An Eye For An Eye: Is It Time To Do Away With the Death Penalty?

The death penalty is one of the top most hotly debated topics in America. It’s discussed in law school, seminary, medical school as apart of medical ethics. It was discussed in my jurisprudence and philosophy classes while pursuing my undergraduate degree. The validity of the death penalty is just as likely to be discussed in a bar among friends as it is at home. 64% of Americans support it while 80% acknowledge a risk of executing someone innocent and 63% say that it doesn’t deter serious crimes.

Republicans and conservatives are more likely to support the death penalty than Democrats and liberals/progressives. 62% of those claiming a religious affiliation also support it, especially Protestants (66%) and among 75% of White evangelicals. 57% of Black Protestants favor the death penalty even thought the majority of those on death row are Black. 58% of Catholics also favor the death penalty, including 61% of Catholic Hispanics.

Oddly, almost more Atheists oppose the death penalty as Protestants who favor it (65% vs 66%). 57% of agnostics oppose the death penalty while those who affiliate with no religious faith at all are more apt to support it than oppose it by 63% to 37%.

Before we get into a discussion about the death penalty, I want to make it clear that I’m not an attorney, nor am I offering any legal advice. What follows is my personal opinions based on well-established sources and data which are linked below. Some of the information may vary by state. If you’re seeking legal advice, I recommend seeking out a licensed lawyer.

When it comes to the death penalty, as of 2025, it’s on the books of 55 countries. 144 others have abolished it (the latest of which being Sierra Leone and Kazakhstan).  Among those nations which still use death penalty are China, Iran, Egypt, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea, though rare. In fact, a prisoner in South Korea is more likely to die from old age or illness. As of 2021, there were 60 individuals on their death row. Iran regularly executes gays and trans, women who refuse forced marriages, those attempting to educate women, and anyone else opposed to their brand of Shira law. 

In the United States, 23 states have done away with it, with Virginia being the most recent state to do so. Texas holds the dubious distinction of having carried out the most executions, 523, followed by Oklahoma with 116. It’s worth nothing the Virginia was third with 113. Still, that means that 27 states still use the death penalty, in addition to the federal government, which still uses it under certain circumstances.

It also bears mentioning that the United States has the highest incarceration of any nation in the world with a rate of 629 per 100,000 individuals or roughly about two million men and women behind bars. That’s more than Russia (which has suspended its death penalty), China, or Iran. Of those two million, 2,463 are currently on death row.

42% of those on death row are White, which is proportional with the overall prison population. 40% are Black and about 15% are Hispanics. Asians make up just 1.8%. Their average is about 54 years old. Most have been waiting for the sentence to be carried out for between 19 and 24 years.  The number one reason to land on death row? Premediated murder involving aggravated circumstances such as kidnapping, rape, or the use of a firearm.

Since 1976, there have been five forms of capital punishment carried out. The majority are done by lethal injection with a great deal of care taken to ensure that the injection is as painless as possible and every step is taken to ensure the prisoner’s anxiety is kept to a minimum (such as the use of valium, nitrous oxide, numbing solution at the injection site, dimming the lights, and blocking the injection itself from view).

The electric chair (once billed as being the most “humane”) is still used in some states, along with the gas chamber. Kentucky, Oklahoma, Florida, Arkansas, Alabama, South Carolina, and Tennessee are among those state which carry out executions. Gas is still used in seven states. Among them are Wyoming, Missouri, Arizona, and Alabama.  Nitrogen gas is the most commonly used although Alabama and Louisiana have opted for nitrogen hypoxia as an alternative to lethal injection.

Hanging and a firing squad are (surprisingly) still used in executions. As of 2018, only New Hampshire still allows hanging. Note that while New Hampshire did away with capital punishment in 2009, those on death row at the time were excluded. Washington State abolished hanging as recently as 2018.

As for the firing squad, Utah has used it most often. The last time was 2010. However, the firing squad is on the books in South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Mississippi. The victim is typically hooded and strapped to a chair. The shooters, approximately three to five,  are given rifles which randomly carry live or blank rounds so no one knows whether they fired the fatal shot and are positioned between 15 and 20 feet away. Their identity is protected, with the shooters firing from behind a wall or curtain. The bullets are specially designed to fragment and cause maximum injury (duh). 

It bears mentioning that there has been historically around 166 individuals executed in the United States whose, subsequent deaths to their death, have proven to have been innocent. So, it is still worth it? The alternative is life in prison and thus forcing the public to provide for their upkeep, including medical care, which can be in the tens of thousands of dollars (if not more in some circumstances).

In case you’re wondering, for someone to be sentenced to death, they must first be convicted of an especially heinous crime, which usually involves the planning and intentional murder of someone. Quite often, there are secondary crimes, often just as horrendous, involved.

The individual must be convicted unanimously by a jury. The usual criteria is that their guilt must be “beyond all reasonable doubt”. That is, there can be absolutely no question that they are guilty of the crime(s) for which they are charged. If, on the other hand, they are found guilty but based only on the preponderance of the evidence (meaning the insufficient weight of the evidence, leaving the possibility of some doubt) or if the verdict is not unanimous, the death penalty is no longer an option.  

In addition, the death penalty must also be on the table, that is, the option was made available to them by the presiding judge. Lastly, the judge must also agree with the jury’s decision. In many jurisdictions, an appeal or review is automatically granted to insure that the defendant’s rights were properly and adequately protected.  Otherwise, the defendant’s attorney will typically file upon the request of their client.

 While primarily an administrative procedure,  this is often when we hear of “new evidence” or witnesses suddenly coming to light for some reason. If it’s compelling enough to have a direct impact the case, a new trial could be granted or reexamining proposed sentencing and potentially modified (generally speaking, the sentence may only be reduced downward).  

Nevertheless, the defendant is still afforded another bite at the proverbial “I’m innocent” apple. In fact, they have virtually unlimited bites at the apple, and all at the taxpayer’s expense, which brings us to the first issue. Should someone convicted of a crime and sentenced to death, be afforded an unlimited number of appeals? Some are emphatically say “no”. They believe that an individual should have a set number of appeals or at least a cut off date (although new evidence can be introduced by their attorney at any time).

 What do you think? Should someone on death row be capped in the number of appeals they can file, at least on the taxpayer’s dime? Some argue that they’re simply trying to delay the inevitable (which is likely quite true. Who wouldn’t? After all, even the most hardcore criminal isn’t in any hurry to die). But, how long or for how much of our tax dollars should you and I be on the hook for? You would think that after the, let's say, tenth failed attempt it’s unlikely anything is going to change. But then, we’re also talking about a human life here (even though they've allegedly already deprived someone else of theirs).

There have been some pretty convincing arguments about the use of certain drugs like Sodium Pentothal, Sodium Amytal, or Scopolamine (so-called “truth serums”) which suppresses the nervous system and reduces one’s inhibitions which encourages them to talk more openly without filters. Should these be employed? 

These drugs could be used under the supervision and direction of a license psychologist. Naturally, their attorney would be present along with the prosecuting attorney and other witnesses with very specific questions. The session would obviously be recorded for future reference. What could go wrong?

Well, in theory, this would benefit all parties concerned, especially those who insist they’re innocent despite a preponderance of evidence against them for instance.  It would allow both sides to question the defendant about the crime and perhaps helps the police to redirect their investigation while allowing the District Attorney to focus their attention elsewhere.

Ideally, the DA could offer one of the drugs in exchange for a reduced sentence, a dropping the possibility of a death sentence, or even a dismissal of the charges. At that time the defendant can alter their previous statement before proceeding. But, if it is revealed that they were lying, there’s no going back. They can’t suddenly decide afterwards to come clean or try and make a deal. It’s a one time offer only. Maybe the threat (or promise) of a truth serum would be incentive enough to get to bottom of what they know. 

However, the main problem is that while under the influence of one of these “truth serums”, an individual becomes highly susceptible to suggestion, false memories, and unless new actionable details are revealed, their statements are difficult to verify. Nevertheless, it would seem that if you’re truly innocent, it would be worth the risk as well as time and would save a lot of time.  

 In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1963 (“Townsend vs. Satin”) that the use of truth serums were unconstitutional since they could be used to self-incriminate, despite that fact that the CIA, the nation’s top spy agency, made use of these (and other) types of drugs through, at least the 1970’s. I wouldn’t doubt that thanks to the Patriot Act and FISA courts, they aren’t still used in one form or another.

Given the current selection of execution methods being used, which many call unethical and inhumane, what if there was another choice made available? What if the defendant was offered a deal like this---they agree to five or some other fixed number of taxpayer based appeals and no more. It would save huge amounts of taxpayer money and reduce wasted court time (courts are already highly congested). 

Then, in exchange for dropping the possibility of lethal injection, the gas chamber, or “Old Sparky” and the long wait on death row, they agree to a life sentence in isolation with no further contact with anyone except their lawyer, the prison doctor and a single guard to check up on them and bring them their meals, etc. However, there can be no conversations. Unlike being in the "hole" where the prisoner is thrown into small cell with no light or anything else, the prisoner would be permitted books, TV, magazines, and receive some limited outside time (again, in isolation) but nothing else.  

It sounds cruel, and I suppose in some ways, it is. As far as society would be concerned, they’re dead as if the execution had been carried out. It wouldn't prevent others from attempting to find evidence on their behalf.  The chief downside is that some would consider it to be  “cruel and unusual”, but then if they’re  willingly agreed to, is it? Currently, the average inmate spends just shy of 20 years on death row awaiting their sentence to be carried out. Talk about the “Sword of Damocles” hanging over your head!

Also unlike the "hole", the prisoner can opt out at any time and agree to an execution within 24 hours. Another variation on this idea would be to execute prisoners on death row within five or so years of their convictions absent any new evidence.  As it is, many die of old age or some illness while waiting to be executed. How fair is that, especially the prisoner?  To me, lingering for 20+ years would be “cruel and unusual” punishment.

Finally, the alternative would be do away with the death penalty altogether. After all, we are the only nation in the Americas still using the death penalty and one of the very few major industrial nations to use it. What if their sentences are converted to life in solitary confinement as suggested above or would it be better that they just spend their life in prison without any restrictions while we continue to pick up the tab?

It should be noted that studies have shown that sentencing someone to death is significantly more expensive than being sentenced to life. In Maryland, a single death sentence case can costs as much as $3 million dollars. In Texas, a death sentence case can be as much as three times that of a life sentence, and so on. What do you think? Should we, in the 21^st Century, still be using a death penalty? Do you think it’s fair or just?

Finally, just as a reminder, although I do have around 25 years of legal experience as the senior legal manager for a receivables firm, I am not an attorney and I’m certainly not offering legal advice. I’m just providing my opinion based on existing data and history. However, there’s no question that our legal system needs serious reforming, and there’s no better place to start than with death row. The lost of 166 innocent lives in 166 lives too many.

  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. 

 

Death Row Overview

Hanging Legal States 2025

Execution by firing squad

 

Death Penalty Cost

Kentucky Government: Notes on the Costs of Death Penalty

Death Penalty Information Center: Costs

 

Pew Research: 10 facts about the death penalty in the U.S.

  

 

Why is the Trump Administration Refusing to Release Jeffery Epstein’s Client List?

History is full of “what ifs” and other assorted murder mysteries like what happened to the bodies of Cleopatra and Marc Anthony, Alexander the Great, and of course, where is Jimmy Hoffa? Did Hitler survive death in the bunker and escape? Who actually ordered the killings of Martin Luther King Jr, John Kennedy or his brother, Robert F. Kennedy? What became of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid? 

It appears that another mystery will be added to that long list for future historians and conspiracy buffs to ponder---who was actually responsible of the death of Jeffery Epstein and what of his unredacted list of clients? Even the famous “Hollywood madam”, Heidi Fleiss, allegedly kept a private black book full of clients and notes, so why wouldn’t someone like Epstein?  It’s good insurance.

Well, apparently not if Attorney General Pam Bondi if she has her way. She originally denied the existence of any list but now admits it does exist but won’t be released. Given that the names of some very wealthy and powerful people are supposedly on the list, it’s easy to see why some very powerful people want it buried along with Epstein.

President Trump agrees with his AG, having said that he doesn’t understand the public’s interest in the list, calling it “sordid” and “fake news”. Given Epstein’s reputation, it’s not hard to understand actually. The public wants to know who participated in the assorted escapades on Epstein’s island getaway, especially if the stories of alleged prostitution, drug use, and pedophilia are true (the locals called his private plane the “Lolita Express” for all the underage girls it carried).    

A former top Colombo mobster, Michael Franzese, who at one time was held for seven months in the same cell as Epstein in New York City’s Metropolitan Corrections Center said that with all the security, suicide would be “impossible” (especially given that Epstein was supposedly on “suicide watch” to begin with).  

Then there is the fact that all the security camaras malfunctioned at once (including two which were aimed directly into his cell resulting in missing footage) or that the two security guards sitting 15 feet from Epstein’s cell whose job was to constantly monitor the prisoner, admitted to have “fallen asleep”, spent time shopping online, and going for walks instead of checking on Epstein every 30 minutes as required (they later admitted to doctoring the log book but didn’t face any charges as part of a plea deal) seems a little odd too.  

Other guards who regularly patrol the halls also failed to notice anything out of the ordinary at the same time certainly stretches the credibility of a suicide claim. It’s also worth mentioning that the Metropolitan Correctional Center where both Jeffery Epstein and Michael Franzese were imprisoned is now closed and stripped of all security cameras, etc. 

In addition, Franzese pointed out that the cell was specifically designed to prevent successful suicide attempts (hence being in the suicide watch section of the jail). It seems that to many things simply don’t add up.  So, what’s the official timeline of events leading up to Epstein's death and do they make any more sense?

According to official records, Jeffery Epstein had been arrested on July 6, 2019 on charges of having sex with minors and running a pedophile sex ring operation. The following day he was moved from general population to a Special Housing Unit and placed on observation on July 9^th.

On July 18^th, U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman denied bail, citing Epstein as a “flight risk” and a “danger to the community” despite having not committed or charged with any violent crimes. And no longer possessed a passport. It bears mentioning that just a few weeks before his death, Epstein had met with a prison psychologist and stated (apparently convincingly) that he wasn’t suicidal and that he had a “pretty wonderful life”… thus far.

Then on July 23^rd, he was found unconscious with a bed sheet around his neck in an apparent suicide attempt, after which he was placed on suicide watch. Curiously, I’ve been unable to find any statements from Epstein or prison authorities about the incident. More oddly, at the end of July, Epstein was removed from suicide watch by Bureau of Prison psychologists. Why? 

On August 9^th, some 2000 documents were unveiled about his alleged pedophile ring activities. Nevertheless, it wasn’t going to be a slam dunk for the Feds and they knew it. Then, his cellmate was suddenly transferred out and strangely, no new cellmate was assigned, thus leaving Epstein, a supposed suicide risk, strangely alone.  The following morning, Epstein was found dead, having allegedly hung himself.

A review of Jeffery Epstein’s autopsy report appeared to show that he most likely died from a frontal strangulation and claimed that there were signs of a struggled according to some forensic experts, including three neck fractures, a broken hyoid in the neck not normally found in an intentional self-inflicted hanging. There were also ligature marks in the center of his neck, which are more common with strangulation and there was no blood on the noose. 

Dr. Michael Biden, a noted forensic pathologist hired by Jeffery Epstein’s brother, agreed and said that the findings were consistent with strangulation by a wire or cord than by hanging with a bed sheet. He added that in reviewing thousands of suicide and jail hanging photos over the last "40 or 50 years", none had similar injuries as Jeffery Epstein's.  

Dr. Biden was the chief medical examiner for New York City from 1978 to 1979 and hosted “Autopsy” on HBO. He additionally served as the chairman of the House Select Committee on Assassination’s Forensic Panel. He was involved in a number of high profile cases including that of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, Phil Spector, Michael Brown, and George Floyd.

Epstein knew that if convicted on all charges (which was unlikely), he could potentially spend up to 45 years in prison. Certainly, there was no guarantee the FBI could prove all the charges. There was also the likelihood he could get sentenced to one of those minimum federal “resort” facilities like the kind politicians get sent to. Epstein did, after all, have money and connections, the two main ingredients needed to grease the legal system.

But perhaps that one thing which could hurt him the most is the fear by some that he would talk to save himself. Organized crime is littered with bodies of individuals who were silenced for the same reason. Why should this, if the allegations were true,  be any different? I think Epstein knew and understood that.

If so, where they responsible for Epstein’s death or did Epstein actually hang himself to protect his clients or out of fear of prison? What about the failure of the security cameras or the guards mysteriously disappearing just at the right time? Why would Epstein be denied bail? Why was he left alone in his cell? Was his death an unfortunate nexus of incompetence, apathy, personnel shortages, and budget cuts or just a pure coincidence?

According to a CNN/SSRS poll, 50% of Americans believe there is more to the story regarding Epstein’s death than we’ve been told. 17% said they’re unsure and need to hear more. Meanwhile, just a mere 3% are satisfied with the government’s explanation.

Along political lines, 52% of Independents, the nation’s largest political demographic, are unsatisfied with the government’s take on Epstein’s death.  56% of Democrats agree that there is more to the story. 40% of Republicans agree. Just 3% of Democrats and Independents believe the government’s explanation of events along with just 4% of Republicans.

When it came to the amount of information thus far released by the attorney general’s office, 66% of liberals want more information to be made available. 48% of moderates and 42% of conservatives agree. However, 18% of liberals said that it didn’t matter one way or the other. 32% of conservatives and moderates agreed.

In another survey published by the Miami Herald,  67% of respondents believed the government was engaged in a coverup when it came to Epstein. 69% of Independents said they thought that the government was intentionally withholding information. 82% of Democrats agreed as did half of the Republicans surveyed.

The same poll indicated that 79% of respondents want the Trump Administration to keep its campaign promise to release all of the information regarding Epstein (including his client list). 17% said they were unsure and 5% were satisfied with things as they are. When broken down along partisan lines, 85% of Democrats said that everything needed to be made public. 76% of Independents agreed. So did 75% of the Republicans surveyed.

Another poll, this one released by Quinnipiac University, showed that 63% of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of the Epstein files while 20% had no opinion and 17% was satisfied with Trump’s handling of the matter. 40% of Republicans approved, however, 36%  didn’t. Among Democrats, 83% disapproved of the lack of transparency by the White House along with 71% of Independents.

So, what do you think? Did Jeffery Epstein hang himself? Is there an actual list of clients or some other “black book”, perhaps containing some very personal information? Supposedly Epstein's close associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, has a little black book of her own containing over 2000 names of alleged clients; a book which by the way has been sealed by the court while she sits in prison. Why? Was it to protect to those mentioned in the book? Did the guards disable the security cameras and take a walk in order to enable Epstein to hang himself or was there something more? 

 Attorney General Pam Bondi’s recent action to deny and then admit but withhold further information only adds credence to the so-called “conspiracy theory” of a massive coverup. It also potentially hurts President Trump who promised government transparency, but bear in mind too that this has also moved from a simple judicial or political matter into a intelligence coup for government intelligence agencies. There's a lot of very powerful names in those books that can be leveraged. 

For those who say, “who cares?”, I have to respond that we all should. This was allegedly a huge, perhaps global, sex ring involving some of the world’s richest and most powerful men and women, including those in government, finance, military, and business. To say that it’s unimportant or their "personal business" is to say that pedophilia and sex with minors is acceptable.  

It is also to say that government coverup of such crimes are also acceptable. It is not. We are tired of coverups and the corruption with accompanies them. We are just as tired of the two tier justice system, one for the wealthy and powerful and another for us. We’d like some honesty and transparency for a change, regardless of whether a client list or black book exists or not. To borrow from the title of a John Lennon song,  how about giving us some truth for a change?

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. 

 

Jeffery Epstein died by suicide and there’s no ‘client list’,Justice Department says

Epstein didn’t kill himself

Trump says US attorney general should release any ‘credible’information on Epstein

Trump acknowledges receiving briefing on Jeffery Epsteincase from AG Pam Bondi

 

Jeffery Epsteins Death: A Timeline of His final Weeks

Just 3% satisfied with amount of Epstein informationreleased: Survey

Is Trump administration covering up Epstein evidence? WhatAmericans say in poll

63% Of Voters Disapprove of Trump Administration’s Handingof the Jeffery Epstein Files….

Jeffery Epstein client list

How Jeffery Epstein Got Paid

Jeffery Epstein

 

It's Good To Be King Part II

As you'll recall, I mentioned discussing politics and current events with a friend of mine recently. I had just posted an article and was doing research for my next articles. During our conversation, he suggested a topic---being King (or Queen) for a year. Whatever you decree becomes the law of the land, but it had to be practical. So, after considering the possibilities, I decided to give it a go. Besides, it sounded like fun and would me clarify my thoughts on some topics. As a disclaimer, none of my comments, either in this edition or in Part I, are set in stone. Situations change. Woe befall those who never evolve. People should continually educate themselves and be willing to change their opinions as the situation dictates. So, with that said, let's continue with "It's Good To Be King" Part II.

Next on my royal agenda would be to overhaul the tax system. Personally, I don't think the tax code should be any longer than short term paper. I think we need to institute either a consumption tax or a flat tax. Under the first option, you pay a tax on whatever you buy. If you buy only a little, you only pay a little; great for those on fixed or limited incomes. If you're a big spender, you'll pay more because you can obviously afford more. The second option would simply be a fixed tax that you'll pay regardless based on your gross income. Of course, certain items such as food, medicine are exempt along with income that's double the poverty rate.

No more NAFTA. No more TPP. No more secret trade agreements. We will focus on Fair Trade instead; one that protects our labor market from unfair foreign trade practices. If a foreign government underwrites a particular industry in order to undercut our market, it may be necessary to support that market domestically in order to protect domestic jobs. The next project I would embark on is to reduce US military presence overseas. Currently, we have over 1000 bases overseas (the actually number is publically unknown). In some cases, we are there to provide backup in case that nation is attack. In other cases, we are there as the defacto military force on behalf of that country (Japan comes to mind). I think that unless we're being compensated, we need to withdraw our military from any country where our national interests aren't directly impacted. Along with that, I think we should seek closer cooperation with Russia which would go a long way in reducing global tensions, plus both the US and Russia could work jointly on certain global issues militarily and economically. Besides, we alone have enough nukes that no matter what Russia or China do independently or jointly, we could literally blow the Earth into a cosmic dust cloud a 1000 times over. Not even cockroaches would survive.

I would take the savings and rebuild our infrastructure. Internally, our highways, roads, bridges, and transportation systems are as decrepit as the government in Washington. We need to refocus on a train system similar to Europe's or Japan's. We need trolleys and subways too. We need to update and secure our power and water stations, and yes, we need a serious commitment to solar and wind power too. We need to see ourselves as conservators of the Earth, not just for ourselves but for future generations. Besides, this would be great for our national unemployment. The jobs and contracts would be open to all US citizens and domestically owned companies; especially small businesses. Finally, there would be a minimum tax paid by all corporations. No more making billions, obtaining taxpayer paid loans,tax abatements, federal contracts, corporate officers making tens of millions of dollars, and paying nothing. As an aside, I would not tax savings accounts under $50,000 in order to encourage people to save. The US has the lowest savings rate of any industrialized nation. Additionally, this would make more money available to loan and would help keep interest rates low. While Social Security would be remain intact, individuals would be allow to invest up to 50% that amount themselves---with a signed "no-harm" agreement.

With respect to national healthcare, I do favor some form of minimum national healthcare. The fact is that some individuals simply can't afford healthcare on their own and small businesses can't afford to offer it, which is key in attracting and keeping qualified applicants. Therefore, I would support a single payer which offers a guaranteed minimum coverage with an option to buy additional insurance in the marketplace if you so desire. This makes it easier and cheaper to operate, help those unable to acquire insurance otherwise, and keep small businesses competitive in the employee marketplace. All federal employees, including elected officials, will be on the same plan. Lastly, members of Congress and the Presidency would not receive lifetime salaries. They would receive what any other federal employee receives for the same length of service. The Presidency will have the option of either using two Secret Service agents for a maximum of five years or hiring private security for the same costs.

Speaking of employment, non-citizens (aka illegal immigrants) should be deported. While we are a nation of immigrants, we are also a nation of laws, and those laws must and will be enforced. Anyone assisting these individuals violate US immigration laws will be fined, starting with the first offense. Repeat offenses will result in steeper fines and jail time. Employers will face suspension of their business license starting at 90 days. Repeated violations will extend to six month suspensions, one year suspensions, and finally, a permanent suspension. The company president and senior board officers will also face up to six months in jail. In addition, no federal business will be conducted with any company if these individuals serve as a corporate officer. Any religious or non-profit institution or business will face a loss of their tax exempt status and business license starting with 90 days and continuing along the same lines as the corporations. Anyone who wants to be here needs to have a work permit. Anyone who wants to stay here had best take the appropriate legal steps to do so. No individual here illegally will be allowed to use any taxpayer services. By the way, the forms will be in English. In addition, all illegal immigrants will be fingerprinted and photo scanned along with a DNA sample to aide in future detection (this would be especially useful for those who are members of criminal gangs or have a felony record). They would then be taken to the nearest embassy of origin and deposited there for deportation. The cost of processing the detainees would be deducted from any aid provided to that country, so there would be no need for a wall.

Continuing with the topic of immigrants, I'm not sure I would follow President Trump's travel ban, which seems to keep hitting legal roadblocks. Of course, the idea to restrict travel from nations with large pools of potential terrorists isn't bad. Nevertheless, I don't think I would impose an outright ban. I would, however, impose stricter security screening on individuals who come from certain countries with high incidents of terrorist and extremist activity, including nations like Saudi Arabia since that's where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from as well as Ben Laden. We should, however, allow individuals such as the Assyrian Christians, Yazidis, and Kurds, who are being aggressively persecuted by hate driven terrorists like ISIS or Al Qaeda, and prohibited by countries like Turkey and Syria from leaving, a preferred immigration status. In conjunction with this, I would employ a similar scanning procedure as used by the Israelis. They utilize a profile type visual scan and a relatively simply monitoring process. To date, the less evasive Israeli procedure has been highly successful everyplace it's been employed.

One more thing on this topic. In accepting immigrants, we need to take a look at culture and religion. While some will choke on the terms "racist" or "Islamophobia" or some other popular buzz word, we have to realize that some religions and cultures are simply not compatible with Western democratic values. When they demand a second or third class status for women, demand others refrain from flying an American flag, infringe on others (notably females) walking down the street or practicing their religion, so-called "honor" murders, saying the US Pledge of Allegiance, female genital mutilation, selling certain products, or even that we adapt to their religious laws and/or language, they're in the wrong place. If you come to this country, we will try to be tolerant. However, do not expect us to conform to your laws and traditions --- religious or otherwise. If you can't do that, don't bother coming.

With respect to the prison system, we have some serious work to do here. The US incarcerates more individuals than any other nation in the world. True, we have a lot of crime, especially in the inner cities. But we also have some outdated laws and some outdated notions about punishment. First, all first offenders of misdemeanors should not be housed with harden criminals. The emphasis here should be on getting these people back on track. Most flunked their way through the public education system, which also has to change. Nevertheless, remedial education to reach at least a 10th grade level should be required if they graduated or assistance with getting a GED if they didn't. Next, learning a productive trade like dry walling, painting, carpentry, etc., followed by a job assistance and mandatory counseling program which includes avoidance of drugs, writing resumes and developing interview skills. As for felons, if the crime is non-violent, they should be eligible for the same program after 1/3 to 1/2 of the time is served.

In addition, if they stay out of trouble for one year, all voting privileges should be restored (it should be automatically restored if they serve all their time and remain out of trouble for one year). For life sentences, violent offenders or repeat felons, they should have the option of entering a long term rehab program to learn a skill to be used within the prison and/or the opportunity to earn a GED and to take various continuing education courses. For those who fail this program or opt not to enroll, they should be used for state projects such as picking up waste, working on roadways, etc. All federal prisons should be as self-sustaining as possible, that includes growing their own vegetables, laundry, data entry, etc. I would, however, remove all gym equipment. The last we should want is felons having the time to beef up and become physically stronger than the guards. All prisoners should also receive "salt peter" or other medication to reduce any "anger issues" or other aggression. Lastly, as "King", the drug policy in this nation would need to be seriously overhauled. Certain drugs like marijuana should be decriminalized (and those convicted released), while alcohol, perhaps the worse drug of all, should receive a harsher penalty on par with hard drugs instead of a "wink and nod".

So, what about other issues? In area of foreign relations, as I alluded to above, the emphasis would be on Fair Trade. I think we should seek out commonalities with other countries and focus on ways to grow and expand that, provided it's a reciprocal! As for these whinny-ass countries like North Korea who've learned to survived by blackmailing the West, I say too bad. I wouldn't hesitate to call their bluff. Either they'll attack like they've been threatening to do ...and lose...so we'll be done with them once and for all, or they'll lose credibility and face being overthrown, so again, we'll be done with them (of course, we'll do our best to help the people). We will stop interfering in foreign affairs; specifically in overthrowing governments the ruling corporate Oligarchy dislikes. We will NOT jump through hoops to appease any religious or racial minority. This is America, learn to accept it or leave it. We don't own you anything for simply existing except the opportunity to make your way. If you have any questions, please refer to our instruction manual---the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Regarding gender matters, I don't really have a problem with same-sex marriages or unions; call it what you like. I also don't need it waved in my face all the time either. Some argue that "God", "Jesus", "Allah" or whoever disapproves, you should remember that it's unlikely these individuals believe your deity, and no one has the right to impose their religious or moral interpretations on anybody (that's the problem we're having with Islamic extremists remember?). Besides, love is love and if there's one thing there is a shortage of, that's it. I can't see any god having an problem with that can you? Now for transgender, "undefined" genders, "gender neutral", and so forth. You are born with either a dominate "Y" or "X" chromosome. That means that no matter how you "self-identify", you're biologically either a male or female. If you're male, use the men's room. If you're a female, use the women's room. A compromise would be use of gender neutral public restrooms or dressing rooms. They'd be easy enough to set up, and most place already have them. As for the Armed Forces, we have an all voluntary military. If you join, don't expect any special treatment. You will be treated just like everyone else, which is as it should be. If this "offends" you, then maybe you're not ready to go out in public yet.

Well, there you go. Now you know how my "royal" reign would play out. What would you do? In reality, little to none of it would ever come to pass. There are far too many special and vested interests to see any real change. Besides, power is never willingly surrendered. In our current Oligarchic system, the figureheads are replaced while those who actually control the power and wealth in this nation remain behind the curtains. Could things change? Without a doubt. If were any other way, the Oligarchy wouldn't be so desperate to divide and confuse us. They spend a great deal of time and money to pit us against each other; to divide us along every conceivable line possible. They've ensured that they control the elections; the media; and as much as possible, the public message. This last election showed just how flawed their system is. Their "chosen one" failed to be "crowned"; an usurper was elected instead. Now they will devote their efforts to discredit and delegitimize that individual and their administration as much as possible, and in doing so, to set the stage for a dramatic comeback fitting of any epic from the golden years of Hollywood. So, grab a box of popcorn and something to drink everyone. The prequel is starting. The Empire is about to strike back.




Another Opinion: It's Good To Be King Part I