We Built It Blog by Larry Jacob

And, the state of the union is ……divided. In my opinion, there is one inescapable fact that applies whether you are a liberal, a moderate or a conservative, a Democrat or a Republican, a Trump supporter or a Trump hater, white, black or Hispanic, young or old, male or female, or rich or poor. Two years into the Trump presidency, this country is DIVIDED, as never before in my lifetime.

Who is to blame? Dems? GOP? Obama? Trump? The media? All of the above? The answer is simple; it depends on one’s political point of view. Watching the president’s SOTU speech Tuesday night and the various rebuttals and political commentators on CNN, MSNBC and Fox, how could one think otherwise?

The Constitution requires the President to inform Congress on the “state of the union” annually. The time of the year is not specified, but traditionally, Presidents have given the address in January or February. This year, the acrimony and the divisiveness over border security and the resulting government shut-down led to the SOTU being delayed. This was not the first time a SOTU was postponed. In 1986 president Reagan postponed the SOTU for one week due to the explosion of the Space Shuttle “Challenger.”

George Washington gave the initial one, in person, in 1790, but that is not a requirement. In fact, during the 19th century most of them were actually delivered to Congress in handwritten form. Apparently, they were not viewed as that significant.

With the advent of radio, however, Presidents began to see an opportunity to disseminate their policies directly to the people. Hence, they were broadcast on the radio and, later, telecast on TV. Down through the years, most of them have been rather mundane, however, a few of the notable announcements were:

1. President Monroe announced the Monroe Doctrine in 1823.
2. FDR described the famous “four freedoms” (freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear) in 1941.
3. LBJ outlined his War on Poverty in 1964.

In my opinion, as is usually the case, the evaluation of this year’s SOTU depends on one’s political preferences. Trump supporters will mostly view it as a positive, unifying speech; his detractors will view it as divisive, self-serving, and disingenuous. I, being a Trump supporter, lean toward the former.

Some general observations:

1. I liked the show of unity of most of the women wearing white. (I’ll have to ask my wife if it was “winter white” or “regular white.”)

2. The audience’s decorum was polite and professional. Not everybody applauded many of Mr. Trump’s points, but that is normal. At least no one booed or walked out that I am aware of. However, it was a little distracting to see Pelosi sitting directly behind the president periodically shuffling papers.

3. Of course, Mr. Trump summarized and defended his policies and accomplishments, such as job growth, low unemployment (particularly among women and minorities), what he called the “unprecedented booming economy,” support for the military, and decimation of ISIS.

4. The two biggest controversial comments were regarding the “lawlessness” of the southern border (I liked his chiding many of the people who criticize his border wall policy while they live behind “walls, gates, and guards,” although those with a different view might consider it to be a low blow.), and late term/partial birth abortions. The latter could be a devastating issue for Dems, prospectively.

5. Without a doubt, the biggest highlights came when Mr. Trump introduced the three D-Day survivors, the Dachau survivor, the military veteran and survivor of the shooting in Pittsburgh, and former astronaut Buzz Aldrin. What were the odds that one of the D-Day survivors would also have been one of the Dachau liberators? Also, the audience singing “Happy Birthday” to the Pittsburgh survivor was a really nice gesture.

CONCLUSION

As I said, one’s opinion of the SOTU is in the eye of the beholder. One may disagree with the substance, but at least Mr. Trump delivered it in a calm, rational, presidential manner, not at all like his normal “stump” speech.

The rebuttal was delivered by Sheri Abrams, who had lost a close race for governor of Georgia. She blamed Mr. Trump for the government shutdown and was generally critical of all things Trump. Dems loved the speech. One commentator on CNN called it the “best rebuttal ever.” Trump supporters, not so much.

Media opinions followed along party lines. CNN commentator, Van Jones, was particularly acerbic, denigrating the speech as “psychologically incoherent.” Remind me where he got his medical degree. Interestingly, Chuck Schumer criticized the speech even before it was given. How prescient. Maybe I should hire him as my new financial advisor.

CNN’s instant poll disclosed that 76% of respondents approved of the SOTU speech. CBS’s poll disclosed 72% approved of the president’s immigration policy, including the wall. I’m not sure what that augurs for the long run as a Rasmussen poll disclosed his approval rating was only 48%, roughly where it’s been.

One final note: Hopefully, independents and moderates who don’t normally get unbiased news from a biased media watched it and will be edified.

As I write this, a conference committee is meeting in an attempt to reach a compromise regarding border security issues. Let’s hope it is successful.

Another Super Bowl; another appearance by the New England Patriots (yawn). This will be the Patriots third appearance in a row, their 4th in the last five years, and their 11th overall. Maybe, the game should be renamed “The Patriots Invitational.” LOL.

To mark the occasion, I have compiled a quiz. Some of the questions may be too difficult for casual football fans, but I have to challenge the hard core football fans. Remember, no peeking.

1. The first Super Bowl was played in what year?

a. 1966
b. 1967
c. 1968
d. 1969

2. The losing team in the first SB was:

a. Cowboys
b. Raiders
c. Giants
d. Chiefs

3. This will be the third consecutive SB appearance for the Patriots. Which team made four consecutive appearances (and lost them all).

a. Buffalo Bills
b. Dallas Cowboys
c. Philadelphia Eagles
d. Miami Dolphins

4. Which city has hosted the most games (tied with Miami)?

a. New Orleans
b. Dallas
c. Los Angeles
d. Phoenix

5. How many Super Bowls have been decided in overtime?

a. 0
b. 1
c. 2
d. 3

6. Which franchise has won the most SBs?

a. Dallas
b. San Francisco
c. Pittsburg
d. New England

7. Each of the following teams is undefeated in SBs except:

a. Jets
b. Ravens
c. Bucs
d. Green Bay

8. The name “Super Bowl” was derived from:

a. College “bowl” games
b. Fan vote
c. Media feedback
d. Child’s toy

9. Who has won the most SB MVPs?

a. Bart Starr
b. Tom Brady
c. Eli Manning
d. Joe Montana

10. Who was the only MVP from the losing team?

a. Chuck Howley
b. Len Dawson
c. Bruce Smith
d. Icky Woods

11. How many defensive players have been MVP of a SB?

a. Two
b. Five
c. Eight
d. Ten

12. Which of the below cities has never hosted a SB?

a. Santa Clara
b. Jacksonville
c. NY
d. Washington, DC

13. Which of the below networks has not telecast any Super Bowls?

a. ABC
b. CBS
c. Fox
d. ESPN

14. Each of the following has not appeared in a SB, except:

a. Browns
b. Bengals
c. Lions
d. Jaguars

15. Who will be performing at halftime?

a. Beyonce
b. Lady Gaga
c. Gladys Knight
d. Maroon 5

16. How many times has a team played the SB in its home stadium?

a. 0
b. 1
c. 2
d. 3

17. Which team won SB VII to cap an undefeated season?
a. New York
b. Chicago
c. Miami
d. Pittsburgh

18. The coldest temperature for a SB held outdoors was 39 degrees in which city?

a. Houston
b. New Orleans
c. Stanford
d. Cleveland

19. Which of the following coaches has taken more than one team to a SB?

a. Don Shula
b. Tom Landry
c. Bill Belichek
d. Vince Lombardi

20. Which coach has the most SB wins?

a. Don Shula
b. Bill Belichick
c. Mike Shanahan
d. Chuck Noll

21. Which of the below-listed quarterbacks did not win any Super Bowls.

a. Jim Plunkett
b. Dan Marino
c. Joe Namath
d. Terry Bradshaw

22. After whom is the SB trophy named?

a. Pete Rozelle
b. Paul Brown
c. Al Davis
d. Vince Lombardi

23. Which player has won the most SB rings (tied with Tom Brady)?

a. Adam Vinatieri
b. Charles Haley
c. Terry Bradshaw
d. Bob Lilly

24. Which half-time entertainer became (in)famous for a “wardrobe malfunction?”

a. Beyoncé
b. Janet Jackson
c. Madonna
d. Lady Gaga

25. What marginal player became famous for the “helmet catch” in SBXLII (Giants vs. Pats)?

a. Plaxico Burris
b. Randy Moss
c. David Tyree
d. Bob Schnelker

Extra credit: Where did Tom Brady attend college?

ANSWERS: 1. b; 2. d; 3. a; 4. a (10); 5. b; 6. c; 7. d; 8. d; 9. b(4); 10. a (SB V); 11.c; 12. d; 13. d, 14. b; 15. d; 16. a; 17. c; 18. b; 19. a; 20. b(5); 21. b; 22. d; 23. b(5); 24. b; 25. c

Bonus answer: Michigan

My prediction: 31-27 Pats. I hope I’m wrong. What’s yours?

In advance of the 2020 presidential election the contenders for the Democratic nomination have taken a sharp left turn. The rapidity with which this has occurred is downright dizzying (and frightening). Some of their positions would have been considered ultra-radical just a few years ago. If you are a traditional moderate or even mildly liberal Democrat your head must be spinning.

For example, let’s look at two of the more prominent candidates – Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren. Harris has been a strong advocate of: (a) ending private health insurance and providing free Medicare for everyone, (b) free education from pre-K through college, (c) open borders, (d) sanctuary cities, (e) legalization of recreational marijuana, and (f) imposing a substantial tax increase on corporations and the wealthy while reducing them for everyone else. In particular, her recently-announced healthcare plan made a big splash. [By the way, do you know what the name “Kamala” means? See below.]

In my opinion, these items have two characteristics in common. (1) They sound good, and (2) they won’t work. They sound good, because who doesn’t like free stuff? Who wouldn’t like free education and free healthcare? However, there is one little, teensy, weensy problem. It is the same problem with most liberal ideas. Can you guess what it is? I’ll tell you. How do we pay for it? Tax the rich, you say. Well, do you have any idea how much all this free stuff would cost? No, you don’t, and neither does anyone else, including Harris. I have seen various estimates, and the best guess is $30 TRILLION over a 10-year period. $30 TRILLION! There is not nearly enough additional tax money to be had to begin to pay for it, anyone who thinks there is is delusional.

Her plan is even more inane when you combine it with her open borders policy. So, let me get this straight. We grant anyone who wants it free, unfettered access to our country, and then we pay for their health insurance and education. What do you suppose would happen? I’ll tell you. The current flood of illegals would grow to a never-ending torrent. It would destroy our country. And this is a person who is a serious candidate for president?

Harris’ handlers may come to realize how radical and unworkable her plan is and may prevail upon her to “walk it back,” but don’t be fooled. It is what she really believes and wants. Even worse, I suspect there are many Dems who agree with some or all of it. They just don’t want to say so openly.

Elizabeth Warren has espoused most of the above policies. In addition, she has proposed a wealth tax on the “superrich.” Households with wealth in excess of $50 million would pay a 2% tax annually. Those in excess of $1 billion would pay 3%. That is another inane idea that appeals to the average person but has not been well thought out.

A wealth tax is not a novel idea. It has been tried in several countries, and it has not worked well. Both valuation and collection were shown to be problematic. Invariably, the superrich find ways to hide, transfer, or undervalue their assets and, thus, avoid or minimize the tax. Plus, placing a value on assets such as a business, artwork, real estate and other non-liquid assets is very subjective. Economist Jonathan Gruber points out that “when you tax people’s wealth, they manage to somehow reduce their taxable wealth.” Some, like French actor Gerard Depardieu simply moved a few miles across the border to neighboring Belgium. Hello, Canada.

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development the number of nations imposing a wealth tax has decreased from 12 in 1990 to four in 2017. Many of them have realized that it’s easier to tax liquid assets, such as investment and capital gains.

CONCLUSION

It appears that the Dem presidential candidates are in a contest to see who can propose the most liberal/socialist policies. This may be a good strategy for the primaries, but the winner will be so far left, he or she will have trouble getting back to the center in order to win the general. The Dem party has moved so far left that traditional moderates, such as Joe Biden, must be in shock as many of their policies may no longer be in vogue.

All that said, one must remember that it is still very early. History tells us there will be many twists and turns before the 2020 election. Indeed, a recent “Washington Post” poll disclosed that 56% of Dems and Dem-leaning independents, when queried as to whom they would support for the nomination didn’t disclose a preference. Moreover, the leader among those who did express a preference was Joe Biden, who has not yet even declared he is running, with 9%. At this point, many of them probably do not even know who most of the candidates will be.

Stay tuned. 2020 should be a wild ride.

According to Wikipedia, “Kamala” is derived from the Sanskrit word for lotus flower. Her mother is from India.

On Sunday, January 27, much of the world marked International Holocaust Remembrance Day. IHRD is marked (“celebrated” does not seem an appropriate designation) annually on this date to correspond to the date in 1945 on which Soviet troops liberated Auschwitz, the largest and most notorious of the Nazi concentration camps. It is estimated that 1 million Jews plus a goodly number of Poles, gypsies and others were murdered there.

On Sunday, there was a ceremony at the site of the former camp. Some surviving prisoners, wearing striped scarves in memory of the prisoners’ uniforms, placed flowers at an execution wall. Others gave testimonies, and Poland’s chief rabbi read out the names of all the concentration camps in memoriam. Unfortunately, the ceremony was marred by Polish far right demonstrators who protested that there was too much emphasis on the Jewish victims at the expense of the Polish victims.

IHRD is a time of reflection. For many people, it serves as an annual reminder that anti-Semitism is still with us 74 years later. Moreover, it has been escalating, which is a disturbing and foreboding sign. Indeed, it has always been present throughout recorded history, sometimes overtly, as with the infamous pogroms in Poland, Russia and other locales throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries and Nazism in the 1930s and 1940s, and, at other times, more covertly. Rulers always found Jews to be a convenient “whipping boy” for the ills of their domain. Failed crops, a plague, not enough jobs, blame the Jews. Throughout history, that particular tactic has always served as a means to divert the attention of the masses from the real problems, which was invariably ineffective or corrupt leadership.

Most disturbingly, a growing number of people, particularly young people, have little or no knowledge of the Holocaust, or, in some cases, deny that it even occurred. I believe this increases the chances that a similar event will recur at some point in the future. I have blogged on this topic before, and space limitations do not permit me to present a detailed reiteration of it at this time.

But, in view of recent developments, I believe a brief summary would be appropriate. Various political leaders have been speaking out about this very disturbing trend. For instance:

1. In a radio address on Saturday, German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, said “people growing up today must know what people were capable of in the past, and we must work proactively to ensure that it is never repeated.”

2. In a recent op-ed in the German publication, “Welt am Sonntag,” Germany’s Foreign Minister, Heiko Maas, cited a wave of “nationalism” is sweeping across Europe. He added that “far right provocateurs” are “downplaying the Holocaust.” Also, he stated that Germany “must continue to teach its young people about the Holocaust.”

3. While laying a wreath at an execution wall Armin Laschet, the premier of Germany’s most populous state, North Rhine-Westphalia, opined that “Auschwitz shows what can happen when people’s worst qualities come to bear. The inconceivable crimes of the past must be a warning and an obligation for every new generation.” Over the past year, Germany has been plagued by a rising tide of violent attacks against Jews by neo-Nazi and Muslim groups. This has prompted the government to take the somewhat aggressive step of appointing a commissioner to combat anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, this trend is not limited to Germany. There have been attacks, both verbal and physical, against Jews in Sweden, France, Poland, and even the US, among others.

4. President Donald Trump criticized the Holocaust deniers,” stating “any denial or indifference to the horror of this chapter in the history of humankind diminishes all men and women everywhere and invites repetition of this great evil.”

5. Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, warned that “the threats of violence, xenophobia and anti-Semitism still exist today.”

CONCLUSION

These political leaders and others, are saying the right words, but it appears that their opinions are not permeating to the general public. To illustrate my points regarding the rise of anti-Semitism and misconceptions or unawareness of the Holocaust, please take note of the results of the following surveys and statistics:

1. According to a recent study by the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany and the Azrieli Foundation 52% of millennials in Canada could not name even one concentration camp or ghetto, and 62% of them were unaware that 6 million Jews had been murdered in the Holocaust.

2. Lest you dismiss that as an aberration, a similar survey in the US yielded similar results. Some 40% of respondents (66% of millennials) were not even cognizant of what Auschwitz was.

3. A recent survey by the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust disclosed that 5% of Britons did not believe that the Holocaust actually occurred. Furthermore, almost 2/3 of the respondents either were unaware of how many Jews had been murdered or substantially underestimated the number.

4. Israel’s Ministry of Diaspora Affairs reported that 13 Jews were murdered last year, which was the most since the 1990s.

5. In the US, anti-Semitic incidents rose a record 57% from 2016 to 2017, and eleven worshippers were killed in a synagogue in Pittsburgh. Additionally, prominent politicians, such as Dem presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Corey Booker, and newly elected representatives Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have expressed anti-Semitic and anti-Israel sentiments in the recent past and/or have ties to the notorious Louis Farrakhan, Leader of the hate group, Nation of Islam. To me, anti-Israel statements are code for ant-Semitism much like “states’ rights” was code for segregation in the 1950s.

With the passage of time and the inevitable deaths of the few remaining survivors, memory of the horror of the Holocaust has been fading and will inevitably continue to do so, not necessarily among Jews, but among most of the rest of the world. I don’t mean to be an alarmist, but this, combined with the abovementioned sharp upward trend in anti-Semitic incidents and the indifference toward and/or ignorance of the Holocaust, itself, increases the likelihood that it will be repeated in the future. Beware and be vigilant.

As most of you know, after 35 days the government shutdown has ended – temporarily. In retrospect, like most things devised by our government, it was ill-conceived, caused a lot of unnecessary pain and inconvenience to a lot of innocent people, was driven primarily by political expediency, and yielded dubious benefit. Negotiations will be continuing, however, there is a strong probability that on February 15, or thereabouts, we will get to do it all over again.

Like most of us, I felt deeply for the 800,000 or so federal workers who were forced to forego their paychecks during the shutdown. What they were forced to endure was unconscionable. They were unfortunate pawns in the battle between two titans – President Trump and Speaker Pelosi. The effect of the shutdown was beginning to permeate other areas and affect a broader cross-section of people. For example, a sizeable number of air traffic controllers participated in a “sickout,” which wreaked havoc at many airports causing delays and missed flights. As always, in these circumstances, it’s the little guy who gets hurt the most.

So, if you are keeping score, who were the winners, and who were the losers? Permit me to render my opinion with respect to that.

Identifying the winners is somewhat complicated, but I will endeavor to do so:

1. The open borders crowd. We all know who they are. We see them on tv and read their tweets. They favor unrestricted, or at least very loose, immigration policies. They want to let as many immigrants into the US as possible. They are adamantly opposed to a physical wall/barrier. They are advocating technology, such as drones, to secure the border. Well, that is nothing more than an elaborate ruse. Drones may be effective as a supplement to a wall, but not instead of one. They would not prevent anything. All they could do would be to spot migrants who have already breached our border. It would be too late then.

2. The Trump-haters. Anything Trump wants, they oppose. They see a wall/barrier as a symbol of everything Trump. Even though many of them were in favor of a wall/barrier before Trump was elected, they oppose it now simply because he has advocated it. Most Democratic members of Congress, including “Chancy,” and even some Republicans, fall into this category.

3. The elites – Who are the elites? To paraphrase the late Supreme Court Justice, Potter Stewart, I can’t define them, but I know them when I see them. I’ll give you some examples: (a) the bureaucratic swamp dwellers in DC who actually run the government and want to maintain the status quo, which benefits them. They oppose Trump on all matters because he was elected to bring wholesale changes, which they view as a threat to their power and status. (b) their supporters in the media; If one listens to CNN or MSNBC, among others, on any given day the consistency of their comments is remarkable. Often, they even use the same words and phrases as if they were reading from a script of talking points. (c) anyone who would benefit from cheap labor. Who are they? I refer you to my blog of January 10, titled “Open Borders Scam.”

Who are the losers? That’s easy. You and me. Ordinary people. For example, blue collar workers, unskilled or semi-skilled laborers who work in construction, manufacturing, in a warehouse, or at a trade, any middle class person who pays taxes. Again, please see my January 10 blog. We are being scammed by those with a vested interest in open borders and their supporters, most of whom live in gated communities with 24 X 7 security and, yes, walls. Their position is not based on humanitarian feelings for the migrants, but rather, it is rooted in economics and politics.

CONCLUSION

We have not seen the last of this issue. Our government did not resolve anything. All it did was to kick the proverbial can down the road. Our representatives are very good at that. They have been doing it for years and years on various issues. As I said, on or about February 15 the temporary reopening period will likely end, and we will be subjected to this pain all over again.

Mr. Trump lost the battle, but, hopefully, he will win the war. Public opinion was trending against him. In the end, the continued and well-documented suffering of the unpaid federal workers and the spectacle of airport chaos mandated that he agree to a deal to reopen the government.

Democrats and open borders enthusiasts were openly celebratory of Mr. Trump’s “defeat.” Senator Schumer gleefully and snidely said he “hoped Trump has learned his lesson.” Classy. One would think that a senior senator would be above that kind of comment, would exhibit some grace, but I guess not. As I said, the real losers were the ordinary American people, like you and me.

If the open borders crowd continues to block funding for a wall/barrier President Trump may very well invoke emergency powers to close the border or commence building a wall. It appears to be within his purview to do so, but undoubtedly, that would lead to challenges in the courts and God knows what else. Stay tuned.

I’m not sure what to make of this story. On the surface it was a confrontation among groups of Hebrew Israelites, indigenous rights activists and high school students on a field trip to DC. But, in a deeper sense, it was about race (as are most things in present-day America) and a typical rush to judgment on social media and by the press.

According to the “Washington Post” and other news accounts:

1. The Covington Catholic students were in DC to attend the annual March for Life. Afterwards, they had gathered in the vicinity of the Lincoln Memorial to wait for their buses, which would transport them back to Kentucky. Some of them were wearing “Make America Great Again” hats.

2. The Hebrew Israelites and a separate group of Native American activists were in the area for the Indigenous Peoples March. By way of background, it should be noted that, contrary to what their name implies, the Hebrew Israelites are not Jewish. In point of fact, the Southern Poverty Law Center has described them as a “black supremacist extremist group” that believes Jews are “devilish impostors” and whites are “evil personified.”

Initial news reports, fueled by a misleading, incomplete video, gave the impression that some of the students were taunting and intimidating one of the Native Americans. For example, the students were falsely accused of chanting “build the wall.” In addition, one of the students appeared to be “smirking” at the NA. Various media outlets and social media castigated the students mercilessly, especially the “smirker.” The twitter police were particularly vicious. The students’ church issued an apology for their behavior. Many of the students and even their families received death threats, and the school was forced to close on Tuesday for security reasons.

Well, as usual, the media got it all wrong. By Sunday, the full video revealed a different perspective. The “Washington Post” admitted that the incident was “more complicated” than it had appeared at first. That’s probably an understatement, but it’s as close to an admission of error as we’re likely to get. If one views the full video it becomes apparent that the HIs instigated the confrontation, perhaps with the intent of causing an incident for the many cameras in the area, which, of course, is exactly what happened.

Perhaps, because they noticed the MAGA hats the HIs began hurling derogatory insults at the students, such as “Donald Trump incest babies,” “white crackers,” faggots,” “incest kids,” and the old standbys “racists” and “bigots. They called an AA student “Kanye West” and said they would “harvest his organs,” (whatever that means). Then, one NA activist approached them playing a drum, again in what appeared to be an attempt to agitate. In the words of one of the students, he came “within inches of my face. He played his drum the entire time he was in my face.” I believe the student showed remarkable restraint. He did not do or say anything to the man. The so-called smirk? Come on. That look could be interpreted many ways. Maybe, he was just amused at the spectacle.

The kids were confused and didn’t know what to do. For the most part, they just stood there staring. After a while they began to chant school songs. They did not retaliate or threaten anyone. These were high school students, mere kids. From what I could see they comported themselves better than the adult protestors. Eventually, the buses arrived, and the kids left.

CONCLUSION

So, what do we have here?

1. We have a hate group taunting a group of high school kids who were waiting for a bus.

2. We have a NA activist apparently trying to incite a reaction for the cameras. (I’m not really sure what his intent was.)

3. Most of all, we have a media and twitter universe mischaracterizing a story because they are too lazy or prejudiced to seek out the truth. Once again, the media, which is supposed to rigorously seek out and report the truth, does the opposite. This was the second incident within a few days. And we wonder why the country is so divided.

4. In my opinion, the real losers are the kids who were tormented for no good reason. As I said, ironically, they had comported themselves better than the adults. Incidentally, how ironic is it that the incident took place at the site of the Lincoln Memorial.

One of my readers suggested to me that it would be a nice gesture if President Trump, in a show of support and goodwill, would invite the students to the White House I concur. Maybe, he could serve them “Big Macs” and “Whoppers.” LOL.

On January 6, 2019, I published a blog describing Trump Derangement Syndrome, what it is, how it developed, who is suffering from it, and what the cure will be. I’m sure some of you thought I had “gone off the deep end,” so to speak. However, last Friday we were all treated to a perfect example of TDS in action.

Briefly, what instigated this manifestation of TDS was an article in “BuzzFeed” by Jason Leopold and Anthony Courmier alleging that Mr. Trump had directed Michael Cohen, his personal attorney, to perjure himself before Congress. What about? A matter of national security? The 2016 election? No, and no. It was with respect to a building project in Moscow. Huh? A building project in Moscow? Does that make any sense at all? As we all know, perjury is a felony. So, if true, that would constitute solid grounds for impeaching Mr. Trump, or worse. So, why would Mr. Trump direct his attorney to lie about that of all things? In the words of “Mr. Spock,” “it’s not logical.”

Sensible people would ask themselves these questions and question the veracity of the report. But, not our crack BuzzFeed reporters, and not the mob that has been suffering from TDS for the past two years.

The reaction among various Dems and most media outlets could only be described as euphoric. “We did it! Hallelujah, we finally got him” (or words to that effect)! Never mind the presumption of innocence. BuzzFeed said it was so, therefore, it must be. After all, look at the splendid way in which they broke the Trump “dossier story.” Yeah, right.

Below please find a sampling of the highlights, or, rather, lowlights, of their reaction:

1. Joaquin Castro (D-TX), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, who has announced his candidacy for president, jumped right in, tweeting “If the BuzzFeed story is true, President Trump must resign or be impeached.” If true? Well, of course. I could say that if it’s true Mr. Castro is a serial rapist, he should be in prison. That would be just as valid as his tweet. His tweet was woefully premature, at best.

2. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the chairman of the IC vowed to “do what is necessary to find out if it’s true.” Gee, I feel safer already.

3. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, reassured us his committee will “get to the bottom of it.” I’m sure the continuing investigation of Mr. Trump will be at the very top of his committee’s “to do” list.

4. The media, not to be outdone, also weighed in. All day long, we were treated to inane commentary on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, and by various print journalists. No need to verify the facts and the sources. Forget about the presumption of innocence afforded everyone by that pesky document we call the constitution. Russia! Russia! Russia! Impeach! Convict! Worse than Nixon! TDS was running amok.

Well, NOT SO FAST! It turned out that the story was so seriously false that the special counsel’s office directed spokesman Peter Carr to put out a statement that the BuzzFeed story was “not accurate.” This was an extraordinarily unusual move, as the special counsel’s office has generally been extremely close-mouthed regarding its investigation. Obviously, the SC thought this story was so ridiculous that it felt compelled to make an exception.

BuzzFeed’s response was to issue a statement of support for its intrepid reporters. Ben Smith, the editor-in-chief, stated “we stand behind our reporting and the sources who informed it…” I doubt that any objective person believes it now.

CONCLUSION

In my opinion, the larger point here is the media’s continuing lack of credibility. I view this as another sordid example of media bias. Mr. Trump points this out continually, and incidents like this make it hard to deny his assertion. According to the Media Research Center 90% of the media coverage of Mr. Trump in 2018 was negative. I know BuzzFeed is not exactly a shining example of quality journalism, but many other outlets were also all too eager to jump in without verifying the facts. Many of us have been complaining about the divisiveness of the country. Something like this only makes it worse.

Representative Mark Meadows, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, stated that this episode demonstrates why “the special counsel should release his final report quickly to end speculation about its contents.” I would agree, and I would hope the report is made available to the public. After two years of innuendo and falsehoods that have divided the nation we have a right to know the contents, which should outweigh any national security concerns.

She was an extremely versatile performer – actress, singer, dancer and comedienne. She starred on Broadway, in movies and on tv. Her career spanned eight decades.

Carol Elaine Channing was born on January 31, 1921 in Seattle, WA. She was an only child. At the time of her birth, her father worked as an editor at “The Seattle Star,” but, a mere few weeks afterward, the family moved to San Francisco, where Channing was raised and where her father became a Christian Science practitioner, teacher and editor.

Channing’s father was half African American on his mother’s side. She was unaware of this until, at the age of 16, she left home to attend Bennington College. At that time, her mother told her because, as Channing put it, “she didn’t want [me] to be surprised if I ever had a black baby.” I would guess Channing was shocked at this revelation, since both she and her father had the Nordic, Germanic coloring and appearance of Channing’s paternal grandfather.

Channing always said she had decided by the age of nine that she wanted to perform on stage, preferably as a singer. Around that time, she also discovered she could make people laugh, for example, by imitating the voices and mannerisms of her classmates. As a child, she got some exposure to the theatre when she would accompany her mother when she delivered newspapers backstage.

During her junior year at Bennington she began auditioning for parts on Broadway. After one performance the theatre critic of “The New Yorker” presciently wrote “you’ll be hearing more from a comedienne named Carol Channing.” Soon afterwards, perhaps, inspired by that lavish praise, she quit school and pursued her career fulltime. Predictably, there were some bumps in the road as, for a time, Channing was limited to small roles at minor functions or benefits and appearances at some of the Catskills resorts. In addition, she had to take odd jobs to make ends meet, all in all, a typical story with respect to a struggling young entertainer.

Channing landed her first job on stage in “No for an Answer” in 1941. Small and understudy rolls followed. Then, in 1948 she landed a featured role in “Lend an Ear.” She received the Theatre World Award, and illustrator Al Hirschfeld featured her image as a “flapper” in his widely distributed drawings. That notoriety helped her get the lead in “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes,” which turned out to be one of her most famous roles.

Her most famous and enduring role, however, was as Dolly Levi in “Hello Dolly” in 1964 for which she won a “Tony.” “Dolly” is probably one of the most famous roles in theatre history. Channing created the role, which, subsequently was played by such luminaries as Ginger Rogers, Ethel Merman, and Martha Raye, among others. Audiences and critics, alike, loved it. For example, columnist Dick Kleiner wrote: The plot seemed “old-fashioned” and “uninspired, but then…Carol Channing comes out, turns on her huge eyes and monumental smile – and you sit there with a silly grin on your face for 2 1/2 hours, bathed in the benevolent spell of a great comedienne…” “The show ran for 3,000 performances, which, at the time, was the longest-running musical in Broadway history.

Additionally, Channing appeared in many films. Probably, her best was “Thoroughly Modern Millie,” for which she won a Golden Globe and received an Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actress in 1968.

Channing appeared frequently on tv. In the 1950s she appeared on the “Burns and Allen Show” and later with George Burns on various specials. Beginning in the 1960s she made frequent appearances as a guest on various comedy, sitcom, and variety shows, such as “The Andy Williams Show,” “The Ed Sullivan Show,” “Alice in Wonderland,” “The Nanny,” and “Sesame Street,” among many others. Additionally, she appeared on the popular quiz shows “What’s My Line (a dozen or so times) and “Hollywood Squares.” From 1992 – 1995 she did voiceovers for animated shows, such as that of “Grandmama” in an animated version of “The Addams Family.” Through this wide variety of roles, she was able to demonstrate her versatility as an actress, singer dancer and comedienne.

Channing was married four times. Interestingly, her last one was to her junior high school sweetheart with whom she reconnected in 2003 while recording the audiobook of her autobiography.

Some interesting tidbits about Channing:

1. She had some highly unusual dietary habits. For one thing, she avoided eating restaurant food for some 15 years. On those rare occasions when she could not avoid a restaurant she would bring her own food, for instance, zucchini or chopped celery, in sealed containers. She would order an empty plate and glass and dig in. She would eat seeds for dessert. In the mid 1990s she relented and did begin to eat restaurant food.

2. She avoided alcoholic beverages of any kind.

3. In 1964 she was tapped to perform at the Democratic Convention. She sang a parody of “Hello Dolly” called “Hello Lyndon.”

4. Channing was an ovarian cancer survivor.

5. In 1970 Channing became the first celebrity to perform at a Super Bowl halftime show, and she is one of the few to have performed at more than one.

6. In 1973 it was revealed that she was on President Nixon “Enemies List.” Channing always said that was the “highest honor” of her career.

CONCLUSION

Channing was the recipient of many awards, too many to mention here. As I said above, she was one of the most versatile and enduring performers ever. Her initial appearance was in 1941 at the age of 19, and she continued to perform well into her 90s. That’s eight decades, folks. Quite a run.

Channing died on January 15, 2019 of natural causes at the ripe old age of 97. Rest in peace Carol. You entertained us and made us laugh. You will be sorely missed.

January 15 is the birthday of, in my mind, the greatest civil rights leader in American history. Of course, I am speaking of Martin Luther King, Jr. As is the case with many of our holidays, we celebrate it on a Monday, the third one in January, rather than on the actual day. This year, it will be celebrated on January 21, which is the latest possible date.

This year will mark the 51st anniversary of his untimely assassination on April 4, 1968. For some people, the holiday holds no special meaning; it is just a day off from work, a day to spend with family or friends, part of a long three-day weekend. For many of us, however, particularly those of us who were alive in the 1950s and 1960s, it is much, much more.

MLK was born on January 15, 1929. In my opinion, he became the most prominent and influential American civil rights leader in the 1950s and 1960s, if not ever. MLK was more than just a pastor. He believed that more could be achieved by civil disobedience and non-violence than by violence. He preached peaceful disobedience, sit-ins, marches and demonstrations, often in the face of violence and cruelty by the police and others, rather than rioting. In this regard, he was inspired by Mahatma Gandhi. In turn, he inspired others such as the Black Civil Rights movement in South Africa.

He also recognized the power of the press to bring attention to his cause and influence public opinion. For example, as many as 70 million people around the world witnessed the police brutality inflicted on the peaceful black and white marchers in Selma, Alabama, including women and children as well as men. Those images, broadcast live on TV and radio, appalled and disgusted many people and provided an immeasurable boost to the public awareness of the injustices being visited upon blacks in the South. These events were captured dramatically and realistically in the 2014 movie, “Selma,” which featured David Oyelowo as MLK. If you haven’t seen it, I recommend it.

Unlike any other African American leaders before or since, he had the ability to unite, rather than divide. Although he was criticized by some of the more militant civil rights leaders of the time, such as Stokely Carmichael, he commanded the support and respect of a large majority of blacks and many whites as well. In that regard, he was similar to Nelson Mandela.

After his death, despite the urgings of some civil rights leaders who wanted to continue MLK’s philosophy, more militant African American leaders, such as Mr. Carmichael, came into prominence. There was rioting in over 100 US cities, and a slew of violent incidents at the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago in front of the national press and millions of Americans. The Civil Rights movement was changed forever.

MLK came into prominence in 1955 when he led a bus boycott, peacefully, in Montgomery, Alabama. The boycott had been fueled by the famous Rosa Parks incident in which she had refused to give up her seat on a bus to a white person. She was arrested on December 1. (Most people don’t know that earlier that year in March a similar incident had occurred, also in Montgomery, involving Claudette Colvin, a black girl who also refused to give up her seat to a white man. However, that case did not receive the same notoriety. Civil rights lawyers declined to pursue it because Colvin was 15, unmarried and pregnant. They chose to wait for a case with a more favorable fact pattern, and they were proven to be right.)

Later, MLK became the leader of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and remained so until his death. He applied his non-violence philosophy to protests in Selma, Ala., St. Augustine, FL, and the March on Washington, D. C., among others. He made it a policy never to endorse a particular political party or candidate. He believed he could be more effective if he were neutral and not beholden to anyone. Furthermore, in his view, neither party was all bad, and neither one was perfect. In his words, “[t]hey both have weaknesses.”

Perhaps, MLK’s most famous moment occurred during the famous March on Washington in August 1963. Ironically, MLK was not the primary organizer of the march. That was Bayard Rustin, a colleague. The primary purpose of the March was to dramatize the plight of blacks in the South. Civil rights leaders, including Roy Wilkins, NAACP, Whitney Young, National Urban League, A. Philip Randolph, Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, John Lewis, SNCC, James Farmer CORE, and MLK, wanted to bring awareness of these issues right to the seat of the Federal government. More than 250,000 people of all ethnicities and colors attended. MLK was one of several speakers, and he only spoke for 17 minutes. But, his “I Have a Dream” speech became one of the most famous speeches ever. The March, in general, and MLK’s speech, in particular, are credited with bringing civil rights to the political forefront and facilitating the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Some little-known facts about MLK:

1. His birth name was Michael King, Jr., after his father. In 1931 his father changed his own name to Martin Luther King, after the German theologian, Martin Luther, whom he admired. At the same time, he changed his son’s name.

2. In 1958 MLK was stabbed in the chest after a speech by a woman who had been stalking him, and he nearly died.

3. The FBI began tapping MLK’s telephone as early as 1963. Robert Kennedy, who was Attorney General at the time and who is viewed as a staunch supporter of civil rights, in general, and MLK, in particular, authorized the tapping.

4. MLK won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964 at the age of 35, the youngest age ever at the time.

5. MLK won a Grammy Award in 1971, posthumously. It should be noted that he won it, not because he displayed a great singing voice, but for a “Spoken Word Album,” “Why I Oppose the War in Vietnam.” In addition, he won countless other awards and was awarded some 50 honorary degrees from various colleges and universities.

6. The US Treasury has announced that it will be redesigning the $5 bill. It will still feature Abraham Lincoln on the front side, but the back side will feature depictions of events that have occurred at the Lincoln Memorial, including MLK’s “I have a dream” speech. The Treasury expects to have these new bills in circulation by 2020.

7. Even though MLK was one of the great public speakers of his time, inexplicably, he got a “C” in a public speaking course at the seminary. (Kind of like a baseball scout saying Babe Ruth can hit “a little bit.”)

8. MLK is one of three individuals and the only native-born American to have a holiday named after him. In case you’re wondering, the others are George Washington (born in the COLONY of Virginia), and Christopher Columbus.

Some MLK quotes to ponder:

1. “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

2. “The time is always right to do what is right.”

3. “We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.”

4. “Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.”

5. “Free at last. Free at last. Thank God almighty, we are free at last.”

6. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

CONCLUSION

Today, there is much division among African Americans as well as their leaders. Some are moderate and want to work within the system; others are more militant. Many of them have their own agendas and look for any excuse to foment distrust and discord. I believe that these “race hustlers,” and we all know who they are, do more harm than good, but that is a subject for another blog.

In my opinion, we have made much progress in the area of civil rights. For example, we have elected an African American president (twice); an African American sits on the Supreme Court; and African Americans hold and have held positions of prominence in every field of endeavor, including business, entertainment, sports, and the military. But, still, it is a work in progress. We can do more.

One can speculate whether and to what extent MLK’s assassination changed the course of history. In my opinion, had MLK lived, the Civil Rights Movement would have been considerably different over the last 50 years, more peaceful and less divisive, with better results. Furthermore, his assassination had a significant impact, not only on the history of the civil rights movement, but also on the overall history of the country, itself. I hope and believe that eventually a moderate leader will emerge and bridge the gap as MLK did half a century ago.

So, as you enjoy the holiday in whatever manner you choose, I ask you to reflect for a moment on where we are as a nation regarding civil rights, where we want to go and how we get there.

As long-time readers know, this has long been a featured topic.

According to Wikipedia, January 1, New Years Day, is the most celebrated holiday worldwide. Many historically-significant events have occurred on this date as well as on other dates during the month. Please see below:

1/1/1502 – Portuguese explorers, led by Pedro Alvarez Cabral, landed in present-day Brazil. They named the location Rio de Janeiro (River of January).

1/1/1660 – Samuel Pepys commenced his famous diary, which was to become a definitive chronicle of life in late 17th century London. Famous events described in it include The Great Plague of 1664-1666, which wiped out roughly one-fourth of London’s population, and the Great Fire of 1666, which destroyed much of the city.

1/1/1776 – George Washington unveiled the first national flag, aka The Grand Union Flag.

1/1/1863 – President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed the slaves in the Confederacy.

1/1/1892 – Ellis Island opened. Over 20 million immigrants were processed there between 1892 and 1954 when it closed.

1/1/1901 – The British Commonwealth of Australia was founded.

1/1/1959 – Fidel Castro seized control of Cuba.

1/1/1999 – The Euro was born.

1/3/1924 – British Egyptologist, Howard Carter, discovered King Tut’s sarcophagus.

1/3/1959 – Alaska became the 49th state.

1/7/1714 – British inventor, Henry Mill, received a patent for the typewriter.

1/8/1815 – Despite being badly outnumbered, the Americans under the command of General Andrew Jackson defeated the British in the Battle of New Orleans, arguably one of the most significant military victories in our history.

1/10/1863 – The world’s first underground railroad, appropriately named the “underground,” opened in London.

1/10/1920 – The League of Nations was born. It failed because the US never joined it.

1/10/1946 – The first meeting of the United Nations was held in London.

1/11/1964 – The US Surgeon General issued a report declaring that cigarettes might be hazardous to one’s health.

1/12/1932 – Hattie Caraway became the first female US senator when she was appointed to complete the term of her deceased husband.

1/15/1870 – The donkey was first used as a symbol of the Democratic Party. It appeared in a cartoon in Harper’s Weekly.

1/19/1966 – Indira Gandhi was elected Prime Minister of India.

1/19/1983 – Klaus Barbie, aka the Butcher of Lyon, was arrested in Bolivia.

1/21/1793 – In the aftermath of the French Revolution King Louis XVI was guillotined.

1/22/1901 – Queen Victoria of England died after having reigned for 64 years, the longest tenure of a monarch up to that time.

1/22/1973 – The Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade legalized abortion in the US.

1/24/1972 – A Japanese soldier, who had been hiding in Guam for 28 years unaware that WWII had ended, was discovered.

1/27/1945 – The Russian Army liberated Auschwitz.

1/27/1973 – The US involvement in the Vietnam War ended.

1/28/1935 – Iceland became the first country to legalize abortion.

1/28/1986 – The space shuttle, Challenger, exploded killing seven persons, including Christa McAuliffe, a teacher, who was to have been the first ordinary citizen in space.

1/29/1919 – The 18th Amendment, which legalized Prohibition, was ratified.

1/31/1943 – German troops surrendered at Stalingrad, which marked one of the turning points of WWII in Europe.

Birthdays – Paul Revere-1/1/1735; Betsy Ross-1/1/1752; Louis Braille-1/4/1809; Joan of Arc-1/6/1412; Millard Fillmore (13th President)-1/7/1800; Elvis Presley-1/8/1935; Richard Nixon (37th President)-1/9/1913; Alexander Hamilton-1/11/1755; John Hancock-1/12/1737; Benedict Arnold-1/14/1741; Albert Schweitzer-1/14/1875; Martin Luther King-1/15/1939; Andre Michelin (pioneered the use of pneumatic tires) 1/16/1853; Benjamin Franklyn-1/17/1706; Muhammad Ali-1/17/1942; General Robert E. Lee-1/19/1807; Edgar Allen Poe-1/19/1809; Douglas MacArthur-1/26/1880; Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart-1/27/1756; William McKinley (25th President)-1/29/1843; Franklyn Delano Roosevelt-1/30/1882; Jackie Robinson-1/31/1919.