Episode 66: Debt Consolidation: Send one paycheck to all your creditors
To qualify for debt consolidation, borrowers must be behind or late in making their different monthly payments to their creditors. Click the link to learn how to get back on track while lowering interest rates and increasing credit score.
To qualify for debt consolidation, borrowers must be behind or late in making their different monthly payments to their creditors. Click the link to learn how to get back on track while lowering interest rates and increasing credit score.
Borrowers can merge all their debts, take out one loan, and pay all their creditors with one single check every month until they pay off all their debts. In this series, I talk about debt consolidation as a management tool helping borrowers pay off their debts faster in low fixed amounts and with low interest rates. Moreover, I discuss how borrowers who are behind in their payments can get back on track while lowering their interest rates and increasing their credit score.
The sad thing about bills is that they are due on different days of the month, are paid in different amounts, at different interest rates, and are spread across different terms.
Borrowers have three main options for debt consolidation. The first option is to take out a personal loan to pay off multiple debts. I suggest this option for credit cards and car loans because personal loans generally have lower interest rates than unsecured debts.
The second option is to transfer high-interest balances to a credit card with a lower rate. The way it works is to take funds they have on the credit cards with the highest interest rates and transfer them onto the one with the lowest interest rate. This option is more suitable for borrowers with good credit scores because they may qualify for a low-interest credit card. The third option suits homeowners with houses worth more than they owe. For example, they owe $100K on their house, which is worth $150K; therefore, the home equity is $50K. The borrower can borrow the $50K against the house to pay off their debts. However, they must repay their loans against their own house. This option is called consolidation through a home equity loan or line of credit.
Borrowers can complete either option through a debt relief or debt consolidation agency. They must meet certain fees and specific criteria before being approved for debt consolidation, one of which is late in their bills, causing them to default. Debt consolidation does not reduce or eliminate the debt, but the borrowers will obtain personal loans with low interest rates that they will use to pay off their debts with high interest rates.
Borrowers seeking to decrease or eliminate their debt would join a debt relief program or file for bankruptcy. Debt relief involves working with experienced negotiators who contact creditors to settle a debt for less than what is owed. Debt relief is also referred to as debt negotiation”, “debt settlement”, “debt resolution”, or “credit card modification.
Debt consolidation is a debt management tool helping borrowers to reduce interest rates and keep track of their payments while plausibly improving their credit scores and eliminating the pressure of multiple lenders. There are some debts that borrowers cannot consolidate. For example, borrowers cannot take a personal loan to pay off combined utility, rental, or mortgage bills.
In summary, debt consolidation combines multiple debts into one loan with a lower interest rate or more favorable repayment terms. It is an excellent solution for individuals struggling to meet their financial obligations as it helps them manage their debts more efficiently and reduce their financial stress. Borrowers can consolidate their debts by taking out a personal loan, transferring high-interest balances to a credit card with a lower rate, or using a home equity loan or a line of credit.
Bobb Rousseau, PhD
Borrowers can merge all their debts, take out one loan, and pay all their creditors with one single check every month until they pay off all their debts. In this series, I talk about debt consolidation as a management tool helping borrowers pay off their debts faster in low fixed amounts and with low interest rates. Moreover, I discuss how borrowers who are behind in their payments can get back on track while lowering their interest rates and increasing their credit score.
The sad thing about bills is that they are due on different days of the month, are paid in different amounts, at different interest rates, and are spread across different terms.
Borrowers have three main options for debt consolidation. The first option is to take out a personal loan to pay off multiple debts. I suggest this option for credit cards and car loans because personal loans generally have lower interest rates than unsecured debts.
The second option is to transfer high-interest balances to a credit card with a lower rate. The way it works is to take funds they have on the credit cards with the highest interest rates and transfer them onto the one with the lowest interest rate. This option is more suitable for borrowers with good credit scores because they may qualify for a low-interest credit card. The third option suits homeowners with houses worth more than they owe. For example, they owe $100K on their house, which is worth $150K; therefore, the home equity is $50K. The borrower can borrow the $50K against the house to pay off their debts. However, they must repay their loans against their own house. This option is called consolidation through a home equity loan or line of credit.
Borrowers can complete either option through a debt relief or debt consolidation agency. They must meet certain fees and specific criteria before being approved for debt consolidation, one of which is late in their bills, causing them to default. Debt consolidation does not reduce or eliminate the debt, but the borrowers will obtain personal loans with low interest rates that they will use to pay off their debts with high interest rates.
Borrowers seeking to decrease or eliminate their debt would join a debt relief program or file for bankruptcy. Debt relief involves working with experienced negotiators who contact creditors to settle a debt for less than what is owed. Debt relief is also referred to as debt negotiation”, “debt settlement”, “debt resolution”, or “credit card modification.
Debt consolidation is a debt management tool helping borrowers to reduce interest rates and keep track of their payments while plausibly improving their credit scores and eliminating the pressure of multiple lenders. There are some debts that borrowers cannot consolidate. For example, borrowers cannot take a personal loan to pay off combined utility, rental, or mortgage bills.
In summary, debt consolidation combines multiple debts into one loan with a lower interest rate or more favorable repayment terms. It is an excellent solution for individuals struggling to meet their financial obligations as it helps them manage their debts more efficiently and reduce their financial stress. Borrowers can consolidate their debts by taking out a personal loan, transferring high-interest balances to a credit card with a lower rate, or using a home equity loan or a line of credit.
Bobb Rousseau, PhD
Episode 64: Bankruptcy: Be debt-free in nine months
The most popular types of bankruptcies are Chapter 7 and Chapter 13. Chapter 7 compels qualified individuals to sell their assets to pay off their creditors, whereas Chapter 13 compels qualified individuals to reorganize their debts to pay their creditors in fixed monthly installments.
When certain individuals are unable to pay their debts, they tend not to pay them, which impacts their credit score. When debts surpass incomes, Individuals can legally have their debts reduced and ultimately, eliminated.
This series discusses bankruptcy. Most importantly, it explains the two main types of bankruptcies and how both of them can help individuals regain financial freedom. Without further ado, let’s dive right into it.
The thought that people file for bankruptcy because they have bad credit or because they do not have fiscal discipline is false. The other falsehood is that people who file for bankruptcy cannot apply for new credits and lose their assets. The main reason people file for bankruptcy is to eliminate their debts.
Bankruptcy is a way to either erase your debts or make a plan for you to pay them back. Bankruptcy erase some debts not all especially child support, alimony, student loans, to name just a few. However, it does erase unsecured debts such as personal belongings, credit cards, inexpensive cars, payday loans, mortgages, tax debts, and certain types of student loans. The government may guarantee student loans for individuals who have remained unemployed for over seven years after they have been out of school.
The most popular types of bankruptcies are Chapter 7 and Chapter 13. Chapter 7 compels qualified individuals to sell their assets to pay off their creditors, whereas Chapter 13 compels qualified individuals to reorganize their debts to pay their creditors in fixed monthly installments.
The goal of Chapter 7 is for qualified individuals to become debt-free in less than nine months while that of Chapter 13 is for qualified individuals to become debt-free between three to five years. Therefore, In layman’s terms, Chapter 7 is asset liquidation bankruptcy while Chapter 13 is a repayment plan bankruptcy, and neither one of them relieves individuals from their financial responsibility toward their creditors.
Bankruptcy cases stay on individuals’ credit reports for up to seven years. Even so, within these seven years, individuals can still apply and qualify for secured and unsecured loans.
I advise anyone contemplating the bankruptcy route to conduct ample research before filing. There are alternate methods to pay off debts without losing assets. Filing a consumer proposal may prevent individuals from selling their assets. A consumer proposal is a deal allowing qualified individuals to make reasonable monthly payments to their creditors until the debt is paid off.
In summary, bankruptcy is a legal process that allows people to have some of their debts erased or individuals to be debt free and, depending on the type of bankruptcy, keep their assets. People with good credit can still file for bankruptcy and preserve their assets. Chapter 7, which involves selling assets to pay off the debt in as little as nine months and Chapter 13, which involves reorganizing the debts and paying them off over 3-5 years are the main types of bankruptcies.
This series discusses bankruptcy. Most importantly, it explains the two main types of bankruptcies and how both of them can help individuals regain financial freedom. Without further ado, let’s dive right into it.
The thought that people file for bankruptcy because they have bad credit or because they do not have fiscal discipline is false. The other falsehood is that people who file for bankruptcy cannot apply for new credits and lose their assets. The main reason people file for bankruptcy is to eliminate their debts.
Bankruptcy is a way to either erase your debts or make a plan for you to pay them back. Bankruptcy erase some debts not all especially child support, alimony, student loans, to name just a few. However, it does erase unsecured debts such as personal belongings, credit cards, inexpensive cars, payday loans, mortgages, tax debts, and certain types of student loans. The government may guarantee student loans for individuals who have remained unemployed for over seven years after they have been out of school.
The most popular types of bankruptcies are Chapter 7 and Chapter 13. Chapter 7 compels qualified individuals to sell their assets to pay off their creditors, whereas Chapter 13 compels qualified individuals to reorganize their debts to pay their creditors in fixed monthly installments.
The goal of Chapter 7 is for qualified individuals to become debt-free in less than nine months while that of Chapter 13 is for qualified individuals to become debt-free between three to five years. Therefore, In layman’s terms, Chapter 7 is asset liquidation bankruptcy while Chapter 13 is a repayment plan bankruptcy, and neither one of them relieves individuals from their financial responsibility toward their creditors.
Bankruptcy cases stay on individuals’ credit reports for up to seven years. Even so, within these seven years, individuals can still apply and qualify for secured and unsecured loans.
I advise anyone contemplating the bankruptcy route to conduct ample research before filing. There are alternate methods to pay off debts without losing assets. Filing a consumer proposal may prevent individuals from selling their assets. A consumer proposal is a deal allowing qualified individuals to make reasonable monthly payments to their creditors until the debt is paid off.
In summary, bankruptcy is a legal process that allows people to have some of their debts erased or individuals to be debt free and, depending on the type of bankruptcy, keep their assets. People with good credit can still file for bankruptcy and preserve their assets. Chapter 7, which involves selling assets to pay off the debt in as little as nine months and Chapter 13, which involves reorganizing the debts and paying them off over 3-5 years are the main types of bankruptcies.
Episode 63: How abortion regulations drive women to become drive-by criminals
When my daughters get pregnant, I want them to have the freedom to decide but not be forced into making a choice on whether to abort or not. I will not want them to shuffle through multiple regulations to find out whether they will be criminals in this state but not criminals in that state.
In this series, I am not saying that women who have abortions are criminals. I rather discuss abortion policies and I am saying that, allowing abortion in certain circumstances and certain states, forces women to commit murder there instead of here. No offense intended. I use the word “murder” to convey my message more efficiently. It makes no sense that some states allow abortion while others do not. However, in those states that forbid it, a woman whose life is in danger, who was raped, or who was the victim of incest is allowed to abort. Thus, even when the pregnant woman is sick or a victim, lawmakers get to make her decision for her.
When something is made illegal, it is made criminal. A woman in whose state abortion is illegal can simply travel to another state to have one if such a state allows it. Practically abortion regulations are telling a woman, “You cannot kill here, but you can kill over there.” A woman must not be allowed nor must she be forbidden to have an abortion; she must want to have it or not have it whether she was raped, or whether her life and that of her fetus are in danger. Lawmakers are too much involved in a woman’s life. America is becoming so polarized that politicians take free will from a woman’s decision.
One side wants to allow abortion while the other wants to forbid it, and out of all those politics, the woman is being treated as a dumb child incapable of fending for herself. Having an abortion should not be a secret, let alone an act of shame and fear of being persecuted, cast out, chastised. Did you hear about that man in Texas who sued three women for helping his wife get an abortion? Abortion must not be about pro-choice or pro-life but about freedom to decide. It must be neither legal nor must it be illegal; it must simply be the woman’s decision to have one. Abortion regulations are unjust and unfair, not because they are arguably illegal but because they want a woman’s life to be in danger, or want the woman to be a victim for politicians to make her decision for her.
When my daughters get pregnant, I want them to have the freedom to decide but not be forced into making a choice on whether to abort or not. I will not want them to shuffle through multiple regulations to find out whether they will be criminals in this state but not criminals in that state.
When something is made illegal, it is made criminal. A woman in whose state abortion is illegal can simply travel to another state to have one if such a state allows it. Practically abortion regulations are telling a woman, “You cannot kill here, but you can kill over there.” A woman must not be allowed nor must she be forbidden to have an abortion; she must want to have it or not have it whether she was raped, or whether her life and that of her fetus are in danger. Lawmakers are too much involved in a woman’s life. America is becoming so polarized that politicians take free will from a woman’s decision.
One side wants to allow abortion while the other wants to forbid it, and out of all those politics, the woman is being treated as a dumb child incapable of fending for herself. Having an abortion should not be a secret, let alone an act of shame and fear of being persecuted, cast out, chastised. Did you hear about that man in Texas who sued three women for helping his wife get an abortion? Abortion must not be about pro-choice or pro-life but about freedom to decide. It must be neither legal nor must it be illegal; it must simply be the woman’s decision to have one. Abortion regulations are unjust and unfair, not because they are arguably illegal but because they want a woman’s life to be in danger, or want the woman to be a victim for politicians to make her decision for her.
When my daughters get pregnant, I want them to have the freedom to decide but not be forced into making a choice on whether to abort or not. I will not want them to shuffle through multiple regulations to find out whether they will be criminals in this state but not criminals in that state.
Episode 62: Les héros qui m’ont grandit
Laissez-moi vous dire comment mon éducation a été beaucoup plus significative que celle que vous recevez aujourd’hui. Écoutez cet article en audio sur Podcast Azazel en suivant ce lien.
Dans cette série, j’ai parlé d’une époque que si vous aviez moins de 30 ans, vous ne connaissiez pas. Vous êtes sur Azazel Podcast et je suis votre podcaster Dr. Bobb Rousseau. Sans plus tarder, laissez-moi vous dire comment mon éducation a été beaucoup plus significative que celle que vous recevez aujourd’hui.
Les personnes qui ont influencé ma vie pour faire de moi l’excellent élément de la société que je suis aujourd’hui n’avaient aucune plate-forme pour partager leurs opinions ; ils n’avaient que leurs modes de vie, leurs comportements et beaucoup d’autorité pour m’éduquer et m’orienter dans la bonne direction.
Lorsque j’avais le même âge que vous en avez à ce moment, ma communauté m’a grandi. Je me souviens quand mes mentors étaient de vraies personnes qui vivaient tout près de moi. Je me souviens quand mes modèles étaient n’importe qui, qui étaient plus âgés que moi. En grandissant, mes parents ne m’avaient pas dit comment me comporter, comment traiter les autres et qui devenir ; je savais qui je voulais être dès le départ. Plus important encore, je respectais les règles et les valeurs non écrites pour que je sois un citoyen positif capable de faire toujours ce qui était juste.
Je me souviens quand mes parents n’avaient pas peur de me laisser aller regarder la télévision chez le voisin. Ils n’avaient pas peur parce que ma communauté partageait les mêmes valeurs, et quel que soit le bien qu’ils souhaitaient pour leurs enfants ; ils voulaient ce même bien pour moi et aussi pour tous les autres enfants du quartier. Mes voisins étaient mes oncles, mes tantes, mes papis ou mes manmis. L’époque où une communauté de héros m’a élevé me manque grandement.
Quand mes amis et moi grandissions, nous n’avions pas à chercher nos modèles ailleurs ; ils étaient là à chaque coin de rue et nous n’avions d’autre choix que de réussir. Bien que nous n’étions pas autorisés à leur parler en raison de leur statut ou de leur rang dans la communauté, nous les voyons tous les jours et nous connaissions le respect qui accompagnait leur nom.
Quand nous nous comportions de manière inconvenante, la communauté nous punissait. Nos modèles nous ont permis de devenir des exemples pour nous-mêmes, notre communauté et les générations futures. Ils nous ont appris à être en charge de nos vies et à être responsables de nos actes.
De nos jours, nos héros sont ces gens que nous ne rencontrerons jamais en personne. Comment quelqu’un qui ne nous connaît pas puisse vouloir le bonheur de notre communauté? C’est, pour moi, inconcevable que nous décidons de mettre notre future dans la balance de quelqu’un que nous ne connaissons qu’à travers des vidéos et des tweets dépourvus de moralité et de bon sens. Nous ne connaissons ni leur passé ni leur famille. Ils apparaissent sur nos écrans plus rapidement que les pissenlits ne poussent dans les forêts.
Contrairement à nos anciens héros qui nous donnaient le bon exemple, ces nouveaux héros nous donnent des attentes et des idéaux irréalistes, ils favorisent des comportements équivoques et ils réduisent nos interactions sociales. Dans un monde où tout le monde recherche une gratification instantanée, nous nous concentrons davantage sur ce que nous portons ou les endroits où nous étions que sur ce qui est important.
Les héros avec lesquels ma génération a grandi sont toujours là pour montrer le positivisme, sauf qu’ils sont maintenant éclipsés par des héros qui n’ont pas pu regarder les bonnes personnes faire le bien dans leur communauté. Les héros avec lesquels ma génération a grandi sont maintenant remplacés par des héros qui deviennent des héros pour promouvoir l’indignation sélective, et non pour faire un impact positif sur nos vies et les comportements.
Certes, divers bons héros nous parlent sur notre écran, mais nous les négligeons car ils ne sont pas polarisés. Nous les avons remplacés par de nouveaux héros qui rendent la parentalité plus difficile et parfois inexistante.
En résumé, ma conversation reflète comment, en grandissant, j’étais entouré de héros communautaires qui m’ont fourni de bons exemples et m’ont enseigné les valeurs et le respect. Cela m’a permis de devenir un meilleur individu avec succès comme boussole. Cependant, mes héros ont disparu et remplacés par ceux qui créent des fractures sociales et promeuvent les comportements malsains.
C’est tout pour le moment mes amis. J’étais votre podcaster Dr. Bob Rousseau. Si cet article résonne avec vous, partagez-le avec votre réseau.
Les personnes qui ont influencé ma vie pour faire de moi l’excellent élément de la société que je suis aujourd’hui n’avaient aucune plate-forme pour partager leurs opinions ; ils n’avaient que leurs modes de vie, leurs comportements et beaucoup d’autorité pour m’éduquer et m’orienter dans la bonne direction.
Lorsque j’avais le même âge que vous en avez à ce moment, ma communauté m’a grandi. Je me souviens quand mes mentors étaient de vraies personnes qui vivaient tout près de moi. Je me souviens quand mes modèles étaient n’importe qui, qui étaient plus âgés que moi. En grandissant, mes parents ne m’avaient pas dit comment me comporter, comment traiter les autres et qui devenir ; je savais qui je voulais être dès le départ. Plus important encore, je respectais les règles et les valeurs non écrites pour que je sois un citoyen positif capable de faire toujours ce qui était juste.
Je me souviens quand mes parents n’avaient pas peur de me laisser aller regarder la télévision chez le voisin. Ils n’avaient pas peur parce que ma communauté partageait les mêmes valeurs, et quel que soit le bien qu’ils souhaitaient pour leurs enfants ; ils voulaient ce même bien pour moi et aussi pour tous les autres enfants du quartier. Mes voisins étaient mes oncles, mes tantes, mes papis ou mes manmis. L’époque où une communauté de héros m’a élevé me manque grandement.
Quand mes amis et moi grandissions, nous n’avions pas à chercher nos modèles ailleurs ; ils étaient là à chaque coin de rue et nous n’avions d’autre choix que de réussir. Bien que nous n’étions pas autorisés à leur parler en raison de leur statut ou de leur rang dans la communauté, nous les voyons tous les jours et nous connaissions le respect qui accompagnait leur nom.
Quand nous nous comportions de manière inconvenante, la communauté nous punissait. Nos modèles nous ont permis de devenir des exemples pour nous-mêmes, notre communauté et les générations futures. Ils nous ont appris à être en charge de nos vies et à être responsables de nos actes.
De nos jours, nos héros sont ces gens que nous ne rencontrerons jamais en personne. Comment quelqu’un qui ne nous connaît pas puisse vouloir le bonheur de notre communauté? C’est, pour moi, inconcevable que nous décidons de mettre notre future dans la balance de quelqu’un que nous ne connaissons qu’à travers des vidéos et des tweets dépourvus de moralité et de bon sens. Nous ne connaissons ni leur passé ni leur famille. Ils apparaissent sur nos écrans plus rapidement que les pissenlits ne poussent dans les forêts.
Contrairement à nos anciens héros qui nous donnaient le bon exemple, ces nouveaux héros nous donnent des attentes et des idéaux irréalistes, ils favorisent des comportements équivoques et ils réduisent nos interactions sociales. Dans un monde où tout le monde recherche une gratification instantanée, nous nous concentrons davantage sur ce que nous portons ou les endroits où nous étions que sur ce qui est important.
Les héros avec lesquels ma génération a grandi sont toujours là pour montrer le positivisme, sauf qu’ils sont maintenant éclipsés par des héros qui n’ont pas pu regarder les bonnes personnes faire le bien dans leur communauté. Les héros avec lesquels ma génération a grandi sont maintenant remplacés par des héros qui deviennent des héros pour promouvoir l’indignation sélective, et non pour faire un impact positif sur nos vies et les comportements.
Certes, divers bons héros nous parlent sur notre écran, mais nous les négligeons car ils ne sont pas polarisés. Nous les avons remplacés par de nouveaux héros qui rendent la parentalité plus difficile et parfois inexistante.
En résumé, ma conversation reflète comment, en grandissant, j’étais entouré de héros communautaires qui m’ont fourni de bons exemples et m’ont enseigné les valeurs et le respect. Cela m’a permis de devenir un meilleur individu avec succès comme boussole. Cependant, mes héros ont disparu et remplacés par ceux qui créent des fractures sociales et promeuvent les comportements malsains.
C’est tout pour le moment mes amis. J’étais votre podcaster Dr. Bob Rousseau. Si cet article résonne avec vous, partagez-le avec votre réseau.
Episode 61: Influencers we grew up with
The heroes my generation grew up with are still there showcasing positivism, except they are now overshadowed by heroes who did not get to watch good folks do right in the community. The heroes my generation grew up with are now booted off by heroes who become heroes to promote selective outrage, not to impact lives and behaviors positively.
In this series, I talked about an era that if you are under 30, you did not know. Without further ado, let me show you how my upbringing was much more meaningful than the ones we have today.
The people who influenced my life to make me the excellent element of society that I am today had no platform to share their opinion; they only had their lifestyles, their behaviors, and a whole lot of authority to school me and steer me into the right direction any way they chose. I am sorry I failed to pass the lessons I learned from my hometown heroes to the younger generations.
When we were at the same age you are right now, our communities, not strangers, raised us. I remember when our mentors were real people who lived next door. I remember when our models were anyone older than we were. As we were growing up, our parents did not tell us how to behave, treat others, and be; we knew who we wanted to become from the start. Most importantly, we respected the unsaid rules and the unwritten values to be pleasant and approachable; we were always trained to be what was right.
I remember when our parents were not scared to let us watch television at the neighbor’s house. They were not afraid because our community shared the same values, and whatever good they wanted for their children; they wanted that same good for all the other children in the community. Our neighbors were our uncles, our aunts, our papis and our mommies. I missed when the community, a community of heroes, raised us.
When my friends and I were growing up, we did not have to look elsewhere for our models; they were right there at every corner, and we had no choice but to succeed. Although we may not have been authorized to talk to them because of their social status or their ranking in the community, we saw them everyday and we knew the respect that came with their name. When we did not, or if we behaved unbecomingly, the community punished us. One of the good things our models did for us was they empowered us to become examples for our community and future generations. They taught us how to take control of our lives and be responsible for our actions.
Nowadays, our heroes are people we will never meet in person. We don’t know their past nor did we know their family. They pop up on our screen faster than dandelions grow in yards. Unlike our old heroes who led us by example, these new heroes provide us with unrealistic expectations and ideals, promote unhealthy behavior, and reduce social interactions. In a world where everyone is seeking instant gratification, we are becoming more focused on what we wear or places we have been than on what is important.
The heroes my generation grew up with are still there showcasing positivism, except they are now overshadowed by heroes who did not get to watch good folks do right in the community. The heroes my generation grew up with are now booted off by heroes who become heroes to promote selective outrage, not to impact lives and behaviors positively.
Granted, various good heroes talk to us on our screen, but we neglect them because they are not polarized, but they instead aim to unite the political and social divide.
In summary, my conversation reflects on how, when growing up, we were surrounded by hometown heroes who provided good examples and taught us values and respect. That enabled us to become better individuals and strive for success. However, these heroes have become extinct, and the visible ones tend to be focused on promoting unhealthy behavior and creating social divides. There are still some good role models out there, but they are overshadowed by those who promote selective outrage.
The people who influenced my life to make me the excellent element of society that I am today had no platform to share their opinion; they only had their lifestyles, their behaviors, and a whole lot of authority to school me and steer me into the right direction any way they chose. I am sorry I failed to pass the lessons I learned from my hometown heroes to the younger generations.
When we were at the same age you are right now, our communities, not strangers, raised us. I remember when our mentors were real people who lived next door. I remember when our models were anyone older than we were. As we were growing up, our parents did not tell us how to behave, treat others, and be; we knew who we wanted to become from the start. Most importantly, we respected the unsaid rules and the unwritten values to be pleasant and approachable; we were always trained to be what was right.
I remember when our parents were not scared to let us watch television at the neighbor’s house. They were not afraid because our community shared the same values, and whatever good they wanted for their children; they wanted that same good for all the other children in the community. Our neighbors were our uncles, our aunts, our papis and our mommies. I missed when the community, a community of heroes, raised us.
When my friends and I were growing up, we did not have to look elsewhere for our models; they were right there at every corner, and we had no choice but to succeed. Although we may not have been authorized to talk to them because of their social status or their ranking in the community, we saw them everyday and we knew the respect that came with their name. When we did not, or if we behaved unbecomingly, the community punished us. One of the good things our models did for us was they empowered us to become examples for our community and future generations. They taught us how to take control of our lives and be responsible for our actions.
Nowadays, our heroes are people we will never meet in person. We don’t know their past nor did we know their family. They pop up on our screen faster than dandelions grow in yards. Unlike our old heroes who led us by example, these new heroes provide us with unrealistic expectations and ideals, promote unhealthy behavior, and reduce social interactions. In a world where everyone is seeking instant gratification, we are becoming more focused on what we wear or places we have been than on what is important.
The heroes my generation grew up with are still there showcasing positivism, except they are now overshadowed by heroes who did not get to watch good folks do right in the community. The heroes my generation grew up with are now booted off by heroes who become heroes to promote selective outrage, not to impact lives and behaviors positively.
Granted, various good heroes talk to us on our screen, but we neglect them because they are not polarized, but they instead aim to unite the political and social divide.
In summary, my conversation reflects on how, when growing up, we were surrounded by hometown heroes who provided good examples and taught us values and respect. That enabled us to become better individuals and strive for success. However, these heroes have become extinct, and the visible ones tend to be focused on promoting unhealthy behavior and creating social divides. There are still some good role models out there, but they are overshadowed by those who promote selective outrage.
Episode 60: When we don’t put our money in banks, this happens…..
A bank is nothing but a retail store selling financial services to customers. Retail stores profit by selling goods, while banks profit by selling financial services to their clients. While a retail store needs goods to open its doors, a bank can launch its operations with zero cents in its books.
By the way, investors do not use their money to launch their businesses; they borrow money from the same bank that receives your direct deposit every two weeks.
This series discusses money and banks. Most importantly, it explains how banks make money and you, as a depositor, contribute to their wealth. The bottom line is that our deposits provide banks with the capital they need to make loans to few of us and big businesses. Don’t go anywhere; I will tell you all about it.
A bank is nothing but a retail store selling financial services to customers. Retail stores profit by selling goods, while banks profit by selling financial services to their clients. While a retail store needs goods to open its doors, a bank can launch its operations with zero cents in its books.
When you deposit your money in your bank, you lend your money to your bank with zero percent interest. Your bank loans your money to investors at high-interest rates. In return, your bank compensates you with a low-interest rate and keeps the rest for themselves. The difference between the meaningless interest they give you and the significant interest they keep is called the spread. Therefore, banks make money from the interest rate they pay for deposits and the interest rate they receive on the loans they issue to investors or borrowers.
Additionally, you make your bank rich when you purchase goods with your debit or credit card. When you swipe your card, your bank receives a percentage of your total purchase, called an interchange or swipe fee. As a depositor, let me clarify that you do not pay the interchange or the swipe fee; the merchant does. For example, when you purchase groceries at Walmart with your card, Walmart pays your bank a swipe fee that is usually 2.9% of the total purchase plus .30. At one time in our lives, we made our bank richer by paying overdraft, returned checks, or monthly account fees.
When we go to the bank to get a car loan, mortgage, or personal loan, we borrow our own money and the monies of our friends, our children, our neighbors, our coworkers. The bank will take small trunks from several customers’ deposits to put that money together to be able to make the loan. However, when investors get their loan, they borrow our money to buy goods and sell them back to us. Can I say that we buy our own shoes or our own rice with more of our own money twice?
In summary, banks make money in several ways, one of which is by charging interest for taking deposits from their customers and then lending that money to investors at higher interest rates. This is called the spread. Banks also make money from debit cards, overdrafts, and monthly account fees. When customers borrow money from the bank, it is their own, as the bank pools deposits from many customers to form the loan. By depositing money in the bank, customers provide their bank with the capital it needs to make loans and become wealthy.
This series discusses money and banks. Most importantly, it explains how banks make money and you, as a depositor, contribute to their wealth. The bottom line is that our deposits provide banks with the capital they need to make loans to few of us and big businesses. Don’t go anywhere; I will tell you all about it.
A bank is nothing but a retail store selling financial services to customers. Retail stores profit by selling goods, while banks profit by selling financial services to their clients. While a retail store needs goods to open its doors, a bank can launch its operations with zero cents in its books.
When you deposit your money in your bank, you lend your money to your bank with zero percent interest. Your bank loans your money to investors at high-interest rates. In return, your bank compensates you with a low-interest rate and keeps the rest for themselves. The difference between the meaningless interest they give you and the significant interest they keep is called the spread. Therefore, banks make money from the interest rate they pay for deposits and the interest rate they receive on the loans they issue to investors or borrowers.
Additionally, you make your bank rich when you purchase goods with your debit or credit card. When you swipe your card, your bank receives a percentage of your total purchase, called an interchange or swipe fee. As a depositor, let me clarify that you do not pay the interchange or the swipe fee; the merchant does. For example, when you purchase groceries at Walmart with your card, Walmart pays your bank a swipe fee that is usually 2.9% of the total purchase plus .30. At one time in our lives, we made our bank richer by paying overdraft, returned checks, or monthly account fees.
When we go to the bank to get a car loan, mortgage, or personal loan, we borrow our own money and the monies of our friends, our children, our neighbors, our coworkers. The bank will take small trunks from several customers’ deposits to put that money together to be able to make the loan. However, when investors get their loan, they borrow our money to buy goods and sell them back to us. Can I say that we buy our own shoes or our own rice with more of our own money twice?
In summary, banks make money in several ways, one of which is by charging interest for taking deposits from their customers and then lending that money to investors at higher interest rates. This is called the spread. Banks also make money from debit cards, overdrafts, and monthly account fees. When customers borrow money from the bank, it is their own, as the bank pools deposits from many customers to form the loan. By depositing money in the bank, customers provide their bank with the capital it needs to make loans and become wealthy.
Episode 59: Police Officer vs. Soldier
The police officer can retire at 60 years while the soldier can retire after 20 years of service, regardless of age.
This series discusses criminal justice and national defense. Most importantly, it establishes the differences between the military and the police forces. Without further ado, let’s dive right into it
Criminal justice dispenses justice to those who violate the laws. In contrast, national defense utilizes instruments of national powers to fight and win wars against foreign militaries. The instruments of national powers are DIME, which stands for Diplomacy, Informational, Military, and Economy.
In a much simpler term, criminal justice enforces the law to protect and serve the people, whereas national defense establishes strategies to protect the country against international threats. This means that the police are responsible for the safety of the people, whereas the military is responsible for national defense and homeland security.
Now, let’s talk about the few differences between a military person and a police officer.
A police officer is a law enforcement agent. Law enforcement agents also include sheriffs, deputies, criminal investigators, detectives, the FBI, the CIA and other government agencies. They investigate crimes, gather evidence, and take reports on illegal activities. A police officer ensures public safety and delivers justice to those who commit crimes.
A military person, on the other hand, is not a law enforcement agent. A military person is a soldier, a sailor, a marine, or an airman whose mission does not involve the arrest of criminals or investigating crimes. For the rest of the podcast, I will use soldier for military person. Unlike a police officer, a soldier does not bear arms, or you do not see a military person, whether on base or outside the base, with a weapon.
However, a soldier is assigned a weapon that he uses for range qualifications and battlefield deployments. After the ranges or upon redeployment, he returns his weapon to the arms room. He does not carry his weapon every day unless he is a military police officer who is a law enforcement officer working with the Central Intelligence Department (CID). CID is the equivalent of the FBI. The jurisdiction of a military police officer is within the military base he is assigned to. Thus, military police do not arrest civilians and, more so, other military personnel who may have committed a crime outside of the base. Only a military police has the authority to arrest another soldier. Unlike police officers who protect lives and property of everyone living in America by enforcing state and federal laws, military police protect peoples’ lives and property on Army installations by enforcing military laws and regulations.
A police officer can be off duty; a soldier is on duty 24 hours a day. A police officer is subject to civilian prosecution, meaning that the police officer who is accused of a crime is arrested by any other police officer, tried by the court and correction systems, and if found guilty, sent to a jail or prison However, a soldier who is accused of committing a crime is arrested by a military police officer, judged by a court martial and if found guilty, sent to military prison. Moreover, even if the soldier who committed or accused of committing the crime off base, he would not be tried by the civilian court system; rather, he will be transferred to his base to be processed by the CID, and ultimately, court martialed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
A police officer is a civilian working for the justice department, whereas a soldier is a federal employee under the Department of Defense. The commander in Chief for the military is the President of the United States, but the boss of a police officer is the chief of police of the department of assignment.
In a riot, police officers will intervene to protect, serve and maintain order. The military will not intervene unless the president activates them. Even then, it will be the military reserve and the National Guard of the state of the riots that will be activated by the secretary of the state or the governor. In an invasion of the country by a foreign force or when the United States invades or conducts operations in another country, the military will intervene to protect the homeland or defend and defeat the enemy.
Let me see if you understand what I just told you. Who has the authority to intervene in case of an active shooter in a building or a fight between two rival gangs? Good job; the police. Another question; who will the U.S. government send to kill or extract a corrupt leader of a foreign country? Great, you got it; it will be the military.
In summary, the main differences between a police officer and a soldier are the missions they serve and their conditions of employment. The police officer can retire at 60 years while the soldier can retire after 20 years of service, regardless of age. A police officer is a law enforcement agent responsible for delivering justice to those who have committed crimes, while a soldier protects the homeland against international threats. from foreign governments. Both are important in public safety and national defense.
Criminal justice dispenses justice to those who violate the laws. In contrast, national defense utilizes instruments of national powers to fight and win wars against foreign militaries. The instruments of national powers are DIME, which stands for Diplomacy, Informational, Military, and Economy.
In a much simpler term, criminal justice enforces the law to protect and serve the people, whereas national defense establishes strategies to protect the country against international threats. This means that the police are responsible for the safety of the people, whereas the military is responsible for national defense and homeland security.
Now, let’s talk about the few differences between a military person and a police officer.
A police officer is a law enforcement agent. Law enforcement agents also include sheriffs, deputies, criminal investigators, detectives, the FBI, the CIA and other government agencies. They investigate crimes, gather evidence, and take reports on illegal activities. A police officer ensures public safety and delivers justice to those who commit crimes.
A military person, on the other hand, is not a law enforcement agent. A military person is a soldier, a sailor, a marine, or an airman whose mission does not involve the arrest of criminals or investigating crimes. For the rest of the podcast, I will use soldier for military person. Unlike a police officer, a soldier does not bear arms, or you do not see a military person, whether on base or outside the base, with a weapon.
However, a soldier is assigned a weapon that he uses for range qualifications and battlefield deployments. After the ranges or upon redeployment, he returns his weapon to the arms room. He does not carry his weapon every day unless he is a military police officer who is a law enforcement officer working with the Central Intelligence Department (CID). CID is the equivalent of the FBI. The jurisdiction of a military police officer is within the military base he is assigned to. Thus, military police do not arrest civilians and, more so, other military personnel who may have committed a crime outside of the base. Only a military police has the authority to arrest another soldier. Unlike police officers who protect lives and property of everyone living in America by enforcing state and federal laws, military police protect peoples’ lives and property on Army installations by enforcing military laws and regulations.
A police officer can be off duty; a soldier is on duty 24 hours a day. A police officer is subject to civilian prosecution, meaning that the police officer who is accused of a crime is arrested by any other police officer, tried by the court and correction systems, and if found guilty, sent to a jail or prison However, a soldier who is accused of committing a crime is arrested by a military police officer, judged by a court martial and if found guilty, sent to military prison. Moreover, even if the soldier who committed or accused of committing the crime off base, he would not be tried by the civilian court system; rather, he will be transferred to his base to be processed by the CID, and ultimately, court martialed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
A police officer is a civilian working for the justice department, whereas a soldier is a federal employee under the Department of Defense. The commander in Chief for the military is the President of the United States, but the boss of a police officer is the chief of police of the department of assignment.
In a riot, police officers will intervene to protect, serve and maintain order. The military will not intervene unless the president activates them. Even then, it will be the military reserve and the National Guard of the state of the riots that will be activated by the secretary of the state or the governor. In an invasion of the country by a foreign force or when the United States invades or conducts operations in another country, the military will intervene to protect the homeland or defend and defeat the enemy.
Let me see if you understand what I just told you. Who has the authority to intervene in case of an active shooter in a building or a fight between two rival gangs? Good job; the police. Another question; who will the U.S. government send to kill or extract a corrupt leader of a foreign country? Great, you got it; it will be the military.
In summary, the main differences between a police officer and a soldier are the missions they serve and their conditions of employment. The police officer can retire at 60 years while the soldier can retire after 20 years of service, regardless of age. A police officer is a law enforcement agent responsible for delivering justice to those who have committed crimes, while a soldier protects the homeland against international threats. from foreign governments. Both are important in public safety and national defense.
Episode 58: Methods of becoming Judge in USA
Judges at the state and federal level are appointed or elected in different ways. At the federal level, judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, while at the state level, judges can be appointed by the governor or state legislature, selected through a merit-based system, or elected through partisan or nonpartisan elections.
Even after we commit a crime and although police officers arrest us and take us to prisons to wait for our trials, there is one instance that has the ultimate authority to listen to us to evaluate our MOs, alibis, and state of mind to decide whether we are guilty or innocent.
This series discussed the American judicial system. Most importantly, this conversation discussed the American judicial system, the role of a judge, different types of courts, and the different methods of becoming a Judge in the United States. Without further ado, let’s dive right into it.
First, let’s briefly talk about the roles of a judge so you know what to expect from them when that time comes.
The role of a judge varies depending on whether he is a state court or a federal court judge. A state court judge conducts fair trials, writes and passes judgements to decide if a person is guilty or innocent. On the other hand, a federal judge decides on issues affecting the lives of every American, including basic civil rights, religious freedoms, voting rights, affirmative action, and in some cases; life or death.
Now, let’s talk about the composition of the American judicial system, especially, the different types of courts at both the state and federal levels.
The American court system is composed of state and federal courts. State courts are made up of County and Circuit courts, District Courts of Appeals and State Supreme Courts. The federal court system consists of U.S. district courts, U.S. Court of Appeals, and a federal Supreme Court. Although federal courts are located in states, they only hear matters related to the federal government.
Ok, now, how does someone get to become a judge to conduct fair trials, write and pass judgements to decide if a person is guilty or innocent?
The methods of becoming a judge in the United States are by election, appointment, and retention. At the state level, judges are either elected by the people or appointed by the governor or the state legislature. At the federal level, especially at the Supreme Court, judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate.
Judges are appointed by state governors and confirmed by the state legislature or the governor’s council. This is the Gubernatorial appointment method. They are elected by state legislatures with no input from either the governor or the electorate. This is called Legislative election and a handful of states apply this method.
There is a third method called the Merit Selection. In this method, state legislatures or legislative committees convene boards to examine and select judges based on their past performance. Some states hold “retention elections” to determine if a judge should continue to serve.
The other two methods are partisan and nonpartisan elections. In the partisan elections, the people or state residents vote for their judges based on their political affiliation. In this instance, these judges represent their political party and will likely decide in ways to promote their political party agenda. In nonpartisan elections, potential judges put their names on the ballot, but do not list their political party.
In summary, Judges at the state and federal level are appointed or elected in different ways. At the federal level, judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, while at the state level, judges can be appointed by the governor or state legislature, selected through a merit-based system, or elected through partisan or nonpartisan elections. Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, while those appointed or elected to lower jurisdictions serve for 6 to 10 years. Moreover, individuals interested in becoming a judge must meet certain eligibility requirements, such as having a certain amount of experience in the legal field and passing a background check.
This series discussed the American judicial system. Most importantly, this conversation discussed the American judicial system, the role of a judge, different types of courts, and the different methods of becoming a Judge in the United States. Without further ado, let’s dive right into it.
First, let’s briefly talk about the roles of a judge so you know what to expect from them when that time comes.
The role of a judge varies depending on whether he is a state court or a federal court judge. A state court judge conducts fair trials, writes and passes judgements to decide if a person is guilty or innocent. On the other hand, a federal judge decides on issues affecting the lives of every American, including basic civil rights, religious freedoms, voting rights, affirmative action, and in some cases; life or death.
Now, let’s talk about the composition of the American judicial system, especially, the different types of courts at both the state and federal levels.
The American court system is composed of state and federal courts. State courts are made up of County and Circuit courts, District Courts of Appeals and State Supreme Courts. The federal court system consists of U.S. district courts, U.S. Court of Appeals, and a federal Supreme Court. Although federal courts are located in states, they only hear matters related to the federal government.
Ok, now, how does someone get to become a judge to conduct fair trials, write and pass judgements to decide if a person is guilty or innocent?
The methods of becoming a judge in the United States are by election, appointment, and retention. At the state level, judges are either elected by the people or appointed by the governor or the state legislature. At the federal level, especially at the Supreme Court, judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate.
Judges are appointed by state governors and confirmed by the state legislature or the governor’s council. This is the Gubernatorial appointment method. They are elected by state legislatures with no input from either the governor or the electorate. This is called Legislative election and a handful of states apply this method.
There is a third method called the Merit Selection. In this method, state legislatures or legislative committees convene boards to examine and select judges based on their past performance. Some states hold “retention elections” to determine if a judge should continue to serve.
The other two methods are partisan and nonpartisan elections. In the partisan elections, the people or state residents vote for their judges based on their political affiliation. In this instance, these judges represent their political party and will likely decide in ways to promote their political party agenda. In nonpartisan elections, potential judges put their names on the ballot, but do not list their political party.
In summary, Judges at the state and federal level are appointed or elected in different ways. At the federal level, judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, while at the state level, judges can be appointed by the governor or state legislature, selected through a merit-based system, or elected through partisan or nonpartisan elections. Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, while those appointed or elected to lower jurisdictions serve for 6 to 10 years. Moreover, individuals interested in becoming a judge must meet certain eligibility requirements, such as having a certain amount of experience in the legal field and passing a background check.
Episode 57: Différences entre Consulats et Ambassades
Lorsque vous êtes dans un pays étranger, selon la situation dans laquelle vous vous trouvez, l’ambassade ou le consulat de votre pays d’origine qui existe dans le pays où vous vous trouvez, peut vous aider à résoudre votre problème ou à vous faire sortir de ce pays étranger, si nécessaire.
Lorsque vous êtes dans un pays étranger, selon la situation dans laquelle vous vous trouvez, l’ambassade ou le consulat de votre pays d’origine qui existe dans le pays où vous vous trouvez, peut vous aider à résoudre votre problème ou à vous faire sortir de ce pays étranger, si nécessaire.
Cette série traite des différences entre un consulat et une ambassade. Plus important encore, elle explique les services qu’une ambassade peut fournir à ses citoyens par rapport à un consulat. Connaître la différence entre une ambassade et un consulat peut être inestimable lorsque vous voyagez à l’étranger. Sans plus tarder, commençons.
Lorsque vous êtes poursuivi par une foule de personnes en colère dans un pays étranger ; trouver l’ambassade ou le consulat de votre pays le plus proche dans ce pays étranger. Une fois que vous l’atteignez ou y êtes à l’intérieur, vous êtes dans votre pays d’origine. Si la foule tente de s’introduire de force pour vous attraper, elle viole le territoire de votre pays d’origine et les articles de la convention de Vienne sur les relations diplomatiques. De plus, lorsque vous êtes politiquement persécuté dans votre pays d’origine, si vous pouvez pénétrer l’enceinte d’une ambassade ou d’un consulat d’un pays étranger hébergé par votre pays d’origine, votre gouvernement ne peut plus vous toucher et vous pouvez demander l’asile politique pour cet pays étranger pendant que vous êtes dans cette ambassade.
Les ambassades et les consulats prouvent que deux pays entretiennent des relations diplomatiques ou reconnaissent la souveraineté de l’un l’autre. Les pays qui n’ont pas de relations diplomatiques entre eux n’hébergeront pas les ambassades et consulats des uns et des autres. Par exemple, si la Russie et les USA n’ont pas de relations diplomatiques, vous ne verrez pas d’ambassades ou de consulats américains en Russie et vice-versa. Une ambassade et ses consulats sont des territoires légaux d’un pays dans un pays étranger. Cela signifie que le pays d’accueil n’a pas de juridiction sur l’ambassade et les consulats d’un autre pays. Permettez-moi de le décomposer davantage pour vous; une ambassade américaine en Inde est le prolongement des États-Unis en Inde, et le gouvernement indien doit obtenir l’autorisation légale du gouvernement des États-Unis avant d’entrer dans les locaux de l’ambassade américaine en Inde. selon la Convention de Vienne sur les relations diplomatiques, une seule ambassade de votre pays dans un pays étranger. Cependant, vous pouvez trouver plusieurs consulats de votre pays d’origine dans un pays étranger.
Parlons maintenant des différences entre les consulats et les ambassades et de la manière dont ils aident leurs citoyens dans les pays étrangers. Supposons que vous ayez l’intention de vous rendre au Nigeria, vous devez vous renseigner si votre passeport vous permet d’y aller sans visa. Si non, vous devez localiser un consulat nigérian dans votre pays d’origine pour demander et obtenir un visa nigérian. De plus, supposons que vous perdiez votre passeport au Nigeria ou que vous y donniez naissance à un enfant, le consulat de votre pays d’origine peut vous aider à demander un passeport de remplacement ou un certificat de naissance pour votre enfant. Les pays n’ont pas leurs propres consulats sur leur territoire, ce qui signifie que les États-Unis, par exemple, n’ont pas de consulat américain aux États-Unis; idem pour Haïti, le Canada ou la République Dominicaine.
A l’inverse, les Haïtiens vivant aux États-Unis doivent se rendre dans un consulat haïtien aux États-Unis pour demander ou renouveler leur passeport. Pratiquement, un consulat d’un pays étranger n’assiste ses citoyens qui vivent dans ce pays d’accueil que si les citoyens du pays étranger n’ont pas besoin de visa pour se rendre dans ce pays en question. Par exemple, puisque les Américains n’ont pas besoin de visa pour rentrer en Haïti, les consulats haïtiens aux USA ne leur offrent aucun service consulaire. Cependant, le consulat américain en Haïti fournit des services consulaires aux Haïtiens et aux Américains.
Parlons maintenant des ambassades.
Une ambassade est un bureau diplomatique représentant un gouvernement étranger auprès du gouvernement du pays hôte. Elle renforce les relations internationales, résout les problèmes et maintient une communication solide entre pays. Les ambassades protègent les droits de leurs nations dans le pays d’accueil et promeuvent leurs politiques culturelles et étrangères. Par exemple, en cas de litige entre les pays liés au commerce, l’ambassade s’en occupe et négocie avec le pays d’accueil. À l’intérieur d’une ambassade, vous pouvez trouver un consulat. Dans ce cas, il y a un ambassadeur et un consul avec deux missions différentes dans le même bâtiment. Dans certains cas, un pays peut avoir une ambassade mais pas de consulat dans un pays hôte. Dans un tel cas, l’ambassade assume tous les services consulaires pertinents en plus de sa mission diplomatique assignée. Les pays n’ont pas leur propre ambassade sur leur territoire, ce qui signifie qu’Haïti, par exemple, n’a pas d’ambassade d’Haïti en Haïti.
Étant donné que les ambassades sont des missions diplomatiques d’un pays dans d’autres pays étrangers, tous les ambassadeurs sont des diplomates. Cependant, tous les diplomates ne sont pas des ambassadeurs, car un diplomate est une personne dont le gouvernement accrédite la conduite de la diplomatie dans un autre État souverain.
En résumé, lorsque vous voyagez dans un pays étranger, il est important de comprendre les rôles d’une ambassade et d’un consulat. Une ambassade est la principale représentation diplomatique d’un pays étranger et elle fournit des services de soutien politique ou économique à ses citoyens. En revanche, un consulat est un poste diplomatique plus petit qui fournit des services de visa et de passeport et d’autres services juridiques liés au pays d’origine. En cas d’urgence, l’ambassade ou le consulat peut offrir refuge et protéger ses citoyens dans un pays étranger, car ils sont considérés comme faisant partie du territoire du pays d’origine et sont protégés par la Convention de Vienne.
Cette série traite des différences entre un consulat et une ambassade. Plus important encore, elle explique les services qu’une ambassade peut fournir à ses citoyens par rapport à un consulat. Connaître la différence entre une ambassade et un consulat peut être inestimable lorsque vous voyagez à l’étranger. Sans plus tarder, commençons.
Lorsque vous êtes poursuivi par une foule de personnes en colère dans un pays étranger ; trouver l’ambassade ou le consulat de votre pays le plus proche dans ce pays étranger. Une fois que vous l’atteignez ou y êtes à l’intérieur, vous êtes dans votre pays d’origine. Si la foule tente de s’introduire de force pour vous attraper, elle viole le territoire de votre pays d’origine et les articles de la convention de Vienne sur les relations diplomatiques. De plus, lorsque vous êtes politiquement persécuté dans votre pays d’origine, si vous pouvez pénétrer l’enceinte d’une ambassade ou d’un consulat d’un pays étranger hébergé par votre pays d’origine, votre gouvernement ne peut plus vous toucher et vous pouvez demander l’asile politique pour cet pays étranger pendant que vous êtes dans cette ambassade.
Les ambassades et les consulats prouvent que deux pays entretiennent des relations diplomatiques ou reconnaissent la souveraineté de l’un l’autre. Les pays qui n’ont pas de relations diplomatiques entre eux n’hébergeront pas les ambassades et consulats des uns et des autres. Par exemple, si la Russie et les USA n’ont pas de relations diplomatiques, vous ne verrez pas d’ambassades ou de consulats américains en Russie et vice-versa. Une ambassade et ses consulats sont des territoires légaux d’un pays dans un pays étranger. Cela signifie que le pays d’accueil n’a pas de juridiction sur l’ambassade et les consulats d’un autre pays. Permettez-moi de le décomposer davantage pour vous; une ambassade américaine en Inde est le prolongement des États-Unis en Inde, et le gouvernement indien doit obtenir l’autorisation légale du gouvernement des États-Unis avant d’entrer dans les locaux de l’ambassade américaine en Inde. selon la Convention de Vienne sur les relations diplomatiques, une seule ambassade de votre pays dans un pays étranger. Cependant, vous pouvez trouver plusieurs consulats de votre pays d’origine dans un pays étranger.
Parlons maintenant des différences entre les consulats et les ambassades et de la manière dont ils aident leurs citoyens dans les pays étrangers. Supposons que vous ayez l’intention de vous rendre au Nigeria, vous devez vous renseigner si votre passeport vous permet d’y aller sans visa. Si non, vous devez localiser un consulat nigérian dans votre pays d’origine pour demander et obtenir un visa nigérian. De plus, supposons que vous perdiez votre passeport au Nigeria ou que vous y donniez naissance à un enfant, le consulat de votre pays d’origine peut vous aider à demander un passeport de remplacement ou un certificat de naissance pour votre enfant. Les pays n’ont pas leurs propres consulats sur leur territoire, ce qui signifie que les États-Unis, par exemple, n’ont pas de consulat américain aux États-Unis; idem pour Haïti, le Canada ou la République Dominicaine.
A l’inverse, les Haïtiens vivant aux États-Unis doivent se rendre dans un consulat haïtien aux États-Unis pour demander ou renouveler leur passeport. Pratiquement, un consulat d’un pays étranger n’assiste ses citoyens qui vivent dans ce pays d’accueil que si les citoyens du pays étranger n’ont pas besoin de visa pour se rendre dans ce pays en question. Par exemple, puisque les Américains n’ont pas besoin de visa pour rentrer en Haïti, les consulats haïtiens aux USA ne leur offrent aucun service consulaire. Cependant, le consulat américain en Haïti fournit des services consulaires aux Haïtiens et aux Américains.
Parlons maintenant des ambassades.
Une ambassade est un bureau diplomatique représentant un gouvernement étranger auprès du gouvernement du pays hôte. Elle renforce les relations internationales, résout les problèmes et maintient une communication solide entre pays. Les ambassades protègent les droits de leurs nations dans le pays d’accueil et promeuvent leurs politiques culturelles et étrangères. Par exemple, en cas de litige entre les pays liés au commerce, l’ambassade s’en occupe et négocie avec le pays d’accueil. À l’intérieur d’une ambassade, vous pouvez trouver un consulat. Dans ce cas, il y a un ambassadeur et un consul avec deux missions différentes dans le même bâtiment. Dans certains cas, un pays peut avoir une ambassade mais pas de consulat dans un pays hôte. Dans un tel cas, l’ambassade assume tous les services consulaires pertinents en plus de sa mission diplomatique assignée. Les pays n’ont pas leur propre ambassade sur leur territoire, ce qui signifie qu’Haïti, par exemple, n’a pas d’ambassade d’Haïti en Haïti.
Étant donné que les ambassades sont des missions diplomatiques d’un pays dans d’autres pays étrangers, tous les ambassadeurs sont des diplomates. Cependant, tous les diplomates ne sont pas des ambassadeurs, car un diplomate est une personne dont le gouvernement accrédite la conduite de la diplomatie dans un autre État souverain.
En résumé, lorsque vous voyagez dans un pays étranger, il est important de comprendre les rôles d’une ambassade et d’un consulat. Une ambassade est la principale représentation diplomatique d’un pays étranger et elle fournit des services de soutien politique ou économique à ses citoyens. En revanche, un consulat est un poste diplomatique plus petit qui fournit des services de visa et de passeport et d’autres services juridiques liés au pays d’origine. En cas d’urgence, l’ambassade ou le consulat peut offrir refuge et protéger ses citoyens dans un pays étranger, car ils sont considérés comme faisant partie du territoire du pays d’origine et sont protégés par la Convention de Vienne.