America has become a corrupt nation that is unlikely to remain "Great" for long

 The Founding Fathers knew human nature.  They also knew history, particularly the history of the great empires of Greece and Rome.  While they didn't know that America would grow into the most successful, wealthy, and powerful nation in history, they did have hope that it would endure and provide the freedom for its citizens that they wished and had fought for themselves.

Our government was set up to limit its power and, while there was never any way to stop it's growth or accumulation of power at the expense of the rights of individual citizens, the did try to build in roadblocks in the path to such power.  They split the legislative branch into two with only one reflecting the number of citizens in each respective state while the other had the same number regardless of size.  Power was similarly divided between the Legislative branch and the Executive Branch, and a Supreme Court was created with the power to stop or reverse actions by either branch to act contrary to the Constitutional guarantees.  Terms of office were staggered, with 2, 4, and 6 year terms set to further complicate attempts to gain power at the expense of the people. 

Recognizing the danger of combining the power to rule with the "higher" authority of any one religion, they even stipulated that one's religion could not be a pre-requisite for holding office and that no particular religion could be made the country's "Official" religion, as was true in Great Britain.  Yet they also mandated that religious worship be the free guaranteed choice of any citizen, not to be interfered with by any government.

They tried.

Just as with those who built the Greek empire and, later, the Roman empire...they failed.

An objective study of history suggests that the evil that resides in the human species is not to be denied...particularly over time; a combination of narcissism and of greed ultimately defeats all bonds designed to insure honesty, moral standards and respecting all human beings as equal.  That is what destroyed Greece...and Rome, and what is clearly happening (one could claim that it has already happened) in the United States.

Do you disagree?

The downfall is gradual, happening in small incremental steps that go largely unnoticed...at least as to the (perhaps) unintended consequences.

First: Ownership of property...the basis for taxation...is eliminated and non-owners of property are given the vote.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize that when spending decisions are made by those elected by people who aren't paying taxes, no limits on conflagrate spending exist.  In our respective households, spending is controlled by those who earn the money to be spent if disaster is to be avoided.  No such limit survived at the Federal level.

But that was just the start.

• Shortly after the nation was formed (circa 1790),  each member of the House of Representative was elected by approximately one thousand one hundred (1,100) voters
• In 1909, each member of the House was elected by Twenty-three thousand nine hundred fifty-one (23,951) voters
• In 2016, each member of the House was elected by Two Hundred Ninety-Six Thousand (296,000) voters.

No thinking individual believes that today the wants and needs of any one of us matters to our Member of the United States House of Representatives.

Add to that the fact that there are no term limits for holding legislative elective office and the foundation for corruption, narcissism, and lack of interest in fulfilling the oath(s) of office is clear and unavoidable.

Second:  Freedom of Speech was redefined.  What originally was understood to be prohibition against prior restraint on speech, in no way restricting consequences of all speech, was inferred by the courts as a prohibition of consequences of speech. Further, the Press (now, media in general) was granted immunity from prosecution for libel when making false statement about "public" figures absent proof of Malice...and the courts have revealed themselves as being less than anxious to a finding of malice even when the average citizen would have no such hesitation.  That Freedom of Speech was also permitted to be used in the promotion of governmental systems antithetic to the existence of a Democratic Republic. Those who preferred a Socialist, Marxist, Fascist or Dictatorship to any democratic form of rule were, and remain, free to argue for such and if supported by the Press, free to promote such ideologies with lies, fictional claims and even physical attacks with no consequences.

Third: Freedom of Religion.  Already mentioned early on but expanding and clarifying the developments, the courts once again have defined Freedom OF Religion to mean Freedom FROM Religion in the public square;  evidence and the appearance of the Ten Commandments are legally removed and prohibited from public lands public buildings. The removal of the moral precepts contained therein from public view, the legal removal of daily prayer to start a school day and the prohibition of discussion of religious beliefs in schools, Universities, Colleges, Town Halls and Courtrooms has lead to a removal of absolute standards for civilized behavior in return for continually decreasing comparative standards of behavior allowed to be exhibited regardless of their lawlessness.  

Curiously, America's apparant desire to disrespect and remove any behavioral authority of the Christian religion does not interfere with the clear respect afforded the religious beliefs of Islam, which is the only religion of which I am aware that directs it's followers to kill those who speak in opposition to Islam, to strive for political power that, if attained is to be used to eliminate all other religions and install Islam law and standards as part of governmental rule.  The motivation for this attitude is murky and the logic totally escapes any analytical mind.

Fourth: Education.  Mentioned last, but likely the most influential element in the destruction of America, education at the start of the Twentieth Century was established for all and based on the Prussian Model.  It involved the teaching of basic civil skills (arithmatic, reading, writing and some history) and creating a mind-set that accepted regimented behavior.

In America, the regimentation portion of the curriculum was rendered inconsequential because of the need for all members of a family to work in order to survive and the constantly expressed corrective attitudes of parents when reviewing what their children had been "taught."  But the freedom of schools to explore different areas of learning was left in local control, and with teachers in short supply, that control quickly moved into the hands of teachers.  At the same time, those with socialist, Marxist, communist and fascist ideological beliefs found education to be an area of employment that did not prevent them expressing, albeit diplomatically, their beliefs regarding life and government.  By mid-century they were firmly in power of k-12 education and by the 1970s held firm control, as yet not declared, of a majority of Colleges and Universities.  As the Twenty-first Century dawned they began to reveal their ideologies, and "free" speech began to be denied to anyone espousing Democratic, Conservative or Moral Precepts that Leftist Activists found objectionable or disrespecting of their own views.

And so it is today.

Anarchist violence exists with approval in a number of our nation's cities.  Elected officials actually support those who commit the violence, encouraging contributions to bail out those who have destroyed the property of others, who have assaulted and even killed U.S.Citizens and been revealed to be non-citizens in the country illegally and with pre-existing felony convictions. We have elected people to public office who want to interfere and even eliminate law enforcement that protects the average citizen, even as those same elected individuals employ security forces, both private and public, to provide for their armed protection.

Does this sound like a country on a firm foundation, on track to continued success.

When questionable election activity cast doubt on the veracity of election results, and the highest court in the land refuses to examine the matter, does that sound to you like a country that will long exist in its present form?

The Devil Went Down to Georgia...

 This time he left the fiddle behand and brought Soros' bribe money and his army of minions whose souls he has already bought.  No fair competition this time; he intended to win and bring Venezuelan-style Socialist/Marxism to the United States.  Two wins in Georgia and he will have won.

Controlling the Senate, continuing to hold control over the Senate and with a Leftist President in the White House, He could taste the destruction of this annoying Republic.  That control would allow him to add to the Supreme Court justices that would see their roll as assistants to the Congress, pass limitations on personal freedom, legally eliminate Freedom of Expression through changed definitions, and never again have to return to the individual citizen the freedoms taken from them through the fear created by the COVIC-19 Pandemic.

1984 may not have happened on the stipulated year...but is is about to take place.  The Left (Biden never criticized the lawlessness in Portland or other cities, Harris actually stumped for funds to get law-breakers bail paid by supporters) approved of lawlessness by Antifa, BLM and Anarchists throughout the country as they destroyed the ability of citizens to peacefully enjoy their towns and their private property.

Under a Biden Administration, the Right to Protest will include the right to invade you businesses, your towns, your homes and even your (heretofore) private lives.  

Khrushchev was right; his goals were reached by our own hand, as narcissism outvoted the Constitution, wrong overcame morality, and equality became...not of opportunity...the guarantee of all living at the lowest common denominator of life.  Consequences will no longer be visited upon anyone...except, perhaps, for the sin of attempting to better yourselves without harming others.

Now we can know how the horror that a minority of Greek and of Roman citizens felt as they watched their civilizations crumble and fade away.

Perhaps THIS is why President Trump is hated/opposed by those on all sides...

 I haven't had the stamina to write for quite awhile.  In the face of such an atmosphere of hatred from the Left and derision on the right, as well as the Gubernatorial-declared self-imprisonment (clearly non-productive since COVID is increasing even in the fact of masks and confinement) life just seems to be an existence confined in a warlike maelstrom, ... mental, physical and emotional.  Some days I turn off the radio, television, computer, then close the door and pray that no one knocks...hoping to restore some sense of civil equilibrium.  But the next day the chaos still exists.  I keep asking, "WHY?"

Why the Left extremists hate President Trump is easy to define:  he denied Hillary her place as the first women President (although honesty would insist that her loss was her own doing),...and a Liberal one at that; he is the first elected President to come to Washington with no interest in, and has refused to join, the "good old boys politicians and bureaucrats club"; he fights back when attacked, 

The Media's hatred is also no mystery: he fights back when they attack him; he refuses to think they and their actions/comments are sacrosanct; he points out their "taking of sides" (well, actually just one side...opposing anything he says, things, or does) and lying.

But the opposition and disdain on the part of many Conservatives and the "clubhouse" Republicans has always been more of a mystery.  One would think that the fact that he has kept more of his campaign promises than all of the Presidents since FDR put together would elicit their support.  He has turned out to be much more "Republican-ish" than the Right expected when he ran for the nomination...being more pragmatic and only failing in the area of financial national planning...and with a singular exception all politicians on all sides of the fence have failed in THAT area.  So...WHY?

Finally, I think I may have a possible answer.  It came as I was muting still another insurance commercial and noticed with abhorrence the image of an ostrich with its head burried inb the sand.  No, I don't recall the advertiser but if I did I assure you that I would never consider buying their product.  

It was the "head in the sand" syndrome that suddenly struck me as being the "reason" for many on the Right to dislike and oppose Trump.  They prefer to see politics as having a "gentile" image and existence.  It is far from that, of course, and at some basic level they...and we...know that; it is a dirty business involving lying and compromise (always the enemy of doing the right thing and leading us to an even lower "common denominator" of human condition.  BUT they have always succeeded in denying or ignoring that side of their profession by using the language of diplomacy or ignoring lies and insults not made to their face.  It was a more "comfortable" view of their profession and their lives.

President Trump was and is not diplomatic.  He doesn't play "make believe." He responds to attacks even if those attacks come from a distance.  He destroyed...and continues to destroy...the illusion that politics was a "gentlemen's" game of high purpose.  Those who value their image more than their actions hate the fact that President Trump has confirmed what the American People have long suspected: that for the most part, politicians run a self-serving con game designed to enrich and grant themselves more and more power; that few ever intend to wilfully leave Washington, D.C., and return (horrors) to their "home" towns again...they like being "special" and being treated that way.  But President Trump has confirmed that ALL of Washington is a SWAMP infested with greed and criminal enterprises and that there are literally NO good guys or women that have been able to fight the ubiquitous corruption.

President Trump may not be able to defeat or eliminate this state of affairs.  As a matter of fact it is pretty certain that little will change after he leaves office.  But at least the American Public now know the Truth.

And I thank him for that...and for his efforts.

Chief Justice John Roberts is a "Player," not an "Umpire!"

 During his confirmation hearing, Judge Roberts spoke continually of "seeing" himself as an Umpire, calling legal balls and strikes, rather than a player affecting the outcome of the game.  That concept no longer seems applicable, given his actions in a number of his opinions since becoming Chief Justice.

To be fair, Justice Roberts never promised to "be" and umpire but continually referred to how he saw himself...at least during the period of his confirmation.  On that basis it isn't possible to say he testified falsely or even that he didn't mean his testimony to be truthful. 

But perhaps his testimony provides both a cautionary tale and evidence that we should parse the statements by and sentences of those who testify under oath very carefully.  Perhaps even more importantly, the questions posed should be written carefully so they might require answers that are transparently unequivocal.   

In Judge Robert's case the proper follow-up question should have been, "...and do you, yourself, testify that this is the manner in which you will perform, if confirmed, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, sir?"

That question was never asked.  It should have been.  And that points out one of the great failings of almost all politicians when on camera, in public view, or campaigning:  they don't listen.  If the listen, they hear what they want to hear and often they don't listen at all because they are already thinking about their own next question or statement.

Almost all politicians  end up like "fence-post turtles" (found from time to time in farming country) seen upside down on top of a fence post:  they sure didn't get there on their own,  they're totally useless, and they have no idea what to do next to help themselves or others.

What most Judges have in common is the tendency to forget they aren't God.  They are part of a system that should be honored.  In Judges' cases, they aren't superior to the other parts of Government and need to remember that they are (or SHOULD BE) limited to their assignment...and that is to point out truthfully and accurately failings in our Justice system and in written laws.  It is Congress and/or legislatures that have the responsibility to change or correct the laws under which we live, and not for any court to provide a "do-over" or a "correction." 

Our Supreme Court is "supreme" only over other courts.  It is NOT supreme to the legislature, even though it has the power to rule that a law passed by Congress violates our Constitution; it can stop the application of the law, but it CANNOT and should not ever CORRECT what it (the Court) sees as an error by the Legislature or Congress.  

The Supreme Court of the United States is empowered to LIMIT actions by the Chief Executive, the Congress, and of the States to act in ways contrary to the United States Constitutional requirements.  It is NOT empowered to REWRITE laws; that is for other branches of government.

It is profoundly unfortunate that Chief Justice Roberts and other members of the Court all to often seem to forget their own limitations in favor of a narcissistic temptations to act as (or in place of) God.

Our Founding Fathers hoped that they were creating a governing entity that divided power in such a way the abuse of power would be prevented.  Unfortunately, they apparently (falsely, as it turned out) presumed that elected officials would honor their oath(s) of office and if not, that the people would exercise the power to remove them.

The Founding Fathers did not foresee (and perhaps could not foresee) the elimination of moral conscience and the removal of God and the Ten Commandments from public life.  And so we have riots, looting, assaults, disrespect and disowning of "law and order" and the police that would provide that and a "silent" (so far) citizens wonder in the quiet of their homes where the U.S.A. into which they were born has gone, and if it will ever return.

And Chief Justice Roberts now bats clean-up calling his own balls and strikes with no umpire in sight.

Why do we reward Failure & Bad Behavior?

Sixty years ago our government "discovered" that over 60% of Black and minorities were living in poverty, and under-performing in schools.  "The Great Society" was formed; it gave money to those minorities that were living in poverty and under-performing in schools, and it provided financial assistance for and access to low cost housing.

That has continued, virtually unabated, to the present.  Failure was rewarded.

Consider what might be the case today should all of that money have been provided to and rewarded the over 30% that WERE achieving and succeeding.  What if those who were failing saw that the path to success and reward was to maintain a family, learn in school, work after school, and gain degrees (High School, Junior College, College and advanced degrees) that would insure the financial assets to provide their children with better housing, better education, and the opportunity to more fully enjoy the fruits of success?

Many suspect that the government's choice to reward failure was purposeful:  it attracted votes (and therefore re-election) for the politicians; it reduced the appearance of poverty; it also made those receiving government funds dependent on the continuation of those funds, as they didn't come with job training or improved education.  The result was what could reasonably be seen as a continued "plantation dependence" on the government for both direction and subsistence, supporting an almost slave like acceptance of government direction and control for supporting a subsistence level of living.

And as whole industries sprung up to distribute government funds and service agencies, there actually grew a disincentive to improve the lot of the poor, as it would eliminate the jobs and power of those agencies.  As time went by there was less and less inclination on the part of those administering these policies to suggest attacking the cause of poverty rather than ameliorate the symptoms.  Except for a few organizations working to reward achievement, there is little acknowledgment of this long term failure.

This needs to change.

And it is possible that the nation would benefit from abandoning the statistical fascination with Race and possible switch to focusing on "foot size" or even "hair color" as a means of determining who may be discriminated against.  Or...if logic ever prevails...perhaps we could focus on achievement and/or motivation?

Considering the state of the nation today, I'd even accept using "civility" as a basis for job and benefit qualification...or, in the case of reporters, "truth."

Is America being "Colonized"?

Nothing is forever.  Nations fail.  Countries disappear...not as land areas (although that has happened) but moving borders, and migration and invasions change the character.  Even where the name has remained, what currently exists bears little resemblance to that same area's character, personality and governance of even a century ago...with the exception of the United States of America.

Certainly Europe has much of the same borders, but the political existence is largely changed, with the advent of the European Union, and other changes in self-perception, Europe and the world generally has seen huge changes.

America has defied the general rule and remained generally stable during its entire existence.  A great degree of credit for this can be correctly ascribed to the Founding Fathers creation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.   These documents, and the attitudes they represent, made governmental change possible without revolution and upheaval, and the success of individual efforts resulting in an economy that made possible successful defense of its borders against all invaders.  

But nothing is forever.  Just like businesses, nations are affected, and threatened, by stupidity, carelessness, non-interest, laziness and greed...any one of which is capable of leading to a nation's downfall.

Australia, the East and West Indies as well as Africa existed for years, only to fall to the colonization by Europe.  Even America started in that fashion, with European nations descending on the North American continent, driving out and subjugating the natives to a European lifestyle and values.

The United States used to be a destination for folks who were unhappy with their country of birth, either with the governance or the possibilities for advancement.  They came to America because it provided opportunity for both personal freedom and success in accordance with their efforts and abilities (not guarantees of success but the guarantee of an opportunity to succeed).  But in the last century it is now apparent that resident desire for power joined forces with immigrants (both legal and illegal) who came with the desire to change America into the kind of country they had left, with the great improvement of allowing THEM to exercise the power.  They did not come to "join" America, but to reform and subjugate it.

Even our Media (ostensibly) serving our common interests, declare the white majority to be racist, even as the non-white population break laws, harm property and people and declare that they deserve to be given whatever they define as success.  It is the media and the minority that display racist attitudes and "values."  If the White majority were truly racist, the actions of the minority would long ago have seen them executed or deported.  

Current events reveal that America is being threatened by what can only be labeled as "colonizing" forces;  BLM, the LGBT+ community, and Marxists, Socialist and Communist organization and individuals protest, riot, destroy and kill in an effort to overturn our Democratic Republic.  Many oppose it...but many native inhabitants in India, Australia, and Africa didn't like or accept the values imposed by European colonization either. 

The questions come down to:

1.  whether the European DNA of our past renders us unqualified to oppose this attempt to take control and change the essence of the United States and its Constitutional foundation of over 200 years; and
2. whether the fact that weapons possession and law provide the "native" population with sufficient choice and motivation to oppose these colonization attempt(s).

Or..,will the majority seek to ignore or appease the invaders from within.  Will we. like a frog placed in warm water over a roaring fire...simply sit placidly by as we are overcome, subjugated and killed by the enemy?  Should we all start language lessons?  Arabic and/or Mandarin might be the better choices. 

COVID-19: a discussion

(Disclaimer:  I am not a medical doctor.  I have no qualifying scientific degrees.  But, at almost 78 years of age I am in the "at risk" category according to all reports, and as a retired, multiple degree holding individual who is curious and has the time, I have been reading all I can find about this virus and trying to establish a layman's understanding of just what the SARS-CoV-2 threat is all about.  That leaves me with questions as well as a lot of ideas and my intent is to share them with anyone who is also curious and wants to take the time to consider my findings and thoughts.  So...I am not TELLING anyone what to do or what to think...just musing out loud...or in print, to be accurate.  Proceed at your own risk)

My assumptions (perhaps better termed, "presumptions"):

• The "unknown" causes fear
• Sudden "unknown" causes contagious fear
• Fear eliminates logic
• Lack of logic makes for bad or flawed decisions

About the beginning of this year presented reports of a rapidly growing health threat from an unknown extremely contagious virus that held out danger of inordinately large mortality rates on a world-wide basis with no medical solution or intervention known to exist.

The fear was immediate and grew exponentially.  The "flee or flight" instinct took immediate hold, with "fight" not apparently in play so "flee" was the almost universal reaction.  Just what "flee" meant was varied but generally became what we now refer to as "lock-down" and "spacing."  "Logic" was still on holiday, albeit with some groups and individuals attempting to approach the danger looking for solutions that would bring "fight" back into contention.

One of the perils of having some folks attempting to repond logically to a threat when the majority is still in "flee" mode is that even if the logical approach presented in incomplete and/or in error, it SEEMS like the siren of truth, logic and reason and rarely is questioned or doubted.  But...almost inevitably there ARE errors and gaps.  These are to be expected.  But...what SHOULD happen is that these presumptions be examined almost daily to discover, correct or eliminate all that is wrong.  Consider the following:

• Predictions of enormous loss of life were predicated on estimates that were flawed.

One of the errors was basing projections on no effective steps taken to minimize the effect and the spread of the virus from person to person.  

• Initial presumptions were that the virus was long-lasting on various surfaces and was virtually impossible to avoid between individuals closer than 6 feet from one to another.

This has turned out to be largely untrue, as current reports by the medical community suggests that the virus does not remain dangerous on most surfaces for more than a short time.

Then there were the errors and presumptions that caused authoritative declarations to be made (and largely accepted) closing businesses, transportation, community interaction and person to person contact of all kinds.  Some of these errors:

1. Not recognizing that "lock-downs" were ineffective when the virus was already present;
2. Even while recognizing that the elderly and those with pre-existing medical challenges were primarily at risk for loss of live, Governors chose to send recovering patients to Nursing and Old Age Homes resulting in infection of others already at risk of death.
3. Reacting politically rather than logically in an election year by deciding that they (the politician office holders) had to do SOMETHING lest the voters think they didn't care.  Clearly the right action in some situations is to NOTHING until or unless PROVEN FACTS point to a specific line of action.

When one reflects on the fact that just over two years ago (2017, Fall) America went through an immensely severe flu season that resulted in as many deaths as has resulted from COVID-19 and no one lifted an eyebrow or even thought, much less suggested, that we "lock-down" for safety, a question and set of facts comes to mind.  Every bug, every virus we have experienced has an approximately two (2) year life span.  The Spanish Flu in the last century ran its course in two years.  Others have the same record.  So...I suggest the following questions are appropriate to put to the medical community for responses and answers:

• If enormous funding results in a vaccine claimed to be effective and is available in a year, will it be claimed that it is the vaccine that eradicates the occurrence of this virus?  Or will its virtual disappearance be the result of the natural two (2) year life cycle?
• Does the "lock-down" approach truly operate to lessen, minimize, or otherwise protect the public from the effects of this virus?  Doesn't such "isolation actions" lessen or even prevent a development of a "herd immunity"?  
• Has medical research adopted the proper presumptions as to optimal treatment?  Some articles have reported that the oxygen level of COVID-19 sufferers have dipped dangerously low WITHOUT fever or corresponding obstruction of lung function (these come later, suggesting to some that the lung problems result from the virus, and are not the direct cause).  And other reports are that the implementation of respirator treatment puts the lungs under pressurized oxygen with actually has been shown to decrease the ability of the lung tissue to absorb and oxygenate blood, actually acting to deprive patients of oxygen and contribute to death.  Some reports and at least one presentation on Youtube, by Dr. Zach Bush ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DqZs9tLZIU ), suggests that upon diagnosis of the low oxygen blood levels prior to any fever or lung obstruction it might be wise to consider a treatment such as used for cyanide poisoning, currently involving three (3) injections.  If that increases blood oxygen levels, then there may be no development of lung obstruction eliminating all but liquids and bed rest to recover.  Shouldn't medical authorities have to respond to this concept...and any others?

And finally...at least for now...can't we all agree that in an medical event Government, Politicians, and holders of elected office should not be allowed to "not allow an emergency to go to waste" and seize control of our lives in a way that we would never allow if not for the fear that they encouraged, fed, and enlarged in order to try to validate their power grab(s)?

What do you think? 

Why are we fat?

Those who study these things report that, as a nation, Americans are fat.

• Is that true?
• If so, why? and,
• Can or should we do something about that?

Statistics suggest that more Americans are overweight than ever before.  Moreover, general observance and anecdotes back up those statistics, so it seems that the we are fat.

"Why" is always going to be an individual answer if total accuracy is your goal.  But for the purposes of this discussion, general habits and behavior will be the focus.  Two primary reasons for obesity and being overweight suggest themselves:

1. Over-eating; and
2. lack of sufficient exercise.

And it is likely that a combination of the two would have the most impact.  Certainly there are individuals who have medical challenges that cause increased body mass, but generally it is clear that more food (or bad choices of food) and less exercise are the cause.

But...what are the root cause(s) of those factors?  Again, observation suggests three major causes:

1. Television;
2. development of the two income family; and
3. The internet.

The advent of Television in the late 1940's was the beginning of a quantum shift in children's attitude and interest in physical activities.  Oh, it didn't show up immediately; children and teenagers had developed habits over the years of playing baseball, football, basketball, hockey in the winter, and other activities such as dodge ball, hide & Seek and others that exercised their growing bodies and those habits stayed with them.  But parents with children born in the early 1950's and later found that it was easier to get housework done and get some needed "down time" if their children weren't out running around, getting hurt and into trouble in the neighborhood, but instead watching "educational" programs on the Television.  And if the kids stayed quiet and out of harms way even as the found that they could switch the channel to watch cartoons...well, how harmful could that be...it was make-believe.

Following World War II, men came home to a nation where women had gotten used to working, earning money outside the home, to a nation where new and better products were available and a general desire to own a home and live better than before.  So men got jobs too, and grandparents watched children during the day. On weekends parents "caught up" on household matters and acted as parents once again.

That wonderful new thing...Television...turned out to be a soporific tool for young children not available before.  So, little by little, parents weren't heard commanding their children to, "go out and play, it is a beautiful day!"  Instead they were content to enjoy the peace and quiet of the house, bothered only by the occasional need to tell the kids to"turn the sound down" on the television.  

Of course, there was still (and that continues today) the "gym period" at school.  But that doesn't really provide physical activity, as studies report that on perhaps 20 +/- minutes of activity occur since most of the time is spent standing around as the upcoming activity is being described and teams and/or pairings are set up.  Gym periods were and are only a light reminder of the intense sports and exercises that used to be the norm at recess (no longer much in existence), after school and on weekends.  So Gym is of little effect and/or consequence.

Those "television children" grew up be parents that did not exercise themselves and certainly were less and less likely to make their children do any different.  Meanwhile, the
"two income" family became the norm, leading to less consideration being given to meal preparation; tv dinners, take-out meals became more ubiquitous, and kids home from school found lots of high calorie snacks in the refrigerator to eat while the sat on the couch watching....wait for it....television.  They were NOT going out over the neighbor's kids house to play sandlot baseball or shoot hoops.  No...none of that was or is happening today.

For years, the only exercise some kids got was when they had a report due for school and had to...gasp...walk or travel to the library and research the subject.  

But even that tiny bit of exercise was about to be made elective. Because now the Internet came into existence.  Now neither child or adult had to leave the easy chair or the chair in front of the personal computer.  Exercise?  Why?  For what purpose?  Besides, life is becoming more complicated and more things have to be learned, so eliminating running in the park (or even walking) puts more stress on one's time...so that takes a back seat (and often doesn't remain in the vehicle).

The Internet and the television became more highly developed, so it then gave birth to the "smart phone" (although that confuses me, as I have had one for more that 15 years and it still hasn't made me any smarter).  Now both kids and adults don't even have to meet to talk; I caught my two grandsons texting each other across the same room!  I have a friend who, when he visits his children and grandchildren, confiscates the kids phones as he arrives and only gives them back as he is packing to leave, telling them that they are going to learn how to converse with him and each other person to person with their voices and looking each other in the eye.  After a painful day, he says the begin to enjoy it...and he has hopes that they actually may be able to negotiate their way through a job interview at some time in the future.  But I wonder if some will even be able to do that...or maintain concentration on anything for more than 45 seconds.

But...getting back to the subject...our parents AND we took the easy way out even while intending, perhaps, to do the right thing.  We failed to balance our desire that our kids learn (from educational programs) with their need to develop their bodies to carry their brains through a long life...and that inevitably led (and continues to lead) to shorter life spans and increased pain and discomfort during the latter years.  

For some time I have thought that most families (both adults and children) would benefit from shutting down all forms of electronic access for a week each month...maybe even on at least one weekend day each week...and instead schedule outdoor physical activities (games, hikes, walks) to coincide with face to face conversations.

I know many families who even now require that all phones be muted or turned off and left in another room while the family has dinner at the table and combines the dinner hour with conversation.  That should be an "always" thing...for all of us.

If we don't work to change our ways, I fear the the fictional "Matrix" as seen in the movie of the same name will become a very unpleasant and unenjoyable reality.  However, if today's parents recognize the benefit of, and the need to, reverse this process, it can be reversed.  But it means making a conscious and consistent effort to push children away from the computer, the cell phone and the couch to make them "go out and play."  It means getting other parents with children of the same age on the same page,getting together in the park and letting (perhaps, in the beginning) making them get involved in pick-up games of dodge ball, hide & seek, flag and touch football, baseball.  NOT organized, like Little League and the such...although those are great.  It is the non-athlete who needs to add physical activities to an otherwise seductive sedentary life style.  Jogging, hikes are good too.  And this all has the advantage of also refreshing the mind and actually making the time in front of a computer more productive.

I sincerely hope that just thinking about all of this will cause at least a few to take the steps to truly show a way to save (or at least better benefit) our wonderful children.

Why do businesses succeed...and fail?

Quick, simple answers pop right up.  But pause a moment and the simple answers just don't provide complete understanding.  The obvious answers are:

• make money and become rich;
• a challenge you can't refuse;
• compete and win; 
• see and meet a need.

The truth may be that there are as many reasons for starting a new business as there are people trying.  

Most businesses start with one common trait: each and every founder of a successful business was stubborn and a leader.

There is, however, one additional trait: perceptiveness. They understood and met the needs of the customer...of the marketplace.  Quality and Price always go together if there is to be success.

An study of the beginnings of any business only teach us about that...the beginning.  There have been many men who started a business and ran it successfully, only for it to fade and fail upon the death of the founder.  Why?

Many stubborn leaders don't want to delegate; it gives up control of quality and process and leaves the leader subject to mistakes and lack of drive by others and is anathema.  They don't like it; it smacks of lack of control and giving up of power.  They will make it very uncomfortable for anyone who pushes for any sort of delegation.  That stress will tend to drive all but the most subservient away...to other businesses or enterprises, leaving no one of leadership quality to continue the business upon the passing of the founder.

The businesses that survive do so because some just as stubborn subordinate refuses to be driven out and values what the business does more than a good relationship with the founder OR the founder comes to see the business not as an extension of themselves, but as having a business life and purpose of its own, and comes to appreciate nurturing it as a separate entity, welcoming others with new and different approaches.  If all at the top management level continue to respect and nurture that approach, the business will survive until that attitude fades and dies or the quality of leadership fades and dies.  Either will lead to collapse or absorption by another, successful, company.

Why be concerned with such considerations?  One major reason is as a potential investor.  You can be certain that the attitudes and quality of management, whether of a start-up or an ongoing business, are of paramount reason to a Warren Buffet and others who make their living as investors.  Whether buying stock, or investing in ownership/profits of start-ups, success depends on evaluating the motivation and talents of those at the top (or, in the case of a new business...the bottom).  As a person looking for a job, the same evaluation would be a benefit, if only to work at getting a job that would last.

Why are Journalists an endangered species?

When at Syracuse University more than half a century ago, I wanted to be in Radio as a broadcaster.  One of the prerequisites for such a profession was the ability to write good news stories.  Syracuse at that time had, and perhaps still has, a Journalism School that was considered one of the best in the country...as well as a reputation for turning out folks ready to perform well in both Radio and Television.

At that time, "reporters" were looked up to by most (as long as they were not targeting you); they worked at being objective, thorough and factual.  At that time opinions and judgement was confined to the "Editorial" pages of a newspaper.  Even Radio and Television stations clearly announced and labeled "editorial commentary" as such before and often even upon the completion of that.  News anchors such as Walter Cronkite would finish the news portion of the broadcast, pause, and then offer some version of, "We'd like to offer this editorial (or opinion) about ...." indicating what the subject of the comment would be about, and closing with the clear statement that what you had just heard was an editorial offered by the news department (of whatever station or network the program appeared on).

You could pick up competing newspapers with different political or social agendas and get the same news with the only difference being if you read a morning or an afternoon paper, and that was just because there were more details in the afternoon papers on the morning "breaking" news.

Those professional journalist reporters would give you all the facts of a given story but leave it to each reader to decide for themselves whether the story was about "good" or "bad."  It was both the readers' right AND their obligation to decide on the worth, value and labeling about each and every story on the "news" pages.

I spent two semesters being shown and learning how to write a story about anything and everything by supplying the "5 'W's & the 'H' " ( Who, What, Where, Why, When, and How).  I've been asked why it would take two semesters, a whole year of classes and assignments, to learn to do that.  The answer is that you had to do this quickly and accurately without the use of adjectives.  Thank about doing that in your own life!  Most things we see happen around us we automatically "adjectivise" (my own made up word).  We see things as "funny" or "sad," or "good" or "bad."  Rarely do we say to another, "something happened to me today"...usually we say, a funny thing happened to me today."  And we rarely tell anyone anything with ALL the facts as I listed above.  So the time is spent developing the discipline to get the entire litiney of an event, and getting them accurately so the person hearing or reading your recital ends up with a Full, Accurate, and Complete understanding and stands ready to make their own individual judgment about what happened.

In the 1950's and 1960's a reporter who did not keep his or her stories objective and accurate became known as unreliable, and disrespected by his or her peers and, for as long as they remained employed, his or her editors...and usually assigned to unimportant stories where mistakes or missing information didn't hurt the newspaper very much.

Today I challenge anyone to pick up a newspaper, listen to a radio news program, or watch a television hard news program and not notice: 1. missing facts; 2. inaccurate assertions; 3. adjectives; and 4. even judgments thrown at you as a done deal.  You have been told in advance by the person providing the "story" what to think about it and what to feel and do as a response.  You are being indoctrinated; the value(s) have already been assigned and communicated to you.  If you are a busy person just checking in on what is going on, you may not even be aware of this "directive as to what to think and how to value" what you have just heard.

Aside from the natural annoyance and, perhaps, anger arising from this discovery of how you are being "talked down to," you may start to ask yourselves..."how did things change from what used to be...and why?"

May I suggest that there are two major (and I am certain there are other contributing elements) factors:

1. The Educational System as it exists today in America; and
2. The ubiquitous presence of the Internet.

Mass education in the United States has always been based on the Prussian model which taught basic arithmetic, reading and writing as well as teaching them group discipline so as to make children useful and governable employees and citizens when they reached their majority. Until the 1960's, this tendency toward indoctrination was offset and even defeated by the moderating effect of parents who would discuss what their children learned in school, adding the element of questioning what was taught and solving problems in a manner once described as "thinking outside the box,"  that is...looking at what was taught not for itself, but asking oneself, if not the teacher, why is this being taught.

After World War II this changed for two basic reasons: First, the "keep up with the Jones-es" attitude led to more mothers entering the work force for a second salary to pay for more and better "stuff" and also to pay for higher education for the children, eliminating much of the time and directing parents away from questioning their children about what they were learning.  Falsely, parents turned to presuming that the schools were teaching their children rather than indoctrinating them to accept commands, suggestions and governance instead of questioning and delving in the purposes of those commands, suggestions and governance; second, Progressives in the era of Teddy Roosevelt continuing from that period had slowly but inexorably taken virtual control of our entire educational system(s).

Formulated in Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," they had taken advantage of parental concern for earnings rather that their children's education to first shade their teaching and then to bring in texts that emphasized a preference for governmental and authoritarian direction as being in the interest of the entire country.  The largely unstated trade-off was individual freedom and thinking not aligned with what was taught (alternative label: indoctrinated).  This is now evident not only in grades 1 through 12, but in University and College settings, as non-progressive thinking, speaking and attitudes are virtually silenced if not expelled from campuses.

The second major factor for the disappearance of professional journalism is the Internet.  Combined with the laziness of the general public and their willingness to accept and not question what is presented, the competition for readership, ratings and/or viewership has resulted in speed at the expense of accuracy, and shear volume of noise over truth.

The editors who once looked at accuracy, depth, absence of adjectives and completeness as the qualifiers, and never considered putting out anything else are no more...replaced with those who hold the same title but value profit, speed and their own personal and business agenda(s) of political and societal nature, and see no fault in turning what we once looked upon as organizations that informed us to organizations dedicated to Public Relations and Propaganda.

We get the government that we deserve.  It doesn't matter is we knew what we were doing or choosing; consequences aren't voided because of stupidity, carelessness, or even saying, "I'm sorry."  That same reasoning applies to the media that still (falsely) claim to serve us; that we, like a drunk at a bar, demand more and more simply insure that the consequences are certain.

National Borders:why?

Do you have your own "space?"  Maybe, if you're homeless, it is a tent, a bench, a grate or a grocery cart...but do you consider it "yours."  Do you have a home?  Do you rent a house or an apartment?  Maybe you rent a "room."  These all have one thing in common: most consider the area involved as THEIRS.

If someone comes into that area, that room, that apartment, or that house without your permission or an invitation, you feel disrespected, annoyed and perhaps even at risk.  In the case of the homeless, they react to an trespass of what they consider to be the borders of their space as if they have been invaded.  Those of us who rent a room, an apartment or a house consider the space inside those walls as OURS.  We have locks on the doors to secure OUR space.

Those who own houses consider even the property around their homes as theirs and often put up fencing around the yard or property that they own and on which their house sits, so they have the fencing AND locks on the doors to their homes; these all establish the borders of what is THEIRS and the law provides that they can protect that property, that house, apartment or room from the unauthorized, uninvited presence of others.

Groups of people create Towns, Cities  Counties and states that also have borders to publicly declare and define the public areas for which the group is responsible, and for which the group will pay maintenance and protection.  And for centuries, groups of people have formed countries, establishing borders and also establishing the requirements necessary for people living elsewhere to meet to a) visit, b) work, and./or c) become a member ( a citizen) of that country.  Borders around a country are clearly an extension of the same universal human practice of defining, controlling, maintaining, enforcing laws and protecting property against all not members of the defining group.

In recent years we have heard so many comments, and read opinion pieces in the media, regarding the existence of borders.  State borders, County borders, the borders of countries are all commented on, and the conversation or discussion always starts with those who think that they are an anachronism and even where they exist, they should not be "guarded" or "controlled."  The United Nations "Agenda 21" program targets changing the world-wide perception of borders of countries as "dividing" to one of simple "address" concerns with the emphasis being on World Wide Unified governing.

Is this natural?  Is it logical?  Does it sound..."right"?  The  policy of enforcing borders of a country creates strong emotions...both for and against.

Those having these disparate viewpoints rarely communicate (they both talk, but rarely does either "listen"). It seems appropriate to look at and evaluate both viewpoints, their goals, and the effect on every man, women, and/or child that lives with what is now and what may be to come.

The most compelling observations on this subject involve observing and evaluating human behavior at all ages; consider the following:

• As soon as children begin to socialize, they experiment with sharing and establishing the idea of and promotion of "mine!"  That is an ongoing concept every child honors naturally.  They need parents or other adults to teach and then enforce the concept of sharing.
• As children reach the age of schooling, they do learn to share and cooperate for a purpose.  The sharing or giving is arguably never self-less; it is to gain something (this can be money, return gifts at a later time or even an emotional reward of feeling good about giving someone something.  But always there is a purpose that is seen as desirable by the one "giving" something with the parallel judgement that nothing bad can result from the giving.
• As we grow, the natural establishment of borders and boundaries continues.  Notice how quickly children(s)' rooms become theirs; there is a cry of "can't you knock" from kids as their parents open the door to their bedrooms,  and the whining only increases if a parent goes into that room without permission or searches through the possessions in that room.  Again...borders.
• Leaving the family home and establishing other quarters exhibit the desire to establish and defend borders even more intensely.  NOW there are locks, and violation of the borders results in societal enforcement (the Police and Courts get involved and they enforce the borders by fining or imprisoning the offender(s).
• Purchasing property further extends creating borders.  And those borders are enforced by society by laws against trespassing, burglary and robbery, even as many home and property owners erect fences to delineate and prevent trespassing and other prohibited forms of invasion.
• Even in business the human race establishes borders: desk space, cubical space and formal offices with doors and locks.  Violating the established boundaries can result in losing one's job.

Group behavior mimics the desire for boundaries.  Villages, Towns, Cities, Counties, states and countries all have boundaries and borders.  People living within the various boundaries share the common costs of the given area: police for protection, road creation and maintenance that benefits all, utility maintenance and rate control oversight, building codes, school costs and other needs and agreed upon desires; by renting or owning property you agree to the rules of these "boundaries."  And it benefits all who qualify.

The United States of America is just such a group.  We fought to remove the "boundaries" or borders of England in order to create out own "group" with our own set of rules for living together.  In our case this was the Constitution and the ideals presented so succinctly in the Declaration of Independence.  Today's United States of America was created by wars, by purchase and by treaties.  Once acquired, we established "boundaries" and "borders" that reflected "ours" and an implicit warning that "outsiders" would only be allowed if they abided by our rules and requirements for entering, visiting and immigrating to our country.  Our government was and remains in charge of defining and enforcing those rules, which have changed over the years.

Respect for law and a desire to abide by laws is only natural to about 30% of us; and lack of respect or desire to abide by any laws rules another 20%.  The remaining 50% will govern their lives by whatever the laws and rules governing behavior declare to be acceptable.  But it is only the laws that are written, but the enforcement of them that makes them real and governing.  It is arguably the failure to enforce laws that has reduced the general respect for all laws in today's America that has resulted in so many crimes and so much disrespectful behavior.  To many in positions of authority had refused to enforce laws because they believe them to be wrong;  they have never worked to get our legislature(s) to change the laws or write new ones with which the disagree.  Yet the voters have continued to return to office the people who have abdicated their oath's of office to enforce our laws and protect the citizens.

Would those who argue for no border enforcement allow strangers onto their property and/or into their homes?  Would those same people give up their security services, fences and locks to allow anyone at all to come onto their property, into their homes, take possession of rooms in their houses as living and entertainment quarters without objection?

Would you?

What the "no borders" supporters want is identical to the goal of the United Nations "Agenda 21."  The goal is a world government where a country's borders are equal to State, or county, or Town boundaries: for maintenance and policing only with no legal prohibitions of free movement from one to the other of any sort.

The Laws of the United States as of this moment require formal permission to enter our country if you are not a citizen of the United States.  And if not a citizen, you have no right to vote in our national elections upon punishment of law.  If you want to change that, it is our Federal Government that must vote changes in border enforcement and immigration law.  In the meantime (until and unless the law is changed) our Congress and President must:

1. Secure our borders
2. prevent as well as remove any and all persons who cross our borders illegally.

Can any government or society survive without borders?

My opinion (and I could be wrong) is...yes, but not for long. All of us want freedom for ourselves and, as long as it doesn't cause us harm or discomfort, for others.  But if the freedoms granted (or appear to be granted to) others becomes a violation of our own freedom, that attitude not only vanishes, but reverses; if there is going to be some loss of freedoms, then let it be by "others," not us.  Over time, the resentment builds to the point where the governmental entity that eliminated the concept of "borders" loses general public support and respect.  Revolution or "Coups Detat" cannot be far behind and will be led by those advocating the re-imposition of enforceable borders and immigration rules that protect the present "citizens" of the area withing those borders, provided we preserve our Second Amendment Rights to Own Firearms.

What do you think?  And why?

Is America over-reacting to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and its COVID-19 disease?

America is, as of this date, virtually shut-down.  Citizens are forbidden to assemble, to interact except electronically, and in many states more than 5 meeting together, whether on purpose or by accident, may be fined or imprisoned.  A friend commented,j "it took 36 years more than anticipated, but '1984' has finally arrived."  But the government tells us this is due to a medical emergency, is necessary, and temporary.

Such reassurances bring to mind the fact that EVERY tax ever levied in America came with the assurance that it was TEMPORARY. Yet virtually all of them continue to this day.  But perhaps that will not apply to this current assumption and presumption of government(s) to control us all.

But the medical concerns are demonstrably real; as of March 26th, 2020, we have over one thousand (1,000) dead (a mortality rate of just under 2%); there is no vaccine, and necessary medical supplies are less than adequate.  We hear this and accept that "stuff" happens and just obey the directions given to us. And the government is about to finalize spending more that Two Trillion Eight Hundred Billion ($2,800,000,000,000) Dollars response to the challenge.

But as time goes by, history keeps knocking on my mental door asking for a bit more analysis.  What history, do you ask? Consider:
     1.  In 2002-2003 There was a SARS outbreak worldwide.  My research reveals that in 2002, America's total Federal medical expenditure(s) were Four Hundred Twenty-Two Million ($422,000,000) Dollars, and that the SARS mortality rate was Ten (10%) percent,.  There were medical advisories, but no business or social shutdowns mandated by our government at any level.
     2.  In 2009, we had the H1N1 swine flue to deal with. World wide mortality was between One Hundred Fifty-seven (157,000) thousand and Five Hundred Seventy-five (575,000) thousand people.  We spent Two Billion ($2,000,000,000) Dollars to fight this.  Mortality rates differ by age, but one estimate put forth a rate of Three point four (3.4%) percent.  Again, there were medical advisories, but no business or social shutdowns mandated by our government at the Federal or State levels.
     3.  In 2012, there was the MERS to deal with.  World wide, the mortyality rate approached Thirty-five (35%) percent.  America devoted Four Hundred Twenty-two ($422,000,000) Million Dollars to meeting its challenges, although the impact on the United states was minimal.  Neither the Federal or State(s) mandated any shutdown of business activity or social interactions.
    4.  Between the Fall of 2019 and now (Spring of 2020), influenza has resulted in the deaths of over Ten Thousand (10,000) people.  There was no public or governmental outcry except for medical advisories promoting getting "flu shots."  Flue shots have variable rates of protection for those receiving them, as the death rate reveals.  But, neither Federal or State governments mandated shutdowns of business or social ineraction.

A broad historical review of this country's (and the world's) reaction to serious health threats reveals that today's SARS-CoV-2 virus and the resulting COVID-19 illness is remarkable different from similar (arguably) threats in the past.  And that invites the question: Why?

I am not a conspiracy theorist or promoter.  I can't answer the question.  But I believe we should ask those at the highest State and Federal levels to explain.  Today's impact word wide is serious and severe.  Although there are political implications and politics has (in my mind, inappropriately) influenced what should and is being done, politics doesn't seem to be the primary factor in today's reactions.

One possibility is that the world of 2020 is seen and felt by mankind to be a more fearful one than of even eight years ago...but I have no proof ot that.  What is clear, though, is that in the America of 2020 people have accepted fear as the primary controlling factor in their public and private lives.  My father, and I today,would have reacted with a "snort" to any suggestion that because of the chance of catching a cold, getting the flu, or any other illness he should stay home and not conduct his business...that was NOT going to happen. I am in my seventy-seventh year, and I feel perfectly comfortable with making my own choice(s) as to where I should go, who I will see, what business or social activities I will have...all while doing all the logical self-protecting steps available (washing hands, avoiding people with colds, etc.) any semi-intelligent person should take without my government (at any level) mandating my behavior and threatening prosecution by law for disobedience.  That is NOT right...unless my friend was right: 1984 has come, just thirty-six (36) years later than the author predicted.

Politicians retire Rich; should that be?

A member of the House of Representatives, and a United States Senator each receives a salary of One Hundred Seventy-four Thousand ($174,000) Dollars a year.  Each gets allowances for staffing their offices, Office space and travel allowances.  And, of course, each gets status as well as the power to influence the actions of our Federal Government, including impacting our taxes as well as our individual freedoms.  Their performance is important to every citizen.

Some members of both houses have retired in the past couple of years,and more will retire at the end of this year.  A review of how long they served in public orffice, and their net worth on retirement seemed in order.

Senator "A" 18 years service,                net worth:   $2,794,024
Senator "B"  23 years service,               net worth:   $1,695,514
Senator "C" 12 years service,                net worth:   $2,668,017
Representative "1"  22 years service,    net worth:   $2,781,015
Representative "2"  30 years service,    net worth:  $24,290,511
Representative "3"    8 years service,    net worth:    $5,727,032
Representative "4"  35 years service,    net worth:    $1,348,011
Representative "5"  25 years service,    net worth:    $2,464,049

Whether these accumulations of wealth are legal or not is not my point.  Does anyone believe that these increases in net worth can happen of the Congressmen and women involved were spending their time looking after ever constituent equally?

Does anyone wonder why over the years none of these "accumulations" have come under Media scrutiny?

Is there any question about whether or not any of the accumulations (and expenditures) have not seen detailed audits and investigation by ANY legal entity or Inspector General(s)?

I cannot be the first to wonder about the ethics and legality of this sort of activity on the part of those who we euphemistically call "Public Servants.

Any ideas?

is the Electoral College essential to preserve our Republic?

Many of today's students and young adults seem to either have never been taught American history or American Government, or have totally forgotten it.  And I won't spend time here pointing out the woeful performance of all when it comes to answering simple questions about today's elected, and/or appointed office holders and members of the Supreme Court.

What is totally puzzling is the apparent lack of understanding about the purpose of the Electoral College, the way it works, and the rights it guards.

Who wants to do away with the Electoral College? 

Predominantly, it is Democrats, Socialists, Marxists, and those they have successfully indoctrinated. 

Why? 

Because if only the highly populated states need to be courted for votes, those who live in rural areas will no longer count...will no longer be of value to office seekers and their interests will be ignored in favor of satisfying "the mob."

What is their objection to the Electoral College?  It essentially takes away any value from the size of a numerical victory.  Once you win your state, the Electoral College awards you that state's Electoral College votes.  Whether a candidate wins a state by one (1) vote or ten million (10,000,000) votes is immaterial...he or she merely gets that State's Electoral College votes.  The extra 9,999,999 don't matter. 

Why is this of value to the Republic and its citizens as a whole?  It requires a successful candidate to campaign and attempt to prove his or her value to EVERY STATE's voters; It protects the value of ALL States, not just States that have the largest populations.  For a candidate to be elected, his or her value to Wyoming, Idaho, and Rhode Island is just as important as the value to New York, California, Texas, and Florida (among others).

If the Electoral College did NOT exist, those citizens of the United States who lived in the less populated states would not only NEVER see or hear from a Presidential Candidate, their ideas and needs would NEVER be considered by any elected official.

That is what motivated the framers of our Constitution. The less populated colonies demanded protection from being "steamrollered" by the more populated "States" if they were going to be a respected part of the United States of America.

Our President should HAVE TO prove to ALL the voters that he has their interests at heart, not just the people in the most populous States.  Right now, middle America counts too.  The political party that is most populous on the coasts doesn't want that to be so.

The Electoral College puts a damper on "mob rule."  Shear numbers don't, and shouldn't, over-ride the agreement that make the United States of America possible in the first place.  If the Electoral College hadn't been created, neither would our Republic.  And if the Electoral College were to be eliminated by a Constitutional Amendment, this current Republic would also cease to exist as a bastion of individual rights.

Is ANY successful Prosecution of Domestic Spying on Trump possible in Washington, D.C.?

The recent DOJ (Department of Justice) announcement that it had closed without prosecution the investigation into ex-DOJ employee A. McCabe triggered (you'll excuse the term) public scrutiny and thoughts on when, if ever, there would be prosecutions stemming from the apparent (& in some cases, admitted) over-reach of our intelligence agencies in spying on citizens and on those in the Trump election campaign.  Such spying is explicitly illegal unless a FISA warrant is first obtained.

McCabe has admitted in involvement in leaking confidential material to the "Press."  Such actions are a violation of law.

Years earlier Sec.State Clinton kept a private unsecured email server which was used on multiple occasions for keeping and transmitting classified material & documents.  She claimed not to know the material was classified, and also claimed she had no intent to break the law.  The applicable law does not require either intent or knowledge of the classified nature of material held or transmitted.

In both of these cases there was admitted and demonstrable violation of law with significant penalties attaching.

In both of these cases (and there are many others that could have been added if numbers were the goal) no prosecution was brought.

Those not favoring the actions of Ms. Clinton & Mr. McCabe have suggested both collusion (a favored word today in America), and partisan abandonment of law enforcement obligations and oaths on the part of the DOJ as the reason(s) behind the failure to prosecute and punish admitted law-breaking.

Such bad-faith reticence is certainly a possible if not probable factor;  to hold anyone accountable, a prosecutor must bring charges, either on his(her) department's own initiative or on and indictment brought by a Grand Jury.  The recent ascendancy to the position of Attorney General of the United States by Mr. Barr was seen by many as the needed antidote to the dedicated practice of not bringing charges for political spying.  Yet...the recent decision to not prosecute Mr. McCabe after a two year investigation seems to pour cold water on expectations of renewed law enforcement.

Whispers currently heard in Washington suggest that a "fail-safe" secondary level of protection of the Deep State and its members exists that has remained little considered, investigated and/or received the publicity it deserves.

FACT: to convict, there must be a conviction by PEOPLE!  They sit on the Grand Jury if the case is prosecuted on an indictment, and in any trial, on the jury impaneled for that specific purpose.  The people eligible for a Grand Jury are residents of the place where the Prosecutor is investigating possible crimes.  In a Jury trial, the members of the Jury are residents of the town or county where the trial is being held.  In cases where consideration is of law breading by employees of the Federal Government at the highest levels, that place is Washington, D.C., and its immediate surrounding environs (eastern Virginia, Maryland, etc).

The single most ubiquitous employer in this area is the Federal Government.  Is it reasonable...or even possible...to conceive of the ability to impanel a Grand Jury and/or Jury where the members did NOT have (in descending order) a relative, spouse, close friend, neighbor or employer that was employed in some direct or indirect way by the Federal Government?  And, despite protestations, does anyone seriously believe that they will chance loss of regard, friendships and club memberships by not protecting the common employer and "friend," the Federal Government by voting to convict any Federal employee or associate of simply protecting themselves and all beltway residents from unwarranted attacks by "outsiders?"

Contrary to the Media claims of attacks FROM President Trump, I'd suggest that should President Trump while in attendance is a meeting on a high floor of any building in Washington, D. C., with FBI, CIA, and members of Congress and suddenly fall to his death, the unanimous testimony would be that Mr. Trump stabbed himself 15 times in his back with a carving knife, then broke a window and threw himself to his death and a clear case of suicide.  And the matter would be closed without prosecution of any sort.

And the matter would likely be reported in the papers on the bottom of page 22, and receive a one line mention on the evening news, and not at all in the Congressional Record.

It is NOT possible to successfully prosecute any member of the Deep State for any law-breaking that the Deep State sees as simply protecting itself from "out of towners" that want to both reveal and stop the self-serving practices of centuries in Washington.

The only way to change that is to change the venue.  Move the Grand Jury process to a place like West Virginia...or, better yet, Texas.  And hold the jury trial there also.

Of course to do that, a Judge would have to approve the reason for, as well as the choice of, such an action.  And that brings up still another un-investigated element standing in the way of enabling objective law-enforcement:  the Federal Judiciary.

But that is a subject for another day.

What makes President Trump the focus of such hatred?

President Trump is hated by those who disagree with him.  It is a visceral hatred, and extends to those who support him.  In the last seventy (70) years no other President has been the target of such violent hatred, vocal disrespect, and harassment.  The harassment has been public ( directed at those who work in his administration), private ( mob confrontation at the homes of those who support and work for him), and in Congress (through the contrived and partisan investigation(s) and impeachment actions).  What makes President Trump a target of such intense, virulent, physical attacks?

Is it his performance in office?  Considering that prominent Leftists were calling for his impeachment even as he was taking the oath of office, that doesn't seem likely.  And since taking office, he has actually kept more of his campaign promises in just three (3) years than all the Presidents combined from FDR up to an including Obama.  So his performance cannot be the added element.

Can it be because he came to office as an"outsider," with no political background.  That also seems to fail upon examination and reflection.  We have had Presidents that came to office with no, or insignificant, political experience; Presidents Eisenhower and Obama come to mind.

How about getting along with people?  Could his combativeness in speech and "tweets" be the cause?  Not since Grant and Roosevelt (Teddy) have we had a President that was so ready to do battle with opponents and the "Press" (whatever "press" stands for these days...but that is a subject for another day).  But while that is mentioned often by his opponents, those opponents are themselves just as guilty of extreme language, so that also seems lacking as an explanation.

Is this "hatred" simply a symptom of American Society's slow but inexorable slide toward "un" civilization, loosing dedication to civil behavior in the striving to eliminate all who disagree with us?  Well, I'd suggest that this may be "partly" to blame, but it doesn't really account for the quantum leap between the treatment and attitude toward President Trump  and that of President Obama.  Both were intensely disliked by those who opposed them, yet there was no outcry in public of general disrespect,and in particular not public harassment or hatred, of President Obama...yet it immediately surfaced toward President Trump even before he took office.  So...why?  Why indeed!

Perhaps it is the "Left" versus "Right" political ideology?  With the accelerated slide to the Left of the Democrat Party, has the gap grown so large that neither can abide by even the existence of the opposite point of view?  A careful analysis suggests that that doesn't hold a hope of an explanation; the "Right" has been sliding Left also, so the gap hasn't grown appreciably...although some small numbers of Republicans speak up in opposition from time to time, but with no significant effect.

Considering that Presidents have limited shelf lives (after all almost anything and everything can survive and carry on for a maximum of eight (8) years and come back) the extreme hatred seems to maintain its mystery.  All Presidents have lied, so the accusation of not telling the truth is neither unusual nor the lying (when it occurs) seem to mark a deviation from the actions of other Presidents.

What is it that makes President Trump, and his administration, different?  I suggest two (2) primary factors.

President Trump is the first President in at least the last seventy (70) years to come to office and to Washington, D.C., having neither desire to join the Washington Political "old boysl' (now "girls" also) club" nor respect for the "go along to get along" practices that have built up in Washington over the last two hundred and fifty (250+) plus years.  Certainly others have been elected as outsiders, campaigning strongly on disrespect for and derision of the "Washington Establishment," but upon arrival went to bent knee and swore secret allegiance to the God of "Government" as the only true constituent they served.  President Trump was the "Mr. Smith" in "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" with the exception that President Trump was not and remains not naive about just what sort of corrupt operation that the Federal Government has become.  He was NOT concerned with making small improvements; he was and remains intent on bringing to the surface and rooting out the corrupt practices that have become ingrained in the Federal Government over the years.  He STILL represents those who elected him...NOT the elected and appointed officials who surround him.

That puts fear into the hearts of those who feel threatened.  And that in cludes those who exist outside of Washington who have benefited because of who and what they know, rather that because of what they have earned or deserve.  And FEAR GIVES RISE TO HATRED!

The developing discovery of the use of our FBI and Intelligence services to aid in political campaigns, the failure of the FISA court(s) to deliver on promises to protect our Constitutional Freedoms, the lies perpetrated by elected members of Congress to hide malfeasance and misfeasance are all signs of illegality that would arguably never have poked their ugly heads into public consciousness if President Trump had not been elected.  Those who are, as a result, at risk are, in order of progression: concerned, fearful, desperate, and full of active, actionable hatred.

For myself, any expression of this hatred is reason to believe that the person exhibiting it must be inappropriately benefiting from some Federal Program (or one that is funded by the Federal Government) and worthy of investigative questioning.

Beware of "haters,"  they have something at risk and something to hide.

The secondary reason for the vitriol is that those who lean Left politically have slowly been gaining power since President Reagan left office.  They became used to this gradual assertion of control and became convinced it was their divine right.  So enamored did they become that they ignored signs throughout the country that there was a growing annoyance turning into anger as they became aware that their elected officials were not only lying to them about their intentions in Washington, but ignoring them except for the short season for election campaigning.  The Left saw the election of Ms. Clinton as the final cap the signaled total power and control of the Federal Government.  President Trump's election was like an unexpected cold shower in a one room efficiency instead of the Wedding Suite at the Ritz-Carlton.

So surprise turned to fear, then to hate.  President Trump responded to Press attacks, so they felt fear...then hate.  And the Republicans in office felt rejection of their invitation to join the "Washington Insiders Club" and felt hear than a slightly less hate.  And all that have been getting "paid off" in various ways, as well as their lobbyists, felt fear...and then some level of hate.  All this is the source of the group known as the "NEVER TRUMPERS."

Disagree?  Tell me why...give specifics.

Why is there more Hatred and Violence in America today?

Some push back on the claim that hatred and violence are more prevalent in America today and in the past hundred years.  They suggest that it may seem that way but it is only because of faster and more thorough communication of violence than any statistical increase.  That is open to discussion.

There is no argument, however, that civility is at a low ebb...lower than that in the past half century at least.  Insults, disrespect, and harassment used to be not only objectionable, but cause for being ostracized from society at large and any consideration for holding authoritative office or employment.  If you wished to be respected and have your ideas and beliefs considered seriously, you did not act or speak impolitely or insultingly.  To do so was to invite violent reaction; most of us remember the term, "fighting words" as cause for violent reaction. Insulting your family would result in a violent fight and the courts saw the person uttering the disrespectful phrase or label as at fault.

Today, such a person is not ostracized, disrespected or shunned.  Instead, they are elected to public office.  If they are proven liars, they are re-elected to public office and not held to account; they are even granted immunity from legal action for libel and slander.  Apparently consequences no longer exist for such.

Consider it may very well be this lack of consequences that has given rise to increased violence and deaths.

Hatred, anger and disrespect have always existed.  It has been the combination of laws and societal norms that have served to cause those with those feelings to keep them to themselves in order to continue to earn a living and be generally accepted in society...these people felt the pressure of being unacceptable to all around them should they "act out" their antisocial feelings.

For many who disagreed with the ideology, beliefs and false statements of President Obama, these factors controlled.  Mutterings were heard, but the concept of honoring our elective system(s) over-rode the anger and dislike of some, if not many, of President Obama's administration.

The election results of 2016 was considered by many at the time as a case of "what goes around, comes around."  But the Left decided, whether individually or collectively, that such was not to be the case.  They have, so far, thrown a three year tantrum! Vocal calls for Impeachment were heard even before President Trump was inaugurated.  Disrespect and anger were the watchwords of the day.  Harassment and actual assault was deemed appropriate behavior.  Supporters and members of Mr. Trump's administration  were chased from public spaces, from restaurants and followed down public streets subject to vile insulting language.  They were not protected by the law or law enforcement; courts now discovered that such vile behavior was "free speech."  Never before had assault and harassment been considered by the law or American society as constituting "Free Speech."

Consider that the more acceptable emotional outbursts become, the closer those that have emotional feeling come to that line of behavior that involves actual violence.  An analogy would the that allowing everyone permission to stand closer to the edge of a cliff is not only likely, but certain, to result in more people falling off the edge.

That is what America is living with today.  If we truly desire to be a civilized nation...if we want once again to respect all around us even as we disagree on programs, ideas and personal lives...perhaps we need to consider reining in our passions...our emotions.  Maybe it is time to respect each other; not just our friends, but even those who are not our friends.

What continues to be aggravating is that the Left is currently blaming President Trump's administration for this hatred and the resulting violence, calling upon him to put a stop to it.  Considering that the hatred AND the violence began with the "resist" movement, assaults and harassment by Antifa, calls on the public to harass any and all Trump appointees and supporters by the Left's elected representatives (Representatives Barbara Lee, Ted Lieu, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, Maxine Waters,  Senators Kamala Harris, Charles Schumer, Governor Andrew Cuomo, among many others) one is tempted to laugh out loud at the hypocrisy. 

Almost half of the voters in  2016 (some suggest MORE than half) have abandoned civility and past societal norms, advocating the casting away of the United States Constitutions Freedoms and protections in favor of mob rule.

Their words and actions have brought the American Republic to the brink of disaster.  If they succeed we all...our children and grandchildren...will reap the consequences.