The Decline of America May Not Be What We Think

I've been writing about illegal immigration for decades and there still doesn't seem any end to it, but that's on purpose as I'll show you. States along the border with Mexico are being inundated with individuals wanting to come to the U.S., not to gain citizenship, but to obtain---for free--- the benefits available to citizens because they worked and paid into the system through their taxes.

The federal government maintains that it controls the border problem, however it does next to nothing, and worse, it wants states not to enforce existing federal laws concerning illegal entry. Eric Holder, the AG under President Obama, even sued Arizona for doing nothing more than using existing federal laws to halt immigrants from illegally crossing the border (worse, he even allowed Mexico to join in the lawsuit against Arizona as a co-plaintiff).  Now it's Texas.

Some states and cities have declared themselves "open" to illegal immigration under the euphemistic sounding title of "sanctuary". The result has been thousands of individuals heading there and immediately demanding and receiving taxpayer funded government services.

As a result, some of the cities involved have seen increases in crime, homelessness, and a growing demand for public and private services, especially food and medical care. Unable to keep up with the demand, these cities and states have...ironically...turned to the federal government and requested additional federal dollars and aid to cope with the very problems they intentionally created. Did their legislatures, mayors, and governors not think this through?

Currently it's believe that there are some 10 million or more individuals  illegally in this country, The majority of them drawing on services paid for by taxpayers---you and me---that they never contributed  into.  Many have also decided that they have no intention or interest in integrating into society as previous migrants have historically done (other nations, such as Canada and countries in Europe and Asia) face similar problems.

It's as if these immigrants want to keep their  traditions, values, customs, and languages while at the same time relocate to where they can receive "free" resources---food, housing, medical care, child care, transportation, and so forth for nothing. In fact, not just do they "demand" these items (and more), but believe they are actually "entitled" to them!  Worse, they expect us---the citizens--- to conform and adapt rather than them!

Remember, these individuals have not come with the intent of gaining citizenship, few have applied for entry, and few have come seeking asylum. They come because they've been told they would be openly welcomed and provided with freebies simply for showing up. The majority of immigrants are coming north for nothing more than economic reasons---"economic asylum".  Bear in mind that the U.S and United Nations does not recognize "economic amnesty". Even Amnesty International doesn't promote "economic amnesty".

Amnesty can only be granted for ethnic, racial, political or religious  reasons only, and then only if you are in danger of torture, extreme discrimination, imprisonment or death.  Even then international law says they must seek shelter in the next closest stable country...not travel thousands of miles through safe countries and attempt crossing  the U.S. border illegally!

So, who is promoting this migration north? Why is the U.S. seen as the only acceptable destination?  

Many of those headed north are coming for economic reasons, so that seems to be a logical place start. The U.S. and some of its allies have instituted sanctions and/or embargoes against Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba. Of those, Cuba's has been the longest, first imposed on March 14, 1958 by President Eisenhower against the Batista Government to prohibit the sale of arms.

In October 1960, following the overthrow of the Batista dictatorship by the Fidel Castro's led revolution, another embargo was placed against Cuba. This applied to everything but food and medicine. The embargo was expanded in February 1962.

In Venezuela, sanctions were imposed in January 2017 by President Trump, for alleged human right violations, but rumors have persisted that it had more to do with Venezuela's suppressing a U.S. led attempt to overthrow the government. Either way, unlike Cuba, the sanctions helped Venezuela's economy to collapse, causing record level inflation, unemployment, poverty, and crime (Venezuela has the highest rate of violent crime in the world).   

The sanctions resulted in freezing $5.5 billion dollars belonging to Venezuela. Also, there was a 65% decline in the number of international banks willing to do business with them, with 99% of them coming between 2017 and 2019. This has resulted in severe shortages of food and medicine which the country must buy abroad.

It's estimated that some 80,000 HIV+ patients were affected along with roughly 32,000 individuals in need of cancer or dialysis medication or treatment. Some 15% - 20% of the population no longer has access to potable water during the height of the sanctions.

High unemployment (the result of many oil related businesses closing) triggered a serious increase in crime, making Venezuela the most violent crime ridden nations in the world. Presently, the crime rate (as of 2023) in Venezuela is 83.76 per 100,000. The majority of the crime is committed by individuals ages 20-30 years old. By comparison, the United States has a crime rate of 47.70%. So, if you want a reason for the exodus northward, there you go. U.S. imposed sanctions.

Economic issues have affected other countries in the region as well, such as the Caribbean island nations of Haiti, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago. Their problems are primarily the result of inept governments, rudimentary infrastructure, failed social programs and perpetual poverty. 

The result is chronic unemployment and high crime rates (Trinidad and Tobago are ranked sixth in the world while Jamaica is tenth).  Another key factor, not found elsewhere, is the weather. Due to climate change, the Caribbean has found itself in bull's eye of some of the worse tropical storms and hurricanes on record.

Most of these countries have long depended on the tourist trade to pump money into the economy, but the weather and crime has caused tourists to go elsewhere. As an aside, in 2023, the U.S. pumped $110 billion dollars in humanitarian aid into Haiti alone. Without this aid, we'd see a much larger exodus northward toward the U.S. Compare that with $16 billion in aid (humanitarian and military) to Ukraine in 2023 and $3.3 billion to Israel.  

Brazil is one of the most rapidly growing economies in the world. It is a key member of the economic union know as "BRICs" along with China, India and Russia, among others. Few know that Brazil was one the world's most impacted nations by the Covid-19 epidemic . The economy had been growing at a steady rate of 3.3% between pre-Covid 2001 and 2014. But between 2014 and 2020, the economy shrunk by the same percentage of 3.3%.

However, things bounced back by 2021 with growth rate of 5.5% followed by 2.9% in 2022 and 2.6% in 2023. Despite this, Brazil has seen a relatively high crime rate of 23.6 per 100,000 (ranked 9th in the world). It previously had been as high as 30.8. Unemployment is about 7.8% thus far for 2024, Compare that 2.6% in Mexico. The poverty rate is slightly higher than it neighbors at 24.3%.

Mexico, which has borne the brunt immigration crisis, has the 15th largest economy in the world and the second largest in Latin America behind Brazil. However, for the last 30 years, the Mexican economy has underperformed in terms of economic growth, poverty reduction, and the development of a strong middle class according to the World Bank.  

The  Mexican economy grew at just 2% between 1980 and 2022, though in 2023 it saw a growth rate of 3.2%. However, poverty, while dropping from 43.9% in 2020, still remains high at 36.3% in 2022.

Other countries in Latin America are facing economic difficulties due to a slow global economy (bearing in mind that the majority of these countries are rural and dependent of agriculture, mining, forestry, and tourism, not to mention U.S. and international aid. As a result, many of these countries have expanded their trade interests from one based primarily on the U.S. to one based more on China, as well as Asia and the EU.

However, China's economy has cooled somewhat which has had the expected ripple effect on some of its poorer trading partners.  The result has been something of a unbalanced unemployment rate and largely stagnant poverty levels. Relatively high global interest rate and inflation remains a serious problem in servicing debt and public programs. As a result, we see moderately high unemployment along with a reduction in social programs, adding to poverty.

While "economic amnesty" is not recognized, under other forms of amnesty, an individual must seek sanctuary in the "next nearest safe country" . In Latin America, it appears there is no "safe" country. Just varying levels of poverty and unemployment. So, we see possible explanation for thousands of individuals willing to make the long walk to the U.S..

The next big issue is "who" is encouraging these individuals to come to America. Surely they know that illegal immigrants aren't welcome in America. They must know what they'll face when they get to the border. Are they delusional enough to think they'll be an exception? No doubt the drug cartels encourage these people to sell everything they have to make the long and often brutal journey, as long as they make money.

The cartels, using "coyotes" or guides, charge roughly $200 per person (which is a fortune for most of these people). In lieu of money (or even with it), they are often forced to smuggle drugs or other illegal contraband. Sometimes, they are only able to send their children to friends or relatives until they can raise the money to follow. In many cases, there's no assurance the children will reach their destination or that they'll ever see them again.

Using cartel connected coyotes is very dangerous. Immigrants have often reported being beaten, raped while seeing others murdered. The trip is fraught with other dangers such a injuries and no medical facilities (often the coyotes will confiscate any personal medication), corrupt cops and militias who have to regularly be bribed, as well as the lack of food or fresh water while dealing with the weather conditions and having no shelter other than what they brought with them.  

Aside from drug cartels, there are the various religious organizations, especially Catholic. 57.1% of Hispanics are Catholic. Most are historically highly devout and closely follow the dictates of their parish priest.  In America, Catholics are much more open minded and don't give the same level of credence to the priest's instructions, treating them more like  "suggestions" to be followed...or not at one's own discretion.   

From the 1960's onward, most conservative churches have been dying, especially Catholic, causing many parishes to merge while closing numerous schools and other institutions. In addition, there have been fewer priests and nuns signing up. The average age of a priest in 1970 was 30. Today it's 63. When it comes to nuns, only 1% are under 30 with the average age being 80! 

With the immigration of individuals from mostly Catholic Latin America, it's hoped this trend can be reversed. Thus, they are offered shelter (and presumably legal sanctuary since most law enforcement agencies won't enter a religious institution) once they cross the border, as well as help find housing, a job, help with translations and getting various services at taxpayer expense, and of course, religious services are offered in their native Spanish or Portuguese.  

However, to the chagrin of these churches is that a growing number of immigrants, while taking advantage of the services offered, are leaving the restrictions of the church behind. A good number are converting to Islam faster than any other demographic. In fact, in Latin America itself, Islam has grown by 23% with Shiites outnumbering Sunnis. A smaller, but significant percentage, have converted to Evangelical  Protestantism. So, we find not just Catholic organizations encouraging migrants northward, so apparently are Islamic and Protestant organizations too.

Illegal immigration has become more than a political issue of right versus wrong in terms of following the law. It's become an economic issue as employers seek a cheap work force not dependent on unions and are willing to accept long hours for very little money without complaining, thus forcing the traditional workforce to work for less too.

 Various religious groups are looking to grow their numbers and political clout. Meanwhile, mostly traditional conservative Americans are desperately trying to hold on to an America they see slipping through their hands like Texas sand. Hitler once praised Islam, saying that he wished all Germans were Muslims because Islam makes people compliant to authority.

So why isn't Washington doing anything? Simple. The federal government is on the side of Big Business. They fill their coffers, provide the perks and underwrite their campaigns. Both political parties may pretend to be concerned about illegal immigration, but remember that both the Democrats and Republicans are corporate owned and controlled. In truth, they are only concerned to the level Wall Street is. Meanwhile, Washington and Wall Street will continue to offer smoke and mirrors as our America slowly evaporates before our eyes.  

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

 

Sanctions during the VenezuelanCrisis

How Sanctions Contributed to Venezuela's Economic Collapse

 

World Population Review: Crime RateBy Country 2024

USAID: Providing AdditionalHumanitarian Assistance to Respond to Rising Needs in Haiti

Foreign Aid By Country: Who's getting the most---and how much?

Latin America economic outlook, November 2023

 

Why are more Hispanics converting to Islam...

 

Another School Shooting: What--If Anything---Can We Do?

Here we go again. Another school shooting. That the 27th time so far this year. This time 19 students and two adults dead with just days to go before the end of the school year. Many, no doubt, looking forward to carefree summer vacation with trips to Big Bend National Park, one of the many beach on the Gulf Coast, or just staying home and playing with neighborhood friends and help out around the house.

But that's not to be. Not just for those murdered, but for all the students, their parents, their families, and their friends. That Tuesday will forever be seared in their individual and collective memories. It was the day...the moment they had their childhood innocence stolen from them.

That Tuesday, which should have been an ordinary school day like any other, the children of Robb Elementary School in the small town of Uvalde Texas joined an exclusive but growing club of victims of school violence. 

There's nothing special about Robb Elementary or Uvalde Texas. Perhaps it was its very ordinariness which stands out.  Uvalde has a population of just over 15,000. The town (it hardly qualifies to be called a "city") occupies just 7.6 square miles.  It's closer to Mexico, which is just 53 miles away, than to just about anywhere. The closest actual city is San Antonio, which is 80 miles away.

The largest demographic is Hispanic, which make up just over 78% of the population. Whites comprise 19% while Native Americans make up 11%. Blacks or other races barely show up on census record statistics. Voting records shows Uvalde has consistently voted for a Republican president since 1952. The only exception was 1964, when it voted for Democrat and fellow Texan, Lyndon Baines Johnson. 

It's claim to fame are a couple of Old West gunslingers, a few sports personalities, celebrities Dale Evans (wife of Roy Rogers) and Mathew McConaughey, Apollo 12 astronaut Pete Conrad, and former Speaker of House and Vice President under FDR, John Nance Garner.  It's also, according to the magazine, Outdoor Life,  one of the best places in the world to hunt whitetail deer.  

Now it will be remembered alongside Sandy Hook (2012), Virginia Tech (2007), Stoneman Douglas High School (2018), Columbine High School (1999), and some ten other schools known for being the deadliest school shooting in the United States. But, it appears no place is truly safe, not even in locations not known for violence (and especially gun violence).

In 2002, Erfurt Germany, a former student targeted his former teachers among others and murdered 17 before committing suicide. In 1996, a 43 year old man in Dunblane Scotland killed 17 children and one adult, while wounding 15 others before killing himself.

Between 2008 and 2009, 37 students, teachers, and adults were killed in school related shootings (two in Finland, one in German, and one in Greece. In Kerch Crimea Ukraine, in 2018, 20 college students were murdered while 50 were injured. From 2004 and 2020, 15 individuals died in 20 attacks on schools in Mexico. In South America, between 2001 and 2013, six school attacks resulting in approximately 20 deaths.

 In most cases, the perpetrators used handguns. A few used homemade explosives, crossbows, knives, and hatchets. A handful used semi-automatic rifles (which typically get misidentified by the media as "assault rifles") or pump action shotguns. The assailants typically chose self inflicted death or "suicide by cop" rather than surrendering to law enforcement. Only a few were captured by the police.

Excluding incidents which involved former students or adults who had no connection to the school, most of the students involved in the shootings ranged in age from 12 to 16. The majority were male. They tended to be loners, non-physical, or were subject to constant bullying.  Psychologists reported that many were more immature than most of the same age group. They often acted out of emotion, tending to be more impulsive and aggressive.

In 1994, Congress passed the "Gun Free Schools Act" which called for greater school safety plans and adoption of a zero tolerance gun policy, which was generally expanded to include weapons of any sort including knives.

The act was part of the "Improving America's Schools Act", signed by President Bill Clinton, and required school districts to adopt a gun-free policy in exchange for federal funds. A similar law was signed by President George H.W. Bush in 1990 called the "Gun Free Zones Act of 1990" as part of the "Crime Control Act of 1990". 

The purpose of both acts was to create a gun (and weapon) free area in and around schools in order to provide for a safer learning environment. This included hiring full or part-time security guard, prohibiting admission during school hours (except through a specially designated entrance), adding metal detectors, security cameras, and a mandatory one year suspensions of any student caught with a weapon on school property. In some cases, school districts also included mandatory home visits and/or counseling of the students in order to head off any potential issues.

Some school districts went further and included additional training for teachers which included methods to prevent forced entry into classrooms, extra locks on doors and windows, methods for contacting authorities, and even allowing some teachers or administrative personnel to covertly carry firearms (with proper training and appropriate licenses). The identity of these individuals was restricted to a few administrative personnel to ensure security.

Politically, the topic of classroom safety became the hot topic de jure, usually following some tragic incident, making gun control efforts more successful given the public's mood at the moment. Those on the Left typically call for total banning of certain types of firearms while increasing restrictions on the purchase of firearms along with limiting the sale and type of ammunition.  

Specifically, the Left wants to limit or (ideally) prohibit the sale of semi-automatic rifles (which, based on the design of the stock, are incorrectly labeled "assault" weapons). The availability of actual military grade weapons are already regulated.

The sale of specific types of ammunition such as those designed to penetrate body armor or metal (except to law enforcement and military personnel) which were restricted in 1995. Calibers in excess of .50 are in most cases also prohibited. "Dragons Breath" or "Hell Fire" incendiary shotgun shells (which shoot 200+ yards), hollowpoints, flechette darts, elephant slugs, "flash bang" shotgun shells, or anything containing depleted uranium, radioactive, or poisoned shells are illegal too in many states. 

Following the mass shooting at the Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas in 2017 in which the alleged shooter, Steve Paddock, used a "bump stock" which in effect, converted a semi-automatic rifle into a de facto full automatic, were banned for general sale and reclassified as a "machine gun", which requires the appropriate licensing. The way the bump stock worked was by using the natural recoil of the weapon to eject, reload, and fire as long as the trigger remained suppressed.

After a series of court hearings, the Department of Justice was successful in getting "bump stocks" re-categorized and banned as of March 19, 2019. It should be noted that in 2017, following the Mandalay Bay shooting, 72% of voters agreed with the decision, of which 79% were Democrats and 62% were Republicans. In 2018, that number increased to 81% of registered voters. The shooting left 60 individuals were killed with another 867 wounded. No motive was publicly disclosed.

While the Left has been pretty unanimous in their call to prohibit or at least restrict many types of gun or ammo, the Right has been a little less unified. Many conservatives are generally in agreement that certain restrictions are necessary, such as prohibiting the sale of armor piercing ammo or availability of certain types of guns and accessories such as the "bump stocks", "sawed off" shotguns (under 18"), or 10+ magazines.  

However, others are of the opinion that the Second Amendment is not open to judicial or political interpretation. The Founding Fathers wrote it with the intention of providing a means for citizens to protect themselves and others from a government bent on overreach and ultimately tyranny.  Therefore, the citizenry should have every means of defense available to them bar none.

They interpret that to mean no registration of guns, ammo, or other weapons, which they see as a thinly disguised attempt at restricting ownership through both intimidation and as providing a handy readymade list of everyone who might resist.

Of course, the primary reason for owning guns is self-protection. Few can argue that crime isn't a persistent and growing problem, and the chief source for school children intent on causing harm. Security locks for most firearms are available for free from various law enforcement agencies or even some pro Second Amendment groups.

It's worth noting that some of the Left would like to see firearms either voluntarily or mandatorily surrendered to the government and destroyed. Their position is that if there are no guns, there will be no shootings. However, that would be equivalent to the position taken by some during Prohibition; if there's no booze, there will be no drinking.

Reality was differently. Liquor became illegal and criminals became rich. If gun ownership was illegal, criminals would still acquire them. Those without guns would simply become potential victims. As the expression goes, when seconds count, the police are minutes away.

We need to accept the fact that we can't prevent violent crime, and that includes school shootings despite our best of intentions. All we can do is mitigate the likelihood of them happening. That means schools need to step up with additional preventative measures.

Metal detectors, security cameras, additional or reinforced locks are good. So are discreetly armed security guards (no one, especially kids, want to feel they are in prison instead of school). So is the barring entry points (save one primary entrance) during school hours. But these only protect those inside of the school, and to a limited measure.

They don't protect from homemade bombs, poisons (which have been used in several instances), or from physical assaults. They don't help on the playground or going to or from the school bus. Nothing will protect everyone from a determined individual, especially if they feel they have nothing to lose.

Therefore more attention needs to be given to students displaying any of the key warning signs like subtle destructive behavior such as "cutting" or are withdrawn (or students who act out through bullying, gang activity, or are persistently disruptive). They could be potential perpetrators of school violence, however, they are just as likely to be victim of someone they routinely pick on.

More parent/school contact is needed. Parents can't just assume that schools are "dealing with the problem". Typically schools aren't aware of the home situation, which are often a contributing factor.  That means everyone, from the bus driver to the principal, needs to make an personal investment in the wellbeing of the students.

Discipline too is often lacking, with the extremes of abuse (including over-prescribed medication in lieu of firm guidance) and total neglect on the other end, as well as physical, emotional, and psychological abuse must be avoided. Children, and especially teenagers, require a balance of support, encouragement, and a gradual loosing of guidance as they age. The "anything goes" attitude does more harm than good.   

Non-abusive ways of securing parent or regular adult involvement are critical. I think the return of art and music classes could help as a way for kids to express they're feelings. Not everyone plays sports. Encouraging academic success shouldn't be viewed as a "white thing" by minorities, who often ridicule "smart" kids who are minorities, resulting in frustration, depression, and acting up in order to fit in.

Households with guns need to ensure their weapons are secure (including periodic checking). They need to pay attention to the video games and sites their child have access to. Personally, I think video games which glorify violence (including killing zombies) are a key factor in youth violence in and out of school. They desensitize killing and accustom the individual to violence and gore. But in real life, once you pull the trigger, there's no "reset button".  No one comes back to life. Saying you're sorry counts for nothing.

 

If you want to know more, please take a look at the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read A/O. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!  

 

Do countries with stricter gun laws really have less crimeor homicides?

 

U.S. Gun Policy: Global Comparisons

 

How gun control works in America, compared with 4 other richcompanies

27 school shootings have taken place so far this year

Pardon Me, But Is This Seat Taken? A Few Words About Restrooms and Sexual Identity

As readers of Another Opinion should know by now, there are simply some stories I can't resist commenting on and this is one of them. Recently, the topic of who is allowed in what restroom has come to "head" (military humor intended) when several states having either passed legislation or has legislation pending that would prohibit transgendered individuals and those who identify opposite of their given birth gender from using a public restroom of the gender they identify as. The laws require individuals to use the public restrooms of their gender at birth. As a result, some companies such as PayPal and Deutsche Bank and entertainment types (most notably, Bruce "The Boss" Springsteen and Ringo Starr cancelled concerts in North Carolina, while producer Michael Moore has requested that none of his films be released in North Carolina, so I guess this may be more about symbolism than actual relevance) have decided not to do business there. Could this be, at its heart, an example of political correctness taken to its extreme or is this a legitimate concern or is there something else going on here?

Well, imagine that you're out in public, perhaps at the mall shopping, and you have to go to restroom. No big deal right? You simply find the nearest appropriate restroom. However, what if you're a transgendered individual---a guy or gal who psychologically considers him or herself the opposite gender and may (and most likely) even dresses the part. What do you do? If you're a transgendered female, someone who considers themselves an ordinary male, they would simply go into the men's restroom and do your business. Odds are they would use a stall; shut the door as any considerate individual would do and no one would be any wiser. Now, what if you're a transgendered male who thinks of themselves as a woman? They would most likely be dressed as a woman, and so naturally they would head to the ladies' restroom---or would they?

First off, women's restroom don't have urinals (don't worry, I "Googled" it to be sure), but that doesn't matter since they would likely head to the nearest available stall, shut the door, and get on with the business at hand. Now unless someone happens to catch a glimpse, no one would likely ever know, except perhaps by a close examination of a stubble while washing hands or the absence of an "Adam's Apple" by an extra observant woman, which might give it away. However, some individuals take hormone shots to reduce any male features, but those are usually expense and may be more than some are willing to pay for. So, thus far, it seems like there's little chance of anyone taking much note, so what's the hubbub?

I think the issue lies primarily with the women who fear either being accosted by a gender bending male in drag, or worse---a pedophile dressed as a woman entering a ladies' restroom. As most people know, little children---boys and girls---tend to go in the women's restroom with an accompanying female. Sometimes, if they're old enough, they may go alone. Of course, some young boys go to the men's room unaccompanied as well. This could set up the possibility of either child molestation, voyeurism, or worse...perhaps much worse. Of course, most restrooms---men's and women's---have changing tables for infants in them, but that still doesn't lessen the concern for any parent. While the odds of something happening are probably quite low, all it would take is just one instance of something happening to spark a serious backlash. So, the question is what to do, as a parent with children, a woman, or as a transgendered individual?

First, women tend to be more vulnerable to attack since men usually have stronger upper body strength. Secondly, women with children are obviously more vulnerable, while young children alone are the most vulnerable of all (I should point out that while this is something of a concern to men, it's much less likely to be viewed as a "threat" and more of simply an uncomfortable one). True, cameras , more security staff and/or more vigilant employees would help cut down on the threat, but what about the simply removing the threat altogether as these recent laws are attempting to do? Simply by banning any anatomically male or female from the restroom of the opposite sex would eliminate much of the threat, but what about the rights of the transgendered individuals to freely use the restroom? Tell them to "hold it" until they get home? We both know that's not going to work, and as local laws practically everywhere dictates, there has to be equal access to public restrooms, anyone attempting to institute a ban for one segment of the population is opening themselves up to a lawsuit (there are, of course, certain exceptions to restroom availability to the public---but not employees---which has to be uniformly enforced).

Well, one possible solution would be to mandate a certain number of single occupant/gender neutral restrooms like you might find in a office or medical building which either gender may use. This would allow anyone regardless of gender or gender preference to use the restroom in privacy. This has proved to be successful over the years and is employed pretty much everywhere. What if this idea was expanded? Perhaps multiple stall restrooms could be employed, such as having a certain percentage of restrooms designated for women, men, and all genders. The obvious downside to this could be that it indirectly discriminates as "Separate by Equal" , which the Supreme Court struck down back in the 1960's as unconstitutional since it would keep them from using the restroom of their gender choice. It could also be argued that by, even unofficially, designating a restroom for anybody, the fact that transgendered individuals are limited to only one restroom, could be viewed as sexual discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, plus I would imagine they could also plead some form of "psychological trauma" by feeling "singled out" and "put on view" by a restroom restriction.

While this might be an problem for employers, who may have to consider single occupant/ gender neutral restrooms, how would it work in public facilities like malls? Again, single occupant/ gender neutral restrooms could be used in any small business location such as a restaurant or clothing store, whereas in a place such as a mall, sporting venue, or other large facility, few, if any, would pay any attention where you were going into or out of a men's or women's restroom as opposed to a either/or one (of course, these absolutely must be clearly marked), but this obviously doesn't eliminate the possibility of someone simply ignoring the signs on the door or wall, and walking into the restroom of their choice. Then again, existing laws anywhere in the US doesn't preclude someone from doing the same thing.

So, what does this all boil down to and is there any solution all side can be happy with? If you look at where most of the new laws or pending legislation are, places like North Carolina, Florida, Texas, and Georgia, they are in the deep South, which is traditionally very conservative----politically, socially, and religiously. That's not going change no matter how many transplants move to the South. This then would be make the issue more of a cultural one; one where people's actions are governed more by a defined sense of right and wrong with not a lot of gray in between; you're a male or female. You don't get to choose. Period. They are perfectly willing for the most part to accept national reticule and economic boycotts if they believe what they're doing is right. This mentality has, and will continue to result in butting heads with the federal government. Nothing new there. There is also the nature uneasiness, primarily among women, of knowingly being in the restroom with stranger of the opposite sex. There is the fear of an invasion of privacy, of rape, molestation, voyeurism, and of potential pedophilia. No amount of judicial rulings or legislative decisions will ever change that. It's hardwired into us. In fact, there's an almost automatic revulsion at the mere thought of it, and even among harden criminals, it's considered the lowest of the low.

Federal, state, and local laws already make sexual discrimination illegal, and that includes sexual orientation. There's no getting around that. At the same time, judicial rulings dating from the 1960's have struck down most "separate but equal" laws, though these have usually pertained to matters of race but some enterprising attorney could...and will likely...try to apply the same legal theory to sexual orientation and the use of public restrooms. There is also the fact that the LGBTQ community is large and very politically active, especially in the media and entertainment industries. This can bring a lot of pressure down on not just the states or legislators in question through lobbyists and lawsuits, but by creating a negative public image and promoting some form of economic impact, such as jobs or tourism.

Lastly, there is the human element. Everyone of us is born a male or female. As we grow and mature, and that includes emotionally, physically, intellectually, and chemically, we begin to establish our own individual identity, which includes our sexual identity. Some, and there are many, who would argue that anything other than heterosexuality is simply "not natural" and those who "deviate" have somehow made a conscientious "choice" ; that by the same token, they can be "cured" if only they'd make a different "choice". I don't think it's, for the most part, a matter of "choice". I think for most, it's a bio-chemical. Something in the brain says one thing while biology says another. Perhaps it's a matter of acting on what your brain is telling you. I don't know. I'm strictly a hetero kind of guy, but I can say that I have never met someone who was gay---or bi, lesbian, or transgendered---that said it was simply a choice they made one day. The only "choice" they made was in not fighting who they were. As an aside, homosexuality has been around since the beginning of civilization in one form or another and with varying degrees of acceptance.

Yet, none of this changes the central question at hand---should someone not biologically male or female be allowed to use the same restroom or other facilities of the opposite gender? If so, how do we adapt as a society? How do we adjust to our natural instincts to protect ourselves, our children, and our loved ones who we perceived---rightly or wrongly---to potentially be threatened? I think the only answer to adopt some form gender neutral/single occupant restroom for small businesses, offices, and/or medical buildings as well as designate certain, multi-occupant, restrooms gender neutral for transgendered individuals and those simply not bothered by who is standing (or sitting) next to them. It's not a perfect solution. Perhaps there never will be. There have been and will always be those individuals who will dress and act according to a certain gender for the wrong reasons just as there has and will always be those who have done so because that's who they see themselves as. Nevertheless, we should be cautious about trying to force our prejudices or beliefs---whatever they are ---on others just because we agree or disagree.

For the last 20 or so years now, we've been dealing with an enemy who has no tolerance for other religious beliefs or social attitudes outside of their narrow parameters and has no qualms about murdering to enforce their own moral guidelines. Unfortunately, this same mentality reared its head a mere 83 years---within the lifetime of our parents or grandparents or great grandparents as it has down through Man's history. Perhaps this is some inherent indication that such deviations are not "natural" or "normal" within our species and it's our hardwired instincts which cause us to lash out periodically at any social or biological deviance, even under the guise of a divine mandate. Naturally, that's not to imply that individuals with strong religious or moral convictions are plotting to throw people off roofs or roast anyone, but neither should they be forced to abandon their beliefs either. As long as we value the individual, free choice and all the baggage that carries, we have to seek a middle ground that everyone can accept. That's the compromise that civilization must make if it's to survive.



North Carolina governor says he wants bathroom law partially changed....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/04/12/deutsche-bank-halts-north-carolina-expansion-due-to-transgender-bathroom-law/


Corporations push for LGBT legislation in North Carolina
http://walshfreedom.com/corporations-push-for-lgbt-bathroom-legislation-in-north-carolina/


Sex Discrimination, Gender Identity, and Title VII
http://www.sgrlaw.com/resources/trust_the_leaders/leaders_issues/ttl17/824/


New Title VII and EEOC Rulings Protect Transgendered Employees
http://transgenderlawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/TitleVII-Report-Final012414.pdf


Parents Outraged Over Transgendered Bathroom Law
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/uncategorized/parents-outraged-over-transgender-bathroom-law.html


Florida Law Would Make It A Crime For Transgender People To Use Public Bathrooms
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/09/florida-transgender-bathroom-law_n_6645910.html


Georgia, North Carolina bills are about LGBT discrimination. Period.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/25/opinions/georgia-religious-freedom-law-threatens-lgbt-rights-holbrook/index.html

Are Terrorists Hiding Under the Bed?

Over the past few days my inbox has been hit with a barrage of emails claiming that southern Texas (or in some cases, various parts of northern Mexico) were crawling with ISIS members. Some of the articles cites certain "officials" with the US Border Patrol, or ICE agent, a mayor, or best of all, a "unnamed government source". The one I enjoyed the most claimed there was an actual ISIS terrorist training camp in Anapara according to an "undisclosed Mexican official", which is just southwest of Ciudad Juarez in the Mexican State of Chihuahua. This also happens to be just eight miles from the US/Mexican border and ground zero for one of Mexico's most successful drug cartels, the Juarez Cartel (they are estimated to bring in $200 million per week in profit). All of the stories, of course, point to another "9/11" type of terrorist attack, with the US Army base, Ft. Bliss, in El Paso or the Marine bases in Corpus Christi or Yuma Arizona as being the likely targets. Even some political bigwigs, including Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ), Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Texas Governor Rick Perry (R) got snookered into believing the stories were true.

The fact is, there is no current ISIS or other terrorist threat in Texas or Mexico. However, the stories, and the apparent readily acceptability, seem to go to the point that Americans are afraid. We're not only afraid that the war unleashed by George "Dubya" Bush will find its way to our shores as the 9/11 attack showed were clearly possible. I think Americans are also just as afraid (and angry) that our border with Mexico remains open despite decades of empty promises to the American People that the border would be made secure. Instead, we've seen the ICE and the Border Patrol basically emasculated as any form of deterrent, with their enforcement duties all but stripped. We've seen the current US President blatantly blow off the citizens of this country and move ahead at full steam to find and use every backdoor and non-constitutional means to circumvent our immigration laws so that deporting illegal immigrants is next to impossible to implement and actually rewarding those already here with various forms of "near citizenship". In some states, illegal immigrants can practically do everything an actual citizen can do except vote, and, frankly, I wouldn't be to surprised to see that happen.

Nevertheless, the readily acceptance of the ISIS story on our border, I think, goes to the fact that Mexican criminal gangs routinely cross over into the United States, bringing with them not just drugs which ruins human lives while perpetuating poverty, school dropout rates, and unemployment, but also murder, theft, extortion, kidnapping, and an entire culture which has no respect for the law and most certainly no remorse for any lost and damaged lives in their pursuit of money and power. Therefore, if drug gangs can cross our southern border with near impunity, and illegal immigrants can cross it with a not so subtle wink and nod from this presidential regime, then why not Islamic terrorist groups?

ISIS, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban appear to have the financial wherewithal to acquire the logistics to make the journey and connections once in this hemisphere. They would certainly be able to acquire the weapons and "coyotes" to get them across the largely empty desert and into safe houses on the American side of the border (given their preponderance for explosions, getting back across the border may be a non-issue). While ISIS and these drug cartels share elements in common such as open and public murder of absolutely anyone, I suppose that if there's an upside to this, it's that ISIS and other extremists wouldn't go out of their way to befriend these drug cartels since they, more than anything else, represents everything they oppose---sex, drugs and liquor. Plus, let's not forget that, as surprising as it seems, they are also religious in their own twisted way. In short, they wouldn't betray their Catholicism for a radical interpretation of Islam that would murder them solely because of their religion. So then, does the adage, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" hold here? Can these two groups who, at least on the surface, cooperate long enough to make something happen?

My personal opinion is yes; yes they can, however, with some provisions. First, as long as the terrorists are paying in cash or willing to make to drug deal (certain parts of the Middle East is known for its opium production), an agreement could be reached. And let's not forget that these gangs have large swaths of the Mexican government (federal and local) in their pockets, not to mention the Mexican police force and military. With Obama's gutting of the Border Patrol, it seems like an easy enough proposition. Any chaos triggered by the terrorists on US soil could play into the cartel's hands since it would allow them a short window of opportunity to expand their influence across the border. However, it would also bring attention to the border area which would quickly become militarized, and that would be bad for business. Even the Mexican government would be forced to act (and let's not forget that there is absolutely no reason these same Moslem terrorist wouldn't attack Mexican targets. After all, Mexico, along with the rest of Latin America, is a very strong Catholic country with close ties to the Vatican---the arch enemy of militant Islam). Secondly, any agreement between the two groups would almost certainly be short term given their ideological differences. The gang bangers and their cohorts are strictly interested in profit while the terrorists are strictly interested in their prophet and imposing Sharia law, which is counter to everything the drug lords espouse.

To sum up, while there are no Islamic terrorist on or near our southern border, the fact that Americans (and Mexicans) are keenly

aware of the potential threat should tell both the Mexican and American governments that there needs to be a way to control and restrict the flow of individuals back and forth. Although the transnational corporations and one percenters who now make up the oligarchy which controls the US government want to create an open border and free trade world whereby the economic serfs...err...I mean employees..can follow the jobs, there are reasons---terrorism being just one of them---to restrict the free flow of populations, at least for the time being, and until these individuals are brought to heel and accept the wisdom of corporate commercialization.




Tijuana Transfer
http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/isismexico.asp


US State Dept call reports on ISIS training camps in Mexico 'unfounded"
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/04/17/us-state-dept-calls-report-on-isis-training-camps-in-mexico-unfounded/


Is ISIS in Mexico and planning to cross the border?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/sep/17/trent-franks/isis-mexico-and-planning-cross-border/

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!

Invasion America?

Border Run to Nowhere: Children Being Dumped on the US Border

President Obama calls it a "humanitarian crisis". Others are calling it a travesty of monumental proportions or disaster in the making. What am I referring to? I am referring to the hordes of children crossing our southern border, mostly unaccompanied and all of them illegally. According to sources, approximately 60,000 have been picked up by US Authorities; 47,000 in the previous eight months. However, some 90,000 are expected to cross the border by the end of year. So, just who are these kids; where are they coming from; and why are they coming?

Most of those crossing the border, approximately 90%, are from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, although a few are coming from Mexico. 83% of the 60,000 are 14 and under. 77% of them are male. Some are as young as 4 years of age and there's been reports a children no older than nine months old. The crossings represent a 92% increase over last year. What's prompting the mass exodus from Central America, however, is not quite as clear. Why are their parents abandoning them?

Some are alleging that the surge is the result of smugglers posing as "agencies". Radio and TV commercials are airing in Central America, stating that because of Obama's amnesty for children of illegal immigrants not born in the US, any unaccompanied children coming to America will be eligible for amnesty, or at least they won't be deported. These "agencies" are nothing more than fronts for smugglers, are offering to help get the children to America before their "eligibly" runs out...for a substantial fee of course. Apparently there are isn't any truth in advertising in Latin America either.

There are some claiming that religious and organizations such the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Lutheran Immigration and Refuge Service, and US Chamber of Commerce, all known for their pro-amnesty stances, have been encouraging the surge of illegals, and pushing a "kids welcome" message. Whether true of not, there is no question that many religious and business associations have been promoting amnesty by making numerous false claims about the future of US immigration policy and offering to transport, shelter, and help them to find jobs. The religious groups simply don't believe our immigration laws apply to them, and routinely ignore them, citing "religious sanctuary". Of course, the smugglers are offering the same services, though the jobs are generally in sweat shops working, farm fields, and living in inhumane conditions. Lastly, even the governments where these illegal immigrants are coming have been promoting their own "run for border" projects. Pamphlets have available at certain government offices explaining the ins and outs of crossing the border and what to do if caught.

Apologists for amnesty claim the "real" reason for the dramatic upturn, especially for the children, is due to an increase in activity and violence by the drug cartels, a lack of economic opportunities, corrupt governments, along with additional military and police abuse of the poor. While there are certainly a lack of opportunities, largely the result of the failure to develop a middle class due to centuries old collusion between large land owners, church authorities, and big business, that really hasn't changed much. The collusion has been willfully enforced and indeed, engrained into society in order to keep the masses poor, largely ignorant, and beholden to the rich elite. The drug cartels, as powerful as they are, have mostly left the people alone. Many of the peasants work for the drug cartels in one fashion or another to help support their families. As for the government, the military, and the police, corruption is basically a way of life. Once again, nothing new here.

So what's the leader of a declining world superpower to do? Well, how about bribery for starters? Vice President Biden, in one his rare sighting, headed to Central America for a economic trade conference. Added to the agenda, was a discussion about ending these false "amnesty for kids" claims and to get their governments onboard. To help "persuade" them, the Obama Administration will be handling out $100 million dollars to these countries to take back their children. As for the older kids, it shouldn't be much of a problem getting them back to the families, however, the younger children will present a much tougher task.

In addition, the Obama Administration will be setting aside $161.5 million dollars this year for the Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) for "the region's most pressing security and governance challenges". The plan also includes an increase in US aid. Honduras gets $18.5 million, while Guatemala will be receiving $40 million and El Salvador will be getting $25 million; all for internal social programs like youth crime prevention and gang prevention (as if we don't have underfunded programs here dealing with the same issues). It's good to be king. Better to be an extortionist of a king. Better for both if it's not their money.

Meanwhile, US authorities are scrambling to find ways to deal with the masses of these willful orphans; many of whom have nothing but the clothes of their back. The majority are currently being held in various government facilities along the border area, with some now being transferred to other locations deeper in the US for processing. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has recently taken over the matter from the Office of Refugee Settlement. Thus far, this has costs taxpayers $1.4 billion dollars more the previously budgeted $2.28 billion dollars. The US already has in the neighborhood of 12 million illegal residents now living in the here.

The Obama Administration has issued $2 million dollars in grants to cover the costs for up to 100 attorneys and paralegals to represent these children in immigration courts set up in 29 cities including San Antonio, Miami, Tucson, and New York City. However, movement of these children out of the border areas will likely be touted in Central America as "proof" that the children are being processed to stay in the US rather, in fact, being processed for their return.

According to the Annual Homeless Assessment Report of 2013 to Congress, there are 610,000 homeless individuals living in the United States. Of these, approximately 213,344 are completely without any form of shelter; one forth of these are children. That's 1 in 45 that is or will be homeless. The largest food charity agency in America, Feeding America, states that 49 million individuals in this country doesn't get adequate nutrition. Of these, 15.9 million children are living in situations where food is sometimes unavailable. The influx of these children, most unable to speak or understand English and having little knowledge of possible relatives (if any at all), puts them a even greater risk.

Illegal immigration is already costing US taxpayers billions upon billions of dollars while staining our national safety net for legitimate citizens to the breaking point. If the federal government had acted over a decade ago when the American People overwhelmingly and consistently demanded the southern border be secured; that additional funds be allotted to protect the border (including stationing US reserve troops); prohibit taxpayer services to those here illegally; major fines for those hiring illegal immigrants, including suspending their business licenses or closing them down for repeat offences; and finally, for a serious and comprehensive immigration plan, this would not be happening. Meanwhile, while Biden bribes the governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to take back their children: Obama spits and sputters; and Congress continues it pitiful performance, can we at least get the consulates throughout Latin America to do their own radio and television spots urging these desperate parents to hold on to their children? After all, that would be the humanitarian thing to do wouldn't it?


US to open new immigrant family detention center
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/263986271.html


White House to spend millions to curb undocumented children crossing border
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/20/politics/us-central-american-immigration/


Illegal Immigrants Treated Better Than Homeless In US
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/06/17/Illegal-Immigrants-Treated-Better-Than-Homeless-in-US


Humphries: Exclusive interview with Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpiao
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/19/humphries-exclusive-inteview-arizona-sheriff-joe-a/