Hearing From Those Who Can't

There are almost 37.5 million Americans who are hard of hearing (or in P.C., auditorially challenged). They have no voice or can't hear it. No one has come out with issues that affect those who have trouble hearing. We are now.

First, is the need to speak clearly, slowly and loudly. It is a good way to communicate even to people who have perfect hearing.Some talk like this: we'vebeentryingtocontactyou. Please call 123-4something something inaudible. 

Hearing challenged people speak slowly, loudly and clearly anyway perhaps so they too can hear what they're saying. Sometimes it may help telling the caller right away that you need them to speak loudly, clearly and slowly.

Television listening is another obstacle. Most hearing impaired cannot hear the words of the program they're watching; they need closed captioning, but it  must be simultaneous with the show. Some seem to wait a few seconds making the CC reader miss the show while trying to find out what has already been said. Sometimes the CC delay causes the reader to speed read with the broadcaster trying to catch up by being real fast. The alternative problem is that the system is so far behind the action that it just gives up and disregards the rest of the verbiage. 

The other problem with them hearing T.V. shows is when the show plays music over the dialogue. It is an insult to the actors, the director, the writers and the viewers. It's as though the acting, directing and writing do not reveal enough so music is needed to set the tone. It's a terrible idea and makes hearing the dialogue very challenging.

Then there are the interpersonal communications.  Names seem to be the hardest to hear clearly and the hearing challenged must ask to have it repeated several times. Perhaps this population should wear a button that says "hard of hearing, please say the name real slowly or spell it,"or "ask me about my vow of silence."

Those with auditory problems sometimes need to supplement their hearing by seeing the other person's face so that they can read their lips, like President George, senior, who said "read my lips, no new taxes." Perhaps he was being considerate of Americans who find hearing difficult. When people turn away, showing  their backs rather than their faces, they can't be heard. This is a variation of "don't talk behind my back" to "don't talk behind your back."

Some of us were raised to always look the person in the eye when  speaking even to those who hear clearly. It's still a good idea that many of us were never apparently taught.

The hearing impaired also have problems hearing a song nearby as in a restaurant or a neighbor's home and just hear the base notes which ofttimes are a repetitious, annoying thumping. If you live next door to the hard of hearing, you should stop playing terrible music loud enough so neighbors don't have hear it (playing Dylan, Simon and Garfunkel, Leonard Cohen or Joan Baez is fine). 

Those who have trouble hearing should wear hearing aids, but they are terrible. They require the wearers to stuff them in their ears, the batteries need to be changed often, like once a week, and batteries are not cheap. Implants would be preferable but they need to have their battery changed too, but the implant must be removed to do so. And hearing aids are very expensive; they start at about $5000 for a matching set and they sometimes do not really do the job, especially when talking on the phone.

Also,we must be patient with those so afflicted who ask us to repeat what was just said. It might happen two or three times. Note that each additional restatement takes seconds. Surely we have the time.

So please hear from those who can't. Remember, this - some day it could happen to you.

Why Single Payer is a Terrible and Unnecessary Idea

During a debate with Hillary Clinton in 2008, candidate Obama rejected her idea that everyone must be forced to pay for healthcare and everyone must be covered. Then-Senator Obama said that it would be a good idea if we did not already have a private/public insurance system in place. He recommended the "public option" as a way to make private insurers lower the cost. He insisted that it be voluntary and that no one could be denied coverage for medical reasons.

The new President was told by Congress that he couldn't have it his way and ruled that everyone who is not currently covered must sign  up the ACA for medical coverage with a share of cost. They also nixed the public option idea probably having been told to by private health insurance companies. 

Today, almost every American who wants it has it usually through their employment (157,381,500) or federal programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and V.A (113 million). A small number of Americans buy their insurance outside the ACA (less than 22 million).  That leaves about 10 to 20 million needing or wanting the ACA. 

When the ACA went into effect more people were covered by the expanded Medicaid.  Ten million had a share of cost for insurers and policies chosen with ACA having a high deductible. Prices have gone up dramatically and insurers have dropped out of the market even with a captive audience. Those who remained had less competition so they raised their rates. They received $10 billion a year to cover their losses.

Now the idea is to go all the way and have Medicaid for all whether Americans want it or not. The report projects a $35 trillion dollar extra cost over a 10 year period if Single Payer were implemented. The analysis went on to say that if every American taxpaying household, approximately 52% of us, doubled their payment in federal income tax, it would not be enough to cover this $3.5 trillion additional annual cost. That amount is larger than our entire federal budget with medical costs being $1 trillion some of which is paid by F.I.C.A. contributions made by current employers and former employees. 

Doctors and especially surgeons will become federal employees with greatly reduced income leading to greatly reduced interest, dedication or ingenuity.

But what else can we do, you ask. I have a simple answer, do basically what the senator-candidate Obama proposed with a slight difference. 

Now that enrollment is voluntary, let private insurers deny coverage to anyone for medical reasons. Those denied coverage would be immediately eligible to the "public option" which would be a federal program with share of cost based on income and no deductible. Those eligible for expanded Medicaid but are in states that refused to sign on would also be eligible. 

This would bring insurers back into the market to compete for the healthy applicants. It's better for them because they can hardly lose money on the deal. They would lower their rates to attract healthy customers.

In addition, insurers should be able to offer a minimal coverage which would cover only the services usually needed. The plan could cover hospitalization including rehab; office and clinic visits; lab and radiology tests; and prescription drugs as well as other needed medical supplies.

To offset some the additional cost we would stop subsidizing the insurers the $10 billion we give them each year. 

The result: affordable health coverage for anyone who wants it, with no one denied coverage for health reasons, a public option to make there private sector more competitive lowering rates to attract healthy applicants having lost its captive audience. 

Still, it would cost billions of dollars a year extra but not $3.5 trillion a year.

Problem solved. Saving tax money and freedom.


   

Man, Machines and Mother Nature

Man, Machines and Mother Nature

Human beings have made great strides in the last 50,000 years, ever since homo sapiens moved north. We have gone from hunting and gathering to farming then to industry and recently to computers and automation. We have made advances in science discovering new ways to save and prolong life. We can now create babies without need for intercourse. We even can change a person's gender. We have found ways to prevent or terminate pregnancy. We have done many things that go against Mother Nature. Is she mad at us?

As we have always known, Mother Nature seems to have a certain blueprint for life on earth. Have we violated it?

Mother smiled on hunting and gathering as well as farming. We ate what we grew and the animals we raised or hunted. We were able to make things by hand not by machines. We were heated by the sun and stayed cool by opening windows with cross ventillation and fought the cold with fireplaces. We had hundreds of millions of trees and had many lush forests. The vegetation turned our CO2 into oxygen. 

Then came the Industrial Revolution. We were able to produce what we needed using machines, sometimes in mass production. We had coal plants and industrial pollution but some of it was absorbed by our plentiful vegetation and surely the infinite sky could absorb the rest. 

We started mass producing cars which needed gas and oil to run. The growing number of cars set off high levels of carbon monoxide. 

We then started killing trees in order to build structures to house us and to make products that we needed. As the stock of trees decreased, CO2 pollution increased.

Now we have new issues that the Mother would find offensive.

We now have computers upon which we have learned to depend; some even "want" to answer our questions so that humans are not needed to help customers. We have "smart" phones that help us avoid thinking and addict us to use them as we eat, spend time with friends, drive and/or walk down the street. We don't need to go to a store and deal with salespeople, we can order online. Now instead of seeing and hearing our fellow human beings we can email them or text them so we don't ever have to call them, see or hear from them.

We had a sexual revolution that started when a Supreme Court made abortion legal. We realized that this option along with birth control devises enabled us to have as much sex as possible with whomever, wherever and whenever we wanted with no fear of permanent responsibility, as in children. 

We now have 40% of all U.S pregnancies unintended; 50% of these unwanted are aborted. Since 1970, Americans have had 45 million abortions.

Has Mother Nature had enough and is now fighting back?

We are polluting the earth, air and water. We have used our oceans as large dumping grounds. As a result, Nature warmed the earth causing drought, forest fires, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions; tore holes in our ozone layer that protects us from harmful rays while also causing hurricanes and tornadoes. Maybe water seeks its revenge with massive flooding resulting in mudslides and whole homes being washed away The oceans become so warm and so polluted that sharks are getting closer to the shore and we have more algae and jellyfish in our waterways.

We killed millions of trees for development, now we have climate change. 

Thanks to communication tools like email and twitter we have become more alienated. We are likely to be depressed and anxious. 

As they used to say in a margarine commercial "You can't fool Mother Nature." It seems now to be painfully true.       

  

             

The Difference between Thinking with the Heart, Feeling with the Brain and Thinking and Feeling with Both

The Difference between Thinking with the Heart, Feeling with the Brain and Thinking and Feeling with Both

I follow the news and have been amazed how biased many of us are based on how we think and feel. Here are some examples:

On illegal immigration, the left think with their hearts. Every person who wants to come to America should be able to. People in other countries are suffering poverty, corruption and gang violence. We should let them all in. If we don't we are xenophobic, racist and heartless.

On the right, people are saying that illegals cost a fortune in housing, food, medical treatment and education as well as legal fees associated with their hearing, the appeal to the hearing and the appeal to the appeal. It could be years meanwhile we have to foot the bill with many of those seeking amnesty found to be untruthful. Those who do work take entry level jobs that Americans could have, especially those with limited education like many Americans with African or Latin American ancestry who need these jobs.

Those using both mind and heart realize how terrible the poverty and crime are in much of the third world. Those seeking asylum are suffering and need to be helped but not by gaining access through open borders. Those wanting entry into our country as refugees or asylum seekers should be required to go to their nearest American consulate to apply. Those who are accepted could then be transported for free to the U.S.

The U.S. and Canada should provide a "Marshal Plan" to those in Latin American countries plagued with gang violence, corruption and poverty. Instead of deploying troops to faraway lands, we should send them to Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. Our special forces should route out the gangs the way we would against ISIS. We should also provide assistance to these governments to end corruption and to pay living wages, not $1 per day, so that its citizens aren't dying to leave their beloved homeland. 

There are three billion people in the world that are also suffering, we can't help all of them or invite them to our country. We have 45+ million Americans living in poverty with 600 thousand without a home. Let's help them first.

On the income gap

The left would call it income inequality as though we believe that everyone should earn the same. They and their supporters in the media overstate the gap. They use pretax income instead of net income after taxes for the well-to-do and by not counting the value of all the government benefits the poor receive to supplement their low income (a recent study found that a woman with two children living below the poverty level receives on average $30,000 a year in government benefits, $50,000 in Hawaii). But still there is a huge gap between the very rich and the very poor.  Their solution is to tax the successful even more and to give more money to those in need.

Those on the right who feel with their minds believe in evolution or at least the part about survival of the fittest. They feel that they are supporting unmotivated people. Having to work would be surviving.

Those who use both thinking and feeling would say that it is shameful that in this rich land we still have so many Americans living in poverty even if working a full time job. The first step could be changing the federal tax code with a large standard deduction for single and family taxpayers (i.e $20,000/$40,000) but with no itemized deductions or credits, which mainly help the rich and with all income equally taxable. The brackets could range from 10% to 35%. The minimum wage should be a living wage.

The next step would be to dramatically improve public education. Every school should be excellent. Curricula need to be tailored to the student. Those who will never be STEMs don't need algebra, geometry, trigonometry, chemistry, physics or calculus. They could get a survey course in the 7th and 8th grade to get the general idea. These subjects unnecessarily required in high school and in college drive many students away from school. Students should have options like single sex schools, those that have uniforms, and/or a very challenging  coursework like Latin, philosophy, psychology, and sociology.

Children should grow up being loved and appreciated and in return do their best, respect authority and not even consider lawlessness.

Those who think with their hearts remember what happened in Europe when the Nazis invaded Europe in the 1940s, still feel that  Europe and Asia need our help as we continue to have more foreign bases than all other countries combined. The Russians could invade at any time. "The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming."

Those who feel with their minds would feel that our allies should pay of our cost for protecting them. We should insist that NATO members pay more.

Those who use both mind and heart might say that we should leave the countries that no longer need us, if they want us to. We should maintain bases in host countries that pay our personnel costs. 

On healthcare, those who think with their hearts find single payer coverage appealing. Everyone should have coverage even if they don't want it. The successful should pay much higher taxes to pay for coverage equal to Medicaid.

Those who feel with their minds are against this socialist idea because it would cost a fortune and many will end up with less coverage than they now have. Why should we pay more for less?

Those who use both mind and heart feel that every American who wants coverage should be able to afford it and no one should be denied coverage for medical reasons. The government now subsidizes insurers to take high risk applicants. The current Affordable Care Act requires the taxpayers to pay $10 billion a year to offset insurers' cost.

Those who think and feel with both might have a solution. The first step has already been taken - make individuals' sign ups voluntary. The next has also been done - subsidizing the industry has ended. The next step would be to let private insurers deny coverage to applicants with medical conditions. Those denied coverage would immediately be eligible to the "public option" which would cover them with a federal program which has a share of cost depending on income.The option would also be available to those living in states that did not expand Medicaid which is controlled by the states. Insurers will re-enter the market and compete for the healthy applicants and could offer a scaled down version which covers only necessary hospitalization, office/clinic visits, prescription drugs and other medical supplies, and lab and radiology.  Prices will come down and then everyone who wants insurance can afford it.

I say let's use both mind and heart when evaluating situations.

The City So Poopular That People Don't Go There Anymore

Yogi Berra was not only a great Yankee catcher and later manager, he also made up paradoxical comments like "It's deja vu all  over again"; "It ain't over till it's over"; "The future is not what it used to be"; "When you come to a fork in the road, take it" Go to other people's funeral or else they won't go to yours." He described a popular city as being so popular that no one goes there anymore. This is true about my second favorite city, Venice. It has become a crowded Italian shopping center. The mayor has requested that tourists, especially day trippers, stay out of Venice.

I have lived in my favorite city, San Francisco, for almost 50 years and have seen a lot of changes - some for the good and others not so. We have many new skyscrapers, a much reduced murder rate and what had been great weather until a few years ago. The City is surrounded on three sides with water, has beautiful hills with great views, an excellent transit system and some City workers who actually work hard. 

But we have one big problem, homelessness. Those we used to call derelicts, bums, tramps, and hobos are now called homeless, referring to their condition and not to their character. We know that the homeless are not to blame, it could have happened to any of us if we were addicted to drugs and alcohol for extended periods, if we committed serious crimes and were recently released from prison, couldn't holds a job or had serious personality or cognitive issues. Many have no friends or family willing or able to help  them.

Our new mayor, London Breed, just realized how terrible this problem has become. She found streets and sidewalks strewn with feces, urine, garbage and dirty needles that were used to shoot drugs, usually heroin. She vows to do something about it. 

I have made recommendations to alleviate homelessness. I was an analyst for the Department of Social Services, now called DHS, (not to be confused with Homeland Security) in the mid 70s. We had no real homeless problem. The indigent adults would go to General Assistance needing and getting someplace to stay, some food to eat, free transportation as well as medical coverage. The caseload had 3500 recipients. When Diane Feinstein became mayor, she had the police count the homeless, there were 600.

Now the problem has grown from 3500 people getting G.A./ Care Not Cash to 7,000 homeless half of whom live in the streets. There are another 6,000 who were and would be homeless if we were not providing long term residence with the costs of housing, food, and medical services also paid by the City. Where else could they relieve themselves? The current program costs about a half  billion a year ($35,000 a year per person equal to more than $15 an hour of full-time work) when medical services are included.

I made my suggestions first to the Mayor's head of homelessness. He disregarded it especially about the SSI being used in part to pay the cost of their housing instead of spending it on drugs. I told him that it could be set up to make the City a sub-payee. He had never heard of this and didn't want to. He apparently believed that the SSI payment of almost $1,000 a month is the people's money and they should be able to spend it as they choose (they earned it).The homeless czar left his job to become a part-time elementary school volleyball coach.

I contacted my district supervisor's office and was told that they wouldn't let him spend the two minutes it would take to read my email. He later became acting Mayor. 

I contacted the head of DHS, who did listen, but demurred. 

I've written a column on this to no effect. My suggestion was to use the now old SFGH, which was replaced by a new one next door. The old hospital has 300 double occupancy rooms with private bathrooms for the two residents. Some of the floors could house the temporary disabled, the aged and disabled, (if Laguna Honda does not build a place for them again there). No one seemed to like this idea. "the building isn't earthquake safe." The "unsafe" building housed more than 1,000 people (including staff) a day for almost 30 years since our last quake which caused no damage to the structure. Is it worse than living outside?

Furthermore, I recommended that applicants be seen by admissions staff at SFGH. They could determine whether this person has permanent disability or is aged. They should be helped getting SSI, if they are not already receiving it. They should be given housing.  

If they are found to have a temporary disability, they should be admitted to overcome the problem. If the temporary disability is alcohol or drug related, they should be entered into a rehab program.

If they are employable, they should be given unpaid part-time city jobs organized as is our SWAT program which has those convicted of minor crimes. These assignments could lead to permanent paid positions.

If they are mentally ill and need continued care, they should be referred to an appropriate institution for help. The City is reluctant to 5150 (admitting them for three days because they are a danger to themselves or others) a homeless person and is yet unwilling to have those who are deemed in desperate need of institutional care, conserved. They believe that the severely disturbed should be institutionalized only if they choose to. It's a catch 22: if they are sane enough to request placement, they don't need it; if they won't agree no matter how hard it gets, do not get to be sent for treatment. Few are conserved unless they want to be.   

The problem with our homeless population explosion was not higher housing costs. It is mentioned that many of the homeless lived here before becoming homeless usually meaning that they came to town and lived somewhere for a few days or weeks. It is our city's laissez faire attitude about this issue. We believe that since those living in the streets are not to blame, they should not be required to conform to our values.

Our super liberal bias, is actually hurting the homeless, not helping them.

So San Francisco is a city that has so much poop that some people don't want to come here anymore. 

Free Advice for the President, for All It's Worth

I have been reading about Donald Trump for at least two years. He has said and tweeted some provocative, insensitive remarks. These comments appealed to the far right and fostered the growing of the far left. It has been an uphill battle with seemingly most against him while many like his ideas. 

He made enrollment in ACA voluntary. He simplified the tax code meaning most will see that they will pay less. He got North Korea to the table signing an agreement to eliminate their nuclear arsenal and have friendly relations with the South. He took on NATO and the U.N. for making the U.S. pay more than its share. He pushed for a fair playing field in manufacturing so the U.S. reduces its trade deficit while making America less dependent on imports. The unemployment rate is at an 18 year low and that for Americans of African or Latin American descent is even better. He has taken on China which everyone agrees has had unfair advantage in manufacturing. American produced 60% of its goods and services in the 1960s, it has now gone to 2%. He withdrew from the Iran deal because it was too limited. Now the member nations are negotiating how to fix it to Trump's satisfaction.  

Mindful that he probably reads my blog (doesn't everyone?), here are my suggestions for the Administration:

Finalize the agreement with North Korea with real deadlines, but don't crow about it. Be gracious.

Fix the Affordable Care Act also known as PelosiCare. Now that individual mandate is gone, let private insurers reject any applicant for medical reasons. Those denied coverage would be immediately eligible to the "public option" as would those living in states where Medicaid was not expanded. It would be a federal program with a share of cost based on income. The private insurers would compete for the pool of healthy patients. They should be able to offer a scaled down version covering necessary hospital visits, lab tests - including radiology, office visits - including clinics and prescription drugs and other medical supplies. The cost would go down because of the competition. The U.S. then can stop subsidizing insurers by $10 billion a year. Then every American who wants affordable health coverage would have it. 

Get us out of the Middle East, never to return. Let Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya solve their own problems. Tell our NATO allies that we will leave our foreign bases if they want or will stay as long as the host country pays the personnel costs. The U.S. should pledge only to come to the aid of our close allies  Western Europe, Israel, Oceana, Japan, South Korea and Canada.

The cabinet should be downsized. Let Education go under what was HEW. Let Energy and EPA ( unless it is returned to the states to manage) be under Interior, and have Homeland Security and the V.A. go under the Department of Defense. The service members who are currently abroad, can come here to protect our country by ending illegal immigration. They could build the wall, patrol the border and even send special forces to Mexico and Central America to route out gangs that plague their citizens. Allow the almost 690,000 DACA recipients get legal status with no path to citizenship. 

In order to prolong the viability of Social Security immediately raise the FICA contribution ceiling  from $110,000 to $250,000 and the withholding from 6.2% to 6.5% with the option of raising it .5% every five years to an ultimate maximum of 8%. Fully tax Social Security benefits so the FICA trust fund will increase with all the taxes going back into the fund. 

While the new tax code goes part of the way, it could go further and be simpler and fairer. Eliminate all itemized deductions and credits and offer only a standard deduction $20,000 for single and $40,000 for households. Make all sources of income equally taxable -so Social Security benefits, dividends, interest and earned income, (minus the FICA withholding), would be considered equal. There could be about five or six tax brackets going from 10% to 35%. Those earning more than $500,000 would pay a straight 30%. Those earning more than $1 million would pay a straight 35%. This will lighten the load for taxpayers and for the IRS who could then focus on self-employment and company taxes which would be itemized.

Reverse the terrible decisions regarding the environment. Say no more offshore drilling, no new pipelines and yes to more renewable energy.   

Eliminate the penny and nickel. They cost more to make than they are worth, and few use them anyway. The smallest increment would be ten cents.

Stop making incendiary comments and tweets. Get someone like Pat Buchanan write your material so you say what you need to say but in a non provocative, inoffensive way. Don't go to war with your many detractors but rather win them over.

Good luck. We need you to succeed for our country's sake.




.

The Democrats' Dilemma

Even with the revealed anti Trump attitude in the FBI making them leave his opponent, HRC, off the hook; they vowed to do everything necessary to keep Trump from winning the election. Even with the mainstream media doing everything it can to ridicule Trump, and with a special prosecutor trying hard to find then President guilty if only for firing Comey, who succeeded Mueller as the head of the FBI,  he is still in office with higher approval ratings than his last two predecessors.

The press had a negative response to Trump's hard line with North Korea, getting an embargo on everything they buy and sell and promising if North Korea attacks U.S. states he would annihilate the whole country. What happened? For the first time, North Korea has met with the Secretary of State and then with Trump. He signed an agreement with North Korea promising to destroy its nuclear weapons. Even some Democrats praised his success but rushed to question why all the details were not stated in the agreement. And when Trump ended the U.S. participation in war games with South Korea, we  read that the South is now defenseless. We are not reminded that we have been in South Korea for almost 70 years. The South is richer, bigger and more equipped to take on the North if need be. Our 30,000 troops there cost $1.5 billion a year with the U.S. paying the majority of the costs. Isn't it time we bring these troops home?

Trump dropped out of the Iran deal because it was too short lived. The former president took pride in his deal with Iran and rewarded that nation with $100 billion, plus $1.8 billion in cash to give the leaders there some spending money. This gave Iran's struggling economy money to pay for their role in destroying Yemen, Syria and Iraq. The Iranians continued to build and test missiles that could reach Israel, the country Iran said it wants destroyed. But Trump was criticized for doing so. Now Iran and the other signatories are struggling to make changes to satisfy the U.S.

Trump withdrew from the global climate initiative signed by almost 190 other countries. The pact was set up to not only lower pollution but also to redistribute billions to the poor nations. He was roundly critiqued for doing so.

The president threatened a trade war with China, the EU, Canada and Mexico. While some realized that we have been taken for granted for too long, others fear it will hurt American business. What if these countries change their trade policies to avoid high tariffs ( maybe agreeing to drop all tariffs) on American imports and exports and that our costs as consumers will not rise? What fault will be found for this new trade policy?

The stock market grew from about 16,000 to 26,000 making many Americans with 401k's much better off. The Democrats tried to say it was because of Trump's predecessor. When the unemployment went down to its lowest level in 18 years, the media tried to say that was also because of the former president.

Trump simplified the tax code so it has almost no itemized deductions and raised the standard deduction saving American taxpayers hundreds if not thousands of dollars. He lowered taxes American companies paid making them able to hire more people and pay them more. When a company gave a $1,000 bonus to each employee, minority leader Pelosi downplayed it saying that $1,000 is nothing. Meanwhile she and her husband are worth more than $100 million and make about $10 million a year. To her $1,000 is peanuts, but not to many of us.

President Trump is trying to curb, if not eliminate, illegal immigration. He wants to stop 100s of thousands of undocumented migrants from Mexico and Central America coming here illegally in order to have a better life, though most have been told to say that they are afraid to live in their beloved country when in truth they can no longer stand living there because of poverty and corruption.

Trump wanted to build a wall separating Latin America and the U.S. to dramatically reduce illegal immigration. Being unable to get the funding, he resorted to holding parents for crossing without invitation and separating children from their parent. The left and its media allies, were desperate to stop Trump's rise in the polls, threatening their dream of taking over Congress and ridding us of our President.

We hear stories about 2,300 children being separated from their parent. What we don't hear is that the previous administration did the same. We are not reminded that more than 20,000 children who were unaccompanied remain in custody. They came when DACA was implemented believing that they would also have the American dream. These 20,000 children separated from their parents voluntarily. It did not mention the hundreds of thousands of American children are separated from their parent who is fighting in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan to help those people have a better, freer life. The media fails to remind us repeatedly that President Obama, Clinton and his wife Hillary as well as Senator Feinstein said almost the same words Trump did. They wanted it ended because illegal immigrants take entry level jobs like construction, housecleaning, landscaping, restaurant and hotel work and furniture moving from less educated Americans including Americans of African and Latin American descent who are in most need of jobs.

We are supporting those who enter illegally to help them escape poverty, providing  medical, housing, education, free breakfast and lunch benefits. If we want to help the poor, we should start here at home. We have 45+ million Americans living in poverty with 600,000 long term homeless. Our public schools are overcrowded and underachieving. We cannot afford to ensure that every American who wants affordable healthcare coverage can get it. Our infrastructure is in great need of repair. We need to cover these needy Americans and our systems first.

There is a solution. Let those who want to come here to escape poverty apply for visas at the American consulate nearest to them. The same with those claiming their need for asylum. The asylum seekers will be investigated to see the validity. Those approved would get a free trip to America instead of paying gang members as much as $10,000 to be smuggled in. This is much like what other countries do.

In order to reduce the cost and motivation that leads people to want to leave their country because of poverty and corruption, the American special forces should go in and eliminate the threat of gang violence with American advisors to help route out corruption and conditions leading to poverty - a new "Marshall Plan."

Trump early on the President restricted people from seven Muslim majority countries known for violence. The left tried to make this an issue. Liberals wanted us to admit as many Muslims as possible to come to the U.S. Muslims generally subjugate women, in some nations making women cover themselves head to toe and do not let women come and go without a man's permission. Many are fervently anti Semitic and against Israel, wanting it conquered by people of their faith. Many do not appreciate members of the LGBTQ community with some of these nations banning and severely punishing these people. Some have been followers of ISIS and conspire to kill as many Americans as possible. What do liberals think about downgrading women while we want gender equality and freedom from sexual harassment and assault? What do they think about strict distaste of Jews some of our greatest people who suffered enough oppression for 2,000 years? Is it OK then to despise the LGBTQ community while we are trying to fully accept them?

While the media is desperate to jump on Trump's many faux pas, they never show us what the liberals are doing wrong. Leader Pelosi has gone crazy going so far as to embrace MS13 gang members saying that they make our country safe.

Liberals have all these dilemmas, but one may be the worst - hypocrisy. They are united in being against Trump. They feel he is hateful, so they can be hateful; is dishonest so they can be dishonest. He is labeled intolerant, so Democrats can be intolerant of him. He is known to be rude and crude, so we all  can be rude and crude to him going to new heights in rudeness and crudeness. Liberals don't seem to see the irony and hypocricy of doing exactly what they feel is unacceptable.
   
As I have written before, the mainstream media is sensationalist, superficial, and subjective (read biased). President Trump has given them a lot of  ammunition by writing or saying inflammatory comments. Being a narcissist he actually enjoys being the center of attention.

Some who read this will think "here is a right wing conservative Republican." It would be nice to call people like me deplorable. In fact I am a a moderate Independent. My family has been Democrats ever since my parents came to this country. They came here legally. I voted for Democratic presidential candidates Clinton and  Obama, twice, but cannot help but see how far left the Democrats have gone and cannot be one or share their opinions.