Sunday, November 18, 2018

The Four American Paths

Four choices. Four distinct paths. We have them. The questions become, "will we choose the path? Or, will it be chosen for us?"

Let's start with the first path; the path preferred by career politicians: "Let's do nothing; things will work themselves out. They always do." In other words, let's "react, not act." We'll return to choice "A" shortly.

Choice "B," amounts to "we should take a more literal approach to the 10th amendment. If the constitution doesn't assign a specific function to the federal government, it is presumed that the function is reserved for the individual state." It's probable that "Dixiecrats" would be overjoyed!

Choice "C," would conclude that the country was simply too divided to continue as one nation and "peacefully separate." We have seen a lot of evidence that some of the states are already considering this. California stands as a prime example.

Choice "D" would rebuff separation ideas. It would be a war for all the marbles, likely making the first American civil war look liked a church social.

Choice "D" appears unlikely(albeit 15% of the country would disagree). It stands to reason that the nation doesn't have the stomach for a 1860's vintage bloodbath! It's probable that those living then would have opted out, had they enjoyed a 21st century media!It is now believed that as many as 750,000 American casualties were inflicted, up from 600,000. This is more than in all other wars COMBINED since the revolution...

Choice "C" would amount to "giving up," by many Americans. Yet, there is support from both the left and right. For argument's sake, let's briefly assume that separation was the verdict. In a 2016 post, I covered the geographical divide that might come if Hillary Clinton had been elected in a disputed election.

In that post it predicted that the split would cross the northern border. It also predicted that Tim Draper's "six Californias" would become a reality. At this writing, smart money would suggest that the Great Lakes States would join the lower Midwest, far West, South and three of six Californias, as defined by Draper.

The Western half of Washington, Oregon and British Columbia would become the nation of "Cascadia." The cultural distinction already exists.

Ontario and Canadian provinces East of the Rocky mountains would join the "flyover American" states.

New York and New England would be joined by Canada's Atlanta provinces forming the "Peoples' Democratic Republic of America."

Quebec would achieve their long dream of independence, and join Honduras and El Salvador as "third world counties" in North America.

Three of Draper's six California's would be joined by the Big Island of Hawaii to form "Pacifica," AKA "Elysium."(The remaining islands would stay with the money) If you haven't watched the Matt Damon movie, you should; if you want to see the illustration.

Compared to choices "C" and "D," choice "B" would certainly be preferable. In short, America would rediscover the 10th amendment. Much would be the same as now. The military, border security, social security and medicare would continue to be handle from Washington. Other issues, such as abortion, marijuana and prayer in the public schools would be determined at the state level. It's possible that housing and urban development, the environment, energy and education might all return to the states. Money utilized would be divided proportionately, based on contribution.

Choice "A" is obviously preferred by lawmakers. It's the easiest! Yet, we may not have the luxury of resorting to choice "A."

When you have Socialists such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Ortasio-Cortez spouting "rabble rousing rhetoric" as they are and there are contested elections as we are experiencing, the latter three options become more imminent.

Not because we chose then. But, because the choice was thrust upon us.







Sunday, November 11, 2018

Voter Fraud Must be Eliminated at all Costs

What is currently taking place in Florida confirms why voter fraud is, or should be, a top ticket issue.

For those who read "E" is for English, you recall that the issue was discussed thoroughly. A solution was offered. At the time of publication, opposition suggested that the methodology might have been "too extreme." Today, more Americans are seeing the wisdom of the proposal.

Essentially, the proposal called for the requirement of "passage of a fourth grade English proficiency test" as a prerequisite for a voter Identification card. No pass. No card. No vote.

Opponents quickly proclaimed that any form of literacy test would "return America to the days of Jim Crow and voter suppression." At first glance, they might have a valid argument.

In Robert Caro's "Lyndon Johnson-Master of the Senate," stark examples were given of literacy tests designed to disenfranchise African American voters. The proposal detailed in "E" is for English, had a different objective.

The exam would be standardized nationally; by professionals who do it for a living. Specifically, the same people who create the LSAT, the GMAT, GRE, SAT and the ACT, who sit in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The objective would be single minded: "Insuring that all voters could English at a 4th grade level."

The argument against was seemingly valid: "It would disenfranchise large blocks of the population."

The counter argument stated, "if you cannot read at a fourth grade level, it's probable that you will not be capable of reading a complicated voting ballot.

The conclusion was "a paradigm shift" in America would need to occur. In short, Americans would need to see "voting as a privilege, not a right."

As expected, the cost of such an exam would be exponential. A "five-cent per household "residential access tax" levied on commercially and politically oriented direct mail," would pay for the measure.

Included in the measure would be the prize for passage of the exam: A "voter I.D. card, complete with photograph and thumb print."

The "E" Amendment also addressed two other "thorny" problems that have recently arisen.

One was "birthright citizenship." The "E" amendment called for defining birthright citizenship as "any person previously born in the United States who had been engaged in involuntary servitude or had held no previous status." The 14th amendment's framers had intended to include freed slaves and people of color who resided in America but enjoyed no status.
Unfortunately, manipulation followed.

Some concluded that American citizenship amounted to "flying over to have a baby," subsequently taking advantage of the easy "chain migration" standard. Others concluded that it translated to "making a mad dash across the desert" in hopes of getting through border security, with the goal of "knocking out a baby."

When Donald Trump took exception to both practices, he was called a racist, bigot, fascist, NAZI, white supremacist and everything in between!

The amendment required that all voters be United States Citizens.

It also called for basing congressional representation on "U.S. Citizens not persons." This idea actually was introduced a decade earlier by then Louisiana Senator, David Vitter. If adopted, California would lose six House seats, New York two and Illinois one. Oregon, Indiana, Tennessee, North Carolina,Georgia, Texas, Nebraska and Montana would add a seat each.

The "E" amendment proposed a "points" system for immigration, beginning with English proficiency and age. It also gave points for levels of education, profession and/ or a trade. Lastly, it gave points for country of origin. Those applicants from N.A.T.O. countries would be given a preference.

The proposed "American English Unification Amendment," AKA the "E" Amendment, would make English the official language by constitutional amendment. The previously named measures would be included.

Then Pro-English Director, Jayne Cannava called the proposed "E" Amendment, "a magnificent way to accelerate assimilation." U.S. English Director, Mario Mujica added that "87% of Americans favored" making English the official language in the country..

As expected, the American left would vehemently object to the proposed amendment. Mainly because it would eliminate "cheating" as a path to citizenship! Not to mention, winning elections! In their minds, those favoring passage of the E" amendment would be nothing short of "racists, bigots, fascists, NAZIs,and white supremacists."

Anticipating violence, the book called for "Eagles for America," a grassroots, nationwide support base, who would counter any insurgency that would be certain to spring from this amendment. While the book called for "non-violence," it is predictable that the "Eagles"would become the counter balance to ANTIFA.

The book suggested a concerted lobbying effort, designed to encourage politicians to pass the amendment, heavily relying on social media. In reality, "Eagles for America" could become a counter balance to the ANTIFA mobs.

From a constitutional perspective, it is easy to argue that 38 states would ratify this amendment. I have not heard from the President as of yet. But, he was mailed a copy of "E" is for English. I would think that if it makes it through his handlers, he might be the first to advocate it.

One thing is for certain: If "E" were the law of the land, there would be no Florida controversy at hand at this writing.

Also a definite is we would have a "stronger, smarter, more secure nation" as the book promised.

























Sunday, November 4, 2018

America's Four Choices

These storied midterms will essentially come down to four choices for America.

Republicans will do must better than predicted by pundits. In addition to comfortably holding the House of Representatives, they will add six Senate seats. Trump will enter 2019 with unsurpassed confidence, calling it a mandate.

Republicans will win a disappointing but satisfactory three Senate seats, and hold the House by the most narrow of margins: four seats or less. There will be anger demonstrated by the Democrats. Hopefully it won't result in violence.

Republicans will win a disappointing, yet effective three to four Senate seats but watch the Democrats pick up a 28 House seats, a thin yet decisive win. Democrats are faced with a quandary: Stay with Nancy Pelosi and risk the majority again in 2020? Or, go with a fresh face?

Democrats shock the world by picking up one Senate seat, bringing their total to 50. In the House, they notch a strong 38 seat pickup. It would be hard to imagine not hearing cries of voting fraud with this outcome!

Let's start with choice four. It will be difficult for Democrats to win in Texas or Tennessee. People are scared! There is more concern about open borders than ever before in Texas. Tennessee's largest city, Nashville is booming! The capital is in Nashville. Marsha Blackburn is their girl! East Tennessee has always been overwhelming Republican.

Democrats might sweep Arizona, Nevada and Montana. But, chances are better that Trump sweeps them. Two out of three is more probable both ways. Republicans only need to win two out of three.

Indiana and West Virginia? I don't know about the latter. Joe Manchin is likable. His opponent is competent and committed. Tt comes down to "how truly uncomfortable" people are with either candidate. If Hooster state Libertarians decide to break for one of the major parties, Donnally will lose.

I think both North Dakota and Missouri are lost causes for Democrats.

Which brings us to Florida. This may be the most important state of all. If Scott ousts Nelson(which he should) and people figure out Andrew Gillum, (which most are doing), both Scott and Ron Desantis will win. Unfortunately, a lot of Floridians have already voted. The Governor's extra time spent with disaster victims in the Panhandle and Trump's visit to Pensacola, may prove pivotal with turnout.

When casting this analysis, it is easy to see why the third scenario looks most likely. In fact, it could set the table to a 2020 landslide, if the Congress retains Nancy Pelosi as speaker and plays the obstruction-impeachment game!

Choice two is what most Republican operatives optimistically predict. Maybe it's wishful thinking. I would think that a three seat Senate pickup might spell doom in 2020, because it would likely not include Florida. Retaining the House by narrowest of margins would be good news for Republicans wanting Kevin McCarthy as House Speaker.

Choice one would set the standard for future presidential midterms.

Should Republicans hold the House in comfortable fashion(15 to 25 seats), chances are we'll see Jim Jordan as House Speaker; nine to 15 seats, possibly Steve Scalise. Six pickup Senate seats would probably include Florida, West Virginia, Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota and Montana. The GOP would hold serve on the rest.

Almost certainly, scenarios one and two will result in the wall being built. Immigration reform will finally happen. We will have a market based healthcare system that will lower the costs for everyone. The roads and bridges will get fixed. The trade deals will be finalized, to America's benefit. We will improve relations with previously hostile countries.

Finally, options one and two will allow the "swamp to be drained."

Make no mistake! Allow options three and four, and the swamp will survive and thrive.

These are the choices.










Sunday, October 28, 2018

2018 Midterms Most Pivotal in History

It is unfolding in front of our eyes!

The battle for America. Faith based National Populism versus Secular Global Socialism.

How it ever come to this?

Not surprisingly, it started with greed. And, a lust for power. What else is new in the the worlds historic, if not poignant journey?

Next question. How?

For the longest, America has been enmeshed in a very basic question: "Are we a Republic?" Or, "are we a Democracy?"

Both Republicans and Democrats use the term "Democracy" so loosely. Yet, there is a distinct difference. Democracy translate to "rule by the majority." Republican amounts to "rule by a set of adopted laws."

Why is one better than the other?

For those advocating "Democracy," it is easily explained as "one person, one vote."

Republicans maintain that a doctrine of law is established and we live by it.

Sounds simple enough. Herein may lie the problem.

"The "one vote, one person" standard would be perfect, if we lived in a perfect world. But, we don't. History has proven that if an individual or small group can control the masses, they can effectively influence these voters. They call this an "oligarchy."

This defines the modern Democrat party. Case in point: Florida. Three "Oligarchs," Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer and George Soros have collectively poured tens of millions of dollars in the Florida Gubernatorial race. Their candidate: Tallahassee Mayor, Andrew Gillum.

Why? Power. Control.

The Republican candidate is Ron DeSantis. DeSantis graduated from Yale before earning his J.D. at Harvard's Law School. He later received a reserved officer's commission, subsequently assigned to the Judge Advocate General Corp(J.A.G.). From there, it was on to Iraq in the 2007 surge. DeSantis ultimately received a Bronze Star and and Iraq campaign metal for his service

Then, it was on the United States Congress where he was one of the original founders of the Freedom caucus. Most recently, he served on the House Judiciary Committee and was a key challenger to Robert Mueller's investigation. Not surprisingly, he drew President Donald Trump's endorsement.

Whew! Sounds like a future Presidential candidate!

Conversely, when examining Gillum's resume and the growing corruption that has epitomized his stay in Tallahassee, one would conclude, "this must be a joke!" Yet, at this writing, the race is too close to call! The infusion of Oligarch cash can do that!

In Texas, these same Oligarchs have poured tens of millions into Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke's Senate challenge to Ted Cruz. Experts are predicting that this will represent the most expensive Senate race in history.

And the list goes on and on! Even down to the Kentucky 6th District House race, where transient Democrat challenger, Amy McGrath is attempting to unseat incumbent, Andy Barr, a staunch Trump ally. Practically zero of McGrath's financial support has come from inside the Commonwealth.

With careful analysis, it's easy enough to conclude that these Oligarchs indeed have an agenda: To get even more wealthy than they already are. In the case of Warren Buffet, it amounts to retaining tax credits that return millions into his personal coffers! Ditto for Bill Gates and Mark Cuban.

Thus, Congressional control will determine if the Trump agenda moves forward. Or, more specifically, if we stay on course to return control to America's middle class. OR, stop this trend in it tracks; with hope for a return to the Obama standard of "A protected place for the privileged few, and Socialism for the rest."

Too stark of a contrast? Not hardly! Here is your clue.

Estimates as high as 94% assess the mainstream media's coverage of the administration has been negative. 94%! Not acceptable!

In a previous post, we undertook the history of communications, including over-the-air television in America. A possible solution was introduced. In a future post, we will expand on this remedy. Unfortunately, at least for now, the MSM remains in the hands of the Oligarchs and those promoting Secular Global Socialism.

The good news for those opposing "a protected place for the privileged few and socialism for the rest," is Donald Trump. The president has essentially given the main stream media the "middle finger," taking his case directly to the American people. Never has a president worked so hard to make certain that his allies were given a "level playing field."

Will it be enough? If turnout is a consideration, it just might be. Should the Republicans hold both House and Senate, we should be set for a final accounting. In short, "draining the swamp" amounts to "flushing the snakes from the woodpile."

Most mysterious is the "doglike deference" continuously demonstrated by some life long Democrats to these Oligarchs and their ultimate plan for America. If they were true to their fathers and grandfathers, they would be talking about a conspiracy theory; a massive plan to undermine the American idea by these Oligarchs. Instead, they remain silent, in hope that they might receive some of their "crumbs."

Former Speaker, Nancy Pelosi had the word "crumbs" right. She merely directed it to the wrong people.


Sunday, October 14, 2018

Democrats Pushing Lottery, Chain Migration, Open Borders

Donald Trump has a gift of taking a confusing subject and translating it into laymen's terms.

In Richmond Kentucky last night, I saw the greatest argument yet against chain migration.

The President started with a man who had entered the country via the immigration lottery. He subsequently committed a crime that left numbers of people dead or maimed. He then "lawyered up." Some are now predicting "fifteen years" of motions, appeals and delays that will precede ultimate sentencing.

Meanwhile this man immigrated 19 people, via chain migration. They included his parents, sister, grandparent,three aunts, two uncles and ten cousins. Nineteen people! And literary every single one got on the entitlement rolls. Not one went into the work force. NOT ONE!

For three decades, the Democrats have relied on political correctness, to maintain this malignant practice. To make a stink about it would suggest racism and bigotry. Republicans, as a whole, remained silent.

Donald Trump didn't! In fact, he went one step further. He proclaimed that most countries were limiting applicants for the American lottery to people they didn't want.

I recall an enlightening discussion with Ed Brankey, a Charleston, Illinois based immigration attorney. Brankey made it clear. "Half the planet would immigrate to America is so allowed."

That's the heart of the immigration debate. Two questions that each American needs to ask. "Should we allow all who want to come here? Should we continue to make luck and proximity our primary standards for immigration?"

Democrats say, "yes."

Republicans say, "no."

Laura Ingraham took enormous heat when accusing Democrats of "wanting to change the demographics in America.." She immediately met self righteous howls from Nancy Pelosi and others, accusing Ingraham of being a racist and a bigot.

Yet, the porous Southern border has become a major campaign issue. Those saying "no" to a wall are increasingly seen as "advocates for a change in American demographics." P.C. or not, it just is.

Trump's practical analysis amounted to, "we are creating record numbers of jobs. But, we need qualified immigrants to fill many of these jobs. That's why we need a "merit based" immigration system.

This is sound rationale!

We are bringing jobs back to our shores. But, we may be short on people who can fill many of these jobs. This was the Obama Administration's position; and reason for allowing high tech jobs to be shipped offshore. "We don't have the skilled workers."

Trump is saying, "I have a better idea! Let's bring those skilled workers here."

Trump's argument is valid. Since "half" the planet wants to come to America, why not take advantage of it! Let's get the world's best! Not, the world's unwanted and their extended families!

Tough to counter this position!

The type immigrants Trump is talking about are the ones who would immediately be included on the tax rolls. They might even become, God forbid, "new Republicans!"











Sunday, October 7, 2018

Kavenaugh Hearings Unmasked Left Wing Fascism

The enemy is real.

The last few weeks, American Conservatives got a front row seat into what could have been an inevitable fate. Left wing fascists sought an end to "presumed innocence." It is now up to us to insure no follow-up action is possible.

The midterms mean everything. Literally the whole enchilada! If Pelosi is speaker, we will have two years of gridlock. At best! If the Senate slips away... Too horrible to even think about!

American is experiencing another dreaded "clash of perceptions." The last such clash took place in the early 1860's.

"Faith Based National Populism" versus "Secular Global Socialism."

With the former, it's "living by law outlined in our Constitution. The latter favors "mob rule, emphasizing coercion through intimidation."

The President is canvasing the country, hitting every possible congressional district, pleading for turnout. Most dreaded is the thought of Democrats stealing enough districts to eek out a slim margin. 218 is the magic number.

Trump thinks that he can tip the scales in at least a half dozen of these districts. It might prove to be enough. If he can't, well...

The Senate is looking better. Tennessee has apparently awakened to the fact that good guy, ex-Governor, Phil Bresden may be on the wrong side of history. Joe Donnelly will not be re-elected in Indiana. Heidi Heitcamp is "dead meat!" Claire McCaskill should be collecting boxes; she'll be cleaning out her office in a few weeks.

Searching for an issue that would win support with South Florida environmentalists, Republican Gubernatorial Candidate, Ron DeSantis joined Incumbent GOP Congressman, Brian Mast to take on "Big Sugar."

Historically critical of Big Sugar's practices as Governor, Senate candidate, Rick Scott has joined them, blaming much on Incumbent Bill Nelson's laissez-faire approach to the industry. My money is on all three to win. Trump's passionate endorsement won't hurt!

Remaining are three Western States. Republicans hold two of them: Arizona and Nevada. Both are considered toss-ups. So is Montana, where Jon Tester is hoping that strong Republican turnout doesn't happen. While "two out of three" would be good for Republicans(and highly possible), a sweep is not out of the question!

And then there are those "what if" states, such as Minnesota and New Jersey. Remember, we're talking Al Franken's seat in the Gopher state. Former Lieutenant Governor, Tina Smith is no heavyweight! The state is trending to "purple" status.

New Jersey Senate incumbent, Bob Menendez narrowly avoided prison in a recent racketeering charge! His well funded, self funded, opponent, Bob Hugin has launched a barrage of recent television ads detailing the list of Menendez' scandals. They are extensive!

Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have well funded, liberal, incumbent Senators. They should survive. Yet, with this recent unmasking of the left, "walk-a-ways" are highly possible. There are growing numbers of Independents in all four states. All four Senators voted against Kavanaugh's confirmation.

West Virginia? My guess is Joe Manchin wins and subsequently switches party affiliation, in exchange for a key committee chairmanship.

In short, Republicans have reason to feel cautiously optimistic!

House control will allow investigations of the Deep State to continue. This will lead to the ultimate "unmasking" of those who were behind the entire movement. That many of the greatest perpetrators were members of the Obama administration including Barack Obama himself, spells conflict.

At that point, America will know the truth. For many, it doesn't matter.

The adversary hates this country. They simply want to destroy it; make it into something our fathers and grandfathers feared fifty years ago.

This is the Marxist movement. It began with Political correctness, the essence of cultural Marxism. Next came ANTIFA, their violent arm. For decades they have appointed judges who have were influenced by the infamous "Frankfurt School."

Their terminology can best be phrased as "A protected place for the privileged few, and Communism for everyone else."

This is who we are facing. The question becomes, "should these anti-Americans have a place on this continent?"







Sunday, September 30, 2018

"Dark Side" Meant to Accommodate American Oligarchs

Last week, I received an invoice from American Express. When I closely examined the correspondence, it became apparent that it was an offer to settle.

Puzzled, I called the number on the invoice. A heavily accented voice that suggested India or Pakistan told me that American Express was making me "a one time offer;" accepting $483 to satisfy the alleged $1239 owed.

Craning the depths of memory, I recalled a different Jeff Willis who evidently was delinquent on an American Express card. It had been resolved then, in 2009. Yet here, nine years later, it continued to surface.

When I relayed these findings to the gentleman on the phone, he began asking the normal questions: "Birthday, last four numbers of my social, home address..."

I stopped him, realizing that I was witnessing a "phishing scam." Instead I reminded him that "no revolving debt was collectible in Kentucky after five years and no derogatory could be reported to the credit bureaus after 84 months."

His retort was that I only had to pay $483 and they would accept a 12-month payment plan. I told him to stop harassing me and hung up.

Unfortunately, there are many conscientious Americans, especially older Americans who aren't aware of debt recovery statute of limitations guidelines. And, they zealously guard their bureaus.

Also true is if one payment had been made, the clock would reset and they would be responsible for the debt. Because, in making the payment, they would acknowledge that the debt was indeed theirs.

Unbeknownst to many Americans are schemes and scams globally involving collection of old debt. Debt recovery companies can afford to pursue them because, the old debt may be purchased for "pennies" on the dollar and the offshore help used to expedite is cheap.

Worse still, by sharing Americans personal information, they expose them to identity theft, the world's fastest growing crime.

There are many who would say "that's just the way that it is." In other words, the whole system is rigged to screw everyday Americans and there is nothing that we can do about it.

Or is there?

In a previous post, I referenced a conversation with Congressional Aide, Kevin Wysoki regarding a "clean-up" of the debt recovery industry. Corrective measure included "precluding" any job that required use of an American's social security number from offshore outsourcing.

Sounds plausible. In fact, I haven't talked to a single person who didn't think that it wasn't a "brilliant" idea! Yet some oppose. Who are they? And why would they oppose?

The answers are "Fortune 500 companies" and "such action would reduce their profit margins."

A.T. & T., one of the greatest perpetrators, would explain that "rates would need to be increased" because of the high labor costs in America. In other words, "their unions" wouldn't allow it.

I pointed out to Wysoki, that A.T. & T. might "consider placing these mostly call center jobs in right-to-work states." Yet even then, we would be talking about minimum wage, which begins at $7.25 per hour which, according to A. T. & T., nobody would want anyway!

Think again!

There is a low cost labor market that isn't being utilized to the greatest extent. They are older workers, age 62-66 who are currently eligible for early social security. Unfortunately, it isn't enough to live on. However, an additional $18,000 per year is allowed without compromising the entitlement.

Suddenly, a $7.25 per hour call center job looks appealing. Especially when considering that this worker could become eligible for A. T. & T.'s very good medical and dental plan!

The Fortune 500 companies would argue that their offshore help works for much less; often $200-$300 per month, with no benefits. This math would effectively "quintuple" their labor costs.

Really? Has anyone ever dealt with this "help?" I have! I can tell you first hand, conducting business takes three to four times longer; because the offshore party is speaking in a second language and has difficulty understanding, or being understood by the American!

Thus, the "labor bargain" isn't really that big of a bargain. Or, at least, not for the American who is forced to waste time to accommodate the international service provider.

Then comes the vetting; or lack thereof.

The end result is an open door to "phishermen" and scammers!

Is there any relief in sight?

It won't be easy. Politicians are reluctant to take on these big companies. Not to mention Oligarchs such as Michael Bloomberg, Warren Buffet or Tom Steyer. These billionaires see such preclusion as a serious hit to their bottom lines. Congressmen don't welcome the prospect of being targeted by these interests.

People are now fully understanding what Donald Trump meant when he called our system "rigged."

Are there other remedies that could be used? Yes. It is called a "boycott."

A nation wide boycott of companies employing offshore help that "require use of all or part of a social" would gain traction immediately. In fact, the mere threat might force these companies to rethink the practice.