Bernie Sanders...

As far as Bernie Sanders for president is concerned, I will admit that I have never considered him as a possible candidate I could vote for. I know this is dangerous ground as so many of my friends and relatives (the ones NOT voting for Trump) are totally enamored of him and what he stands for.

The huge crowds he draws (many young people) shows us that his message is a message many want to hear and act on. That message is basically an economic message based on taking from the demonic rich and giving it to the angelic poor; a true Robin Hood story.

As an entrepreneur and former business owner, I see nothing wrong with trying to get ahead and in the process becoming wealthy or at least comfortable. I also believe that we as individuals are responsible for our welfare and our future and not depend on or demand from, others to somehow help us get ahead.

I am not naïve enough to believe that our system of capitalism is perfect but think changes should be made to the system to get it back to its original form; the system has been corrupted over time and mainly to satisfy interests that are not always good for the general public.

Yes, socialism has worked great in other countries but those other countries are not like us, the world leader, the world power, the country everyone else wants to live in, the country where dreams really can come true. So why do we want to change what made us great?

Bernie is similar to Trump in that he is a populist, espousing ideas and goals that are popular at this time but with no realistic way to achieve those goals; they are mouthing what the masses want to hear.

Yes there is dissatisfaction in the country and yes, people have legitimate gripes they want addressed by the government. But our government is a dysfunctional government which the president cannot fix; only voters can fix that by electing a functional government populated by statesmen beholden to voters and not their own party hags and rich donors.

Our economy is changing and therefore people’s lives are being affected by these changes. The old middle class is disappearing and a new middle class is forming. The natural inclination is to fight change, any change and not to adapt. Bernie and Trump are telling people they will fight change and bring back the good ole’ days and make us great again…really, what does that mean?

One of the things that made this country great is that we adapted to change, to progress, to new technology, to an evolving new economy that includes globalization and we need to continue doing that and going back to isolationism is not the way to go and history has proven that to be true but that is what people want to hear so Bernie and Trump will keep telling them what they want to hear.

What about Hillary...

I was never a fan of Hillary Clinton. I think when I saw her defend her husband over his MANY sexual transgressions when she knew full well they were true, made me think of her not as a real woman or wife but a hard, ambitious politician that would do anything to reach her political goals; this was a flawed individual as far as I was concerned.

I do not deny that she is smart and can hold her own with any man she came up against including Trump. I think she has loads of experience and would be the “safe” candidate for the presidency mainly because she would step into the role as if she never left it.

I say she would be the “safe” candidate because as president she would not “shake” anything up but continue in the footsteps of her predecessor. If Congress remains in the hands of the so-called Republicans, it would mean another four or eight years of stalemate.

She appears to be the presumptive Democratic nominee and will battle Trump in the fall. Her victory is not assured as she is not a very well-liked woman and she is after all a woman, which in itself carries a lot of negative implications for some male voters and believe me, Trump would definitely play that up as much as possible.

If it was her against Trump, would I vote for her? She is the safe candidate with a verifiable history, Trump is not and we know next to nothing about him and his “real” agenda.

Would Trump be a disaster for the nation if elected? I don’t think so and in fact he may bring fresh thinking to a stagnating government. The fact that he is not really a Republican or Democrat actually is a plus for the nation which has seen nothing but dirty party politics for way too long.

A strong third party candidate could change everything. I kind of expect the GOP or what is left of the core party, to try and run a candidate on the Libertarian ticket.

Trying to understand Trump support...

The political discussions among family members and friends must be getting pretty interesting at this stage of the game; I know they are in my circle.

Everyone admits that they have never seen an election season such as this one. I love listening to all the so called experts try to analyze what is going on and why while admitting that all their expertise failed them to even see this coming.

Trump’s primary victory was partly based on the failure of the primary system and mostly on his unique and new use of populist and reality show rhetoric (bullshit) to win over primary voters (who were Republicans, Democrats and Independents) voting as cross-over voters.

Some reality shows are all about winning and to win you need to destroy or defeat your opponents by any means possible and that is exactly what Trump did.

What interests me the most is how and why his populist rhetoric is resonating so much with certain people and I mean a lot of people some of whom happen to be my family members and friends.

I am perplexed by the fact that Trump really does not stand firmly for any ideas and/or principles but constantly flip-flops on practically all issues. When asking people I know why they will vote for Trump, I get a lot of different answers which makes me think that people will believe about Trump what they feel like believing or what they make themselves believe because that is what they want to believe.

People watch FOX News because FOX News reports the news the way they want the news to read and not be bothered by facts; they hear Trump say what they want him to say even though he is not saying anything.

I guess what attracts all these people to Trump is his bravado, his confidence in all matters and his answers to all problems…don’t worry, I will take care of it!

What does this say about his supporters? Some are calling them plain stupid for reacting to populist sound bites from a clown who really has no answers just promises.

I think Trump has tapped into disgust among Americans towards our ineffective political system in Washington and a genuine disgust with politicians in general, who make it ineffective. These people have also had it with political correctness at all levels of society and don’t want the tail (minorities) wagging the dog (majority).

They want a dictator albeit a benevolent dictator to cut through the crap and get things done and make the nation and its people great again…whatever that means.

If Trump picks someone for his vice-president with political experience and knowledge making up for Trump’s lack of both, then I think Trump has a good chance of winning the election and then what…

More on Hillary, Bernie and a Trump win later.

THIS IS ONE CRAZY ELECTION YEAR...

Many people in the know are scratching their heads and wondering why and how DONALD TRUMP ended up a Republican nominee for the office of President of the United States.

Many, if not all, predicted that Trump would never become the nominee; never in a million years and yet, here we are.

I assumed that Jeb Bush would be the nominee as did he. He had everything going for him and then he got hit by the Trump freight rain.

This presidential primary and election will go down as a historical event no one foresaw but why did absolutely no one foresee this outcome.

The people in the know are very slowly analyzing what has happened.

I think the Republican Party has become a party that no one likes anymore, not even Republicans. I blame that on the Tea Party and the idiots they helped elect. These idiots scared the rest of the Republicans from doing what was right and basically just opposed everything Obama and the Democrats tried to do; they became the party of NO which made them WORTHLESS to the nation and its citizens.

Also, the primary system in this country is flawed. The system was intended to help each party select the most popular candidate with the best chances of winning in November. It failed to do that because people did not vote within the party they support; it was a free for all which allowed Trump, who is not really a Republican, to win in the Republican primary.

Trump does not support Republican principles so the Republican Party has to change or Trump has to change…good luck with that.

Most Republican leaders and supporters are turning away from Trump and probably will not vote at all in the election. What has this done to the party? What will they do now that Trump is the leader of the party?

These are really interesting times…

BERNIE AND HIS MILLENNIALS...

As this insane political season trudges on, I have become aware of a number of issues that I want to comment on.

The Wall Street Journal published an editorial wondering why the young supporters of Bernie Sanders are so keen on starting a “revolution” in this country when they had President Obama who promised change, for nearly eight years now.

The problem with presidential candidates that promise “change” or a “revolution” is that their promises are empty populist claptrap since they will not achieve any of their goals without a like-minded and cooperative Congress.

As we know, Obama was stymied at every turn my totally moronic Tea Party Republicans that no longer governed the nation but simply opposed anything and everything the president tried to do, no matter how valid and beneficial the presidential actions were.

The same goes for Bernie and his promises which not only will face opposition from these same Republican idiots but probably also from fellow Democrats who, after all, are susceptible to the same lobbying efforts by big moneyed interests.

Bernie’s young supporters need a dose of political reality and maybe some positive marching orders that will convince them that electing like-minded local representatives and senators is the best way to achieve any change or even start a revolution.

Another issue that concerned me was a study showing that the millennials that so adamantly support Bernie are as just as adamant about not supporting Hillary in case Bernie loses the nomination. In fact they are so adamant about their feelings that they may not vote at all if Bernie is not the nominee of the Democrats.

We can all ascribe these actions to the youth and naiveté of those millennials but when the time comes, Bernie has to teach these children about the bigger picture and what could happen if Ted Cruz gets into office; Trump does not scare me as much because he really does not have any hardcore beliefs about anything and just rolls along hopefully using his common sense on issues.

IGNORANCE ABOUT OUR PARTY PRIMARY SYSTEM...

I have been hearing and reading complaints about our PRIMARY SYSTEM.

People are bitching that it is UNDEMOCRATIC and somehow FIXED and CORRUPT. Donald Trump is one such complainer and it is all due to how IGNORANT many people are about the U.S. primary system of NOMINATING (not electing) candidates for the office of president of the United States.

The number one fact is that American voters do not nominate anyone for the office of president, the political parties do.

This is not a Constitutional issue as our Constitution does not say anything about nominating a candidate; individual political parties make the rules and on top of that, individual state political parties also add their own specific rules as to delegate selection and primary or caucus rules.

Political parties invented primaries as a way to see who has the most popular appeal and who stands the best chance of being elected president. In the past, they just picked a candidate after debating in smoke-filled rooms.

Candidates running in primaries or caucuses, garner delegates according to the votes they receive in the state races. If a candidate gets a specific number of delegates (as determined by the party) he or she gets the nomination, if no one gets the required amount of delegates to automatically win the nomination, the nomination is decided at the party convention.

Delegates that are “committed” to a specific candidate as determined by primary votes must vote for that candidate at least on the first ballot. If no candidate wins the required number of votes on the first ballot, the delegates are set free to vote for whom they want to.

This is where it gets very interesting as votes can be bought and sold and we, as American voters, have nothing to do with the process at this time; it’s all in the hands of party delegates.

DO CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS PRAY TO THE SAME GOD...Prof. Hawkins dilemma...

A recent story in our paper caught my eye. It was a story about a professor at a Christian college who decided to start wearing a Muslim hijab (scarf head covering) to highlight the plight of Muslims who she feels are being unfairly blamed for the violent actions of a few Muslims.

The teacher, Dr. Larycia Hawkins, a tenured professor of political science at Christian Wheaton College near Chicago is being reprimanded and possibly fired, NOT for wearing a hijab but for saying that Muslims and Christians pray to the same God and should be treated with the same respect as Christians are.

Christianity and Islam are both termed as MONOTHEISTIC religions because they believe in a “single” god unlike other faiths that have “many” gods. To be fair, the Hindu religion has many gods but supposedly, they are all manifestations (expressions) of a “single” deity. The closest polytheistic religion we can point to is the old Roman and Greek religions where there was a “pantheon” of gods on Mt. Olympus, etc.

Anyway, the three great faiths of the world, Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all MONOTHEISTIC religions believing in the existence of one God.

So on a simple, rational level, we could say that if they all believe there is only one God, then they all must logically believe in and pray to the same God which is what Professor Hawkins surmised.

Wheaton College objected because the Christian God is actually a TRINITY which includes Jesus as the son of the father and the Holy Ghost as who knows what. Muslims worship Jesus but only as a prophet and not as a god since there can only be one god (Allah) in monotheism.

Jesus never claimed he was a god and his disciples/apostles never did either. It was Paul and later Christians that made Jesus into a god and thus creating the totally absurd construct of a trinity (3 gods in one) and making a mockery of the whole concept of monotheism, invented by Jews and bringing a semblance of civilization to a world locked in perpetual wars between their individual gods.

I don’t blame Wheaton College for chastising their professor; after all, they have to defend their religious beliefs as does she as their employee.

I do relish the fact that this incident points out how religion divides us and prevents us from behaving like members of “humanity” or the single entity that is mankind on this planet.

I also enjoy how this points to Christianity and the absurdity of its creations of faith that are based on absolutely nothing but someone’s imaginings that many thousands of people have died for and continue to die to this very day.

TURKEY: Why it matters...

People may ask why I am so interested in the country of Turkey and what goes on there. Well, when I had my medical manufacturing company, I established some good contacts in Turkey and sold quite a bit of my products there. As I have done with other countries I did business with, I thoroughly studied the history and culture of the country before visiting it. This approach has served me well as I impressed my hosts with my knowledge of their country and culture and gained for me their friendship that exists to this day even though I am now retired.

On my visits there, I encountered a modern country with a great history striving to do well in the new world economy. It had trouble with inflation which in some years was rampant (200%) and with government which seemed a little volatile at times. Turkey was a nominally Muslim country but the people that I dealt with were mostly secular.

After WWI when the Ottoman Empire collapsed (1914), a man named ATATURK took control and fathered the modern secular democratic Turkey of today. There have been occasions where the army had to step in and depose leaders that were moving Turkey back into theocratic ways which meant they were trying to use religion (Islam) to rule the country. The army, after bringing order to the political process, would then relinquish their rule once a secular government was formed.

I need to also mention that the Turks have had problems with a KURDISH minority in their country and at times the relationship has become violent. The Kurds are a people without a country that have existed for thousands of years and populate Turkey, Iran and Iraq as well as other countries.

I also have to mention that Turkey exists in Europe as well as in Asia Minor. Turkey has wanted to join the European Union for some time now but the Europeans (Germany) do not trust in Muslim Turkey’s stability…for good reasons.

RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN is a gentleman that seems to have been plotting, for quite some time now, a way to take over Turkey, declare himself a dictator, and turn Turkey into an Islamic state. He has taken slow but definitive steps to move the country in that direction and the biggest step he took was to basically dismantle and in some cases, imprison the army’s top command so they can never be able to step in and take control when they feel the country’s secularism was in danger.

A recent tactic he used to gain power was to create the impression that the Kurds are about to take over the country and must be stopped at all costs and he is the only person to save Turkey from the Kurds. This is obviously not true but the spin he was able to use to create this scenario united the Turks behind him as a savior. This is similar to what Hitler did with the Jews in Germany when he made them scapegoats for all of Germany’s woes and branded them as enemies of the republic…the rest is history. Erdogan also used Hitler in a recent speech he gave where he compared the Hitler Republic as a system of government he admired and wished to emulate…get the picture?

The picture with Turkey gets a little more complicated when you consider that they are part of NATO and our ally. The Kurds are also our allies in the war against ISIS in Syria and Iraq but Turkey considers them enemies and is actively bombing them; our allies are bombing our allies.

Turkey has also shot down a Russian jet making Putin vowing revenge knowing full well that the U.S. has to defend Turkey against all foreign aggression because they are a NATO member.

We use an airfield in Turkey to attack ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

You can see how the situation with Turkey is very fluid and full of uncertainty all because of ERDOGAN and his political party and his political ambitions.

This is why I follow this story closely because it can be a deciding factor in the history of the region in 2016.

MERRY CHRISTMAS OR HAPPY HOLIDAYS...

This is the time of year where the so called “Christmas Christians” become outraged at the demeaning of “their” celebration of the birth of their savior by those that would celebrate this time of year as a joyous and happy “holiday” instead of “Christmas”.

This so called “War on Christmas” is based solely on ignorance of basic history but in some cases (Fox News) on a fabricated attempt to stir the great unwashed into believing they are under attack.

Those in the know, are aware that this time of year was celebrated for thousands of years (way before Christianity came on the scene) as the Winter Solstice or the day when the days started getting longer and the nights shorter; a New Year.

It is worth noting that the Pilgrims (Puritans) that came to the new land of America did not celebrate Christmas at all because number one, the Bible did not mention it and two, because they considered it a “pagan” holiday which some Christians (in England) adapted as their own and called it Christmas.

The Puritans actually banned Christmas because it was based on a pagan celebration but also because it caused too much merriment which they considered a sin I guess.

Anyway, many of our Christmas traditions actually come from pagan traditions like decorating the Christmas tree and exchanging gifts and that includes Santa Claus also. Many very religious countries like Poland have tried to adapt the pagan practices to Christian practices like making Santa Claus into a Catholic bishop, etc.

Christmas did not become a federal holiday till 1870; before people would treat Christmas Day as any normal working day.

We are a very diverse population but all of us, I believe, look forward to celebrating this time of year for many different reasons but as humans, we all celebrate the  coming of the New Year as evidenced by our celestial calendar which is quite evident in our sky and not some religious belief.

History shows that early Christian leaders tried to assimilate existing pagan beliefs and practices into the Christian faith as did many other faiths but the original pagan element usually was based on some aspects of nature or the natural world and that is why we have “seasonal holidays”.

I don’t think any one wants to deny the Christians “their” specific holiday they call Christmas but Christians must be made aware that this time of year is not exclusively “their” holiday but they share it with many others who may not be Christian but still celebrate the “holidays” in their own way.

So whether you say Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays you are still wishing your fellow humans the best of everything in this time of rebirth in the New Year.

Gay Marriage Supreme Court decision ...?

Now that all the hoopla about the Supreme Court Gay Marriage decision is abated somewhat, it is time to examine why the dissenting justices were so pissed about this decision.

The one thing to remember about the Supreme Court is that it deals mainly with CONSTITUTIONAL issues. The rule of thumb is that if an issue is not expressly mentioned in the Constitution, it then becomes a STATE issue; the individual states decide the issue.

In the Gay Marriage issue many states have decided the legality or non-legality of the marriage since our Constitution does not address the issue of marriage in any way.

As far as Scalia and the other conservatives on the bench, this was a state issue because it was not, in their minds, a Constitutional issue and that is why they decry this decision as a violation of democratic principles as practiced in this country.

The other justices did not see it that way and felt that the issue is addressed in the Constitution, not as a marriage issue but as a EQUAL RIGHTS issue as stated in the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT to our Constitution.

No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law.

By denying certain people to participate in a legally binding contract that other people are allowed to participate in, violates the XIV Amendment...it is that simple.

I feel our Founding Fathers had an eye to the future when they crafted the Constitution and therefore had written some articles in general terms of basic principles.

I think no matter which way the decision went, the country as a whole was going to allow gay marriages period but the objection to this decision interests me and it will be fun exploring all the objections from all the objectors especially from the Catholic Church.

As far as the dissenting Supremes are concerned I understand that they do not want the court to tell the country how to think and behave but we have to remember that marriage between races was not allowed before the Supreme Court stepped in and said that individual rights were violated by this practice.

I am a firm believer in individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and am outraged at certain people trying to define and narrow those rights to conform to their own ideas of what those rights should be.

Truly these are historic times we live in but we still have work to do to make our society truly progressive and not mired in the darkness and ignorance of the past.

SUPREME COURT RULING ON OBAMACARE...

Today the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, decided to allow Obamacare to continue in its present format.

Republicans brought a very specious challenge to the Obamacare law based on four words “established by the state”. 

Chief Justice Roberts who wrote the opinion, said that the “intent” of the law by its “authors” was what was important in this case and not the interpretation, one way or another, of a phrase.

Judge Scalia read his blistering descent from the bench saying that Roberts picks the laws he likes and those he does not like so it basically is  SCOTUScare and not Obamacare (SCOTUS stands for Supreme Court of the United States).

The case did not involve the interpretation of the Constitution which is what the Supreme Court does. In this case it was basically an absurd challenge to the interpretation of the law’s actual language; it’s like challenging that a comma was in the wrong place.

It shows us how desperate the Republicans are to scuttle a law that is doing people some good while not having a law to replace the one they want to repeal. In fact, the Republicans were scared that if the Supreme Court sided with them they would have to come up with a replacement law immediately to save millions of people from having their medical insurance cancelled; see how fucking childish this whole issue is?

I was impressed with Roberts (this time) for looking at the “intent” of the “authors” in writing this bill.

It is a good time to compare this to the “Separation of Church and State” understanding in the First Amendment in our Constitution. Many argue that the exact language is not in the Constitution therefore cannot be interpreted as being in the Constitution. 

The “authors” of the First Amendment including Thomas Jefferson explicitly stated that “ a wall of separation between Church and State” is exactly what they intended when writing the First Amendment.

To show you how this legal approach is not de rigueur in other cases, take the Second Amendment. The authors of the Second Amendment had clearly established the legality, if not a duty, to bear arms (have arms) but ONLY as part of a well-regulated MILITIA. Since we do not have militias in this country anymore (we have national guards), this does not grant individual a Constitutional right to bear arms.

So when it comes to the Supreme Court; they do what they want to do.

CONFEDERATE FLAG: How symbols change through time and circumstance...

I have been watching the national reaction to the horrific, racist massacre that occurred at a Charleston, South Carolina black church, a few days ago.

It was interesting to see how the nation (or is it just the media) fixated on the Confederate Flag as the main symbol if not the actual reason for the massacre by a deranged 21 year-old racist who posed with the flag in his many on-line postings.

The Confederate Flag as a symbol of the pre-civil war South has a special meaning to Southerners past and present. As a history nut, I can tell you that our Civil War was not fought over the single issue of slavery although obviously it was a big factor.

Many of those who died fighting for the South never owned slaves or had anything to do with slavery. Southerners were different from the people living in the North. They were more rural, had little industrialization and therefore were much poorer but they had a fierce spirit of pride about who they were and what they stood for.

Even though defeated and humbled after the war, that spirit was kept alive in the symbolism represented by the Confederate Flag which flew over the many monuments to the Southerners killed during the Civil War.

South Carolina took the Confederate Flag off the dome of its statehouse and moved it to a nearby monument to Southern soldiers killed in the war. They realized then that flying the Rebel flag over their seat of government was improper seeing as the Confederacy was history.

As Southerners saw the flag a symbol of the Rebel spirit, blacks saw it as a symbol of slavery. The killer of the nine black people in that church saw it as a symbol of white supremacy and therefore racism.

I am reminded of the story of the SWASTIKA symbol that we associate with the brutal Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler and all the terrible things he did to humanity under its banner. Many do not know that the so called Nazi symbol was actually a symbol noted in pre-historic days and later as a symbol depicting someone or something as very lucky or auspicious.

I was amazed on my trip to India to see business cards with that symbol and on a number of occasions, as tattoos on seemingly normal people. I thought are they all Nazis? I later learned that the symbol is sacred in Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism. The swastika symbol is also present in Chinese script and called a manji.

In the West, the swastika is still a Nazi symbol and will always be a symbol of evil. The symbol is still used by neo-Nazis or racist skinheads throughout the West.

The negative reaction to the Confederate Flag after the Charleston massacre was not overwhelming at first. Southern Republicans tried to deflect the public cry to take down the flag since it was now a symbol of racism and was an insult to the people massacred in Charleston as well as an insult to the whole nation.

Southern Republicans tried to explain the flag’s historical significance to the South but the popular sentiment demanded the flag to come down.

One black politician from South Carolina called the whole flag issue as total bullshit; talking about a symbol instead of real racism on the ground in this country.

The pendulum has swung to the other side so quickly that not only Confederate flags are coming down in the South but statues and monuments to Southern soldiers who died in the Civil War are in danger and this is unfortunate, I hope cooler heads prevail.

The Civil War is our history and those who died on both sides of the conflict were Americans, one side dying to preserve a union and the other side dying trying to secede from that union.

Ironically after the war, Southern blacks moving to the North to find jobs in the factories were met by rabid racism from the people who liberated them from slavery.

One hates to see one man and one terrible act change the perception of a once proud Southern symbol into something despicable from now on and forever but that is exactly what happened.

Some Southerners will argue that this should not be allowed but for all intents and purposes, the flag now represents racism and anybody with the flag will be labelled a racist whether they are racists or not.

These are truly historic times.

FATHER JUNIPERO SERRA: A saint or not...

In September 2015, Pope Francis will visit Washington, DC and canonize FATHER JUNIPERO SERRA as the first Hispanic saint in the United States.

The Wall Street Journal article THE POLITICAL ASSAULT ON CALIFORNIA’S SAINT by Allysia Finley (June 5, 2015) decries the fact that there is a lot of objection to this sainthood.

I remember taking my kids to San Diego for a vacation and then travelling along California’s coast from one mission to the next and then flying out of Los Angeles; Father Serra founded most of those missions.

The fact that Spanish missionaries did devastating damage to the indigenous population of Central and South America is well documented. Not only did they destroy their culture but they also destroyed their history by burning ancient texts thought of as satanic because the missionaries did not understand them.

In California, Father Serra took thousands of natives into his missions where he taught them Christianity and methods of farming, etc. He thought of the natives as children who needed a firm hand to put them on the right road to salvation. Yes, he destroyed their way of life and therefore their culture and true that many thousands died when the Spanish introduced diseases that the natives could not fight since they had no immunity to them, but was he doing what he thought was right?

Franciscan missionaries were instructed to bring the pagans to Jesus, first and foremost, and that is what they tried to do; Father Serra was no exception and did the bidding of the Catholic Church.

He was said to have protected the natives from rapacious marauding Spanish conquistadors as well as from drought and famine; just to add a few positives to this issue.

I have never thought much of the Catholic institution of sainthood mainly because of the process which allows popes to make people into saints just because they want to; the process is made to fit the desired outcome. Pope Paul V was a doofus that screwed up the social policies of the Church to the point that Catholics now just ignore Church teachings on certain issues; he will be made a saint. Pius XII was a Nazi sympathizer and Jew hater; he will be a saint. Pope John Paul II, very popular among the masses, but one who allowed priests to molest young males by protecting them and ignoring the issue all together; he will be a saint.

So you see that people being canonized saints is just a political ploy meant to give certain Catholic ethnic groups someone to call their own.

I would not make a big deal about Father Serra’s canonization because the Catholic Church will do what it wants to no matter what the criticism. I would make some noise though, in pointing out how absurd the process is and how much damage forced conversions did to native peoples around the world. 

Criticism of these canonizations should be loud and clear as a means of preserving the facts of history since canonizations tend to re-write and obscure the facts of history behind a veil of manufactured holiness.