Cory Booker's "Baby Bonds" - A Proposal For My Brother, Gerald

Dear Ger

Last night, Cynthia and I read your autobiographical subsection titled "The Conundrum of Wealth and Philanthropy."

In this mini-chapter, you mentioned - for the second time - that you don't believe the problem of human poverty will ever be solved.

I hope you are wrong... and I think you are wrong.

I can argue on behalf of resolving poverty in a number of ways, but I'm going to focus on one very specific way that will perhaps appeal to your "inner accountant."

I have always been a big fan of Senator Corey Booker - not only because I find him a likable guy, but because he has chosen to live in a part of inner city Newark, New Jersey, where he regularly hears shots ring out. 

Booker's Wikipedia Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Booker

Cory's choice of inner city residence tells me that "the blandishments of wealth" have not caused him to flee his constituency, which in a world of gated communities, political/informational silos, and Xanadu pleasure-seekers, I find admirable indeed.

Enough prelude.

For decades, Corey has been a proponent of what he calls his "Baby Bonds."

Basically, "Baby Bonds" (another such bill was recently rewritten in renewed hope of pushing it through Congress) capitalizes on "the miracle of compound interest." 

American States Are Quietly Embracing the "Baby Bonds" Revolution to Fight Inequality

https://studentreview.hks.harvard.edu/american-states-are-quietly-embracing-the-baby-bonds-revolution-to-fight-inequality/

Keeping in mind that it now costs $65,000 a year to keep Americans in state prisons, the essence of Booker "Baby Bonds" is that each American child, as soon as s/he is born, will be the recipient of $1000 (or $2000, or 3 or 4 or 6) deposited into his (or her) "dedicated baby bill account," and subsequently, the same amount will be deposited on every child's birthday until age 18, when the accumulated money, plus interest, will begin distribution (as I see it) for educational or instructional purposes only. 

AI Overview: The cost to keep a person in prison in the U.S. varies significantly depending on the facility, with the federal system averaging about $44,090 per inmate per year in 2023. State prison costs have a much wider range, with the median annual spending around $65,000 in 2021. 

Or, when the "Baby Bonds" mature, each grown-up baby can keep the cash with the proviso that it not be touched until they have performed two years of government service - either in the War Corps, or in a new and expanded Peace Corps (which, in addition to the traditional Peace Corps, would include organizations like Americorps and Teach America).

One way or another, each baby's mature treasure chest will ensure that every American child has a nest egg for the express purpose of acquiring marketable skills.

And when every American has become a desirable workplace candidate, we will have gone a long way (and at minimum cost) to ensure that, with very few exceptions, "everyone prospers."

There will be tooth-and-nail opposition to any such proposal.

Why?

There is a central mean-spiritedness, if not malice, lurking deep in the American character. Most Americans (rather like the 90% of your wealthy clients who "keep it all" for themselves) are contemptuous of n'er-do-well, parasitic slackers because misguided "Christian" self-righteousness and self-centered superciliousness, make them feel superior - a variation of "We're #1." 

Notably, it has been suggested that "A Republican is someone who cannot really enjoy their food unless they know someone else is going hungry."

Or, as Illinois Senator Dick Durbin put it: "The motto of the Republican Party is 'We are all in this... alone.'"

Billionaire Nick Hanauer: "The Top 1% of Americans Have Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90%—And That's Made the U.S. Less Secure"

https://newsfrombarbaria.blogspot.com/2021/02/billionaire-nick-hanauer-top-1-of.html

Everyone - including those of us blessed with charmed upbringings, excellent Catholic education, and formative influences that compel us to do good - are fundamentally influenced by the spirit of our times. 

It is not surprising that "rugged individualism" -- in the context of unregulated Capitalism's normalization of winner-take-all, gimmee-gimme, everything-I've-got-is-MINE Yahooism -- has become as toxic, as putrescent, as Donald Trump, in whose criminally piggish Capitalist image we are increasingly re-made.

"The Love Of Money Is The Root Of All Evil" - An Open Invitation To Christian Conservatives

https://newsfrombarbaria.blogspot.com/2020/08/the-love-of-money-is-root-of-all-evil.html

David Brooks has pointed out that Trump "is making the world safe for gangsters."

And those gangsters don't give a flying fuck if ecosystems break down beyond repair, if only they can stuff one more un-needed dollar in their pocket, perhaps by selling young girls into sexual bondage, or scheming to defraud people like His Malignancy's Trump University. 

Donald Trump, Felon: Starting With His Trump University Scam And Itemizing His Criminality On Through His First Wife Ivana's Accusation Of Violent, Hair-Tearing Rape

https://newsfrombarbaria.blogspot.com/2020/09/donald-trump-felon.html

I will digress for a moment to say that IF Trump, like virtually all rich people, had not allowed to buy his way out of a jury trial by paying $25 million dollars to settle the sweeping criminality of Trump University out-of-court -- thus circumventing substantive justice -- he would never have become president, and might still be in prison for his gross malfeasance.

End of digression.

Or, we could simplify the "Baby Bond" process by seeing to it that every citizen provides two or three years of obligatory government service in the War Corps or the new-and-improved Peace Corps. (In Mexico, doctors, engineers, teachers and architects done get the licenses to practice until AFTER they've provided obligatory government service.)

Proposal For Two Years Of Obligatory National Service

https://newsfrombarbaria.blogspot.com/2025/09/proposal-for-two-years-of-obligatory.html

So... what do you make of Booker's "Baby Bonds?"

Since it is unusually commonplace for us humans to "overlook the obvious," I will conclude by reminding you that the title of your book is perhaps the key to believing in the "miraculous" transformation of people who have all the cards stacked against them. "Underestimated. Mentallly Ill. Yet Successfull ONe Man's Journey ... Saved By Medication."

Hey, if you can do it...

Pax et amor

Alan

An addendum/aside:

(What follows is an addendum to the main thrust of my proposal.)

Yes, there will still be some bad eggs. 

But I have a notable story to tell - a story indicating that the number of incorrigible n'er-do-wells is far fewer than you might think. 

I have a Mexican friend who lived as a homeless "gamin" (unparented urchin) on the streets of Vera Cruz, Mexico, and I have another friend who served as district court judge in Orange County, North Carolina where his family (on both sides) tracked back to the Mayflower. 

These two fellows knew one another, but I asked them separately to tell me, from their unique experiences in the world, the judge interacting with criminals throughout his workday, and Lino living by his wits from age 9 through 14: "What percentage of people do you think are intrinsically bad?"

If memory serves, they both answered 3%.

I do not know what to do with this remnant, although I am hopeful that modern medicine will, in the not distant future, devise drugs or genetic engineering techniques to bring even these few back into the fold.

It is also true that many of the incorrigible prefer dissolute lives, indulging in drugs and alcohol. Perhaps they can be kept in institutions like the state-operated mental hospital out by Cobb's Hill. (Did you know that our great-uncle Owen feigned lunacy in order to live in this asylum, as the only way to provide for his care in old age?)

But back to the conundrum...

How do we provide for everyone?

After exhausting extreme remedial measures like ECT (a surprisingly effective treatment for many intractable mental diseases), perhaps unusually refractory members of The 3% could be drugged into some simulacrum of satedness just as C.S. Lewis arranged for "three Lords" are ensorcelled into everlasting dreamless sleep at the end "The Dawn Treader." 

I am prepared to consider all approaches, including induced medical coma. "AI Overview: A medically induced coma can last from hours to weeks, depending on the condition being treated, with the goal of allowing the brain to heal. While short-term comas for events like severe swelling or seizures often last only 24-48 hours, others can last for longer, sometimes even months or years in severe cases of brain damage." 

Or, better yet, we could create some secular semblance of a "religious sisterhood" specializing in the care of "lost souls," just as Sister Seraphim and the School of the Holy Childhood were (and are) dedicated to another irremediably handicapped population.

Proposal For Two Years Of Obligatory National Service

  

...to serve your country

Absence of America's Upper Classes From the Military   

" In all, about 1 percent of U.S. representatives and senators have a child in uniform." 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2270473&page=1&singlePage=true#.T25jBzEgcQo

Dear Fred,

Thanks for your email.

Newt Gingrich uses ideas the way duck hunters use decoys. 

America does not need a national cadre of 9 year old janitors.

Gingrich's Proposal To Make 9 Year Olds School Janitors

https://www.thenation.com/article/newts-cruelest-campaign-replace-school-janitors-child-labor/

America needs two years of Obligatory National Service - to be performed when young citizens leave school or complete school.

A prelude to this period of obligatory service might include all K-12 students as "incidental" maintenance workers in their schools but to focus such service on school children is, by definition, childish. 

Furthermore, focusing "poor children" as a "special" "manual labor force" perpetuates the mindset-and-biased-circumstance that prompts but one wealthy American in a hundred to join the military. 

"Leave the dirty work to the darkies."

At any cost, maintain/restore white privilege.

It is shameful that the self-propagating war pimps in Congress -- with "no skin in the game" -- giddily dispatch young Americans to one foolish war after another.  

Vietnam, Iraq, and our now-stale, good-for-nothing involvement in Afghanistan are notable examples.

America needs child janitors like central Africa needs child soldiers. 

In psychological terms, America needs an intervention. 

To this end, the twin agencies of a "new-and-improved" War Corps and a "new-and-improved" Peace Corps are the most dependable mechanisms whereby listless, shiftless lives across the entire socio-economic spectrum, can crystallize and transform. (The United States military has given shape and purpose to more young-men-in-peril than any other American institution.)

In addition to the traditional work of "The War Corps" and "Peace Corps," these umbrella organizations will (in my view) break new ground just as the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Works Progress Administration broke new ground in the 1930s; the same way the GI Bill broke new ground in the wake of World War II.

All able-bodied young people -- without exception -- will perform two years service in the approved agency of their choice.

Not only is "service" an indispensable component of happiness, it is essential for the sustained health of The Body Policic.

Without service, The Common Good atrophies. In short order, all that remains are self-cathected consumer units, immediate kin to the Wall Street marauders who deliberately crafted the global economic collapse of 2008. (Check out "Inside Job." http://vimeo.com/23086688  If Islamic terrorists had done what these money changers did, they would not have been water-boarded to extract information: they would have been waterboarded to death.) 

Any proposal for Obligatory National Service will meet stiff opposition on "both sides of the aisle." 

But resistance will be fiercest "on the Right" where rugged individualism is the bedrock virtue and mandatory service a gateway to "socialism." 

Ironically, The Greatest Generation -- universally lauded by American conservatives -- made its signal contribution to American History as a direct result of the military draft. 

If Gingrich were to encourage obligatory service for every young adult - without exception - he could finally quit his customary ideological posing, exchanging it for a real proposal of life-changing service.  

Newt could launch the discussion of two years' hard work by pointing out that none of Mitt Romney's six strapping sons have even spoken of military service. (I'm sure these lads have done mission work for the Church of Latter Day Saints, but the nation's urgent need is healthy government, not the advancement of Mormonism - http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2012/01/utahs-dark-reality.html)

It would be tonic if every young American -- including every white guy --  provided direct national service, and not as some transitory will-o-the-wisp but as a significant chunk of one's life. 

Good Ideas For The Body Politic:

A Compendium Of Practical Political Projects

http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2014/10/pax-on-both-houses-good-ideas-for-body.html

Again, it will be difficult to make headway given the self-indulgence and rapacious self-interest of Congress. 

Fortunately, most Americans are imprinted with bone-deep realization that service is essential to The Good and that lucre for lucre's sake is a spirit-sapping pastime generating "Donald Trumps" and wealthy children dangerously detached from Reality. 

The Republican Party is overwhelmingly comprised of white guys. To the extent that they succeed in business, they are resolved to concentrate their children in The Marketplace which, in their jaundiced eye, seems the only venue where "real value" plays out. 

Given the large number of "Christians" in the ranks of America's moneyed (but non-serving) class, it is surprising how little the wealthy heed Paul's observation (as rendered by The King James Version) that "the love of money is the root of all evil." 

Imagine. 

In Paul's cornerstone Christian view, the love money is not just a root of evil. 

It is The Root of ALL evil.

St. Paul The Apostle Comments On Trump's Greed

http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2018/07/st-paul-apostle-comments-on-trumps-greed.html

Pax on both houses,

Alan

PS Here is Gingrich's verbatim passage concerning his proposal that poor students work as janitors: 

"What I suggested was, kids ought to be allowed to work part-time in school, particularly in the poorest neighborhoods, both because they could use the money. If you take one-half of the New York janitors who are unionized and paid more than the teachers, an entry-level janitor gets paid twice as much as an entry-level teacher. You take half of those janitors, you could give virtually– you could give lots of poor kids a work experience in the cafeteria and the school library and– and front office, and a lot of different things. I’ll stand by the idea, young people ought to learn how to work." Dec. 10, 2011  (Despite Gingrich's nearly unintelligible sentence structure, the foregoing quotation is an accurate transcription.) http://www.factcheck.org/2011/12/gingrich-makes-a-mess-with-janitors-claim/

Absence of America's Upper Classes From the Military

Aug. 3, 2006

Thanks to Sen. John McCain's youngest son checking into Marine Corps boot camp, the number of Congress members with enlisted children will skyrocket a whopping 50 percent. McCain's son Jim joins two other enlisted service members who have a parent in Congress (a few members of the officer corps are children of federal legislators).

In all, about 1 percent of U.S. representatives and senators have a child in uniform. And the Capitol building is no different from other places where the leadership class in this country gathers -- no different from the boardrooms, newsrooms, ivory towers and penthouses of our nation.

Less than 1 percent of today's graduates from Ivy League schools go on to serve in the military.

Why does it matter? Because, quite simply, we cannot remain both a world power and a robust democracy without a broad sense of ownership -- particularly of the leadership class -- in the military. Our military is too consequential, and the implications of our disconnect from it too far-reaching. We are on the wrong path today.

Those who opine, argue, publish, fund and decide courses of action for our country rarely see members of their families doing the deeds our leaders would send the nation's young adults to do, deeds that have such moment in the world.

These deeds hardly begin and end with the Iraq War -- 200,000 U.S. troops are deployed in 130 other countries around the world, keeping it "flat," to borrow Thomas Friedman's phrase. They train other nations' security forces, help keep the peace, provide humanitarian assistance, rescue Americans from Lebanon, stand ready to go to Darfur if sent, to go wherever the country calls on them for assistance. In short, they do the complex work of the world's sole superpower. Yet these doers are strangers to most of us, and the very missions they do are mysterious.

When the deciders are disconnected from the doers, self-government can't work as it should. Most of these decisions about whether and how to use the U.S. military are hard, and we need to be as best equipped as possible to make them. We need to be intellectually capable and have as much real knowledge as possible about what the military actually does, but we also need to be morally capable, which means we need a moral connection to those Americans we send into harm's way. Moreover, we need the largest pool of talent from which to draw those troops. Military work must not simply become fee for service.

A Duke University study demonstrates that it matters whether civilian decision makers have military experience: A review of U.S. foreign policy over nearly two centuries shows that when we have the fewest number of veterans in leadership and staff positions in Congress and the executive branch, we are most likely to engage in aggressive (as opposed to defensive) war fighting. And we are most likely to pull out of conflicts early.

A study by the eminent military sociologist Charles Moskos shows that people living in a democracy are not willing to sustain military engagements over time if those in the leadership class do not serve in the armed forces. When they don't serve, they send a signal that the conflict is not vital or worthwhile. Since we don't know what conflicts lie ahead -- or what party will be in power when they hit -- these findings should matter to all of us.

The Triangle Institute of Security Studies has tracked the growing disconnect between the military and the leadership class, and it finds evidence of a growing distrust of both groups toward one another. The group in America that reports having the lowest opinion of the military is the elites: The elites are almost six times more likely than those in the military to say they would be "disappointed if a child of mine decided to serve."

In past wars, the Kennedys, the Bushes, the Sulzbergers of The New York Times -- in other words, the elites -- served. Sure, there were always shirkers, but many did join their middle-class and working-class compatriots. Today narrow self-interest, a sense of other priorities or a misguided sense of moral preference means most of the upper class never considers military service.

In my own travels to talk about this issue, the most problematic comment I've come across is an idea expressed by many, including many in the upper classes, that it is somehow more moral to refrain from military service than to serve, because that way one can avoid an "immoral" war.

There are so many problems with this statement. It certainly shows a misunderstanding of military service. Military service is not about our political opinions, which can after all be wrong. The oath given at the "pinning on" ceremony for a second lieutenant or a general involves not a promise to fight a particular war or support a given president but to protect and defend the Constitution. Young men and women who join the military do not know what future conflicts or engagements will bring. They even know that some of the decisions that flow from the deciders will be flawed, because people are flawed.

But service members also know that Americans will be sent to do the nation's bidding. And we want those who are sent to act with skill, judgment and integrity. Many of those who serve see that Americans are being sent to act in the interests of our country and say, as the famous sage Rabbi Hillel said, "If not me, who?"

Military service is not a political statement. Democrats did not rush to sign up when Clinton became president, and wealthy Republicans didn't suddenly join when Bush was elected. Military service is service to the country, and even more perhaps, service to your fellows.

But how can we expect privileged young people to do military work? Military work is dangerous. You could be asked to kill or be killed. It is fraught with the risk of being sent into an unpopular conflict, as many now understand Iraq to be. Why should the children of our leadership classes or those ambitious for leadership chose such a path, when there are so many better options available to them?

In World War I, one of Congress's stated reasons for proposing a draft was that without it, too many of the upper-class children would rush to service, and we'd lose the leadership class of the country. In 1956, a majority of the graduating classes of Stanford, Harvard and Princeton joined the military, and most were not drafted. Leadership was then understood to have a moral dimension. The cry "follow me" was more convincing than "charge!" Those who aspired to future leadership saw military service as necessary to their credibility.

As a country, we have stopped viewing military service as a way to make a principled statement. We sell it instead as a job opportunity, one from which those with better options are excused. We need to revisit our stance on who should serve, and why. All members of our elite class need not serve, just a representative number, enough to bring the country's leadership in line with the rest of the country. With such leaders, with such a military, we will be a stronger, fairer, better country. With such leaders, the enlistment plans of young Jimmy McCain need not seem so surprising.

Kathy Roth-Doquet co-wrote "AWOL, The Unexcused Absence of America's Upper Classes from Military Service and How It Hurts Our Country" (Harper Collins, 2006).

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Fred Owens <froghospital911@gmail.com> wrote:

all crazy except this one

"Or Newt Gingrich calling for children-of-color to serve as school janitors."

I don't think he meant to reserve this for non-white students.

But if they started a program like this in low income school districts -- would that be wrong?

And let the rich kids have their messes cleaned up by hired help?

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Alan Archibald <alanarchibaldo@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear John,

The Republican Party has normalized "bipolar" mood swings.

It is no longer "rhetorical" to say that many "conservatives" are ravingly insane, as evidenced by the wacko belief that taxes must never be raised: indeed taxes MUST go ever lower!

Or consider Ron Paul suggesting that people without health insurance be left to die (a fit of ideological apoplexy reprising Palin's nutty chatter about death panels which, truth be told, have long been operated by the very insurance companies conservatives laud).

Or consider Herman Cain advocating the electrocution of illegal aliens.

Or Rick Perry bragging about the frequency of capital punishment in Texas.

Or Etch A Sketch Romney insisting that every dollar corporations earn goes back "to the people."  http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/03/22/149156716/romney-aides-etch-a-sketch-gaffe-wont-be-easy-to-erase

Or Michelle Bachmann badmouthing vaccination, the single greatest boon to human health in the history of humankind.

Or Newt Gingrich calling for children-of-color to serve as school janitors.

Or, or, or...

Or Rick Santorum satanizing Obama one day, and the next suggesting our Kenyan Muslim Leninist Anti-Christ is preferable to Romney. 

I sometimes wonder if religious conservatives champion moral rigidity because they sense barely-repressed craziness in themselves. 

Watch closely and you will see that many preachments are dedicated to the conversion of the preacher more than the conversion of the congregation.

CBS News: "Santorum: Might As Well Have Obama Over Romney": http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/03/22/santorum-might-as-well-have-obama-over-romney/ 

When threatened by economic adversity and the grinding angst brought by epochal change, people "run off the rails"  (See "Pagan and Christian in a Time of Anxiety" - http://books.google.com/books?id=VBI6JppgQBAC&source=gbs_similarbooks)

And so, rather than work with "the political opposition" to achieve viable compromises that advance The Common Good (however falteringly), the GOP --- captive to "Christian" absolutism --- contends that unflinching fidelity to "Impossibly Pure Principles" makes compromise not only unnecessary but reprehensible.

Rendered incapable of meaningful political action, these paralyzed people -- praying for "divine intervention" -- use (and abuse) the "Godly Principles" of "pending Apocalypse" to inflame people's fears, propagating a  bunker mentality that distills to psychological, social and political paralysis. 

Pax on both houses,

Alan

***

This correspondence is posted at http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2012/03/santorum-endorses-obama.html

--
Fred Owens


My blog is Fred Owens

Friend Lynne Dives Ever Deeper Down The "Worship Of Self-Delusion Rabbit Hole"

 Lynne Jaffe Facebook Post

Truth is.

Bob Johnson

 kind of hilarious - and sad - this harmful CT is still around

https://africacheck.org/.../25-years-rumour-us-anti...

AFRICACHECK.ORG

25 years on, rumour by US anti-contraceptive organisation still damages tetanus vaccine programmes

25 years on, rumour by US anti-contraceptive organisation still damages tetanus vaccine programmes

• 27m
• Reply
• Edited

Alan Archibald

This is not the truth, Lynne.

Kennedy on who sterilization project

Several Kennedys have been associated with sterilization programs, but their involvement has differed significantly. Senator Ted Kennedy notably fought against involuntary sterilization, while neurologist Foster Kennedy was a proponent of eugenics and sterilization.

Recent discourse links Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s public health views to historical eugenics.

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA)

In the 1970s, Senator Ted Kennedy actively opposed the involuntary sterilization of vulnerable and poor individuals.

The Relf Sisters Case: In 1973, Kennedy's Senate subcommittee investigated the case of Minnie Lee and Mary Alice Relf, two Black sisters, ages 12 and 14, who were sterilized in Alabama without their or their parents' informed consent.

Response to Abuse: Following the case, Kennedy held hearings to question federal health officials about government funding for such coercive procedures. This public outrage led to new regulations in 1978 that strengthened consent requirements and prohibited federally funded sterilization of minors or mentally incompetent individuals.

Neurologist Foster Kennedy

Unlike the senator, neurologist Foster Kennedy was an early-20th-century eugenics proponent who advocated for the sterilization and euthanasia of the "mentally defective".

Eugenics Support: In 1936, Kennedy presented a paper called "Sterilization and Eugenics" advocating for the sterilization of those deemed "feebleminded." He supported involuntary sterilization for individuals in institutions.

Controversial Views: While qualifying his support for sterilizing people with certain disorders, Kennedy's views aligned with the broader eugenics movement, which targeted marginalized groups and individuals with disabilities.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Recent controversies surrounding Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s statements on public health have drawn comparisons to historical eugenics.

Eugenics Accusations: Critics have pointed out that his rhetoric echoes eugenicist ideas, particularly regarding his views on autism and his proposed "wellness farms" for young people.

Vaccine Preservative Claims: Concerns have been raised about his vaccine advisers and their promotion of disproven fears, such as those related to the preservative thimerosal.

The U.S. government's historical role

The historical context of U.S. government-supported sterilization is important to distinguish from the actions of individual Kennedys.

Widespread Programs: During the 20th century, eugenics-based sterilization programs were carried out across the United States. These programs targeted poor individuals, people of color, and those with disabilities.

Buck v. Bell (1927): A U.S. Supreme Court decision, famously stating "three generations of imbeciles are enough," cemented the legality of state-mandated sterilization. The ruling led to the forced sterilization of tens of thousands of people.

Impact on Vulnerable Groups: The programs disproportionately affected Black, Indigenous, and Latina women. In some cases, women were sterilized without their knowledge or were coerced by threats of losing welfare benefits.

• 7m
• Reply

Alan Archibald

Here's an example of political truth... Now that Trump and his goons can kill people -- or disappear them -- with near impunity, this is a public, broadcast commentary from the host of a Fox programs where Trump is -- by far -- their most frequent guest. This savage barbarism is not even debatable. It's just Trump and his brownshirt - gestapo advocating full-on mass murder, with malice aforethought. https://www.rawstory.com/fox-host-homeless/

RAWSTORY.COM

Fox host sets off uproar with 'just kill them' comment about mentally ill homeless people