Biden and Illegal Immigration: What's Next?

Donald Trump is gone. Joe Biden is now the President. Kamala Harris is the first female Vice President in U.S. history. The Status Quo is back in charge. It's business as usual again in Washington D.C.. So, why are we once more talking about illegal immigration?

That's because the new President has promised to make illegal immigration one of his chief priorities during his first 100 days. Biden plans to offer the estimated 11 million illegal residents amnesty almost immediately.  I guess that shows the thousands who've been waiting patiently to enter this country what chumps they were for obeying the law. When dealing with Washington, crime apparently does pay, at least to those who are patient enough.

In addition to giving a pass to the 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the U.S., Biden is planning on making it simpler for those wanting to enter the U.S. by reducing eligibility requirements. He's also intends to make it easier to obtain the coveted green card, which is needed to legally obtain work. 

That should be good news for the seven to eight thousand immigrants currently en route from Honduras (at last report they broke through the border checkpoints in Guatemala) and appear to be following the same path that the five thousand or so "Migrant Caravan" had taken a few years ago; they were stopped at the Mexican-American border.  

Some of you may recall former Mexican President, Vicente Fox, on Mexican TV at the time that the United States "had no right" to prevent immigrants from freely entering America (which was ironic given Mexico's draconian immigration laws).You may want to know that estimates indicate some 40,000 migrants are waiting on the Mexican border to enter the U.S.

Several studies have shown that the easier it is to enter a country legally, the less illegal immigration there is, which should be a no brainer. But it's worth noting that despite amnesty only about 41% actually decide to seek naturalization. With most Americans opposed to amnesty, why would Biden give amnesty to individuals who willingly violated immigration law? Why would he want to see a huge influx in immigration given all the problems currently facing America?

Well, the Democrats, like the Republicans, are beholden to Corporate America. Big Business and the federal government have effectively merged to form the current form of government, a Corporatocracy, which, as many know, is run by a handful of very wealthy individuals---Oligarchs. These elites are always looking to boost their bottom line. Perhaps the greatest liability they face are us---the workers.

Biden's move, if it's passed by the Democrat controlled Congress, will flood the job market. What happens when demand exceeds supply? Competition increases. In this case, it's competition for jobs. This usually drives down wages and reduces or eliminates benefits, improving profit margins. For those here pre-amnesty, it means that with amnesty they can also compete openly for jobs.

In fact, almost any new job they find will pay better than what they had. Those who criminally employed these individuals will have to improve not just the wages, but also the working conditions (which are typically horrible not to mention unsafe). Alternatively, they can seek out other immigrants who arrived after the amnesty period and continue with business as before. My money is on the latter.

However, the increased competition for jobs, will likely drive wages in the wrong direction. Furthermore, given the current pandemic situation in America, many small businesses (the backbone of the U.S. economy) have been severely hurt; many will never reopen or will have to cut back on hiring due to lost revenue. Some will be forced to hire only part time help.

This is especially true in the hospitality industry such as hotels, motels, and restaurants, farm labor, and construction, which just so happens to employ low or minimally skilled workers, many of whom are recent immigrants or those without a high school diploma at low wages.  Regardless, Biden and the Democrats will be perceived as the "good guys", especially within the Hispanic community.  Why is that important?

Although the percentage of immigrants coming to America seeking citizenship is relatively low, especially those from Latin America, the Democrats are hoping that their altruism will inspire some of these new citizens to register as Democrats, or at least vote for Democrat candidates. I wouldn't be surprised to see a bill passed allowing automatic voter registration with citizenship.

Democrats are the second largest voting bloc in the America. The largest is, of course, Independents. Republicans are the third largest. In fact, Independents have been the largest voting bloc since about 2008. Even at that, if the Democratic strategy works, the Republican Party could find itself all but locked out of federal politics or reduced to a regional party. As an aside, barring something drastic, I don't expect that we'll see another Republican President for many years to come.

As an aside, Independents are generally considered to be moderates or centrists who were booted from both corporate owned parties. They tend to be conservative on fiscal and foreign policy issues and somewhat liberal on social and domestic policies. They vote on issues rather than party line.

Of course, there's always a fly in the ointment. First off, voter registration has been on the decline. One study has shown a average 38% drop in voter registration in 17 of 21 states polled. Almost 50% of all registered voters typically fail to show up. One study showed 100 million regularly stay at home.

The reasons range from missing deadlines to simply being turned off by their choices. However, many feel that their vote no longer counts, especially given increasing issues of voter fraud and rigged elections in what was supposed to be one of the most secure electoral nations in the world.

Asians, Hispanics, and blacks typically register as Democrats (on the other hand, 57% of Cubans prefer the GOP). In fact, according a recent Pew study, minorities are 1/3 of the total new electoral registration since 2000, with Hispanics making up 39% of the growth or 13% of the total electorate.

It should be note too that Hispanics are the largest minority in America, surpassing blacks over a decade ago while Asians are rapidly growing and expected to exceed black populations in some areas within the next few decades. This will naturally affect the distribution of the limited federal dollars available for social services. Whites will be a minority by 2045, reaching parity with Hispanics.

Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that only about 13% of eligible Hispanics actually vote in national elections; the same percentage as blacks. Only 4% of Asians do so while 67% of whites turn out. But as the Hispanic population continues to grow and with the likely increase in Hispanic candidates, we can expect higher Hispanic turnouts which will certainly affect the balance of power between the two corporate owned parties.

Another issue to bear in mind regarding Biden's anticipated change in immigration policy concerns health and education. Few entering the U.S. speak English, especially the children. That means social programs and schools will have to further adapt. More bilingual first responders, hospital workers, social workers, teachers will be needed along with bilingual textbooks.

Literacy will remain a problem in general, as well as basic math skills not just for the kids, but for migrant adults as well, requiring specialized remedial education. For the children, they will likely need to include science and history. So, expect a few changes in school curriculums. As an aside, there may be changes in school sports programs too. Soccer is the national sport in most Hispanic countries along with boxing. That could mean some sports programs will be dropped or cut back due to limited funding by the evolving demographics.   

There will also be a cultural aspect in that we'll see stores change or expand their inventory to reflect the change in customers. So, don't be surprised to see more Hispanic products on your grocery shelf along with more Hispanic oriented media programming. Also, Hispanic culture is very male oriented.

Traditionally, most Hispanics are Roman Catholic. This could prove to be a boon for the cash strapped archdioceses across America who've had to pay out millions due to sex abuse lawsuits. But it should be pointed that over time, many Hispanics lapse and cease attending mass or other religious services. Others seek out different religions such as Baptist, Methodist, or Presbyterian.  

In terms of health, many, if not most have never been inoculated. Diseases all but eradicated like TB, polio, and smallpox, could make a new appearance until enough immigrants and their children are vaccinated to again erase these diseases. In addition, diseases not commonly found in the U.S. may show up, such as  Leprosy , Cholera, and Dengue. Of course, there is still COVID to consider.

So, what does this mean for America? Well, in many respects it's not as unnerving as it seems. We've experienced it many times throughout our brief history. It's included Germans, Irish, Welsh, Italians, Eastern Europeans, Chinese, Vietnamese Jews, Catholics, Buddhists, Hindus, Hispanics, and more recently, Muslims among countless others.  Most communities already reflect the change in the cultural makeup, so residents will notice little or no substantive changes. Another huge influx, however, will put an enormous strain on our social safety net and healthcare systems.

Historically, we've been successful thanks to the "melting pot" concept, where we mix and learn to adapt; taking the best from each.  Yes, distinct cultures have remained with whole neighborhoods of racial or ethnic groups in some cities. Their languages remain as does their cuisine and places of worship. But, they've adopted much of our collective traditions, values, but especially our language. In short, most have integrated.

Language, as I've often written, is the thread which binds the fabric of a nation together. When a people or group don't integrate or choose not to adopt the traditions, values, and language, they remain foreigners; outsiders. They develop no loyalty to the nation. In time, they will seek to carve out their own country within the host nation. It's happened time and time again throughout history.

The Democrats may attempt to become the dominate corporate party in America, although they will likely remain second to the Independents, by currying favor with the newest large minority. At the same time, they risk losing the trust of the black population, which has been a reliable ally since the 1930's. Asians have tended to support Democrats mainly out of habit since the states they primarily settled in were Democratic run. However, they have no particular loyalty to either party.

Thus, the Democrats run the risk, at least in the long run, of creating a new Yugoslavia with alienated and often hostile populations which never embraced national loyalty. The result, as many know, was wars, genocide, and eventually, a divided country. In the short term, they could further divide America. Meanwhile, the Republicans are a deeply fractured political party, and both are facing obsolescence thanks to the steadily growing Independents, localized third parties, and frustrated Americans. 

 

Voter registration has plummeted in 2020

Half of Americans Don't Vote. What Are They Thinking?

New Study Sheds Light On The 100 Million Who Don't Vote, Their Political Views And What They Think About 2020

Emerging Infectious Diseases

40,000 Migrants waiting at the U.S. border

Party Affiliation

COVID-19 and Contact Tracing: What Possibly Could Go Wrong?

During World War II there was one name which was feared above all others---Gestapo. It made the bravest and most daring men and women freeze in dread of the knock on the door at two o'clock in the morning. The Gestapo, or Geheime Staatspolizei (Secret State Police) as it was officially called, was used by the Nazis to track, monitor, and arrest anyone suspected of treason against the Third Reich.

For many, it was believed that there was a Gestapo agent in every bar, every outdoor cafe, every street corner, or lurking in every dark alley with their black fedora pulled down low, their black leather trench coat with the collar turned up, a cigarette dangling menacingly from their lips while holding a small notebook close to their chest and scribbling down everything they saw and heard.

We typically think of them ferreting out members of the underground who are engaged in a deadly cat and mouse game of smuggling arms, or downed RAF and American pilots in and out of dusty lofts, sending coded messages, conducting sabotage in the dead of the night or assassinating German officers and pro-Nazi collaborators as they sit in open air cafes sipping beer. Such is our image from the movies.

From 1933 until 1934, the Gestapo was headed by Reich Minister Hermann Goring, who was also the Reich Air Marshall and head of the deadly Luftwaffe. After that, it fell under the direction of Heinrich Himmler, head of the dreaded SS or Schutzstaffel. In 1939, it was transferred to the Reich Main Security Office (RSHA) and henceforth considered a "sister department" to the Security Service (SD), the intelligence arm of the SS and overseen by the "Butcher of Prague", Reinhard Heydrich.

For the long twelve years of the Third Reich's existence, the Gestapo was often thought to be everywhere; all-knowing and all powerful, both inside and outside of the Reich. The truth of the matter is that there were in fact relatively few people who worked for Geheime Staatspolizei and the number of undercover agents was equally few. The Gestapo, which worked closely with the regular police force, was actually comprised mostly of clerks and analysts more than anything. Surprised? Don't be.

The role of the Gestapo was intentionally broad and loosely defined. Thanks to a 1936 law, it operated without judicial review. It was charged with more than finding secret transmitters or members of the underground. It was investigate any charges of "non-conformist behavior". What did this mean? It meant that anyone suspected of anti-government behavior was a potential target. This could (and did) often mean people who failed to give the proper Nazi greeting, individuals who acted "suspicious" or "unsocial" (meaning people who liked to be left alone), reading "subversive" books or magazines.

It meant entertaining guests at unusual hours (especially someone of the opposite sex), "suspected" homosexuality, not supporting Reich policies (like supporting the war), holding anti-Reich views regarding religion or race relations, keeping odd hours, having no visible means of support, failure to listen to official state radio broadcasts, being drunk often or doing drugs, as well as those who failed to adhere to regulations pertaining to blackouts, didn't show up for "volunteer" civic functions, and so forth. It was these types of behaviors which lead to the arrest and execution of Anne Frank, Sophie Scholl and members of the "White Rose" resistance movement. So, how did the Gestapo learn of all these "non-conformist" activities? Was it agents hiding in bushes and up trees? Nope!

In fact, 80% of ALL investigations were due to reports by ordinary civilians! On average, there was rarely more than 50 Gestapo personnel in any midsize city. For example, Northern Bavaria had no more than approximately 90 full time agents. In the Lower Rhineland, which had a population of over four million, there were just 281 members of the Gestapo available. If it wasn't for the average German snitching for one reason or another, the Gestapo would have neither been as effective or feared as it was.

As for the reason these ordinary Germans spied on and reported their fellow Germans, most did so out of as sense of patriotism; a belief they were protecting the Reich and helping to ensure law and order. They felt they were keeping Germany and Germans safe. A few admitted after the war that it was out of jealousy or some petty dislike of the individual. As a result, millions were put on watch lists. They were subject to harassment, random detention or arrest, fines, blackmail, and for many, it meant prison terms ranging from months to years, and for a few, it meant not just torture, but certain death (Sophie Scholl, mentioned above, was beheaded by guillotine. She was just 21).

The reason I mention this brief history lesson is because "our" government officials have been encouraging ordinary people---people like you and me---to essentially spy on our neighbors and report them if it appears they are not following certain guidelines or even mere recommendations. What are we talking about? Reporting people who, for one reason or another, are not wearing a mask; going places other than grocery stores, pharmacy, or hardware store for "essential" items; congregating in groups of ten or more, and so on.

Who is doing this? Well, people like Colorado's Governor Jared Polis, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, New York Mayor Bill De Blasio, Oregon Governor Kate Brown, California Governor Gavin Newsom, among several others. They've "warned" their constituents about what is expected of them and how they should act, otherwise they face a reversal of their newly earned "freedoms" and a return to mandatory lockdowns and quarantines. Some have even set up special phone lines and websites to make it easy to rat on their fellow citizens.

In Laredo, Texas, cops responded to an anonymous tip on one such website about two women doing hair and nails on the sly. They were promptly shut down and face possible fines and a mandatory 14 day self quarantine complete with an ankle monitor! Meanwhile, in Huston a county commissioner tried another tack. He ordered that everyone wear a mask or face a $1000 fine. However, instead of handing out tickets, law enforcement handed out masks. Even in Kentucky, Governor Andy Beshear is has a hotline to report anyone who isn't in "compliance" with his guidelines.

In Palm Beach Florida, County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw went a step further. He's encouraging people to report anyone making "anti-government" comments through a special hotline 24/7. It's part of a one million dollar program to reduce potential "violence", presumably against law enforcement and/or government personnel. And don't think Florida is the only place where this is happening.

In some locations, cameras used to monitor crime or traffic are being used to detect individuals with high temperatures. Facial recognition programming is then being used to help identify these individuals, which is prompting a visit from authorities. Stores are also imposing their own restrictions such as "no mask--no entry" (akin to "no shoes, no shirt, no service" I suppose). Of course, that's their legal right. It's their property and they can set the rules. Of course, you can spend your money elsewhere too. Stories like this are popping up all over the country, so don't give me any of that "it can't happen here" BS. It can and it is.

I want to point out, however, that like those in Nazi Germany, the majority of these "narcs" are doing so out of a misplaced sense of patriotism or compassion for others. They sincerely believe that what they are doing is the "right thing". The only exception is that no one is being executed. However, individuals are being questioned by authorities. Some are being arrested, fined, while others are facing jail time, or at the very least, enforced "self-quarantine" complete with a ankle monitor. A few are risking their business licenses. No doubt a record for "future reference" is being created as well.

What about contact tracing? Actually, contact tracing is not new. We just haven't heard that much about it since we haven't faced a pandemic recently, but it's actually been in use for awhile to manage epidemics. In the past it was more of a matter of creating a list of everyone you had come into contact with over a specific period of time. It's like creating a "contact web". The big difference being proposed here is the use of our smartphones to create the "web" for us, which is not only potentially more accurate but much more timely. We will now download an app from the CDC directly onto our smartphone which will do the work for us.

The current proposal also takes into consideration personal privacy. It does not disclose the identity of the infected individual. It does, however, notify everyone of their contacts that they may have come into contact with someone who was infected with the virus (or some other disease in the future), and asks them about any symptoms. In effect, it would provide an early warning system for all concerned.

On the surface, it sounds like pretty reasonable. I would certainly like to know if I may have become infected with some virus or disease so that I could limit any contact with individuals with impaired immune systems while doing what I needed to stay healthy. I don't need to know necessarily who the potentially infected person is, but it would sure help me in making my decision. But, doesn't that violate their privacy? Do I have a right to know who may have infected me?

I guess I could contact everyone on my contact list ask "which one of you is sick?" and see what happens. Of course, I could eliminate some simply by virtue of their known proximity to me. Most of us have a pretty good idea of where we've been over the past week or so and who we've been around. However, it doesn't take into consideration strangers we bumped into at the local grocery store or some business who may have been infected.

The other big issue from my perspective is who will have access to this information; for how long; and what ultimately becomes of it regardless of whether I'm infected or not. Is there going to be a record of me hanging around "questionable" characters who may be subject to certain illnesses? Is there going to be a shared government/medical/insurance record of how often I get sick, from what, and will it affect my medical care or my insurance rates? If so, could it make me eventually financially uninsurable; that is, make it impossible to afford my insurance premiums?

Going only slightly further, could my health record somehow become attached to my credit worthiness? And if it does, couldn't that also eventually affect my employability? After all, if I'm subject to being sick (or live in area which has a high infection rate) won't it affect my ability to work and thus pay my bills? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where this could all lead. Government programs have a nasty habit of getting out of control real easy as everyone knows.

So, while I understand and can appreciate contact tracing, applying this to our smart phones could lead to unintended consequences. Once again, we are faced with the quandary of the needs of the many versus the needs of the few or the one. Before I would consider doing this, I would need some strong assurances about my privacy both short and long term. Could you imagine what the Gestapo and their well intended informants could have done with this technology? Besides, we've seen how well the snitching and our privacy is working out.



Gestapo

Sophie Scholl


No, We Don't Need To Foster A Culture Of Snitching To Stay Safe


Achtung, Baby: Are People Being Encouraged To Rat On Anti-Government Neighbors?


New Coronavirus Hotline Helps People Snitch On Their Neighbors For Breaking Rules


What Is Contact Tracing? How It Could Be Used To Fight Coronavirus

Our Brave New World: Life Post-COVID-19

As we slowly start to return to life after being confined to our homes these past many weeks, I've wondered what our world will be like post-virus. What will change and what will remain the same? Many states and cities remain on lockdown while a few others are slowly coming around, much like flora in the spring, but will they ever fully blossom again?

The federal government has largely left governors and mayors to decide how quickly or slowly they can reopen. Some recommendations have been suggested such as maintaining "social distancing" of at least six feet, wearing protective masks, regular hand washing or using hand sanitizers, which all sound sensible, but how will it play out in practical daily application? Before we address this and other questions about our "brave new world" (to borrow from Aldous Huxley), perhaps we should take a look at what changes took place following the 1918 Spanish Influenza pandemic.

As you may know, the 1918 influenza outbreak (better known as the Spanish Flu), a strain of the H1N1 virus, first appeared just as World War One was waning. No one knows for sure where it originated. It acquired its infamous name from a Madrid newspaper article which had reported on some of the first cases, including their king, Alfonso XIII, but stated that the virus had originated in France. Meanwhile, American doctors first noted patients with the all too familiar symptoms months earlier at a Kansas army base (many of the patients had been stationed in Europe as well as in Asia).

Unlike the current viral strain, the Spanish Flu was truly a mass killer. More people died due to the flu than died in the war (about 50 million compared to around 20 million war dead). At present just over 264,000 worldwide have died due to COVID-19 with about 4 million infected. Compare that to the 500 million or one-third of the world's population being infected by the Spanish Flu. At the time there were no vaccines. Doctors were at a complete loss. They lacked the high tech specialized labs that we have today or computers capable of running millions of calculations a second. It was all slow trial and error experimentation and knowledge gleaned from each death.

Without a proven vaccine, the best solution was to ask citizens to cover their nose and mouth with whatever they could (most used handkerchiefs or scarves while others used homemade masks). Like today, schools and businesses were closed as were churches, saloons, theaters, and other places where people tended to congregate. Even libraries were closed while mail delivery and garbage pickup became sporadic. Since it was thought that the virus was spread by human contact, some staggering business hours in order to minimize crowds.

Meanwhile, as hospitals quickly filled up with the sick and dying, officials began to covert empty buildings, homes, and gymnasiums. With a lack of available doctors and nurses, medical students were pressed into service to treat the less severe patients, who, as an aside, were often treated with nothing more than common aspirin, then a relatively new "wonder drug" (the German company Bayer held the patent and Germany was an enemy combatant, making the drug hard to come by). And like today, entire communities were quarantined. Those who violated the quarantine were issued a citation ("disturbing the peace") by the local police. Repeated violators were fined or even arrested!

The death rates were so high that funeral homes were filled beyond capacity. Many used ice houses to store the bodies until they could be buried. In rural parts of the country (which at the time made up 49% of the nation), families had "parlor" funerals in their living rooms while graves were dug by family members or friends with the departed buried on the property (it wasn't unusual in the country to have small family cemeteries). Their names and date of death were reported when they could, which could be weeks or months after their death. Some were never reported.

So how did the Spanish Flu change the America? America in 1918 was still in the midst of "The Great War". Industry had been geared up to support the war effort while young men (and a few women) volunteered to go "over there" as the popular battle cry implied. In some ways that was a good thing. It meant much of America's youth were overseas at the height of outbreak.

It also meant that our resources (especially medicine and medical supplies) had to be balanced to support the war effort and flu outbreak "over there" and increasingly at home. Bear in mind too that many of the country's recently graduated medical doctors and nurses, feeling patriotic, had volunteered for military service. Thus, medical students were co-opted to take care of the sick on the home front.

Like today, the flu took its greatest toll on the old , the sick or those with serious underlying medical conditions like cancer, diabetes, heart or lung disease. Another killer at the time which claimed thousands of lives was tuberculosis. "TB" as it's typically called ran rampant in poorer regions of the country like the deep South or in the slums of large cities like New York and Chicago.

Thanks in part to the devastation of the flu and TB among other diseases of the time like the measles, there was calls to eradicate the slums, access to clean water, improved nutrition, particularly for children, and demands for mandatory vaccinations (again, mainly for the children). Hospitals and universities began dedicating more money to the treatment and prevention of these diseases.

By 1920 overall healthcare had improved dramatically. This was due, in part by the lessons learned by the war in the care and treatment of not just the wounded or treatment of the flu, but also mental illness such as "shell shock" or PTSD as we call it today, and other diseases experienced by those who fought in the filth of the trenches. One major improvements was in sanitation.

After the war much of this changed. There was an emphasis on cleanliness. Even hospital food improved (well, relatively. At least they now got healthier meals). Standardized treatment of individuals now became commonplace with added emphasis in prevention. Because more money was going into research, there was more or improved medicines, treatments and vaccines becoming available.

In society in general, there was a new emphasis in cleanliness, be it in restaurants, saloons, or the neighborhood grocery store, which focused on insuring that its vegetables, fruits, and meats were fresh. It became common to wash your hands before dinner and to take regular baths---with soap! It was far from what we would consider acceptable these days, but it was a huge improvement, and it helped jump start movements to improved the quality of life such as water lines to bring clean water to every home, and stronger health codes for better quality control of meat and food processing.

What will the post-COVID-19 world be like? It's hard to say at this point just as it was all but impossible to predict in the waning months of the Spanish Flu pandemic. At first, I expect there will be a lot of "overkill" of precaution. As in 1918, officials are terrified of being accused of doing too much as they are of not doing enough. We'll see some demand everyone wear masks until the impractically of it finally dawns on them or society refuses to comply. Social distancing will likely remain, at least for awhile, but that will soon fade. Humans are social animals. We tend to congregate. It's our nature.

Whereas in 1918/19 there were no "take out" dinners per se, I think we'll see more people doing just that. The result may be fewer restaurants, especially those whose menus don't easily accommodate to pickups. Businesses which deliver food will likely do well along with those who pick up and deliver office supplies, groceries, and fulfill similar needs. We'll see an increase in online shopping across the board. In fact, anything that can be done electronically will do quite well.

There are some things which has to be done in person such as visiting the doctor. Well, maybe. This pandemic took a relatively new technology, "telemedicine", and brought it into the mainstream of healthcare. It allows the doctor or their staff to connect visually over the internet and conduct a virtual office visit. Of course, there are practical limits, but it does allow the physician to actually see and speak with their patient and ascertain their general health and any issues which may necessitate a office visit or trip to the ER. Now, if we can only figure out how to use this in lieu of dentist visits!

Naturally, the patient can provide their weight, temperature, and blood pressure too if they have the equipment at home. Physicians can already check on a number of medical conditions remotely such as heart monitors and CPACS through the use of the internet or electronic transponders. We may also see the increase in doctor directed robots making the rounds in hospitals or nursing homes.

Speaking of robotics, expect to see an increase in automation not just in manufacturing, but also in warehousing and fast food restaurants. The virus pandemic and reliance on "essential" employees has proven to be too unreliable, operationally costly, and increased the risk of a potential infection which would affect not just staffing but insurance costs.

Banks, which are operating mainly through drive-thru tellers, could potentially eliminate inside banking altogether except for appointments, reducing cost and improving security. They could have a dedicated drive-up window to handle investment services or loan applications. What all this means is less demand for low skill/entry level employees. By the way, there's a growing case being made to all but eliminate cash, which some claim is susceptible of carrying germs and viruses.

The result would be the use of credit and debit cards for the majority of transactions. But why stop there? Why not encode a card to include your credit, work, insurance, criminal, and medical histories plus your driver's license and voter ID ? By the way, expect that your vaccination history to be included, which is more likely going to mandatory and less an option. In short, your entire life on one plastic card! You would have just have one card to worry about, but we can do even better than that!

What if, instead of a plastic card to carry around, they could simply implant a microchip in your hand or arm with all your data on it? Just a wave of your hand (or arm as the case may be), and that's all. No more "dirty" money. No more cards to carry or pin numbers to remember. Less risk of ID theft or stick ups! Maybe it could be encoded to unlock your home or car (or even start it!). Well don't laugh, microchips are already being tried in places like Sweden and the trend is growing. Now it's being promoted as a way to cut back on interpersonal contact and reduce the spread of viruses.

Unlike 1918, we have far greater technology available to us. But scientific achievement doesn't translate to moral wisdom, which sadly often lags decades behind. Sometimes longer. In our rush and fear to avoid the next pandemic, let's pause for a moment and reflect on what it is we really want as a society and what price we are willing to pay for it. Remember, earlier Republics and democracies often failed as a result fearful citizens willingness to trade their freedom for security, and ultimately, obtaining neither.



The Influenza Pandemic of 1918


Diseases In The Trenches


Five Bold Predictions For The Post COVID-19 World


Telehealth


Why You're Probably Getting A Microchip Implant Someday

Toilets for Water Fountains? Yes According to Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Let's Consider The Facts

Using toilets for drinking water? Seriously? Well, if you believe Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) they are. She tweeted on July 1st that female detainees being held in temporary custody by the US Border Patrol were being told that if they wanted drinking water they had to use toilets. In addition, she claimed that during her visit, Border Patrol guards attempted to physically and sexually "intimidate" her.

Judy Chu (D-CA) also tweeted that "migrants" (a euphemism used to soften the term illegal immigrants) currently being held in temporary custody were instructed by Border Patrol guards to use toilets for their drinking water. A third Congressional representative, Madeleine Dean (D-PA) said in a tweet that the conditions she witnessed were "far worse than we could have imagined" while others have referred to the holding facilities as "concentration camps".

The three women were visiting the holding facilities as part of a delegation organized by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. The purpose of their visit was examine the living conditions of those being held, which also included speaking with some of the detainees. According to Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, she was told that the guards would walk the women around at odd hours and for no apparent reason; often calling them offensive names. She also claimed that she learned that the Border agents allegedly used a false Facebook page to post derogatory stories about her, including some lurid photo shopped pictures.

So how true is any of this? Well, it's true that the holding facilities are crowded. In fact, there are overcrowded. In some instances, the men are held in "standing room only" conditions. However, this is because these facilities were never intended for the volume of people which have attempted to enter this country illegally. The detainees are, according to the Border Patrol, provided with medical care, showers (typical military five minute limit), and hot meals They are provided with clean clothes, blankets and pillows. They also have access to snacks and drinks during the course of the day. I'm sure living conditions aren't great, but they're not exactly like "concentration camps" either.

As for the claim that the women were told to "drink out of the toilets", well, that story isn't exactly factual. As with most federal facilities such as prisons, toilets, drinking fountains, and sinks are one unit in order to reduce costs and conserve space. The three are just part of a single constructed unit with separate plumbing. Thus, there is no "drinking out of the toilet". Regarding the claim that border personnel were trying to physically and sexual "intimidate" her, that to may be an exaggeration given the number of officials and those with cameras who were present. It's more likely that those at the facilities felt as if their professionalism and dedication to a difficult job under difficult circumstances were being questioned.

With respect to the claim that there is a "secret" Facebook page, US Customs and Border Protection said they would investigate, even though this is a private personal page. If it is determined that Border Patrol agents were involved in any "inappropriate" behavior regarding the posts, they will be dealt with internally which may include suspension or termination. As an aside, while I personally don't approve of posting any sexual or discriminatory pictures, stories, or comments, I presume these individuals were all over 21 and the content was intended for those who were also over 21 and invited to view the page (and, obviously accepted).

Therefore, if these presumed adults were making personal comments, etc on their own time (and that's an important point. Any comments and so forth should never be on "company time") on a private page, then what business is it of US Customs and Border Protection? For that matter, if you make comments at home on your or someone else's private page, if it any business of your employer, especially if those comments were not disparaging your employer but commenting on someone or something else altogether?

Recently, Florida Congresswoman Frederica Wilson (D-FL) said that people---US Citizens---shouldn't be allowed to criticize those in office. No, seriously. She said that. Rep. Wilson said that those who do should be prosecuted and face some form of punishment. If they do on social media, their account should automatically be shut down. She added that "You cannot intimidate members of Congress, frighten members of Congress. It is against the law, and it's a shame in this United States of America."

Her comment was made in direct response to Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's claim that there was a private Facebook account making fun of her (and by implication apparently, other members of Congress. I presume that includes the President too, and yes, I mean Trump). As if this couldn't get any more bizarre, Rep. Wilson said this was already the law but wasn't being enforced.

I hate to be the one to break it to either Congresswoman but here in the United States we have the right---the duty---to question those in government and demand of them honest answers to our question regardless of how those questions are posed. It's protected by the First Amendment protecting freedom of speech. Obviously you want to avoid anything libelous, we still have the right to say what we will about government and those who in power.

Nevertheless, attempts are being made to further improve living conditions at these facilities. Congress just passed at the end of June an emergency border funding bill to add $4.5 billion dollars in spending on these holding centers. However, while that may temporarily improve conditions, unless something is done to secure the border (such as building the long promised wall), things will only continue to get worse.

According to the partisan "Freedom for Immigrants" site, there are currently 200 detention sites across the US. 60% of all detainees are held in privately owned facilities such as GEO Corporation and Corrections Corporation of America/CorpCivic. in 2017, GEO Corp received $184 million dollars from taxpayers to run its centers while CorpCivic received $135 million.

Each company houses approximately 15,000 individuals each per day. Federal statistics indicated that the average person is held one month...or less. As an aside, the average age for the majority of detainees is between 26 and 35 years of age followed by 35 to 45 and under 25 years old. So, basically the overwhelming majority are in their prime working and childbearing years.

NBC News (another partisan site), has reported that 2019 has, so far, seen the highest influx of illegal immigrants since 2006, exceeding 3500 apprehended per day on seven occasions in February and March 2019 (March 19th saw 3974 arrested, a new record. Beating out the old one of 3530 set in 2006). February 2019 saw 76,000 individuals crossing the southern US illegally which was a 11 year high. The busiest crossing point is around El Paso Texas, which has seen a 97% increase over 2018; a 434% increase since Trump has taken office. To put it in better perspective, 2018 saw 396,579 illegal immigrants apprehended. So far this year there has been 268,044. Is there any doubt that our detention centers are overflowing?

Some groups, overwhelmingly on the Left, are hoping that the US Government will simply throw in the towel and open the borders to whomever wants to come. However, that's not likely to happen whether Trump or anyone else of either party are in office. For that matter, regardless of which of the two corporate owned parties controls Congress. Per the Washington Examiner, each illegal immigrant costs US taxpayers around $70,000 each (or about $70 billion dollars), which is seven times the cost involved in simply deporting them.

With the recent rash of new diseases appearing at the border such as whooping cough, mumps, measles, TB, and chicken pox with many of these new arrivals, that may be a bargain when you include the cost of treatment. This also doesn't factor in the costs of gang related activity which has already spread across the US. Even the sleepy little river town of Louisville Kentucky has an estimated 25 gangs including several major Mexican and Latin American drug cartel related gangs (although the mayor and police chief try to downplay it as much as possible). As a result crime---especially murders---have skyrocketed.

So what are we to do? That's the same question we've been asking since President Ronald Reagan make the mistake in 1986 of granting the estimated five million illegals currently living the country at the time amnesty under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (which obviously "controlled" nothing). Since then the number of illegal immigrants have continued to rise, states as well as cities and towns have blatantly ignored federal laws and became "sanctuary" communities (which still demanding federal money to contend with the influx). Universities have offered in-state tuition and protection from authorities, and all the while, religious groups and churches act as if immigration laws don't apply to them. The same can be said of some businesses and cash strapped unions.

As I've written before, the Federal Government needs to build the wall. It may ultimately prove to be ineffective, but it will send a message that if you want to enter the US, do it legally. States, cities, towns, as well as colleges and universities who prove "sanctuary" and aid to illegal immigrants should lose all federal funding. States offering driver's licenses to illegals should not be reciprocated.

Businesses and their owners who hire illegals should receive a stiff fee per employee along with a 90 day suspension of their business license (six for second offense, one year for their third, and permanent after that). Meanwhile, the business owner and/or board of directors should be subject to jail time. Employers should also be required to use E-Verify for all employees. Employers who require seasonal help should require that employees have a green card (especially those who are involved with farming, construction, and horse racing). As an aside, we should make it easier to acquire a green card. If you really want to come here for a better life, great. We'd love to have you, but do it legally (it would be terrific if you had some employable skills too and could speak at least some English). There's a embassy or consulate on just about every country on the planet. Usually they're located in large cities or a nation's capital. Just coming for a job? Fine. Get a green card. You can get them at the same place.

Churches and religious groups who aid illegal immigrants should not be exempt from search and seizure. Since they're playing at politics, their tax exempt status should be revoked along the same lines as businesses. They should also be subject to fines and jail time. No funding for public schools for children of illegal parents. English should also be mandatory anywhere funding is paid for by taxpayers. Lastly, the Federal Government should deduct the cost of housing, feeding, treating, and deporting illegal immigrants from the financial aid the US provides to these countries (many of these countries depend on US aid). Perhaps this might encourage them to do something to resolve the problem before it leaves their borders.

Until we, that is the Federal Government and especially Congress, recognizes this is a serious threat to our national security and the profit is eliminated by businesses, churches and social organizations, and so forth, the problem of illegal immigration is only going to continue to get worse, and we haven't even discussed the possibility of terrorists trying to slip through (which the Department of Homeland Security has already said has likely happened). Unless we the People get tough with those elected to serve our interests at every level, the situation will only deteriorate until we have no choice but to throw in the towel. If that should happen, the consequences to this country will not only be catastrophic, they will be irreversible.



Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Says Detained Migrants Were Told To Drink Toilet Water

Rep Frederica Wilson demands prosecution for those who mock Congress online

Detention by the numbers

Border surge the highest since 2011, each illegal immigrants costs $70,000, 7x deportation cost

Infectious Diseases Making Border Crisis Worse

The "Mother of All Migrant Caravans": A New Wave of Illegal Immigration

Mexican officials have advised the US Government that the "mother of all migrant caravans" is headed north to the US border. This will be the fourth such caravans over the past couple of years. Mexican officials estimate that there's approximately 20,000 individuals, mostly from Honduras, is gathering and expected to head our way in waves, with dozens or even hundreds joining along the way. However, the caravan which has already formed and is headed our way has approximately 12,000 members on the heels of another column of around 2,600. While many are from Honduras, others are from El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, as well as Cuba and even Africa.

As with the previous caravans, no one really seems to know for sure who is behind them. After all, someone or some group has to be funding these mass movements. In fact, individual immigrants have been filmed and photographed taking money, often as much as $100.00 per person, from unidentified individuals (even when cornered, these individuals profess ignorance about where the money is coming from).

Naturally, suspensions fall on the usual cast of characters---the governments of Honduras or Venezuela, the drug cartels,or the all-purpose uber-rich Left leaning villain George Soros. Even the Russians and Chinese have been accused of being behind the massive influx in order to destabilize the US government by overwhelming the border patrol, ICE, court system, and, of course, the American social safety net. The influx has also served as cover for members of various drug gangs and even potential terrorists from the Middle East posing as migrants (last year, Honduras reported detaining approximately 12 individuals---pulled from a caravan--who were on a "Most Wanted" list of suspected ISIS members).

As an interesting aside, these individuals also seem to be reciting from the same script. They are immigrating in order to seek "asylum"; asylum from their respective countries high crime rates and to seek jobs and better living conditions. Interestingly, none could explain why they didn't apply for asylum at the local US consulate's office (there's a embassy or consulate in every capital; often times even multiple offices). Secondly, apparently none of these individuals could answer why they weren't seeking asylum in the next closest and most stable country as required under international law. Lastly, the UN does not recognize economic migrants, such as these, as bona fide immigrants, and therefore, under international law do not qualify as immigrants.

As if this is bad enough (and it's already pretty bad), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that they were going to have to release as many of 100,000 detainees into the US on the promise that they will return for a future court date to determine their immigration eligibility (yeah, like that is actually going to happen). The reason is that government facilities are filled to beyond capacity, leaving government officials no choice.

Thus, hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants could be released into the country based on little more than their "promise" to appear at some future date to see if they can remain or will have to be deported. To counter this, President Trump has ordered that detainees be held in Mexico until they can be processed, which obviously makes much better sense.

We also have another, perhaps even more serious issue to consider---infectious diseases. The vast majority of these so-called "immigrants" have never been immunized from diseases which the US has long ago eradicated; diseases like smallpox, the measles, mumps, chickenpox, or tuberculosis. These diseases are extremely contagious. With most Americans not being immunized, there's a serious potential that these diseases will spread, which could provide to be lethal to those with weaker immune systems, especially for seniors or young children.

You may recall that a few months ago, a young girl who was infected and critically ill was abandoned in the US, presumably, with the expectation that American doctors would treat the girl and her parents would later reappear and demand entry into the country in order to be reunited. However, the girl died. This, at least according to the corporate media, was somehow our fault. No one addressed the issue as to why the child wasn't taken to a doctor in a native country or even to a doctor in Mexico at some point during their weeks long trek through the country. Since then, there's been a couple of other similar instances where sick children were left abandoned, presumably with the hope that US doctor's will intervene.

To make matters worse, the corporate media has made the conscious decision to refer to these individuals as "asylum seekers", though they are clearly not. They've also taken to chastise anyone who refers to these individuals crossing into the US as "illegal immigrants" or "criminals"; thus to soften their image and make them appear to be more acceptable. In addition, many so-called "human rights" groups, especially those affiliated with churches, have been encouraging these individuals to come (some even illegally leaving supplies for them at various stopping points along with doctors and information to aid them in crossing illegally such as maps and where to find protection).

At present, we really don't know just how many illegal immigrants are currently living in the US. Some estimates put the number at about 12 million while others say the number is much less, only about 5.3 million. Of these, it's estimated that approximately 58% are believed to live in California, Texas, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois. In addition, Louisiana, Maryland, and Massachusetts have shown signs of growth while other states such as Florida, Alabama, Michigan, Nevada, and New Jersey have seen a decline. The majority of illegal immigrants appear to be employed in just four areas, farm labor, construction, hospitality and the service industry.

In terms of cost, it's estimated that while illegal immigrants have actually paid into the US economy in terms of taxes---around $19 billion dollars---they have taken out $116 billion in tax based services (combined federal, state, and local tax dollars). Thus they consume far more taxpayer dollars than they contribute. In Kentucky, the state cost to residents is $4635 per person while in Florida it's $4919 and $4429 for Texans. New Yorkers pay $6424 in state tax dollars per person. Californians pay $6517 per resident.

Meanwhile, the Center for Immigration Studies has stated over a lifetime, illegal immigration will cost US taxpayers $750 billion dollars, or to put it another way, it would be six times cheaper to deport the estimated 11 or 12 million illegal immigrants than to allow them to remain. Another interesting aside is that approximately 2/3 of all illegal immigrants have lived in the US for ten or more years, meaning that the majority of those now here illegally entered the country under President Obama.

There's no question that the massive influx along our southern border is not based religious, ethnic, or political persecution, nor are their countries the subject of ongoing wars, which would be legitimate reasons for asylum. However, this is nothing short of a defacto invasion, not entirely unlike the invasion that Europe is experiencing from the Middle East and Africa except that in Europe's case, it has become increasingly violent as migrants have increasingly demanded that Europeans conform to their religious based values and laws. Nevertheless, neither group of migrants have shown any willingness to assimilate. This could possibly trigger violence at some point in the US just like it has in Europe. Unregulated immigration has also crippled Europe's once famous social safety net and put a tremendous strain on their national economies, which could just as easily happen here as it has in Europe.

While there is also the question as to who may be behind the human invasion, the more pressing question is what to do with the massive numbers who are threatening to overwhelm our borders. It seems that regardless of how many are rejected and sent back, even more keep coming. So, what can we do, if anything? The majority of these migrants are coming from Central America. They are crossing the length of Mexico. Each time Mexican authorities have attempted to stop them, they've broken through the barriers and attacked local police and federal troops. In a few instances, Mexican police officers have been shot or badly injured. Despite this, Mexico has shown a great deal of restraint in dealing with migrants, especially considering its tough laws on illegal immigration (not to mention that the majority of illegal immigrants into the US are from Mexico), but how long will that last? We've already been told by two past Mexican presidents that the US had "no right" to prohibit individuals from Mexico to enter the US.

If we seal the 1,954 mile border (with or without a wall), we risk creating a negative impact on not just our own economy, but that of Mexico and other Latin American countries. In 2017, $558 billion dollars passed both ways just between Mexico and the US (Mexico is our third largest trading partner, behind Canada and China). In 2018, $424 million dollars worth of goods passed across the border by trucks alone; that's 69% of all truck traffic along the southern border. $78 billion in goods passed through by rail, $17 billion by air, and $5 billion via pipelines. So, while we need to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the US, we have to be careful that our actions don't impact trade between us and our trading partners south of the border.

America already spends billions of dollars propping up economies throughout Latin America and the world in the form of economic aid. Apparently this doesn't appear to be enough, judging by the number of migrates. We cannot continue to support the world on the back of US taxpayers anymore than we can continue playing the world's policeman. So, what can we do? First, we can reduce supply by eliminating demand. That means going after those who aid and support illegal immigration, be it businesses or non-profits, including churches and religious organizations.

We have to make the cost of hiring or aiding illegal immigrants prohibitive. That means automatically losing their business license or tax exempt status. That means jail time for corporate officers, priests, or ministers, plus hefty fines starting with their first offense. It means losing government contracts. It means cutting off federal tax dollars to any state, city, university, or other institution which offers "sanctuary" status.

While farmers and the like can continue to hire non-residents, the requirements to get a "green card" need to be tighter so that we know the whereabouts of anyone issued a work permit. We need to need to make citizenship a requirement for any benefits derived from taxpayer dollars. All government documentation should be printed in English only except documentation which deals with immigrants specifically. We need to increase the number of border patrol agents and expand their authority as law enforcement officers. We also need to deport illegal immigrates to the nearest consulate or embassy and let them foot the bill of sending them back. Alternatively, we can simply deduct the cost from amount we send them in aid. If we're seriously interested in stopping illegal immigration, we have to cut off the demand. We also have to stop their ability to obtain taxpayer based services. You do that and they will stop coming.

America has always welcomed immigrants, and hopefully we always will. However, we are a nation of laws like every other country. And like every other country, we have the right---indeed the responsibility---to secure and protect our borders. If someone wants to come to this country, then their first act should not be breaking our laws. Their country wouldn't tolerate it, so why should we? If they want to come to this country, great. We'd love to have you. We just ask that you do it legally. Is that asking too much?


MORE: New Migrant Caravan has Formed and Headed To US-Mexico Border

Migrant caravan swells to 12,000 At Mexico's Southern Border


5 facts about illegal immigration in the US

New caravan of 2600 migrants could be headed towards US border

Illegal Immigration cost nearly taxpayers $750 billion over lifetime: Report

The Suicide of Nations

Recent events in the Middle East have resulted in the largest mass exodus of refugees since the end of World War II. The vast majority of these are Muslims from Syria. The White House announced on September 11th that the United States will take in another 10,000 over the next year. With the US limiting the number of refugees to 70,000 annually, that's still a significant number. Nevertheless, Germany has agreed to accept some 800,000 while tiny isolated Iceland has offered to take in some 100,000. The US State Department has been working the Catholic Counsel of Bishops and the Lutheran Church (which alone has settled over 7600 Somalis in Minnesota while both have become experts on immigration---legal and illegal) to resettle these individuals. States like Kentucky, Vermont, Arizona, Nebraska, Idaho, Michigan, Utah, and both North and South Dakota will get the bulk while South Carolina, Arkansas, Mississippi, West Virginia, Montana, and Wyoming will get the least. Of course, this will put increased pressure on these states, several of which that are struggling to meet current levels of need, to provide housing and employment, not to mention an additional drain on social and health services. In terms of jobs, many of these individuals are low skilled with little knowledge of English, making re-education a first priority. However, their low skill levels will also create a potential conflict with other, mostly illegal, immigrates, who are now holding many of those jobs.

In Europe, this potential for conflict has already come to a head. As I mentioned above, Germany is taking in some 800,000 of these fleeing immigrants. France has agreed to take in around 100,000 despite its already heavily Moslem immigrant population. In total, some 300,000 have already fled Syria and surrounding areas, with approximately 200,000 overwhelming the financially struggling Greece along and around 100,000 making their way into Italy. According to some sources, just over 13 million souls have been displaced in

Syria alone (Afghanistan and Eritrea round out the top three nations most impacted by the violence). Two million, mostly Syrian refugees are holed up along and just in the Turkish border.

While many are calling for a return, or at least an ouster of the refugees from their countries, the 1951 UN "Refugee Convention" requires nations to accept individuals who are fleeing countries where their lives are endangered. In addition, the EU has mandated an open immigration policy, which has already heavily burden nations like Sweden and Norway and has nearly collapsed their once highly successful democratic socialist economic systems. Nevertheless, countries like Sweden have already accepted just under 68,000 refugees (Germany has thus far taken in close to 100,000). Other countries such as Hungary and Macedonia, have closed their borders to the refugees, despite the onslaught. Thus far, the Hungarian Government has been, albeit reluctantly, allowing refugees to pass through the country as they make their way to Austria (which is accepting 80,000 refugees), Germany, and other Western European nations, including the US which has agree to accept up to 10,000. The International Rescue Committee and United Nations has expressed their dismay and anger at the United States for agree to accept 100,000; apparently without consideration of the thousands the US has already accepted and the illegal immigration crisis (unlike Europe, the US is not bound by the same laws mandating acceptance of illegal immigrants---at least not yet).

Nevertheless, things have been unraveling quickly. Refugees and immigrants have been pouring in at higher than expected rates, overwhelming relief efforts with some refugee centers running low on food, water, medicine, and tents (and this doesn't take into consideration clothing, transportation, emergency needs, or sanitation needs). In addition, thousands more from Africa having been

attempting to enter Europe through Spain and southern France. These have typically been the immigrants which have been coming for years since the EU's open door policy has been in effect and have overloaded the social safety networks in many of the host countries. The result has been Germany's efforts to "reinstate" border controls (Germany's Merkel has been urging other frontline European nations to do likewise).

It also looks like many of these refugees and migrants have brought their ethnic and religious hatreds with them. Germany, Italy, and Greece have all reported violent assaults as various opposing groups have come in contact with each other. Other countries, including France and the UK are bracing for similar violent outbreaks. There is little doubt European authorities are ill equipped to handle the level of hatred and open violence that is coming their way. Also, approximately 12 ISIS operatives have been caught crossing into some of the hosts nations so far (in one instance, the suspect was carrying dozens of fake Syrian passports). How many have crossed undetected is anybody's guess, but I think we'll soon get a good idea firsthand.

Lastly, but perhaps more significantly, the overwhelming majority of the refugees entering Europe are Moslem (as have been a significant number of the Africans mentioned earlier). Yet, the most persecuted of the all those in the Middle East has been the Coptic, Assyrian, Chaldean and Syrian Christians. These were the ones whom ISIS attempted to surround and capture as they fled into the mountains with the Kurds. Meanwhile, hundreds, if not more, have been captured, tortured, and ultimately murdered in the most gruesome ways imaginable---men, women, children (including babies), the handicapped, and seniors. Even family pets weren't spared. A few young girls and women have been sold off to become sex slaves before finally being decapitated. However, these Christians seem to be having the hardest time finding sanctuary.

Some towns and communities have expressed a willingness to accept refugees or migrant families, provided they were Christian in order to preserve their local character and culture (and some have mentioned to lessen the likelihood of terrorists).The country of Slovakia, for instance, said it would accept Christian refugees only. Cyprus too has expressed an interest in Christian only refugees. Not unexpectedly, politicians all the way around have condemned this as being "racist" or "discriminatory"; claiming that Christians aren't any less persecuted than other minorities. Hogwash. Of those few Christian families who've at least made it to the refugee camps, many are intimidated, attacked and beaten by their fellow refugees who happen also to be Moslems.

I think the Europe we've always known is vanishing before our eyes. Europe has been inundated for decades by individuals who have little or no education not to mention poor work skills. Some, however, have taken the opportunities afforded them by their hosts countries to educate themselves and learn viable employment skills. However, those have been the minority. Most seem more interested to live in their homogenous enclaves while drawing on the already strained social nets instead of trying to integrate themselves into their new homeland. The once highly successful economic systems of Scandinavia---the socialist democracies so much hated by the corporate capitalists for defying their economics of greed---are failing; not because of ideological flaws, but because these new immigrants lack the education, work skills and yes, the work ethic needed to sustain a system which requires everyone to pitch in equally in order to reap the benefits equally.

With the decline in religious observance throughout Europe and a birthrate which has been in decline since the end of the Second World War, whole sections of cities, like London, Manchester, York, Paris, Marseille, Hamburg, Dusseldorf, Solingen, and Lisbon have become unwelcoming Moslem enclaves thanks to higher than average birthrates as well as the recent immigration, where Sharia law is enforced. Even non-Moslem women simply walking through are harassed if their heads are uncovered or if they're unaccompanied by a male adult. Pets, especially dogs, are very much unwelcome ("unclean"). Government authorities pretend they maintain control, but in reality they can do little more than lodge complaints with the local ruling council. Meanwhile, churches are being converted into Mosques. Local traditions, foods, and customs are being supplanted. In Germany recently, girls have been instructed not to wear short skirts to schools as to avoid "offending" Moslem students and their parents. School curriculums are being changed to fit with acceptable classes for Moslems. Being overwhelming Christian for centuries, most European schools, hospitals, and so forth often display a Christian cross. Well, that too is changing as they are being asking to remove them. Why? I think you why.

While it's unlikely that any European nation will face a Moslem majority, they will see significant increases in Moslem populations and can expect a ramping up of demands for change as they seek to increase their economic and political influence. Smaller countries like Belgium, the Netherlands, Iceland, as well as Sweden, Norway and Denmark will likely be the most impacted. Nevertheless, the demographics will change. There will be less of the stereotypical fair skinned blond hair blue eyed Northern European or the rosie cheeked English or the freckled red-haired Scot. Even the French will see change. Gone too will much of Europe's culture and traditions I suspect, along with its scandalous "liberal" social attitudes. In place of ringing church bells there will be calls to

prayers from converted Cathedrals. Its economy will likely struggle along while some may fail altogether as Europe will face a steep re-education and training curve while bearing a crushing influx on its social safety net. Europe may also face a healthcare crisis as possible old diseases are re-introduced into society.

Lastly, I think Americans need to pay more attention. While much of what's happening some 5000 miles away, many of these changes will be---and are---on our shores too. We are, as the Greeks are saying, becoming an "occupied" country. We have at least 12 million illegal immigrants here; many if not most of whom having no interest whatsoever of integrating into society. This influx has and will continue to drive down wages and evaporate benefits as we cope with excess demand versus availability of jobs while higher paying jobs are exported to lower pay countries. It has already strained our social net to the max. We will see an even greater entrenchment of ethnic communities as well as an increase in racial, religious, and ethnic conflicts as centuries old hatreds are brought here and the shrinking tax dollar for social services pits one group against the other while a few attempt to goad the more successful into feeling "guilty" for grievances not of their making; assuming that it's better to live off public handouts than accept responsibility for their own lack of effort as others have, starting with taking education seriously. Meanwhile, we have a government that is no longer "ours". So perhaps we are "occupied" after all.

As Bob Dylan once sang, "you don't need a Weatherman to know which way the wind blows" and I'm feeling a chill in the air.


Why Europe's refugee crisis has reached a tipping point
http://news.yahoo.com/asylum-in-europe--the-difference-between-migrants-and-refugees-and-what-s-at-stake-183639355.html


Why is the EU struggling with migrants and asylum?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24583286

Archbishop of Canterbury: UK plans to take in 20,000 Syrians discriminates against Christians
https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/category/christian-refugees/

Pew Research Report: The Future Of The Global Moslem Population
http://www.pewforum.org/2011/01/27/future-of-the-global-muslim-population-regional-europe/

Wanted: Ebola Czar---No Medical Experience Required

Approximately 15 countries have now restricted travel into and out of countries affected by the Ebola virus; most of these are in surrounding African nations. 7 airlines, including Air France, British Airways, Emirates Airlines, and Korean Air, have restricted air travel as well. Why? Because it makes good common sense to stop the spread of Ebola and keep it out of their country. 2/3 of Americans are not only concerned about the spread of Ebola since its introduction to our shores was authorized by President Obama, but the same percentage---67%---demand travel restrictions be imposed. Good luck with that America. Obama won't even secure our southern border against illegal immigrates. and whatever illnesses they're carrying.

But what the Obama has done, however, is appoint a so-called "Ebola Czar" or as he's officially called the "Ebola Response Coordinator". His name is Ron Klain, and he's the quintessential Washington insider. Mr. Klain is pretty bright boy. He was born in Indianapolis, Indiana in 1961 and attended Georgetown University before going on to Harvard Law School, where he graduated cum laude. His background includes working in the Clinton Administration as the Chief of Staff to then head of the Justice Department, Janet Reno (think Waco). He later worked in as Chief of Staff to Vice Presidents Al Gore and Joe Biden. He also worked on the presidential campaigns of Wesley Clark and John Kerry. Klain has been a senior advisor to Barack Obama, and worked as General Counsel for an Wallstreet investment firm, Revolution, LLC, which was co-founded by AOL's Steve Case.

Klain was a chief legal advisor to help Fannie Mae avoid "regulatory issues" just before the big housing market bubble burst and Taxpayers got to pick up the pieces . He later signed off on the Obama Regime's ill-advised $535 million dollar loan guarantee to the now defunct solar panel manufacturer, Solyndra; a loan that US Taxpayers' had to eat.

His wife, Monica Medina, also an attorney, is a environmental activist. She is a former senior director of Ocean Policy at the National Geographic Society. She has been general counsel for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); Principal Director at NOAA; and Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense

All-in-all, very impressive credentials. I should point out that I mention Medina's background only to highlight her professional background and "insider" resume. However, you'll note that neither has any experience dealing with medical matters. Mr. Klain lacks any background---education or training---in dealing with epidemics, especially of this dimension or even health administration. He apparently has no clue about emergency health management; medical logistics; treatment or prevention; or even emergency management.

In short, Obama has put a bagboy in charge of containing the plague. You would think, when faced with something as contagious and deadly as Ebola, that you would want someone knowledgeable of infectious diseases or emergency medical management to be in charge (and in case you're wondering, the CDC is not in charge. It is serving only in an advisory role, and then only if its assistance is requested. Thus far, it's response have been substandard to say the least). Nope, Obama has given the job of protecting America's health to a political insider and a investment lawyer. Meanwhile, the "Blunder-in-Chief" continues to standby his refusal to issue restrictions on air travel. I'm beginning to wonder if we shouldn't change the name of this plague from "Ebola" to "Obola".

Every Country in Africa...
http://offgridsurvival.com/ebolaclosingborders/

Americans want flight restrictions from Ebola countries.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/10/14/americans-want-flight-restrictions-from-ebola-countries-and-its-not-close/

Ron Klain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Klain


And the Survey Says...!

A/O endeavors to remain of the leading national non-partisan centrist oriented political blog. In our ever continuing effort to bring you articles that you want to read, we've come up with a brief survey. If you would, please a take few moments to answer these few questions. If you'd like to add anything more, please feel free to add a comment or email them direct to me at PaulHosse@aol.com. The poll questions are to your top right. Thanks much!