Mike Rowse A voice from New Mexico


Kids are going to die!

Of course the rhetoric will begin. Children are going to die. People will suffer and starve. Spending is being slashed to the point to that we will not recognize anything that the government can do or that the deficit will spiral out of control. Pres. Trump and the Republicans want you to die. It is typical but still as I’ve said before unbelievable the way opponents of Pres. Trump and conservatives twist the facts. There are no cuts in overall spending in the budget proposed by Pres. Trump. If you hear anybody say anything different they are lying lying lying. There is no other way to put it. There are cuts in the growth rate of spending which means quite simply we will be spending more on the federal government this year than we did last year. Two years from now will be spending more than we did next year. Over the 10 years of the budget proposal would will spend $50 billion more than we do this year. Are some programs being cut? Yes. Like the $700,000 to fund a play that promotes the idea man is causing climate change. Those types of things are being cut. But Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, CHIP, and similar transfer payment programs are not being cut. They are getting more money every year under the budget.

But you also need to understand is that this budget will balance the federal budget and reduce the deficit, eliminating it in 10 years, if we achieve a 3% rate of growth. Anybody to says we cannot grow at 3% per year does not know history and does not believe in the ability of the American people. If the government gets out of our way this economy can grow four or 5%. And if that gives us the ability to pay the deficit down will grow even faster.

If the economy grows even 1 to 2%, that means more people will be working and fewer people will need the benefit programs such as Medicaid and welfare. So those programs will not need as much money as they do right now. People will be able to purchase their own health care with their own money, if Congress does its job and gets the hell out of the way on the health insurance side of the equation.

Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi said that this budget is unimaginative, shows disdain for the millions of Americans were struggling to make ends meet and throws them out to the wolves. Those comments should prove to you once and for all what we have been telling you all along: the liberals believe you cannot do it for yourself and you have to have the government teat to suckle from in order to succeed. How’s that been working out for the last four decades?

Nancy Pelosi said that Medicare and Medicaid will wither on the vine. That is not true but she goes on to say that if the American people knew what was in the budget they would not support it. In fact they would call for everyone who did support it, including those who voted for speaker Ryan’s budget which she claims to be identical, to be thrown out of office. So we need to read the budget before its past? We need to read the law before its past to find out what’s in it? When did we have to start doing that?!

The Democrats are saying that the budget if it is passed and implemented would be an albatross around the neck of the Republicans in 2018 and would return control of the government to the Democrats. If that is true why don’t they vote for it? They want to be back in control and they see this as a way to get control back then they should be out there pushing John McCain and the other liberal Republicans to get behind it and vote for it. Then they can go back to doing things the way they been doing for the last 40 years.

The simple fact is this: the budget continues to grow in almost every major program or department that the federal government operates. There is some training of the fat but not enough. But if anybody tells you that there are real cuts in any department’s budget you should turn around and walk away because that person is either willfully ignorant or willfully lying to you. And you don’t need that kind of negativity in your life.

Filed under: Politics No Comments

Really, you’re that petty?

we have all had bad dates in our lives. Most of us just move on, maybe complaining to our friends or these days you might shame the other person on social media and then let it go. Some people however are just a little snowflakes that have to make the point leaving no doubt about who the real ass hole is.

Brandon Vendinar met Crystal Cruz on the website "bumble", which I guess is a dating site. After exchanging a few messages they agreed to go on a date. If you are 15 you might not know the best place to take someone on a first date. But if you are in your late 20s or early 30s you think you would have figured this out by now. Meet someone for a cup of coffee or a drink so that you can talk and get to know each other. It also gives you a quick out if things are not working out. Taking someone to see a movie on a first date just defeats the purpose of getting to know them doesn't it?

However that said Brandon decided to take Crystal to see the new movie, guardians of the Galaxy. Brandon says that about 15 minutes into the movie Crystal pulled out her cell phone and began texting nonstop. It got so bad that he suggested she take it outside. Crystal's version of the story is that her best friend sent a text to ask if she was okay or if she needed a phone call to get her out of the date. Crystal said it was to text messages and that's it. Brandon said that after he told Crystal to take it outside, fearing that the theater management would kick them out, she stood up, leaned into him and said she'd be right back. Of course she never returned. Smart girl.

The next day Brandon sent Crystal a text message telling her that she was extremely rude and he wanted his $17.31, the cost of the movie ticket, back. He said she ruined the date and made him pay for a ticket that was ultimately not used. She of course refused saying that essentially he was the one that made her leave because he was a little pansy and a whiner. At this point Brandon could've just moved on and letting go, but of course he did not. He told Crystal that if she did not reimburse him he would file a claim in court. And that is exactly what he did.

A local television program got a hold of the news and interviewed both of them, then suggested they meet and try to work it out. Crystal was very magnanimous and apologized for her behavior and leaving without being specific. She gave him the $17.31 which he promptly counted to make sure it was all there before accepting her apology. He had one last chance to try and convince the world that he was not a petty, whining little mama's boy but he blew it. He could've just said you know what, an apology was really what I wanted, you can keep your money.

But at least other women in the Austin Texas area will now know to swipe left on his Tinder profile.

Filed under: Funny Stuff No Comments

Diversity of opinion? Really?

It never ends. Democrats on the Senate finance committee were hearing testimony about tax reform proposals and thought there were some very good ideas from the five people who testified. However every one of them said that was not enough ethnic diversity among the five witnesses. One senator said there were not enough African-Americans, Asians, Latinos, or women on the witness list. The same senator said that he thought there were some very good ideas spanning some broad viewpoints. But then immediately said that because of the lack of diversity in the ethnic and gender areas of the witness list that there really was not true diversity of opinion.

So once again the liberals are showing you what they truly believe as opposed to what they say. Those senators believe that if you have a certain skin color or gender that you must agree on every issue. They don’t really want a diversity of opinion they just want to look at the panel and say there are people that look different so there must be diversity. Never mind that Maxine Waters and Condoleezza Rice, both African-American females, hold philosophically diverse opinions on almost every issue. Never mind that George Soros and Arthur Laffer hold significantly different viewpoints on economic issues. Yet both are white men. Apparently words don’t mean anything it’s only the demographic characteristic that’s important.

Here are a couple of facts about this situation: the Democrats had equal input into the witness list and who could be called to give testimony. If they had truly wanted to see ethnic or gender diversity, they could have provided it. However once again they manipulated the situation so they could grandstand during their opportunities to speak. This was organized prior to the hearing by the Democrats to try and embarrass the Republican majority.

Let’s not forget that tax reform will benefit all of us, regardless of the color of our skin, or sexual orientation, or gender. I have not seen anyone put forth a tax reform bill that provides benefits only to certain that is that these or other demographic groups. It’s all based upon income without regard for any demographic characteristic.

While we are at it, let’s talk about this whole identity politics movement. We as a country and a society have made a great deal of progress in civil rights over the past 50 years fighting primarily against the Democrat party who have tried to stall the march towards equality. Remember it was them who put in place all of the Jim Crow laws and other laws that promoted and allowed segregation and racism. Why aren’t the people pushing for a quality celebrating how far we have come as opposed to continuing with this victim mentality?

And if we really have not made progress as they claim, we have been following their tactics and their plan to achieve racial equality for three or more decades. If it’s not working then let’s try something new to improve the status of race relations and the standing of minorities in America. Once again it just shows you that it’s more about having power as opposed to achieving a true goal.


John Kennedy has some really good ideas

Sen. John Kennedy from Louisiana as a couple of great ideas that are gaining traction. First the big complaint about Dodd Frank is the onerous regulations placed upon all banks which have really prohibited smaller banks from being able to loan money. This hurts middle income and lower income wage earners in America. Because often they don’t meet the strict criteria, being able to check off a box or put a number in the right place, that big impersonal banks have. Small local banks have more flexibility in loaning money; or at least they use to.

The stated purpose of the Dodd Frank was to rein in the big banks so Sen. Kennedy has proposed a solution, since it seems that there isn’t the political will to completely repeal the law. All you have to do is exempt the medium and small sized banks from the regulations put in place by the Bell. His proposal is that if you have less than $10 billion in capitalization you do not have to comply with Dodd Frank. Doesn’t that seem really simple and straightforward? Which probably means it doesn’t have much of a shot.

Secondly, he has offered a new bill that would require you to go to work if you are receiving Medicaid. Simply, if you are between the ages of 18 and 55, are not disabled; do not have kids; then you must go to work in order to continue to receive Medicaid benefits. The bill he has authored would require you to get a part-time job of at least 20 hours a week, in the alternative you can do 20 hours of community service, or you could enroll in a college degree program for the equivalent of 20 hours a week.

These are the kind of simple straightforward solutions that people will oppose, the media and the political elite will say it’s not that simple but it is. If our politicians really want to help the middle class they would give the smaller banks the exemption they need to begin loaning money again. This would stimulate the economy through increased housing purchases or construction; loans to people who want to start a small business; and so much more. And requiring Medicaid beneficiaries to work will be called and bigoted but the rest of us have to work to get what we need or want so why shouldn’t someone receiving benefits from the government, which is our tax money after work also?


The First Amendment is under assault, again


This discussion about tax reform isn’t about us; it’s about retaining power.

As we have watched the “debate” about tax reform over the last few weeks, it’s become apparent that changing things in Washington DC is going to be more difficult than anyone thought. There are many reasons for this but of course the underlying theme is that it’s all about power and control. We here in the mainstream media which parents the liberal mantra is that we can’t cut taxes because that will increase the deficit. For that the poor, the elderly or some other subgroup of Americans will be devastated because of the increased deficit and possibility that spending would be cut. Then there’s the old saw about giving tax breaks to the rich. The other consistent theme to this whole argument and discussion is that our political elite with their friends in the media ignore history.

We’re told that tax reform is complicated because people make decisions based upon the current tax laws and tax treatment of certain situations. They act like as if no alternative plans have ever been tried or proposed. Certainly people do make decisions based upon tax policy but a large majority of these deductions or so-called loopholes affect a small percentage of the population. A few years ago the Republicans put forth again a very simple and straightforward solution. It was basically a tax filing form that fit on a large postcard. This applied to individual income taxes. Basically you filled in a few boxes that included your gross income, then a lot of deductions for mortgage interest, child tax credit, charitable contributions, college tuition tax credit, and the earned income tax credit. Little bit of simple math and you either owed taxes or got a refund. Not only is that simple but it covers the vast majority of common deductions that people currently take. It would also reduce the size of the IRS saving hundreds of millions of dollars a year potentially.

Reforming corporate and business taxes would not be much more difficult. Certainly there are a lot more deductions for expenses that could be allowed. It’s not uncommon for most businesses to have capital expenditures for example or even research and development expenses. But limiting a lot of other specialty deductions that don’t apply to a majority of the corporate and business filers would be easy to do although politically difficult and of course that’s what this is all about.

Ignoring history is also part and parcel of the political elites modus operandi. Every time our government has cut taxes, revenue has grown. Whether it was Dwight Eisenhower, John F Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, or Bill Clinton, revenue has grown every time. Lowering the tax rate on businesses and individuals has stimulated the economy which not only means there are more sales and revenues to tax, but more people are in the workforce which means there are more individual taxpayers. And many of these corporations will repatriate money that has been sitting in foreign bank accounts because they don’t want to pay double taxes on that income.

When Ronald Reagan first took office the highest tax rate was 75%. He cut the top tax rate to 28% and everything else below that was similarly reduced. Revenues to the federal government double. Now I know some of you will say that the deficit grew under Ronald Reagan and it did. But that’s because Tip O’Neill and the rest of Congress went back on their promise to cut spending or even keep spending level. Once they saw the extra money coming in they spent it rather than using it to pay down the deficit.

The simple fact is this if you want to grow revenue to the federal government, or any government for that matter, cut spending. And get rid of baseline budgeting which is just as big of a culprit in growing the size of government and the deficit is anything else.

If this 'discussion' truly was about us and the taxes we pay or growing the economy or reducing the deficit, then it would be easy for Congress to come up with a plan and take action. But because this discussion is more about retaining power in Washington D.C., it's complicated; the politicians and bureaucrats are trying to figure out a way to pull the wool over our eyes once again and not do the job we said we wanted done with our votes in the last election.


Why not NM athletes?

I have been broadcasting football and basketball games for 17 years now at first it was both college and high school but the majority of my time has been with college sports. I’m also involved with tennis and golf at both levels. Over the years I have been asked why the smaller schools, Western New Mexico University, Eastern New Mexico University, New Mexico Highlands, etc. don’t recruit more players from New Mexico. Especially if those programs are not having the on-field success in the number of wins that you would want. The belief is, among parents of high school athletes, that the small colleges looked down upon the ability of New Mexico athletes. It’s not quite that simple.

I was listening to an interview being conducted by John Clayton of Delvin Cook, the running back from Florida State that many considered to be one of the top two running backs in the upcoming NFL draft. I think he gave one of the best answers to a question that was similar that I’ve ever heard. It provides at least part of the answer to why more kids from New Mexico high schools don’t have the success at the elite level or even the so-called mid-majors in college, that many people think they would have had given their success at the high school level here in New Mexico.

When I’ve been asked the question whether in general terms were about specific athletes, one of the answers I’ve always given is that it’s a numbers game. High schools in Texas, Florida, and California are huge. There are more players that are talented in those high schools than there are in probably two or three high schools here in New Mexico. When you’re playing against mortality competition in practice every day you get better. Dalvin was asked by John Clayton how growing up in Florida pushed him to be a better player. He said quite simply there are so many good running backs in Florida that you push yourself to be better than all of them. You watch things that some of the better ones doing you try to emulate them or do it better. You watch college running backs just at the schools in Florida and you see the best of the best and you learn from them. In other words the standard of excellence is much higher where there are a larger number of potentially elite players than where the number of potentially elite players is minimal.

That’s the problem with New Mexico, there is a dearth of talented players that can push the potentially elite players to get even better. Yes traveling teams and AAU can’t help but those seasons are so short as compared to the practice and regular-season in high school sports. If you are consistently playing against teammates and or opponents in high school that are going to go on to play college at some level you will get better if you continue to work hard. If you’re playing against the kid who spend their summers goofing off or doesn’t have the potential to play at the next level, there’s only so far you can advance on your own. Yes there have been exceptions like Brian Urlacher or Tim Smith; but those guys are the exceptions.

I can tell you how many top high school players in football and basketball from New Mexico I’ve watched attend Division I programs and never really get a chance to play. My cousin was one of those players. He played his high school basketball in Aztec and was recruited by a number of what we call Division II schools now and a few Division I schools. Like a lot of New Mexico athletes he wanted to go to the best school in Division I that he could. He ended up at the University of New Mexico playing with the likes of Luc Longley. He sat the bench for three years, rarely getting into a game. He was the kid that everyone cheered for when he finally got into the game for the last 30 seconds of a blowout win. He didn’t play his final season for a variety of reasons, mostly not liking the new coach, but including the fact that he just sat the bench.

Too often this is the story for many of the top athletes in New Mexico. Because they are outstanding at the high school level everyone tells them they can go to the top level in college athletics but more often than not they end up sitting the bench or quitting somewhere during their career. They could go to a very good Division II school and get to play almost from the beginning and be a top player on the top team at that level. If they really love the game they’re playing, why would you go somewhere just to sit on the bench and say I’m a Division I athlete as opposed to playing at a lower level and potentially becoming a legend there?

I have seen some of the top high school athletes in New Mexico attend Division II schools and become stars for them and never regretted that decision. I have also seen some that spent two years at the lower level and then transferred to a Division I school and gotten to play some and it worked for them. But rarely do I see in New Mexico athlete go straight to Division I and become an impact player for their entire career. More often than not that watch those players quit because it wasn’t fun anymore.

So I guess that’s kind of a long-winded, roundabout way of saying that New Mexico schools do try to recruit New Mexico high school athletes but too often those surrounding that athlete have a higher opinion of that person’s ability and push them to go to bigger schools. Every coach I’ve been around, including schools for whom I do not broadcast, have said the same thing; the biggest obstacle they have been trying to recruit New Mexico high school athletes is the parents and most of the coaches who are telling this kid to go Division I. The story is usually the same, a coach from a big school is telling that kid that they will make him or her a project and that they will eventually play for that team. And what kid doesn’t want to go to a bigger school where the lights are brighter and the crowds are bigger? But a lot of the schools that I’ve been around in my career have crowds that are just as passionate, lights that are just as bright and yes they send a significant number of kids to the next level.

Filed under: Philosophy No Comments

U.S. regulations increase costs exponentially

I was watching a segment of 60 Minutes Sunday night, yes I do watch left wing news programs, unlike our counterparts on the other side of the aisle who rarely watch anything with which they disagree or might disagree. But that’s a topic that we’ve covered before and not what I want to talk about today. This was a really nice feel-good story about two doctors helping blind people in poor areas of Asia. It’s also a story about how overregulation makes healthcare unattainable for some in America.

These two doctors, one from Asia and one from Utah, are eye surgeons. Apparently a huge problem in southern Asia is blindness caused by cataracts. For a few years now these two surgeons have been donating their time to give people back their eyesight. They have also trained other doctors in these countries to perform the same surgery and it is estimated that a total of 4 million surgical procedures have been performed either by these doctors or the people they have trained. That is amazing, 4 million people now have their site back and it’s not just older people but very young people as well.

It’s a fantastic story but the underlying theme, we could almost call it the elephant in the room, was the cost of providing these surgeries in Asia as compared to America. First we need to understand that these two doctors perform on average 500 operations in a 10 hour day. There are rarely any complications and it is even more rare that the surgery does not work. In fact they couldn’t remember the last time there was a negative result.

The two doctors have perfected a technique of making one incision to remove the cataract and install a lens. This allows them to perform that many surgeries and do so with very few complications. It also makes it much easier to train other doctors to perform this procedure. The total cost of the surgery is $20. That’s all. Think about that and compare it to what this doctor charges in America. The hospital where he performs the surgeries charges $2000. Sorry left wing nuts, it is not purely greed that sets the price in America.

But before we get to some of the discussion about why there is such a difference, you also need to know that the doctors built a small factory in Burma that manufactures the lenses. You would not know the difference between that factory and one in America. It’s the same equipment the same standard of production. That factory sells the lens for four dollars apiece. In America that same lens costs $200. Can you imagine how many more people in America would be able to afford this surgery if it cost only 20 or $25?

The doctor from Utah made a comment about why such a difference in costs. The simple answer is the regulations placed upon the manufacturer, the doctor, and the hospital with regards to safety and other requirements. All of the documentation that has to be done, all of the casting in the time to get the procedure and or the product approved by the FDA or other regulatory bodies. And let’s not get started about the malpractice insurance.

No no one is saying that we want to give up safety but at some point the regulatory process becomes so onerous that the costs increased to a point that the average person not only can’t afford the procedure but can’t afford insurance that could pay for it. America has been beyond that point for a long time. Pres. Trump has promised to cut some of those regulations all across government. If you truly want to help out the average American you will support that effort because we can still have the level of safety we expect and bring the cost down.

Filed under: Politics No Comments

Georgia Special Election; what it is and what it’s not

We will have a runoff in the Georgia special election because no candidate got 50% or more of the vote in an open election. Running up to the election the left wing was telling you that this was potentially a referendum on the presidency of Donald Trump. Of course the results would determine whether or not they would continue with that line of reporting. This was not a referendum on Donald Trump in any way shape or form. Let’s get a few facts straight about this election.

If the Georgia special election was truly a referendum on Donald Trump and the job he is doing is president, then why wasn’t the Kansas election also a referendum? Oh that’s right, a Republican one that election. So once again, when the left wing and the mainstream media don’t get the result they want, they move on as if there is nothing to see here.

Jon Ossoff garnered 48% of the vote and will face a runoff election with Karen Handel. Ossoff is the Democrat candidate while Handel was the top Republican. Handel garnered just under 20% of the vote creating the narrative that voters in Georgia and thus around America are tired of Donald Trump and don’t like the job he is doing. But looking beyond the headlines and the pablum being fed to you by the left-wing media, Karen was one of 15 Republican candidates who clearly split the vote on that side of the aisle. Ossoff was one of three Democrat candidates and benefited from a tremendous amount of outside money poured into the race by the Democrats.

It should be noted that the ad campaigns run by the Democratic National Committee and other Democrat organizations rarely even mentioned Ossoff and what he stood for. Instead they concentrated their advertising on running against Donald Trump. Samuel L Jackson’s radio had never even mentions the candidate’s name but talks about the racism and bigotry of Donald Trump. Maybe that’s because also is a borderline communist who supports high taxes, large government; in fact he has proposed a 100% tax rate on income and profits over a certain level. I don’t think that would go over well in the sixth District of Georgia which is generally conservative. So don’t run on what you believe run against some other Dragon.

It’s likely that many of the people who split the Republican vote will come out in support Handel in the June runoff election. It’s also likely that more of Ossoff’s beliefs and principles will become an issue in this election between now and then. Either way, those results still will not be a referendum on Donald Trump.

How is it that also can even run for Congress in this district? He lives outside the district. In several interviews he said that he is, “only one and a half miles down the road” from the district. He said he will move back to the district when his girlfriend graduates from medical school but how does she know she’s going to do her internship for residency in that district? But even then he does not live in the district and could not even vote in this election. Further, he claimed that he had grown up in the district. So what?

If you want to follow his logic, using that term very loosely, then everyone should be able to run in any political race for any political office wherever they want to. I live about a mile outside the city limits but I cannot run for political office in the city. Ossoff should not be able to run for office in the six the district either. I grew up for the most part in SilverCity living on Panorama Road, 12th St., Oak Street, and other places in SilverCity. Also said growing up in the six the district gives him knowledge about what the people of the district want. While I grew up in SilverCity and work inside the city limits so I must have knowledge about what the people of SilverCity want, so why can’t I run for city Council?

This is just another example of why so many Americans are fed up with the political process. It’s not just the hypocrisy of the left wing saying this is a referendum on Donald Trump when the election they lost is not a referendum, but it’s the bending and breaking of the rules that we all thought we knew allowing somebody like Ossoff to run for Congress in district in which he does not live. It’s another example of why we need to get rid of all the career politicians and bureaucrats. Maybe we need term limits not only on politicians but on bureaucrats as well.

Filed under: Politics No Comments

Are you sure you want unfettered immigration?

Atty. Gen. Jeff sessions was in Nogales Arizona this week making a statement about the administrations stance on illegal immigration. Of course the left wing and many in the media, which are the same I know, said that the policies being implemented by a Trump administration racist and inhumane. Again they obfuscate the facts in order to create an emotional reaction in the low information voter with the intent of returning themselves to power rather than having a legitimate debate about our immigration policy.

We should make it very clear that the conservative position which is essentially the same position that Pres. Trump has taken, is that we want to be able to control who comes to America for the purposes of trying to weed out as many bad people as we can. Whether they be terrorists or criminals doesn't matter. We know that many countries in Central America for example have released their prison populations and given them assistance in trying to get to the United States, crossing our border illegally. That is a fact that cannot be denied. Neither can it be denied that some of the people coming across illegally, from any country, are here with the sole intent of improving their lives. Our position is that we want to help more of them, those who want to a better their lives, come here legally. To that end, there needs to be a change in how legal immigration is handled by this country. But until that is done, we can't continue to allow unfettered illegal immigration. All we have to do is look at history to tell us that things will not happen.

All over Europe, countries who have taken the "refugees" with little or no venting, from the middle eastern countries, are re-thinking those policies. The vast majority of refugees coming from the middle east are not assimilating into the cultures of the countries where they now live. In fact they are doing everything they can to change the cultures of those countries to match their belief systems. Often they are using violence to achieve that goal. It is not hard to find the stories because they are very prominent in the European media outlets, at least many of them. The left in this country will ignore those realities as they argue with Pres. Trump about his immigration stance.

Very often one of the arguments the left uses is that not all Muslims are violent jihadists. That is true, but one of the arguments that the conservatives have stated is that the so-called moderate Muslims are not speaking out against the radical set of their religion that promotes violence against all nonbelievers. All we have to do is look at what happened in Sweden recently to give us the most recent example of how the moderate Muslims are not part of the solution. Now we can argue about whether or not there are really moderate Muslims who do not share the belief system of the radical sect of Islam or whether all Muslims share their views but just do not participate in the violence. For the purposes of this discussion, we are going to assume that there are moderate Muslims in the world.

After the recent attack in which a Muslim man drove a vehicle into a crowd and killed a number of Swedish citizens, there was a candlelight vigil held to show support for the families of the deceased. A reporter from CNN attended the event to see for herself whether or not moderate Muslims would actually attend the peaceful vigil. After she wrote her article she was being interviewed on CNN about what she did see. She admitted that she attended the event expecting to see some percentage of the crowd, which she estimated at between 20 to 25,000 people, representing the Islamic faith. She admitted that she wanted to refute the narrative from the right that moderate Muslims are sitting on the sidelines.

What she said she found was quite different than what she expected. She and her crew, along with reporters from other entities, roamed through the crowd for quite a while, both before, during, and after the vigil. She said that if there were any attendees that practiced the Islamic faith, none of them could find any. They all agreed that the crowd was quite homogenous, essentially being made up of white skinned and blonde haired Swedish citizens. There was very little diversity in the crowd that she or her colleagues observed.

She went on to say that there are now to Sweden's: at least around Stockholm, which she said the main city is still populated primarily by Swedish, natural born, citizens and the suburbs which are made up primarily of Islamic refugees. Those suburbs do not reflect Swedish society in any way shape or form. Those neighborhoods have been converted to Islamic conclaves. In fact, the Swedish Postal Service recently announced that they will no longer deliver mail to those neighborhoods because of the violence committed against their postal workers. she said she was disappointed to confirm what many on the right side of the aisle have been saying about unfettered immigration from middle eastern countries. She of course still believes that engagement with these communities would solve the problem but is not as firm in that belief as she was before.

Of course her experience with that vigil is just one of many examples that we can point to in almost any country in the world that has accepted Islamic refugees. Their experiences have been extremely similar and not in a good way. It's nice to be idealistic but you must also be realistic and realize that not everything will go the way you wanted to know matter how hard you try. Pres. Trump's immigration policies are the right thing to do. They are not bigoted or racist in any way shape or form because it will apply to every country whether it be Islamic, Christian, Jewish, or any other demographic characteristic you want to identify. And I think deep down, even opponents will agree, if they are open-minded and well-informed, that these policies are the right policies to adopt. You will

Filed under: Philosophy No Comments