marcusfontain-blog

[marcusfontain-blog]

Whoever voted for Trump heard exactly what they wanted to hear in his Congress speech.

While nobody will remember economic issues mentioned, they will remember Trump paying tribute to fallen Navy SEAL Ryan Owens, they added. 

President Donald Trump gave his first major speech to a joint session of Congress on February, 28. He focused mainly on domestic issues as well as the hot topic of immigration. 

Those in attendance were clearly split by his address with half the room applauding points made by the president while others chose to remain silent. 

“the president knew that he was on his biggest stage and he proved that he is a prime-time player and very serious about turning this country around when it comes to the economy, immigration, and international relations.” 

“If you voted for Trump – you heard exactly what you wanted to hear… He challenged the Congress in a very positive manner talking about America’s greatness and what we can achieve as a country if we all work together. It was a speech of unity and the speech of vision.” 

Ed Shultz said he was really impressed by the way the president talked about the 250th anniversary of the US founding coming up in nine years and asking the American people “where we are going to be in ‘Year 250’. Where do we want to be?” 

“I think he spoke to American exceptionalism which Ronald Reagan used to talk about. It was very Reaganesque. He made the country feel good about itself. Now the question is – can the Congress and Trump administration deliver,” Shultz said. 

'Trump finds his presidential voice' - Geopolitical analyst and executive editor of 21st Century Wire.com Patrick Henningsen commented on the most important points of Donald Trump’s speech: “First of all, I think [Trump] has found his presidential voice: the question is how long can he keep it,” said Patrick Henningsen, geopolitical analyst and executive editor of 21st Century Wire.com Patrick. 

“Clearly, we saw the House divided. That was pretty pronounced. Democratic women, in particular, all dressed in white alluding to the suffragettes. Apparently, they think that women’s rights are under threat. This is sort typifies the sort of division we have,” he continued. 

“He ticked all the boxes in that respect and some of his critics would be neutralized by that. But in terms of domestic politics – still extremely divided. Although, there might be a pause for 24 hours, but I think we might see is back to the fight later in a week,” he added. 

Patrick Henningsen said he wasn’t surprised that Trump’s speech was predominately about domestic issues since “the foreign policy is a very sticky issue right now because the whole Russian hack or various Russian conspiracy theories that are being floated toward Donald Trump, those are sort of in the air at the moment. And they are very difficult in the wake of the resignation of Michael Flynn.” 

However, symbolically, Trump did acknowledge foreign policy, Henningsen added, referring to Trump saying “We want peace, wherever peace can be found.” 

Trump also said: “America is friends today with former enemies. Some of our closest allies, decades ago, fought on the opposite side of these terrible, terrible wars”. 

In Henningsen’s view, the US president was “foreshadowing potential détente with Russia,” which is “clearly still a major part of the agenda.” 

“The approach that this president is taking at the moment with someone like General James Mattis at the helm of the Defense Department is ‘peace through strength.' That is the sort of package that Donald Trump is trying to sell. And that is all willing good until a potential intervention pops up or the political demand is there for a military intervention like in Syria, for instance,” he said. 

‘Frank Capra’s Hollywood’ - Media and legal analyst Lionel described Donald Trump as “magnificent.” 

“We are not going to remember tomorrow particular aspects of trade, although they were very good. What he did -was Ryan Owens. This was Hollywood, this was Frank Capra. When Carryn, his wife looked up at over a two-minute standing ovation and put faces to these issues,” Lionel continued. 

“This president knocked it out of the park. I don’t know who I saw. That looked like Donald Trump, but that wasn’t a Donald Trump I saw on the campaign trail. That wasn’t a shortsighted, ill-tempered ruffian. That was magnificent when he pointed humanity and showed those people they're above these issues. We need to talk about migrant crime. I am not xenophobic; I am talking about these people, of all races and all aspects of American humanity.” 

'Peace through strength' mantra - Joel Anand Samy, Co-Founder of International Leaders Summit, agreed that “President Trump articulated a very pro-America speech.” 

“He communicated the importance of renewing the American spirit. As he was on the campaign trail - he focused primarily on the domestic issues,” he said. 

U.S. Marines stand in front of amphibious assault vehicles (AAV) © Athit Perawongmetha‘US Republicans & Democrats both addicted to war and militarism’ “And as we’ve seen that the importance of principal leadership that he was communicating on the campaign trail which was lacking, which he communicated time and time again, is something he focused on,” he said. 

Samy also noted that Trump “has been very strong on building the wall which he reinstated and re-communicated” during his speech. At the same time, the US president “threw some excerpts that were given out earlier: he communicated the importance of a pathway for those who have come to this country illegally, at least to have some form of legal documentation.” 

Trump mentioned the increase in the military budget but said nothing specific about what it will be used for. 

In Samy’s opinion, those who voted for President Trump certainly want him to “focus on America’s challenges first and foremost.” 

“Indeed, American leadership abroad has been weakened. There was a perception that America has led from behind rather than through a strong leadership position… As we’ve seen Trump communicate the important mantra ‘peace through strength,'”

[marcusfontain-blog]

Trump, Putin & New Cold War: What The New Yorker gets wrong

The New Yorker made quite a splash with its uber long read on 'Trump, Putin and the New Cold War.' What a shame then the actual product is sloppy, misinformed tosh masquerading as something of highbrow distinction. 

When I was a ‘cub’ reporter in Ireland, juggling study with coverage of anything from Barn Dances to Basketball, payment came from lineage. A hideous measure which promoted loquaciousness at the expense of brevity. The compensation was dreadful, set at the measly sum of twenty pence a line. Thus, making a carefully crafted Rugby report worth about the price of a few beers, a pack of Marlboro and a small pizza. That said, if you padded it out, it might extend to a large one, with extra anchovies. 

One day my impressionable young self-met an American journalist in Dublin, who told me of a magazine called ‘The New Yorker’ where the generous publishers paid one dollar a WORD. Meaning its sports writers, if it had any, probably eschewed lager, chips and bus journeys for oysters, champagne, and travel by Concorde. 

Twenty years later, assuming the title has kept up with inflation, the writers must be on gallons of the fizzy stuff. Because they are clearly taking the piss. How else to explain this March’s lead story, which amounts to a small anti-Russia novella that manages, over 13,000 words, to deliver zero new information to readers. But instead delivers plenty of elementary mistakes and misrepresentations, suggesting the three authors (yes, three!) phoned it in. 

This is lackadaisical, trite, obtuse, fallacious hackery at its most inglorious. Penned by a trio of long-winded malingerers, shameless prevaricators and ghastly runtish, repellent, cheerless, petulant gnomes with an ingrained and sophistic loathing of Russia. And here they are trying to push the word-o-meter to its maximum. 

Vorsprung Durch Technik?  - To be fair, the magazine’s retro cover has been a hit on social media. Although I find the Cyrillic masthead pretentious. Then there’s the introduction to the essay itself. Featuring hellish black and blood red colors depicting an upside down St Basil’s Cathedral shooting a laser beam into the White House, like a bad illustration from a sci-fi comic book, designed by a dyslexic bat. But, then again, all art is subjective really, isn’t it? 

As ever, when Westerners profile Russia expectations are pretty low, but these wordsmiths even conspire to live down to the usual humble prospects. David Remnick, who has been editor of the title since 1998 and is evidently as stale as ten-day-old bread, is joined by Evan Osnos, a new name on the Russia beat. And their man in Moscow is Joshua Yaffa, one of those “fellow” chaps, representing a US State Department-funded concern called “New America.” 

In the parallel universe The New Yorker occupies when it comes to Russia, in common with pretty much all its peers, everything Moscow does is nefarious and if America makes mistakes, it’s never intentional. The usual Uncle Sam as an eternal toddler stuff, which must always be forgiven because of its cute smile. As a result, Washington’s open interference in Russia politics is never mentioned. 

For instance, a balanced article could draw on 1996 when Americans openly intervened to deliver Boris Yeltsin to victory over the less favorable Gennady Zyuganov. Or the outspoken support of US officials for the 2011-2012 Bolotnaya protests. In this case, the serving US ambassador even invited the leaders to his embassy. 

Bad Kremlin - Instead, it’s bash Russia time in an opus riddled with fundamental errors. Like when it pores over “anti-Moscow 'color revolutions,' in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine, which deposed corrupt, Soviet-era leaders.” Without apparently realizing how Ukraine’s twice-shafted Viktor Yanukovich was a convicted petty criminal in the USSR and upon its fall in 1991 was a regional transport executive with all the power of a spent light bulb. Or how it claims former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev “made a crucial decision not to veto an American-backed UN Security Council resolution in favor of military action in Libya.” 

Because this is just disingenuous, given how Russia agreed to the establishment of a 'no-fly zone' over the unfortunate country, not the full-scale NATO “regime change” operation that followed. At no point does The New Yorker acknowledge Moscow’s subsequent disgust at what it perceived as an outrageous breach of trust by its Western partners. 

While these are especially blatant examples, there are many others. But given the length of the text, the easiest way to disassemble is to unravel it piece by piece. Here are the ‘highlights,’ but there were many more to choose from. 

NEW YORKER:  Five years ago, he (Putin) blamed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the anti-Kremlin protests in Moscow’s Bolotnaya Square. “She set the tone for some of our actors in the country and gave the signal,” Putin said. “They heard this and, with the support of the US State Department, began active work.” (No evidence was provided for the accusation). 

REALITY: As mentioned above, the then US ambassador, Michael McFaul invited the protest leaders to the US embassy. Which, given the relative support levels and the anti-establishment nature of both movements, would have been precisely the same as his Russian equivalent bringing Occupy Wall Street members to his consulate. Furthermore, the magazine doesn’t consider that perhaps Putin received this information from intelligence agencies? As we have just seen in America, they don’t seem to need to provide evidence for their findings to become accepted gospel truth these days. In fact, this entire article is precisely based on the assumption of how “the DNC hacks, many analysts believe, were just a skirmish in a larger war against Western institutions and alliances” (to quote the intro). As we all know, there is no actual proof of Kremlin involvement in the DNC hacks. Indeed, WikiLeaks itself has said the Russian government was not its source. And its envoy claimed that a “disgusted” whistleblower was responsible. 

NEW YORKER:  In early January, two weeks before the Inauguration, James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, released a declassified report concluding that Putin had ordered an influence campaign to harm Clinton’s election prospects, fortify Donald Trump’s, and “undermine public faith in the US democratic process.” The declassified report provides more assertion than evidence. Intelligence officers say that this was necessary to protect their information-gathering methods. Critics of the report had repeatedly noted that intelligence agencies, in the months before the Iraq War, endorsed faulty assessments concerning weapons of mass destruction. But the intelligence community was deeply divided over the actual extent of Iraq’s weapons development; the question of Russia’s responsibility for cyberattacks in the 2016 election has produced no such tumult. Seventeen federal intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia was responsible for the hacking. 

REALITY: This is not entirely true. As many others have pointed out, the NSA (i.e., the agency most likely to know, because it can monitor communications) has offered only ‘moderate’ support. 

NEW YORKER:  Another Administration official said that, during the transfer of power, classified intelligence had shown multiple contacts between Trump associates and Russian representatives, but nothing that rose to the level of aiding or coordinating the interference with the election. 

REALITY: Obama’s team had much the same level of contacts. In fact, his chief “Russia hand,” McFaul, even visited Moscow during the 2008 transition to speak to Russian officials. 

And there was nothing wrong in what McFaul did. For example, Bill Clinton's point man on Russia and Eastern Europe was considered a source of intelligence information and classified as "a special unofficial contact" by SVR. The man concerned, Strobe Talbot, correctly pointed out how it was an exaggeration of chats he had with the Russian ambassador to Canada, Georgiy Mamedov. 

Additionally, Henry Kissinger has maintained intensive contacts with Moscow for decades. Yet every recent American president has sought his advice. And George W. Bush's Russia expert, Elizabeth Jones, actually grew up in Moscow and attended local Russian schools. 

NEW YORKER:  Russian security concerns were hardly the only issue at stake with respect to the expansion of NATO; Poland, Czechoslovakia, and other countries in the region were now sovereign and wanted protection… Putin, in his first few years in office, was relatively solicitous of the West. He was the first foreign leader to call George W. Bush after the destruction of the World Trade Center towers. When he spoke at the Bundestag, later that month, he addressed its members in German, the language that he had spoken as a KGB agent in Dresden. He even entertained the notion of Russian membership in NATO. America’s invasion of Iraq, which Putin opposed, marked a change in his thinking. 

REALITY: Protection from what exactly? In the 1990’s, nobody was threatening anyone and Russia was both on its knees and desperately trying to join the Western fold, under the famously pro-American Boris Yeltsin. Indeed, as acknowledged by the magazine, during his early years in office, Putin continued the same posture, before becoming embittered by NATO expansion and the illegal Iraq War. There have been countless academic articles, from genuine experts, backing up this view. And even George Kennan, the most celebrated American Russia analyst of the twentieth century, agreed. Thus, NATO’s overreach eastwards has caused the exact problem that NATO purportedly exists to circumvent: insecurity in Europe. In this sense, it was like employing a team of golden retrievers to clean up shredded canine hair. Also, is it such a big surprise that the illegal invasion of a sovereign country, based on obviously false evidence, without a UN mandate, would affect the thinking of a government which regards its UN veto as an important defense tool? 

NEW YORKER:  He (Putin) was alarmed by the Obama Administration’s embrace of the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt. And he was infuriated by the US-led assault on Muammar Qaddafi’s regime. 

REALITY: This is presented as something irrational, and comes without proper context. However, given that Russia is home to around 20 million Muslims, and has a history of problems with Islamist terrorism, what’s unusual about Putin being concerned about secular, stable (if obnoxious) regimes in the Middle East being replaced by (obviously even more obnoxious) radical Islamists? Also, he was infuriated about Qaddafi, because as mentioned earlier, the mandate the UN agreed to was for a 'no-fly zone' - not a fully fledged NATO campaign of airstrikes, coordinated with the opposition. 

NEW YORKER:  Russian television, of course, covered the siege of Aleppo as an enlightened act of liberation, free of any brutality or abuses. 

REALITY: Which is more or less exactly how American and British TV covered the “liberation” of Baghdad in 2003. Check out this extraordinary report from BBC’s Andrew Marr. Who later became the channel's political editor. 

NEW YORKER:  And yet Russian military planners and officials in the Kremlin regarded Georgia as a failure in the realm of international propaganda. 

REALITY: It’s not hard to see why. Even to this day, US news outlets (and the aforementioned McFaul who definitely knows better) continue to insist that Russia attacked Georgia. But in actual fact, the EU’s independent investigation into the conflict ruled that Georgia started the war. 

NEW YORKER:  The United States, meanwhile, had its own notable cyberwar success. In 2008, in tandem with Israeli intelligence, the US launched the first digital attack on another country’s critical infrastructure, deploying a “worm,” known as Stuxnet, that was designed to cause centrifuges in Iran to spin out of control and thereby delay its nuclear development. 

REALITY: This admitted act of aggression is given a sentence, but an incident in Estonia in 2007 (never proved to have been Russian state ordered) is highlighted over many paragraphs complete with quotes from the country’s former President Toomas Ilves. 

NEW YORKER:  Obama’s adviser Benjamin Rhodes said that Russia’s aggressiveness had accelerated since the first demonstrations on Maidan Square, in Kiev. “When the history books are written, it will be said that a couple of weeks on the Maidan is where this went from being a Cold War-style competition to a much bigger deal,” he said. “Putin’s unwillingness to abide by any norms began at that point. It went from provocative to disrespectful of any international boundary.” 

REALITY: Even though they have 13,000 words to play with, our heroes never consider other aspects of Maidan. Such as, was it normal for serving US and EU officials to turn up at the rallies and more or less encourage protestors to overthrow their democratically elected government? Indeed, it looked like the rock star style adulation went to their heads. Furthermore, what authority did US official’s Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt have to choose the subsequent regime in Kiev? 

NEW YORKER:  Bruno Kahl, the head of Germany’s foreign intelligence agency, has expressed concern that Russian hackers are also trying to disrupt the German political scene, where Chancellor Angela Merkel is standing for reelection as a stalwart supporter of NATO and the EU. 

REALITY: German intelligence recently admitted that it found no evidence of Russian election hacking after insinuations of such activity was breathlessly carried by popular media last year. Notably, the “all clear” given to Moscow was ignored by the same outlets. Also, this whole premise is a bit illogical, seeing as the only realistic alternative to Merkel - the SPD led by Martin Schultz - is even more pro-EU than her CDU party. And Schultz himself has spent most of his adult life working in Brussels, home to both the EU and NATO. 

NEW YORKER:  While officials in the Obama Administration struggled with how to respond to the cyberattacks, it began to dawn on them that a torrent of “fake news” reports about Hillary Clinton was being generated in Russia and through social media. 

REALITY: It’s been proven the “fake news” was primarily generated in America itself and in Macedonia. Not Russia. 

NEW YORKER:  Russia’s political hierarchy and official press greeted Trump’s Inauguration with unreserved glee. 

REALITY: Given Clinton’s aggressive anti-Russia rhetoric, during which she compared Putin to Adolf Hitler, why is this a surprise? Especially when Trump had spoken of trying to mend fences with Moscow? The words “straw” “at” and “clutching” come to mind. 

And we shall leave it there. Because I’ve just breached the 2,500-word barrier myself and am in danger of resembling those I reprimand. Meanwhile, dear reader you may well have bitten off all your fingernails by now. If you’ve made it this far. 

As for The New Yorker, their approach to covering Russia appears to be inspired by the great Samuel Beckett and his wonderful observation: "Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better." Perhaps they'd benefit from following the philosophy of my late grandfather, Paddy, born the same year as the writer, who used to say, spade in hand, "you may as well do a job properly as do it at all." He was right too.

[marcusfontain-blog]

Whoever voted for Trump heard exactly what they wanted to hear in his Congress speech. 

While nobody will remember economic issues mentioned, they will remember Trump paying tribute to fallen Navy SEAL Ryan Owens, they added. 

President Donald Trump gave his first major speech to a joint session of Congress on February, 28. He focused mainly on domestic issues as well as the hot topic of immigration. 

Those in attendance were clearly split by his address with half the room applauding points made by the president while others chose to remain silent. 

“the president knew that he was on his biggest stage and he proved that he is a prime-time player and very serious about turning this country around when it comes to the economy, immigration, and international relations.” 

“If you voted for Trump – you heard exactly what you wanted to hear… He challenged the Congress in a very positive manner talking about America’s greatness and what we can achieve as a country if we all work together. It was a speech of unity and the speech of vision.” 

Ed Shultz said he was really impressed by the way the president talked about the 250th anniversary of the US founding coming up in nine years and asking the American people “where we are going to be in ‘Year 250’. Where do we want to be?” 

“I think he spoke to American exceptionalism which Ronald Reagan used to talk about. It was very Reaganesque. He made the country feel good about itself. Now the question is – can the Congress and Trump administration deliver,” Shultz said. 

'Trump finds his presidential voice' - Geopolitical analyst and executive editor of 21st Century Wire.com Patrick Henningsen commented on the most important points of Donald Trump’s speech: “First of all, I think [Trump] has found his presidential voice: the question is how long can he keep it,” said Patrick Henningsen, geopolitical analyst and executive editor of 21st Century Wire.com Patrick. 

“Clearly, we saw the House divided. That was pretty pronounced. Democratic women, in particular, all dressed in white alluding to the suffragettes. Apparently, they think that women’s rights are under threat. This is sort typifies the sort of division we have,” he continued. 

“He ticked all the boxes in that respect and some of his critics would be neutralized by that. But in terms of domestic politics – still extremely divided. Although, there might be a pause for 24 hours, but I think we might see is back to the fight later in a week,” he added. 

Patrick Henningsen said he wasn’t surprised that Trump’s speech was predominately about domestic issues since “the foreign policy is a very sticky issue right now because the whole Russian hack or various Russian conspiracy theories that are being floated toward Donald Trump, those are sort of in the air at the moment. And they are very difficult in the wake of the resignation of Michael Flynn.” 

However, symbolically, Trump did acknowledge foreign policy, Henningsen added, referring to Trump saying “We want peace, wherever peace can be found.” 

Trump also said: “America is friends today with former enemies. Some of our closest allies, decades ago, fought on the opposite side of these terrible, terrible wars”. 

In Henningsen’s view, the US president was “foreshadowing potential détente with Russia,” which is “clearly still a major part of the agenda.” 

“The approach that this president is taking at the moment with someone like General James Mattis at the helm of the Defense Department is ‘peace through strength.' That is the sort of package that Donald Trump is trying to sell. And that is all willing good until a potential intervention pops up or the political demand is there for a military intervention like in Syria, for instance,” he said. 

‘Frank Capra’s Hollywood’ - Media and legal analyst Lionel described Donald Trump as “magnificent.” 

“We are not going to remember tomorrow particular aspects of trade, although they were very good. What he did -was Ryan Owens. This was Hollywood, this was Frank Capra. When Carryn, his wife looked up at over a two-minute standing ovation and put faces to these issues,” Lionel continued. 

“This president knocked it out of the park. I don’t know who I saw. That looked like Donald Trump, but that wasn’t a Donald Trump I saw on the campaign trail. That wasn’t a shortsighted, ill-tempered ruffian. That was magnificent when he pointed humanity and showed those people they're above these issues. We need to talk about migrant crime. I am not xenophobic; I am talking about these people, of all races and all aspects of American humanity.” 

'Peace through strength' mantra - Joel Anand Samy, Co-Founder of International Leaders Summit, agreed that “President Trump articulated a very pro-America speech.” 

“He communicated the importance of renewing the American spirit. As he was on the campaign trail - he focused primarily on the domestic issues,” he said. 

U.S. Marines stand in front of amphibious assault vehicles (AAV) © Athit Perawongmetha‘US Republicans & Democrats both addicted to war and militarism’

“And as we’ve seen that the importance of principal leadership that he was communicating on the campaign trail which was lacking, which he communicated time and time again, is something he focused on,” he said. 

Samy also noted that Trump “has been very strong on building the wall which he reinstated and re-communicated” during his speech. At the same time, the US president “threw some excerpts that were given out earlier: he communicated the importance of a pathway for those who have come to this country illegally, at least to have some form of legal documentation.” 

Trump mentioned the increase in the military budget but said nothing specific about what it will be used for. 

In Samy’s opinion, those who voted for President Trump certainly want him to “focus on America’s challenges first and foremost.” 

“Indeed, American leadership abroad has been weakened. There was a perception that America has led from behind rather than through a strong leadership position… As we’ve seen Trump communicate the important mantra ‘peace through strength,'”

[marcusfontain-blog]

Barry Jenkins’s gorgeous movie, which charts the coming-of-age tale of a black man in Miami, is one of the best of the year. 

Like all great films, Moonlight is both specific and sweeping. It’s a story about identity—an intelligent, challenging work that wants viewers to reflect on assumptions they might make about the characters. It’s also a focused and personal work, a mental odyssey about the youth, adolescence, and adulthood of Chiron, who is growing up gay and black in Miami. From start to finish, the director Barry Jenkins’s new film balances the scope of its ambitions: The story weaves random memories and crucial life experiences into a tapestry, one that tries to unlock the shielded heart of its protagonist. 

In short, Moonlight demands to be seen, even though the film is about a man who desperately wants to keep the audience at arm’s length. Inspired by the play In Moonlight Black Boys Look Blue by Tarell Alvin McCraney, Jenkins’s movie is a meditation on growing up, and the ways we all try to prevent ourselves from standing out or getting hurt. There’s insight to Moonlight that should pierce viewers to their core, even if Chiron’s life is very different from their own. This is not an “issue” film that’s mainly “about” race or sexuality; this is a humane movie, one that’s looking to prompt empathy and introspection most of all. On those terms alone, Moonlight is one of the year’s most gripping viewing experiences. 

It’s been eight years since the release of Jenkins’s debut feature Medicine For Melancholy, itself a clever work about identity. That film followed a black couple wandering the streets of San Francisco after a one-night stand, pondering the gentrifying city and whether people of color could still find a place in it. Moonlight feels more personal for Jenkins, who was born and raised in Liberty City, Miami, the predominantly African American neighborhood in which the film is set. He’s stated that Chiron’s story is not his own, but the film has an incredible sense of place all the same. The movie begins with a casual conversation between two drug dealers on an abandoned block, then cuts to a young Chiron (Alex Hibbert), a boy taunted with the nickname “Little,” who’s hiding out from bullies in an empty, boarded-up apartment building. 

Moonlight veers away from the gritty stereotypes its setting might suggest; in fact, this film deliberately rejects the visual markers viewers might anticipate in such a tale. Liberty City is bright and often colorful, even at its most dilapidated. When Chiron is rescued by Juan (Mahershala Ali), one of the drug dealers shown cruising around in a vintage Cadillac, the boy is taken to Juan’s suburban-ish home, and later to the beach, where Juan cradles him in the water to try and teach him how to swim. Juan quickly realizes that Chiron doesn’t need to be forced or coddled into opening up emotionally—he just needs space to be himself. At every juncture, Juan tries to dissuade the boy from accepting whatever lot he’s handled by his tormenters, or by his crack-addicted mother Paula (a frightening, and wonderful, Naomie Harris). 

Moonlight is not an easy watch at times, partly because it delves deeply into its protagonist’s haunted psyche. 

Ali’s incredible performance in Moonlight’s first third gives it its human core; Jenkins has no interest in upending, or affirming, the audience’s preconceived notions of how a drug dealer might behave. Juan is presented as an entire person because that’s exactly who he is—everyone in this movie is presented in the same three-dimensional fashion, even as they make decisions that break Chiron’s heart. More than anything, Juan tries to impress upon the boy that his outward appearance, and how the world sees him, isn’t everything. During his swimming lesson, Juan relays a memory of an old woman seeing him on the beach at night and saying, “In the moonlight, black boys look blue! You’re blue!” 

In some of the film’s most important moments, Jenkins literally bathes his characters in that baleful, blue light, stripping them of whatever disguises they might unwittingly wear in the daytime. As a teenager (played by Ashton Sanders), Chiron is still awkward, still burdened by his mother, and perhaps only slightly more aware of his sexuality. When a nighttime flirtation with a friend turns sexual, Jenkins stages the action on a beach under the full moon, turning that intimate moment into something that feels at once exclusive to the couple and yet utterly universal. 

There is tragedy at the heart of Moonlight, and the film is not an easy watch at times, partly because it delves so deeply into its protagonist’s haunted psyche. The movie’s final chapter, where viewers see the man who Chiron becomes (played by Trevante Rhodes), and his reunion with his childhood friend, feels like an utter surprise when it begins. But after 20 minutes with the characters, it’s clear why they ended up where they did. This cohesiveness is a remarkable achievement for a film that compresses a life story into three episodic segments, each running about 40 minutes. To say more would be to spoil a singular journey suffused with melancholy and hope, emotions that Jenkins communicates through the screen with uncommon grace. The result is a film that is one of the most essential of the year, and one whose depth rewards repeated viewings.

[marcusfontain-blog]

Seattle Judge is Wrong and Overreached with Nationwide Injunction on Travel Ban

Two different courts, on opposite coasts, ruled in opposite directions last Friday, January 27, 2017, on my birthday! A Boston federal court affirmed Trump’s executive order as “bona fide”; and then federal Judge Robart enjoined it by attempting to stop the Nationwide Injunction on Travel Ban issued by the President. Both cases spoke to requests for “nationally” effective rulings. If federal judge Robart is correct in his ruling; I am the man on the moon.  Can federal courts give conflicting directions to government employees? Did Homeland Security predict this? Please allow me to explain further: 

Unfortunately, it is a legal reality that this Order by Judge Robart has served to make it even worse for those people that were affected by the Nationwide Injunction on Travel Ban. Judge Robart, must have been smoking something. He really has created a real mess for everyone wanting to enter the United States. In fact, Judge Robart screwed everybody abundantly.  Immigrants should send a thank you note to Judge Robart. With friend like Judge Robart, the Americans and people of the world wanting to enter the U.S. do not need any enemies.   

Seattle Judge Robart’s decision, unquestionably, overstepped by a million miles the traditional boundaries of the U.S. District Court’s authority, especially when other sister courts are ruling and have ruled on the same issues. And as a matter of fact, both the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals warned against issuing a national order in just these kind of cases. 

Unlike state courts, the federal courts, because they are “federal” enjoy the possibility of national reach in their decision. This is a complete fallacy!  Because due to the risk of conflicting decisions within the courts; and notice how venue-shoppers by litigants such as the ACLU, CAIR and the Attorney Generals are staying away and are not suing in any Trump states, and the interference with the executive branch of government in their daily duties; the Supreme Court established precedents; precedents being what constitutes “evidence” for lawyers about what the law says; to limit these sort of problems from occurring. Any smart federal judge knows that! 

First, the Supreme Court warned all Judges and Lawyers alike against issuing any relief not individually and specifically necessary to the Plaintiffs before the court. Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979). The Seattle judge’s ruling goes way beyond that, trying to apply his order to people all around the world. This Judge is not just ridiculous and legally ignorant; it appears this one Seattle judge thinks the people voted him President of the United States; not President Trump. These type of pompous and legally illiterate judges have been appointed because someone owed a favor to someone, not because they, for the most part, know anything about the law. Welcome to the world of federal judges! 

Second, the Supreme Court warned these federal Judges, specifically, against issuing any such relief against the Executive Branch, meaning someone like President Trump; more especially in military, immigration, and/or foreign policy concerns, given how precarious such orders can threaten the national security and blatantly interfere with day-to-day functions of the executive branch - yes, President Trump’s office - and create chaos and destabilization. 

The Supreme Court has made it plainly clear that “neither declaratory nor injunctive relief can directly interfere with enforcement of contested statutes or ordinances except with respect to the particular federal Plaintiffs before the court,” the Supreme Court warned against extending its reach beyond “the particular federal Plaintiffs” involved in the case. That means that federal judges are limited to making any rulings outside of the Plaintiff that in front of the Court.  In other words, not some person in Iran or Kenya.  Read…Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922 (1975). Frankly, Seattle Judge Robart’s order is nothing but fodder, not worth the paper is printed on; and he made it so as to try to apply itself to millions of people around the globe. That is absurd and preposterous!  And, believe me, people think only brain surgeons look in the mirror and see God; think again! In fact, one can say that the difference between God and a federal Judge is that federal Judges think they are God. 

Third, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which governs the Seattle federal court, has repeatedly ruled that: a federal court should not issue rulings beyond its own jurisdiction when other courts have also issued rulings on the matter. Read…AMC Entm’t 549 F.3d at 770. It is called the “principles of comity” which mandates that any federal court should not grant national relief when doing so it would “create tensions” with courts in other Circuits and “would encourage forum shopping.” The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals further reinforced that: “A federal court…may not attempt to determine the rights of parties not before the court”. Here…What kind of case was that the Ninth Circuit said not to extend your ruling beyond the plaintiffs in front of you? You guessed it…An immigration case. Read…Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983); Nat’l Cir. for Immigration Rights v. INS, 743 F.2d 1365 (9th Cir. 1984). 

The U.S. Supreme Court has already reversed an order just like the absurd Seattle Judge Robart’s order. In 1993, a few ignorant people challenged the “don’t ask, don’t tell” restrictions on gays in the military. Shock, shock, they filed the suit on the West Coast. Where else? Shock, shock, a liberal judge tried to convert it into a national injunction. Guess what happened? The Supreme Court reversed, issuing a stay of all parts of the injunction that “granted relief to persons other than the named plaintiff.” Read…Dep’t of Defense v. Meinhold, 510 U.S. 939 (1993). It is important to note here that decision to stay the injunction was 9-to-0, yes, unanimous. That is how obvious and how clear the precedents, the evidence of the law, is in this instance. And, that is why this Order by this federal Judge Robart will be thrown out in the trash in not time. 

Just like every Senator looks in the mirror and sees a President, many federal judges look in the mirror and see a Philosopher-king who the world should accept as a benevolent ruler. Mind there is no such thing as a benevolent federal judge.  Federal judges are as brutal and sanguine as they come. Regarding Judge Robart his biggest claim to fame has been a very controversial rulings and statements in an Amherst expulsion case and a black lives matter controversy. 

Unfortunately, Judge Robart may think he can make an interesting President. But America did not elect Judge Robart President. He has NEVER been elected to anything.  And, brace yourself Judge Robart because your judicial superiors are about to remind you of just that. Sorry, you are about to get a real spanking! 

Marcus Fontain, J.D.

President and CEO

Unimundo Corporation

www.unimundo.tv

marcus@unimundo.tv  

[marcusfontain-blog]

Negotiate with the IRS Your Own Payment Agreement

Why hire an Attorney, Accountant or Tax professional when you can negotiate with the IRS yourself? While not everyone can handle their IRS tax debt problem themselves, before you go sending thousands of dollars to some company with a 1-800-phone number, let’s see if you can handle this yourself for free first. Stay away or you may be ripped off. 

Case in point, the bearded con-man-supreme and morbidly obese “Patrick Cox” from “Tax Masters” who swindled Americans out of more than $200-million in fees through fraud and deception from unsuspecting desperate consumers seeking help with their taxes. People hired Tax Masters after watching Cox’s TV commercials.  Those people were also seeking the help of a tax professional regarding an IRS matter. All they received from Tax Masters was lip-service, a fat credit card bill and the tax liability and the IRS itself never went away.  Those people after being swindled they had to pay the IRS anyway! They could have resolved their IRS problems or debts, by themselves and avoid getting ripped off. You need to be fully aware there are many crooks just like Patrick Cox and offices such as Tax Masters waiting for you to dial their 800-number so they can tell you a bunch of lies, steal you blind and give you nothing in return. Nothing but scam artists, snake oil sales men. Do not fall for it!  Go straight to the IRS and face the music! Here are more reasons why: 

I have heard many stories about people who paid one of those TV 800-number tax companies thousands of dollars to help them with their IRS debt and when all was said and done, all they got was a monthly installment agreement with the IRS.  Those people could have used that money to pay down their debt–and done the installment agreement themselves for free. 

Here is the first question:  Do you really owe the money in the first place?  That is pretty important.  If your taxes were professionally prepared and you have a huge balance due; you probably really do owe the IRS.  On the other hand, if you have not filed for several years and the IRS says you owe them lots of money–there is a good chance you do not. Anybody can and does taxes better than the IRS any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Any CPA, H&R Block, VITA; even a really bad tax place can do your taxes better than the IRS. 

True story:  A couple of years ago, a CPA friend of mine had a high school intern. She had only been there for a couple of days, a woman came to my friend with an IRS tax debt of $16,000.  My friend took the case and he asked the intern to just do the basic data entry work for him.  A while later the intern went to him and said, “I did the data entry but I’m afraid you are going to have to show me what I am doing wrong.”  “What do you mean,” he asked, “It is just data entry.” “I know,” she said, “But I heard you say she owes the IRS $16,000 and on all the returns I input she is supposed to receive a refund!”  My friend looked over everything the girl had done.  It was perfect.  Instead of the woman owing the IRS $16,000, the IRS owed her $8,000.   

So when I tell you that anybody prepares a tax return better than the IRS I am not kidding.  Now you can go to an IRS office and they will help you with your return. Those people sometimes know what they are doing but those computers generated IRS returns that get mailed to you are absolute garbage.  Plain and simple. 

Second question:  Do you owe less than $50,000?  Because if you owe more than $50,000, you will not be able to do an IRS streamline installment agreement.  If you can pay enough on the debt to reduce it to $50,000 or less; then you can do the streamline; otherwise, you are going to want to get some help with your debt to bring it down before attempting to do the streamline. If you owe $52,000, you could pay some tax company $8,000 to negotiate for you, but if you paid $2,000 towards the debt, you could negotiate for yourself and still have $6,000 more to pay your debt or buy groceries or whatever. 

Third question:  How much can you afford to pay each month?  Let us say you got hit with an IRS bill of $6,000 and you just did not have any money saved to pay it.  Look at your financial situation and figure out what you can afford.  What is the most you could possibly pay without causing yourself a hardship?  What is going to be your upper limit number that you can pay.  You need to think it through because you do not want to commit or make a deal to pay $500 a month if it means you lose your house. 

Here is the mechanics of it:  In a perfect world you should be able to pay of your IRS debt within 2 years (24 months.)   So if you take that $6000 and divide it by 24, then your monthly payment would be $250. If you can afford that–great! That is the preferred timeline for the IRS to have you pay off your debt. 

But if you cannot handle the $250 a month, you the IRS will be willing to go as far as 72-months (or six years) for you to pay off the debt. So if you take $6,000 and divide that by 72 then you get to pay $85 dollars a month. 

What you might want to do is negotiate the $85 payment, but then pay the $250 to get rid of the debt faster.  That way you have some wiggle room if you lose your job or have some other financial problems. 

The IRS charges a fee of $105 for setting up the installment agreement.  It is lower if you set up direct debit from your checking account or it may be reduced if your income is low.  Make sure you ask about it; they will likely never tell you! If you’re trying to negotiate a payment agreement and things are just not going your way, it is okay to back out of the deal before you commit.  You may tell them you are re going to need professional help and that you will have to call them back later. 

Once you do have an agreement, you have to hold up your end of it.  Make your payments on time.  If you are late, your installment agreement is void and you will have to start all over again–including the $105 fee for setting up the agreement.  Not to mention those nasty letters they send about putting a lien on your home and levying your bank account. 

If you cannot handle the installment agreement yourself; maybe your tax issue is too complex or you are just too intimidated to deal with the IRS, in that case get help from a local professional.  You will need an enrolled agent or CPA because they are licensed to represent you before the IRS.  I recommend using someone near you which you can meet with in person.   

Sometimes, IRS debt issues will cost a few thousand dollars to settle in legal or professional fees, depending upon the work that needs to be done.  You need to ask and should know what is going to be done before you pay that kind of money out.  Ask questions, know why they’re charging you that much, and what you’re getting for it. You have a right to know.  $8,000 for something you can do yourself is too high a price.  STAY AWAY FROM THE 800-NUMBER CROOKS! 

By: Marcus Fontain, J.D.

President and CEO

Unimundo Corporation

www.unimundo.tv

marcus@unimundo.tv

[marcusfontain-blog]

What Trump Gets Right on Immigration

I am surely not the only one noticing the extent to which the corporate media worldwide are damning Donald Trump. In the wake of Brexit, his supporters were repeatedly likened to the Brits who voted Leave, both groups being characterized as “white and less well educated.” And over the past week, the Washington Post has been examining and damning nearly everything The Donald has said and done, hammering the presumptive GOP nominee with an average of six heavily editorialized news articles daily, plus op-eds. 

To be sure, Trump has earned much of the opprobrium, with his often contradictory and scattershot presentations of the policies he intends to pursue, as well as the provocative language that has left him legitimately open to charges of racism and sexism. Trump’s racially flavored warnings about homegrown terrorists certainly have considerable popular appeal in the wake of San Bernardino and Orlando, but the reality is that Muslim Americans as a group exhibit low crime rates, achieve higher-than-average levels of education, and are financially successful. Police sources reveal that they frequently cooperate with law enforcement regarding members of their community who are flirting with militancy. 

Trump is also presumed guilty of several other Democratic Party-defined capital crimes, including failing to enthusiastically embrace diversity and multiculturalism. But at the core of his appeal to voters is the one issue that he largely gets right, and that is immigration, both as a cultural phenomenon and as a law-and-order issue. 

His up-front condemnation of illegal immigration can be seen as the launching pad for his successful campaign for the GOP nomination. From a rule-of-law and national-security perspective, many Americans have long been dismayed by the federal government’s unwillingness to control the nation’s borders, and many blue-collar workers have a more personal stake in the issue, being appalled by the impact of mass illegal immigration on their communities. 

While Trump’s proposed blanket ban on Muslim travelers is both constitutionally and ethically wrongheaded and, in my opinion, potentially damaging to broader U.S. interests, his related demand to temporarily stop travel or immigration from some core countries that have serious problems with militancy is actually quite sensible. This is because the United States has only a limited ability to vet people from those countries. The Obama administration claims it is rigorously screening travelers and immigrants—but it has provided little to no evidence that its procedures are effective. 

The first step in travel limitation is to define the problem. While it is popular in Congress and the media to focus on countries like Iran, nationals of such countries do not constitute a serious threat. Shi’a Muslims, the majority of Iranians, have characteristically not staged suicide attacks, nor do they as a group directly threaten American or Western interests. The Salafist organizations with international appeal and global reach are all Sunni Muslim. In fact, al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Taliban, and al-Nusra all self-define as Sunni Muslim and regard Shi’as as heretics. Most of the foot soldiers who do the fighting and dying for the terrorist groups and their affiliates are Sunnis who come from Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia, and even the homegrown Europeans and Americans who join their ranks are Sunni. 

It is no coincidence that the handful of Muslim countries that harbor active insurgencies have also been on the receiving end of U.S. military interventions, which generate demands for revenge against the West and the U.S. in particular. They would be the countries to monitor most closely for militants seeking to travel. All of them represent launching pads for potential attacks, and it should be assumed that groups like ISIS would be delighted to infiltrate refugee and immigrant groups. 

U.S. embassies and consulates overseas are the choke points for those potential terrorists. Having myself worked the visa lines in consulates overseas, I understand just how difficult it is to be fair to honest travelers while weeding out those whose intentions are less honorable. At the consulate, an initial screening based on name and birth date determines whether an applicant is on any no-fly or terrorism-associate lists. Anyone coming up is automatically denied, but the lists include a great deal of inaccurate information, so they probably “catch” more innocent people than they do actual would-be terrorists. Individuals who have traveled to Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria since 2011, or who are citizens of those countries, are also selected out for additional review. 

For visitors who pass the initial screening and who do not come from one of the 38 “visa waiver” countries, mostly in Europe, the next step is the visitor’s visa, called a B-2. At that point, the consulate’s objective is to determine whether the potential traveler has a good reason to visit the U.S., has the resources to pay for the trip, and is likely to return home before the visa expires. The process seeks to establish that the applicant has sufficient equity in his or her home country to guarantee returning to it, a recognition of the fact that most visa fraud relates to overstaying one’s visit to disappear into the unregistered labor market in the U.S. The process is document-driven, with the applicants presenting evidence of bank accounts, employment, family ties, and equity like homeownership. Sometimes letters of recommendation from local business leaders or politicians might also become elements in the decision. 

In some countries, documentary evidence can be supplemented by police reports if the local government is cooperative. Some consulates employ investigators, generally ex-policemen, who are able to examine public records if there is any doubt about an applicant’s profile or intentions, but most governments do not permit access to official documents. Recently, background investigations have sometimes been supplemented by an examination of the applicant’s presence on the internet to determine whether he or she is frequenting militant sites or discussing political issues online. If the visa applicant is seeking to become a U.S. resident, the process is, of course, much more rigorous. 

Both travel and immigrant visas are nevertheless a somewhat subjective process. I knew a visa officer in Turkey who delighted in turning down Iranian applicants “on principle.” It was a seemingly arbitrary act—but this was shortly after the U.S. embassy hostage crisis in Tehran, and it was plausibly based on the fact that there was no embassy any longer in Iran and documents presented in Turkey would be impossible to verify. 

Most of those convicted in terrorism-related cases in the U.S. are foreign-born. The real issue that Trump should be addressing is the federal government’s inability to vet visa applicants to a level that could be considered sufficient from a national-security perspective, a failure that has led some conservatives to complain that White House policy is to “invade the world, invite the world.” 

In many places, official documents are easy to forge or can even be obtained in genuine form from corrupt bureaucrats. If one is unable to go the source of the document for verification, papers submitted in support of a visa application are frequently impossible to authenticate. So what does one do when applicants from countries in the throes of civil war—like Iraq, Syria, or Yemen—show up at a visa window, some of them with no documents at all? Or when such applicants constitute not a trickle but a flood? It gets complicated, and Trump has a point in saying we should deny visas to all of them until procedures can be established for making those judgments in a more coherent fashion. 

Another steady stream of immigrants into the U.S. comes from the refugee-resettlement process; Washington is a signatory to the United Nations-administered agreements to resettle refugees. Much of the background vetting is carried out by the UN in a not-completely-transparent fashion, and the resettlement of the refugees in various places is done by quota—with the U.S. being the largest recipient country, expected to receive 100,000 refugees in 2017. But does the Obama administration have a clue regarding the reliability of the information it gets on the new would-be Americans? If it does, it is not letting on. 

The mostly Saudi attackers on 9/11 used temporary or tourist visas to enter the country, so the threat from that source should be clear to everyone involved in the entry process, and consulates are acutely aware of the danger. But beyond that, the Obama administration has been complacent. It would no doubt point to the fact that no refugee to the United States has carried out an act of terror once admitted to the country, which would be true but somewhat misleading: The estimated 77,000 Somali refugees who have somehow wound up in Minnesota have included a substantial number of younger men and women who have returned home to join the al-Qaeda affiliate al-Shabaab. And it would in any event be prudent to be cautious when relying on past behavior models, as groups like ISIS have indicated their desire to hit the United States and have proven to be highly adaptable in their tactics. 

Trump’s demands to block many visitors and would-be residents might seem an overreaction, but until a broken immigration system is fixed, he is more right than wrong. 

This article has been reproduced from Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest. 

By: Marcus Fontain, J.D.

President and CEO

Unimundo Corporation

www.unimundo.tv

marcus@unimundo.tv

[marcusfontain-blog]

Unimundo Corporation Logo

www.unimundo.tv 

[marcusfontain-blog]

American Teachers, the Underpaid and Overworked

 My name is Marcus Fontain, J.D., for some time I have been observing through the experience of my own children whom already graduated with Bachelor’s Degrees that teachers in America are really struggling with no hope in sight.  To make matters more pressing is the fact that my wife and I now have a one-year old baby boy and the idea that he will go to school to be educated by a frustrated teacher that is underpaid and not well respected is frightening. In the United States there is no one more underpaid and more overworked than a Teacher. 

It is shameful that we are one of the wealthiest countries on the planet and we do not pay our teachers enough money so they can have breathing space. We need to stand-up to Congress and demand that our teachers receive a better salary than the misery they now receive. Many teachers I know live below the poverty level and what keeps them teaching is their undying dedication to teach our children. It is about time we pay our teachers lucrative salaries; by doing so they will dedicate even more quality time to our children and we will have less crime on the streets and less inmates in the prison system as well as more successful sons and daughters. It all begins with the teachers. In America today a teacher is practically a second class citizen and in many cases they are used and abused and discarded like trash. We must change all of that.  Her is why: 

Teachers are an extremely important facet of any society for a number of reasons and their role in society is both significant and valuable. Teachers are the people who educate the youth of society who in turn become the leaders of the next generation of people. 

Teachers are the people who are teaching children and imparting knowledge upon them in their most impressionable years. What children learn from their teachers at a young age will most likely stay with them in some facet for the rest of their lives Teachers play an extraordinary part in the lives of children for the formative years of their development and the importance of teachers is something that cannot be understated. They involve themselves in molding their students into responsible citizens of their country. 

Within a school, if teachers are well educated, financially secured and if they are intellectually alive, they will take keen interest in their job, then only success is ensured. Our teachers ensure that children are taught to high standards and only receive quality education which will lead to a brighter future for these children. Teachers training needs must also be up to date. 

Teachers are Role Models. A role model is a person who inspires and encourages us to strive for greatness, live to our fullest potential and see the best in ourselves. A role model is someone we admire and someone we aspire to be like. We learn through them, through their commitment to excellence and through their ability to make us realize our own personal growth. We look to them for advice and guidance. 

A role model can be anybody: a parent, a sibling, a friend but some of our most influential and life-changing role models are in fact the teachers. When the student is ready, the teacher appears. Teachers follow students through each pivotal stage of development. At six to eight hours a day, five days a week, a teacher is poised to become one of the most influential people of the students’ life. After their parents, children will first learn from you, their elementary school teacher. Then, as a middle school teacher, you will guide students through yet another important transition: adolescence. As children become young adults, learning throughout middle school and into high school, you will answer their questions, listen to their problems and teach them about this new phase of their lives. You not only watch your students grow you help them grow.

We think of teacher-heroes that taught us the academics but we don’t often think of those teachers that taught us life’s lessons. Much of what students learn from their greatest teachers is not detailed on a syllabus. Teachers who help us grow as people are responsible for imparting some of life’s most important lessons. During their initial school years, students encounter, perhaps for the first time, other children of the same age and begin to form some of their first friendships. As a teacher, you will show your students how to become independent and form their own relationships, you will carefully guide them and intervene when necessary. School is as much a place of social learning as academic learning, and this is true, not only in our early years of education, but all the way through college. Though a teacher’s influence on the social sphere of school lessens as students mature, those early lessons still have an effect on how they will interact with others in the future. 

Teachers are full of experience. They have already been where their students are going, undergone what they will go through and are in a position to pass along lessons, not only regarding subject matter, but lessons on life and play an extraordinary part in the lives of children for the formative years of their development. The importance of teachers is something that cannot be understated. Their influence can and will stretch on long after the final bell rings, beyond the walls of the actual school. The role of the teacher is complex, far beyond what people would assume as just someone who teaches what is mandated by law from the youth of America. 

Life is its own education, with formal schooling playing only a small fraction. However, that does not undermine the role of the teacher. Those who sit in the class room have a good bit of influence of shaping the minds of the future. There are many out there who instruct and lecture information in the classroom but very few people who actually teacher. Actually get through and shape the youth of today to be the pillars of society, to be all that they can be. 

In many ways, there will be times where children will see their teachers a bit more than they might see their parents during most days. This is the case in the lower grades, where children are in school, seven, eight, and nine hours a day, with a single teacher at the lower grade levels. Needless to say, teachers will find themselves as a temporary third parent, being firm but fair. Patient but also unable to be able to back down. They need to run their class room through respect, but not through fear. 

Teachers need to be someone that children respect enough to listen to and to not fear that they can go with, for their problems, should the situation come up. Also, teachers are mediators, able to hash out and make those who are having an argument have some kind of common ground. Anyone can really just punish the two parties and be done with it, but there will be no lessons that will be learned from that. If a teacher is able to figure out what has happened and help develop understanding, then the youth will be far better off.  The best teachers are far more than just reciting dry facts and assigning huge piles of homework. They are those who help shape the children to be the best that they can be and it takes a special person to do that. 

By: Marcus Fontain, J.D.

President and CEO

Unimundo Corporation

www.unimundo.tv

marcus@unimundo.tv

[marcusfontain-blog]

The “La La Land” backlash

 The seven-awards sweep at the Golden Globes has been followed by a 14-nomination sweep at the Academy Awards. A modest, low-budget sorta-musical about jazz and disappointment has now tied “All About Eve” and “Titanic” for receiving the most Oscar nominations ever. 

So what happens next? The movie has now been positioned as something that only conventional, middlebrow folk will celebrate. And the cohorts that have been dogging the movie since it came out will receive a new push from intellectuals and pundits and journalists eager to establish their too-cool-for-school cred or nonconformist bona fides. 

The “La La Land” backlash has been brewing for months now, but at this point it’s almost impossible to champion the movie without looking stupid or like you’re winner-take-all bullying: The “Saturday Night Live” interrogation scene with Aziz Ansari is so diamond sharp that to defend this film now is a bit like trying to make a heavy metal album in the aftermath of “This is Spinal Tap.” (“They’re just regular people! Falling in love and singing!” could replace “This one goes to 11” among a certain set.) 

But let me attempt nonetheless to defend this movie, which many smart and serious people have come after, against opposition by two groups that should have been in this film’s corner. 

Opposition or indifference, of course, has come from people who found the film frivolous, unrealistic, charmless, racially patronizing because neither Emma Stone nor Ryan Gosling are black and so on. (“The Unbearable Whiteness of ‘La La Land’” seems like the inevitable title of a critique.) 

But the most common complaint may be that this is a Hollywood musical in which the leads do not sing or dance especially well. How can it stand next to films with Gene Kelly, Ginger Rogers, Fred Astaire, whoever? How can anyone call what Gosling and Stone do “singing”? And so on. 

Well, there’s no way to pretend the singing and dancing in “La La Land” is any better than it is. It is no “Top Hat” or “West Side Story” and Donald O’Connor does not need to worry about being eclipsed by the skill level here. But this is a bit like saying the Beatles aren’t Cole Porter — or that The Clash is not the 1965 Stones or Sam Peckinpah is not John Ford. Art forms evolve. Why does a movie musical — even one with an Old Hollywood retro spirit — have to observe the same aesthetic as movies made during the 1930s to early ’50s classic period? 

This complaint that a practitioner is not good enough, not formal enough, not schooled enough, not dexterous enough, goes way back. The French art establishment lodged these complaints against the Impressionists. The British critics said it about Whistler. Jazz people said it about Billie Holiday in the ’30s; her voice was too rough. Miles Davis thought Ornette Coleman must be “screwed up inside” to play the way he did. Pavement did not know how to tune its guitars — and so on. 

But to loyalists of the classic Hollywood musical — or the modernist-revisionist era that followed in the ’60s and ’70s driven largely by Sondheim — the Stone and Gosling performances are just amateurish kitsch. 

The second group that has opposed this film also comes from within what should really be its target audience or at its least loyal opposition. Jazz fans have been relentless on this one, as they have on the other jazz movies of the last year or so. Given the marginalized state this great art form is in these days — I’ve been writing about it, on and off, for 25 years and it has never been this hard to place a story about a jazz artist or recording — you’d think jazzheads would welcome the film. You’d think a movie set partly at the legendary Lighthouse Club (the Mount Olympus of the West Coast jazz movement of the ’40s and ’50s) or whose protagonist plays piano in emulation of a Thelonious Monk record would draw high fives. 

But jazz purists have been no kinder to this film than they have to Don Cheadle’s “Miles Ahead,” about Miles Davis in the 1970s; or the Ethan Hawke-starring “Born to Be Blue,” about trumpeter-singer Chet Baker; or the Nina Simone film “Nina.” This is despite the fact that Cheadle’s performance as Davis was startling enough to make me forget a silly shoot-’em-up digression in the middle, and that the Baker film, despite the director’s lack of access to Baker’s recordings, captures some of the charisma and mystery of this doomed, self-destructive genius. 

(I’ve not seen “Nina,” and understand the argument over actress Zoe Saldana’s lighter skin tone. But were I a Hollywood executive contemplating the spending of time and money for a film about a black jazz artist, this is just the kind of controversy that would make me opt to pull the trigger instead for another “Fast and Furious” film.) 

Do jazz musicians and fans and critics need to slavishly lap up everything aimed at them? Of course not. But these films were hardly made with cynical intent. (The credit sequence in “Miles Ahead,” in which Cheadle jams onstage with Davis’ 1960s quarter, makes me wonder if he made the entire film just for that moment. I would have.) These were flawed but at times powerful movies created by people who loved the art form and its practitioners. And movies can be a way of bringing people into a more obscure art like jazz or poetry or dance or classical music. My own fascination with jazz comes partly from having seen the documentary “Straight No Chaser,” about Thelonious Monk, and “Let’s Get Lost,” about the tattered last days of Chet Baker, at an impressionable age. 

A few months ago I saw a performance of “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom,” one of the central plays in August Wilson’s cycle about the black American experience in the 20th century. The production at the Mark Taper Forum in downtown Los Angeles was not in any conventional way a musical. But the play, built around a fraught recording session by the great blues singer, involved a few very casual performances of the kind of music Louis Armstrong wove into gold in the late ’20s. The actors I saw knew how to play their horns, but these were not deathless performances by famous players. Instead, this was great music rendered with feeling and enthusiasm as a way to define characters and fill out a narrative. 

No one, from what I could tell, left the play that night angry that Wayne Shorter and Herbie Hancock had not been in the Taper’s pit band. 

And “La La Land” is a film that uses music and conventions of the musical and certain longstanding debates and cultural codes around jazz, to make a . . . movie. Was it a good one? A bad one? A great one? This question I can’t answer. But can’t we please move into the 21st century with our assessment of a new piece of culture? 

By: Marcus Fontain, J.D.

President and CEO

Unimundo Corporation

www.unimundo.tv

marcus@unimundo.tv

[marcusfontain-blog]

Let’s Give President Trump a Chance

I did not vote for President Trump nor did I vote for President Obama. I simply do not vote for anybody.  I am also not too keen on getting involved in political discourse. However, I have watched and keep watching people obsessed fighting adamantly against President Trump, marching, chanting angry themes and making a mockery of the few privileges we have left in America. Even families are fighting against their own family members over President Trump.  And, President Trump is going about his business while some people are sacrificing their time, energy and efforts.  Hold on! Donald Trump, yes, he is now our President! You do not have any say in the matter and the angrier you get the worse it is going to be for you and your family, not for the Trump family.

I must admit, however, I am concerned, President Trump may disparage women, minorities and others. I am also worried about his lack of knowledge with foreign policy; particularly because he came from the private sector with no political experience. I am not sure how this will impact the future of the U.S. And, these are just a few of the many unanswered questions, we, Americans face. But, we are left with no choice but to trust the new President. That is that!

Despite this, I believe Donald Trump’s success as a businessman and as a father is to be praised and to be admired. One cannot be so blind!  I hear some people arguing whether President Trump is worth $10-billion or maybe only $1-billion. Who cares…It is not your money or your business.  Why not learn from President Trump and his family how they made all of their money and try to emulate them.  Now that would be something! How can some people hate someone they do not know?  Please, give the man a chance!   

I truly believe, the people who do not like President Trump is because they have not taken the time to get to know what he stands for.  Despite of it all, President Trump deserves a chance, as any other President would have; in the same way President Obama was given the opportunity. The American people have spoken loud and clear and chose to elect Donald Trump for good reason. Even if you do not agree with such reasoning, he is still our President and the best thing we can do is to wish him well and pray for him and his family. It is not an easy job! The gridlock, bickering, anger and the divide that has swept our nation will only be perpetuated if President Trump is not given the chance to govern as he so deserves and fought so hard to achieve. And, if you analyze the situation you will conclude that Donald Trump had been preparing for this moment all of his adult life.   

Maybe, if we give him a chance, he will surprise us. Trump, the man, is a winner and winners seldom lose. He will do the same for America; make it great again. He cannot stand the thought of losing. I believe that every man and woman, no matter their personality, background, or political ideology, creed or color, deserves a chance. President Trump does, too. Too often, Americans base their opinion on politicians before they even have a chance to watch the politician act. Currently, politics in America need a fresh start with open-minded people who can find common ground. It all can start with American voters keeping an open-mind and listening to the most intense opposition without creating disruption, tension or ill feelings. 

Interestingly enough, if people pay attention; a lot of President Trump’s words have been to gain media attention for his campaign. That is, it!  Although, I do not condone and there are no excuses for some of his comments; only time will tell if he believes or acts on those statements. I call on my fellow Americans to give President Trump and the First Lady Melania a chance to actually do things before continuing the spewing of hatred, anger and bilious-remarks towards him and his family. 

I realize, it will not be easy for many people to give President Trump a chance, even against their own better judgment; unfortunately, this include people I know and many that are dear to me and my life. But think of it this way.  It is over! He is our President!  What is the point of hating the man! How can we cast him aside before we all give him a fair chance to serve our country as President? Of course, if he serves us miserably, Americans should protest, hold him accountable, and take action. Until then? Stop being angry at one another and even at yourselves. It serves no purpose. Give him a chance, no matter how hard it is! 

I am by no means endorsing President Trump. I will be his biggest critic when necessary. But if Americans hold him accountable through their voices and our checks and balances, we will be just fine. We need to find the silver lining, keep an open mind, and, let not our hearts be troubled. Nothing is as bad as it seems. And I am convinced that if we give him a fair chance, he will surprise us. I am not a gambler but if I had one-million dollars I will be willing to bet it all that President Trump will be one of the greatest Presidents we ever had. 

President Trump is already in office and the sky is not falling. I as all Americans have done, still got out of bed, went to work, did what I had to do, went to the gym, played with my baby son, eat some good food, went to the store and by the day's end we will probably enjoy a good glass of wine.  So why not chill and let the time dictate while we remain vigilant. Imagine this…All of the things I mentioned here will continue to go on, even with Donald Trump as President and whether you hate the man or not. 

Marcus Fontain, J.D.

President and CEO

Unimundo Corporation

www.unimundo.tv

marcus@unimundo.tv  

[marcusfontain-blog]

Preston DeLorean Fontain, Norma Fontain and Marcus Fontain                 January 25, 2017

[marcusfontain-blog]

The - La La Land - Backlash

The seven-awards sweep at the Golden Globes has been followed by a 14-nomination sweep at the Academy Awards. A modest, low-budget sorta-musical about jazz and disappointment has now tied “All About Eve” and “Titanic” for receiving the most Oscar nominations ever. 

So what happens next? The movie has now been positioned as something that only conventional, middlebrow folk will celebrate. And the cohorts that have been dogging the movie since it came out will receive a new push from intellectuals and pundits and journalists eager to establish their too-cool-for-school cred or nonconformist bona fides. 

The “La La Land” backlash has been brewing for months now, but at this point it’s almost impossible to champion the movie without looking stupid or like you’re winner-take-all bullying: The “Saturday Night Live” interrogation scene with Aziz Ansari is so diamond sharp that to defend this film now is a bit like trying to make a heavy metal album in the aftermath of “This is Spinal Tap.” (“They’re just regular people! Falling in love and singing!” could replace “This one goes to 11” among a certain set.) 

But let me attempt nonetheless to defend this movie, which many smart and serious people have come after, against opposition by two groups that should have been in this film’s corner. 

Opposition or indifference, of course, has come from people who found the film frivolous, unrealistic, charmless, racially patronizing because neither Emma Stone nor Ryan Gosling are black and so on. (“The Unbearable Whiteness of ‘La La Land’” seems like the inevitable title of a critique.) 

But the most common complaint may be that this is a Hollywood musical in which the leads do not sing or dance especially well. How can it stand next to films with Gene Kelly, Ginger Rogers, Fred Astaire, whoever? How can anyone call what Gosling and Stone do “singing”? And so on. 

Well, there’s no way to pretend the singing and dancing in “La La Land” is any better than it is. It is no “Top Hat” or “West Side Story” and Donald O’Connor does not need to worry about being eclipsed by the skill level here. But this is a bit like saying the Beatles aren’t Cole Porter — or that The Clash is not the 1965 Stones or Sam Peckinpah is not John Ford. Art forms evolve. Why does a movie musical — even one with an Old Hollywood retro spirit — have to observe the same aesthetic as movies made during the 1930s to early ’50s classic period? 

This complaint that a practitioner is not good enough, not formal enough, not schooled enough, not dexterous enough, goes way back. The French art establishment lodged these complaints against the Impressionists. The British critics said it about Whistler. Jazz people said it about Billie Holiday in the ’30s; her voice was too rough. Miles Davis thought Ornette Coleman must be “screwed up inside” to play the way he did. Pavement did not know how to tune its guitars — and so on. 

But to loyalists of the classic Hollywood musical — or the modernist-revisionist era that followed in the ’60s and ’70s driven largely by Sondheim — the Stone and Gosling performances are just amateurish kitsch. 

The second group that has opposed this film also comes from within what should really be its target audience or at its least loyal opposition. Jazz fans have been relentless on this one, as they have on the other jazz movies of the last year or so. Given the marginalized state this great art form is in these days — I’ve been writing about it, on and off, for 25 years and it has never been this hard to place a story about a jazz artist or recording — you’d think jazzheads would welcome the film. You’d think a movie set partly at the legendary Lighthouse Club (the Mount Olympus of the West Coast jazz movement of the ’40s and ’50s) or whose protagonist plays piano in emulation of a Thelonious Monk record would draw high fives. 

But jazz purists have been no kinder to this film than they have to Don Cheadle’s “Miles Ahead,” about Miles Davis in the 1970s; or the Ethan Hawke-starring “Born to Be Blue,” about trumpeter-singer Chet Baker; or the Nina Simone film “Nina.” This is despite the fact that Cheadle’s performance as Davis was startling enough to make me forget a silly shoot-’em-up digression in the middle, and that the Baker film, despite the director’s lack of access to Baker’s recordings, captures some of the charisma and mystery of this doomed, self-destructive genius. 

(I’ve not seen “Nina,” and understand the argument over actress Zoe Saldana’s lighter skin tone. But were I a Hollywood executive contemplating the spending of time and money for a film about a black jazz artist, this is just the kind of controversy that would make me opt to pull the trigger instead for another “Fast and Furious” film.) 

Do jazz musicians and fans and critics need to slavishly lap up everything aimed at them? Of course not. But these films were hardly made with cynical intent. (The credit sequence in “Miles Ahead,” in which Cheadle jams onstage with Davis’ 1960s quarter, makes me wonder if he made the entire film just for that moment. I would have.) These were flawed but at times powerful movies created by people who loved the art form and its practitioners. And movies can be a way of bringing people into a more obscure art like jazz or poetry or dance or classical music. My own fascination with jazz comes partly from having seen the documentary “Straight No Chaser,” about Thelonious Monk, and “Let’s Get Lost,” about the tattered last days of Chet Baker, at an impressionable age. 

A few months ago I saw a performance of “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom,” one of the central plays in August Wilson’s cycle about the black American experience in the 20th century. The production at the Mark Taper Forum in downtown Los Angeles was not in any conventional way a musical. But the play, built around a fraught recording session by the great blues singer, involved a few very casual performances of the kind of music Louis Armstrong wove into gold in the late ’20s. The actors I saw knew how to play their horns, but these were not deathless performances by famous players. Instead, this was great music rendered with feeling and enthusiasm as a way to define characters and fill out a narrative. 

No one, from what I could tell, left the play that night angry that Wayne Shorter and Herbie Hancock had not been in the Taper’s pit band. 

And “La La Land” is a film that uses music and conventions of the musical and certain longstanding debates and cultural codes around jazz, to make a . . . movie. Was it a good one? A bad one? A great one? This question I can’t answer. But can’t we please move into the 21st century with our assessment of a new piece of culture? 

By: Marcus Fontain, J.D.

President and CEO

Unimundo Corporation

www.unimundo.tv

marcus@unimundo.tv

[marcusfontain-blog]

American Teachers, the Underpaid and Overworked

My name is Marcus Fontain, J.D., for some time I have been observing through the experience of my own children whom already graduated with Bachelor’s Degrees that teachers in America are really struggling with no hope in sight.  To make matters more pressing is the fact that my wife and I now have a one-year old baby boy and the idea that he will go to school to be educated by a frustrated teacher that is underpaid and not well respected is frightening. In the United States there is no one more underpaid and more overworked than a Teacher. 

It is shameful that we are one of the wealthiest countries on the planet and we do not pay our teachers enough money so they can have breathing space. We need to stand-up to Congress and demand that our teachers receive a better salary than the misery they now receive. Many teachers I know live below the poverty level and what keeps them teaching is their undying dedication to teach our children. It is about time we pay our teachers lucrative salaries; by doing so they will dedicate even more quality time to our children and we will have less crime on the streets and less inmates in the prison system as well as more successful sons and daughters. It all begins with the teachers. In America today a teacher is practically a second class citizen and in many cases they are used and abused and discarded like trash. We must change all of that.  Her is why: 

Teachers are an extremely important facet of any society for a number of reasons and their role in society is both significant and valuable. Teachers are the people who educate the youth of society who in turn become the leaders of the next generation of people. 

Teachers are the people who are teaching children and imparting knowledge upon them in their most impressionable years. What children learn from their teachers at a young age will most likely stay with them in some facet for the rest of their lives Teachers play an extraordinary part in the lives of children for the formative years of their development and the importance of teachers is something that cannot be understated. They involve themselves in molding their students into responsible citizens of their country. 

Within a school, if teachers are well educated, financially secured and if they are intellectually alive, they will take keen interest in their job, then only success is ensured. Our teachers ensure that children are taught to high standards and only receive quality education which will lead to a brighter future for these children. Teachers training needs must also be up to date. 

Teachers are Role Models. A role model is a person who inspires and encourages us to strive for greatness, live to our fullest potential and see the best in ourselves. A role model is someone we admire and someone we aspire to be like. We learn through them, through their commitment to excellence and through their ability to make us realize our own personal growth. We look to them for advice and guidance. 

A role model can be anybody: a parent, a sibling, a friend but some of our most influential and life-changing role models are in fact the teachers. When the student is ready, the teacher appears. Teachers follow students through each pivotal stage of development. At six to eight hours a day, five days a week, a teacher is poised to become one of the most influential people of the students’ life. After their parents, children will first learn from you, their elementary school teacher. Then, as a middle school teacher, you will guide students through yet another important transition: adolescence. As children become young adults, learning throughout middle school and into high school, you will answer their questions, listen to their problems and teach them about this new phase of their lives. You not only watch your students grow you help them grow.

We think of teacher-heroes that taught us the academics but we don’t often think of those teachers that taught us life’s lessons. Much of what students learn from their greatest teachers is not detailed on a syllabus. Teachers who help us grow as people are responsible for imparting some of life’s most important lessons. During their initial school years, students encounter, perhaps for the first time, other children of the same age and begin to form some of their first friendships. As a teacher, you will show your students how to become independent and form their own relationships, you will carefully guide them and intervene when necessary. School is as much a place of social learning as academic learning, and this is true, not only in our early years of education, but all the way through college. Though a teacher’s influence on the social sphere of school lessens as students mature, those early lessons still have an effect on how they will interact with others in the future. 

Teachers are full of experience. They have already been where their students are going, undergone what they will go through and are in a position to pass along lessons, not only regarding subject matter, but lessons on life and play an extraordinary part in the lives of children for the formative years of their development. The importance of teachers is something that cannot be understated. Their influence can and will stretch on long after the final bell rings, beyond the walls of the actual school. The role of the teacher is complex, far beyond what people would assume as just someone who teaches what is mandated by law from the youth of America. 

Life is its own education, with formal schooling playing only a small fraction. However, that does not undermine the role of the teacher. Those who sit in the class room have a good bit of influence of shaping the minds of the future. There are many out there who instruct and lecture information in the classroom but very few people who actually teacher. Actually get through and shape the youth of today to be the pillars of society, to be all that they can be. 

In many ways, there will be times where children will see their teachers a bit more than they might see their parents during most days. This is the case in the lower grades, where children are in school, seven, eight, and nine hours a day, with a single teacher at the lower grade levels. Needless to say, teachers will find themselves as a temporary third parent, being firm but fair. Patient but also unable to be able to back down. They need to run their class room through respect, but not through fear. 

Teachers need to be someone that children respect enough to listen to and to not fear that they can go with, for their problems, should the situation come up. Also, teachers are mediators, able to hash out and make those who are having an argument have some kind of common ground. Anyone can really just punish the two parties and be done with it, but there will be no lessons that will be learned from that. If a teacher is able to figure out what has happened and help develop understanding, then the youth will be far better off.  The best teachers are far more than just reciting dry facts and assigning huge piles of homework. They are those who help shape the children to be the best that they can be and it takes a special person to do that. 

By: Marcus Fontain, J.D.

President and CEO

Unimundo Corporation

www.unimundo.tv

marcus@unimundo.tv

[marcusfontain-blog]

LET’S GIVE PRESIDENT TRUMP A CHANCE.

I did not vote for President Trump nor did I vote for President Obama. I simply do not vote for anybody.  I am also not too keen on getting involved in political discourse. However, I have watched and keep watching people obsessed fighting adamantly against President Trump, marching, chanting angry themes and making a mockery of the few privileges we have left in America. He is now our President! I am concerned, however, he may disparage women, minorities and others. I am also worried about his lack of knowledge with foreign policy; particularly because he came from the private sector with no political experience. I am not sure how this will impact the future of the U.S. And, these are just a few of the many unanswered questions, we, Americans face. 

Despite this, I believe Donald Trump’s success as a businessman and as a father is to be praised and to be admired.   I truly believe, the people who do not like him is because they have not taken the time to get to know what he stands for. Despite of it all, President Trump deserves a chance, as any other President would have; in the same way President Obama was given the opportunity. The American people have spoken loud and clear and chose to elect Donald Trump for good reason. Even if you do not agree with such reasoning, he is still our President and the best thing we can do is to wish him well and pray for him and his family. It is not an easy job! The gridlock, bickering, anger and the divide that has swept our nation will only be perpetuated if President Trump is not given the chance to govern as he so deserves and fought so hard to achieve. And, if you analyze the situation you will conclude that Donald Trump had been preparing for this moment all of his adult life.   

Marcus Fontain, J.D.

President and CEO

Unimundo Corporation

www.unimundo.tv

marcus@unimundo.tv

4C�!3�_�5

[marcusfontain-blog]

What Trump Gets Right on Immigration

I am surely not the only one noticing the extent to which the corporate media worldwide are damning Donald Trump. In the wake of Brexit, his supporters were repeatedly likened to the Brits who voted Leave, both groups being characterized as “white and less well educated.” And over the past week, the Washington Post has been examining and damning nearly everything The Donald has said and done, hammering the presumptive GOP nominee with an average of six heavily editorialized news articles daily, plus op-eds.

To be sure, Trump has earned much of the opprobrium, with his often contradictory and scattershot presentations of the policies he intends to pursue, as well as the provocative language that has left him legitimately open to charges of racism and sexism. Trump’s racially flavored warnings about homegrown terrorists certainly have considerable popular appeal in the wake of San Bernardino and Orlando, but the reality is that Muslim Americans as a group exhibit low crime rates, achieve higher-than-average levels of education, and are financially successful. Police sources reveal that they frequently cooperate with law enforcement regarding members of their community who are flirting with militancy.

Trump is also presumed guilty of several other Democratic Party-defined capital crimes, including failing to enthusiastically embrace diversity and multiculturalism. But at the core of his appeal to voters is the one issue that he largely gets right, and that is immigration, both as a cultural phenomenon and as a law-and-order issue.

His up-front condemnation of illegal immigration can be seen as the launching pad for his successful campaign for the GOP nomination. From a rule-of-law and national-security perspective, many Americans have long been dismayed by the federal government’s unwillingness to control the nation’s borders, and many blue-collar workers have a more personal stake in the issue, being appalled by the impact of mass illegal immigration on their communities.

While Trump’s proposed blanket ban on Muslim travelers is both constitutionally and ethically wrongheaded and, in my opinion, potentially damaging to broader U.S. interests, his related demand to temporarily stop travel or immigration from some core countries that have serious problems with militancy is actually quite sensible. This is because the United States has only a limited ability to vet people from those countries. The Obama administration claims it is rigorously screening travelers and immigrants—but it has provided little to no evidence that its procedures are effective. 

The first step in travel limitation is to define the problem. While it is popular in Congress and the media to focus on countries like Iran, nationals of such countries do not constitute a serious threat. Shi’a Muslims, the majority of Iranians, have characteristically not staged suicide attacks, nor do they as a group directly threaten American or Western interests. The Salafist organizations with international appeal and global reach are all Sunni Muslim. In fact, al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Taliban, and al-Nusra all self-define as Sunni Muslim and regard Shi’as as heretics. Most of the foot soldiers who do the fighting and dying for the terrorist groups and their affiliates are Sunnis who come from Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia, and even the homegrown Europeans and Americans who join their ranks are Sunni. 

It is no coincidence that the handful of Muslim countries that harbor active insurgencies have also been on the receiving end of U.S. military interventions, which generate demands for revenge against the West and the U.S. in particular. They would be the countries to monitor most closely for militants seeking to travel. All of them represent launching pads for potential attacks, and it should be assumed that groups like ISIS would be delighted to infiltrate refugee and immigrant groups. 

U.S. embassies and consulates overseas are the choke points for those potential terrorists. Having myself worked the visa lines in consulates overseas, I understand just how difficult it is to be fair to honest travelers while weeding out those whose intentions are less honorable. At the consulate, an initial screening based on name and birth date determines whether an applicant is on any no-fly or terrorism-associate lists. Anyone coming up is automatically denied, but the lists include a great deal of inaccurate information, so they probably “catch” more innocent people than they do actual would-be terrorists. Individuals who have traveled to Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria since 2011, or who are citizens of those countries, are also selected out for additional review. 

For visitors who pass the initial screening and who do not come from one of the 38 “visa waiver” countries, mostly in Europe, the next step is the visitor’s visa, called a B-2. At that point, the consulate’s objective is to determine whether the potential traveler has a good reason to visit the U.S., has the resources to pay for the trip, and is likely to return home before the visa expires. The process seeks to establish that the applicant has sufficient equity in his or her home country to guarantee returning to it, a recognition of the fact that most visa fraud relates to overstaying one’s visit to disappear into the unregistered labor market in the U.S. The process is document-driven, with the applicants presenting evidence of bank accounts, employment, family ties, and equity like homeownership. Sometimes letters of recommendation from local business leaders or politicians might also become elements in the decision. 

In some countries, documentary evidence can be supplemented by police reports if the local government is cooperative. Some consulates employ investigators, generally ex-policemen, who are able to examine public records if there is any doubt about an applicant’s profile or intentions, but most governments do not permit access to official documents. Recently, background investigations have sometimes been supplemented by an examination of the applicant’s presence on the internet to determine whether he or she is frequenting militant sites or discussing political issues online. If the visa applicant is seeking to become a U.S. resident, the process is, of course, much more rigorous. 

Both travel and immigrant visas are nevertheless a somewhat subjective process. I knew a visa officer in Turkey who delighted in turning down Iranian applicants “on principle.” It was a seemingly arbitrary act—but this was shortly after the U.S. embassy hostage crisis in Tehran, and it was plausibly based on the fact that there was no embassy any longer in Iran and documents presented in Turkey would be impossible to verify. 

Most of those convicted in terrorism-related cases in the U.S. are foreign-born. The real issue that Trump should be addressing is the federal government’s inability to vet visa applicants to a level that could be considered sufficient from a national-security perspective, a failure that has led some conservatives to complain that White House policy is to “invade the world, invite the world.” 

In many places, official documents are easy to forge or can even be obtained in genuine form from corrupt bureaucrats. If one is unable to go the source of the document for verification, papers submitted in support of a visa application are frequently impossible to authenticate. So what does one do when applicants from countries in the throes of civil war—like Iraq, Syria, or Yemen—show up at a visa window, some of them with no documents at all? Or when such applicants constitute not a trickle but a flood? It gets complicated, and Trump has a point in saying we should deny visas to all of them until procedures can be established for making those judgments in a more coherent fashion. 

Another steady stream of immigrants into the U.S. comes from the refugee-resettlement process; Washington is a signatory to the United Nations-administered agreements to resettle refugees. Much of the background vetting is carried out by the UN in a not-completely-transparent fashion, and the resettlement of the refugees in various places is done by quota—with the U.S. being the largest recipient country, expected to receive 100,000 refugees in 2017. But does the Obama administration have a clue regarding the reliability of the information it gets on the new would-be Americans? If it does, it is not letting on. 

The mostly Saudi attackers on 9/11 used temporary or tourist visas to enter the country, so the threat from that source should be clear to everyone involved in the entry process, and consulates are acutely aware of the danger. But beyond that, the Obama administration has been complacent. It would no doubt point to the fact that no refugee to the United States has carried out an act of terror once admitted to the country, which would be true but somewhat misleading: The estimated 77,000 Somali refugees who have somehow wound up in Minnesota have included a substantial number of younger men and women who have returned home to join the al-Qaeda affiliate al-Shabaab. And it would in any event be prudent to be cautious when relying on past behavior models, as groups like ISIS have indicated their desire to hit the United States and have proven to be highly adaptable in their tactics. 

Trump’s demands to block many visitors and would-be residents might seem an overreaction, but until a broken immigration system is fixed, he is more right than wrong. 

This article has been reproduced from Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest. 

By: Marcus Fontain, J.D.

President and CEO

Unimundo Corporation

www.unimundo.tv

marcus@unimundo.tv