Bring back the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System to the USA!

In 1972, before International terrorism was as “global” as it is now (pre-internet days), I moved to Switzerland and lived there for 18 months. The Swiss have always been protective of their borders, their economy, jobs - and their cultural identity. Before I even entered the country, I had to apply for a work visa with specifics about where I would work, who was sponsoring me on my stay, who to contact if the Swiss immigration officials wanted to reach me, etc. I was given a specific date in which I had to leave the country, and I could only return if I was gone for “X” number of weeks, and then I had to apply for a Swiss work visa all over again. I believe my first work visa lasted 12 months. You could not work if your didn’t have the proper work Visa, and if an employer was found guilty of employing someone with an expired or no work visa, the fines were substantial and the social stigma associated with the guilty business was equally as sever. Traveling around Switzerland required that I have my “papers” on my person so that I could identify myself as a legal visitor on a work visa – otherwise I would be hauled off to the immigration authorities and possibly deported. This was alien to me, coming from the USA, but the native Swiss explained to me as politely as possible that in order to maintain order in their small country - which as always been an oasis of stability in an often chaotic Europe, they felt these laws were necessary. Even traveling between Switzerland and the many bordering countries I had to provide papers to prove my legal status while on a train or auto. If I was driving a car I also had to show the legal documents to prove I was driving it legally. None of these “inconveniences” seemed inappropriate because I was a guest in their country and the reasons were explained to me.

With this personal background in mind, I hope that the Trump administration brings back a new and improved National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS). This is sometimes referred to as "Special Registration" for registering non-citizen visa holders -- such as students, workers and tourists. The USA under President George W. Bush's administration enacted this policy as a result of 9-11 on September 10, 2002. I would suggest that instead of ONLY Muslims being singled out, we should use the Swiss system for ANY and ALL “non-citizens” entering the United States. Frequent business travelers could have pre-approval to navigate quickly through the bureaucracy of the immigration force (similar to Global entry) but would still be part of the immigration system. With high-speed computers, biometric Identifiers and other new technology, we should be able to effectively protect America’s economy, jobs, people and add a significant barrier to those who wish Americans harm. The cost of the system could all or partially be paid for by those who enter the country as cost of entry (many countries already do this).

Some on the left will decry this as an assault on the civil liberties of immigrants and “un-American”. I would suggest that there is nothing more core to American values than protecting the homeland - while at the same time leaving our borders open for those who wish to navigate our immigration system legally.

Shep Fargotstein

Sprint, we have irreconcilable differences, so I’m divorcing you after 35 years.

It is with great disappointment, and a bit of excitement, but I have made the decision to switch from Sprint to ATT. I have been with Sprint (or one of it’s previous incarnations), ever since my first child was born 34 ½ years ago. Back in those days phones looked like bricks, and not everyone had a phone. I wanted my young pregnant wife (now ex) to have it while she was pregnant - in case of emergency. To make a long story short, I now have 3 grown kids and I am remarried. I kept everyone on my bill all this time because I wanted them to HAVE to return my calls. So my 3 kids and my wife and I are on Sprint for a total of 5 phones.

You may ask “Why are you leaving Sprint after so many years?” The answer is simple: Horrible connectivity issues and even worse customer service. Over the past 6 months the whole family has been experiencing dropped calls, and mostly calls where the phone rings and I can’t hear the other side…or I call someone and they can’t hear me. It happens all the time.

I have called Sprint’s 800 numbers and spoken with them dozens of times. They have had me wait 30, 45 and up to 60 minutes – just so I can hear someone who can’t speak English tell me I need an update. I have had a dozen updates and it hasn’t solved the problem. I had Apple check my cell phone and they verified that this wasn’t a phone issue. I escalated my issues to Sprint managers and they told me to make note of when, where, and to whom dropped calls happened. I called them back 2 weeks later complaining about my service and they never asked for this information.  When I told them I had this requested information…they confirmed the dropped calls (I knew that) and said all their towers were functioning well in my area. They told me they would reach out to me with a solution in 48 hours. That was a week ago.

I had two important defective calls before noon yesterday and that was enough for me. I called to talk to someone at Sprint about discontinuing my service due to their not holding up their part of the contract to provide me with reliable service. They transferred me somewhere and I was on hold for an hour before I finally hung up. If that won’t lose a good customer, what would???

I have 4 out of 5 phones under contract and owe differing amounts of money  for each Sprint phone if I before the contract am up. I will gladly turn in all the phones but I WILL NOT PAY THEM one more dime because they violated their contract with me. I am through calling Sprint.  After 35 years, I’ve come to the conclusion that I want a divorce from Sprint based on irreconcilable differences. Bye-bye Sprint!

I don’t think Donald Trump really wants to win the Presidency.

I don’t think Donald Trump really wants to win the Presidency. I also don’t think Trump is as devoted to making “America Great Again” as he is to his narcissism. I am not a Democrat for sure. There was time when I voted for Clinton and Gore, but I left the Democratic Party in 1996, as that was when the party’s far left in the party adopted an anti-Israel policy - and the party has grown further to the left and more anti-Israel.

I left the Republican Party over the past year, after the Republican leadership demanded that the Republican candidates make a pledge to support the eventual nominee – thinking they were cornering Trump into not going independent if he didn’t win the nomination. When the nominee turned out to be Trump, almost the entire roster of candidates and all the Republican leadership turned against Trump, which really ticked off a lot of people – including me. After all, if a person or party’s word means nothing, then you can’t trust anything they say. 

Now I am an independent and I am mad as hell that our Democratic system has produced two of the worst choices for President in my lifetime: A crook who has sold her influence, put America at risk with an illegal email server, and as Secretary of State supported Obama’s failed policy in Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Turkey and Israel – and an egomaniac who fooled a lot of people into thinking he had what it took to be President – only to find out that it was just a façade. He is only out to promote himself and see himself on TV.

We know Hillary Clinton, after all she has been in office forever, and that is what makes her such a horrible choice - but at least we know she’s incompetent on the front end. When Trump says, “believe me”…. we can’t anymore. Once the primaries were over, his base was expecting him to become more Presidential in order to pull the reluctant Republicans back into the fold – and more importantly pull in the independents and moderate Democrats to form a winning coalition. That was supposed to be the logical strategy. Instead, we have a loose lipped, thin-skinned egomaniac that is willing to attack anyone who criticizes him, even if it is going to cost him – and the Republican Party the election. I am sure his “handlers” and even his grown children are cringing at Trumps lack of self-control.

This is a real pickle for America: A continuation of the Obama doctrine.  More debt, uncurtailed immigration, more terrorism, more downsizing of America on the world stage, more appeasement of terrorist states – and a person who is displaying such bizarre behavior in the media that it is not a stretch to imagine him making a mockery of America on the world stage at best, and getting us into a real dangerous situation with his “shoot from the hip” style.

I have not missed a vote in 44 years. When I was 18 I hitchhiked across Switzerland to cast my first vote against Richard Nixon. I can’t imagine not voting, as it is a privilege not to be taken lightly. But it is a possibility this year.

  

Nice, Paris, Madrid, NYC, San Beridino, Orlando, Boston - How much more terrorism can we take?

There is not doubt that George W. Bush may have been wrong, in hindsight, about the way the war in Iraq was conducted.  Hindsight, however, is a two-edged sword. One of the tenets of W’s war against Islamic Extremism was to keep them on their heels ON THEIR TERRITORY by constantly and aggressively pursuing offensive military actions against them in order to keep them from our shores and eventually defeat them.

I blame Barak Obama and the European left for putting their heads in the sand and putting their idealism ahead of realism. There is the world as we “want it to be” and the world of “reality”. The deaths in Nice, in Paris, in Orlando, San Bernardino and Boston are testimony to the failed foreign policy of President Obama AND Hillary Clinton. Obama’s premature pulling out of Iraq and his indecision over Syria will become military legend in how the misuse of power has consequences. Obama has allowed an almost defeated enemy to flourish, expand and threaten the entire world. Under Obama’s leadership we have failed to adjust to the asymmetrical nature of this enemy that doesn’t need F-35s or cruise misses. Their demented faith and willingness to die has turned every car into a guided missile, and every public venue into a potential terrorist target. If ISIS’s goal is to make American’s and the West live in fear, they are obviously achieving their goal.

One thing you can say about Bush is that we felt safe when he was President. Under Obama, we have the reality of Islamic terrorism at home, a police who are afraid to conduct their jobs, a justice department that demands that local police “stand down” (Ferguson) and let rioting ensue in order to not exacerbate an already out-of-hand situation. The bottom line is that the thin veneer of civility that we take for granted in our lives is fragile and could easily disappear in seconds without swift and decisive law and order. It seems that law and order are secondary to the rights and feelings of rioters, thugs and terrorists.

Disclaimer: The BLM people have a legit argument regarding police brutality and they have the right to protest – legally.

Donald Trump's speech at the AIPAC Conference in March 2016

Just like Hillary said, "you can't be neutral on Israel when it comes to Israel's security and survival". AIPAC's refusal to advocate hard on Pro-Israel policy and let the cards fall where they may - could very well spell the end of AIPAC. I am an AIPAC Club member and I was a delegate at the March DC Conference. Clinton, Kasich, and Cruz all got standing ovations. The fact that Trump did his homework, gave the best (rehearsed) pro-Israel speech that commanded 6 standing ovations was not an insult to Obama. Lillian Pincus called it an "Ad Hominin" attack on Obama. If that was the case, then Trump would have made critisisms that had nothing to do with Obama having big ears or small hands - which would be considered an "Ad Hominin" attack. Trump critisized Obama's undeniable hypocritical bad policy regarding Israel AND his horrible treatment of Israeli PM Netanyahu. If AIPAC is so handcuffed by their desire to appear bi-partisin gives Comngressmen a free pass on the hill to legislate anti-Israel policy - then what good is AIPAC?

Many people believe that AIPAC failed to stop the Iran deal because AIPAC thought that if they played softball with the Obama administration, he would throw Israel a bone and do "something" that would allow Israel and AIPAC to save face and accept the Iran deal. Instead of a bone, Obama threw AIPAC a hand grenade.

Furthermore, many of the leaders of the anti-Trump movement at the AIPAC conference are founding members of J-Street AND AIPAC. These people and organizations ( I am a reform Jew and I am ashamed of the position of the URJ), have no problem with J-Street being totally partisan AND anti-Israel, yet they demand that AIPAC be bi-partisan AND not allow AIPAC to use it's full influence to affect American policy towards Israel. This is so obviously hypocritical that it has infuritated a lot of faithful AIPAC members.

Lastly, there was a lot people on open conference calls before the conference who wanted AIPAC to use a Q&A of the candidates so that they would have hardball questions asked of them, rather than a speech where the candidates could say whatever they want to pacify the crowd (which is what we heard). AIPAC choose to allow the speeches and AIPAC's steering committee who handled the candidates FAILED to tell the speakers that critisim of Obama was "off limits". When Lillian Pincus verbally spanked the 18,000 delegates on the wrist for giving Trump the respect that his speech deserved, you could hear the whispers of everyone who clapped for Trump feeling personally insulted. The blame for Trumps comments were not on Trump because he t old the truth, it wasn't on the delegates because they agreed that Obama has been horrible to Israel....the blame lies at the feet of the organizers of this AIPAC conference for incompetency on a lot of levels.

Times have changed, and if AIPAC's leadership can't find a way to take advantage of it, they will find themselves with with 10,000 people next year at the conference - even with them paying for 5,000 college students.

Just for the record, I am not for any specific candidate other than I will vote Republican.

Trump, the Protestors and the U.S. Constitution

The United States Constitution explicitly provides for 'the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and exercise their right to free speech in the First Amendment.

Common constraints on the right to assemble are a class of time, place and manner regulations. A second type of constraint is the requirement to obtain a permit, where coordination may be needed to ensure public safety.

I support the right of the Trump Political machine to hold their Presidential rallies and I support the right of those who dislike Trump to protest. What I do not support are anti-Trump protestors who are intentionally disrupting the Trump rallies with the express intent of depriving Trump and his supporters their right to assemble and conduct free speech. The protestors are legally obligated to get a permit to assemble “outside” the Trump events, presumably at a safe distance as determined by the police in order to avoid a confrontation - then that is fine with me. Going inside the events covertly with the express intent of denying thousands their civil rights is illegal and should be dealt with in a court of law.

What perplexes me are the actions of the political establishment on both sides of the aisle:  President Obama joined the fray of the mob-attacking Trump by justifying their “illegal behavior” because “Trump was asking for it”. It’s like blaming a rape victim for being raped.  Obama rushed to judgment on the side of rioters in Ferguson, Missouri. He called the justice department in to protect the rioter’s right to assemble (even though it was actually a criminal mob). Obama could have used his position of moral authority to make this a “teaching moment” (a term he uses often) – to chastise the radical left for making a mockery of our constitution and the first amendment. Hillary and Sanders were chiming in with the same Obama “Trump asked for it” logic, which says to me that they think that the constitution should be interpreted in political terms and not for all people.

The Republican establishment? Romney, Cruz, Rubio and Kasich have all chimed in that “Trump was responsible” for the protestors rioting. They are using, much like Obama and the Democrats, the constitution as a thin wall of veneer to obscure a lame attempt for personal political gain. How can anyone have respect for the Republican establishment?

People see in their Presidential candidate what they want to see, inflating their positives and overlooking their faults subconsciously. Conversely, people see what they want to see in their political adversaries, overlooking their strengths and inflating their faults subconsciously. The constitution protects us from ourselves and gives our country structure. Unfortunately the Constitution is only a paper document. We can’t look to President Obama for moral leadership at this time, and he won’t bring in the Justice Department to administer the law. Who does American turn to when the right too assemble has been taken away from the people and the authorities do nothing?