The never ending story: the Klan

In the antebellum south, the Klan did not exist, because there was no need for it to exist, as long as blacks were held in abject servitude, enslavement, and legally classified as property.  However, the south chose to rebel against the National Government and thereby setup their own confederate government in rebellion against the national union of the States.  The south lost that war, the slaves became emancipated, and the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments provided those that previously were held in servitude, with equal justice, voting rights, and the due process of the law; in short, all the rights that all citizens of this country are equally entitled to.  Of course, there is the law as written, and then there is the law as applied, and those southerners that were still alive but defeated in the south, took it upon themselves, to create what became to be known as the Klan, of which its expressed primary purpose was to terrorize those that previously were enslaved, so as to maintain the supremacy of those that called themselves "white", as well as to pervert equality and justice, by taking the law into their own hands by their guns, and doing so, by any means, necessary.

The National Government through its legislative branch, did reply to the uprising of the Klan, by passing, not one but three different Enforcement Acts in 1870 and 1871, specifically to address the intimidation and disregard of Constitutional rights that blacks as well as other citizens were subjected to, while living in the south.  Further to the point, this government looked upon the Klan, as an active terrorist rebellion that needed to be crushed, and thereupon through its legislation made it clear that the utilization of the armed forces of this National Government was not only appropriate against the Klan when they were found to be violating the rights of inhabitants, but that the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus as well as martial law was permitted, if necessary, to fully combat the Klan terrorism.

Later, the effectiveness of these Enforcement Acts was mitigated by Supreme Court decisions as well as northern indifference, which is one of the significant reasons why the Klan, and those that represent the ideology of the Klan, are still relevant and still terrorizing people today.  The fact is it is a disappointing regression that today the Klan is still able to propagate its hate, and intimidation, under the protection of their First Amendment Constitutional rights, when in action and actuality, the Klan clearly crosses into domestic acts of terrorism, again and again.  

The Klan, its adherents, and organizations that are similar to the Klan, must be seen as for what they are: domestic terrorist organizations.  All the laws that are necessary to effectively deal with the Klan already exist, and thereby the only thing that needs to be done is to execute those laws against the Klan and its members, without giving any quarter, again and again.  The Klan was born from the frustration of first losing at the Presidential ballot box, then by resorting to the gun of war and losing there, and finally by losing the southern way of life through the passage of new Constitutional Amendments after the Civil war.   However, their smoldering ignorant ideological hatred still exists, today, and still terrorizes innocent civilians. 

Thus, for the sake of the innocent, as well as for the sake of the country that is the last best hope on earth, the Klan must never ride again.

Those who know and those who don't know

It has been said that "knowledge is power," and this is indisputably true.  So that, for instance, Stonehenge is no accident, but clearly indicates the knowledge of those so creating it, well understood that the configuration that was created would be done so that as reported by math.nus.edu.sg: "The midsummer sun always rises exactly opposite the setting of the midwinter sun."  So too, in past civilizations, again and again, those at the top and those that were adjutants to them, were typically educated, literate, and well knowledgeable, as opposed to the serfs, peons, and everyday citizens, that were ill educated, illiterate, and easily led, for they had not the infrastructure or knowledge to effectively make and create lasting change or effective protest.

In this age of hi-technology, consolidated information, and relentless algorithms, human knowledge is being challenged by those that control the access to actionable information and deep databases that basically create a certain type of privileged knowledge on individuals and populations that allows those that control those machines, or the access to that information of those processing machines, to have an inherent unfair advantage over all those, that don't, despite their own individual knowledge or intelligence, or lack therefore.

That is to say, when everything that you do, when everything that you write, when everywhere that you go, and with every social media post, with every email, with every text, and with every tweet, such is monitored, correlated, classified, and processed, then your life is really not your own.  When a government knows everything about you, it can afford to be relatively liberal, for it knows every move that is going to be made, before it is even made; and if at some time, things get a little bit heated, that government will be several moves ahead, and that government will effectively be in the catbird seat of total tyranny for it knows everything about you, and you do not have the knowledge or knowhow to counteract that.

While there isn't anything necessarily wrong with leading your life as an open book, there isn't necessarily anything prudent about doing so, for not everybody has good intents in mind when they have access to exactly who and what you are; and thereby if you are unable or unwilling to protect the door that gives complete access to who and what you really are about, then the entity that enters probably is not going to be friendly, but rather will have a very strong tendency to have their way with you.

On the other hand, for all those that do not wish to lead their life as an open book, the game is almost basically over; for governments don't like to give up information, and they sure don't like to give up all their tools of the trade, and especially don't desire to do so, by giving that up to the huddled masses.  The fight therefore to be left alone, or to be forgotten, is a fight of unfair resources, but it's a fight that must be made, for those who know have the power of gods compared to those that do not know, and they that know will do as they please, and those that don't know, have nary the tools to stop them.

Common stock shares and their holding time

As reported by hbr.org, "In the 1950s the average holding period for an equity traded on the New York Stock Exchange was about seven years. Now it’s six months."  Additionally, "… high-frequency traders whose holding periods can sometimes be measured in milliseconds now account for as much as 70% of daily volume on the NYSE."  The fact that the individual shareholder has been pretty much reduced to irrelevancy and the fact that much of the trading of the stock exchange is done through the usage of sophisticated algorithms, quantitative analysts, and robotic trading, has fundamentally changed the complexion of the stock market, and may, in this change, changed its stability or lack therefore.

From a consumer perspective of common stocks, it is important to note that commissions for brokerage trades on stocks was deregulated back in 1975, ultimately leading to an incredible amount of monetary saving as well as convenience for consumers so as to make their own trades at a cost that nowadays is often less than $10 for a transaction amount of up to thousands of shares as well as thousands of dollars.  This obviously means that the cost of trading stocks, for most individuals as well as institutions, is low enough, that it is fundamentally lost in the noise.  Which, in its own way, is a meaningful contribution to why the holding period has dropped so precipitously, for if the cost to get in and out, is very, very cheap and as easy as a click on a computer mouse, which it is, people and institutions are apt to make snap decisions, good or bad, right or wrong, easily.

So too, the taxation of capital gains for stocks makes a meaningful difference as to how long of holding period a stock buyer will consider, and when long term capital gain rates are not only taxed at a very reasonable tax rate, in fact for most big stockholders, less than the tax rate of their wage income, then having to hold onto a particular equity for only a period of twelve months is not a very high hurdle to overcome.  So then, if long term capital gains were re-defined to actually more approximate, the words "long term", so that to qualify would necessitate a period of two years or three years or five years, than those so investing would have a stronger tendency to select stocks that they believe in for the long term, rather than being overwhelmed or overly concerned about quarterly or projected quarterly earnings.

Unfortunately, the common stockholder and their influence upon the stock market, has been reduced considerably, so that when mutual funds, hedge funds, and brokerage company investment funds makes it their point to trade in and out of stocks, without consideration of tax consequences, and without consideration of a long term view of any particular equity, such trading back and forth, provides the impression that "investing" in equities, really isn't about fundamentally placing one's dollars into a company that has solid earnings, or solid growth, or a solid story, but more of a game, of trying to squeeze a nickel of trading profit here and there in volume trades in order to make money; essentially changing stock investment, into the biggest casino in the world.

The fact that stocks are being held for lesser and lesser periods of time, contradicts what corporations represent, which is perpetual existence; so that, all things being equal, investments in equities, should actually reflect that the institution or individual so investing, is doing so for the long haul, in order to receive in return, stock appreciation and, if applicable, stock dividends.  Instead, in today's lightning fast paced trading world, it seems to be all about getting a little edge over someone else that isn't quite as millisecond quick or algorithm smart.  That mindset, in which, none are in it for the long term, is the very vehicle that will inevitably lead to the markets' scary instability and its frightening crash.

Our present day, very partisan Supreme Court

The law of the land in the United States is the Constitution, which is a written document, and further to the point, permits a specific process to amend the Constitution, for the Constitution as created, is in its construction, a vehicle created by the people and for the people.   The Supreme Court is the highest law of the land, of which, if law and justice are to legitimately mean anything to the people of this country that law must be equally applied to all people in a fair manner, rightly applied, and that is consistent with the Constitution.

In point of fact, when it comes to Supreme Court decisions, too many of those decision, do not take into consideration the Constitution as it is, but rather, begin from an individual partisan standpoint of the judge, of which, their objective is to decide the case, on no other merit, than their own wishes of what they so wish the Constitution should have said, or kind of says, or might just say.  This kind of judicial activism is not appropriate for the judicial branch to begin with, for rather to change law, is the domain of the legislature branch and not to be breached by the judicial branch.  Further to the point, when Supreme Court decisions are based on the individual preferences of the judges and their ideological or political viewpoints, the Supreme Court, as an institution, has no real legitimacy, no moral authority, and is inimical to the Constitution.

Today's Supreme Court, clearly makes partisan decisions, so that, as reported by slate.com, "For almost 200 years, from the Founding through the Burger Court, the Supreme Court struck down federal statutes by a one-vote majority only 24 times. Since then, the court has lost the instinct for restraint in this domain: The Rehnquist Court used 5-4 votes to strike down 20 federal laws in 19 years from 1986 to 2005."  This, quite clearly states the obvious, which most pundits and informed citizens are quite aware of, that this Supreme Court is partisan, and the decisions that this Supreme Court renders are far too often done upon partisan lines.

If, Supreme Court decisions did not have a real material impact on the people of America, than it would not be the controversy that it is so today.  But, rather, each of the following recent decisions were all 5-4 votes with meaningful material impact upon American citizens, for instance:  Bush v. Gore, 2000--the Presidential election; Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010--unlimited campaign spending; National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 2012--Affordable Care Act; Shelby County v. Holder, 2013--voting laws; and Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015--same sex marriage.   Each of these cases was decided by one vote on the Supreme Court and thereby became the law, or the interpretation of law for the Federal government as applicable to all its citizens.

The degree of partisanship on the Supreme Court is not going to go away anytime soon, so then, the question should be asked as to whether a mere majority of the Supreme Court should be allowed to effectively make or interpret law, of which, all citizens and their representatives must so accept it.  One way to effectively reduce the impact of partisanship on the Supreme Court is to invalidate 5-4 majorities as being sufficient in and of itself in order to thereby make new law or to overturn law, but instead to mandate that decisions must be instead a supermajority of 6-3 or even possibly 7-2.  That is to say, when four Supreme Court justices have their voice effectively silenced, are we to take it, that their dissent should be seen as effectively being of no intrinsic worth or merit?

Whatever happened to Armistice Day?

World War I, the supposed war to end all wars, ended with the Armistice signature of the Ally powers and Germany on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918.  Thereafter, Congress called for a resolution for an annual observance of this historic day, and this particular day thereby became a national holiday known as Armistice Day in 1938.  However, in 1954, Armistice Day was renamed Veterans Day, and so this is as it is known today.

The first thing to recognize about this name change is that Veterans and Armistice are obviously not synonymous terms.  In regards to Veterans, this would typically be defined as all those that have served their country in a war and/or are members of the military service during peacetime; whereas in regards to Armistice, this would typically be defined as a truce and a formal agreement between countries that have been warring, to stop their warfare forthwith, and to begin the process of committing to a resolution that will bring peace between those formerly warring countries.

While there is something to be said about honoring our Veterans, a good case could be made, that Veterans are already honored via a holiday known as Memorial Day; of which, while it is true, that Memorial Day, especially addresses those honored dead that gave their last full measure of devotion to their country, it also is an expression of appreciation for all those that have faithfully served their country in their capacity of military service, now living or dead.

Because we no longer have a national holiday known as Armistice Day, we have subsequently done a great disservice to all those that fought, sacrificed, and honorably served their country, by not formally recognizing the most important attribute of the wars that America so fights; which is that America at its best, fights to make men and women free, to oppose injustice, to oppose tyranny, and to uphold the human rights that all are inalienably gifted with by our Creator.

Wars should be seen for what they are, which it is a living hell on earth.  This means, that anytime the warring factions are able to get together to lay down their arms, and thereby to bring peace, with honor, to the combatants of that war, that this Armistice, should be rightly celebrated as something noteworthy and of significant merit. 

In point of fact, the objective of any good and ethical government, is to do what can be done, so that there will be no more war; and if there is no more war, there will be no more memorials.  So too, this will mean that the only Veterans still left, will be the ones that are part and parcel of being on the watchtower that assures peace and security for the people.  All this surely signifies that a true Armistice, should be rightly celebrated for what it fundamentally represents, which is in a truly civilized world, there is no war, for there is no need or justification of war.

Do no harm and dog poop

America loves its pets, and about 90 million dogs live in America, and just as humans must defecate their waste matter, so do dogs.  Unfortunately, dogs in most instances are going to defecate somewhere outdoors, as opposed to being able to use a toilet indoors; so that due to the sheer number of dogs, a concerted effort in recent years has made it incumbent upon dog owners that a good dog owner, picks up after their dog.  To the point of why this is considered to be necessary besides the rather obvious reasons, is the fact that dog excrement can be a source of hookworms, tapeworms, threadworms and roundworms, along with the possibility of contaminating streams and waterways.  These potentials ills can be and have been transferred to humans via dog excrement, and the humans that are most vulnerable to such, are those with compromised immune system, and babies.

For the most part, in many communities, there isn't any mandated away or approach as to how to collect dog poop, though most people within their community typically utilize a dark plastic bag to collect the feces.  That, in of itself, is perhaps misguided, as plastic is vilified for its inability to properly decompose.  Additionally, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to collect dog poop, only to dispose of it inside a plastic bag, then, into a regular trashcan, and thereby these no-decomposing poop bags are subject to producing methane gas in a landfill, which isn't beneficial to anyone.  Instead, some people have turned to utilizing bags that are designed for compost, but compost, itself, in order to function correctly, needs more than just dog poop.

The main problem with dog poop isn't so much that not enough people are picking up after their dogs, though, some do not, but rather that, most people, not too surprisingly, after scooping up the poop, are eager to get rid of it; so that, it becomes something akin to out of sight, therefore out of mind.  The next step in regards to the appropriate disposal of dog poop, is to enhance the mindset to such an extent, that more people will dispose of their dog poop into separate containers, specifically set aside for dog excrement, which are then separately collected by an enterprise so as to ultimately create some sort of self-sustaining biogas energy from that excrement, rather than simply trying to get such to disappear.  Done correctly, everyone comes out ahead.

Then, there is also the issue of some people that get completely bent out of shape, when an irresponsible dog owner doesn't collect their dogs' excrement.  While this is unfortunate, there is never going to be 100% compliance in the first place, and most communities have laws that already are applicable for this very thing.  Further to the point, what somehow is missing from the equation, is that, there are millions upon millions of animals, of the air, of the sea, and of the ground that poop all of the time, of which, somehow, the ebb and flow of nature, are able to handle this effluence in a competent manner.  This would signify that the main thing is to jointly do our best, as well as to do no harm.

Police, lies, and Lie Detector tests

While there are some people and some organizations that believe in the validity of lie detector tests, in point of fact, lie detector tests (aka polygraph tests) as currently structured, don't really measure whether someone is or is not lying, but functionally measure their anxiety levels which is not the same thing.  Additionally, the Supreme Court has ruled that courts under federal jurisdiction, that lie detector tests are not admissible, and in the States that do permit lie detector tests, these are usually constructed in a manner in which both the prosecution and the defense have come to terms in regards to how, who, and what will or will not be performed in order to properly administered the lie detector test, and the results so concluded.

Unfortunately, the average citizen really doesn't know what is or isn't admissible in regards to a lie detector test and further often don't seem to know their Constitutional rights, in regards to such a test, of which no suspect so arrested is required to take such a test, and should especially be wary of taking such a test, if the test is administered and monitored by police officials, as opposed to being conducted through an independent and audited company.  Not only that, most citizens are unaware that police are permitted to deliberately lie to suspects, about, just about everything in regards to a case.  Police can lie about DNA results, they can lie about lie detector results, they can lie about physical evidence, and they can pretty much lie about any and everything, as long as such deceit does not cross the line where it is reasonably likely to produce a false confession.  No doubt, that line is seldom breached.

So then, suspects that are arrested, especially those that are arrested having not committed the crime in question, should seldom, if ever, be eager to take a lie detector test, unless advised to do so by counsel, and only under the conditions as instructed by that counsel; for police officers far too often, have every advantage of trickery, deceit, and deception on their side, which they are not reluctant to utilize and to employ so as to procure convictions, and don't seem to readily care whether such a confession leading to the conviction is actually legitimate or not, though, of course, there are some fine officers that actually do respect and uphold Constitutional law.

The point of it all, is once that a person is arrested, those that have been arrested and are now being questioned or interrogated, are in virtually every case, in a situation, in which the officer(s) so doing the interrogation isn't interested in the truth, per se, because they aren't actually listening for the truth, but instead, would prefer to trip the suspect up; and regrettably will often resort to lying, dishonesty, and duplicity to get whatever actionable information that they can from the suspect.  What is somewhat ironic is that the police officer often claims that they are after the truth, and therefore that the suspect should tell the officer nothing but the truth and the whole truth, whereas on the other hand, the police officer is typically doing none of the truth telling on their part.

Any legal system that countenances lying and deceit from the officials that are part and parcel of that justice system, of which, those officials have an inherent duty to uphold the law, and to thereby conduct themselves faithfully to that duty, is in actuality a justice system in name only, but not in function or actuality.

Grade Inflation

Most people are rather poor at realistically evaluating their own skill levels and intelligence, so that, most of those that self evaluate themselves have a strong tendency to see themselves as better than average; and therefore in a construct in which everyone sees themselves as better than average, this essentially signifies nothing of substance.  Therefore, this is one of the reasons why students are graded in classes, in order, to acknowledge as well as to separate out the knowledge received and applied by the better students, from those below average and average students.

If, we were to believe, that grades and grades alone signified real knowledge and intelligence, than today's students have never been smarter in the entire history of the United States, and that would be something to hold in exceedingly high regard.  For instance, as reported by qz.com, in 2016, "Nearly half of American high school students—47%," are graduating high school with at least a grade of A- or better.  This compares to a much less impressive 38.9% that did so in 1998, which is a very meaningful increase of over 20% in A- or better students.  However, when we take a look at SAT scores, starting with 2006, when the writing portion was then added to the SAT, the average score in 2006 on the SAT was 1518, whereas in 2016, it was 1484.  This means that while never have so many graduated from high school with an A- or better that somehow the standardized SAT scores in the meanwhile have regressed.

The only fair conclusion to the above is that students aren't actually getting smarter, but rather, the inflation of good grades to even better grades has created the illusion that these students are smarter than what is being actualized via standardized tests.  Further to the point, as reported by pewresearch.org, in regards to 15-year olds taking the 2015 Program for International Student Assessment which separately measures Science, Mathematics, and Reading, the United States did not finish in the Top Ten in any of those categories, in which, their best finish was 24th place in both Reading and Science, whereas in Mathematics the United States finished below the OECD average.

All of the above, serves to point out the rather obvious which is that the students today, are not smarter than they were in previous years, despite all of their A grades, and in all probability based on SAT scores, are actually a bit dumber. In addition, USA high school students are unable to hold a scholastic candle to numerous countries around the world, indicating that the educational system in America really isn't about educating students, of which standardized tests that measure knowledge indicates such, as, in fact, United States students are barely holding their own; so that it is fair to conclude that the educational system in America is much more about entitlement, deceit, and illusion.

It would seem that grades as structured and given out today, are definitely not a true reflection of the student's ability to demonstrate their knowledge in any real objective sense.  This would indicate, that grades and grading perhaps have run their course, and should be phased out into pass/non-pass, in conjunction with nationalized and standardized testing that will more fairly represent the student's "grade" via a numeric number for a particular subject and class, of which, this number will better reflect knowledge learned and thereby applied.

The fool's gold: fiat money

The United States has the biggest economy in the world, of which, in simple terms, the dollar thereupon has become the currency most commodities and other country's currencies are measured by.  That would be fine, to the extent that the dollar is back by specie, such as gold, which was the case until 1933-34 when because of the Great Depression the gold standard was effectively negated; of which private ownership of gold was thereby outlawed, though this did not completely eradicate the gold standard, it clearly changed the dynamic, and in 1971, the United States officially dropped the gold standard in its entirety.

This means that the dollars and the monetary system that currently is the backbone of how commerce, savings, and wealth is typically measured worldwide, is done by a currency which is backed by nothing, other than the belief that the U.S. government debt, so created, by the dollars borrowed and utilized; has stable value, which is debatable, at best.  In point of fact, while the convenience of dollars as a medium of exchange most definitely has its place, once those dollars became forever severed from specie or any other medium of intrinsic worth, than the dollars so circulating today, of which people depend upon these for their income, their wealth, and the payment of their debts, is for all practical purposes, fiat money.

This doesn't mean that the economic system as built upon dollars is in danger of imminent collapse, though, it might just be, but it does mean that it inevitably will collapse, because of the absence of some sort of specie, whether that be oil, gold, silver, land, stock certificates, or some other medium or combination of things so linked to each dollar that is created.  Those that believe that fiat money will, forever, have value, fundamentally are unable to comprehend that fiat money will collapse, once the confidence behind such currency has been fatally breached.

There are significant problems with fiat money, of which, there are many pundits that believe, incorrectly, that because our fiat money has historically been fairly stable since 1971, that therefore, all things that are priced utilizing this money, are a fair and true reflection of the true value of those assets and things.  The first thing to consider, is that fiat money is not all that stable, which is why as reported by dollartimes.com, the buying power of $1.00 in 1970, now necessitates $6.54 in 2018, so that, those that literally buried their fiat money in the ground or under their mattress, have seen the value of their money become decimated in the ensuing years.  So too, classifications such a being a millionaire, which actually meant something  back in 1971, don't mean as much today, for as calculated at savings.org, $161,445 in 1971, has the same value as $1 million today.    Another issue, is that people implicitly provide value to fiat money based on its historic purchasing power, of which, should that dynamic be severely breached, this would essentially mean that virtually everything as currently priced in dollars, would be subject to dramatic revisions on a worldwide scale, so that the effects of such, would initially be catastrophic.

In short, fiat money, maintains its relatively stable value based upon its apparent normalcy in the course of everyday business, but such normalcy is always subject to correction, at any time, of which, such a correction, when it comes, will fully demonstrate the fundamental difference between gold and fool's gold.

The semantics of being labeled as a "Law Enforcement Officer"

Many of those that work for the Department of Homeland Security, or the Department of Justice, or the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Agriculture are considered to be "Law Enforcement Officers", of which, this title as utilized in the present day, appears to be in most instances, a misnomer.  That is to say, that anyone that takes it upon themselves to label or be labeled as a "Law Enforcement Officer" should actually be required to know the law, to the same level or close to the same approximation as someone that practices the law, such as, an Attorney of the Law.  This means, that all those that currently are considered to be Law Enforcement Officers should forego such a designation, unless they have a law degree, or until such time that an accredited independent agency creates an exam that actually tests the applicants' knowledge and understanding of the law.

In point of fact, those that are given the duty, so to speak, to uphold and to enforce the law, but have not demonstrated in fact that they actually know the law, should not be called or considered to be Law Enforcement Officers.  That is not to say, that some of these public servants aren't very cognizant and savvy of the laws, of which, no doubt, some of them would indeed pass a thorough law exam; nor is that to say, that the people currently designed as Law Enforcement Officers have not completed and subsequently passed the prerequisites in order to perform their job; but it is to say, that those that are labeled as Law Enforcement Officers should and must actually know the law, of which the current educational and exam requirements mandated do not thoroughly test this knowledge or lack thereof.

Anytime that those that are given the authority by this government to arrest, interrogate, and to forcefully stop citizens and inhabitants of this country; the authorized person or the agency so doing so, should actually know what the law is, how that law should be applied, and where and when it is to be applied.  The day in which the primary attribute to hire officers of the law, was their physical size and strength, should no longer be applicable, for its importance has diminished, considerably.  Rather, since so many of these officers are armed to the teeth to begin with, the most relevant attribute that is needed, is good discernment, and good discernment comes from the actual knowledge of the law.

America is a country that provides its citizens with many rights, of which, in summary of those rights, they are basically the freedom of its citizens to be about their business and to express themselves freely in their actions and in their words, without unjustified interference from enforcement officers.  It is critical to recognize that in this country, you are always presumed to be innocent, yet, the law as so often applied by enforcement officers actually appears to typically presume guilt.  So too, the mindset of too many enforcement officers is to forget that their fiduciary duty is to serve the people, of which these officers lack of understanding of Constitutional law, serves to undermine their legitimacy; for surely those that wish to enforce the law, must first know it.

The return of exploitation and expropriation

While there are many attributes, achievements, and accomplishments that have directly or indirectly contributed to making America the greatest and most powerful nation that the world has ever known; one of those very important contributing factors was the creation of America's middle class.  That is to say, before the middle class came into fruition, most of history in any civilization was a history that clearly divided the relatively small ruling class from those that were ruled, of which the military and justice units of that civilization clearly were under the thumb of that ruling class.

This meant that the power structure of nations were built around the ruling class, consisting of nobility, the largest land holders, the largest business owners, the favored religion, and the elite of the military/policing arm of the nation.  All others, for the most part, no matter what the law did or did not say, effectively did not own the land that they trod upon, and therefore the production that they created as farmers, small business owners, or artisans, was subject to onerous taxation from the ruling class, or outright theft of it, or was subject to confiscation for any reason and at any time.  Further, those that owned absolutely nothing, had little option but to become part of the military force, necessary to protect and to augment the nation, of which, at best, doing so, providing a living, honor, and some opportunity; and at worst, resulted in their tragic young death.

America, on the other hand, in its formation, to a significant extent, made it point, to forget and to discard the titles of all nobility, as well as to dismiss the fortune of those that inherited wealth, without laboring a whit for it, to construct a nation that was built upon meritocracy, and to the degree that America did this, is the degree that America rose as a nation, providing to many that came here with nothing, but the willingness to work for their living, a  fair opportunity to make something of themselves, of which this mighty nation therefore did so.

As Peter Schiff has stated, "The American middle class used to be envy of the world," and perhaps it would be so today, if the middle class of America was still vibrant and growing, but alas, it is shrinking at an exceedingly rapid rate, for as reported by npr.org, Pew Research Center indicates that in 1971, 60.8% of all Americans were middle income, whereas in 2015, that number had dropped to 49.9%.  So that, what has occurred is that there are now more high income households, as well as more low income households, and significantly less middle income households. 

Further to the point, household ownership today is no higher than it was in 1971; however, in 1971, national consumer credit card debt was virtually non-existent, whereas today national consumer credit debt is approaching $1 trillion.  So too, student loan debt in 1971 was negligible, yet today that debt is approaching $1.5 trillion, and still growing higher at a phenomenal rate.  In regards to car loans, as reported by 247wallst.com, in 2017, "The average length of car loans has reached 69.3 months", whereas in 1971, there were no car loans exceeding even 60 months.

When a significant amount of the population is in debt up to their eyeballs, when labor unions have been eviscerated, when those that have no real viable future are forced into military service, in order to secure employment, security, and health benefits, and with the world's highest incarceration rate; than clearly America of today, is reaching back to the empires of the past, that had a ruling class of which the lion's share of everything was theirs, and all others effectively served that class.

The demonization of immigrants

America as a country, and as a nation, would not exist, if it wasn't for immigration; yet, certain peoples, typically those from Mexico and Central America, are presently treated as if they are the refuse of the world, by the policing/justice arm of America.  The current policy of this government seems to be, that anybody, but specifically Mexican and Central Americans, that cross the border without authorization into the United States, are dangerous criminals.  While, those that enter the United States of America without authority or authorization to do so are, in fact, in violation of the law, today's policy is not nearly as cut and dried, as certain types of governmental officials like to portray it.

For instance, as reported by fairus.org, there are an estimated 12.5 million illegal aliens in America.  This fact, clearly demonstrates that America selectively enforces its illegal immigration laws; in addition to the salient fact, that the sheer size of illegal immigrants in this country signifies that businesses and other enterprises have a strong and vibrant need for illegal immigrant labor, of which, even a cursory glance at the hospitality industry, construction industry, restaurant employment, agricultural workers, janitors, and meat cutting industries, demonstrate that these immigrants are not only gainfully employed, but are employed in abundance, if not, almost exclusively.

So then, the illegal immigrants are not only amongst us, they are actively working within America, and have been doing so for decades upon decades.  Further to the point, the most recent demonization of illegal immigrants is done for a dual purpose, of which the first is to allow those that employ such, to exploit them even further than they already do, for the avenues of justice for these illegal immigrants to get their fair due, are problematic, at best.  Secondly, the demonization of these illegal immigrants, allows certain Americans to believe that the systemic problems that America has, is not because America itself is fat, lazy, and corrupt; but rather it is because of the wanton criminality of these illegal immigrants.

In point of fact, as reported by americanimmigrationcouncil.org, "…immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes or be behind bars than the native-born, and high rates of immigration are associated with lower rates of violent crime and property crime."  The most obvious reason of why this is so, is because illegal immigrants typically keep very low profiles, specifically, because they do not want to attract attention to themselves and do not wish to interact with the strong arm of the law.  In addition, despite their exploitation by so many employers in America, there is still a basic rule of law in America, there is still opportunity in America, and there is still a general freedom in America; all of which illegal immigrants typically do not have from their birth country.

If this government truly wants to do something about the prevalence of illegal immigration, then they need to begin such with honesty and forthrightness.  That is to say, far too many of those that employ or accommodate illegal immigrants, do so, in order to exploit them and to cheat them, of which, they would prefer things just the way that they presently are.   So too, the propaganda arm of this government wants the general public to believe that the lawlessness from a minority of illegal immigrants, is somehow endemic within America.  A more honest and a more candid America, would recognize, that immigration, illegal or not, is good for America, and has been good since the very beginning, and America should therefore adjust their immigration policies to reflect this very fact.

How is it possible that Walmart is not unionized?

A lot of people don't fully comprehend exactly how big Walmart really is.  For instance, in the entire world, no private sector company does more business, that is, has more revenue than Walmart's $500 billion per year.  Additionally, there is no private sector company that has more employees than Walmart, which counts a total of 2.3 million employees worldwide, and an estimated 1.4 million of those employees are located in the United States, alone.  Those numbers, in a world in which big numbers are almost always what any business or enterprise or union is after, are far too enticing to be ignored.  Which raises the question, how is Walmart, not unionized?

Obviously, the quick answer to the fact that Walmart is not unionized, is because Walmart makes it a cardinal point and principle that they will not unionize, and therefore they do everything within their power, in conjunction with all those auxiliary powers that clearly favor Walmart, that they be not unionized.  This obviously means that Walmart not being unionized is definitely not happenstance; for it is deliberate, it is premeditated, and it is an edict from their Board of Directors and corporate office, in which their objective is to never give any quarter, whatsoever, to those that even contemplate, let alone attempt to unionize.

The fight for and the attempt to unionize Walmart is an incredibly unfair one; not only because the resources that Walmart can call upon are effectively unlimited, and not only because Walmart has the infrastructure, material, personnel and response team in place for virtually any contingency that they may face; but also because if this government will not even attempt, or even take on the semblance of fairness, in regards to union activism and activities, of which, there are appropriate federal labor law regulations clearly relevant and in place, than those that are attempting to unionize, will continued to be forestalled by tactics that often involve but are not limited to: surveillance of possible union activity, infiltration of possible union activity, direct retaliatory actions against possible union activity, and any and all actions that reduce work hours, jobs, and opportunities for those so possibly organizing for an union.

The fact is that the employees of Walmart need the union, because they need consistent hours and fair pay, and in absence of a union they are in an exceedingly vulnerable position, because so many of them, are barely keeping their heads above water, if even that, and thereby really can't afford to lose their job, or to have their hours or their benefits cut back.  That in a nutshell, is the very definition of exploitation, for Walmart is able to effectively "bully' their employees into doing things for the benefit of corporate Walmart, without treating their employees fairly, which is why unions are necessary, in order for those that are in very weak positions and very weak bargaining power, to unite into one strong union, that can thereby get for those employees a fair deal and a seat at the table of weal.

The fact is the fight for union representation at Walmart is probably the best and brightest hope for labor and therefore for unions in the private sector so as to still be relevant in the 21st century; especially as opposed to what is currently happening, which is the slow but consistent erosion of private sector unions into non-relevance.

Law and order, and the rich

The cry for law and order has probably been around in one form or another in America, forever.  Still, the epitome of the law and order in the modern day is probably best represented by Richard Nixon, who stated, "Law and order is in the interest of all Americans. Let's just make sure that our laws deserve respect; " yet, to demonstrate his dishonesty, Nixon, when under intense pressure from the Watergate break-in, stated, "Well, I'm not a crook;" but the truth of the matter is, that when faced with the consequences of his illegal actions, he resigned the Presidency, rather than suffer the indignity of impeachment, knowing that a deal to later be fully pardoned was in place, which is the very definition of law and order hypocrisy.

The reason that so many of the rich, the elite, and the connected, are typically so strongly in favor of law and order, is that the most prevalent crimes committed are property crimes, such as theft, robbery, and larceny, of which those that have monetary assets, have no need to participate in those crimes.  So too, violent crimes against the person, such as assault, rape, and murder are also not often going to be crimes that rich people are going to engage in, for those are the very things that they fear will happen to them; so then, in short, they want tough law and order laws, consisting of stop and frisk laws, racial profiling, and harassment of all stripes to occur, so as to successfully keep the barbarians outside of their gates.

In point of fact, it doesn't get much simpler than this, which is that when you already have all the money and wealth that you could possibly need, of which that wealth is pretty much iron clad protected, except for some trivial walking around money; then the only thing of immense worth to protect, is the physical form of the individual, for all the wealth in the world cannot successfully put Humpty Dumpty back together again, if he is assaulted.  So then, since so many of the privileged rich and successful, are in the scheme of things, involved with some sort of risk management, than in their own narrow-minded world, they don't wish to risk having themselves getting physically hurt or strong armed in any way, for as they say, better to be safe than sorry, which essentially means to lock all those others up unless they behave as docile, controllable, and obedient human beings.

So too, the robber barons of this world, understand well this very thing, that because they are the ones that exploit the people to such a heavy extent, that therefore a significant portion of those people will subsequently have no fair opportunity in society, as well as no semblance of a decent and wholesome family life, in addition to  being purposely deprived of a good education; all because, the infrastructure of seeing that all this is successfully accomplished, necessitates a much higher degree of taxation of  the rich man's wealth, and that they will not give up.  This therefore indicates that they are obviously completely cognizant, that in order to maintain their status that they require the policing/justice arm of the state, to obey their dictates, and thereby to demand strict law and order, but never for the betterment of society, for there is no reformation intended, but rather so that the rich can remain rich, at the expense and exploitation of the poor and disadvantaged.

The big shall swallow the small

In the animal kingdom, size, stealth, power and strength are the biggest determinates over who does and who doesn't rule the jungle.  For mankind, especially in the business world, people like to believe that it isn't really a jungle, that the businesses that are most successful are the ones that are the most innovative, customer centric, or value or quality based, and basically the best businesses are the ones that get there based on merit; as opposed to underhanded means, or favoritism, or sheer size, but alas, that isn't really the case.

In point of fact, the industrial age, modernity, robotics, computers, hi-technology, and knowhow, have definitely made it policy that the only companies that are truly going to be successful are the ones that are successfully able to scale up in order to take full advantage of those efficiencies. That is to say, size most definitely matters, and while it can be said, that at some point, there are inefficiencies from becoming too big, such as having too much middle management, and complacency; those almost always are not enough to hold back the inherent advantages of access to massive credit, tax set asides, lobbyists, lawyers, accountants, and the scaling up of production that correspondingly equates to a lowering of the cost of building product.

There was a time, when those that were especially adept artisans, or hunters, or harvesters, were heads and tails above all others working with the same sort of basic tools and handicaps.  However, today, for instance, those that create goods that are hand crafted are really doing so not because they can be competitive against mass produced goods, but rather only as a niche business, and their success or lack thereof, is dependent upon their ability to do well within that niche.  For all others, that is, for mom and pop stores and businesses, the competition that they face is so often overwhelming, and the playing field is so tilted, that they are usually hopelessly outclassed in being able to compete.

This means, in the United States as demonstrated over the previous decades that businesses, in absence of enforced government regulations, or appropriate laws, that more often than not, they will continue to grow and to consolidate their industries at the expense of all those other businesses that lack the same sort of access to capital, size, influence, distribution, and production capabilities.  So then, while on the one hand, consumers can benefit from lower prices because of better corporate efficiencies; so too, the tables can easily turn, so that those that control the businesses, are able to extract a bigger gross margin and hence a bigger gross profit, because they need not fear any competition that can successfully erode their customer base; especially if their price increases are relatively small, and hence, sustainable, rather than dramatic.

Those that control the reins of capital, are the masters or co-owners of those that are the biggest capitalist players, leaving those that have no size and no scaling, to perpetually have to do business as the underdog, and therefore, as in the jungle, only through their stealth, their reads, and their angles, are they able to be profitable from it. If, this government makes it their business to throw in their lot only with the biggest players, than small businesses, family own businesses, mom and pop businesses, have no fair future; which is exactly the situation, today.

Is the greatest gift of mankind: reason?

Western nations, especially, want mankind to believe that the greatest gift of them all is the usage of our knowledge and brain power, so as to reason out things; and from that reasoning, great material advancement in mankind has occurred.  To the extent that mankind uses its brain power in order to create knowledge, for the greater benefit of mankind than such most definitely has its place; and to the extent that knowledge is utilized in order to reason out things, properties, theories, and logic, for the improvement of mankind, so much the better.

The problem comes though, from those that believe that the only true god worth worshiping is the humanist god of mankind, which apparently is their faculty of being able to reason out things from the knowledge that they have acquired.  That belief, wrongly indicates that there is no higher form of knowledge than mankind's ability to reason, but even a cursory glance around this modern day world, puts the sword to the effective worth of nothing but reason, or acquired knowledge, as being the greatest gift of mankind, for not one single societal ill that has bedeviled mankind for centuries has been thoroughly resolved in the present day.

For instance, the first World War, was also known as the "war to end all worlds", but, in fact, this obviously was not the case, as never have so many been killed in warfare than in the 20th century.  So too, while there are riches that abound throughout this planet, more than three billion people, as reported by dosomething.org live on less than $2.50 a day.    Again and again, for every good thing that reason, progress, and knowledge has brought forth to mankind, the overall effect, has not resolved the continuing problems of injustice, warfare, poverty, and ill health, though, of course, for some people, such has worked out rather well in their favor.  Further to the point, as reported by thebulletin.org, the Doomsday Clock, which measures the likelihood of a global catastrophe as of 2018, registers at just two minutes to midnight.

So while credit must be given to mankind for developing well its mind, increasing its knowledge, and improving its reasoning powers, clearly that, in of itself, when we look at the trouble that this world is in, is not nearly enough.  Rather, because the basic theory of mankind's reasoning is built upon the foundation that the universe and the construct that we live in is order; then it would stand to reason, that the highest duty then of mankind is to know that Activator of that order, for that is quite obviously, the very First Cause, and to know this, is the only knowledge that actually truly matters, for all else, are at best, substitutes for such.

This means that actually the greatest gift ever provided to mankind, is the connection that each of us has been gifted with, which is our unalienable and unbreakable connection to God.  This so dictates, and behooves therefore each one of us, to recognize that all knowledge is contained within God, for all knowledge is God, and therefore those that are able to focus within and to align their mind correctly into the portal of the unassailable wisdom of God, will know via their intuition the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth, of which this Truth is forever united with Justice and Love.

Competition, Monopolies, and dominance

America claims that it is a country of meritocracy and vibrant competition, of which, companies in all sorts of industries and businesses freely compete against one another, thereby not only providing a more competitive price but also more "bang for the buck" for their clients and because of such competition, these companies are obligated to continually improve themselves and to adjust their gamesmanship and strategies in order to stay competitive. 

In point of fact, while there are many industries in America that are quite competitive, in which, no single player has more than 5% of a given market share, there are also industry upon industry in which a very small contingent of companies or even just one company has at least 50% market share, thereby essentially making a monopoly for some of these companies.  Of even more disappointment, in this era of ubiquitous hi-technology, of which, one would think, that these young and innovative companies would quite obviously be competing against many other young and innovative companies one probably sees more domination by monopolies than in any other industry.  For instance, Google from a search engine perspective, as reported by gs.statcounter.com has as of August of 2018, a staggering 90.88% market share.  The Microsoft desktop operating system worldwide as of August of 2018, as reported by gs.statcounter.com has an astonishing 82.45% market share.  Finally, Facebook's social media worldwide market share as of August of 2018, as reported by gs.statcounter.com is an incredible 65.29%, and Facebook has only been a publically owned company since May of 2012.

The bottom line is that when corporations that are already significant in size, are permitted to buy out their competition, or to buy out technology that could present competition to them, or purposely buy out innovative technology that could negatively impact their market share, or to vertically integrate themselves without hindrance, or to basically have carte blanche to spend their money or the stock equivalency of money on anything that they so desire without limitations, than all of this combined will not just maintain their status but clearly significantly solidify it and to grow it, thereby essentially dominating a market so much, that the pendulum of pricing and the structure of that pricing will be firmly in their control; with the end result being that these companies will undoubtedly have gross margins and thereby gross profits that are significantly higher than companies of similar size that are actually competing in the marketplace.

This government and its regulators, have an absolute responsibility to its citizens to not only breakup companies that effectively are monopolies, but also to breakup duopolies, as well as breaking up oligopolies.  In absence of effective legislation that does exactly this, what transpires is what we see happening in America, today, which is that the very rich are getting richer, the middle class is getting hollowed out, and the poor are getting poorer.  All of this comes down to the fact, that in situations in which industries are dominated by one or a few players, of which there are no truly good viable alternatives, than the pricing and availability of those goods, are going to be structured in a manner that those purveyors benefit from, at the expense of the users and buyers of those goods and services. 

In 1911, the Supreme Court ruled that Standard Oil was an illegal monopoly that had grown to its gargantuan size through horizontal as well as vertical integration, with the upshot being that Standard Oil was dissolved by that court into 34 smaller companies.  Unfortunately, that landmark decision was made over one hundred years ago and clearly this Supreme Court along with this current government has no intention of breaking up any of the monopolies or their equivalencies that currently exist, which makes for the very best of times for those untouchable and super powerful corporations.

Tobacco usage and health insurance

A majority of States, though not all of them, charge a premium for those that utilize tobacco products when they apply for health insurance, in which the Affordable Care Act (ACA), permits insurance companies to charge a premium of up to 50% more for those that admit to using tobacco.  If this question was asked, amongst other relevant health questions, such as diet, weight, alcohol usage, illicit drug usage, prescription drug usage, and exercise, then it would represent a reasonable question, necessitating a reasonable answer; but in fact, the tobacco usage question, is often, the only health question asked, besides a qualification that you cannot exceed a certain weight limit.

The fact that tobacco usage is singled out as apparently the one valid reason why health insurance premiums should be adjusted appreciably higher, demonstrates conclusively the vilification of tobacco, as if tobacco, alone, out of everything that people do and ingest on a given day and in a given life, is the bogey man that kills all that takes part in tobacco usage of any amount and any potency.

In point of fact, as in virtually every circumstance, the amount that a product is used, how often it is used, and when it is used, amongst various other additional choices that a given individual makes in regards to their body, are a far more complete determinate of how debilitating or not, things such as tobacco usage really is for that particular individual.  For whatever reason, tobacco usage is vilified as some sort of scourge that kills all that take part in its usage; but that isn't factually true, as cbsnews.com reported on June 19, 2018, that "Smoking in the U.S. has hit another all-time low. About 14 percent of U.S adults were smokers last year."  Yet, as reported by cnn.com, on December 21, 2017, "Life expectancy in the United States has dropped again following last year's decline… On average, Americans can now expect to live 78.6 years."   Then again, Japan, which has a smoking rate of just barely under 20%, also has a significantly higher life expectancy rate than America of 83.7 years, thereby indicating, that the health insurance providers in America, are either not asking the right questions, or not asking enough questions, or don't seem to understand exactly how debilitating tobacco usage is, and clearly demonstrates that tobacco usage itself does not affect every individual in exactly the same way; as demonstrated by healthhubs.com, stating that: "Overall age adjusted cancer rates in the USA are more than 50% higher than in Japan."

One would assume that health insurance companies believe that by asking if a given individual is a tobacco user, and this being their only salient question asked in regards to an individual's health, that this therefore clearly represents their belief that tobacco usage, more than anything else, is the difference between good health and bad health.  That belief is misguided and misplaced, for there are far more salient questions that ought to be asked and that should be asked, that would be far better at determining whether the person applying for health insurance is more or less susceptible to adverse health issues.

Perhaps, America is proud that they nailed big tobacco to the cross, and this is why the tobacco question is asked; but the sad fact of the matter is, that life expectancy in America is as reported by the economist.com, "… are already two years shorter than the average in the OECD group of 35 rich and soon-to-be-rich countries."   This so indicates, that the ill smoke of bad health, which purports to be conclusively the fire of tobacco usage, is foundationally wrong, and this misdiagnosis is a significant reason as to why in aggregate more Americans are needlessly dying before their due time.

You need not fear your government if you have nothing to hide

This government, in conjunction with its many obedient media outlets has been able to convince a significant amount of Americans that if you aren't actively engaged in criminal or suspect type activity, that you need not worry about the government unduly interfering with you.  In fact, the willingness of the public to accept any and everything that the government needs from that public in regards to pat downs, email surveillance, GPS surveillance, the recording of private conversations, and so on, would seem to indicate that a lot of Americans are only too willing to sacrifice their freedom, for safety; and even more to point, feel that all good Americans should be willing to do the exact same thing.

The problem with this type of blind faith thinking, is that, certain people believe that because they are pretty much never engaged in any unlawful activity, that they want all others that may be engaged in unlawful, suspicious, or unorthodox behavior, as determined by this government, to suffer for their choices, and willingly support the government's efforts in seeing that this is actually accomplished.  While within a certain narrow minded perspective, it makes some common sense, that governments should protect their citizens by going after those that are perceived enemies of the state; the elephant in the room, is who exactly is watching our governmental overseers while they perform these actions on behalf of the people?  In addition, when you cannot protest and dissent against your own government, then obviously, the people of that state, are not free, though they may be safe within the construct that the government has so erected.

So too, when the government has a detailed dossier about every single citizen, of which, they have absolute knowledge of everything that each citizen does on a given day, the depth of which, reaches down to the actual minutiae of each twenty four hour period of everyone; and further that they have the ability to correlate, analyze, and study all of this information, at their leisure and at their command, than that government has truly become a very fearful master of its people.  Additionally, Hollywood alone, has taught us thoroughly that not everything that we see in this world is real, though it may perform the illusion of being real, so that, audio and video tapes can easily be edited and reconstructed; documents can be manipulated to change facts into non-facts and non-facts into facts, in which, the bottom line is that when all the information that the government has on a given citizen is accurate, than manipulating just a small part of that accuracy to show crime where there is no crime, or treacherous comments when there are no treacherous comments, or infidelity when there is fidelity, is a remarkably easy task.

This essentially means that all those that have nothing to hide and have obediently therefore given carte blanche to the government, don't seem to recognize, that when the bell so tolls for them or their loved ones, that they will have no one to defend them, nobody that will raise a hand, and no ability to protect themselves, because they have already sold themselves to the government at a very cheap price; never seeming to recognize that those that voluntarily trade their freedom for safety, have in reality, willingly put on the chains of their own imprisonment.

America has nearly 1,500,000 drug arrests yearly

According to drugwarfacts.org, in 2015, 1,488,707 arrests were classified as drug arrests, of which,"83.9% (1,249,025) were for mere possession of a controlled substance."  Additionally, 643,121 of those drug arrests were just for marijuana in 2015, which is an improvement, but not a substantial improvement upon the 734,497 arrests made in 2000, for just marijuana offenses.  The fact that so many people are still being arrested each year for marijuana possession clearly indicates that despite the reality that thirty States of this union have either legalized recreational marijuana or allow such to be legally prescribed, that the enforcing arm of this country, has not apparently changed much of their modus operandi.

The evidence that such a high percentage of drug arrests are for the mere possession of a controlled substance, indicates that this government believes that individuals in this country do not, and should not, be able to make their own personal choice as to what substances that they do or don't want to personally take.  Yet, as reported by statista.com, 4.453 billion drug prescriptions were written in the United States in 2016, of which the population of the entire United States is only 323.4 million.  This clearly signifies that the usage of drugs has a dividing line, arbitrarily dictated by this government, which stipulates that it is just fine to take as many drugs as an individual so desires to take, as long as the prescription is legal and the medical-prescription-insurance industries can profit from it; whereas on the other hand, it isn't okay to have in a person's possession certain controlled substances, that the government has labeled as illegal, and will depending upon the substance and quantity, could lead to a life term in prison, for its mere possession.

In point of fact, mere possession of a controlled substance is one of those crimes, that shouldn't actually be a crime, mainly because, possession is not the same thing as distribution, nor is it the same thing as usage, but rather it is just an easy way to harass and to arrest the very people that the government has decided that they want to concentrate their considerable resources upon.  Further to the point, resolving illicit drug usage, or illegal drug usage, or abusive prescription drug usage, really comes down to this government making it their policy not to criminalize the users of such, but rather to see these people as fellow citizens that should be afforded the opportunity to get proper counseling and help, to address these issues in a format that does not incriminate them, but serves to be of assistance to them.

The fact that this justice system apparently has zero tolerance or a low tolerance towards those that merely possess certain controlled substances, indicates that this justice system doesn't have its priorities right; for quite obviously, in any society in which tolerance levels for behavior that is not orthodox is extremely low, will by virtue of that intolerance, manufacture criminals, of which, sad to say, a significant portion of those so harassed, arrested, processed, fined, criminalized, and imprisoned, aren't bad people at all, but are treated as if they are the refuse of this country, rather than seeing them as people that are entitled to their own particular pursuit of happiness and satisfaction.