Roe v. Wade Increasingly Under Threat

Part of this commentary is from a previous Facebook post of mine.

The Ohio Senate passed a revision bill of Ohio's state child abuse and neglect laws on Tuesday. In it, Senate Republicans - flexing a facade of moxie they believe Donald Trump has instilled in them with his election win - slipped in an amendment, the "heartbeat bill," banning abortion once the fetal heartbeat is present, which typically occurs around six weeks. Naturally, pro-choice advocates have decried this move, while pro-birthers are very excited to move the needle more in their desired direction.

If you noticed that I used the term "pro-birth," instead of "pro-life," that's because I don't believe in the term "pro-life." It's not real. Here are some stats for you, compiled from the most recent Pew Research and Gallup poll results I could find:

• 59% - Republicans who think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. That number increases to 68% for the conservative end of the GOP, compared to moderates' 41%. Democrat support is 28%.
• While 63% overall support gay adoption, Republican support is only 26%. Democrat support is 87%.
• 67% - Republicans who supported the most recent cuts to the food stamp program, SNAP. Democrat support was 28%.
• 72% - Republicans who favor the death penalty, including 69% of white evangelicals. Democrat support is 34%.

So what does this mean? Basically, the largest block who would call themselves "pro-life" seem to not be too concerned with what happens after the baby is born, so long as it is forced to be born - after that, the baby is someone else's problem. They might be okay with the baby being adopted, but they strongly support limiting the adoptive parent pool by keeping gays out of the mix, regardless of the effect of keeping more children unadopted for much longer. In the event the parent has the baby, but is too poor to care for it, they strongly favor cutting or eliminating assistance that is available to the parent, in the form of welfare and SNAP, by extension making the child's life much harder - but then, that is someone else's problem. And if that baby grows up to kill someone, they are overwhelmingly in favor of killing it.

Hence, the term "pro-life" is a bit of a misnomer. Anyone who is in favor of the things listed above are "pro-birth," not "pro-life." Very little of what the "pro-lifers" advocate would fall under the heading of "pro-life." They, of course, don't see it that way as they bang on podiums and harass women at clinics in a manner that borders on the criminal (that's usually how they do it too, doing everything they can right up to the illegal line). And they always do it with the encouragement of politicians, who will never dirty their hands or go to jail. They let all of their supporters put themselves at risk with the dirty work, while they simply try to bend or break the law in the chamber.

And this is where we come back to the "heartbeat bill" in Ohio. They know the bill is unconstitutional, it's why they've held off on voting on it for the past several years. But Trump is President now. Here is Ohio State Senate President Keith Faber:

So to Keith Faber, Donald Trump winning the presidency means that he will put a conservative justice in the vacant seat on the Supreme Court, so the chance of his bill surviving is much better. It apparently does not matter that the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals already declared "heartbeat bills" unconstitutional, after Arkansas and North Dakota previously passed the same bills. The U.S. Supreme Court refuse to grant a writ of certiorari in January of this year. That is an important thing to note, because a writ requires the "rule of four," whereby four of the nine justices have to approve of a writ to issue it. This means that The Supremes didn't have four justices in support of reviewing the 8th Circuit Appeals Court ruling declaring the "heartbeat" bill unconstitutional - and that was with Antonin Scalia still alive on the bench at the time.

Trump can appoint a conservative justice to the court, but it still only brings the count to 5-4 in favor of Roe v. Wade. Where it starts to get sticky is if any of the three oldest justices - Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Anthony Kennedy - pass away or retire during Trump's term. Right now, Kennedy is the swing vote. If he is no longer there, the only remaining sometimes swing is John Roberts. I think we all were more than a little surprised at Roberts' decision during the Obamacare case, not only supporting the non-existent Individual Mandate "tax," but his willingness to break the SCOTUS rules and invent the tax out of thin air in order to support it. So the question becomes: Would Roberts vote down Roe, or would he instead vote to reverse the TRAP law decisions? The politician in him gives me the impression he is more likely to do something like that so he can feign that the legitimacy of Roe is maintained.

All of this, of course, brings the politicization of the U.S. Supreme Court to the forefront. They are not supposed to be making politically motivated decisions, only determining if decisions already made are constitutional. Roberts inventing a tax that didn't exist (because only the House of Representatives can create a tax, that is federal law) is the starkest abdication of duties seen in years. And he did it to manufacture a facade of bipartisanship to give the conservative side of the court cover when these exact cases came up, as expected, and they voted party lines most of the time. The legal credibility of The Supremes has been suspect for many years, to the degree that politicians like Ted Cruz claim "five un-elected people in Washington" are making laws for everyone to follow. It's not true, but he gets to make this preposterous claim because of justices overstepping their responsibilities, as Roberts did. And now, people like Keith Faber think Trump winning the election is the open door for all manner of idiotic bills to be put forth, because they see hope that the politician put into the vacant seat will usher in a new order, where women will ultimately be required to get permission from men about everything pertaining to their bodies. And they have such high hopes for this that all kinds of ridiculous laws will be coming down the pike. And it will be quick, as they surely think Trump's unbelievably dumb luck of winning will only last one term.

In the mean time, Ohio folks are hoping Governor John Kasich will realize how easily this "heartbeat" bill would likely be shot down by the Appeals Courts, as it with the previous two states who tried it, and will spare his own office the embarrassment. I doubt it. Kasich has proven himself to be a pretty stupid fellow in his time in the governor's office. But I'll take an unexpected surprise any day.

Contact Governor John Kasich

An Attack on Religious Freedom

This is one of those stories that can make you want to pull your hair out. On November 30, 2016, Buzzfeed writer Kate Aurthur wrote an article, "Chip And Joanna Gaines’ Church Is Firmly Against Same-Sex Marriage," in which she addresses a video of a sermon delivered by Jimmy Seibert, the pastor of the Antioch Community Church that Chip and Johanna attend, in which Seibert discusses marriage being between a man and a woman. The Gaineses, stars of Fixer Upper on HGTV, appear to be the target of the article, but Aurthur couldn't get a comment or response from them, so she goes after their church instead, and then wonders "innocently":

So are the Gaineses against same-sex marriage? And would they ever feature a same-sex couple on the show, as have HGTV’s House Hunters and Property Brothers? Emails to Brock Murphy, the public relations director at their company, Magnolia, were not returned. HGTV’s PR department did not respond to initial emails and calls. Two days after this story was published, they released the following statement: “We don’t discriminate against members of the LGBT community in any of our shows. HGTV is proud to have a crystal clear, consistent record of including people from all walks of life in its series.

I find it interesting that she asks the question of HGTV, in a not-so-veiled attempt to tie HGTV to the religious faith of hosts on one of their shows. Yet she already mentioned two other shows on the same network that have had LGBT guests. So she already knows HGTV's stance, through her own statement, yet she asks them anyway. After dispensing with that prerequisite, the remainder of the article is her quoting the video of Seibert. The Gainses have dutifully been mentioned - check - so anything discussed beyond that point is just "guilt by association." One could imagine the Gaineses had a suspicion that they were being baited, which is why they refused to comment for the story.

But this article plays into a larger issue, which is people of faith only being allowed to have a livelihood if they conform to whatever you want them to agree with. HGTV canceled plans in May 2014 for a show called Flip It Forward, hosted by twin Benham brothers, David and Jason. It should be noted that the Benham brothers were actively public and vocal about their views on gay marriage, women's reproductive rights, and other religions. So they set themselves up for the controversy that HGTV simply wanted no part of. But the Gaineses have not put their beliefs front and center, which is why Kate Aurthur decided to dig, seemingly believing that the Gaineses do not have the right to keep their beliefs to themselves. She has the right to drag their beliefs out into the open. She wants to castigate them, and she cannot do that if they don't divulge what she needs them to. They refused to respond, so the church and Seibert get to take the hit and, if she's lucky, that stink will rub off on the Gaineses. It's the worst kind of cynicism, manifested in a hatchet-job of an article that surmises no rhyme or reason for it's existence in the first place.

And not for nothing, but most churches have a conservative position on gay marriage and women's reproductive rights. You can appreciate the theology of a church without subscribing to everything. I have attended several churches over the years that were anti-abortion and pro-one man, one woman. I couldn't disagree more, but still attended a couple of those churches because I loved the pastors and how they taught the theology. I've had lengthy debates with the pastors over those topics. They respected my views but disagreed with me because of how they interpret the Bible. And that okay. These are beliefs we are talking about. I can't prove anything any more than the pastors can. There is no proof. That's what faith is - belief in the absence of proof. They don't know they're right, they only believe they are. And the Gaineses may believe the same thing as their pastor, they may not. In the belief game, you are not required to believe everything. To the contrary, you are encouraged to question what you believe. I've never been in a church that didn't do that, because they want to teach, and you can't teach anyone who's closed off. Questions are a good thing, because it means you are open and thinking, and that alone is proof that believing in everything is not necessary.

We live in an emotionally unstable country and, every so often, we get a reminder of that. For the last 18 months, it has been Trump. In Trump's wake, a lot of vitriol has fallen to an undercurrent. Mike Pence, our new VP-elect, passed laws in his home state of Indiana that are among the most oppressive to the LGBT community, under the guise of "religious freedom." I personally believe business owners should have the right to discriminate if they choose to do so. I also thank them for doing it publicly, so I know who and what they are, and make sure I never give them a dime of my money. If people choose to protest and boycott them for their discrimination, then so be it. They get to be run out of business because they chose to publicize their bigotry, whether they call it religion or not. Free market, baby. Sucks to be you, but you already know that as you pack your boxes and close down, don't you? That's how it works. It takes a lot of nerve to advertise your discrimination, then cry persecution, because you expected everyone to just accept it and continue to give you their money. It's the height of arrogance.

On the other hand, a couple who maintains their beliefs privately are now targeted for no particular reason, and that I do have a problem with. If the Gaineases had used their show as a platform for "religious freedom" discrimination, that would be one thing. But they haven't done that. Their beliefs are their own, and their businesses have never discriminated, regardless of what their personal beliefs are. Isn't that what we want? For people to believe whatever they want, so long as they don't exercise their rights at the expense of others? Isn't that the core of what our freedom is? Kate Aurthur, whether she is gay or not, has the right to go after someone if they discriminate. But HGTV doesn't and she knows it. And instead of waiting until the Gaineses issued a public platform or refused an LGBT guest, she decided they don't have the right to be successful unless she approves of their beliefs. So she wrote a hit piece excoriating a pastor for doing what pastors do, hoping she could drag the Gaineses out into force a response. In a country where religious people attack with bigotry then laughingly say they need their religious freedom protected from those they attack, this was a genuine attack on religious freedom. Go figure.

A Third-Party Vote is Not a Wasted Vote

There is a lot of vitriol about third party candidates being a cop-out vote, a waste of a trip to the voting booth. I voted for Ralph Nader in almost every election until 2012, when I voted for Jill Stein. Did voting for Nader dilute the overall votes available for the two major parties? Yes. Would I have voted for Bush or Gore, if not Nader, in 2000? No. Do I wish we hadn't had Bush for 8 years? Yes. Do I think Gore would have been a better president than Bush? Yes. Do I feel guilty that we had Bush for 8 years? No. I didn't steal a vote from Bush or Gore to give to Nader. They never had my vote in the first place.

A "swing vote" is simply undecided. By definition, they are not sure who to support. I'm not an "undecided" voter settling on a third party. I have always been third party, despite having been registered Republican until this past year. I am voting for Gary Johnson, because I like that he supports fiscal elements that Republicans are for, as well as social positions that I have also, which tend toward the Democrats. He's what we like to call politically "well-rounded." He SHOULD appeal to most voters, if they weren't so party-dedicated. I'm not saying he will win. The odds are very long. I AM saying that I refuse to contribute to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump getting the job. If I lose, I lose. But those two are not getting their hands on the Oval Office with my help. I know that infuriates people who think stopping Trump is priority number one. But Trump doesn't win because I vote for Gary Johnson. I am not taking a vote away from Hillary. She never had my vote in the first place. Trump wins because he gets more votes than the other candidates. And if Trump gets votes at all, let alone enough to beat other candidates, then those who voted for him are responsible for whatever comes with him as president - not me. If you are voting party lines, just because, YOU are wasting your vote. If you are ignoring everything wrong with your candidate and voting just to prevent the other one from winning, YOU are wasting your vote.

I don't have any obligation whatsoever to choose only from major party candidates. These candidates have an obligation to win me over. They have an obligation to convince me that there is no one else available who's better than them. They have an obligation to show me that they should be trusted with the top job over any other. They have an obligation to show me their character makes them better suited to the job and its high-stakes responsibilities than the others. THEY are obligated - not me.

This is one of those elections where your vote actually says who you are as a citizen and what you want in your leader. I really believe that. We've never had major party candidates so generally hated by the voters. Which means this can't be a vote "against" someone. It has to be a vote "for" someone. Anything else, in this state of electoral hatred, makes the voters as disingenuous as the candidates.

BREXIT a Cautionary Tale For America

The United Kingdom just voted by a slim margin, 51.9% to 48.1%, to leave the European Union. The British exit ("BREXIT") stung world markets immediately, with an over $2 trillion plunge in stock values, with investors racing to get to "Home Base," i.e. gold, the Yen, governments bonds, etc. Major markets took the expected big hits as well, with Japan down 8.7%, Germany down 7.4%, France 8.8%, and the Euro dropping 3.8% in value amid fears of the monetary unit's stability. The hits are especially damaging because they come on the cusp of market rallies in recent days, in expectation of the UK likely remaining in the EU. These market effects are partly an overreaction. If investors hadn't rallied the markets like they did, they would not have exposed themselves too much, and feel the need to go hard in the other direction to compensate. Now, recession is an almost near certainty, and global banks have had to guarantee liquidity, The Bank of England included, across the EU to try to maintain stability.

The UK itself is reeling, obviously. London's major banks are down upwards of 30%, the British pound and sterling both plummeted 10%. Yields on 10-year bonds dropped .27%. S&P had already threatened to downgrade Britain's AAA credit rating. With the huge effects in evidence, that downgrade now appears all the more likely. And there will assuredly be interest rate cuts to come, as well as more quantitative easing, both of which will impact markets further. And this is just the beginning. Scottish First Minister and National Party leader, Nicola Sturgeon, has said she will call for another referendum on Scottish independence from the UK, especially since Scottish citizens overwhelmingly supported remaining in the EU. This British betrayal will almost certainly boost the odds of a Scottish exit when the next referendum comes into play. And this is nothing compared to the possibility of more EU member countries following suit. After all, Britain was one of the anchor members of the EU, many countries became members because of the strength of Britain as a member. And if one wonders why this whole situation is a cautionary tale for America, the reason of why it happened at all is particularly important to us.

The UK Independence Party (UKIP), headed since 2010 by Nigel Farage, is a Eurosceptic wing of Britain's Conservative Party (aka the Tories) that had been applying intense pressure on David Cameron to introduce a referendum on exiting the EU. UKIP's main reasoning was immigration. The influx of immigrants has increased substantially in recent years (330,000 last year), severely straining financial resources of a UK that is still not fully recovered from the 2008 recession. Many in Britain want to be able to close the borders and curb the influx, but Britain is constrained by border regulations set and maintained by the EU. The only way to gain the ability to take control of the borders is to reestablish sovereignty, which means they needed to resign membership in the EU. That pressure was applied publicly, in the form of xenophobia, Islamophobia, nativism, racism, fear-mongering, etc. (sound familiar?) Ahead of the 2015 elections this pressure was coming to a boil. To appease UKIP voters and bolster his re-election, Cameron promised an In-or-Out referendum on remaining in the EU if he won. If he had been like most American politicians and simply turned his back on a campaign promise, the referendum would not have happened so soon. Make no mistake, it would have happened anyway, as UKIP would have seen to it that Cameron was run out of office in the next election. But there would have been more time and opportunity for something to change, for cooler heads to prevail. Instead, Cameron fulfilled his promise and introduced the referendum, splitting his party, turning supporters and friends against him, and increasing volatility in Parliament.

On June 16, 2016, Labor Party member Jo Cox was assassinated, shot 3 times and stabbed several more, as she was about to meet with constituents in Birdstall, West Yorkshire. 77-year old Bernard Kenny was stabbed trying to protect her. Cox founded and chaired Friends of Syria, a group dedicated to aiding Syrian rebels in fighting ISIS. Member countries include Egypt, France, Germany, Italy, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and the United States. Cox was a supporter of fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and for Britain providing safe-haven for Syrian refugees. 52-year old Thomas Mair was arrested on terrorist charges for her murder, during which witnesses said he kept shouting, "Britain first!" Upon appearing before a magistrate on June 18, Mair stated his name as, "Death to traitors, freedom for Britain."

This event punctuated the divisiveness and extreme attitudes exhibited and exacerbated by UKIP members leading up to the referendum. Cameron presumably thought winning a vote to remain in the EU to not be difficult, a drastic underestimation, otherwise he might have considered going back on his campaign promise in order to buy more time or, the smarter move, not making the promise at all. But in doing so, Cameron sealed his own fate. Just flirting with this disaster painted him as weak, and he was losing support by the week. But to enable it to such an extent not only cost them the EU, but probably Scotland as well. It's difficult to imagine a way in which Cameron could have screwed this up more. In addition to his now nonexistent future, he has virtually guaranteed defeats in future elections for anyone in Parliament who supported him, especially those who pushed him for the referendum under the presumption that winning a vote to stay in the EU would be easier to pull off with Cameron and his party in power, than if another party was in charge. Naturally, Cameron resigned, because there was really nothing else he could do. He wasn't even a lame duck, he simply became an invisible leader instantly - his credibility vanished, and his legacy will tar the British history books for the next century.

While a referendum would have likely happened at some point, what David Cameron did is an absolute cautionary tale for Americans. When an extreme wing of a party becomes powerful enough to manipulate and force the hand of politicians too weak and consumed with their own job security to stand their ground, really stupid things can happen. The xenophobia, Islamophobia, racism, nativism displayed by the UKIP is not unlike what we have been seeing from the Tea Party and Donald Trump peddling to his supporters. We are not in any comparable position with the UK from a union standpoint, but we definitely have been watching the erosion of 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 15th Amendment rights, states doing everything possible to circumvent 14th Amendment rights for LGBTQ, and Roe v. Wade, and politicians glorifying the fact that they flat out refuse to do their jobs - all of these pushed by the extreme wing of a major political party. There is much familiarity to see in what has happened in the UK. Just because union considerations are not something we have to deal with does not mean we are not ripe for the same type of extreme stupidity by politicians couldn't happen to us.

To a heartbroken Twitter User:

I want you to read this. It is a series of tweets from a user called supergrover (@fuzzlaw) that I compiled. This is as poignant and heartbreaking as anything you will read on the subject. I am not gay, but to the LGBTQ community, I promise you are not alone, though I imagine it's almost impossible not to feel that way often. We who support you outnumber those who don't, even if the "leadership" does not reflect that on the whole yet. It will in time, but never soon enough.

I'm an aging dyke, so I'm just going to get this out of my system: kids, y'all 35 and under, this wasn't supposed to happen to you. The generation ahead of us knocked down the wall: Stonewall. Initial visibility. Standing proud. Being out. They suffered the consequences. Backlash. Violence. The Upstairs Lounge in New Orleans. Guns fired at the places they dared to gather. Then AIDS swept in and devastated the community. Reagan and his ilk laughed at our suffering. They closed ranks. Cared for one another. Tended the dying and buried the dead. There's a reason why most 60+ gay leaders are women. See the genocide underneath the demographics. Then, the mid-90's. Anti-retroviral drugs came along. Our men started surviving. We began to flourish, stand up, stand out more strongly. Here and there, we fought for 'gay' marriage. Folks started coming out. Melissa. K.D. George. Ellen. Each was huge and life-affirming. Reveling in our newfound life and out-ness, Matthew Shepard's death cut us to the core. It was 18 years ago. 1998. As a community, we threw it down. HELL no. We didn't survive AIDS for this. We mobilized. Flexed our muscles. Change came. With every step of progress came backlash. But we pushed. And we pushed. And there weren't any Upstairs Lounges. No Matthew Shepards. We won. We won the right to marry, to have our employment rights protected, to live as fellow citizens. Fights remain, of course. But we were winning. Then, Pulse. 50 dead. 50 wounded. Babies. Kids. The ones we fought so hard to protect from the backlash. The backlash we knew all too well, but that the post Matthew Shepard generation has never known. We never wanted you to know about this. We never wanted you to experience this. It's why we fought, and fight, so hard. Yes, it's for our generation, but really...it's for you. For us, this violence is...not unexpected. We know it's possible. We've seen it. But you all...dammit, you've never had to worry about it, not collectively. We never wanted this for you. We thought we had protected you. But...clearly, the past is not even past. Welcome to being GLBTQ* in America. There are people who want us dead. And that's no exaggeration. And it's not just the nuts with the guns. It's the politicians who sacrifice us on the altar of hateful rhetoric to score political points. It's the churches that won't ordain us, won't celebrate us, who insist on continuing to 'love the sinner and hate the sin". It's the nonsensical fight over who can use which bathrooms. The inability of Congressmen to mention that it was GLBTQ* people who died. It's the families who turn GLBTQ* teenagers on to the street instead of just fucking loving them. Schools who expel them. It's every bully who teases and effinite boy and harasses a masculine girl. Every man who tells a lesbian she just needs the 'right dick'. It permeates our society. It is SO much better than it was, yet remains SO awful. It's why our generation kept fighting, and keeps fighting. But it's time for our generation to teach the next. Welcome to the fight for your lives, kids. We're with you. We'll guide you. We'll teach you everything we know. We'll stand on the front lines until you can do it. We'll be the cannonfodder. You're not alone. But the college-environment-creating-change-kumbaya-all-is-well-everyone-has-to-bow-to-what-we-say approach isn't reality. The world is not a safe space, and it only gets safer when you fight like hell for it. We weren't given the spaces we have. It's a fight. So get prepared. Read your history. Talk to your elders. Listen, and learn. And show up. We need you. Your energy and ideas. We'd still take a bullet for you, literally, and figuratively. You were just never supposed to have to take a bullet for us. RIP, my nieces and nephews and sons and daughters in Orlando. I'm so sorry we didn't protect you.

To supergrover (@fuzzlaw) :
This was not your fault. It is everyone's fault. There is failure at every juncture. We don't protect everyone in our society, only those we don't deem "less than." We continually exercise our rights at the expense of the rights of others, a direct violation of the one cardinal condition of having those very rights. Our nation's leaders do it daily, and often with the support of the Supreme Court. This is not your failure - it is systemic failure. Individually, we care very deeply. But as a country, we do not care one bit. Our elections are a clear indication of this. Voters continually re-elect bigoted and corrupt politicians who have rigged the system to their benefit, at the expense of the country, in general, and of the people most in need of protection, specifically. We have a segment of the citizenry who wants to exploit their rights the way the politicians do - so they use "freedom of religion" as a backdrop for discrimination. They tout the 2nd Amendment as the backdrop for endless and militaristic armament, walking through towns with assault-style weapons slung from their shoulders to scare and intimidate people, just praying - practically daring - someone to confront them and gives them a reason to engage their weapon.

You live in a country that is not emotionally stable. And the nation's leadership operates in a manner that keeps people there. We try to improve things, we try to engage people's hearts, so that they might see who the people are that they actually hurt, rather than the demographic. And you plug along, and you see small indications of improvement, you think things are starting to take on an exponential pace... and then you watch someone like Donald Trump take over the Republican party. And you realize the improvements are just a facade. That, given a bigoted presidential candidate to rally around, the id of the hateful segment of this country races to take over the spotlight.

So please, superuser, do not carry this cataclysm on your shoulders. This country was supposed to protect these victims. You are part of why improvements have occurred all. And they will continue to because, as I said, we who support you outnumber those who don't. As much as your heart is broken, you are not responsible for what happened. This country is. And we will continue to try to wrestle power away from those whom thrive on our instability and feed the hateful id that festers just below, and sometimes above, the surface. I promise. You are not alone.

Guns Are a Problem, But Not THE Problem

With the continued frequency of mass shootings across the country, the most recent being the attack on the Orlando night club Pulse, with at least 49 dead and another 53 injured, the discussion, as expected, has come around again to gun control. Gun control advocates think that these mass shootings would go away, if only better regulations were in place. Opponents say it's not the guns, it's the people who use them. Advocates say the countries around the world who have very few, if any, gun fatalities in a given year is because guns are either banned or heavily restricted or regulated in those countries. They would be correct, but that doesn't settle every issue. And in this country, it's not so much about rights as it is politics.

Lobby organizations like the NRA would have you believe that the muskets available to citizens in the early years of the country and its Constitution easily translate to the military-style weapons and handguns of today. It's an idiotic premise rooted in the fact that the Founders are no longer available to confirm or deny it. The reason we have so many amendments in the first place is because the Founders knew things might change with the times, and so a mechanism needed to be in place to update the Constitution if the changes with the times were substantial enough to conflict with the intentions of laws previously written. One might wonder if the Second Amendment, as written, would still exist today, if the Founders had lived long enough to see the state of weaponry evolve, as well as the conflicting interpretations of "a well-regulated militia..." But since that is not possible, we are left with NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre masturbatorily pontificating about what the Founders really meant when they wrote the 2nd Amendment, while Charleton Heston's "cold, dead hands" statement at the NRA convention in 2000 practically had the membership cheering wildly to communal orgasmic release.

What is lost in all of this is the practicality of regulation. A big reason regulation is impractical right now is because our government does not address the black market. We only deal with illegal weapons when they interfere with the weapons the government themselves are dealing. We supply weapons to dictatorship countries, to guerrilla militias and revolutionaries. And as long as no one messes with what we do with weapons, we do very little to stop it. So our black markets continue to thrive, the government doesn't destroy weapons caches, nay, they raid them and supply them to criminal enterprises to "track" illegal weapons movement, e.g. Fast and Furious, and then sit back shocked and dismayed to hear those weapons have been killing our border guards, as if it's a complete surprise that Mexican cartels and coyotes would do such a thing. And this is the real problem: If the government is, itself, a supplier of illegal weapons, from where do they get the nerve to talk about gun regulations?

First and foremost, deal with the illegal weapons trade and black markets. Regulations on guns will not work if there is a plethora of places to get them. Regardless of what Wayne LaPierre says, I don't think most gun owners have a problem with regulations. They get their guns through legal channels and protocols anyway. And as long as they can get what they need, regulations are fine, so long as the criminals being targeted can't still get them without effort. If they can, then you are just making regulations for the sake of making regulations - THAT they have a serious problem with. So if the government takes the illegal trade seriously, instead of being the traders, people will take regulations seriously. To that end, here are the regulations that I believe should be in place, if we are ever to get to that point:

• Background checks at all purchase venues, including online. This should include criminal at all levels. It should also include all available psych records, such as Baker Act or any law enforcement cases involving psychological issues. The system should know if someone has psychological issues, even those not law enforcement related, but we have to create a system that secures that information to HIPAA guidelines so that doctors and hospitals will be willing to follow a regulation that requires them to put a patient's name into the system so they can't buy a gun. And it must be a closed system, ONLY accessible for weapons checks.

• Require a weapons license, just like a driver's license. Pass a written test that shows you know the laws regarding what you can and cannot do with your weapon, and a physical test that shows you know how to handle a weapon. If you do this once, you never have to do it again, the license follows you for life as proof of weapons competency, unless you are convicted of a crime that revokes the right to have a weapons license.

• Just like a vehicle, guns should come with a title of purchase. You should have to notify the registry agency of a gun sale by turning in a transfer of title, a process that should be streamlined to be handled online. You should be required to confirm that you sold the gun to a licensed purchaser, and provide the purchaser's name. The agency then contacts the purchaser via encrypted email to confirm the purchase and transfer of ownership. This information would be available to law enforcement, as a means of absolving the previous owner of any connection to, or responsibility for, any crimes committed with that weapon after the date of transfer, unless it can be proven that the weapon was reacquired by the previous owner without notification.

• All NFA regulations already in effect, as well as those involving Title II weapons. Miltary-style design weapons, such as the AR-15, should be added to the Title II list. I know the backlash here. But the reality is that people focus on the rifles being "semi-automatic" as the problem. That is a red herring argument. Most guns are semi-automatic these days, including most handguns. The real problem with weapons like the AR-15 is the power and range. Handguns, with their short barrels, do not have the effective range of military-style rifles. That's the exact reason the military uses such weapons in the first place. Even a hunting rifle with the same caliber ammunition is typically not carrying a magazine that can hold up to 100 rounds. The magazine capacity, combined with the effective range, combined with the semi-automatic capability typical in most weapons nowadays, are why civilians should not have access to them. This is not an unprecedented philosophy. We banned civilian access to machine guns, like the M16, in the 1980s. Well, the AR-15 is an M16. It's just been stripped of certain features, like selective fire (the ability to switch between semi-automatic, fully-automatic, and burst fire), so manufacturers could sell the weapon to civilians. And AR-15s were originally banned in Bill Clinton's Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. The weapons only became legal because the ban expired in 2004. So this is not a revolutionary argument. These are military weapons, and no civilian has a justifiable reason to have them. If the weapon, and all iterations of the kind, are added to the Title II list, there is no expiration.

These are just the basics. Even with these in place, we still have no way of guaranteeing the emotional capability of trained and licensed gun owners to react properly, to know when and when not to pull their weapon, to hold fire to protect innocent people from getting hurt instead of opening fire with adrenaline feeding it (the "cowboy effect"). We need to know that the people who buy weapons know how to use them, and know the laws governing them. And we need to know that weapons are not being bought and sold at will with no oversight as to who has them. Gun owners like to point to mental issues being addressed. But if we have no mechanism for knowing if someone has sold their weapon to someone with mental issues, it becomes a moot point.

And no matter what Wayne LaPierre says, no one is coming for your guns. This has been a common tactic by the gun lobby and manufacturers to stoke fear of government-turning-Gestapo, and they reap huge power and profits from such fear. Profits from gun sales exploded when Obama was elected president, because the race for your guns was on, and just a matter of when, not if. President Obama has never indicated, or even implied, that such a confiscation was even considered, let alone planned. And no president going forward will either, there are simply too many guns out there for that to be practical. But if the black market can be dealt with, most gun owners would not have a problem with common sense regulation. Having said that, you do not get to claim a standard that all law abiders who respect their weapons would already follow, yet leave the rest of it open to the criminals. And when the government itself feeds the criminal market, there is no respect to be had with the "do as I say, not as I do" argument.

Ted Cruz and States' Rights

Ted Cruz participated in a Good Morning America Town Hall, during which he answered questions posed by voters. Todd Calogne, a pizza parlor owner in New York City, asks Cruz what he would do to protect Todd and his husband of two years from religious freedom laws that he referred to as "institutionalized discrimination." Cruz answers in the video below:

In his response, Cruz makes some interesting generalizations, in an effort to avoid directly addressing what Mr. Calogne asked:

"When it comes to religious liberty, religious liberty is something that protects all of us; it applies to Christians, it applies to Jews, it applies to Muslims, it applies to atheists... that freedom ultimately protects each and every one of us."

Robin Roberts followed by asking, "doesn't everyone have the freedom to be treated equally...?," clearly implying that Cruz's response didn't really address what Mr. Calogne asked. Cruz sidestepped it once again, and reiterated the same answer, that the "First Amendment protects everyone equally..." George Stephanopoulos then redirects Cruz to his support of creating a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage [Obergefell v. Hodges], and how that would affect couples like Mr. Calogne and his husband, who already married:

"Listen, I am a constitutionalist and, under the Consitution, marriage is a question for the states - that has been the case from the very beginning of this country, that it's been up to the states. And so if someone wants to change the marriage laws, I don't think it should be five unelected lawyers down in Washington dictating that, and even if you happen to agree with that particular decision, why would you want to hand over every important public policy issue to five unelected lawyers who aren't accountable to you, who don't work for you...

and by the way, it may end up... that the laws in one state may be different than another state, and we expect that... and that's the great thing about a big diverse country, is that we can have different laws that respect different values."

There is a whole lot wrong with this line of thinking. For starters, I'm not sure Cruz should be touting himself a "constitutionalist," when it does not appear that he knows that the Constitution says nothing whatsoever about marriage. DOMA, however, was a federal law. DOMA prevented federal benefits to same sex couples living in states that had legalized same sex marriage. But what about states' rights? Not so much. Cruz supported DOMA, much as he supports states' rights, so long as the state decisions are in line with what he wants. And he was none to pleased when SCOTUS ruled that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The most recent ruling was based on the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment was written in regards to the rights of all citizens of the United States. Article 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment states:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This is what the Supreme Court was deciding on. And while some may think the decision is tantamount to the SCOTUS saying the Fourteenth Amendment requires the states to redefine marriage, it does no such thing. What they said, essentially, is if the states are going to "define" marriage at all, they cannot do so in any way that discriminates against anyone. As for Cruz's love for the First Amendment, the one condition to the First Amendment is that you cannot exercise your rights at the expense of someone else's. Using religious freedom to violate the equal rights of someone else also violates the spirit of the Constitution, not just the letter of it. Intent and effect are the barometers typically judged in these kinds of cases. Supporters of marriage definition, like DOMA, may claim that there is no intent to discriminate against homosexuals, but the effect was just that. And I would also argue that, since marriage is a universal construct that everyone accepts, the only reason to define it to any specificity at all is to disinclude those who do not meet the specificity defined, thereby demonstrating clear intent.

As for the "five lawyers in Washington," that is a wholly specious argument, coming from a candidate who touts his professional achievements in that very chamber. He's argued before the court nine times (two of them for one case), winning twice, partial victories in two more, and four losses. He has historically shown little respect for the SCOTUS, except when he needs them, as in the patent case for a private client in one of his two victories - BUT he wants us to elect him President because he should be the one to decide who to replace Antonin Scalia with. Right.

Krugman is Reaching for the Unreachable Bernie

Paul Krugman has historically been one of my favorite economist-writers. He's smart, pragmatic, and generally manages to successfully blend those with his ideology. Unfortunately, these have given way to his allegiance to Hillary Clinton, and he has effectively demonstrated as much in his columns over the last six to eight months. His most recent opinion has declared Bernie to have morphed into one of his own "Berniebros," a term coined by Robinson Meyer of The Atlantic  to describe young males who are fanatically and overtly die hard - with a healthy dose of cognitive dissonance - for Bernie Sanders.

It should not be a surprise that Krugman has taken this tack now. He's a New Yorker, arguably one of the most popular who writes for New York City's most prestigious newspaper, the New York Times. The New York primary is fast approaching, and Sanders has been steadily eating into Clinton's pledged delegate lead, Wisconsin's being the most recent. The victory itself was not the biggest problem for Clinton. The biggest problem was that She was up by 6 points in the week before the primary, to lose it by 13.5 points, an almost 20 point swing, and a clear demonstration that Bernie's momentum is not waning. It's only getting stronger at the worst possible time for the Clinton campaign. This has caused Krugman to use his popularity and influence over the next couple of weeks to throw shade at Sanders as much as possible. A successful primary for Sanders in Clinton's home state (yes, carpet-bagged, but still) on April 19 could pose bigger problems than the outcome itself, if it causes the superdelegates to start entering the conversation, which is Clinton's biggest fear.

"The easy slogan here is “Break up the big banks.” It’s obvious why this slogan is appealing from a political point of view: Wall Street supplies an excellent cast of villains. But were big banks really at the heart of the financial crisis, and would breaking them up protect us from future crises? Many analysts concluded years ago that the answers to both questions were no. Predatory lending was largely carried out by smaller, non-Wall Street institutions like Countrywide Financial; the crisis itself was centered not on big banks but on “shadow banks” like Lehman Brothers that weren’t necessarily that big. And the financial reform that President Obama signed in 2010 made a real effort to address these problems. It could and should be made stronger, but pounding the table about big banks misses the point."

This is not exactly true. These are not non-Wall Street institutions when they are publicly traded. And Wall Street was very much in bed with big banks during the crisis. The repeal of Glass-Steagal, which existed to keep commercial banks and investment banks separate, allowed these institutions to merge or be bought as a subsidiary. Even in the predatory lending portion, Wachovia and Washington Mutual were eaten alive for their share of the sub-prime mortgage and credit default swap market. Bank of America bought Countrywide. These institutions are not mutually exclusive.

"You could argue that policy details are unimportant as long as a politician has the right values and character. As it happens, I don’t agree. For one thing, a politician’s policy specifics are often a very important clue to his or her true character — I warned about George W. Bush’s mendacity back when most journalists were still portraying him as a bluff, honest fellow, because I actually looked at his tax proposals. For another, I consider a commitment to facing hard choices as opposed to taking the easy way out an important value in itself."

This is a very interesting spin. I do believe character matters more. And the roots of Sanders' policy desires lie in a more even playing field for everyone, and curbing the uber-wealthy's exploitation of an imbalanced tax system to widen the wealth gap. But more interesting is Krugman's little tilt at the end there, "taking the easy way out." Really? Sanders is taking the easy way out? No one could have chosen a more difficult way than Bernie. He has used socialist buzzwords that have demonized him from the start. If anyone is taking the easy way out, it would be Hillary, hoping to maintain the establishment status quo. Selling out has never been so easy.

"But in any case, the way Mr. Sanders is now campaigning raises serious character and values issues. It’s one thing for the Sanders campaign to point to Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street connections, which are real, although the question should be whether they have distorted her positions, a case the campaign has never even tried to make. But recent attacks on Mrs. Clinton as a tool of the fossil fuel industry are just plain dishonest, and speak of a campaign that has lost its ethical moorings."

Bernie did not have to make the case that Hillary's positions have been distorted by her Wall Street connections. Elizabeth Warren already did that - sliced and diced Hillary on her complete reversal of position on the banking reform bill in 2005. As for her connections to the fossil fuel industry, Bernie did not make that correlation. Greenpeace did. Bernie only mentioned it as an example of allegiances beyond just Wall Street that could be damaging to the country's economy, and he quoted Greenpeace to do it.

"And the timing of the Sanders rant was truly astonishing. Given her large lead in delegates — based largely on the support of African-American voters, who respond to her pragmatism because history tells them to distrust extravagant promises — Mrs. Clinton is the strong favorite for the Democratic nomination.

Is Mr. Sanders positioning himself to join the “Bernie or bust” crowd, walking away if he can’t pull off an extraordinary upset, and possibly helping put Donald Trump or Ted Cruz in the White House? If not, what does he think he’s doing?"

As I mentioned, Bernie has been cutting into Hillary's pledged delegate lead. And her lead is not large, unless you count the superdelegates, as Krugman clearly does. He obviously does not think superdelegates are malleable if the pledged delegates become a tight race. As for the ridiculous canard that Sanders is joining the "Bernie or Bust" crowd, he's already said more than once that he will support Hillary if she becomes the nominee. But Krugman is not looking for reality. New York's primary is coming, so the narrative needs to shift as quickly as possible. So quote Bernie out of context when you need to paint him one way, then ignore his actual quote when you need him to be something he's not.

Bernie's Negative Campaign?

As the Democratic primary moves to New York, Bernie Sanders would like to debate Hillary Clinton to make sure their differences are well defined, if he has any hope of trying to steal more of Hillary's momentum - which would be a major accomplishment in her home state.

This is proving difficult, as Hillary for America Chief Strategist Joel Berenson explains to CNN's Kate Bolduan:

Apparently, Bernie has been a naughty boy.  In the latest attempt to lobotomize Democrat voters, Berenson references a Washington Post article claiming that Sanders' campaign was poll testing negative ads.  Except that they weren't, not really.  Quoting the article:

"His advisers, spoiling for a brawl, have commissioned polls to show which contrasts with Clinton - from Wall Street to fracking - could do the most damage to her at home."

Berenson uses this as an excuse to chastise Sanders as if he is puerile little toddler:

"Let's see the tone of the campaign he wants to run, before we start talking about any other questions... if he goes back to the kind of tone he says he was going to set early on - if he does that, we'll talk about debates. "

For those people who really despise the culture that has arisen in the past couple of decades - everyone getting trophies, playing sports with no points so no one loses, college kids whining about every little thing that offends their fragile sensibilites - I point you to Joel Berenson and Clinton's campaign as an example of where that mindset might be fostered.

The Democratic primaries have been the friendliest in decades, mostly because of Bernie. Hillary's campaign against Obama in 2008 showed she has no problem going negative. But that poses a problem against Bernie Sanders, because there is really very little to go negative on.  So little, in fact, that they had to go back 30 years for quotes on Cuba and the Sandinistas.  So little that they have tried several times to hint, with a wink, at Sanders as racist, despite him having a big head start on race relations activism in Chicago in the early 60's. So little that the strategy has become the invention of a narrative with Bernie as a negative campaigner. Does not matter if it is true.  Perception is reality, especially in politics. So Bernie not only magically becomes a negative campaigner, but one who needs to be chastised by Joel Berenson of the Clinton campaign for being so. This strategy says more about Hillary than it does about Bernie.

The reality is that Sanders' momentum has been growing at the same time Clinton's negative ratings have been increasing.  And the last thing Clinton needs is Sanders taking a big chunk of her home state's pledged delegates.  If he gets much closer, the unpledged delegates (superdelegates) start becoming part of the conversation.  Sanders, for his part, needs to make a big showing in New York and, with it being Clinton's home state, he needs to find as many issues as possible to contrast himself.  So he polls the issues that are most important to New Yorkers to figure out where Clinton is most vulnerable.  That's simple politics, that's not negative campaigning.  This is the same Washington Post that ran an editorial accusing Sanders of running a "fiction-filled campaign," that Clinton's team redistributed ahead of the New Hampshire primary.  But Sanders is negative, and should sit in a corner without his dinner and think about what he has done.  Bad boy.

Clinton better be careful.  New York is home to high taxation (especially New York City) and Wall Street, where a big chunk of her funding comes from. The frustration over the economy is most starkly represented there, from both sides of the spectrum.  There is potential for Hillary to do as much damage to herself as Bernie might do.  Having an adviser give a verbal spanking to one's opponent. particularly one who does not deserve it, could come back to bite later on. 

Air Force Attacks Christianity?

The United States military spends the majority of its time and resources fighting to ensure freedoms in this country are not endangered by any outside forces.  Almost all military personnel would likely agree that this freedom includes those that they themselves may not agree with, but will protect anyway, because that is what America is about.  If you attack one freedom, you potentially attack the others as well.  They may not like something you do, but they will protect your right to do it, and die in the process, if necessary.

In a February 26, 2016 Raw Story article, Bethania Palma Markus discusses reactions by the conservative "non-partisan" foundation, Judicial Watch, to a "Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] request in October, seeking records about 'Earth-based worship' for the 2013/2014 academic year..." at The United States Air Force Academy.

"The Air Force Academy leadership is attacking traditional Chrisitian beliefs, but will fund witchcraft and magick?" Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told Christian website WND.  "These records show the misplaced priorities in the Air Force and why traditional Christians increasingly feel unwelcome in the Air Force Academy."

That quote is the result of the following information:

• "Judicial Watch got documents showing the Academy paid $260 for two cadets to attend the Beltania Festival, an Earth-centered celebration in Colorado."

• "The academy also spent $120 for four cadets to attend the Denver Witches Ball."

• "The kicker here seems to be that in 2013, the Academy made the phrase "so help me God" optional in its cadet oath."

Why is it that every act involving religion that does not put Christianity front and center constitute an attack on Christianity?  And Christian attitudes, when they do allow for the far-fetched possibility that other religions may exist in the world, will embody the implication that those other religions are okay, as long as Christianity is the most important one, and the only one that is looked to on important matters, especially legal and political.  It is extremely needy, considering that it is based on a construct that is unprovable - hence the "faith."

The article goes on:

"In December, the academy said its cadets have the right to observe any faith, or no faith at all, after they received complaints about football players praying in the end zone."

"The United States Air Force Academy places a high value on the rights of its members to observe the tenets of their respective religion or to observe no religion at all," the academy said in a statement.  "The United States Air Force Academy will continue to reaffirm to cadets that all Airmen are free to practice the religion of their choice or subscribe to no religious belief at all.  The players may confidently practice their own beliefs without pressure to participate in the practices of others."

So, this is not really about Christianity being attacked, so much as the academy helping a few students participate in religious events that the Academy didn't provide for on campus. Which may pique curiosity:  What do they provide for?

At the Cadet Chapel, the academy offers:

Air Force Academy Worship

Catholic Program

During the academic year (August through May) Catholic Masses are celebrated weedays (except Friday and academic holidays) and Sunday.  Roman Catholic holy days are celebrated during the academic year.

Protestant Program

Protestant worship services are held every Sunday throughout the academic year (August through May) with special worship opportunities on holy days. Worship includes traditional and contemporary services.  During the academic year Holy Communion will be offered on the first Sunday of each month at the traditional service.

Jewish Program

The Jewish Chapel offers a wide range of religious services and education for Jewish cadets and military members.  Friday night Sabbath services are held weekly followed by a kosher dinner.  Specific Jewish holy days are celebrated in conjunction with the Jewish Community of Colorado Springs.  Services and meals are open to all regardless of religious affiliation.

Muslim Program

The Islamic Chapel offers a wide range of religious services and education for cadets, staff and families.  Noon "Zuhur" Prayers, Weekly Friday "Jumu'ah" Prayers and luncheons are conducted every Friday.  Islamic holy days, including the month of Ramadan, are celebrated with daily services and prayers.  Services and meals are open to all regardless of religious affiliation.

Buddhist Program

Buddhist services are held every Sunday and Thursday during the academic year, with additional services on dates of special significance.

They also offer Community Center Chapel Programs.  

This country was founded by colonists wanting freedom  and independence from King George and Great Britain.  Despite incorrect proclamations that the country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, religious freedom was a major factor in this desire.  The factor was so important to them, that they wrote into the Constitution that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

Many of the founders were Christians, many were deists, but the majority of them agreed that free exercise of religion means no definition or establishment of official religion, and that the 1st Amendment served as a "wall of separation between the Church and the State."

The Air Force Academy provides education to cadets seeking to join the Air Force, and prepares them to enter service ready to defend the country and the Constitution it is founded on. So providing a few cadets the ability to attend religious events that the campus does not explicitly provide or host on its own is the very embodiment of religious freedom. And doing so reinforces what those same cadets will be fighting to protect once they graduate from the academy.  Christians may make up the largest block of cadets, but the academy makes sure that they provide for the majority of the biggest religions on campus and, if necessary, they will provide means of access for any that aren't represented officially.

Freedom could not be more perfectly represented.

Bernie Hates You

You know you are having too much success with what you are doing if a bunch of billionaire hedge funders create a new SuperPAC just so they can run attack ads on you.

So this new Person (remember, corporations are people too...), named Future 45 (I do not know why that has not made the list of most popular baby names), has created an ad.  It's not a particularly good one:

                   

BUT it does hit a bunch of trigger words that people think make it a good ad:

• STAGNATING incomes
• PRICES RISING
• WEAK ECONOMY

ergo, Bernie wants

• To raise the minimum wage to $15/hr, which HURTS SMALL BUSINESS
• HIGHER TAXES on banks and corporations (read: "The Good Guys aka Job Creators") that would KILL JOBS
• FREE (read: "Takers") college and health care for all, paid for by RAISING TAXES (verified in the ad by playing the first four (detail-less) seconds of a minute long detailed answer to a question)

Translation: Bernie wants to hurt Small Business and kill jobs.  Bernie wants to hurt people.  Bernie hates people.  Bernie hates YOU.  Why would you ever vote for someone that HATES YOU? Don't vote for Bernie.

The sober reality:

• $15/hr may be a bit high, but at least tie the minimum wage to inflation or the Consumer Price Index (CPI).  So $12-13/hr.  It's called a Cost Of Living Adjustment, (COLA).  We are supposed to be keeping up with the COL, but the COL left wages behind a long time ago.

• Higher taxes on banks and corporations Do.Not.Kill.Jobs.  We are primarily a consumer-based economy.  If people buy more (because they have more money to do so, see Minimum Wage above), companies will try to produce more to keep up with demand, and hire more people, as needed, to do so.  Not complicated, really.

• Consumers are the job creators, not corporations, no matter what those CEOs are espousing from the deck of their 200-foot yachts.  Higher taxes do not kill jobs any more than lower taxes increase them.  Lower taxes only increases corporations' bottom lines, which maintains or increases their P/E ratio, which maintains or raises stock values.  They are not going to screw with that by hiring more people just because they got tax breaks.  Hiring statistics going back decades have proven this, no matter which party the president has been in.  Productivity was through the roof back in the days of the 80-90% tax rates.  The economy was booming, and families still made a decent income.  This fallacy of "higher taxes kills jobs" has been way overplayed, for a very long time, despite evidence to the contrary, yet it is always presented as innovative thinking.

• Free College:  I do not agree with this at face value.  If it is going to be done at all, it should be merit-based.  Tax payers should not be paying for substandard students.  If you get good grades, then tax payer funded college that educates students so they can contribute to the country's economy might be worth it.  But it should be renewable annually.  A student's first year is covered.  If they get good grades, they get a second year.  And then a third, and so on.  But if their grades are crap?  They have to pay for the next year - and if they bring their grades up, they can file for reimbursement of costs.  College is an investment.  If students can not prove they are worth the investment with solid effort, they do not deserve it.  I also think students should have to contribute to an area of the economy that the country lacks, that their degree can contribute to.  We pay for your college?  You can still hunt for the job you want, but you help us out in this area part-time for a year or two.  And employers are not allowed to hold that requirement against a prospective employee.

• Health Care:  Bernie wants Medicare for all.  The following information is taken directly from Bernie's campaign site:

         The typical family earning $50,000 per year:

                  •  Now pays an average of $4,955 in premiums

                  •  Another $1,318 in deductibles for care that is not covered

                  •  And the covered costs aren't covered until the deductible is met.

         The same family would only pay $466 annually into the Medicare for all program

         Businesses would save more than $9,400 per year, from an average cost per worker 

         of $12,591 to just $3,100.

         Medicare for all would be paid for with:

                  •  2.2 % health care premium (per rules for federal income taxes)

                  •  6.2 % payroll tax on employers (the $3,100 mentioned above)

                  •  Estate tax on wealthiest 1%

                  •  Reducing outlays for taxpayer-supported health care expenditures

          So everyone would be covered, taxes raised a little bit, but insurance premiums and 

         deductibles eliminated, leaving families with an extra $6,000-ish dollars per year in 

         their pockets on average.  And that would be BAD.  'Cause Bernie hates people.

         Bernie hates YOU.

And remember, these people are not attacking feasibility.  They are attacking intentions.  So whatever you agree or disagree with, Bernie's intentions at least seem to be looking out for everyone's financial well-being.  Whether it can be done is a whole other debate.

What are your intentions, Future - ahem - Mr. 45?  Whatever the hell your name is.