis. Nevertheless, their opinion of Trump puts them at the top with an 83% disapproval rating, though the American People retain a 80% approval rating. The principal reason, they claim, is Trump's failure to "fact-check" before speaking (or tweeting). They believe Trump is too intolerant (especially toward Muslims), and lacks the intellect as well as personality to be president.

Could the Swedes be right? For that matter, could everyone else on the list be right? Is Donald Trump the wrong person for the job? Would someone like Hillary Clinton have done a better job as president? If her record as Secretary of State or as a candidate are any indication (including her attempt, along with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Donna Brazille to rig the Democratic Primary against Bernie Sanders, illegally obtain questions in the final presidential debate, Benghazi, or the Clinton "pay to play" Foundation), the answer is no. Hillary fails, if for no other reason, than on moral grounds.

We also need to remind ourselves that almost every country on this list has a politically Left government. A few, such as Sweden, have a long tradition of socially and economically liberal policies. Some were part of empires or were the nexus of the empire itself. Many too have had brutal Far Right juntas imposed on them with the help of the U.S. Government. All have had a close economic relationship with the United States. A few are heavily dependent of American economic aid.

To them Trump perhaps represents a threat. He is not just tightening the borders, preventing illegal immigration into this country, but as a result, restricting money from going back to these countries which has become an informal form of economic aid; something which props up small communities. It has also helped to relieve local poverty thanks to the illegal exodus, providing education and healthcare which would have otherwise been unavailable.

Along the same lines, they may be concerned about the cutback of official aid or military support, forcing them to pick up the slack instead on relying on "Uncle Sugar" to do it for them. Of the countries in Europe, they are suffering under the crushing burden of these "migrants"; many of whom are Muslim. No doubt they'd like to see more redirected to the U.S. America has been viewed for decades as the breadbasket, policeman, and bank to the world. As long as the money flows, they love us.

They worry that America may decide to turn its attention inward and start taking care of Americans first. Many would like to see America drop its border restrictions and turn itself into n open "feed trough"; doing for the world what their own governments won't thanks to their greed. Instead of removing their own tyrants and incompetent government officials, they turn to America for free handouts. This, I believe, is what they're afraid of, and Trump is just the outsider who would do it.



These Are The Countries Which Really Hate Trump


Making America Grate Again

Where Countries Stand With Donald Trump: A Crib Sheet

A Matter of Perspective

When you think of poverty, what comes to mind? Is it some third world country, perhaps in Africa. or Asia, or maybe even in Latin America? Perhaps too you think about cardboard shacks, raw sewage, dirt for roads, no indoor plumbing, filthy water for washing and drinking, and little kids---barely clothed if at all---playing around garbage dumps while slightly older children rout through recently discarded refuse for anything of use. Electricity, if there is any, consists of a few bare bulbs dangling for a cord, sporadically dimming or blinking going out, leaving its occupants huddled in the dark. And almost always, just a few miles away, live the obscenely rich in their townhouses and walled estates; who throw out more food in a day than some of these people see in a week. If they're lucky, some of the poor are employed by these individuals, not that they actually make much money, but they at least have jobs which provides some relief from the misery of their poverty, and they earn at least something. If they're lucky, some can sneak some of the scraps and throw outs back home. The city where many live, just a few miles away, glows throughout the night. No brownouts there. No cold nights or oppressively hot days, not in their climate controlled condos or mansions, or in their chauffeur driven luxury cars. This was what income inequality looks like for the vast majority of the world's population.

While the United Stated sends billions of dollars and in-kind aid overseas, much of it goes to corrupt petty warlords, generals, so-called "Presidents" and their cronies in exchange for American access to their airspace, or refueling fields, or securing favorable conditions for US corporations, all under the auspices of a "positive foreign policy" of course. Most of the these wannabe dictators personally despise the US and everything it supposedly stands for, but they sure love our handouts. Only a small percentage of US aid actually makes it to the people. Most of it is squirreled away in private bank accounts, or skimmed off as bribes or sold on the black market. Is there any wonder rampant famines continue to exist? Why, with the billions not just the US exports, but the UK or Europe send every single year for decades, is there still inadequate drinking water, disease, insufficient or even no housing, let alone schools or proper irrigation and farming.

A very good friend of mine once told me that Communism doesn't arrive with tanks and warships. Communism comes with hunger and a sense of hopelessness. To bring that more current, one could argument that fanatical religious extremists don't arrive with massive

armies or navies, but with zealous fervor to stamp out what they see as corruption of their religious ideals in the face of inequality. Religion is a powerful weapon. It always has. It offers comfort in exchange for control. After all, how you argue or compromise with God? Even our so-called allies are hedging their bets and quietly financing and arming these black clad "psychopaths for God" with the same foreign aid dollars we giving them! Of course, it too is based on fear. Perhaps a great deal of fear. If you look at the history of West, you will find the expansion of our ideals alien to the native inhabitants. Alien in the sense that they are often treated as inferior; of where they are dispossessed in their own land; of where there is vast inequality.

We've overthrown democratically elected governments that we didn't agree with (or to be more accurate, that certain corporate interests couldn't work with). In exchange for overthrowing these governments (or assassinating or jailing their leaders), we've helped to install brutal military juntas who conveniently grant special "concessions" to a few privileged corporations in the name of "free trade" while the US government quietly continues to prop them up as they go about torturing, imprisoning, and murdering their own people. While Communism may not come with tanks and warships, it appears the corporate capitalism does.

Hard words to hear, but every word is true. I know you know it too. Just about every military venture from the 1890's to present day has been about using US taxpayer's dollars and blood of our US military service men and women in order to boost the bottom line for some corporation (with the possible exceptions of WWI, WWII, and the Korean War, but you can bet great sums of money was made supplying all sides). We did in Cuba, El Salvador, Panama, Nicaragua, Mexico, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Yeah, I know we weren't and aren't the only ones, but those other countries aren't my concern. This country is. Our Founding Father's warned us repeatedly about "foreign entanglements". They also tried to teach us about a limited government and the perils of allowing a powerful centralized government to emerge, not to mention the potential danger of banks and artificial entities that we call corporations today (they also warned us about the folly of political parties too but did we listen?). We grew lazy as a nation. Instead of being vigilant of our freedoms, we trusted government to protect them---something akin to letting the wolves guard the henhouse...and likely with the same expected results.

So, now we're faced with illegal immigrants pouring in from Latin America and a government either unable or unwilling to doing anything it; hoping they can ignore the American People long enough the problem becomes so severe that it can't reversed and the invasion of America become a fait accompli, with corporations getting a overabundance of potential workers to fill a limited number of jobs, which will, of course, drive down wages and benefits while also decreasing the likelihood of employee unrest (after all, with union representation at an all time low, everyone could be easily replaced by the next warm body standing in line for failing to toe the corporate line). However, with unions largely left impotent these days thanks largely backwards looking and greedy leadership, they see only the potential to fill their nearly empty coffers with low skilled worker's dues without offering them any real power.

Overseas, we're fighting wars where we should not be involved, but to a large degree were responsible for starting so that our new oligarchy could make a killing...figuratively and literally. Those who attacked us on 9/11 were originally US trained and financed to fight the Russians when they invaded Afghanistan; they were even celebrated in the media as "freedom fighters", and then we abandoned them. Those who attacked us on that fateful day in September planned and operated from Afghanistan. That should have been our one and only target. Iraq had no "weapons of mass destructions", but Saddam Hussein was holding together a tender box and keeping a troubling Iran at bay (besides, we overthrew the previous Iraqi government and put him in power. He also supplied us with cheap oil and secure bases. We counted Hussein as a "key regional ally" for decades just like we did for the Shah of Iran, Noriega and Batista). We implicitly gave him the go ahead to invade Kuwait, and then "liberated" it amid public promises of government reforms for its citizens after oil profits dropped, while privately obtaining special concessions for its oil and removing a potential regional military threat for Saudi Arabia, again, in exchange for further oil concessions.

Such is the world we now live in, where individual lives and fates of nations are dictated by potential profits. In the end, a few,

secreted away in private boardrooms, has reaped a whirlwind of profit and power while the rest of us has reaped the whirlwind. Is it any wonder that corporate capitalism is so despised by the majority of the world's population? Even here at home, corporate capitalism is increasingly looked down on by the next generation, the Millennials, not to mention some of the graying Babyboomers. Our democratic republic has been replaced by an oligarchy and we're on the short track toward fascism. This is not what our Founding Fathers wanted for us. This is not what we wanted for ourselves. It sure isn't what we want for our children and grandchildren. The only real question of any substance is what are we prepared to do about it?