The debate on immigration, borders and the broad public policy issues addressing these matters deeply divides the citizenry of the United States. Clearly our current methods of grappling with these complex issues are yielding no consensus building; to the contrary, we are further polarizing and expanding the space between the opinions and those who hold them. The debate and the divide worsen and chaff with each proposal and counter proposal, producing further frustration and a worsening polarization.

I propose a plan to unite and clearly define each country’s destiny by putting these issues directly into the hands of the people themselves for a solution. We begin by placing a single, simple resolution on a US national ballot that will ask:

Shall the United States of America offer to the people and country of Mexico, the opportunity to become citizens of and a State in these United States? Simultaneously, voters in Mexico would be asked if they wish to become American citizens through Mexican statehood.

The success or failure of these resolutions will reveal each country’s actual willingness for addressing these issues with solutions either great or small. If the initiative fails on the US side, then it is clear that the majority of US voters prefer stronger border protection, as well as immigration policies and procedures that control access to the country. If the initiative passes on both sides, then with it would come all of the regulatory burden, oversight, taxation, policy enforcement, legal requirements, agency review etc. that all US states currently enjoy. The US Constitution and all of her laws, regulations, treaties and world-wide agreements would apply equally to the new state of Mexico. Compliance with OSHA, the EPA, FEMA, the IRS, all would embrace our newest state.

Should the Mexican voters decide against becoming a State in the United States, then it would be clear that border protection, immigration policy and questions of US national sovereignty and self preservation are proprietary questions answered only by the United States and not subject to debate and input from those interests outside of our country.

Admittedly anecdotal, I believe that the resolution, on both sides, would be soundly defeated. The open borders crowd in America is a small but shrill minority. The exposure to the bright light of simply proposing the resolution puts the question and its philosophy clearly into the open for unobscured observation in the absence of hyperbole. If defeated, the open border crowd would be rightly marginalized into non-relevance.

Judging by past mass demonstrations and rallies, the Mexican mainstream has a thinly disguised disdain of the US and holds strongly to its deep Spanish heritage with no desire to assimilate to US ideals of nationalism and heritage. By maintaining the stark economic disparity between our countries, the Mexican wage earner in the US does better when that difference is the greatest. Continued border porosity assures that outcome.

Solution through resolution would expose the hypocrisy on both sides and settle this long standing dilemma by placing the decision making authority exactly where it belongs, in the hands of the people.

Donald Sterling is the wealthy, white, 81 year-old billionaire owner of the LA Clippers NBA basketball team. Sterling has been married for over 50 years to the same white woman, but reportedly he has also had a mixed race girlfriend for the past few years. In what appears to be a lover’s quarrel, the girlfriend tape recorded Sterling saying he was troubled by her appearing with blacks in public. Apparently the little love tryst has gone south so Sterling is suing the girlfriend, attempting to reclaim a $1.8 million house he provided, plus several luxury cars and lots of cash. Turning over damning audio tapes to TMZ appears to have been the girlfriend’s revenge.

As a result of all this, as of the moment of this writing, Sterling has been fined $2.5 million by the NBA and has had a lifetime ban placed upon him for associating with his own team or the NBA in general. Team sponsors are bailing by the minute, so far costing the team likely in the tens of millions of dollars in income. He will probably be forced into selling the team at a fire sale price far below that which Forbes magazine recently valued at $575 million.

Sterling told his girlfriend that he didn’t like seeing her in public with blacks, but that he was OK with her doing whatever else with them in private, up to and including sleeping with them, (his words.) Sterling has twice been honored and recognized with significant awards from the LA NAACP, the latest being quickly and hastily recalled. Sterling surrounds himself with blacks; that is, most of his players and the coach of his team as well.

So, Sterling will endure a financial hit of perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars and likely be forced into selling his business because he told his girlfriend he didn’t like seeing her in public with blacks.

Let compare and contrast this with rap, rap artists, the rap culture and NBA players.

Rap artists routinely mix misogamy, murder, mayhem on the police and the encouragement of assaulting women while glamorizing gang-life and throwing the N word off on almost every lyric. They do this in exchange for millions of dollars. The NBA itself is no stranger to gang affiliation. At least eight players or former players are gang members. Many throw gang signs out to the crowd during games. Dozens have been arrested for anything and everything from murder to rape, robbery and assaults.

While happily taking Mr. Sterling’s millions in exchange for playing basketball, players are cranking up the sounds of those rap artists in their cars, homes and locker rooms, filling the air with the N word and every vile, disgusting and hateful form of speech quite imaginable to a fellow thug but completely revolting to the rest of us.

Now this group falls all over each other to express their outrage about Sterling when they should be filled with justifiable and warranted self-loathing, not only for their hypocrisy, but for their own personal choices in life and failures as role models.

Silence

“I know black contractors who have gone out of business because their black workers were not prompt or had negative attitudes. I know black workers who take pride about going to work any hour they feel like it, taking the day off when they feel like it … Many leaders who are black and many white liberals will object to my discussing these things in public. But the decadence in the black community … is already in the headlines; the only question is what should we do about it.”

Let this be a lesson why political correctness, (PC) is really censorship disguised as goodness and righteousness.

Jesse Jackson made this above quoted statement in 1976.

If I, as a white writer had said this, many would accuse me of racism. Many in Jesse Jackson’s community likely called him an “Uncle Tom” for saying it. Still others, cowed into silence by the PC Gestapo, read these words and nod in silent agreement; looking left then right, making sure no one sees them.

PC stifles spirited dialogue, differing opinions and open, honest debate. That’s its intended function; to SHUT YOU UP. Your tortured silence is then taken as agreement and approval, providing the fabrication of virtual consensus and broad acceptance in its real, actual absence.

Nearly 40 years after Jesse Jackson made this remark we since have had men and women of color in the highest positions of power; from the current President of the United States, former Secretary’s of State, Senators, Congressmen and women, judges in the highest courts, Governors and others across the spectrum of leadership and influence throughout the country. And with these advances, one would expect that the experience of being a black American would have realized a corresponding change as well and by any measure it certainly has. It has by some standards deteriorated.

The likes of the Jesse Jackson’s and Al Sharpton’s of the world, (aptly dubbed the “’poverty pimps” by former black congressman J C Watts), have demanded and obtained more and more government intervention and largess, intentionally replacing the traditional family, fatherhood and self-reliance with votes in exchange.

Robert Woodson Sr. is the CEO of the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise and a black conservative. In a recent Wall Street Journal article, he is quoted describing the current governmental infrastructure of welfare like this. “My worry and my fear is that the money and the resources will go to the same racial grievance groups, the same members of what I call the poverty Pentagon. They’ll give it to Al Sharpton and the others to do what they’ve been doing for decades, to do what doesn’t work-what in fact is making things worse.”

And there you have it; and only because a black man had the courage to say it and this white writer had the temerity to re-phrase it in today’s PC America.

What happened to our voice? Do we still own an opinion, or shall we let others do our bidding? Your silence does just that.

Bob Kingsley

Port Dickinson, NY

(Article attribution to the WSJ, Saturday/Sunday print edition, April 19-20, 2014, page A11, Opinion page, “A Black Conservative’s War on Poverty”)

It is a fact that black Americans represent 12.6% of the US population. It is also a fact that black males represent approximately 55% of those in US prisons.

Race-baiters lecture us by stating that this disproportionality results from a discriminatory justice system, not because black men really commit more crimes.

It is also factual that black males represent 78% of the NBA and 65% of the NFL. How do the race baiters explain this?

How do those who make their livelihood fueling the race war explain why a country would on the one hand discriminate so aggressively against blacks in the criminal justice system while at the same time finding them statistically over-represented in the world of professional sports?

Wouldn’t a racist nation covet the fame and fortune of professional sports for themselves over those whom they supposedly despise? Would that same racist nation elect a black president?

One might think that an offer to build squash courts and underwrite the entire cost would be an easy sell to any university. With that add the expertise and a willing, volunteer staff to support, form, organize, develop and coach men’s and women’s teams at no cost. Top it of with garnering the overwhelming support and encouragement of virtually the entire collegiate squash family in supporting the entry of a new school team into their competitive ranks. Sounds like a slam-dunk, a no-brainer right?

“No thanks, this doesn’t fit into our “long-range plans.” says Binghamton University. More about this marvelous long range plan in a moment, but first, this is what the squash idea looks like.

Seeing opportunity in the over-built and under-utilized racquetball court surplus at the Binghamton University, (BU) campus in upstate New York, the local, off-campus squash community proposed to underwrite the cost of converting four of those eight seldom used racquetball courts into a squash center, capable of supporting a fledgling squash program for both men’s and women’s teams; no small gift at a cost of nearly $50,000.00.

The campus of BU with its nearly 15,000 undergraduates is one of four university centers in the New York State family of 64 college campuses. Within easy reach of over two dozen other universities with squash programs, BU is positioned to field formidable teams and would be the first New York university to do so.

In collegiate circles, BU is already known as a “public ivy” because of its high academic standards and lofty credentials. What better way for student athletes to expand their collegiate experience than through recreational or competitive squash? What better sport to allow athletic involvement in a healthy pastime that can be played and enjoyed for ones entire life? The physical, social and political benefits of the squash playing community are truly underestimated at a university that has showcased primarily basketball when it comes to sports and the beloved and unchangeable long range plan which is blind to anything else.

Back to this plan.

A long time NCAA Division III School that had traditionally prided itself on academics over athletics, Binghamton decided in the 90’s that their focus would change slightly from pure academics to sports, specifically basketball. This led to a strong push from Division III designation to Division II and then to Division I in only 4 years.

Energizing a strong and locally supportive New York State senator as an ardent cheerleader, BU was able to find 40 million dollar for construction of a palatial event center to showcase the new basketball program.

Then came the unfortunate incident of a BU basketball player beating a fellow student nearly to death and into a coma before fleeing back to his home country of Croatia, avoiding trail, immune from extradition and prosecution. When eyebrows should have been rising, the focus remained on “the plan.” After recruiting and hiring former Georgetown basketball assistant coach Kevin Broadus in 2007, BU won its first ever basketball divisional championship just two years later, only to have the entire program come crashing down around allegations of grade fixing, illegal recruiting and improper admissions to students not academically capable of the rigors of the BU standards. Multiple players were arrested for a variety of things from shop-lifting, assault and larceny to crack-cocaine drug sales. Star athletes were being suspended, quitting or spending their days in the legal system. All told, six players were released from the team.

The Athletic Director was the first to go, followed by the University President herself, on a fast track to “retire.” Finally coach Broadus was suspended and subsequently fired, along with two assistant coaches. As a parting gift, Broadus managed to finagle a severance package of over 1 million dollars.

Incoming State University Chancellor Nancy Zimpher hired a friend’s powerful law firm to “investigate” the abuses and the program. The pitifully incomplete and woefully inadequate report was basically a cut-and-paste job of already known information, billed out at over $900,000.00 and telling the public nothing more than it already knew. The investigation itself became the subject of a mini-scandal all its own, seeming to squander almost $10,000.00 per page to say nothing.

The following year, the Assistant coach struggled to manage the beleaguered team to a 13-18 season and the team sat-out the post season as a sort of self-imposed punishment many believe was actually at the strong suggestion of the powers that be at the NCAA.

So, given this series of unfortunate events, this group of community squash players thought that the time was right to get the attention of the new and incoming leadership to see fresh and generous opportunity that was not only good, wholesome, cost-free and worthy; but would take the focus off of the troubling past issues everyone would just as soon forget.

Incoming University President Harvey Stenger was gracious in allowing an audience to hear the pitch for squash but he was quick to conclude with that sad mantra, now repeating itself, “Sorry, not in our plan.”

The obsession to stay with this here-to-fore not working out so well “plan” appears to be not only myopic but counter-productive.

Here is a suggestion for the masterminds at BU.

Obviously planners rule out everything but their own vision. Because no one at BU has any experience with the magic of a collegiate squash program, there is no connection, no interest and no concept of the value in a scandal free sport whose existence predates that of the formation of the NCAA. No one is suggesting that you change your; so-how-is-that-working-for-you-now plan, whatever that grandiose adventure in your mind might now be, but what you might consider is this. The addition of something new to your holy plan, especially when it costs nothing and creates opportunity where none existed before just might make the right connections for your students as they learn the ways of the world, the joys of competition, camaraderie and a life-long sport that they can take with them wherever they go for as long as they live. This is the sort of learning experience institutions use to provide to their students, not just a select few on the varsity basketball team, relegating everyone else to that of spectators.

Sounds like a plan to me.

Governor Cuomo was quoted recently as saying this about some conservatives;

“Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right to life, pro-assault weapons, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are, and if they are the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”

I’ll forgive the governor for his pronoun confusion with the words “who” and “what” however, speaking for myself and the conservatives I know, we understand exactly “who” we are and we know precisely “what” Cuomo is; a virtueless opportunist and a cafeteria-Catholic at odds with his own religion, no pronoun confusion here.

Plato tells us there are three classes of men; lovers of wisdom, lovers of honor, and lovers of gain. Clearly Cuomo falls into the latter at the expense of the first two.

Cuomo’s impression of what New York State citizens should be, in his small mind, and what New Yorkers actually are, reflect two entirely opposing realities. Sadly, Cuomo’s influence and experience are limited to the five boroughs of New York City and the two counties of Long Island. While together they encompass less than 4% of the land mass of the state, nearly 60% of the state’s population resides there, mostly liberals.

Even in this turned-on-its-head world in which we live, I find it breath-taking that a sitting Governor has the temerity to say that if you believe in the sanctity of life you are ineligible to be a citizen of New York. If you adhere to a belief in the 2nd Amendment afforded to us by a strong US Constitution, you are unwelcomed as a New York citizen. Should your religious beliefs teach you that homosexual behavior is contrary to church doctrine and teaching, you are less than suitable for citizenry in the Empire State.

Mr. Cuomo is completely unsuitable to hold the office of “our” governorship. He is a servant to us, the people, yet he rules like an emperor, establishing tax-free zones and handing out taxpayer monies in a scheme and style not unlike other infamous tyrants throughout history, all drunk with the lust for power and control. Next on the agenda is legalizing marijuana and casino gambling, nicely illustrating Mr. Cuomo’s complete lack of virtue traded for a glutton’s appetite for tax revenue.

Cuomo was amazingly quick to the trigger when it came to meaningless, irresponsible and illegally legislated gun control, passed in the middle of the night, but cannot seem to find his tongue regarding fracking; not because he lacks information, but because he lacks personal integrity and character.

Those of us living in, working on and owning the other 96% of New York State that Mr. Cuomo knows little about are insulted by his glib and irresponsible comments and embarrassed by his actions as our governor. Mr. Cuomo has effectively insulated himself from scrutiny from the press, arranging carefully orchestrated events that allow him and him alone to frame the agenda. What a pathetic and sad example of a leader.

Publilius Syrus said, “He who has lost honor can lose nothing more.” I hope elections don’t count in that analysis because Mr. Cuomo is unfit for the office. He insults God-fearing, life protecting, Constitution loving New Yorkers at his own political peril.

Traditionally, when a statement begins with, “Only in America”, the subject matter is positive and reaffirming about what a great country it is in which we live. The following, only in America tale is all too true and all too disturbing about what kind of nation we are becoming.

Compare and contrast these two scenarios; both true, real life accounts of government intrusions into our lives. The following are the verbatim lines in the story reported by the Carolina Journal earlier this year.

RAEFORD — A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because the school told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious. The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the person who was inspecting all lunch boxes in the More at Four classroom that day.

The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs — including in-home day care centers — to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist
of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home. When home-packed lunches do not include all of the required items, child care providers
must supplement them with the missing ones.

Now, consider the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, (formerly known as food stamps,) a national program administered by the same agency, the US Department of Agriculture. Their website brags that some 46.5 million Americans
receive benefits, costing taxpayers over 68 billion dollars annually. They run an aggressive and expensive advertising campaign to encourage participation. SNAP recipients are given what looks like a credit card that meters out the proper dollar
amount of benefit each receives. Unlike the government employee invading the bag lunch of the pre-schooler in North Carolina on the one hand, that same government has taken a decidedly hands-off approach with SNAP recipients, prohibiting only alcohol,
tobacco, non-food items and hot food meant to be eaten in the store.

Apparently SNAP recipients are making unwise choices left to their own devices, given that obesity rates are 50% higher for the poor. When one is incapable of feeding himself or his family, one should also lose the right to self-select the food choices that taxpayers provide. The long arm of the FDA ought to be up to its shoulder in assisting SNAP recipients to make better nutritional choices and slapped away from the lunch bags of our children.

Noted black commentator, Thomas Sowell said, “The real minimum wage is zero.”

He is right and the argument for raising it should instead be about its abolition. 

Wages are paid by business owners not government.  There is no constitutional basis for government arbitrarily setting wage levels.  This right was concocted because liberals detest capitalism, reject market forces determining equilibrium and believe government control is always the best option.  Experience shows us government interference is the worst solution, unless you believe the DMV, NSA or the IRS are good examples.

A minimum wage higher than market forces would naturally sustain is really a tax using other people’s monies.  Paid directly to the constituency that will vote for those socialist politicians who promise something for nothing, it buys incumbency.  The corresponding jump in income tax revenue provides the funding for more wealth redistribution.  Unions support such legislation because many of their agreements tie member wages to a percentage of the minimum wage, resulting in automatic increases to their contracts. 

Minimum wages are not sufficient to raise and support a family.  Responsible conduct delays starting a family until supporting one independently is possible via self-improvement.  Arbitrarily increasing the minimum wage gives tacit approval to acting foolishly and saps incentives to become better.  Raising wages without any increase in performance or expertise is the definition of something for nothing.

Improving value to an employer will improve wages as experience is gained.  Once one becomes more valuable, they can rightfully negotiate for higher wages.  If the current employer doesn’t see that value, then labor goes elsewhere.  That is how it works in a world that values hard work, self reliance and fairness.  The real issue is not the topic showcasing the agenda as advertised.  The minimum wage is most importantly about buying votes and almost as importantly, about attacking capitalism, business and success.  Wages are a cost of doing business.  As any expense, it gets passed on to the consumer creating inflation.  Only 1.2% of workers make minimum wage.

 This topic has gained traction because many American’s have lost their way.  The absence of civics training in our schools have left generations clueless as to how a representative republic functions under our constitution.  The rugged individualism of our founders has yielded to an entitlement mentality formed gradually and easily through an education system controlled by the liberal elite.  Add to this the ever expansive government machine creating a system of welfare so easily attainable that the choices between work and idleness become competing options with little difference in a modest lifestyle, usually augmented in the underground or criminal economies.

 Ironically, raising the minimum wage will contribute to our demise while we are being told how it will make us all better.  Saddled with a poor education and undeserved high self-esteem, rid of the concept of self-reliance, many will continue to climb aboard the government wagon while fewer and fewer are equipped and willing to pull it.

Binghamton and its relationship with hockey is legendary. Since the early 1970’s inaugural club, the Broome Dusters, this region has embraced and loved its hockey heritage, teams and players. Beginning with the now defunct North American Hockey League and evolving into today’s higher level American Hockey League, we have much to celebrate, reminisce about and look forward to.

While most hockey traditions at the Broome County Veterans Memorial Arena are laudable, one in particular is not, and sets a bad example for our kids.

When a game official makes a penalty call the crowd doesn’t like, the public address operator routinely plays a popular kids song called the “Chicken Dance”. Then, in unison voices of hundreds, sometimes thousands in unison sing to the changed lyrics, “Hey Ref You Suck.” echoing around the arena for all to hear.

Families and schools impress the importance of topics such as bullying and respect for authority and then take kids to a hockey game where they can witness thousands of people screaming out to those in authority, “Hey Ref You Suck.” Should anyone be shocked and surprised when our kids mimic our behavior?

The Arena should remove this song from their repertoire and the adults who have forged this sad tradition should be ashamed.

When players square off in the middle of the ice, circling each other while they throw off their gloves in order to fight and the officials back away, watching, while the game stops and the other players get into position for the best view, before that first punch is thrown, the crowd is cheering, on its feet, screaming wildly. Should we be surprised when young kids celebrate that behavior? When finally one of the players is thrown to the ice, a gigantic, collective cheer erupts as they two men are taken away to serve their outrageously severe penalties of perhaps as much as 5 entire minutes in the penalty box, reminiscent of a “time out” for misbehaving adults.

What would be a felony assault charge off the ice and outside of the arena is a reason to celebrate and high-five each other when inside. Should we wonder why our kids are conflicted? In school, kids are threatened with expulsion for pointing their fingers to simulate a gun, bullying or showing affection. Those same kids go to a hockey game and watch men hit each other with sticks, punch each other, slam each other into the boards or onto the ice while being applauded and gaining hero status for doing so.

The culture of hockey is not going to address the fighting issue anytime soon, but we, the fans in Binghamton, can stop using a kid’s innocent dance song as a platform to tell hockey officials that they suck and begin to set a little better example, not only for our kids but for ourselves.