We Built It Blog by Larry Jacob

I have concluded that the open borders crew has been perpetuating an elaborate scam on the American middle class and working class. The perpetrators include politicians of both political parties, although truth be told, they are more prevalent on the Dem side of the aisle, plus their allies and supporters in the media and elsewhere. They would have you believe that if you want to secure the southern border you are cold-hearted, immoral, racist, or some combination of all three. As we know, when someone with whom you are debating calls you a racist they are telling you they have no facts to support their position. Hence, they have already lost the argument. What is the basis for this provocative opinion? Read on, and you shall see.

First, let’s examine the open borders “(OB)” arguments, which are disingenuous, at best:

1. Walls don’t work and are immoral to boot. This is Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s favorite argument, and it is being repeated by other pols and media supporters. The fact of the matter is that walls do work and have worked whenever they have been and are being used. They worked for the Chinese 1,000 years ago, for the Vatican from the last days of the Roman Empire and for Israel and the US southern border presently. Are they foolproof? No. Do they secure the border by themselves? No, again. But, they are an effective deterrent, especially when used in concert with other means, such as humans, drones and modern technology. Don’t just take my word for it. Mike Morgan, former chief of the Customs and Border Patrol under President Obama, endorses them as do many other agents and law enforcement personnel. These are the experts who live it every day. They know.

I ask you, if walls don’t work, why do we continue to build them around exclusive gated communities? You can be sure that Nancy and many of her allies live in gated communities with 24X7 security. As far as being immoral, that is not fact, just opinion. Nancy is entitled to hers, but does that mean she views the Pope as immoral?

2. Most drugs enter via ports of entry, not over the border. That may be true, but that shouldn’t mean we ignore the border. That’s like saying heart disease kills more people than cancer, so there’s no point in trying to cure cancer. Why can’t we address both?

3. Illegals will just climb over it or tunnel under it. Again, why should that prevent us from making it more difficult for them. Try to imagine a migrant lugging a 200 foot ladder 1,000 miles so he can scale a wall. LOL. In addition, the wall is not intended to be the sole deterrent. It would be used in conjunction with the other means, as mentioned above.

4. It is expensive. Really? The government that wastes money continually, that readily funds border walls and other security measures in foreign countries, and that has run up a $21 trillion debt is telling us that $8 billion for a wall on our southern border is expensive and wasteful. Does anyone really believe that?

5. More undocumented immigrants overstayed their visas than entered over the border. First of all, that statement is supposition, not fact, since we don’t even know how many illegals are living in the US. Estimates run as high as 22 million, but your guess is as good as mine. Secondly, see #2 above. Why can’t we address both.

6. Illegals commit fewer crimes, proportionally, than Americans. I am not aware of any survey that supports this assertion. But, even if it were true that does not mean we shouldn’t try to eliminate those crimes by controlling our border better.

The OB advocates will not tell you the real reasons for their position. I have mentioned this before, but it bears reviewing. The real reasons are economic and political.

Until the last few years US pols were strongly, if not uniformly, opposed to illegal immigration. For example, in the 19th century Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which restricted immigration of Chinese. In the 1960s the renowned activist, Cesar Chavez, who organized the union of the migrant fruit pickers in Cal, and, who, to this day, is revered in the state, strongly opposed illegals. Despite having only a 7th grade education, he was astute enough to recognize that an increase in the supply of unskilled workers would be detrimental to his union members. Chavez coined the derogatory term “wetbacks” to describe the illegals and even organized border patrols of union members to intercept illegals. (He also coined the term “yes we can,” which became the slogan for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.)

Up until the last few years liberal politicians such Obama, both Clintons, George McGovern and CA Governor Jerry Brown, Sr. expressed opposition to illegal immigration. For example, in 2006 Congress passed the Secure Fence Act, which I have discussed in a previous blog, with bipartisan support. Among those who voted “yea” were Senators Biden, Boxer, Schumer and Clinton. Since then, the Dem party has undergone a radical transformation on the issue. It would be interesting to ask them why they changed their minds, but then again they would probably lie.

As I said the real reasons for advocacy of OB are political and economic. Below please find a brief summary:

1. Political. The Dems have determined that illegals, who utilize a disproportionate amount of services, are more likely to vote Dem when and if they are given the right to vote (and make no mistake, that is their objective). This conclusion is supported by most polls. Also, even though common sense tells you that OB is bad for the country on many levels, they despise Mr. Trump so much they would rather harm the country than approve the wall and give him a “win.”

2. Economic. The first law of economics is the law of supply and demand. The greater the supply, the less the demand for the product or service being offered and the lower its value. Thus, business owners want to create and perpetuate a large supply of cheap unskilled labor as exemplified by illegals. Regardless of the pay and working conditions it figures to be better than where they came from. So, who benefits? The wealthy and the elites who hire these workers. Who is hurt? The middle and working class who compete for many of the same jobs. Don’t fall for the fallacy that illegals only take jobs Americans don’t want, such as dishwashers, gardeners, and nannies. Some do, but many take other jobs, such as construction, service, and manufacturing. Ironically, those that are hurt the most are disproportionally African Americans and Hispanics, which are the very people that Dems purport to look out for. Chavez understood this and fought against it. Where are today’s unions?

CONCLUSION

Despite the extreme seriousness of this issue I have to laugh when I see people try to defend OB on TV. OBs are so illogical, arguments in favor are often ridiculous and based on opinion, not fact. For example:

1. Rick Wilson labels supporters of the wall as “inbred, not bright and not sophisticated.”

2. Don Lemon scoffs that a wall is a 5th century solution to a 21st century problem.” Sounds good, but it’s a silly and disingenuous argument.

3. In the Dem rebuttal “Chancy” said President Trump was “manufacturing a crisis” regarding the border. This was mimicked uniformly by various other politicians and media commentators, such as Tim Keane, James Carville and many others who, miraculously, used the same exact “manufactured crisis” term. By the way, “Chancy” looked like they were posing for a remake of Grant Wood’s “American Gothic.” They inspired many memes on social media. My favorite was by Greg Gutfeld, who said they looked like they were about to sell him a reverse mortgage.

4. While fact-checking President Trump the “Washington Post” took exception to his statistic that 266,000 illegals were arrested last year. They said it was “accurate” but “misleading.” Huh? If it’s “accurate,” it’s factually correct. “Misleading” constitutes “opinion,” not “fact.”

5. In particular, I enjoyed Dem commentator Jonathan Harris’ humorous attempts to parse the difference between a “fence,” which was approved in 2006 and a “wall,” which he opposes.

So, when pols spout their disingenuous justifications for OB recognize it for what it is. You may dislike Mr. Trump for his personality or even his politics. Fair enough. You’re entitled. But, on this issue the facts support him.

There is this disease going around. It was first noticed in 2016, but it has been growing in intensity. It is very contagious, and there doesn’t seem to be any cure. Primarily, it affects Dems and liberals, but others can be susceptible as well. I am speaking, of course, of TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, aka TDS.

Of course, I am being somewhat facetious. To my knowledge, TDS is not classified, officially, as a mental illness by the medical community, but I and many other observers believe it is a real condition. In a recent article in “Psychology Today” Rob Whitley, PhD, places it in the “folk category of mental disorders that are considered real conditions by the general public, even though they are not recognized as such by [the medical community].” Whitley adds that Trump’s words and actions have often driven TDS sufferers to distorted, extreme and often irrational opinions, actions, emotions, and behaviors, such as seeking “safe” rooms, using “therapy dogs,” or attacking people in restaurants or theatres. We have observed all of these activities and others as well.

Incidentally, Whitley is not some far-out fringe character. He is the Principal Investigator of the Social Psychiatry Research and Interest Group (SPRING) at the Douglas Hospital Research Center. Furthermore, he is an Associate Professor of Psychiatry at the prestigious McGill University and has published over 100 papers on the field of social psychiatry.

Wikipedia defines TDS as a “neologism (a new word, phrase or expression that is in the process of entering into general usage) describing a reaction to President Trump by liberals, progressives, and ‘Never Trump’ neoconservatives who are said to respond to Trump’s statements and political actions irrationally and with little regard to Trump’s actual position or action taken.” Some TDS suffers have taken this a step further by denigrating his supporters as well.

I believe the term originated with the late Charles Krauthammer, a conservative political commentator and psychiatrist and frequent critic of Trump’s. The term was also applied by some to George W. Bush during his presidency, but to a lesser extent. It is also used by Trump supporters to describe irrational statements and actions by Trump critics.

Examples of TDS abound, to wit:

1. The entertainer, Madonna, while speaking at a protest march, stated she has thought “an awful lot about blowing up the White House.” I highly doubt she would actually do that or that she would even know how to do it, and she later said her comment was taken “wildly out of context.” But, the fact that she said it at all illustrates my point.

2. Actor Robert De Niro really became unhinged during a speech at the Tony Awards when he blurted out “First I wanna say, f**k Trump. It’s no longer down with Trump. It’s f**k Trump.” I ask you, is that rational?

3. Donny Deutsch, an advertising executive and frequent guest on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” has described GOP ads as “racist” and “xenophobic,” and he described Trump supporters as “like Nazis.” Does he realize he is calling roughly half the country’s voters “Nazis.” He is showing his ignorance of what real Nazis were like. He could use a history lesson. Tell me that’s not TDS.

4. Rick Wilson, a GOP strategist but no fan of Mr. Trump’s has referred to Trump supporters derisively as “ten-tooth based rubes.” He should be banned for that inane comment, but he probably won’t be.

5. Tune in to “The View” almost any day and you will be treated to a TDS comment by Joy Behar or Whoopi Goldberg. Probably, they realize that the only reason anyone even watches the show is to see what inane anti-Trump commentary they will blurt out next.

The above examples are bad enough, but we also have elected politicians weighing in.

1. Hank Johnson (D-GA) has called Mr. Trump an “authoritarian, anti-immigrant racist strongman.” Moreover, he stated that Mr. Trump has “taken over the Republican Party much like Hitler took over in Germany.” For good measure, he went on to attack Trump supporters as “older, less educated, less prosperous and…[often] dying early…from alcoholism, drug overdoses, liver disease, or simply a broken heart.” Moreover, he has characterized Jewish settlers as “termites” and “vermin” and warned that the island of Guam would “tip over and capsize.” Another ignoramus who could use a lesson in history and civility.

2. During a speech before “MoveOn” newly elected Representative Rashida Tlaib (MI) blurted out “we’re going to impeach the motherf***er.” Classy. Tlaib, who is one of the first two Muslim women to be elected to Congress, is also a strong opponent of the US giving aid to Israel and supports the abolition of ICE. Tlaib gives two for the price of one – a moron and a bigot. I wonder if the voters in her district are now suffering from “buyer’s remorse.”

3. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, needs to watch her rhetoric now that she is the most senior Dem and third in line for the presidency. I understand that she opposes the border wall, but she should not be calling it “immoral.” Does she realize that in doing so she is, by extension, labeling anyone who has a wall or is in favor of a wall immoral as well. That would include not only approximately half of the country’s voters who elected Mr. Trump to build one, but also the Pope, since the Vatican is protected by a wall. And, what about the thousands who live in gated communities surrounded by walls? Are they “immoral” too? I don’t know where Nancy lives, but it’s a safe bet that her home is protected by a barrier of some sort and/or 24X7 security.

4. Perhaps, the worst instance of TDS is this last one. A reporter named Katherine Timpf disclosed that a college student at the University of Arizona told her that as part of a course on the Holocaust her professor assigned her class to write a paper comparing President Trump’s policies to those of Nazi Germany. The clear implication was that there was an equivalence between the two. This, from a professor of history, who, obviously, should know better. If that isn’t TDS I don’t know what is.

Trump supporters have used the term as well, for example:

1. Senator Ted Cruz on “Fox and Friends” opined that “most of the media…have what I call Trump Derangement Syndrome where all they can do is attack the president all day long on the scandal of the day.”

2. Senator Rand Paul attributed the Dems’ fixation on “Russian collusion” to TDS.

3. Sean Hannity accused the “Washington Post” of TDS for blaming President Trump’s stance on climate change as being “complicit” in the various hurricanes that have been battering the country.

4. Press Secretary Sarah Sanders has often wondered why President Trump’s critics have continually focused on negatives while refusing to acknowledge the booming economy.

5. President Trump, himself, has observed, correctly, that the Dems were in favor of a wall, and even approved funding for it, until he said he was, whereupon suddenly they became opposed to it. Classic TDS.

CONCLUSION

DHS comments and actions by private citizens and news commentators are bad enough, but the fact that elected officials could behave the way they have is downright scary. In particular, the comparisons to Hitler and Nazis should offend every decent person. They are a grave insult to the memory of those who perished in the Holocaust (as well as those who managed to survive and their descendants).

How do some of these people get elected anyway. The sad fact of the matter is that many of them are not too bright. They exhibit a very sparse knowledge of history, economics, civility, and even common sense (which, as we know, is not “common” at all), and are devoid of empathy for those who espouse a legitimate difference of opinion on the issues. We see reaffirmation of this every day. It is downright embarrassing. As I have often said, they are good at only two things: getting elected, and getting re-elected. Sad, but true.

By the way, I predict that TDS will magically disappear in January, 2025. LOL.

Welcome to two years of gridlock, American style.

For the most part, the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they promulgated our system of government. In particular, establishing three separate branches of government each with the authority to “check” the others was a stroke of genius. This system of “checks and balances” has served us well for some 230 years.

However, in order for the system to function effectively the politicians who run our government must exhibit a certain degree of reasonableness. Yes, many of them have significantly different political, social and economic philosophies, and each wants to cater to their supporters who elected them and (hopefully) will re-elect them. But, at the end of the day, it is normally necessary to compromise to accomplish anything of substance. The real lions of the Congress, such as Lyndon Johnson, Ted Kennedy and Everett Dirksen, to name a few, knew this and practiced it time and again. Fringe players were marginalized, and deals were made that everyone could live with. Otherwise, what we get is not a functioning government, but gridlock.

Gridlock is a situation where neither side is willing to give in, to compromise, to recognize that the other side has valid points. Both sides dig in their heels, harden their positions, disparage the other side, not only politically, but personally as well, the fringe elements of both parties take control, and nothing gets done. My friends, I am afraid that we are now facing such a situation.

It is all well and good that the Dems have won control of the House of Representatives. It is a validation that our system of government works. But, given the current political climate, I fear that rather than producing healthy debate, it will produce gridlock, which will not serve any of us well.

Already, there are ominous signs that the Dems will be focusing on investigating President Trump rather than governing. Some investigation would be healthy and appropriate but not to the level of excess I foresee. I fear many of the Dems in the House and their supporters exhibit an almost irrational hatred of President Trump that affects their judgment (what many Trump supporters call TDS, or “Trump derangement syndrome”). They don’t want to see him succeed in anything, even if it would benefit the country. Moreover, they want to impeach him regardless of whether or not there are legitimate grounds to do so.

I think most people would like to see the Congress address issues such as the government shut-down, immigration and border security, healthcare, our involvement in conflicts in Afghanistan and Syria, our relations with Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, and modernizing our infrastructure, among others.

Instead, I fear the leadership of the House will be focused on investigations, on “getting” Trump. We have already seen indications of this, for example:

1. Maxine Waters, the incoming head of the House Financial Services Committee, has signaled her intention to subpoena President Trump’s tax returns and investigate his business dealings with banks such as Deutsche Bank, which she has characterized as “one of the biggest money laundering banks in the world.”

2. Adam Schiff, incoming head of the House’s Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, wants to investigate President Trump’s alleged Russia connection. This past October, in an op-ed in the “Washington Post” he asserted that “there are serious and credible allegations the Russians may possess financial leverage over the president.” Moreover, he inferred that Mr. Trump has been “laundering Russian money through his businesses.” He even claimed that there was a “very real prospect” that the Justice Department would indict him “on the day [he] leaves office.” Really? Serious charges, particularly in the absence of proof.

3. Elijah Cummings, incoming chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, figures to be very busy. He told the “Huffington Post” he plans to investigate President Trump’s “many conflicts of interest,” how and why Jared Kushner and Michael Flynn obtained security clearances, to demand documentation on “every child who was separated from their parents at the border and where they are now,” and “corruption within the Trump administration.” He self-righteously proclaimed he “would consider it legislative malpractice not to do it.” TDS?

4. Finally, incoming Judiciary Committee Chairman, Jerrold Nadler, announced on “CBS, This Morning” he will be making liberal use of his committee’s subpoena power to provide Congressional “oversight” and “accountability” that, he claims, have been lacking for the past two years. For instance, he intends to investigate President Trump’s decision to fire attorney general, Jeff Sessions, his “nativist policies” that “target refugees, migrants and immigrants already living in the US,” and the Administration’s policy of “rip[ping migrant] children from the arms of their parents.” More TDS?

5. Various House committees have signaled their intent to investigate cabinet members such as Ben Carson for “nepotism and cronyism” and Ryan Zinke for “conflict of interest.”

CONCLUSION

There is nothing new about Congressional oversight and investigations. They are as old as the republic, itself. Even George Washington was investigated by Congress. More recently, we had Congressional investigations of Presidents Reagan, Clinton and Bush. As I said, they are an integral part of our system of checks and balances. What I object to is when and if they become so all-consuming that the government grinds to a halt and substantive work does not get done. That will not be beneficial to any of us.

I would urge the House Dems to employ their powers of investigation judiciously. Furthermore, I would urge both parties to seek consensus, not discord. There is much work that needs to be done. Those congresspersons who have one eye on 2020 should not lose sight of 2019.

Wow, another year has gone by! That was fast. As we all know, the older we get, the more time seems to speed up.

Tonight, people around the world will celebrate New Year’s Eve. Although the specifics of the celebration may differ in various countries, it is generally a time of social gatherings, parties, eating, drinking, and merriment.

The Pacific island nations of Kiribati (aka Christmas Island), which is nothing more than a coral atoll in the Central Pacific, and Samoa, which is the western-most of the Samoan Islands, were already the first to celebrate; American Samoa, which includes seven tiny islands and atolls in the eastern part of the Samoan Islands, and Baker Island, which is an uninhabited atoll 3,100 km southwest of Honolulu, will be the last.

New Years Day has been celebrated on January 1 since 45 B. C. That year, Julius Caesar decreed that the Roman Calendar, under which the new year occurred in March, be replaced by the Julian calendar. It has been January 1 ever since.

Below please find a sampling of celebration customs in various countries:

1. In the US NYE is celebrated with parties with family and friends and other special events. For example, Chicago features a music show and fireworks over Lake Michigan; San Francisco features yoga parties and concerts; Atlanta boasts the (“Peach Drop”); Nashville has the (“Music Note Drop”); and New Orleans features live music, a “fleur-de-lis drop,” and parties centered around the French Quarter.”

However, by far the biggest and most significant celebration is in NYC. Since 1907 people have been gathering in Times Square to watch the “Ball Drop.” The “Ball Drop” has been held annually every year since, except for 1942 and 1943 when it was canceled due to the wartime blackout.

At precisely 6:00 pm a huge Waterford crystal ball is raised to the top of the pole above the NY Times building at One Times Square.  At 11:59 pm, a designated special guest will push a special “red button,” which will activate the ball. This ball, weighing some 12,000 pounds, will then begin its descent from the roof of One Times Square down a 141-foot high pole. Exactly one minute later, at midnight, the ball will reach the roof of the building, and huge lights will signal the start of the New Year.

The original “ball” was constructed from wood and iron and lit with 100 incandescent bulbs. Over the years, it has gone through various iterations. The current “ball” features a computerized LED lighting system.

Times Square has been the focal point of NYE celebrations in the US since 1904. That year, the first organized NYE celebration, consisting of an all-day street festival culminating in a huge fireworks display, was held there. It was reported that at midnight the celebratory noise could be heard as far away as Croton-on-Hudson, some 30 miles away.

The celebration was organized by the “New York Times” owner, Adolph Ochs, to commemorate the opening of the “Times” new headquarters located in the tiny triangle at the intersection 42nd Street, Broadway and 7th Avenue. The city renamed the area Times Square in honor of the venerable publication.

[Quiz questions: 1) What other historically significant event occurred in NYC in 1904? 2) What was Times Square’s name prior to 1904? See below for the answers. ]

Two years later the City banned the fireworks display. Ochs’ response was to replace it with the “Ball Drop.” The details of this “Ball Drop” have evolved over the years, especially technologically.

The celebration, itself, has also evolved over the years. Due to the world we now live in, security is tighter than the proverbial “drum.” For example, regarding the police and “alphabet agencies,” it is “all hands on deck.” Police will be omnipresent. Undercover officers will be imbedded in the crowd. Even drones will be used.

This year it is estimated that as many as two million people will cram into the area to witness the “Ball Drop.” Many of them will arrive early in the day in order to secure a prime viewing spot. They will be herded into viewing sections called “pens.” Nice terminology. Additionally, for security reasons, food, drinks, waste baskets, toilet facilities, knapsacks, large bags and pocketbooks, among other items, will be prohibited. Best to arrive early, and if you have to leave for any reason, good luck returning. “Depends,” anyone? It is estimated that in excess of one ton of confetti will be dropped at the stroke of midnight. Thankfully, I don’t have to clean it up.

Viewers will be treated to a cornucopia of entertainment, featuring artists such as Alanis Morrisette and the cast of Broadway shows, such as “Jagged Little Pill.”  Many people consider this an important item on their “bucket list.” In addition, some 200 million other Americans and 1 billion persons worldwide will watch on tv and/or live streaming on their mobile devices.

Entertainment from various venues is also featured. The most famous and enduring entertainer was Guy Lombardo, who from 1928 to 1976 entertained from the ballroom at the Waldorf-Astoria, first on the radio, then on TV. After his death in 1977 other programs became prominent, most notably “Dick Clark’s “Rockin’ New Year’s Eve.” After his death, the mantle passed to Ryan Seacrest and others.  This year in NY tv viewers will be able to choose from Seacrest, Steve Harvey, Carson Daly and Julianne Hough, among others.  Traditionally, NYE is the busiest day at Disneyland and Disney World, which feature Disney-character shows and fireworks.

2. In Canada the mode of celebrations vary by region. For example, in Toronto, Niagara Falls and other areas of Ontario, there are concerts, parties, fireworks and sporting events. On the other hand, in rural Quebec some people go ice fishing. Montreal features concerts and fireworks.

3. In Mexico, families decorate their homes in various colors, each of which symbolizes a particular wish for the upcoming year. For example, yellow would symbolize a wish for a better job, green, improved finances, white, improved health, and red, general improvement in lifestyle and love. At midnight, many Mexicans eat a grape with each chime of the clock and make a wish each time. Some people bake a sweet bread with a coin hidden inside. Whoever gets the piece with the coin will be blessed with good fortune in the coming year. Finally, some people make a list of all the bad events that occurred to them over the past year on a piece of paper and then burn the paper to symbolize a purging of all the bad luck.

4. As you might expect celebrations in England focus around Big Ben. People gather to observe fireworks and celebrate. In addition, many celebrate in pubs or at private parties.

At the stroke of midnight it is traditional to sing “Auld Lang Syne.” I have always been curious as to the derivation of this song and why it is sung at New Year’s. The origin is murky, but it has generally been attributed to the Scottish poet Robert Burns. He wrote it in 1788, but it is likely that some of the words were derived from other Scottish poems and ballads. “Auld Lang Syne” literally translates into English as “long, long ago,” “old times,” or “days gone by.” Thus, at the stroke of midnight we bid farewell to the past year and, at the same time, wish to remember the good times. In some areas the song is also sung at funerals, graduations and any other event that marks a “farewell” or “ending.” Sometimes the singers gather in a circle and hold hands.

As usual, the weather will be a significant factor. This year, weathermen are predicting temperatures in the mid 40s, which is normally as good as it gets in NY on January 1.  It will probably not approach the record of 58 degrees (1965-66 and 1972-73).

CONCLUSION

Whatever your NYE plans may be and however you may celebrate, I urge you to be careful and drive safely and defensively. Pay particular care to watch out for the “other guy.” This is one night where too many people celebrate excessively and drive under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. These people should not be on the road, but, nevertheless, they are, and they are dangerous both to you and themselves. For this reason, Ed McMahon, Johnny Carson’s long-time side-kick on the “Tonight Show” and a noted party-goer, used to refer to New Year’s Eve derisively as “amateur night.” New Year’s Day is the second most deadly holiday for drivers. (Thanksgiving is #1.) Moreover, a whopping 42% of the driving fatalities on NYD are the result of DUI.

Answers to quiz questions: 1) The city’s first subway line opened in 1904. 2) Longacre Square.

Enjoy yourself, but don’t become a statistic.

At the present time, probably the most controversial item under discussion is the proposed southern border wall. Simply put, President Trump and his supporters want it; the Dems and some GOPers are opposed. Neither side has shown any willingness to compromise even though they could do so if they really wanted to. Both sides are dug in, and the intransigence has caused a government shut-down, which is likely to last at least until the New Year. In my opinion, this stalemate is politically-motivated. As the song goes: “It’s all about the base.”

I have written several blogs analyzing the reasons for the Dems’ strong opposition to even a modicum of funding for a wall, and there is no need for me to rehash it now. But, I do find the fervent opposition among many of the leading Dems to be puzzling and even illogical. Perhaps, Mr. Trump is correct when he speculates that they are only against it because he is for it.

What do I mean? Perhaps, a little history will be illuminating. The construction of a physical barrier along the southern border can be traced to 1990. At that time, we built 14 miles of fencing between San Diego and Tijuana. Then, in 2006 funding for a “fence” sailed through Congress with strong bipartisan support. The Senate passed the bill 80-19 with Senators Obama, Clinton and Schumer, for example, all voting “yea.”

In addition to a fence, the law provided for other security enhancements such as vehicle barriers, checkpoints, cameras, satellites and drones. To be sure, the effectiveness of this law has been mixed. A 2017 GAO report described the various methods by which the fence was routinely being defeated, such as by driving vehicles over ramps, tunneling under the wall, and even tossing drugs over it to accomplices waiting on the other side. One can cite this either as evidence that “walls don’t work” or that it demonstrates the need for a better, more secure wall, buttressed by modern technology, rather than a mere “fence.” Take your pick. I should point out, however, that Mr. Trump has been advocating a significantly higher and more substantial wall supplemented by more modern technology.

CONCLUSION

One of the major issues that carried Mr. Trump to the White House in 2016 was his pledge to construct a wall on the southern border. I believe he has accomplished a great deal in just two years, however, his inability to secure funding for the wall is a big disappointment. This is particularly true given his reputation as a dealmaker and the fact that the GOP has controlled both houses of Congress for the past two years. With the Dems slated to take control of the House next week the likelihood of a wall is dwindling rapidly. Too bad.

All this over a few billion dollars, which is a mere drop in the bucket compared to our deficit of $21.8 TRILLION. This stalemate is like a tantrum between two children. No one looks good. Who will be the adult in the room? Maybe, if Mr. Trump called it a “barrier” or “enhanced fence” instead of a “wall” it might get funded.

Some have speculated (gleefully) that this failure may result in Mr. Trump’s defeat in 2020. I think that in a business where even a few months can be a lifetime, such speculation is very premature. November 2020 is a very long way off, and a lot will happen between now and then. That said, I believe it will be a black mark on his record.

On December 26, many countries, notably the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and other countries that were formerly part of the British Empire, traditionally celebrate a holiday known as Boxing Day. Many of those who are unfamiliar with the holiday erroneously assume it is associated with pugilism. That is not the case.

BD is considered a secular holiday, however, some countries celebrate a religious holiday on December 26. For example, Germany, The Netherlands and Poland, celebrate the day as a “Second Christmas Day.” In the Catalonia region of Spain the day is celebrated as “St. Stephen’s Day.”

BD’s origins are murky. There are various theories. Based on my research it appears that the holiday can be traced at least to Medieval England where it was customary for the aristocracy to allow their servants to spend the day after Christmas with their families. After all, the servants were obligated to serve their masters on Christmas rather then spend the holiday with their families. Each servant would receive a “box” containing food, clothing, and/or other gifts to bring home to their families. Over time, this practice was extended to tradesmen and others who performed services for the aristocrats. Perhaps, this was a forerunner to the present-day custom in many parts of the US of giving Christmas gifts to various persons who perform services for us on a regular basis, such as mail carriers, doormen, manicurists, and hairstylists.

The earliest mention of the term “Christmas box” was in Samuel Pepys’ diary in 1663. (Pepys was a member of Parliament during the 17th century who was famous for keeping a diary.) Others believe the day’s roots go back to Roman times when it was customary to place a metal box, aka the Alms Box, outside the church during the “Feast of St. Stephen” to collect donations for the poor.

BD celebrations vary from country to country. For instance:

1. In the UK it is a bank holiday. If it falls on a Saturday or a Sunday, it is celebrated on the following Monday or Tuesday, respectively.

2. In Ireland it is celebrated on December 26, regardless of which day of the week it falls on, as St. Stephens Day.

3. In Australia it is a federal holiday. In the state of South Australia it is celebrated as “Proclamation Day,” which commemorates the establishment of South Australia as a British province in 1834. Supposedly, the proclamation was promulgated at “The Old Gum Tree” in what is presently the suburb of Glenelg North in SA. Originally, December 28 was designated as PD, but, at some point, it was changed to the first business day after Christmas (probably to accommodate those who wanted to create an extended holiday period).

4. In Canada and New Zealand BD is celebrated as a statutory holiday; that is, it is celebrated on December 26 regardless of the day of the week.

5. In Nigeria BD is celebrated on December 26 as a public holiday for workers and students. If it falls on Saturday or Sunday, it is observed on the following Monday.

6. In some countries, notably Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand BD is a huge shopping day, akin to “Black Friday” in the US. Retailers have extended hours and hold sales. Shoppers line up early just like on “Black Friday.” Much like in the US, retailers have expanded the Christmas shopping season in order to generate additional revenue. Some retailers in those countries have expanded the period of observation to “Boxing Week.”

7. In addition, all of the aforementioned countries hold a variety of sporting events to mark the day (soccer, rugby, cricket, horse racing, ice hockey, even boxing).

CONCLUSION

Like many holidays, the original significance of BD has been lost and it has become commercialized excessively. Such is the way of the modern world.

For most Americans, December 26 is merely a day to extend the Christmas holiday and, in some cases, to “recuperate” from it. This year, with Christmas being on a Tuesday, most of us will probably be back to work. However you choose to spend the day I hope you enjoy it.

How well do you follow the news? Test your knowledge of current events.

1. Each of the following countries is a member of NATO, EXCEPT: (a) Albania,(b) Belarus, (c) Montenegro, (d) Slovenia.

2. The US Secretary of the Treasury is (a) Jim Mattis, (b) Matthew Whitaker, (c) Mike Pompeo, (d) Steve Mnuchin.

3. The President of France is (a) Francois Hollande, (b) Edouard Philippe, (c) Emmanuel Macron, (d) Charles de Gaulle.

4. The “house liberal” on “The Five” is (a) Juan Williams, (b) Bob Beckel, (c) Chris Matthews, (d) Chris Wallace.

5. President Trump’s Press Secretary is (a) Sarah Sanders, (b) Dana Perino, (c) Anthony Scaramucci, (d) Sean Spicer

6. Each of the following was a candidate for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination, EXCEPT (a) Ben Carson, (b) Lindsay Graham, (c) Nikki Haley, (d) Scott Walker

7. Prior to winning the election for vice president Mike Pence was governor of which state? (a) Oregon, (b) Illinois, (c) Indiana, (d) Ohio.

8. Each of the following is an anchor/commentator at CNN, EXCEPT: (a) Christiane Amanpour, Wolf Blitzer, (c) Erin Burnett, (d) Brett Baier

9. The US Secretary of State is (a) Ryan Zinke, (b) Steve Mnuchin, (c) Mike Pompeo, (d) Ben Carson

10. Each of the following is generally considered to be a “blue state,” EXCEPT: (a) South Carolina, (b) Washington, (c) Oregon, (d) California

11. The migrant caravan is “stuck” in which city? (a) Mexico City, (b) El Paso, (c) Tijuana, (d) San Diego.

12. According to Wikipedia each of the following is a “sanctuary state,” EXCEPT (a) California, (b) Illinois, (c) NY, (d) Vermont

13. The Prime Minister of Canada is (a) Justin Trudeau, (b) Stephen Harper, (c) Pierre Trudeau, (d) Paul Martin

14. The majority whip in the House of Representatives is (a) Nancy Pelosi, (b) Steve Scalise, (c) Steny Hoyer, (d) Chuck Schumer

15. The Premier of Israel is (a) Ariel Sharon, (b) Ehud Olmert, (c) Abba Eban, (d) Benjamin Netanyahu

16. Which country has voted to leave the EU? (a) UK, (b) Italy, (c) Denmark, (d) Spain

17. The migrant caravanners have mostly come from each of the following countries, EXCEPT: (a) Guatemala, (b) El Salvador, (c) Honduras, (d) Mexico.

18. The President of Syria is (a) Hafez al-Assad, (b) Hassan Rouhane, (c) Bashar al-Assad, (d) Eshaq Jahangiri

19. How many representatives are there in the US House of Representatives? (a) 100, (b) 50, (c) 548, (d) 435

20. What is the name of the rule used by the US Senate to end debate and force a vote on a bill? (a) stymie, (b) stalemate, (c) filibuster, (d) cloture

ANSWERS: (1) b; (2) d; (3) c; (4) a; (5) a; (6) c; (7) c; (8) d; (9) c; (10) a; (11) c; (12) c; (13) a; (14) b; (15) d; (16) a; (17) d; (18)c; (19) d; (20) d.

Well, how did you do? I’d like to know.

Entertainment was in her blood. She was born to it. One might say it was the “family trade.” What do I mean by that? Read on.

Carole Penny Marshal was born in the Bronx, NYC, NY on October 15, 1943. (Do you know the derivation of the name, Bronx? See below.) Her father was a film director and producer; her mother operated a tap dancing school; her brother, Garry, six years her senior, was a very successful actor, screenwriter, director and producer; and her sister, Ronny, was a television producer. Yes, one might say that Penny was born to be an entertainer.

The area in which Penny was raised was a cultural hotbed. Various other creative people with whom you may be familiar grew up there around the same time as well – Paddy Chayefsky, Calvin Klein, Neil Simon and Ralph Lauren, for instance.

The derivation of her name was quite interesting. Her first name was an homage to Carole Lombard who was her mother’s favorite actress. The source of her middle name was a little more convoluted. The story goes that Ronny was saving her pennies to buy a horse, which she wanted desperately. Of course, living in the Bronx, it was not happening, but Penny’s mother hoped that naming the new baby “Penny” would offer Ronny some consolation. True or exaggerated, it makes for a good story.

According to Penny religion was not very important to the family, except in a practical sense. She would tell the story that her mother would “[send] us anyplace that had a hall where she could put on a recital.” So, Garry was christened as an Episcopalian, Ronny a Lutheran, and Penny, Congregational. “If [her mother] hadn’t needed performance space we wouldn’t have bothered.”

Penny Marshall exhibited extensive versatility. She achieved great success as an actress, director and producer. She succeeded both in the movies and on tv. Furthermore, as you will see, she was a pioneer in the entertainment business.

Penny learned to tap dance by the age of three. Later, she became an instructor at her mother’s school. She attended college at the University of New Mexico where she studied math and psychology. She dropped out when she became pregnant. In 1963 she married the father, Michael Henry, but they soon divorced. For a time, Penny worked at various jobs to support her baby and herself. Then, in 1967 she moved to LA where Garry had established himself as a writer. Her life was about to change.

Penny’s career followed a somewhat familiar pattern. She suffered through much frustration and rejection and landed a series of forgettable gigs until she got her big break. For example, she played “uncredited roles” in “Where’s Poppa” (a courtroom spectator), “1941” (Miss Fitzroy), and “High Fidelity” (a funeral attendee). Her first appearance on tv was in a shampoo commercial for Head and Shoulders. She was the “girl with stringy, unattractive hair,” the “before.” You may have heard of the girl who played the glamorous “after,” someone named Farah Fawcett.

Penny was considered for the Sally Struthers role in the ground-breaking megahit, “All in the Family.” She didn’t get the role, but she did meet her future second husband, Rob Reiner. Reiner adopted her daughter, Tracy, from her first marriage, and they have five grandchildren. Tracy has continued the family trade. She is also an actress (“When Harry Met Sally,” “Big”,and “A League of Their Own,” among others.)

Finally, in 1971 she landed a worthwhile part. Garry, who was executive producer of the hit tv show, “The Odd Couple,” cast her as Oscar Madison’s secretary, a role she played for four years. During that period she also appeared on other hit shows, such as “The Bob Newhart Show” and The Mary Tyler Moore Show.”

Her big break came in 1975 when she and Cindy Williams were cast as dates for “Fonzie” (Henry Winkler) and “Richie” (Ron Howard) on the hit show, “Happy Days.” It was supposed to be just a single appearance, but Penny and Cindy “knocked it out of the park.” Penny and Cindy were masters of physical comedy, such as that practiced by Lucille Ball back in the 1950s, and which had all but disappeared.

They became series regulars, and the following year, they landed their own show, “Laverne and Shirley,” which ran for eight seasons. In 1982 Williams left the show due to her pregnancy. Penny continued the show for another year, but then the run was over. The two actresses were estranged for several years but eventually reconciled.

In 1979, while “L & S” was still going strong, Penny embarked on her second career, that of director. She was a rousing success. Probably, her best efforts were “Big” (1988) starring Tom Hanks, “Awakenings” (1990), for which she received an “Oscar” nomination, and one of my personal favorites, “A League of Their Own” (1992) with Hanks, Geena Davis and a host of other stars. Who can forget the iconic scene in “Big” with Hanks and Robert Loggia dancing on the piano or the famous quote by Hanks in “League,” when he admonished one of his players, “There’s no crying in baseball.” “Big” became the first movie directed by a woman to gross over $100 million.

Despite her success as a director Penny was very modest. In an interview she described herself as a “mumbler.” She explained, “I talk quietly…I’m not adamant that this is my movie.. I’m not demanding. I just say do it again; I’ll know it when I see it.”

CONCLUSION

Penny was the recipient of many awards and commendations, too numerous to list here. She died on December 17 in LA from complications brought on by diabetes. Testimonials poured in from many of those who knew her and worked with her in her long and illustrious career. For example:

1. Ex-husband, Rob Reiner – “She was born with a funnybone and the instinct of how to use it. I was very lucky to have lived with her and her funnybone. I will miss her.”

2. Broadcaster, Dan Rather – “Mourning the loss of a funny, poignant, and original American voice. Penny Marshall was a pioneer in television and the big screen who understood humor comes in many forms.”

3. Director, Ron Howard – “She was funny and so smart. She made the transition from sitcom star to A List movie director with ease and had a major impact on both mediums. All that and always relaxed, funny and totally unpretentious.”

Rest in peace, Penny. You were a star, you made us laugh, and you will be sorely missed.

Quiz answer: It is named for Jonas Bronck, who established the first settlement in the area in 1639.

This will not come as a shock to most of you, but I have concluded that most of the politicians in this country, those who have been elected and the “wannabees,” think we are all morons and lack common sense. That goes for much of the media as well as many of the so-called “elites.” What do I mean by that? Why do I say it? Well, I’m glad you asked. Read on.

The above sentiment applies to many issues, but in this blog I will focus on the issue of immigration. Some random thoughts and opinions:

1. The open borders people are not all left-leaning liberals racked by guilt that they were born in this country instead of some third world country. Some of them are conservative GOPers, as I will explain below. Strange bedfellows, indeed. When was the last time liberal Dems and conservative GOPers agreed on anything? Maybe, never? This has been a very effective coalition. More on this strange coalition later.

2. They would have you believe that if you want to restrict/control immigration, especially with a Wall, you are an evil, bigoted person. For instance, Nancy Pelosi, the once and, perhaps, future, Speaker of the House, keeps calling the Wall “immoral.” So, in her mind and those who agree with her, there is no debate, no give and take of opinions, no negotiating, no compromising. The matter is not open for discussion. If you are in favor of it, by extension, you must be immoral. End of story. I suppose, that means, in Pelosi’s mind, the Pope is immoral, since the Vatican has had an impenetrable wall around it for centuries. Its purpose? Originally, to keep out the wild pagan hordes from Eastern Europe and Asia who were endangering Rome back in the day, now, just plain old security.

3. “Chancy’s” current mantra, which has been repeated on some cable news channels, that the wall won’t work and is “expensive” is so obviously dumb and non-sensical, it is insulting to voters. I have heard various cost estimates, but $22 billion, which is based on a DHS report and is in the middle of various published estimates, seems about right. With all the money the government wastes, with a budget deficit that the “Wall Street Journal” projects will reach $1 TRILLION during this fiscal year, with the $150 billion the previous administration just gave to Iran, this item is considered to be too costly? Please! It’s a drop in the proverbial bucket. It’s akin to you or I saying we can’t afford an extra cup of coffee at Starbucks. As far as not working, tell that to the Vatican or Israel or even the Chinese, who figured out over 1,000 years ago that a “Great Wall” would keep out unwanted outsiders.

4. Recently, Pugh Research published the results of a survey of people in 27 countries around the world. In none of those countries was a majority in favor of more immigration. I have discerned similar sentiments in most countries to which I have travelled. Are we to believe that the whole world is racist? I think not.

5. Think of the wall not as a wall, per se, but as a type of “barrier.” Then, you realize that for the first 150 years of our existence, until the advent of the jet age, the US had two very effective barriers – the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

6. Much of the focus for limiting immigration has centered around crime, terrorism and drugs, but, in addition, there is a powerful economic argument. This is where common sense comes in. US working class families are being squeezed as it is. The middle class, which, traditionally, has been the strength of our country, is being decimated. There are various reasons for this, but one undeniable one has been the development of technology, which has made many jobs obsolete. Most economists expect this trend to accelerate. In the future more and more jobs will be performed by machines and robots and fewer by people. Anyone paying attention to the world around them can see that. I think it’s an indisputable fact. Against that backdrop, can we really absorb millions of unskilled, poorly educated immigrants. The first law of economics is the law of supply and demand. So, if there are more workers clamoring for unskilled jobs, employers will be able to pay less. Common sense, folks. They know it, but they try to obscure it in other arguments and talking points. They think we are too stupid to figure it out. That’s why GOP executives and entrepreneurs have no problem with unfettered immigration.

6. Yes, we feel badly for the plight of most of these immigrants. But, how about the plight of our own citizens. For example, whom do “Chancy” represent? Who elected them? The voters in their districts or the migrants. We know the answer. Do “Chancy?”

7. If you want to see the effect of unfettered immigration, don’t speculate. Don’t guess. Just look at what is happening in the EU, which has had open borders for years. Significant economic problems. Riots in France. Riots in Germany with the likely demise of Angela Merkel’s government. The UK voting to exit from the EU. Closer to home, look at California, which has encouraged illegal immigrants to settle there. Presently, some 72% of illegals in that state are receiving some kind of government assistance compared to 35% of US citizens. No wonder California (“dead state walking”) was $1.3 trillion in debt” in 2017, and probably more now. That could be our future.

8. Last word on the bogus bigot argument. At the moment, there are thousands of “caravanners” stuck in Tijuana. The locals are not happy, to say the least. The mayor has been protesting vehemently to the Mexican government to resolve the problem. Genero Lopez, one of the city’s elected delegates, has denoted the city is being overwhelmed by crime, havoc in the streets, and disease. The news footage is there for all to see, if the tv station you watch shows it, that is. To paraphrase the late comedian, Groucho Marx: “are you going to believe what I tell you or what you see with your own eyes?” Are the citizens of Tijuana racists? Of course not, but it demonstrates the fallacy of that characterization. If these migrants were in a US city in the same situation and you complained, you would be denigrated and dismissed as a “racist.”

CONCLUSION

I will concede that the a Wall would not be a panacea. I view it as one of several elements of border security along with vetting, a diligent border patrol, and ICE enforcing our laws. But, it has become the flashpoint of the issue.

In my view, President Trump has accomplished a great deal in his tenure so far. I have described his accomplishments in great detail in previous blogs, and I see no need to rehash them here. But, I think his one major failure to date has been his inability to convince Congress to fund the Wall. The issue of border security, including building a secure Wall, was, and remains, one of, if not the, primary concerns of his supporters, and it was one of the primary reasons he got elected in the first place. He has been thwarted by the coalition I mentioned above, and after January 2019 when the Dems take control of the House the task will become exponentially more difficult. He needs to find a way before then.

Most Democrats, liberals in the media, swamp dwellers, and assorted other Trump-haters have been plotting against President Trump for two years. To this day, they simply cannot fathom how he was able to win the 2016 election. In their deranged minds it had to be the result of cheating; the election result, itself, should be deemed illegitimate, and he should be removed.

First, they asserted hacking; then, it was vote tampering; then, it was voter irregularities and/or suppression; then, it was collusion with Russia. Now, it appears to be campaign violations. For the past two years, in my opinion, the country has been subjected to the most intensive witch hunt against a sitting president ever (even worse than that against Bill Clinton).

I don’t want to get bogged down in a detailed discussion of the merits of the Muller investigation. We all have our own opinions on it. Personally, I am sick of it, as I’m sure many of you are. It seems to be never-ending. Suffice to say, to date, the investigation, which was authorized based on a false narrative to begin with (the phony, “Trump dossier”) has not turned up any violations or illegalities against Mr. Trump. All it has succeeded in accomplishing has been to waste time, distract the Administration and the Congress from governing the country, and waste millions of dollars of the taxpayers’ money.

In January the Dems will assume control of the House of Representatives. There are many issues that voters want addressed. According to various polls two of the most exigent are healthcare and immigration. There are numerous other issues as well, such as infrastructure and climate change. Many of the newly elected representatives ran on those issues, and the voters who elected them expect them to take prompt action.

So, which issue will the Dems address first? Which is the most important in their minds? Healthcare? No. Border security? No. Immigration? Wrong, again. It is, all together now, ….. GET TRUMP. That’s right, with all the issues facing the US the first order of business for the Dems is GET TRUMP! Impeach him. Indict him. Whatever. Just get rid of him.

In a previous blog I denoted that the Dems would likely win control of one or both of the houses of Congress. Furthermore, I opined that if so, rather than being the party of “no,” they would be best served if they focused on governing. A conviction in the Senate would be very unlikely anyway since it would require a 2/3 vote and the GOP has a majority. Even the hated Andrew Johnson was not convicted. Yes, focusing on impeachment would be ill advised, indeed.

They would do well to remember that when the GOP impeached Bill Clinton the voters saw right through it, and his popularity went way up. I would expect the same to happen here. However, it appears that they will not be taking my advice.

Consider the following developments:

1. Nancy Pelosi, likely the new Speaker, has characterized a border wall as “immoral” and has rigorously stated she will oppose authorizing any funds to build it. President Trump will not agree to any immigration bill that does not include a wall, so that does not augur well for resolving the immigration issue.

2. The Dems and the liberal media have signaled that they are “all in” on impeaching Mr. Trump based on payments made to two women in 2016 with whom he had had affairs a decade or so earlier. Mr. Trump had authorized these payments, from his personal funds, to avoid embarrassment after these women had threatened to disclose the affairs to the public. The Dems are asserting that these payments violated campaign finance laws, because they were made “for the purpose of influencing an election” and were not disclosed. Rep Jerry Nadler, the incoming Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, called the payments “impeachable offenses” and added that they “were committed in the service of fraudulently obtaining the [presidency].” Heck, by that ridiculous standard, a candidate should report funds spent to buy a new suit or get a manicure. Rep Adam Schiff, the incoming Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, went even further, stating that there is a “very real prospect” that Mr. Trump will be “indicted… upon leaving office.” Various commentators, with little knowledge of the facts and less common sense, have been spouting similar thoughts all over the news and twitter.

3. Over the weekend a NY Times Op-Ed piece by Michelle Goldberg concluded that Mr. Trump can only be spared an indictment by winning re-election in 2020 and, therefore, serving as president until the statute of limitations for his “crimes” runs out. She cited unnamed “federal prosecutors” and “lawyers from the justice department” as her sources, the old “anonymous” and “unnamed sources” trick that we have seen so much of the last two years.

CONCLUSION

Wow! How absurd. Apparently, the anti-Trump fever, or, if you prefer, the Trump derangement syndrome, has reached a new low. Where do I begin?

1. Daniels and McDougal sought to extort money from Mr. Trump, plain and simple. Essentially, they said, pay me or I will go public and embarrass you and, maybe, derail your campaign. (Incidentally, isn’t extortion illegal?) Trump has steadfastly asserted that he directed his lawyer to pay the women from his personal funds, and if Cohen used campaign funds, that’s his error.

2. If campaign funds were used in error and not disclosed, it is my understanding that oversights such as that are normally settled with a fine, not jail, and not impeachment. There have been several cases of this, including one involving Obama. Let’s use some common sense. Also, if the payments were required to be disclosed that would have obviated the purpose in paying them in the first place.

3. Mr. Trump was correct when he tweeted back in May that payments such as these are “very common among celebrities and people of wealth.” For example, Congress has a slush fund that is used to pay off paramours and such. To my knowledge, those payments have never been disclosed, nor should they be.

4. Senator Rand Paul, appearing on “Meet the Press” this past Sunday characterized this affair as a “miscarriage of justice.” Furthermore, he opined “if we’re gonna prosecute [and jail] people… for campaign finance violations, we’re gonna become a banana republic.”

5. Alan Dershowitz, noted liberal attorney and not a fan of Donald Trump’s, has characterized this as a clear case of extortion and a “danger to our system.” He called for Muller to investigate the extortion angle. Moreover, in his opinion, it is permissible to use personal funds, and campaign contributions are not even reportable until after the election anyway. He denoted we need a consistent standard to remove the politics. He feels that if, for example, Paula Jones had sought to extort Bill Clinton in the same manner, everyone’s position on the matter would be the reverse of what it is now. I would have to agree.

6. Senator Angus King (I – Maine) nailed it. On “Meet the Press” he denoted that if impeachment were to be commenced based on the current evidence “at least a third of the country would think it was just political revenge and a coup against the president….The best way to solve a problem like this, to me, is elections.”

Give that man a cigar!

Everybody take a deep breath and repeat after me. Donald Trump is our legitimate president. He won fair and square. You don’t have to like him. You didn’t vote for him based on his personal life. You didn’t elect a friend to hang out with; you elected a President who was NOT a politician and who would stand up for the country. You can dislike him but still like his politics. If you want to get rid of him vote him out in 2020.