Dear Mr. President

There is something I don’t think you quite understand. As the leader of the arguably greatest, most powerful empire (and democracy) in the history of civilization, you no longer have the right to be your own person. Being on call during every minute of the day or night; and, having your every thought and word subject to the review, judgement, and affect upon others throughout the world, you no longer have the right to eat, to sleep, or even the discretion to speak your mind at will. Truthfully, the only rights remaining to you are to breathe, to relieve yourself, and to die—and only then if absolutely necessary. If you will think deeply and wisely about this ostensibly outrageous statement, I think you will find more truth in what it is saying than fiction.

The position you hold is one of grave responsibility; and, if you really want to honestly, honorably and successfully fulfill it, you must comprehend your responsibility not only for the welfare and security of those who voted for you, but also to everyone else you represent and/or your words and decisions affect throughout the world—your personal affairs and business(s) to no avail. Anything less is unacceptable. The best interests of the people of the United States of America and the world are in your hands.

I hope you will accept this message constructively as intended. I will post it on my blog, www.sageobserver.blogspot.com, and Facebook.

Thank you.

Respectfully,

Ronald Miller

Illegal Immigration

There are those who forgot more about the subject of immigration than I will ever know; and, therefore, I will leave to them any discussion, in-depth, of the subject. It is, however, patently obvious to most that the subject of illegal immigration is in the forefront of issues before us today and one of the most contentious. Illegal immigrants are taking our jobs, putting people out of work; or they are running up our tax bills thru their use of our schools, utilization of health care, non-payment of taxes, gangs, drugs, crime, and so on, causing us to have to build a great wall costing us billions of dollars (which will ultimately be paid for by Mexico some Sunday after some Tuesday)—or so all this is said.

Before we go any further, let me remind everyone who reads this that there is not one thing under this subject which is not the responsibility of our Congress (Ref. Article I, Section I of our Constitution). They are responsible for the legislation; they are responsible to provide the financing for its execution; and, ultimately, they are responsible to insure it is being enforced. Further, it is my belief that we should not allow any law to be on the books for which adequate financing is not provided and we do not enforce. If either is withdrawn, the law should be cancelled. In either event, what we have now is pure neglect.

This having been said, let’s discuss the wall, a subject in the forefront of the “news” these days. Because of the campaign promise of then Presidential Candidate Trump, the wall is now erroneously portrayed by the media and the politicians, as well as the President as “the issue”. I contend that the wall is not the real issue, regardless of what “they” say. The real issue, the real problem, is illegal immigration. The wall serves as only one of several, if not many, means to solve the real issue, “illegal immigration”. The wall is just one means to an end. Unfortunately, and I think, unwisely—it is ill advised financially, politically, and diplomatically.

President Obama and others stated on national television that approximately forty percent of illegal immigration was caused by people overstaying their visas and they could not be tracked—forty percent, mind you. We can track a calf with mad cow disease to a barn somewhere in the backwoods of Wecando and we can’t track someone who overstays their visas? Malarkey! If we can’t track these people, it’s only because we don’t want to. We don’t want to spend the money or some other reason such as an employer who wants to keep them on the payroll, cheap labor, etc. But I digress.

There are undoubtedly other sources of illegal immigration and points of entry than Mexico and overstays of visas. Those coming from and thru Mexico are less than half of the total; and yet we want to literally waste billions of dollars building a wall that will at best exacerbate the tensions and polarization that already exists among our people as well as between our nation and the country of Mexico. Does this really gain the respect of our foreign neighbors and allies? Do we really want to shut down our government for this? Is this really leadership? Or is this whole thing just plain dumb and second class?

What we really need to do is write legislation, a reform bill, to which we will all agree to conform; yes, including E Verify (and whatever else I may have left out) and enforce it. And we should do it now. If a multibillion dollar transnational corporation spread out around the globe can efficiently and successfully manage their affairs, there is no reason, absolutely none, that our government can’t do the same and just as well. This is another one of those many subjects at hand which we have talked and studied to death. We know exactly what needs to be done. Let’s quit talking about it and do it. Let’s do it now.

Let me know what you think. In the meantime, this is Ronald Miller, www.sageobserver.blogspot.com signing off.

Who Am I?

        I first published this blog, below, on August 9, 2013. Some of you may recall. I am publishing it again because I think its message is so important to understand. Today, our people as a nation are the most polarized we have ever been since the Civil War—all due, in part, to the differences in our world views, our perceptions of events, our character—the most important issue, in my opinion, currently facing the leader(s) of our nation. That blog is as follows.

Who am I? Who are you? For that matter, who are we? I’ve been thinking about this for a long time and have developed a theory. I’ll share it with you and see what you think. Let’s suspose—I know; the little red line just came up on my computer, telling me I misspelled the word, suppose. In passing, let me explain that I have this very dear friend, a lawyer, whom, over the years, I have come to love and respect very much. He’s from Georgia; and, when discussing or explaining an issue, he likes to say, “Let’s suspose……..”. So, therefore, please forgive my digression and indulge me while we suspose.

Beginning at the very beginning, let’s suspose that for every unborn individual there is, somewhere in Heaven, an individual spirit just waiting his turn to be born. For the sake of illustration, let us imagine in our mind’s eye, that spirit as a glass of water, clear, pure, and transparent–with no color whatsoever, either in the glass or the water—it’s perfect. Now, along comes a man and a woman who each, respectively, drop a sperm and an egg into the water. The sperm fertilizes the egg and they, combining their respective genomes, become one, the beginning of a person–the water in the glass becomes slightly colored. The “glass of water with the egg” spends nine months in the woman’s womb, the experience of which slightly changes the color of the water.

Then the baby is born, coming from the warmth and comfort of the womb into a cold and not so comfortable world. Again, the color of the water is changed. We now have a new human being with his own DNA, looks, physical condition, personality, and character–the color of his water. But, we can’t stop here, can we. Life goes on.

Next comes the nurture of the new baby. He may either be breast fed or bottle fed, diapered and changed. He is affected by every aspect of his environment down to the smallest: the volume and tone of the voices around him, language, temperature, light, darkness, and on and on and on. He is constantly learning–from what he hears and perceives even more so than from what he is told. Every effect lends itself to the ever changing color of his water–his character. The baby is constantly learning to walk, to talk, to speak, to read. He becomes educated. He grows up, and he continues to grow mentally and physically until he is finally a mature person with his very own personality and character–his very own color of water. Let us suspose the color of his water is now yellow. That is our new person, you or me.

To help us understand further, let us suspose there are two more persons with their glasses of water. Their beginnings, their environments, their nurtures, their experiences, their exposures, and their educations–all these in one way, to one extent, or another (most probably even in the womb) are different. In our susposition, we now have three persons, three distinctly different characters, three colors of water–let’s say red, yellow, and blue.

It has been said that we are all three persons. We are how we see ourselves; we are how others see us; and we are as God sees us. You don’t have to agree with me, but think about this for a moment. Let’s suspose the person in the glass with the yellow water is talking to the person in the glass with the blue water, what does he see?  I submit to you, he sees himself as yellow, and he sees the other as green. I further submit to you that, when the person in the glass with the red water looks at the person in the glass with the blue water, he sees himself as red and the other as purple. Now, let’s ask one last question, and I’ll quit. When the person in the glass with the yellow water is talking to the person in the glass with the red water about the person in the glass with the blue water, how will they view each other’s perception of that guy in the blue water?

Who am I? Who are you? Who are we? What color is your water? Let ‘suspose.

Ronald Miller

mtss86@comcast.net

Our U.S. Supreme Court

Please, let me hear from you if you disagree; but, my understanding of the duty and responsibility of any justice of our Supreme Court is to interpret the constitutionality of those laws brought before them with absolute objectivity absent of any and all personal, political, and religious prejudice and opinions—their only concern being to determine if the law in question, the law under consideration, is compatible with the Constitution as written by our Founding Fathers. They are not trying the original case before them. They are not deciding who is guilty and who is not guilty. Whether or not they believe in abortion doesn’t matter. Neither does their views on gay marriage or beliefs on slavery or anything else. The only reason they are reviewing any case before them is to determine the constitutionality of the law being applied. Ultimately, in the final analysis, the members of our Supreme Court are the sole protectors of the very foundation of our sovereign government—the law. They are appointed for life. They must be perfectly objective and responsible. Yes. This is the strict interpretation of the law regarding their duties. There is another interpretation which allows for adapting our Constitution to changes in times, technologies, etc, beyond which everything else I have said above is true.

In the last year of President Obama’s administration, a vacancy occurred on the Supreme Court due to the death of Justice Scalia, and President Obama nominated Justice Merrick Garland, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to fill the position. In an unprecedented move, Senate Republicans under Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to consider Judge Garland’s nomination, waiving the Senate’s advise and consent role under the Constitution. In conjunction with this, “dark money” sources spent millions of dollars in opposition to his appointment (this is all a matter of record and readily available through Google). Now comes Republican President Donald Trump who appoints his candidate, Neil Gorsuch. To make a very long story short, this same “dark money” spends another ten million dollars in support of the Republican candidate (again, this is all a matter of record and readily available through Google).

Is this the way our democratic republic is supposed to be governed? Is this really in the interests of our people or is it in the interests of the providers of all that “dark money”? Judge Gorsuch refuses to respond to questions as to who is behind all this sordid financing (and he doesn’t have to—he isn’t required), but can you really believe he will be as objective and impartial in his judicial deliberations, if he is appointed to the court, in light of all this? Do you really believe you will get honest government under our Constitution from his decisions?

Let me know what you think. In the meantime, this is Ronald Miller, www.sageobserver.blogspot.com signing off.