Ashley Hinson

 ASHLEY HINSON, CONGRESSWOMAN

Congresswoman Ashley Hinson has announced her number one priority to be stopping illegal immigration from the southern border and to deporting millions of illegal aliens.  We need to applaud this stance.  Deporting millions of illegal people is much more important than health care, jobs, global warming, world war three, the economy, etc.

I must say though, that the congresswoman has left too much unsaid.  Unfortunately we have other manners of entrance.  The border between Canada and the United States is 5,525 miles.  We have 7,623 miles of Pacific coast, 2,069 miles of Atlantic coast, 770 miles gulf coast and a coast in the Artic.  On top of that we have things called airplanes landing everywhere all the time from foreign parts.  We need to think globally here, not just the southern border.

And secondly, it would seem we will need a method to accomplish this.  I suggest we reintroduce the tried and true method of deportation - - railroad cars.  This really worked in Germany and we need to study the methods used.  I'm sure there is a biography of Eichmann available somewhere that will give us some ideas.  Logistics, unfortunately, has either been ignored or simply omitted by Congresswoman Hinton in her pronouncement of legislative priorities.  There really doesn't seem to be any other viable method of deporting millions of people except by railroad cars.

If we are going to use trains, we will need detention camps - - holding pens - - for all these millions. Various localities, presumably, will vie for locating nearby.  These holding pens would offer the same employment opportunities as do our local prisons.  Good for the local economy and the logistical efforts  will be significant.  I'm assuming the federal government would have the help of the states that have been passing these laws making it a crime to be illegal.  Surely we can get some federal-state cooperation in this effort.  Iowa has passed such a law so I would think they would be in a frame of mind to help out.

Lastly we will need a destination for these millions.  There is the Chihuahuan Desert south of Texas and New Mexico and there is the Sonoran Desert south of Arizona and California.  These would be really good spots to dump all these millions of people and if the Mexican government would not be willing to cooperate, we could easily contract with the cartels for their services.  They'll do most anything for an American dollar.

As a final note, if you, the readers, have other solutions please share them.  Any methods suggested, I would think, could be useful. 

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Tertiary Flatulence

  TERTIARY FLATULENCE

It's ironic how one topic can lead into another.  Nuclear war quite easily follows a discussion of flatulence.  It's clear that nuclear war is necessary for a restart of the human species.  It's time to clear the deck and begin again.  We've really made a mess of it and the more flatulence, the more global warming, the closer the planet becomes to being uninhabitable.

The opinion expressed here is not contrary to the opinion of my favorite philosopher, George Carlin, who believed the earth will take care of itself and will be here long after we are gone regardless of what we do to it, and the present, to my way of thinking, is the beginning the process as we go about our daily business. You can feel it in the air - heat.  Earth will survive a nuclear war just fine - -  it's the human species that needs rehabilitation.  And if we take the rest of biological life with us, oh well, it can't be helped.

Rather than having 9,000,000,000 humans suffering unnecessarily, slowly cooking to death, a nuclear holocaust seems to be the answer.  Let's just get it done and over with.  The sooner we eliminate most of mankind, the quicker we can start over - - make a new beginning.  According to some it happened with Noah so it's not a new idea - - been around a long time.  

As it stands now, suffering will be endemic to life on earth.  Already people can't  insure their million dollar houses and magnificent office towers being swallowed by an ocean or blown away by a hurricane or a tornado sweeping the countryside,  AI will unemploy millions, the poor and needy will overrun the northern hemisphere. There will be nowhere to hide from catastrophe. Those with unlimited resources in their hidden retreats will need more than their billions to save them from the starving multitude who will swarm their estates looking for anything worth anything.

I say, let's just get it over with.  No sense in drawing things out.  Push a couple of buttons and whoosh we are no more.  Easy as that.  Those that don't get incinerated by the blasts will quickly expire of radiation poisoning.  Let's not do this half way, shoot them all off.  Russian, China, and whoever else has  nukes stored away in their silos can get into the act.  It could even be a UN resolution setting a date certain.

Not too far in advance though.  Just enough time for humans to make peace with all those who they have ignored, humiliated, or otherwise treated poorly.  A day or two at the most.  More time than that and people will start to think twice about ceasing to exist.  Not good; it has to be done before people become maudlin about the whole thing.

So in summary, it is clear that a nuclear holocaust will be the direct result of flatulence.  A clear connection exists; one necessarily follows the other.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

On Flatulence Amplified

 ON FLATULENCE AMPLIFIED

Appropriately, On Flatulence caused some comments and a followup is necessarily apt. Numerous articles have appeared recently, presumably authored by vegetarians and environmentally conscious folk, regarding the amount of methane emitted into our atmosphere through cow flatulence.  It would appear from numerous sources that the amount of methane, a climate warming contributor, being produced by bovines is excessive and something must be done about it.

Of course, the immediate suggestion is to quit eating cows.  This does not seem to be probable; cow protein has become a staple in all advanced countries with the possible exception of Australia whose residents seem to have replaced cow with sheep.  I am not knowledgeable as to the amount of methane being emitted into the atmosphere from sheep so I will ignore sheep methane for my purpose here.

However, I believe just as important to the production of methane in our atmosphere is human flatulence.  One source indicated that approximately 7% of human flatulence is methane gas.  Now 7% doesn't seem like a lot until you realize that there are about 9,000,000,000 of us.  That seems to me a significant amount of methane being emitted into the air and creating climate warming.  It somewhat muzzles the argument that humans are not the cause of climate change - - we produce it directly.

I don't hear a groundswell of opinion to reduce the amount of methane in the air by reducing the number of humans.  Unfortunately the world economy can only be maintained if there are people to buy stuff they don't need.  The fewer the people, the fewer goods sold, the fewer workers needed, the less money available to buy all the stuff we don't need.  This could easily end in a depression equalling 1929 - - just think, a hundred years ago.

So, it would appear that we are between a rock and a hard place.  Where to turn?  As always, I am open to suggestions on correcting the heating of the planet.  But it does seem inevitable looking at the influx of methane into the atmosphere.  We have cows who produce methane and we eat the cows creating more methane.  The only method available to reduce this production of methane is to reduce the number of humans.  With fewer humans, fewer cows, and less methane will be produced.

Clearly the  answer for a stable environment is fewer humans depression or no. 

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

On Flatulence

 ON FLATULENCE

An incidence of flatulence does not signify an end of the world nor, contrary to our overly olfactorily  sensitive citizens, does it cause asphyxiation.  It is simply the product of ingestion which we all participate in and will do so until death.  It is one of these, unfortunate to some, common occurrences that cause serious alarm in the more sensitive.

Now a bathroom is normally an enclosed space and if properly enclosed can isolate any flatulence associated with its use.  Unfortunately for some, the bathroom is not the only location in a home or public that one can experience flatulence or to be subject to its effects.  Flatulence may be random, happening when least expecting it.  It occurs often in crowded environments and when you may be attempting to concentrate on a task at hand it could very well be inadvertent.

Flatulence has, on occasion, been the cause of hard feelings and name calling between those responsible and those subjected.  Now being a criminal defense attorney, I have my usual response to this problem - - criminalize flatulence in crowded spaces.  My suggestion would be that in a group of three or more, flatulence be classified as a simple misdemeanor with the usual prescribed penalty of not more than 30 days in jail and a fine.  And since flatulence is the result of ingestion which must continue until death, it will never go away and will continue to be one of those things in life that cause annoyance and for which prosecution may result.

Criminalization is the method by which my income can be increased and another method by which our legislature can continue to criminalize its citizens.  Obviously, proof determining who of a group is responsible for the flatulence would be an issue.  Proof could be difficult and would take witnesses of those affected adversely.  Though a problem for law enforcement, the more difficult the matter of proof, the more time would be involved in defending those charged which again increases the amount that can be charged for the defense of the crime.  All of which, to my mind, is a good thing.

So there you have it folks - - another problem, another solution. 

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Amendment 1

 AMENDMENT I

The hullabaloo over the 2nd Amendment roars on unabated - - we need our guns!  This refrain seems constant.  As a criminal defense attorney, I have former clients calling about how they might get their gun rights back.  They need their guns back as if that were the necessary requirement for their self-esteem.  I've never had one ask me how to get their wife or kids back, just their guns.  Apparently guns are more important than wife or kids.

However, if one were to actually read the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the gun thing comes in second to religion.  Religion frightened our founding fathers and rightly so.  It really hadn't been too long since the protestants and the catholics were slaughtering each other all over Europe, the auto de fé was still in mind, and witches and heretics recently were still being burnt to a crisp or dunked till drowned.  Jews were still being killed at random and muslims were the antichrist.  To people like Benjamin Franklin, Samuel and John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, Madison and Monroe, religion above all other things, concerned them the most.

Amendment 1 of the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an established religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people  peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievance."

Folks, this is number one!

The Puritans didn't much care for the religious climate in England which was apparently way too indifferent.  What they preferred was an enforced, religiously based government in New England, which they created as soon as they got here.  So the idea that the American colonies were founded for purposes of religious freedom needs some closer scrutiny than most are willing to give it. 

Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, New York supported  the Anglican Church; New England supported the Congregational Church;  Delaware, Rhode Island, Georgia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey had no colonial supported religion.  The founding fathers decided that a government sponsored religion would not be allowed in any national government for it would cause way too many problems as it had in the previous centuries.  And, you know, it still would. 

We have people of certain religious  views today attempting to implant their views into the rest of us.   We are seeing a resurgence of these efforts in the United States now.  Listen to the TV and radio evangelists, look to the book banning and the laws being passed. Religion by nature is intolerant; it abhors difference.  We have a new, successful effort through our legislature here in Iowa not only to monitor and control behavior, but to control beliefs - - the beliefs opposing their beliefs.

Fortunately or unfortunately we have a country that is made up of every possible religion and political belief found on the planet.  The idea that one group will now impose its beliefs on the rest of us, is not only unconstitutional, but simply absurd.  Regardless of the efforts, it isn't going to happen.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo