Really?

This will be a boost to the Border Patrol. Will "Straw Purchasers" be stopped from transporting guns from the USA to Mexico? 

I am quite confident the National Guard will use every discretion in assisting the Border Patrol. I would expect they will coordinate their activities. This may be an initial introduction to ending the cartels at the southern border. Personally, I would have expected Mexico to be a full partner and deploy the US military to the Mexican border along with Mexican troops or border guards. The cartels are vicious and they won't tolerate interference by anyone.

It will force the cartels to seek different strategies to export their illegal substances to the US. We already know they use half-submarines. There will be pressures on the east and west coast of the USA. It is a fact that when the cartels are squeezed they kill people. The National Guard will need Humvee at the very least.

Not to wish bad outcomes here, because, the Border Patrol needs help. Confronting the cartels is inherently dangerous. The issue is the voracity of drug networks in USA and their willingness to try to turn the USA into a war zone. This type of confrontation will require cities to keep their SWAT teams informed to the drug networks within their purview. In the same manner the Governors will have to have an open line to the National Guard to act as peacekeepers if there is an increase of violence domesticly.

I sincerely believe if the cartels foolishly continue to kill and destroy the sovereignty of Mexico, the USA has to recognize this as a direct threat to the USA national security. This is not about humanitarian efforts alone, this is about the security of a continent. The cartels are powerful, but, they are no match for the USA. If the cartels could rule the USA as they do Mexico, they already would.

The USA cities and states need to monitor for the backlash if it happens at all. A good measure of effectiveness might be garnered from the time then Governor Perry deployed 1000 National Guard troops at the border.

To be optimistic and state the flow of drugs stop, that will not end the impact on drugs domestically. If there is a shortage of drugs from the cartels; cities should look toward an increase of designer drugs like “Ecstasy” and Meth. These are drugs created and not necessarily grown. If there is an increase in such dynamics there should be support for homegrown and inspected marijuana.

This is a huge issue. But, we can’t deny the American deaths everyday that can be saved. We cannot deny the failing sovereignty in Mexico. The USA needs to make protecting American lives from ruthless criminals like the drug lord now in a USA prison important enough to at least begin.

This is real and it is best we wish the National Guard support with hope they will make a difference.

April 4, 2018
By Julia Ainsley

Washington — The Trump administration (click here) began outlining a plan Wednesday to deploy National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to fight illegal immigration, but will likely not allow the troops to have physical contact with immigrants, according to three administration officials.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officially announced the policy in a statement Wednesday afternoon.

“To Secure the Border and Make America Safe, We Need to Deploy the National Guard,” said the statement from the office of the DHS press secretary. "Deploying the National Guard will serve as an immediate deterrent while dramatically enhancing operational control of the U.S. border."

The statement said the deployment would be in coordination with governors, that the troops would "support federal law enforcement personnel, including [Customs and Border Protection]," and that federal immigration authorities "will direct enforcement efforts."

The planning follows an announcement by President Donald Trump on Tuesday that came as a surprise to many of his advisers.

"Until we can have a wall and proper security, we are going to be guarding our border with the military," Trump said on Tuesday....

Google's tribute is complete. She was a real jewel in the USA. Her work is unmatched.

There is no getting along with Russia. What is he talking about?

Let me be the first "...very stupid people..." to say, President Trump is "W"rong about Russia. I imagine Putin when meeting Trump cast his hypnotic eyes that shows his soul. 

Hello....Putin doesn't have a soul. 

The Russia of today is very different than the Russia pre-Ukraine Maidan. The Maidan was a turning point for Ukraine and what the world witnessed was a Ukraine President living in lavish circumstances, with a disarmed national military and in it's place militias owned and operated by oligarchs.

When wealthy men, the Russian oligarchs left Russia for Europe, they were looking for freedom to live a life without fear of reprisals. There is nothing Russians have been able to do to reform their government. Today, Russians live under A GROWING OPPRESSION designed and carried out by an extremist Duma and their President that consents to the extremism.

Trump does not see Russia for what it is because his disillusion suits his personal ambitions.

I don't mind NATO members paying their fair share. But, Trump seems to have a problem with what is their fair share. NATO countries carry about 8 percent of the world's population of 603.7 million people. The USA's current population is over half of that total at 325.7 million. That means the population of USA citizens is 54% of the population protected by the NATO alliance.

54 percent. President Trump states the USA is paying 80 percent. Realizing that President Trump covets the billions more income to Europe (which is unspecified by him) the amount each member of NATO pays should be a portion of their "per capita" GDP. Basically, with 54 percent of the people protected by NATO, the $57.466.79 per capita income should dictate the percentage of monies paid to the NATO alliance. The same equation can be assessed by each member country.

Percent of people protected within the alliance X per capita income / total NATO budget. I think that might work. Will the USA still pay 80 percent? Probably not, but, it won't be far from it.

FACT: German reunification, where the wall came down, occurred because NATO stood strong for it.

...The end of the Cold War (click here) was a massive U-turn in international relations. It happened over a very short period of time and was the result of a series of factors – political, economic and military - that culminated in the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. But the fall of the Berlin Wall 9-10 November 1989 marked the radical change in international relations, epitomizing the beginning of a new era. The reunification of Germany that followed was another step forward for Germany and all of Europe....

...With the reunification of Germany on 3 October 1990, Berlin was reinstated as the capital city of united Germany and the Länder of the former German Democratic Republic joined the Federal Republic of Germany in its membership of NATO. Germany had withdrawn from the Warsaw Pact in September 1990, just a few days before German unity.

For decades, NATO support for German reunification had been steadfast and was all the more special that when it happened, the then Secretary General, Manfred Wörner, was the first German to have occupied this the post....

"The Berlin Wall" was deep within East Germany when this occurred. I am confident this reunification is being viewed by North and South Korea as a model for their reunification.

NATO is no minor alliance and should never be treated as such. If the USA deserves some fiscal relief from it's responsibility with the alliance, it is second to maintaining its integrity into the future.

NATO KEEPS THE PEACE. There can be no doubt about that.

Here we go, onto the WTO. Trump will probably demand changes at the World Trade Organization if he hasn't already.

April 4, 2018
Edited by Zhou Xin

Beijing, April 4 (Xinhua) -- The "Made in China 2025" (click here) strategy should not be used as an excuse for unilateral measures as it does not go against China's obligations to the World Trade Organization (WTO), Vice Minister of Commerce Wang Shouwen said Wednesday

"The strategy is transparent, open, and non-discriminatory. Not only Chinese companies but also foreign firms can participate in it," Wang said at a press conference.

The "Made in China 2025" strategy, a plan to upgrade the manufacturing sector, was reportedly a source of concern in the U.S. Section 301 investigation into alleged Chinese intellectual property and technology transfer practices, launched by the Trump administration in August 2017.

Wang said China completed rigorous compliance reviews on the strategy when it was rolled out, and it was made in line with WTO rules.

The targets set in the strategy are of predictive and instructive nature, and are not mandatory tasks, Wang said.

Similar plans had been rolled out previously by many countries including the United States, Wang said....

The family understood her hatred far more than police were willing to act on. They only were acting on a missing person's report.

April 3, 2018
By Ethan Baron

The night before Nasim Aghdam (click here) opened fire in a courtyard at YouTube’s headquarters Tuesday afternoon, Mountain View police found the San Diego woman sleeping in her car.

She had been reported missing by her family in Southern California, and her father Ismail Aghdam told police she might be going to YouTube because she “hated” the company. Police called the family at 2 a.m. Tuesday to say she’d been found and that everything was “under control,” her father said.

But hours later, his daughter was dead of a self-inflicted gunshot after shooting three people and causing an afternoon of terror at YouTube’s headquarters...

California has some pretty aggressive laws regarding mental health and suspected motives for gun violence. Unfortunately, those laws didn't come into play when Ms. Aghdam's family reported her missing to police and stating she hated the "You Tube" company.

I would like to think there is a way to fix this mess so it would never happen again, but, there are just too many guns on the street. I am relieved all those effected by the shooting are safe. There is a report of a woman having a piece of a bullet lodged in her shoe. I never thought of shoes as armor before.

The young people marching for better gun control need to be joined by the rest of the country to end the sales of military style weapons. The kids are right. It is their future they are fighting for and here again we see laws that do not reach into the reality of an angry person. I do not believe Ms. Aghdam had a profound mental illness to prevent her from obtaining a 9 mm handgun, but, I do believe anger carries it's own permission to ACT in hatred.

There is no labeling that should be taking place in regard to activists or animal rights proponents. They are not all so angry the feeling cannot be contained. Statistically, this was probably within the scope of possibilities.

My sincerest sympathies to the family and friends of Nasim Aghdam; they don't deserve the grief they are suffering either. There was nothing they could have done differently, they sent out a call for a beloved woman along with the reason to be worried about her future actions. They were more than responsible in their actions to try to stop her. The clues were missed. They were all over her video. It even shows an assault rifle.

As far as making quality changes to "You Tube;" for those serious about their craft and seek monetary gain from their activist stand, there should be a mentoring process included with access that carries a fee. There should be an understanding that "You Tube" is guided access with rules that treat all equally. If people posting content are aggrieved for some reason, they should receive more than censorship, but, a reason and for god sake's cite the law that is believed to be oppressing their expression. We all know freedom of speech is not completely free.

I look at it this way, if Ms. Aghdam's content crossed some line somewhere that protected the public, then "You Tube" prevented hatred and violence. Instead, they shouldered their decisions and were the focus of the anger.

There are too many guns on the street folks. They are not pea shooters either. They are semi-automatic weapons that police warned us about a long time ago when they asked to armed equally with criminals.

Start marching.