Usually I’m on the side of people older generations claim dress like frumpy bed pillows, scoff at city ordinances banning flip flops, baggy pants, pajamas, I take the side of those older generations say look more like they are working a corner than actually under age, I have openly called dress codes for parents about denigrating class, race and culture no one first tried to understand, have spoken out about the shaming of girls and girls clothes done primarily by pervy-acting old men with a thought control problem and blue-haired old ladies once described as trying to improving their chances of getting into to heaven if they enforce such arbitrary rules. I regularly name small, local governments the “big government” we need to be worried about, not Washington, routinely passing bans on benign things, enacting ordinances that take away choice as much as freedom and tie up official hands designed to fight crime, draft meaningful legislation in ensuring compliance or doling out punishments for quite understandable non-compliance. I have explained young people’s indifference to shows of solidarity like the pledge of allegiance, told others to chill the hoopla about it and the “profoundly disrespectful” burning of the American flag by American citizens; largely because they aren’t burning the flag in abject hatred, support of terror, in support of extremism, utter rejection of their birthright, the nation that supposedly gave them all this wonderful opportunity while they and their college degree eke out a subsistence working at Starbucks simultaneously fighting for a livable minimum wage, but I digress on that point, at least for now. They are burning the flag to draw attention to government hypocrisy, government dysfunction and government’s complete disconnection with the people they were elected to serve; relatedly I spend much of my time and article space imploring everyone politician to average Joe or Jolene to please devote your time, effort and thought process to issues of substance not the latest ambulance chasing tumblr meme, twitter hash tag, viral trend, think deflate-gate, ‘the dress that broke the internet,’ team blue, team gold. But even I have my limits and once again they are being tested, not by the latest young peoples’ bad behavior, the latest millennial to do something stupid, dangerous, illegal, mindlessly clueless to embarrass us all, rather by older people, various representatives of our nation, what should be pillars of communities, role models or those just plain having their act together who don’t. In a landmark week last week that saw the final legalization of gay marriage, equality for all people to enjoy legal union should they want it, it didn’t surprise me the political “god squad” got up to any microphone they could reach and started pronouncing Americas ruin and spiritual doom. Dido with the affordable care act; though the who, and more importantly, the why struck me there. Finally having a productive conversation on the confederate flags’ prominent display in the south, on government buildings, the one aspect of the Emanuel AME church shooting that actually might connect Dylan Roof’s mass rampage and race, were all good things nevertheless overshadowed by, less headline grabbing, bad things; bad things exposing America, or at least parts of it, as hypocrites, not so much as trying to hide it, doing the right thing on large hot button issues still dropping the ball on smaller ones. On one hand gaining a growing reputation for political correctness oversensitivity and an “outrage culture,” think Condoleezza Rice’s Rutgers University controversy on the other, tolerating blatantly offensive language that has the added negative of being completely false, Donald Trump anyone. Or suddenly because we’ve come to the decision it’s no longer acceptable to mistreat gay people, the ‘stars and bars’ as they are referred to really are a symbol of racist hate commandeered by white supremacy groups and mentally unstable conspiracy nuts, 50 years of shunning Cuba for no longer relevant reasons hasn’t changed their still communist government so it’s time for a change we are under the vast reaching influence of a left-wing outrage machine re-McCarthy-izing America one Supreme Court decision, voter ballot measure at a time; yeah right.
You know things are bad when random acts of kindness are halted by police, are met with court proceedings, exactly what happened in two instances on opposite sides of the country; first 2 little girls, a lemonade stand and a goal to send their dad on a much wanted trip. Enter the Texas police who took one look at the driveway, sidewalk in front of their house, lemonade stand promptly asking the girls and their parents if they had a permit; when all 3 looked at officers in disbelief, the parent actually asking: you need a permit for a lemonade stand, predicable answer being no, police shut them down claiming they were a small business selling food and that they would have to cease operation until the local health department could inspect it. Girls and their mother ultimately getting the last laugh here as they simply made the lemonade and kettle corn, (also for sale) free, tips/donations optional. Interesting if it was so much about food safety, public danger, they let it slide once no money was changing hands. While most across America were shocked pointing to it as an example of government over regulation, government overreach, a ridiculously litigious society, more were funneling current sentiments about unjust, corrupt, small town police into their argument on the girls’ lemonade stand; what can you really expect in a state where legislators are so driven by their “moral compass” they enact the most restrictive anti-abortion law in the nation virtually closing every women’s clinic in the state daring to perform abortions. Ironic in a state that classifies removal of an ectopic pregnancy, that has no chance of viability, attaching itself somewhere outside the uterus to another part of the mother’s body, through no fault of her own and will certainly kill her if not removed, an abortion. The same state who brags about how many death row criminals it has killed in public press conferences anytime someone has cause to be in front of a microphone, who elected a governor causing people to wonder if he is too medicated or needs medication. Still there were more than a few who agreed with police here; YouTube commenters reminding their fellow opinion writers police do not make the law only enforce it. A particularly asinine set of comments seemingly intent on holding up “the rules” as sacrosanct and infallible called out naysayers one accusing people of being naïve for not knowing the law purportedly because of food stands portrayed in the media giving people the idea that you can do so without a license, another went in part as follows highlighting just because they are kids doesn’t exempt them from the law: As sad as it seems. Technically he is right. Cute or not, you can’t sell things to the public for profit without a license. Their parents are the adults. So they should know better. An yes for what ever reason someone gets sick, some one has to be liable. That’s where you having a permit to sell comes in at. It’s no difference then an 25 yr old, or 80yr old selling lemonade on the corner, I personally don’t buy from random ppl on the street goods that’s personally made. I may donate, but I’m not going to risk indulging I something that can make me possibly sick whether it’s done on purpose or an accident…” [Sic] Yet another commenter dared claim the officers were helping the girls here’s how, “They can strive bigger and better with the permit, in retrospect he is helping them. Plus 7 or 8 we all have to pay taxes. It’s only far this parent teaches her children the law an the ethics on good business skills early on. Then they can build and grow an have the business ethics to strive to do other things. He didn’t make the law. An because others have abused freedom, laws are made. It’s up to us at all ages to follow. I’d be upset too if I didn’t know the law, but when I did my research id just make sure I had my self covered. That easy! He didn’t say they could sell…. He said they need a simple easy permit to sell. Go get one an finish selling your lemonade.. But you can’t give the public stuff for profit these days. Times have sadly change even for the cutest of ppl with good intentions. Blame society not the messenger…” [Sic] Except I shouldn’t have to do research on city permits for a lemonade stand, identically with a garage/yard sale held on my own property, schools still hold bake sales and their “ban,” lessening of said sale was to curb obesity, not worries about food safety, as one commenter pointed out next they’ll be doing it with Girl Scout cookies, why not invade the church pot-luck, Sunday social or post funeral reception, no more ads in the newspaper for items listed via classifieds ‘for sale by owner,’ really? Keeping in mind too also noted by commenters lemonade is very acidic, hard for harmful things to grow in it, contaminate it unless purposefully put in, kettle corn is “dead food,” cooked food, so unless you see mold, you should be safe; let’s remember well the fast food worker who terrified a parent accidentally putting cleanser in his milkshake, a worker who sent an elderly woman to the hospital after mistaking lye crystals for sugar putting it in her iced tea, workers trained in both food handling and food safety. Personally I can’t help but flash back to 2012 and then presidential candidate Newt Gingrich and his example involving a young man named Ian and his wickedly good doughnuts the young man convinced stores to sell in their shops; his happy father overjoyed his son was 16 and could drive thus delivering his own doughnuts. Funny, no mention of a permit required, health department inspections just how Ian will likely be able to pay for college thanks to using his entrepreneurial skills.
Similarly good Samaritans in New Hampshire had the, make people’s day a little brighter, idea of going around and shoving change into occupied, and about to expire, parking meters; to which the city Keene said hold it, you can’t do that. Among the challenges presented in court documents seeking of momentary damages, the city claims harassment of meter maids et-um “parking enforcement personnel,” because the so called Robin Hoods of Keene dared talk to, not badger, threaten, intimidate officials handing out tickets. And being talked to is the least you are going to get putting tickets on peoples cars should they catch you in the act; then you become like, city tow truck drivers, repo men subjected to being screamed at, spit on, asked why you can’t give them a break they are right there, it was 30 seconds, 2 minutes over, called names, possibly victimized by violence when people are forced into court due to parking fines, having gotten the final ticket before they must appear before a judge pay a larger fine based on the number received within a single calendar year, potentially face restrictions, threats to their license on unwillingness, inability to pay. Under those circumstances most would perhaps think it odd but hardly putting a crimp in their day if someone wanted to speak to them about getting a job that didn’t leave them hated by their peers; proving, like cities with red light cameras, toll roads, like cities such as Ferguson, going hog wild for jaywalking tickets, utterly dependent on fines to fill city coffers, Keene’s real gripe with their ‘Robin Hood’s’ is they were losing revenue alright, but not from workers who quit, harassment claims settled, rather persons who were not landing in court to pay bigger fines for missing parking meter tolls. Because thanks to these good citizens’ idea, they were getting the requisite meter toll money; more if the person used the parking space less time than the Good Samaritan ended up giving them, making you wonder how much the city was truly overpaid for parking related minutia. Worse the “parking wars” most recently chronicled by The Today Show’s Rossen Reports, have been a 2 year court battle going all the way to that state’s Supreme Court, who said the so called Robin Hoods could continue to do as they have done, the city having the option to enact a buffer zone to be observed around meter enforcers. As if the city of Keene New Hampshire didn’t have better things to do, didn’t have more significant cases to hear dealing with issues resulting in a deeper effect, effecting bigger swaths of their population than people filling parking meters, as opposed to defacing and destroying them; ah the priorities in small towns and tiny states. Small towns, tiny states who still have crime, who still need police, for whom keeping their idyllic slice of paradise is always a priority so focus on that why don’t you; bringing us to an adjacent common sense question, how many meter enforcement persons do you need and if you need so many, do you have an underlying problem regarding parking, parking enforcement that might explain any harassment seriously taking place, either from fine recipients or fine preventers? Maybe the above alluded to truthful reason behind the entire case; maybe the message from citizens being, get a new revenue stream, be more efficient with the money we pay you in taxes, be realistic about parking in our town and we will be happy to pay tolls asked avoiding fines altogether. Regarding buffer zone for frazzled parking ticket writers, talk about the wussification of America; if you can’t do the job, at least attempt to get a different one, if you are so ill-tempered you are afraid of what you might do to people saving you from having to write out the actual ticket for the 10th, 20th time in a day, talking to you about a less crappy job, then might we all suggest anger management and career training ASAP. Buffer zone around parking enforces, what so you can arrest people trying to get back to their vehicles, who dared be irate or irritated by their fine but not engaging in assault, welcome to court traffic jam, hideous backlog; plus fat chance of that, when the United States Supreme Court said no to a buffer zone in states where women had to be accosted, jostled and navigate huge crowds to enter a women’s clinic providing abortions independent of if that is why they were there, endure people shouting, spitting, shoving pamphlets into their vehicles barely open windows and the court denied them a right to a buffer zone to protect clinic goers and workers.
Something good to come for the South Carolina church shooting, the rash of suspicious church fires in the south this summer sparking questions about is it hate related, is they are finally addressing the controversy of the confederate flag, taking into account their history with race relations and racism; a majority believing, especially in light of recent events, it is time for it to come down from public/government buildings, be retired to a museum representing the history it is. Multiple retailers choosing to no longer sell the confederate flag, brick and mortar establishments like Wal-Mart, online outlets like Amazon all agreeing that flag must go, TV Land and other networks even banning The Dukes of Hazard due to the stars and bars on one of the cars; which is why many were angrily confused when news outlets nationwide reported Wal-Mart’s huge mistake in making a cake containing the ISIS flag. According to the superstore chain, which quickly apologized, the worker who made the order didn’t know what an ISIS flag was. Statements causing those same people to ask, on Fox News’ Facebook and twitter feeds why it had a policy on the confederate flag but not a terrorist groups; I’ll do you one better, why doesn’t Wal-Mart have a blanket, all-encompassing policy against cake symbols, signage exc. promoting violence, hate, harassment and so on paralleling every businesses policy on web-based reviews/comments? Further how much of a rock do you have to be living under not to have heard of ISIS, know what their flag looks like even if you only saw a glimpse of it on the news quickly changing the channel; additionally worth noting, before we run away with the idea major store chain Wal-Mart is, however inadvertently supporting terrorism, this whole scenario was set up by a man angry Wal-Mart would not craft a cake with the confederate flag and the phrase ‘heritage not hate’ due to recent events in South Carolina. So, in an effort to be clever, expose the arbitrary nature of their suddenly politically correct policy, he went back to that store, to another store in the same town just to see what they would do with his request regarding an ISIS cake; making it a case of you’re not sure which is worse, a worker who says they didn’t know what they were being asked to create or a person purposefully setting someone up to do something “bad” in order to make exactly what they did, a public spectacle, bad form on all counts. Needing to be addressed as well, perhaps taking into account what the man wanted place on the cake along with the confederate flag, using South Carolina governor Nikki Hailey’s own words, people are still free to display the confederate flag on their front lawn, their private property, legislation only removing it from state government buildings, doing his confederate flag cake because that is a part of history, could be for a reenactment type celebration. Likewise, considering the very public transition of once Bruce now Caitlyn Jenner, the overwhelming public support coupled with the previously well-known case of Chaz Bono, increasing information on transgender persons, NBC’s nightly news series on transgender kids and the hugely positive impact of allowing kids to transition earlier, as early as possible, one would think our country has turned the corner on the subject. Then we receive the obligatory case proving otherwise; here, a $100, 0000 donation to a Washington Girl Scouts organization earmarked not to be used for transgender girls after the local troop apparently voted to allow said girls to participate. Now outside the federal government and congress using earmarks to waste money, they are wonderful allowing the private citizen to support charities, causes they believe in, give money to organization involved in one aspect or aspects you believe in even if you don’t agree with everything they do; an argument I made regarding the Susan G. Komen foundation’s scandal over pulling funding to Planned Parenthood based on ideology and changing demands, their subsequent reversal of that decision many saw as political, potentially bullying, reminding donators they needed to be well educated on their options and use earmarks for their dollars whether they wanted it to go to research, detection machines, services for cancer sufferers, survivors, whatever. Unfortunately regarding the Girl Scouts it sends a different message precisely because this isn’t abortion, birth control, related to homosexuality; these are young people who, at worst have a psychological disorder making them feel as if they were born in the wrong gender body, more apt they have a, yet to be understood, medical disorder essentially mixing up gender assignment in the brain and what is represented outwardly on the body. Why donate period if all you believe in about the Girl Scouts centers on them not accepting transgender females, when all you do by donating is shunning kids who are slightly different; again the persons actions smack of wanting to make a lager statement, this time with money, express their displeasure with the local Girl Scouts decision dumping all their negativity down on kids. Putting said Girl Scout organization in an awkward position, accepting the money sends the opposite message than their decision regarding transgendered persons, not excepting the money means slashes to operations, the possibility they won’t be able to operate; nevertheless they made the right decision returning the money to the donator. And, in one more happy ending for children, they needn’t have feared, the public coming through with donations exceeding that donator’s amount and reaching organization goals within minutes. Proving Buzz60 had it absolutely correct standing up for others, making something as iconic as the Girl Scouts for every girl, is always the right thing to do.
Speaking of right things to do, the Supreme Court has spoken upholding Obamacare as the law of the land ruling that yes exchanges set up by the federal government under the healthcare law are indeed eligible for subsidies in order that qualifying Americans can better afford their now mandated health insurance. Justice John Roberts writing his majority opinion stated A- congress wrote the law to facilitate healthcare and healthcare coverage not to tear the system apart, B- expounding on the above going to congresses intent, meaning when they wrote the law, pointing out that’s what they were trying to achieve; finally addressing purely constitutional issues, the contested wording brought by the plaintiffs, alleging eligible subsidies only applied to exchanges set up by the state, he explained those words more than being examined in the complete context of the entire law, can refer to individual exchanges set up by individual states or an exchange set up by the federal government on behalf of a state, which characterizes exactly the nature of federal government run healthcare markets that were doubtlessly customized to each state, effecting the 34 states that relied on federal interventions to provide care insurance options to citizens. But not everyone blindly swallowed said interpretation, not least of which those fellow justices serving on the Supreme Court bench; especially Antonin Scalia who wrote a scathing dissent announcing among his more coherent arguments, the court’s decision signals words no longer have meaning if “by the state” suddenly incorporates by the state and the federal government, going on to declare we should start calling it SCOTUS care. Among his more colorful, call them what they are, incoherent, nonsensical phases and reasons he is displeased with both the court and the decision, he references the court’s “twisting” of what the words literally say naming it jiggery-pokery and in this bit “The Court claims that the Act must equate federal and state establishment of Exchanges when it defines a qualified individual as someone who (among other things) lives in the ‘State that established the Exchange.’ … Otherwise, the Court says, there would be no qualified individuals on federal Exchanges, contradicting (for example) the provision requiring every Exchange to take the ‘”interests of qualified individuals” ‘into account when selecting health plans. …Pure applesauce.” Ok first, that quote makes no sense whatsoever even removing the apple sauce expression; second, as someone fairly familiar with phrases and slang used back in the day idioms, figures of speech lost on younger generations typically, I find myself scratching my head at former one or using apple sauce to mean anything other than the food unless it was used in a simile comparing 2 things. We remember English classes describing a simile thus: metaphor using the words like or as; wish he did. Mr. Scalia basically boisterously complaining because John Roberts and the other justices in favor of upholding the ACA dared look at practicality, dared understand the system implodes without the subsides, dared contemplate the 6 million people suddenly left without health insurance, what this law means as a whole for improving health and healthcare for Americans after decades upon decades of trying to pass such legislation, dared note public opinion, though still divided on aspects of the ACA, desired overwhelmingly for the court to rule as it did, dared put the drafters intentions over partisan or politics hmm; comments on multiple opinion pieces citing how professional justice Roberts majority explication was using court case, constitutional examples contrasted to Scalia’s, opinion though it is, containing informal language idioms, phases more suited to a bar than even a college paper prompting a plethora of videos and pictures depicting him as a clown, wondering out loud if anyone any longer considers him a constitutional scholar or just a complete nut. Why the Supreme Court upheld the ACA explained to the most obtuse persons [cough] the Republican Party and current GOP presidential candidates is expressed succinctly by a New York Times piece commenter who suggested we all missed the elephant in the room; “The media completely missed the story here. The Supreme court accepted a case that was based on the the notion that one ambiguous word in a law meant that the law did not mean what the people who wrote it & those who voted for it thought it meant. 3 Justices were willing to support that point of view. That is truly shocking.” [Sic] And there you have it a much bigger question and implied comment on why they took the case to begin with; turns out the writers, the voters and this week the constitution experts were right, they did know what they were talking about. Who didn’t know what they were talking about, the ACA haters buying the mass misinformation junkets by conservative media, people who didn’t want to be forced to buy insurance equally complaining about the cost, particularly of uninsured persons they were pushed into supporting via medical cost price tags, tea party, often called tea potty, republicans using it to generate fear the long hypothesized boogey man named nationalized, federal government run healthcare was going to rob you blind, get between you and your doctor, enact death panels rationing coverage for the old and infirmed; here government was going to take over everything, using the presidents legislation meant to make financial documents accessible, understandable by the average person as an example of telling you what mortgage you can have as they told you what healthcare, insurance you could have- that’s the pure apple sauce, pure B.S.
Continuing with the highest court in the land, they issued another pivotal ruling last week formally legalizing marriage for every citizen including gay and lesbian couples; Justice Anthony Kennedy putting a fine point on it referencing fellow justice John Roberts comment during arguments saying if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t, the latter asking why that wasn’t a straight forward case of sexual discrimination. Roberts in his dissent offering consolatory remarks saying essentially if your happy, be happy, but know the constitution had nothing to do with it; again Justice Antonin Scalia providing a blistering dissent calling the court’s 5 to 4 favorable decision a threat to American democracy, though how he figures that when it just gave added rights to more people, majority opinions so sweeping they will pave the way to disallow same sex couple, sexual orientation, transgender discrimination in employment, housing, family uses such as adoption, intelligent people still are trying to understand. Nor does the opinion of 5 unelected judges, or the Supreme Court total of 9, trump 300 million American votes on the subject, Ted Cruz, appearing on Fox News peddling a new book simultaneously running for president, paraphrasing Scalia, seeing as this issue has been run repeatedly through lower courts, 37 states had previously voted to legalize same-sex marriage in their state, public opinion shifting drastically; 5 unelected judges comprising the majority Supreme Court vote for legalization did what the Supreme Court is designed to do, render a final decision on court cases involving constitutional questions. Which is also not pretentious, egotistical or hubris, Scalia once more; laughable his next words were about extravagances, silly extravagances accepting them in affirming or dissenting opinions and admonishing them in the court’s official opinion since it lets him off the hook in his overwhelming use of same. Not to mention covering his own hubris in calling out the court for asserting all 50 states violated the constitution for 135 years over a movement just 15 years old, mocking it’s roots in bigotry and ignorance; apparently forgetting the nearly 100 years between ratifying the constitution founded on biblical, moral principles and the 13th amendment abolishing slavery or the 100 plus years between that abolition and striking down the equally harmful and discriminatory concept of separate but equal in 1954’s Brown vs. board integrating southern schools, ending segregated bathrooms, buses, restaurants with the civil and voting rights act of 1964. Doesn’t he know the Supreme Court heard at least one these too; doesn’t it have merit when gay people are being treated today the way blacks were being treated 50-60 years ago? He writes at length about marriage being an institution, formerly described as between one man and one women, upholding a uniform and previously unquestioned interpretation; doesn’t that institution being granted to same sex couples have merit as an argument when comprehending other institutional guarantees it affords them to say nothing of the respect and dignity of their fellow citizens, currently sorely lacking, as it was for blacks before civil rights, voting rights was made law? Correcting Mr. Scalia’s perception of history, while the same sex marriage movement may only be 15 years old, gay rights is decades old, marriage between one man and one woman is perhaps as old as government itself but practicing gay people go back to ancient Greece if not further. And if we can humor people who want to marry their animals unofficially, orchestrate a “marriage” between 2 owners’ dogs or cats, pigs or ferrets unofficially; then why can’t we give more people the right to marry officially, legally meeting all the requirements apart from being opposite genders? It is after all what happens in a democracy versus a theocracy; we are a democracy based on biblical principles, a republic formed on specific moral grounds, not an overwhelming theocracy where religion alone dictates law. Personally do I believe in gay marriage, no, do I believe it is morally wrong yes; personally I will tow the line. I understand God is God, I am not and he is infinite in his wisdom, but I would dearly like someone in the religious community to explain to me from a biblical perspective why it’s wrong apart from the one passage from the apostle Paul seeing as Jesus himself never mentioned it, what is the counter to their near perfect argument it’s about love, the love you can plainly see coming from these people for their partners? Personally do I believe by legalizing gay marriage we invite God’s judgment as a nation yes, but we were already doing that as a country with numerous other things including our attitude toward gays and lesbians, lumping transgender persons in with their “sin,” as a Christian community treating gay people like trash, using their “homosexual sin” as grounds to do equally, more drastically immoral things to them instead of fulfilling Jesus’ mandate to spread the gospel, lovingly witnessing to them as opposed to shunning them, spitting on them, telling them god hates them, physically even sexually assaulting, killing them. In that context I am for gay marriage, for gay marriage hoping it will force Christians to change the tone, delivery of their message not the content; in that context I am for gay marriage if it stops the violence perpetrated on LGBT persons all, stops homosexuality’s “abomination” from being Christianity’s excuse to do things otherwise immediately recognized as immoral and illegal things to them, stops the mental, emotional and psychological violence, damage of “good Christian parents” throwing their possibly gay, sexually curious child out of their house, pray away the gay counseling centers, reparative therapy modern day concentration camps doing vile things to children, teens and adults in the name of curing them from a non-existent disease.
Possibly epitomizing poor taste at the moment 2016 presidential candidate Donald Trump continuing his racist rant on illegal immigration doubling down on calling Mexicans coming across the border rapists, killers, drug dealers causing entity after entity to sever ties with the multi-billion dollar business mogul; NBC and Univision canceling both The Apprentice and the Miss USA, Miss Universe pageants from their airwaves, Macy’s removing a line of clothing, Serta removing a line of mattresses prominent in Trump properties, even New York vowing to review his city contracts. Trump’s response, pledging to sue NBC claiming they were just mad he told them he couldn’t do The Apprentice if he ran, bashing Macy’s saying they were weak on immigration, since when is a clothing store supposed to have a stance in immigration period? Going on to say we needed to stop illegal immigration, we don’t have a country if we allow that; he then upped the ante saying not only were Mexican immigrants [implying all Mexican immigrants] illegal, murderers, rapists exc., we have immigrants from all over, everywhere coming here from there, having no idea who they are. Suddenly quoting a Univision poll stating 80% of women, girls are raped crossing the border clearly indicating it’s Mexican, Central American rapists doing this, next crowing victory proclaiming I said….: and now the latest, an innocent young woman shot by an illegal immigrant reportedly deported 5 times previously after serving a jail sentence here for some infraction, not turned over to immigration because San Francisco is a so called sanctuary city, that by city ordinance, will not turn over an illegal person without an active warrant, playing right into Trump’s hands. Despite losing business ventures and losing money, losing respect as a business man never mind a human being, the news isn’t all bad; Trump has astoundingly good poll numbers in the republican field just trailing GOP darling Jeb Bush. And perhaps the worst thing, he is surging in the polls, people actually seem to like what he’s saying, his perpetuating fear of the other, insulting whole swaths of our population on the guise of wanting to make America great again, wanting to keep our boarders strong, our country safe. Except, it wasn’t his comments on strong boarders, not having a country with rampant illegal immigration, national safety that had opponents, the Hispanic, Latino community, decent persons and anyone capable of deductive reasoning up in arms; it was his suggestion all Mexicans, Latinos, Hispanics, immigrants from anywhere in this country are illegals and violent criminals (totally false) while he admits we have no numbers on just how many illegal persons are here, so how can we know how many are criminals? His comments on women being raped assumed a host of things that can’t be proven, concluded by educated guess, starting with the assertion sexual predators, opportunistic rapists he’s talking about want to get into this country as opposed to go to this area to prey on attractive young girls, whatever their preferred type is; he assumes they are foreigners not pervy Americans who are seeking the same things, vulnerable, naive women they can easily coerce, manipulate or violate for sex. Nightline did an entire exposé on wealthy, usually white, American business men who went to the Philippines seeking underage sex, building strip clubs and massage parlors, AKA brothels, because the laws there are far more lax than here. And, to use a poor grieving family’s tragedy to make your, otherwise untrue, point, horrible; especially when the family is not focused on that, because it won’t bring their loved one back. Especially when she could have just as easily been shot by an American gang banger, American drug dealer, American crazed mass gunman, child who got hold of a gun and was waving it around, notable because the demonized illegal immigrant said he wasn’t trying to shoot her rather the sea lions in the water below the pier; whether he is to be believed is a whole other question. Equally important, Trump’s plan of building a wall doesn’t give America an immigration policy beyond get the heck out, don’t try to legally come here either, doesn’t address the large holes in the economy left from the ‘Trump immigration cleanup’ of largely persons whose only law breaking is coming here illegally, utterly disenfranchises young people who had no say in coming here legal or otherwise and sends the message to Hispanic, Latino and Mexican heritage Americans, born on U.S. soil, you’re not wanted, you are just like them, all worthless; again untrue. Especially dangerous and detrimental looking at the GOP response Ted Cruz the son of an immigrant, possibly and immigrant himself, if Trump birther propaganda and he says nothing, Marco Rubio Cuban exiles’ son waits almost a week to denounce the continuing barrage of comments, Jeb Bush whose wife is Mexican, legal and not a criminal, his children, grandchildren of that heritage and he waits a week to find his outrage at something effecting him personally. Nor is this exclusively a border problem, a so called sanctuary city problem when the man was found and deported 5 times; who’s working with Mexico to keep people deported there, there? Why is the impetus always on us to keep people out; again who’s working with Mexico, Central America countries to better their countries, their economies, so they aren’t always trying to come here? That needs to be the pledge of any serious presidential candidate not attacking ‘sanctuary cities’ who only need to refine the policy to turn over prior criminals convicted of violence, not attacking legal law abiding immigrants, undocumented workers and persons who simply live quiet lives, raise families, who would have come here legally if the process was well defined and they could afford to wait. This is the message those causing Trump to surge in the polls need to hear, not more falsehoods feeding their biased ideology.