EB-5

A part of the Immigration Act of 1990 is the EB-5 visa program.The act was introduced by Ted Kennedy and signed into law by George W.Bush.EB-5 was created to allow foreign investment to create jobs and business.It is essentially trading US citizenship for investment.A foreign investor puts up $500,000 for a green card.It's more involved than that,but essentially ends up there. The investor must create or maintain at least 10 jobs in a new or existing commercial enterprise.This can be done individually or through Regional Centers.

The intent of this program was reasonable,but as it has progressed it has become a vehicle for fraud and misuse.It has been transformed into another means for the rich and powerful to manipulate.Many prominent politicians are involved,even attracting some well meaning legislators.But it become a means of graft and deceit.A classic example is Trump using EB-5 investors to build his New Jersey tower. The purpose of the program is to create jobs in needed areas,not to embellish the wealthy.

There are already many examples of fraud and abuse.Anthony Clinton,Hillary's brother is a Regional Director and has been involved in a questionable project in Virginia and Mississippi with Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe.It's more than questionable.Every facet borders on illegal.VP nominee Tim Kaine was also involved in the facilitation process.The company is Green Tech,created by McAuliffe.It was an electric car plant planned for Virginia,built in Mississippi.I think that they built 5 cars.The project also involved campaign contributions It was a mess and should have been investigated and probably still will be.60Minutes exposed a Vermont project (Jay Peak)that is a disaster.There was a No.Dakota project exposed a couple of years ago.Google EB-5 visa projects and you will find lots of frauds.

So many prominent politicians and corporations are involved in this program,that it is hard to find anyone that wants to talk about it.I have sent out many tweets with no response.This program will become a very big deal sometime in the future,maybe before the election because Trump is involved.

More 2016 Election

I'm beginning to wonder if this presidential campaign is real.Can so many mistakes, mistakes that have have up-ended candidates in the past,continue to happen to Trump with such minor consequence.That is what makes me question this campaign.Are we being duped?Is that even possible?I wonder.

Revelations

Revelations are hard to come by,so when you do,reveal.

2016 election

Reagan tried to undo everything that FDR accomplished and he had much success.Where were we.Why did we allow it.We just watched while he slowly,we thought,decimated our economy. We weren't aware of what was happening. We were distracted by false premises,and they were all false, but we got caught up in it.Trickle down?We all knew that couldn't work. Trickle down would be at most a trickle, but Reagan had enough supporters that even intelligent people were stymied, looking for something they couldn't see until it was too late. Laws were passed, things were done that would take time to reverse. That time still hasn't arrived.

So we still need an FDR.Can Bernie do it?His policies are what everyone wants.But can he implement them?The people,we the people,always come last-unless there is a groundswell.Bernie wants what we all want,which is rare,so let's grab on and hope.Can logic prevail?

Let's face it.The rich control theUS and have except for FDR's time.The rich are so persistent that without effective counter persistence, we have little chance.If Bernie is strong enough to counter the Reagan response we do have a better chance,but it will take the groundswell revolution that Sanders espouses.We the people must implement it.

A Christmas poem

I 'm thinking of Christmas was
from Christmases that were.
I'm celebrating Christmas is
from Christmases that are
and wondering of Christmas will
from Christmases that. will be.
So,what is Christmas?
Oh....I see

Police killings

Our country,the USA, is in decline.Most of us see that.Nowhere is it more apparent than in our police departments.We used to pride ourselves on fairness and sympathy and justice for all;it's our pledge.But our police departments don't practice in accordance with that pledge.At least I don't see it.I don't think that we would have the prevalence of police attacks,shootings,killings if it were so.

Yes,there is more news coverage,more publicity,but,I think,deservedly so.In the good old days,police didn't kill;they just didn't.If there wasn't readily demonstrable self defense,there was no shooting.I can see that that had to change some;change is inevitable.But it didn't have to be all change for the bad.The police are more vulnerable now,primarily because of our obsession with guns(another example of decline),and it seems that they have become less sensitive because of that;who knows?All that I know is that there has been an increase in questionable and unjustifiable killings.It seems that some police look for a reason to use force,to shoot.It seems that some just want to shoot.There are just too many killings where it doesn't appear that self defense is apparent,where fear of life was an issue

But you wouldn't know it by reading a police report...or by convictions of police involved.A killing is almost always because of life endangerment and justifiable.That is probably the biggest problem-accountability;no one accountable;no one responsible;in other words:cover-up.There is rarely a conviction or even a charge or indictment;even when guilt is almost obvious.It's not right and one of the reasons that I label the police as a symptom of our decline.

This brings me to the recently well publicized police killings:Garner and Brown.The Garner case was video-taped,so you wouldn't think that it would be hard to assess.It isn't,if done without an agenda,but it seems that when publicity is involved,everyone has an agenda.Suddenly, things change.Terms are redefined.Everything seems to be distorted.What seemed simple became complicated.What struck me most,was the police defenders.They denied what was happening as it was happening.Mild resistance and confusion became resisting arrest and resisting arrest resulted in self defense.I couldn't believe it.I tried to imagine a description without a video after listening to the distortions with a video and I realized that I couldn't.It would bear no resemblance.The Brown case had no video;therefore, couldn't be assessed with any accuracy.

I watched and listened to the Brown case right from the beginning and I must say that the grand jury account isn't anything close to what my memory and observation projected.Early accounts of what happened were also nothing like the grand jury transcript account.I watched many media accounts and analyses day to day and from many different sources.I think that I have a pretty good idea of what happened in general and a better than fair idea of particulars.My ideas are far removed from police accounts.I can see how that can be after observing the way that the Garner case was distorted.

Early witnesses and early police accounts didn't differ greatly,but by the time that the grand jury convened,things had evidently changed drastically.Accounts changed so that the incident wasn't even recognizable.Early reports all had Brown with his hands up.There was no mention of charging the officer.There was no report of an in-car confrontation.The officer reputedly tried to grab Brown when he interfered with Wilson opening his car door.The shooting took place as Brown was retreating.There was no evidence of life endangerment.There was no disagreement until the grand jury release of the police account.Witnesses  suddenly appeared that had Brown charging the officer.Wilson's account which didn't evolve until much after the incident differed 180 degrees from early accounts.I followed the case and it wasn't the case that I followed.It appears to me that a defense case was fabricated and evidence and witnesses  created to fit that case.There was no video,unfortunately.If there had been ,I'm pretty certain that different results would have been revealed,Actually,after the Garner case I'm sure of that.

Campaign Reform-again

The number one political issue should be campaign finance reform.In order to save our democracy,we must limit campaign spending and the financing must be made public.There can be no monetary advantage for any candidate.No one should be deterred from running for public office because of lack of campaign funds.Not one minute of an elected officials time should be spent on raising campaign funds.We need campaign reform now.