This overview provides a glimpse into what to expect from President Trump’s next four years. The political and economic landscape will undoubtedly be dynamic, with significant implications for various segments of the population. President Trump’s Second Term: What to Expect 2024-2025: Setting the Stage Inauguration and Early Policies: President Trump’s second term begins with a focus on solidifying his base and implementing key policies. His administration is expected to prioritize immigration reform, including the continuation of building the border wall and implementing stricter immigration policies, Trump has also promised to cut taxes further, particularly for corporations and high-income earners. Congressional Dynamics: With Republicans likely holding a majority in both the House and Senate, Trump will have more leeway to push through his legislative agenda. However, he may still face opposition from within his party on certain issues, particularly those that require significant funding or are highly controversial. 2025-2026: Economic Policies and Social Security Tax Cuts and Economic Impact: Trump’s economic policies will likely include extending the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, reducing corporate tax rates, and eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits. While these measures aim to stimulate economic growth, they could also increase the federal deficit and potentially lead to cuts in social programs. Impact on the Lower Middle Class: The lower middle class may face mixed outcomes. On one hand, tax cuts could provide some financial relief. On the other hand, proposed tariffs and a potential national sales tax could increase the cost of goods, disproportionately affecting lower-income households. The burden of a national sales tax is typically regressive, meaning it takes a larger percentage of income from lower-income earners. Social Security Concerns: Trump has pledged not to cut Social Security benefits, but his economic policies could inadvertently strain the program’s funding. Eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits and other revenue-reducing measures could exacerbate the funding crisis, potentially leading to benefit cuts in the future 2026-2027: Legislative Battles and Policy Implementation Healthcare and Education: Trump’s administration may attempt to repeal or replace the Affordable Care Act, focusing on reducing federal involvement in healthcare. Education policies could see a shift towards school choice and voucher programs, aiming to increase competition and improve educational outcomes. Infrastructure and Trade: Infrastructure development will likely be a key focus, with Trump pushing for significant investments in rebuilding America’s roads, bridges, and airports. Trade policies will continue to emphasize tariffs and renegotiating trade deals to favor American interests. 2027-2028: Preparing for the Next Election Political Climate and Midterm Elections: As the 2028 midterm elections approach, Trump’s administration will focus on maintaining Republican control of Congress. This period may see increased political polarization and efforts to rally the base through populist rhetoric and policy initiatives. Long-term Economic Impact: The long-term effects of Trump’s economic policies will become more apparent. While tax cuts and deregulation may boost economic growth, the potential increase in the federal deficit and strain on social programs could pose significant challenges. Defense, NATO, and Terrorism Defense and Military Spending: Trump has consistently advocated for increased military spending and a strong national defense. His administration is expected to continue this trend, focusing on modernizing the military and ensuring the U.S. maintains its global military dominance. NATO and International Relations: Trump’s relationship with NATO has been contentious. He has criticized NATO members for not meeting their defense spending commitments and has suggested that the U.S. might reduce its involvement if other members do not increase their contributions. This stance could lead to tensions within the alliance and impact the U.S.’s role in global security. Terrorism: Trump’s approach to combating terrorism will likely involve a combination of military action and intelligence operations. He has emphasized the need for strong borders and strict immigration policies to prevent terrorists from entering the country. Additionally, Trump has advocated for aggressive measures against terrorist organizations abroad, Immigration Policies Mass Deportations: Trump has promised to carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American history. This plan involves mass deportations of undocumented immigrants, increased workplace raids, and the use of the U.S. military to assist in enforcement. Critics argue that this approach could lead to significant humanitarian and economic challenges. Border Security: Building and expanding the border wall remains a priority for Trump. His administration will likely continue to allocate significant resources to border security, including hiring more border agents and implementing advanced surveillance technologies. Asylum and Visa Policies: Trump’s administration is expected to implement stricter asylum policies and reduce the number of visas issued. These measures aim to curb illegal immigration and ensure that only those who meet stringent criteria are allowed to enter the country. Legacy and Future Prospects: Trump’s second term will shape his legacy and influence the future direction of the Republican Party. His policies and leadership style will continue to be a source of debate and analysis, impacting American politics for years to come.. Post Views: 5
Category: Bureaucracy
KAMALA HARRIS GUNS AND MISINFORMATION
FIRST LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR. I AM NOT NOW OR EVER HAVE BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH ANY POLITICAL PARTIES. THERE IS NO ROOM IN GOVERNING OUR NATION FOR POLITICS. Just two of the many reasons I CAN NOT vote for Kamala Harris. Aside from never getting a direct answer regarding her plans for OUR future. She speaks nonsensically I know preschoolers who are able to communicate better. One of President Biden’s first orders to VP Harris was to oversee the illegal immigrant invasion. We still have seen no action. Except to place Trump ideas in effect, like many other things. {I can only expect the same thing). NO POSITIVE ACTION, for another 4 years if she is elected. We know she is incapable of thinking on her feet, and has to be fed what to say. Just like a puppet. So, do we know who will be pulling her strings if elected? MAYBE some subversive group (?), A quote from the woman; herself regarding GUNS and the Privacy of your home. Yes, Kamala Harris did make a statement about authorities checking how guns are stored in homes. This remark dates back to 2007 when she was the District Attorney in San Francisco. During a news conference about new legislation aimed at enforcing safe storage of guns, she said, “Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn’t mean that we’re not going to walk into that home and check to see if you’re being responsible and safe in the way you conduct your affairs” To me this is a corner cutter for a means of doing an “UNREASONABLE SEARCH”. A means to enter YOUR HOME and make up any reason they want, to SEIZE YOUR PERSONAL SELF DEFENSE equipment, Not to mention any thing else they might not like. Now let us look at another thing Ms. Harris seems so proud to stand up for..MISINFORMATION Yes, Kamala Harris has addressed the issue of misinformation on several occasions. In her speeches, she has emphasized the dangers of misinformation and the importance of combating it to protect democracy and public health. For example, during her campaign and tenure as Vice President, she has spoken about. Now let us look at another thing Ms. Harris seems so proud to stand up for..MISINFORMATION. the need for accurate information, especially in the context of elections and public health crises like the COVID-19 pandemic. Misinformation can undermine trust in institutions and spread false narratives that can have serious consequences. Harris has advocated for greater efforts to ensure that people have access to reliable and truthful information. We live in a world of misinformation, especially from politics. Example of misinformation,(simplified). Simple sentence: “I don’t like chocolate milk” Simple enough? Of course the politicians AS WELL AS MEDIA,(depending on what they want to push). Let’s omit the word, (one word), “DON”T”. Now it looks like I said, “I like chocolate milk”. Or omit the word CHOCOLATE. Now it appears “I don’t like milk”. If you omit the word milk, Now it appears that “I don’t like chocolate”. To sum up: WHO would make the judgement of what is misinformation? THE GOVERNMENT !!!! Now if this is the type of RULER you want vote for the potential Tzarini. (My word), for a female Tzar. Or maybe Marxist, as she apparently grew up in a household of Marxist. I have NO idea what to expect from Ms Harris. I really expect the END of our Freedoms as we know them. She appears to want to take away at least two or three of our Constitutional Rights. Today 2 or 3 by the end of her term we may be living under Russia’s PUTIN, or Hitler. Now lets look at the Trump side. What can I say? I don’t agree with everything he says. I don’t always agree with things he does. BUT, he does say what he thinks, SO I know what I am getting. I think a lot of things he says is in jest, just to make a point. Mark Twain was very good doing this. Post Views: 26
The Death of Pat Tillman: A Hero’s Tragic and Controversial End
Pat Tillman was a man of immense courage, both on the football field and the battlefield. Known for his selflessness, Tillman walked away from a successful NFL career to serve in the U.S. Army following the attacks on September 11, 2001. His decision shocked the sports world, as he turned down millions to follow a higher calling. Tragically, Tillman’s life was cut short in 2004 while serving in Afghanistan. What followed his death was a series of misreports and accusations of a military cover-up, sparking one of the most controversial military cases in modern U.S. history. Pat Tillman’s Path from NFL Star to Army Ranger Tillman was a rising star in the NFL, playing safety for the Arizona Cardinals. He was known for his relentless work ethic and fierce determination. In 2002, after completing the NFL season, Tillman made a life-altering decision. Deeply affected by the events of 9/11, he enlisted in the U.S. Army, leaving behind his NFL career to serve his country. Tillman joined the elite Army Rangers and served tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan. His decision to enlist in the military at the height of his career earned him admiration from fans, players, and the American public. He became a symbol of sacrifice and service. However, his journey took a tragic turn on April 22, 2004, when he was killed in a firefight while on patrol in the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan. Initial Reports and the Tragic Friendly Fire Incident When news of Pat Tillman’s death first broke, it was reported that he had died heroically in a firefight with enemy forces. The U.S. military initially described his death as the result of an ambush by Taliban insurgents. Tillman’s story became a rallying cry for patriotism, and his sacrifice was celebrated nationwide. However, within weeks of his death, disturbing details began to surface that challenged the initial reports. It was revealed that Tillman had not been killed by enemy fire but by “friendly fire”—a devastating revelation that sent shockwaves through his family and the public. The term “friendly fire” refers to a situation in which soldiers are accidentally shot by their own forces, and this was the grim reality of Tillman’s final moments. Tillman had been accidentally shot by fellow U.S. soldiers in the confusion of battle, when his platoon was split during an engagement with enemy forces. In the chaos, Tillman was struck by three bullets to the head, fired from a fellow soldier’s rifle. The soldiers involved were reportedly unaware of their mistake until it was too late. The Cover-Up and Misreporting The controversy surrounding Pat Tillman’s death stems not only from the friendly fire incident itself but also from how the U.S. military handled the situation. For weeks, the military continued to promote the narrative that Tillman had been killed by enemy forces, even as evidence of friendly fire became clear to those on the ground. This led to accusations that the military had deliberately concealed the truth in order to preserve Tillman’s image as a war hero. Tillman’s family was devastated when they learned the truth about how he had died. They became outspoken critics of the military’s handling of his death, accusing the government of using Pat’s death as a propaganda tool to rally public support for the war. The family felt that the initial misreporting of his death was not merely an error but part of a calculated cover-up to hide the uncomfortable reality of friendly fire. The Official Investigation The controversy surrounding Tillman’s death eventually led to multiple investigations by the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, and Congress. The Army conducted a formal inquiry into the incident, which confirmed that Tillman’s death was indeed the result of friendly fire. The report also noted that there had been a failure to report the details of the incident accurately and promptly. However, the investigation into whether there was an intentional cover-up remained contentious. Testimonies from soldiers who were with Tillman during the firefight revealed that the military had been aware early on that Tillman was likely killed by friendly fire. Yet, despite this knowledge, it took weeks for the truth to be disclosed to Tillman’s family and the public. Congressional hearings were held in 2007, during which military officials were questioned about the delayed and misleading reports. Army officials admitted that the initial account of Tillman’s death was wrong but denied any deliberate attempt to cover up the truth. The hearings left many questions unanswered, and the Tillman family continued to believe that there had been an effort to mislead them and the public. Lingering Controversies and Theories Despite the official investigations, controversy still surrounds the handling of Pat Tillman’s death. The central question remains: Was the initial misreporting a result of confusion and poor communication, or was it a deliberate attempt to manipulate the story of Tillman’s death for political purposes? The Role of Leadership: – Some critics argue that military leadership, particularly at higher levels, may have intentionally delayed the truth about Tillman’s death to avoid public relations fallout. At the time of his death, Tillman had become a national symbol, and revealing that he had died by friendly fire might have undermined his legacy and damaged morale among U.S. forces and the American public. Political Motivations: – There is also speculation that Tillman’s death was manipulated to serve as a patriotic rallying point during a period when public support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was wavering. Tillman’s death, as initially reported, was seen as a heroic sacrifice, and some believe this narrative was maintained for political purposes. The Question of Accountability: – While investigations confirmed friendly fire as the cause of death, many believe that those responsible for the delay in revealing the truth have not been held accountable. The Tillman family, in particular, has sought greater transparency and justice in the handling of Pat’s case. Conclusion: A Complex and Tragic Story Pat Tillman’s death is a story of both heroism and heartbreak. His… Continue reading The Death of Pat Tillman: A Hero’s Tragic and Controversial End
Lifetime Bans in Baseball: A Closer Look at the Scandals that Shook the Sport
IN MEMORY OF PETE ROSE (April 14, 1941-September 30, 2024) NOTE: The National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum is an independent, nonprofit educational institution. That being said it seems the MLB bans of any player is not binding!!! So why have players like Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson not been enshrined in the hall of fame. There records speak for their for them. (Anyone from the Baseball Hall of Fame care to respond). Now to our story. Though not an actual mystery, this article goes into detail about lifetime bans in Baseball and gives you a greater look into these bans and their outcomes. Baseball holds a special place in American culture, and with that comes a strong commitment to fair play and sportsmanship. When these values are compromised, Major League Baseball (MLB) does not hesitate to impose its harshest penalty—a lifetime ban. This punishment has been used sparingly throughout the history of the game but always for actions that threaten its integrity. Let’s take a deeper look into the most infamous lifetime bans in baseball history, the events leading to them, and their lasting impact. Pete Rose: The Gambling Scandal that Rocked Baseball Pete Rose, known as “Charlie Hustle,” is one of the most controversial figures in baseball. Over a 24-year career, he set the record for most hits (4,256), earning accolades and a reputation as one of the greatest players in history. However, Rose’s fall from grace came in 1989 when it was revealed that he had bet on baseball games, including those involving the Cincinnati Reds, a team he both played for and managed. (It is said he only bet FOR his team to win). An investigation led by MLB Commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti concluded that Rose had placed bets on numerous baseball games from 1985 to 1987, including his own team’s games, though no evidence suggested he bet against the Reds. In a deal to avoid further legal action, Rose accepted a lifetime ban from baseball on August 24, 1989, without admitting to or denying the allegations. Rose’s ban barred him from managing, coaching, or holding any official role within MLB, and he became ineligible for induction into the Hall of Fame. Over the years, Rose has made several appeals for reinstatement, expressing remorse for his actions and eventually admitting in 2004 that he had bet on baseball. Despite his pleas, MLB has held firm, citing the importance of maintaining the integrity of the game. The impact of Rose’s ban continues to be debated. Many fans believe his on-field accomplishments should be enough to warrant Hall of Fame induction, while others argue that his gambling offenses tarnish his legacy irreparably. The Rose case serves as a stark reminder of baseball’s strict no-tolerance policy toward gambling. The Black Sox Scandal: A World Series Tainted by Greed In 1919, baseball was rocked by one of its greatest scandals when eight members of the Chicago White Sox were accused of conspiring with gamblers to throw the World Series against the Cincinnati Reds. The players involved, including legendary outfielder **Shoeless Joe Jackson**, accepted bribes from gamblers in exchange for underperforming in key moments of the series. The scandal came to light after rumors of the fix spread throughout the season, leading to an investigation. The eight players, known as the “Black Sox,” were indicted by a grand jury in 1920, though they were acquitted of criminal charges. However, MLB’s newly appointed Commissioner, Kenesaw Mountain Landis, was determined to restore the public’s faith in the game and permanently banned all eight players from baseball, regardless of the court’s decision. Shoeless Joe Jackson’s involvement remains a subject of controversy. Despite his incredible .375 batting average during the series and his claims of innocence, Jackson was still banned for life. Many believe Jackson was not fully complicit in the plot and was manipulated by his teammates and the gamblers. Still, Landis’ decision to ban him solidified Jackson’s exclusion from baseball history, including the Hall of Fame. The Black Sox Scandal is often seen as a turning point for MLB. It led to the establishment of the Commissioner’s Office, created to protect the integrity of the game. The scandal also fueled a more stringent approach to gambling and a zero-tolerance policy toward any behavior that could compromise the fairness of competition. Performance-Enhancing Drugs (PEDs): A Modern-Day Scourge The following bans I agree with 100%, and should be MLB Lifetime, because they were out and out CHEATING. While the use of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) became a major issue in baseball in the 1990s and 2000s, MLB’s policies regarding drug violations were initially less stringent. However, after repeated scandals involving high-profile players, the league adopted a tough stance that includes the possibility of lifetime bans for multiple offenses. The MLB’s Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program mandates increasing punishments for players caught using PEDs. A first offense results in an 80-game suspension, a second offense leads to a 162-game suspension (a full season), and a third offense results in a lifetime ban. Although no player has yet been banned after three offenses, the threat of permanent exclusion serves as a strong deterrent. Some of the most famous players involved in PED scandals include Alex Rodriguez and Barry Bonds. Rodriguez was suspended for the entire 2014 season due to his involvement in the Biogenesis scandal, but he narrowly avoided a lifetime ban. Bonds, though never banned, faced legal challenges and public scrutiny due to allegations of steroid use during his career. The legacy of PED use in baseball has left a cloud over an entire generation of players, some of whom would have been Hall of Fame candidates if not for their association with drugs. MLB’s aggressive anti-drug policies reflect its commitment to maintaining a level playing field, and while lifetime bans for PEDs are rare, the policy underscores the seriousness with which the league treats drug violations. Assault and Misconduct: Off-the-Field Actions with On-the-Field Consequences While gambling and PEDs are more common reasons… Continue reading Lifetime Bans in Baseball: A Closer Look at the Scandals that Shook the Sport
Electoral College: Protector of Small Populous States RIGHT TO VOTE
It has been brought to my attention, some states are taking steps to eliminate the ‘ELECTORAL COLLEGE”. Apparently the people trying to eliminate the Electoral College, either missed that day in school, or was asleep when the subject was being taught. You see the Electoral College was put in the constitution to protect smaller states from being RULED by the whims of the larger populated states. It is a safe stop; which is more necessary now than at the time of its placement in the constitution. Before you begin reading the main body of this post, I ask you to keep in mind these numbers. (Although the Electoral College isn’t perfect please consider these numbers). Then tell me who completely controls the “POPULAR VOTE”. California: 38,889,700 people. Texas: 30,978,754 people. Florida: 22,975,931 people. New York 19,467,232 people. Pennsylvania 12,951275 people. I am using numbers available for April, 2024. The total population of just these 5 states, (according to my calculator), 335,893,238 that is almost 336 MILLION PEOPLE. Now as for the other 45 states (again according to my calculator), 206,982,776 almost 207 MILLION PEOPLE. My point being with 5 states having 129 MILLION MORE PEOPLE THAN THE remaining 45 states. These 5 states have more than enough people to elect whoever they want not necessarily who is best for the entire country. This conundrum (to ME). Do I want a president I do not want or even have a say in? The Electoral College is a mechanism established by the United States Constitution in Article II, Section 1. It was intended as a compromise between those who advocated for the election of the president through a vote in Congress and those who believed it should be decided by a popular vote of qualified citizens. The Electoral College consists of 538 electors in total, which represent the 435 Representatives, 100 Senators, and three additional electors from the District of Columbia. To win the presidency, a candidate must receive at least 270 electoral votes. This system is not based on equal representation of individuals, but rather on equal representation of states. Now let’s consider your hypothetical scenario where just five most populated states control a presidential election. These states are California (55 Electoral Votes), Texas (38), Florida (29), New York (29), and Pennsylvania (20) as per the 2020 allocations. This adds up to just 171 electoral votes – still far short from the required majority of 270. Therefore, even though these states might have large populations, they alone cannot decide an election through popular vote due to our current electoral college system. However, if we were to shift to a direct democracy model or use only popular vote to determine elections, theoretically these states with high populations could indeed dominate national elections. This could lead to political imbalance and neglecting interests of less populous areas which often have unique socio-economic and environmental issues that require specific policy attention. If this were the case, citizens from less-populated states might feel that their votes don’t carry enough weight or their voice is not heard adequately in deciding national leadership. This could lead to certain degree of voter disillusionment or lower voter turnout among them because they may see their role as insignificant next to larger populace areas. This concern forms one of key arguments behind maintaining our Electoral College – it ensures all parts of country can have recognizable say in choosing our national leader irrespective of their population size. Furthermore, the electoral college system forces presidential candidates to seek support from a wider geographic base, instead of just focusing on densely populated urban areas. It maintains the balance of influence among states and encourages candidates to understand and respond to diverse needs of different states. So despite criticisms, many argue that maintaining the electoral college is an important tool in preserving our federal system and ensuring that all parts of the country have an equitable say in national elections. In conclusion: What am i missing? After all I am sure these lawmakers have a much better education than I do. OR, are they ??? What is their motive for taking away the voters rights, as IT IS possible that the votes cast by these 45 states are just a matter of going through the motions, allowing the residents to feel their votes count. Thank you. Artie Fischal P.S. Please feel free to leave me comments those who agree and those who don’t agree. Maybe I’ll learn something. Post Views: 134
If Elected I Will: Promises Made by Politicians
Election time is here ! We can tell by the sprouting of signs in lawns, billboards, newspapers, TV and Radio ads. (which is, it seems at least one or two out three ads). They fall into three different catagories. One is telling you how bad a person their opponent is. The second is telling you what a terrific person the one who’s being told what a louse he is by his opponent. The Third is PROMISES, that are in truth what the politician thinks the people he represents want to hear. So, today let’s take a short look at how valid, or likely those freely strewn promises have of actually happening. It is really more complicated than what we see here; but this will give you somewhat of an idea how most of the things promised Won’t happen. I would much rather hear, “These are the things I WANT to do”. Rather than, “This what I WILL do, if elected”. Doesn’t that sound more truthful? So here we go. When politicians run for office, they often make a variety of promises to the electorate. These campaign promises are designed to align with their constituents’ values and concerns, and are intended to illustrate the candidates’ goals if they are elected. However, it is true that these promises sometimes extend beyond what the politicians themselves can personally deliver. Let’s look at some of the reasons why this is the case. 1. Separation of Powers: In many democratic societies, powers are divided among different branches of government. For example, in the United States, power is split between executive, legislative, and judicial branches. If a candidate running for an executive office (like President or Governor) makes a promise that requires legislation to be passed or changed, they will need cooperation from the legislative branch where lawmakers may not share their views or objectives. 2. Opposition: Politicians often face opposition from other elected officials who either have different views or might not want them to succeed for political reasons. This opposition can come from within their own party (intra-party) or from other parties (inter-party). This opposition might block or delay legislation needed to fulfill certain promises. 3. External Constraints: Sometimes events outside a politician’s control can hinder their ability to fulfill promises made during campaigns. The economy could enter a recession; there could be natural disasters; international events could demand time and resources–all these factors can divert attention and resources away from certain campaign promises. 4. Public Opinion: Public opinion can shift over time due to external factors or changes in societal attitudes which may make it difficult for politicians to keep certain campaign promises without risking public approval. 5. Constraints by Law and Constitution: Many countries have constitutions that place restrictions on what government bodies can do within their jurisdiction which may limit a politician’s ability to fulfill some election promises. Despite these constraints, it’s important for citizens in any democracy to hold elected officials accountable for their campaign pledges within these realistic limits. If a politician consistently fails to meet their promises without good reason, voters can express their dissatisfaction at the ballot box in the next election. An educated electorate is a key pillar of any healthy democracy, and understanding the real constraints politicians face can help voters make informed decisions about which candidates truly have their best interests at heart. Post Views: 129
THE DISAPPEARANCE OF CENTRAL AMERICA part 2
[adrotate group=”1″] Central America has a rich and complex past, shaped by political upheavals, economic transformations, and social struggles. From its early days as part of the Spanish Empire to the tumultuous events of the 20th century, Central America has witnessed significant changes. Here’s a concise overview: Colonial Era and Independence: After centuries of Spanish colonization, Central America declared independence from the Spanish Empire in 1821. The region initially formed the Federal Republic of Central America, which included present-day countries such as Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica . However, this federation was short-lived. By 1822, some Central American countries were annexed by the First Mexican Empire under Emperor Agustín de Iturbide. Yet, they regained their independence and reconstituted the federal republic in 1823 . Economic Landscape and Social Struggles: In the aftermath of World War II, Latin America’s economic landscape underwent significant changes. The United Kingdom and the United States held political and economic interests in the region. Central America’s economy shifted from relying solely on agricultural exports to promoting internal development. However, this new system often favored capital over labor, leading to socioeconomic disparities . The most marginalized members of society faced unjust land tenure, labor coercion, and unequal political representation. Large corporations exerted influence, displacing self-sufficient farmers and workers . Central American Crisis (1970s-1990s): The late 1970s marked the onset of the Central American crisis. Major civil wars and communist revolutions erupted across the region. The United States feared that communist victories would isolate South America if Central American governments fell to pro-Soviet forces. Consequently, the U.S. supported right-wing governments against left-wing guerrillas . Notable events: Nicaragua: The Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) overthrew the Somoza dictatorship in 1979. The U.S. opposed the revolution due to FSLN’s communist sympathies and backed anti-left-wing rebels . El Salvador: The Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) fought against the military-led government. The U.S. supported the Salvadoran military and supplied arms . Guatemala: Civil war raged between 1962 and 1996, following a CIA-backed coup in 1954 . Legacy and Challenges: The Central American crisis left scars—thousands lost their lives, and societies grappled with trauma. Today, Central America faces ongoing challenges, including poverty, violence, and migration. Natural disasters, such as earthquakes, further impact the region . In summary, Central America’s history is a tapestry of struggle, resilience, and transformation. From colonial beginnings to modern complexities, this region continues to shape its destiny. [adrotate group=”1″] Post Views: 105
THE DISAPPEARANCE of CENTRAL AMERICA: A TALE of INEQUALITY, VIOLENCE, and MIGRATION
[adrotate group=”1″] When I attended school way back in the 1950s, we were taught the 3 AMERICAS. 1. North America: Canada, United States of America, and Mexico. Then there was 2. Central America: Now made up of Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama. However, you rarely, (if ever), hear Central America mentioned. Did North America eat up these countries, OR did South America take them over? So I decided to do a little research. This is all I could come up with. Apparently this area is still CENTRAL AMERICA, seems the MEDIA is unaware of the existence of Central America. This will be a two post story. Please let me know… DOES CENTRAL AMERICA STILL EXIST? PART 1. Central America, a region steeped in history and complexity, has witnessed profound changes over the centuries. From colonial conquests to modern-day struggles, its story is one of resilience, tragedy, and hope. In this blog post, we explore the disappearance of Central America—a disappearance not of landmass but of lives, dreams, and stability. Roots of Inequality and Violence Central America’s woes trace back to the age of Spanish colonization. The legacy of inequality and violence has haunted the region for centuries. Here are some key factors: Spanish Conquest: The arrival of Spanish conquistadors in the 16th century marked the beginning of a tumultuous era. Indigenous populations were subjugated, their lands seized, and their cultures suppressed. The seeds of inequality were sown. Elites vs. Populations: Over time, small criminal elites thrived at the expense of the masses. These elites controlled resources, perpetuating poverty and injustice. The majority struggled to survive, caught in a cycle of exploitation. US Intervention: The United States played a pivotal role in Central America’s fate. Sometimes unintentionally, other times deliberately, US actions shaped the region. Whether motivated by profit or ideology, the consequences were far-reaching. The Desperate Exodus Fast-forward to the present day. Families in Central America face a hellish existence—a reality the US has helped create. Here’s how: Costly Journeys: Desperate to escape violence, poverty, and hopelessness, migrants embark on perilous journeys. The cost of smuggling services has skyrocketed—from $1,000 to up to $12,000. Families take out loans, hoping that reaching the US will be their salvation. US Policies: US foreign policy has often favored the powerful and wealthy. When activists championed the dispossessed, the US either intervened against them or turned a blind eye to their plight. The result? Families flee their homes, seeking refuge from a system that failed them. Unintended Consequences: Enforcement measures aimed at curbing illegal immigration inadvertently increased the stakes. Failure meant debt, and the only way to repay it was to keep trying. Women and children migrate, hoping to stay together. The Missing Voices Central America’s disappearance isn’t just about physical borders—it’s about the missing voices. More than two-thirds of migrants fleeing the northern triangle countries (Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador) have experienced murder, disappearance, or kidnapping . The toll is staggering: Guatemala: More than 45,000. El Salvador: Over 5,000. A Call for Change Central America’s struggle continues. Poverty, violence, and corruption persist. But so does resilience. Communities fight for justice, families search for their loved ones, and activists raise their voices. As we reflect on Central America’s disappearance, let us remember the faces behind the statistics—the lives lost, the dreams shattered. And let us advocate for a world where no one vanishes into the void, where every voice matters. In the end, Central America’s story isn’t one of disappearance; it’s a story of survival, endurance, and the unwavering quest for a better tomorrow. [adrotate group=”1″] Post Views: 98
Non-Politics View of Biden Presidency
As I have stated many times in my posts. I AM NOT REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT. I have no political allegiance. THERE IS NO ROOM FOR POLITICS IN GOVENMENT. My Observations during my life span is that POPULAR PRESIDENTS are the ones who do nothing UNPOPULAR PRESIDENTS are the ones who DO something. The last 4 years we had an unpopular president. (As seen by the MEDIA), Right or Wrong President Trump tried to do something. However he was faced by a Democrat packed HOUSE. Unlike any I have seen. They were SO disappointed of not SEATING Hillary Clinton, (which would have been a disaster for our Good Old USA. (My opinion). They never had time to do anything for “US”. The ONLY AGENDA on their 4 year shift; was to undercut the “REPUBLICAN” , who defeated their Dear Hillary. It didn’t matter if it were Donald Trump, or you, or I who defeated H.R. Clinton. The agenda would have still been the same. Undercut the person who won out over her. Now, don’t get me wrong. I did not agree with everything, our President said or did. But he TRIED to some good things. Only to meet opposition. In fact I would have voted for Biden; had he been the Democratic candidate rather than Clinton. This year was different. I found Biden to be somewhat INDECISIVE. It is MY OPINION The Democrats are using him as a pawn, to advance their Socialistic views. (As in Union Soviet SOCIALIST Republic). The “HOUSE”, has already began laying the foundation to remove Biden from office. Remember when the “PELOSI FAMILY”, was plotting to make it so “ THE HOUSE”, could declare the President “UNFIT “? My personally conducted “STRAW POLL” , came to the following conclusion: Biden is given at most 1 year as President, before the HOUSE begins the procedure to deem him UNFIT. Thereby achieving their immediate goal of a WOMAN PRESIDENT. I hope I am wrong. I hope Biden will wake up and see how the Democrats intend to use him, and actually accomplishes something. I hope I am wrong about the plot of the “PELOSI FAMILY”. That is HOW I SEE IT! Post Views: 96
THE WALL, GUN CONTROL AND OTHER THINGS
I must apologize. With TAX season upon us; I got busy and didn’t realize my hosting fee was due. SORRY about that. But we are up and running again. Let me begin by re-affirming. I AM NEITHER A REPUBLICAN NOR DEMOCRAT. I FEEL THERE IS NO ROOM FOR POLITICS IN GOVERNMENT. Recent events have shown WHY I have this belief. Was Donald Trump my first choice for President of United States. NO! However given the choice between Mr. Trump and Hillary Clinton ( a proven anti American candidate), there was little choice. I figure women voted for her because of their desire to have a WOMAN President. Then you have those people (of both parties) Who will vote for a candidate because he/she is of a certain party. If Hitler were alive and nominated for a political office there is NO doubt he would get the vote of those hard line PARTY MEMBERS. I do not think Donald Trump believed he had a chance to become President. And was really taken off guard when he got the nomination and then actually WON. Had the democratic party chosen an able candidate I may have voted for that one. However given the record of Barack Obama, IT would have been difficult to justify any DEMOCRATIC candidate.. I could write volumes about how Obama wasted eight years of being a very powerful person. (I did like that he appeared to to LOVE basketball). I could also fill volumes of why I feel Ms. Clinton is anti-American. Let me say that I was no fan of Republican Ronald Reagan, or H.W. Bush. Now on to my POST. As I see it TOO MANY OF YOU HAVE BECOME FOLLOWERS. You will sit there and watch a speech or a video account of something and RATHER, Than believe what YOU hear or see. YOU believe the editorialized version you receive from the MEDIA. We have so few NEWS “REPORTERS”. What we have are…” NEWS EDITORIALIZERS” They do not “REPORT NEWS” . THEY merely give you their version. (Or their boss”s version). I have seen many LIVE speeches given by Mr. Trump. Only to see the news version which has been edited. Omitting even a word or two can change the entire meaning. This is one trick they use to convince you to believe their way. I find it hard to believe the majority of DEMOCRATS are being truly represented by the people they elected. (Some Republicans are the same). It just seems that the DEMOCRATS now in office have no LOGICAL THINKING ABILITY. (I am one who relies on LOGIC more than not. Let us look upon Nancy Pelosi. A person totally void of LOGIC. I know for a fact that Mr. Trump tried in earnest to negotiate with her on the wall deal. But Pelosi (being one minded), refused to try to negotiate. (NEGOTIATE: TO DEAL OR BARGAIN WITH ANOTHER OR OTHERS IN THE PREPARATION OF A TREATY OR CONTRACTIN PRELIMINARIES TO A BUSINESS DEAL). Example: If you are wanting a raise in wages. Say you are really wanting a dollar an hour raise, or if on salary you want a $5000 a year raise. Do you go to your boss and say I want a dollar an hour more. He will com back and say I will give you a quarter and hour and somehow you reach an agreement between his offer of a quarter and your asking one dollar. No you go in and ask for say $2 an hour raise through negotiation you agree to the dollar raise ( or near it), you get your raise the boss feels he has saved $1 an hour. You both are pleased. BUT If you go to the boss and say I want to negotiate a raise. The boss says NO I won’t discuss a raise. Thus you have no negotiations. That is exactly what Ms Pelosi told Mr. Trump. So he did what you and I would do and walked out. Ms. Pelosi has her own agenda and thinks she is the sole charge of USA. An ego trip if you will. She is not interested in representing the majority of democrats, She is merely trying to make a name for herself. The name she is making I personally would hate to have. I know MANY Democrats whho have tuned her out and are ashamed to admit they are Democrats. People who have been Democrats for SIXTY to SEVENTY years. Now let’s move to this wall thing. Jim Acosta a CNN reporter was walking along a portion of wall and telling everyone the wall was not needed. After all the businesses behind that wall were all doing well and no trouble with people illegally crossing ACCROSS the border. FROM BEHIND THE WALL.. Did you see the interview of the tthree ranchers whose ranches are along the border? One rancher tells of 2 million illegal crossings on his property and tearing down his fences. (I think that number could have been stretched a little), BUT they are entering our country illegally.. Another tells of 38 trucks coming across with illegal guns to be sold in our USA. Another tells of truckloads of drugs crossing onto his ranch. The third tells of even more truckloads of drugs, crossing over his ranch. Ms. Pelosi and her comrade Schumer seem to go blind to these things. She claims we need “MORE GUN CONTROLS”; BUT ! Pretends there are illegal guns coming ILLEGALLY, into the USA.. Not to mention, in this day of “IDENTITY THEFT, HOW many of these illegal trespassers are using good citizens identities to obtain “ LEGAL GUNS”. As to PRESIDENT TRUMP stating he could have not used his power to accelerate the building of the WALL, (I personally don’t like the idea of a wall ….BUT). To delay the inevitable is like shutting the barn door after the horse is out. Lets curb these illegal activities as quickly as… Continue reading THE WALL, GUN CONTROL AND OTHER THINGS
