Some thoughts of late.

First.  It seems the republicans and Donald Trump have a method  to the things they are saying.  For example, take the claims by DJT that Hillary Clinton's popular vote majority was based on illegal aliens voting.  Trump makes the claim on twitter and where ever he speaks; Clinton won the popular vote only because the democrats got millions of illegal residents to vote for her, especially in New Hampshire where Trump says the illegals were bussed in from Massachusetts.  Congress then determines to investigate the claim and a trump friendly congressman takes on the job.  That committee "investigates" and determines that there is no evidence to support Trump's claim.  You might think the issue is then finalized, but no.  The committee and Trump then claim that the popular vote majority for Clinton can't be proven, thus we don't know if Clinton the won the popular vote or not.  Trump claims that he won the electoral vote and no one knows about the popular vote.

Second.  Alaska has a fund called the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD).  The fund pays every Alaskan citizen who can prove they have lived in the state for a year and plans to stay a yearly stipend, that is based on the oil wealth that comes out of Alaska.  In 2015 that stipend was $ 2072 (per person; family of four over $ 8000).  However, the fund only paid $ 1022 in 2016 (don't know why).  I am not be-grudging Alaskans their free loot but it causes me to wonder why Alaskan don't lose the incentive to work by getting a handout from the state.  It is also interesting to note that Alaska has just about always voted republican in national elections and republicans are highly critical of any government program that gives people "free shit".

Third.  I will have to admit that this next thought is bizarre but then again the whole issue of abortion has been batted around since 1972.  My thought is the position doctor (or nurse) might take on abortion should be influenced to some degree by where they received their medical training.  If that training came from a state university then it seems that the law on abortion should be a factor in determine one's position on the issue.  If that training came from a religious institution (like the University of Notre Dame) then a factor is determine one's position should be the moral position of that institution.

Trump

Trump makes a claim-without evidence-of wide spread voting by illegal aliens.  The GOP Congress then establishes a committee to investigate the claim.  They find no evidence to support the claim.  The committee then reports they can find no evidence one way or the other and reports it can't be determined if the claim is true, leaving some to believe (and trump to claim) that there might very well have been illegal voting but we just don't know for sure.

"Lock her up"

"Lock her up" he yelled at every campaign stop.  He said her use of e-mails could have divulged classified info to the enemies of this country.

Remember the media going ballistic over the news  that  Andrew Weiner was reading those electronic ejaculations because he was married to an aide to Hillary Clinton?  Oh, the threat to national security was beyond incredible.

Now we know that he (you know the "big fool" in the words of Pete Seeger and his "Waist deep in the Big Muddy") has personally shared classified information with several Russians who are his business partners and also officials of the Russian state.

Need I say it?  LOCK HIM UP.

Andrew Jackson and Slavery

It just happens that there has been some talk of late about President Andrew Jackson due to the comments by Donald Trump indicating that Jackson was a favorite president of his.  Trump, of course, claimed that Jackson would have somehow stopped the Civil War from happening.  "he would have worked it out" said the donald.  The fact that Jackson died some 15 years before the Civil War broke out didn't seem to bother Trump.

In a Virginia paper recently there was a article about Presidents Jackson and Jefferson being slave owners and some slave ads that appeared for runaway slaves of theirs.  Jackson's ad stated that he would pay $50 for the return of a runaway and an "...extra $ 10 for every hundred lashes andy person will give him, to the amount of three hundred".  Jefferson's ad noted the runaway by name and age and the fact that he was corpulent. 

(Source: "Cataloging cruel ads to hunt runaway slaves" by Doneen Brown of the Washington Post. In The Virginian Pilot on April 12, 2017.)

Barack Obama post WH

Former president Barack Obama has made a cool $ 800,000 recently by giving a speech and and interview over the last week or so.  To a group of Wall Street people he spoke and was paid $ 400,000 and gave an interview with Doris Kerns Goodwin for 90 minutes to the group of advertisers.  He was paid another $ 400,000 for that piece of work (nice work if you can get it).  I wonder what extra sexual favors he was obliged to provide for that fee?  

Is it any wonder why many people are now thinking that the democratic party is just another extension of the republican party; you know like republican-lite.  I do think that was what many were considering in November of last year when Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were the only two choices with a chance of winning to pick from.

Working Conditions

At the local newspaper store in my town the young man-from India-works six days a week and 13.5 hours per day. That is 80 hours a week. and he does not get paid overtime. I do not know what his  weekly pay is but it seems that the law is being violated in this instance.  To my knowledge the National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act) passed in the 1930's requires an eight hour day and 40 hour week, with overtime being paid for hours over that limit.  How can a company, in this case a Indian owned company, work someone in violation of the law?  Maybe for some reason the law does not apply to foreign owned companies or maybe he is considered management, but if not it seems his employer is violating the law.  I would further guess that he is in this country on a work visa and that is the only way an employer is going to get someone to work those kinds of hours.  An American worker/citizen would have legal recourse if he was that employee.  This is a reason we need reform of our immigration system.  Non-citizens are being abused while native workers are being denied a job.

Update:  Sorry, I noted the wrong labor law from the New Deal days of FDR.  The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was the legislation that set maximum hours and time and a half for over time.

Trump and Kim Jong Un

UN Representative Nikki Haley while speaking about the ongoing problems with North Korea and what it would take for Trump to order some kind of military action against the "Hermit Kingdom", she said the following; " What we're dealing with is a leader who is flailing right now, and he's trying to show his citizens he has muscle".  Was she talking about Kim or Trump?  She made her comment on "CBS This Morning".

(Source:  "Haley warns N. Korea about testing ICBM" by the AP.  The Record 4/25/17)

Personal Note: I am now stating my opinions about the news and current issues on one of three blog;

journal griffin.blogspot.com

griffinhistorynotes.blogspot.com

griffopinionnotes.blogspot.com

This is  my first entry on this blog under this new plan.  I hope the NSA/CIA can follow along now that I am not using Facebook for these comments.

GOP on illegals voting.

It seems to me that the position the GOP takes on the subject of illegal aliens voting in our elections is illogical if not absurd. 

First,  nearly 50 percent of Americans who can vote, do not.  That is because they say "one vote doesn't matter" so what is the point.  The GOP then says those Americans don't care enough about our system to get involved so we should not worry about how they might have voted.

Second, the GOP then claims that illegal residents are dying to vote.  That means that illegals are willing to take a risk of a fine, jail time and then deportation after released from their 5 year prison term in order to cast a ballot that will have very little impact on the outcome of an election.

Ergo, if the 50 percent who can vote and don't, why would an individual illegal risk it all to do what most others don't want to do?  How does the GOP reconcile the first reality with the second claim?

The above deals with the question of why would an illegal resident vote.  The second part of this issue is how would the illegal resident go about voting if he wanted to take the risk.

To cast a ballot a person must go to a voting station and report giving a name and having that name appear on the voting register.  If that name is a person who has previously voted there would appear a signature next to the name.  How is the illegal to know what name to give and how to forge his or her signature?  There is also the reality that a polling place has poll watchers from each of the major parties in the district.  That poll watcher is a resident of that district and would have a very good chance of knowing or at least recognizing the person trying to vote.  Even if you don't have to show an ID, the current system would not allow just anyone to vote just because they say they want to.

The only way a person can vote is to be registered prior to the election date.  That would require filling out a voting form with name, address and age recorded and avowing that the statement being made is true knowing that a lie, if caught, would result in a 5 year jail time and a $ 250,000 fine (and in the case of an illegal alien, deportation).

Sorry, but none of this make any sense.