He must be exhausted

This man is pathetic.
About 330pm on December 21, 2018 the President of the U.S. tweeted, as he is wont to do. The tweet included a photo of him sitting behind the Resolute desk, apparently acting resolutely. There is a large stack of folders to his right. He is holding a pen, poised over what is purported to be a piece of legislation.
The President's own words say, "Some of the many Bills that I am signing in the Oval Office right now. Cancelled my trip on Air Force One to Florida while we wait to see if the Democrats will help us to protect America’s Southern Border!"
You can view the picture and the text at twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1076256868190834689
According to whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions the "many Bills" consisted of all of the following:
(1)Memorandum on the Delegation of Functions and Authorities Under Section 1245 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019
(2)Presidential Memorandum on the Delegation of Functions and Authorities Under Section 1238 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018
(3)Presidential Proclamation to Take Certain Actions Under the African Growth and Opportunity Act and for Other Purposes
(4)EO on Promoting Active Management of America’s Forests, Rangelands, and other Federal Lands to Improve Conditions and Reduce Wildfire Risk
The above is not an opinion nor derived from a talking head on any news broadcast. This information comes directly from the President and the official Whitehouse information center.
Apparently, in the workday of our Chief Executive, "many Bills.." consists of 2 memos, 1 proclamation, and 1 Executive Order. It would appear all those files supposedly containing all the bills he is signing are nothing more than props to delude you into believing he is actually hard at work.
Then again, it would appear this massive workload is sufficient to compel him to cancel one of his trips to Florida. Mar-a-Lago may never recover.

Let's try something different

Howdy, my name is still Michael Wesley and I want to thank all of you for being here to share and worship together.  I pray you will be patient with me and that I may provide you some insight.  This comes not from me but Jesus and Mr. Rogers.

While I am certain most of you have heard this story, I will not presume that all of you are familiar with it.  I’ll ask that you indulge me while I share a familiar piece of scripture.  From Luke 10:25-37, the New International Version, the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

²⁵ On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

²⁶ “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

²⁷ He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’^[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’^[b]”

²⁸ “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

²⁹ But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

³⁰ In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. ³¹ A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. ³² So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. ³³ But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. ³⁴ He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. ³⁵ The next day he took out two denarii^[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

³⁶ “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

³⁷ The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

The first part of this exchange is merely a recitation of direction found in the Torah with which every even casually devout Jew would be familiar.  Deuteronomy 6:5  Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.  and Leviticus 19:18,  Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.

Originally these verses were addressed to a select group as indicated by the phrase “among your people” and where they are found, in the Torah. 

The person to whom Jesus is speaking is no mere casual jew but an expert in the law, a scribe. They were basically bureaucrats, experts on Jewish life and law. They might be lower level scribes who served the villages as village scribes, making contracts, documents, and serving as government officials.  This expert was not content with a response with which he was already intimately familiar but wanted to “justify” himself.  He sought to validate his position and confirm his entitlement to eternal life.  In this context he inquires as to who his neighbor is.  Maybe before one may know WHO their neighbor is it is necessary to know WHAT a neighbor is.  According to dictionary.com:

1.      a neighbor can be a person who lives near another.

2.     a person or thing that is near another.

3.     one's fellow human being:

In the context of this teaching tool, the parable, although it is possible, it is not likely the victim in the ditch lived next to or near to any of his potential rescuers.  The victim certainly was near to the Priest, Levite and Samaritan, separated by no more than the width of the road and without any doubt was a fellow human being.  So, in the context of our parable, what makes a neighbor?  I would not feign to address this issue adequately.  Rather, I turned to THE authority on neighbors and neighborliness of the 20^th century, Fred Rogers.  Or, if the name Fred is not familiar to you, MR. Rogers, some of you may be familiar with the television personality.  This year “Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood is celebrating 50 years of syndication.  Fred Rogers was an ordained Presbyterian minister and dedicated most of his adult life to inviting you to be his neighbor.  He didn’t have to live next door to you or even nearby.  You were a fellow human being and that was sufficient.  He expressed this by saying “We live in a world in which we need to share responsibility. It’s easy to say “It’s not my child, not my community, not my world, not my problem.”

That’s what the Priest and Levite said to themselves.  The Priest would be made “unclean” in touching a corpse.  Therefore, he did not even risk determining the status of the man in the ditch.  Although the “rule of mercy” would take precedence if the man were clearly alive it was not worth the risk.  Also, the rules for Levites were not as strict but he also desired to avoid defilement.  As if one could be defiled by another human being.

Then, along comes a Samaritan.  He has money, transportation, and a centuries long quarrel with this dude in the ditch.  The D-I-D, dude in the ditch, is an obvious sign the Samaritan needs to move along.  This part of the road is putting him at risk.  He doesn’t make the prudent decision.  The Samaritan chooses to make the welfare of another at least commensurate to his own.  He ascertains the D-I-D is not dead.  At this point surely no one could have criticized him for moving along.  Get the dude on his feet, maybe give him some water and move along.  That’s not what happened.  As mentioned above he provided transportation, found shelter for the Jew and fronted the cost of care to the innkeeper, even pledging to make good on any additional costs.  In these acts the Samaritan practiced Mr. Rogers 3 ways to ultimate success.  According to Fred Rogers, the first way to ultimate success is to be kind.  The second way is to be kind and the 3^rd way is to be kind.

Jesus asked the scribe who was the neighbor to the man in need and the scribe answered the one who showed him mercy.  I think there are actually two neighbors in this parable, the man in need and the man who provided for that need.  There was an offer of care and at least a tolerance of his ministrations.  There’s 2 characteristics we could use more of, care and tolerance. 

     Your neighbor will not always look like you.  Your neighbor will not always act like you.  Your neighbor may not share your beliefs.  That does not preclude them being your neighbor.

     “Perhaps we think that we won't find another human being inside that person. Perhaps we think that there are some people in this world who I can't ever communicate with, and so I'll just give up before I try. And how sad it is to think that we would give up on any other creature who's just like us.”  Again, thanks to Mr. Rogers.

     The only limits to being neighborly are self-imposed.  The basis for being a neighbor is love.  “Love is like infinity: You can’t have more or less infinity, and you can’t compare two things to see if they’re “equally infinite.” Infinity just is, and that’s the way I think love is, too.”

     The Samaritan was kind and generous in his love.  Go and do likewise.  Amen

And NOW for some real news

In case you are interested in some real news.  The Johnson Amendment is a provision in the U.S. tax code, since 1954, that prohibits all 501c non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Section 501(c organizations are the most common type of nonprofit organization in the United States, ranging from charitable foundations to universities and churches.   The Johnson Amendment prohibits section 501(c)(3) organizations from participating or intervening in (including the publishing or distributing of statements) any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office. An organization that violates the prohibition is subject to excise taxes,² loss of exemption, and a civil injunction. The President of the United States signed an Executive Order, no.13798, that says there is no desire on his part to enforce the current law of the land. In particular, the Secretary of the Treasury shall ensure, to the extent permitted by law, that the Department of the Treasury does not take any adverse action against any individual, house of worship, or other religious organization on the basis that such individual or organization speaks or has spoken about moral or political issues from a religious perspective, where speech of similar character has, consistent with law, not ordinarily been treated as participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) a candidate for public office by the Department of the Treasury.  Trump’s order says the IRS should not take action against churches that speak out on moral or political issues “where speech of similar character has, consistent with law, not ordinarily been treated as” campaign speech. In other words, the time-tested standard applies: Churches can speak out on political issues as long as they don’t endorse or oppose a specific candidate. Now, there are ways to deal with legislature you don't like or agree with. Primarily they require action by the legislature. That would be Congress, not the Executive branch. However, POTUS apparently does not feel particularly restrained by his oath of office. The fact that POTUS takes affirmative acts to not perform his duties is distressing enough, but there is more to the story. Recently, POTUS, speaking to a group of evangelical leaders at the White House on August 27, 2018, said he had done away with the Johnson Amendment. This is not true. He then proceeded to advocate the pulpit be used to promote and advocate for particular political candidates, specifically Republican, because, "You're one election away from losing everything that you've got,".
     We have a President who will lie, promote illegal activity, conspire to enable such activity, and dishonor the office in failing to abide by his oath.
     That's got to make you proud to be an American.  MAGA

I'd love to trust, but...

     According to www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-stands-victims-illegal-alien-crime and twitter.com/POTUS "In Texas alone, more than 250,000 criminal aliens have been arrested and charged with over 600,000 criminal offenses within the last seven years."  In case you didn't notice or were not aware, the illegal aliens mentioned in whitehouse.gov and the criminal aliens mentioned in the quote are not defined the same.   
     An illegal alien is someone who enters the country in a manner other than prescribed by law.  A criminal alien is someone, other than a citizen, who violates a statute.  This second term is defined without reference to a process of entry.  A criminal alien may have entered the U.S. illegally but they may also hold a permanent residency visa or perhaps possess an EB-4 visa,  These are just 2 examples wherein an individual may reside legally within the U.S. but, this has no bearing on their ability or inclination to commit a criminal act.  Therefore, I went to the source from which the quoted data was derived to discern what point was being made.  If you would like to view the source you may do so at www.dps.texas.gov/administration/crime_records/pages/txCriminalAlienStatistics.
     After reading the source data I still suffered from some confusion.  I was unsure whether the point was to elicit fear and instill anxiety either through a poor presentation or intentionally.  
     According to TX DPS data, of the 250,000 referenced, 171,000 were in the U.S. illegally.  Of the "over 600,000 criminal offenses" for which charges were brought. This number includes felonies and misdemeanors.  Illegal aliens were charged with a variety of offenses.  198,164, about a third, included homicide, assault, burglary, drug, kidnapping, theft, obstruction, robbery, sexual assault, and weapons charges.  Now, those are some serious charges and vile acts to be committed against both citizens, residents and nonresident aliens.  I consider it just as vile when a violent crime is committed against an illegal alien or a native citizen.  I know this view is not shared by all.
     Now, in the U.S., charges brought does not guilt imply.  You may be familiar with the old saw, "Innocent until proven guilty".  The above 198,164 charges in the listed categories over the past 7 years, June 1, 2011-May 31, 2018, have resulted in 52,639 convictions.  This represents a conviction rate of about 27% .5572747
     For the same time period quoted by the Whitehouse and President Trump there have been about 6,500,000 arrests made in the Great State of Texas.  An arrest may result in multiple charges but for the sake of simplicity let us assume each arrest only brings 1 charge.  "Over 600,000..." is quoted above so lets call it 650,000, so you may make the claim criminal aliens are responsible for 10% of all charges levied.  However, the Whitehouse and President were making reference to illegal aliens.  In that case we have illegal aliens responsible for about 3% of charges levied.  With a conviction rate of 27% this would indicate illegal aliens are responsible for 0.81% of alleged crime on Texas.  
     I realize it's a lot harder to be gripped by fear in light of this context.  I apologize to the current administration.
      

Please, deny me, tell me no

     June 3, 2018, Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon, a duly elected representative of the citizens of the State of Oregon, was denied entry to a detention center holding children separated from their parents at the border for allegedly making illegal entry into the U.S.
     June 21, 2018, Melania Trump makes an unannounced visit to a HHS grantee facility that houses children who have allegedly made illegal entry into the U.S. both with and without a family unit.  She spent about 75 minutes at the facility.  She was allowed entry and was able to observe and interact with the children while touring the facility.
     Now, I'm glad someone was able to make some type of inspection of such a facility.  However, I do wonder why an elected official who holds a national office as a Senator of Oregon can be denied entry and an immigrant who holds influence solely due to marital status is welcomed and allowed entry.
     HHS is part of the Executive branch of the U.S. government.  Sen. Merkley is a member of the Legislative branch.  Is this just one more effort to empower the office of the Chief Executive at the expense of the Legislature?  Is the process of checks and balances no longer to an be active part of governance in the United States?

Lock and Load, the black helicopters are coming.

Who knew how great a difference 3 years could make? 

In 2015 at a rally in Anderson, South Carolina, then candidate Trump made the following statement.  “You know, the president is thinking about signing an executive order where he wants to take your guns away. You hear this one? This is the new. Not gonna happen. That won’t happen. But that’s a tough one, I think that’s a tough one for him to do when you actually have the Second Amendment”.  Candidate Trump was speaking about President Obama. 

In 2018 President Trump said, “I like taking the guns early like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida … to go to court would have taken a long time,”.   Take the guns first, go through due process second.”  He shared this at a meeting with legislators about school safety and gun violence.

3 years ago, Trump was making an implication to spread fear and anxiety among gun owners and supporters of the 2nd amendment.  He was speaking about comments that President Obama had made concerning any type of gun control, following other mass shootings.


Here is what 44 said.  “Our levels of gun violence are off the charts. There’s no advanced, developed country on earth that would put up with this. Now we have a different tradition. We have a Second Amendment. We have historically respected gun rights. I respect gun rights. But the idea that, for example, we couldn’t even get a background check bill in, to make sure that if you’re going to buy a weapon you have to actually go through a fairly rigorous process so that we know who you are, so that you can’t just walk up to a store and buy a semi-automatic weapon. It makes no sense.”  Obama also said, “Well, in fact, typically right after Newtown happened, for example, gun sales shot up. And ammunition shot up. And each time that these events occur, ironically, gun manufacturers make out like bandits, partly because of this fear that’s churned up that the federal government and the black helicopters are all coming to get your guns. And part of my argument is that it is important for folks to understand how hunting and sportsmanship around firearms is really important to a lot of people. And it’s part of how they grew up. Part of the bonding they had with their dad. It evokes all kinds of memories and traditions. And I think you have to be respectful of that.


The question is just, is there a way of accommodating that legitimate set of traditions with some common sense stuff that prevents a 21-year-old who is angry about something or confused about something, or is racist or is deranged, from going into a gun store and suddenly is packing, and can do enormous harm. And that is not something that we have ever fully come to terms with. Unfortunately, the grip of the NRA on Congress is extremely strong. I don’t foresee any legislative action being taken in this Congress. And I don’t foresee any real action being taken until the American public feels a sufficient sense of urgency and they say to themselves, “This is not normal. This is something that we can change, and we’re going to change it.” And if you don’t have that kind of public and voter pressure, then it’s not going to change from the inside.”


I am willing to take each of these men at their words as they speak for themselves.  Obama says we need to exercise some common-sense restraint and that change must come from public pressure on Congress.  He also thinks more stringent background checks would be a good start.  His attempt to implement such checks failed in a Congress which, like now, is subject to the extremely strong grip of the NRA.  President Trump, on the other hand, just says straight up, “Take the guns first, go through due process second.” 


I own guns and associate with people who own guns and people who abhor gun ownership.  I think my gun owner friends who share their view that their guns have been subject to immediate confiscation for decades and they are waiting for the black helicopters to show up is ridiculous.  Neither do I adhere to the view that all weapons are evil and should be destroyed. 


Obama never asked us to surrender our weapons nor threatened to confiscate them.  Trump has personally advocated just such a program of confiscation. 

Do you think the U.S. is a nation of law or tyranny?  Is it acceptable for the President of the United States to effectively deny his oath of office? 


Whaduyathink?

Arm 'em up!!

The following is from Donald J Trump’s twitter account.  You may have heard of him.  He is currently the President of the United States.  Read the tweet and then let me run some thoughts by you.

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump

Follow Follow @realDonaldTrump

More

Armed Educators (and trusted people who work within a school) love our students and will protect them. Very smart people. Must be firearms adept & have annual training. Should get yearly bonus. Shootings will not happen again - a big & very inexpensive deterrent. Up to States.

10:54 AM - 24 Feb 2018

Ok, the first sentence is not something over which I will quibble.  I assume unarmed educators and trusted people within a school also love and protect out children.  They have done so in each instance of a mass school shooting.

This firearm adept thing is a horse of a different color.  To be adept is to be skilled/proficient.  Unless you go to the range regularly you will not be adept with regards to use of a firearm.  Marksmanship is a frangible skill.  It requires regular dedicated practice.  You may know how to clean, point, and fire a weapon.  That does not make you adept.  I am not even going to address the skills required to manage a live fire zone which includes innocent unarmed bystanders.

These armed educators and trusted people who work within a school must have annual training.  If annual training is all you are providing to people wielding weapons in schools, you are guaranteeing failure.  There will be physical security issues with regards to weapons.  There will be accidental discharges.  There will be improper unauthorized use of force.

According to POTUS’ tweet “Shootings will not happen again-…”.  I will type this very slowly, so you can understand.  As long as weapons are available with virtually no oversight with regard to their acquisition the shootings will continue.  The difference is the teacher will be the first person shot if an active shooter has reason to believe they are armed. 

According to 45 the arming of educators and trusted people who work within a school will be “a big & very inexpensive deterrent.”.  No doubt it will be big.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics there are approximately 2.4 million primary and secondary teacher positions in the U.S.  For the purposes of this demonstration I will not count the “trusted people who work within a school”.  So, we start with 2.4 million teachers.  Let’s eliminate 1/2 of them as either unqualified and/or unwilling to bear arms.  That leaves us with 1.2 million who need to be equipped and trained.  A decent 9mm magazine fed semiautomatic pistol can run you anywhere from $250-$400.  So, let us say the average cost is $325.  This equates to $390,000,000 to provide a pistol to each teacher to be armed.  Of course, a pistol without ammunition is a rock/stick.  I will assume 208 rounds annually to maintain proficiency and tactical readiness.  This leads to a cost of about $80 per teacher to be armed, so there’s about $96,000,000.  If there is only 1 training session per armed teacher annually and each teacher can train without an instructor, the most conservative estimate I can possibly suggest is $15/teacher for $36,000,000.  The cost of equipping the teachers to be armed with a pistol was estimated at $390,000,000.  Assuming every teacher can maintain their weapon in a serviceable fashion forever and retiring teachers supply new teachers with their weapons then this is a 1-time cost.  Ammunition and training are annual costs estimated at $132,000,000.  The first year would run about $510,000,000, about ½ billion.  For whom is this inexpensive, especially considering the recent tax cut contributing to a decrease in revenue and increase in borrowing and deficit spending?

However, to be honest, Trump does say this would be borne by the States, so there should be no federal economic affect.  I do wonder if the feds will offer some type of liability insurance for states or school districts at a low cost or if that will need to be purchased on the open market.

Whaduyathink?

Due Process

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump

More

Peoples lives are being shattered and destroyed by a mere allegation. Some are true and some are false. Some are old and some are new. There is no recovery for someone falsely accused - life and career are gone. Is there no such thing any longer as Due Process?

Ok, let's take a look at this.  The first sentence is no doubt a fact.  People's lives are shattered and destroyed every day by allegations.  I would expect Donald J Trump to be well aware of this.  He has engaged in this type of behavior for years.  In just the last couple of years he has made unfounded allegations against many people and organizations because they did not support him personally. 

Continuing, "Some are true and some are false".  I understand he is limited by the number of characters Twitter allows, but once an allegation is shown to be true, it is no longer an allegation, it is a fact.  Police reports, photographs, and witness testimony put the lie to denials of no wrong doing.  This chronic denial of an actual truth actually has a name.  It is called Anosognosia.  It is not simply denial of a problem, but the genuine inability to recognize that the problem exists. It is a common consequence of brain injuries, and occurs to varying degrees in such disorders such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and Alzheimer's disease.

Potus then states with regard to the allegations to which he is referring, "Some are old and some are new.   There is no recovery for someone falsely accused - life and career are gone. "  If you are poor and weak this is generally true.  If you are rich and have access and influence it is not so much the case.  This is particularly true in the case/s/ of people with a connection to Potus.  See Joe Arpaio and his pardon for an example.  Furthermore, does a wrong or act of injustice cease to be so merely due to the passage of time?

 Is there no such thing any longer as Due Process?  With regard to this statement one must actually know what due process is and when and where it applies.  Due process is fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement.  The people who have resigned or been fired in the Trump administration based on claims of domestic abuse have not been denied due process.  They have either resigned because they wish to avoid the application of due process which would also apply to their accusers or been subject to termination policies which do not rise to the demands of a judicial process. 

Whaduyathink?

So Full of S..t

     According to our President, Mexico is the most dangerous country in the world.  This is not my opinion. 

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump

"We need the Wall for the safety and security of our country. We need the Wall to help stop the massive inflow of drugs from Mexico, now rated the number one most dangerous country in the world. If there is no Wall, there is no Deal!"

I was stunned to read this today. How could I have missed this change of status? I was considering getting some dental work done in Mexico, since I can't afford to have it done in the U.S. This is terrible, what am I going to do? Where can I go, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria? Surely there is something I can do.

Wait, there is something. Pause, B R E A T H E. Could I be misunderstanding anything in his missive regarding the danger of a trek to Mexico? Ok, first things first, trust but verify. My buddy Google is always willing to share her knowledge. It seemed that "most dangerous countries in the world" would be a reasonable search. I didn't find anything addressing the threats of which I must apparently be aware in the The World Factbook, a publication of the CIA. Let us peruse some non-government sources. Oh, The Global Peace Index would probably have some information I could use. Let's see, Syria, Afghanistan, South Sudan...wait, where's Mexico? Hmmm, there it is, number 25. Maybe this list is not current. I'll try another. Maybe Travel and Leisure, they're very consumer oriented. Ok, here we go, Pakistan, Sudan, Georgia, the list is only 15 countries long. Mexico failed to make the cut. Not a problem, let's see, ahh, Atlas and Boots, what do they have? Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, South Sudan, Yemen, damnit, oh, there it is, Mexico #22.

Let me reconsider my data sources. If I were the President of the United States would I have to resort to a Google search. No, I'd definitely use a .gov. I've already checked with the CIA so on to the State Department. The travel advisories would probably be a good place to start. In case you are not familiar with the new travel advisory rating system, here's an outline. The current system was activated January 10, 2018. The system rates advisories on a scale from 1-4, with 1 being Exercise Normal Precautions: This is the lowest advisory level for safety and security risk. There is some risk in any international travel.  Conditions in other countries may differ from those in the United States and may change at any time.   4 is Do Not Travel: This is the highest advisory level due to greater likelihood of life-threatening risks. During an emergency, the U.S. government may have very limited ability to provide assistance.  The Department of State advises that U.S. citizens not travel to the country or leave as soon as it is safe to do so.  The Department of State provides additional advice for travelers in these areas in the Travel Advisory. Conditions in any country may change at any time.

     Now we're getting somewhere.  Obviously, Mexico, the most dangerous country in the world, would be a 4.  Ah, not so fast young grasshoppa.  According to travel.state.gov Mexico is a 2.  A level 2 advisory is Exercise Increased Caution: Be aware of heightened risks to safety and security. The Department of State provides additional advice for travelers in these areas in the Travel Advisory.  Conditions in any country may change at any time. 

     How can this be?  State must not rate anyone a 3 or 4.  We'll take a look anyway, just for grins.  Ok, level 4, Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Yemen, hmm, this looks familiar.  There are 11 countries currently subject to a level 4 travel advisory and Mexico is not one of them.  There are 19 level 3 travel advisories and Mexico is not one of those either.  A level 3 advisory is Reconsider Travel: Avoid travel due to serious risks to safety and security. The Department of State provides additional advice for travelers in these areas in the Travel Advisory.  Conditions in any country may change at any time.   Apparently, the U.S. State Department does not feel you should even reconsider your travel to the most dangerous country in the world.  

     Let us review.  There is no reputable list which shows Mexico as the most dangerous country in the world.  Mexico is not even in the top 10.  What these list do share is Afghanistan, South Sudan and Yemen, etc., as among the most dangerous countries in the world.

     Government sources do not declare Mexico to be among the most dangerous countries in the world.  

     I'm kinda feeling I can still go to Mexico.  That's a relief.

Whaduyathink?