Month: March 2019

“The First Amendment to the Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Restrictions on speech by public colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. Such restrictions deprive students of their right to invite speech they wish to hear, debate speech with which they disagree, and protest speech they find bigoted or offensive.” This sounds like some right wing group who is p.o.-ed because one of theirs was prevented from speaking at a commencement, like Condoleezza Rice (Rutgers), Ayana Hirsi Ali (Brandeis University), and Christine Lagarde (Smith College). However the above quote is from the A.C.L.U. website. It continues, “Since its founding in 1920, the ACLU has fought for the free expression of all ideas, popular or unpopular. Where racist, misogynist, homophobic, and transphobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more speech — not less — is the answer most consistent with our constitutional values.”

Wow, I am in agreement with the A.C.L.U.! President Trump is also in agreement with the A.C.L.U. on this issue, as on 3/21/19, he signed an executive order requiring U.S. colleges to protect free speech on their campuses or risk losing federal research funding. “Even as universities have received billions and billions of dollars from taxpayers, many have become increasingly hostile to free speech and to the First Amendment,” Trump said at a White House signing ceremony. “These universities have tried to restrict free thought, impose total conformity and shut down the voices of great young Americans.” Under the order, colleges would need to agree to protect free speech in order to tap into more than $35 billion a year in research and educational grants.
Coincidentally, a week or so ago a friend of mine, Randy, returned to his college alma mater in the state of Ohio. Since he is on the board at the school, and contributes more than his fair share to the school, he was able to meet one-on-one with the college president, let’s call him Sandy. Now Randy was a jet-lagged, but this is his vague recollection of their conversation.

Randy asked Sandy if he believed in free speech on his campus. “Of course” replied the college president.” “Then why don’t you invite President Trump to speak at our next commencement?” It quickly became apparent that Sandy was deep in thought as he was caught in a potential dilemma. Should he risk his school’s reputation on a Trump commencement speech? Obviously it would be an honor to have the President speak at his relatively small school’s graduation. At the same time, how sure was he that his graduating students and their families would behave appropriately. Could he risk the same embarrassment that Notre Dame suffered after a number of its immature graduating seniors walked out of a commencement address being given by Vice-President Mike Pence at the South Bend university in 2017? Would his students behave similar to the elitist students from Notre Dame?

Randy said that he could almost read Sandy’s thoughts: “Would my hard working, middle-class city kids behave appropriately and respect both the office and the commencement speaker even if they did not agree with everything he said and stood for? Could I count on them to be courteous? When all was said and done, would I be proud of them?”
After a period of silence, Sandy enthusiastically responded, “That’s a wonderful idea, Randy. I’ll bet that our school’s students and their parents would be honored to have the President give the commencement address. If we don’t ask, he can’t say, “Yes, I’d be proud to come.”

Let’s talk about what should be a success story. An Arab American woman, who was born in 1951 in a small town, Elmira, New York to parents of Lebanese descent. Someone who rose from a lower middle class family (her father sold mobile-homes, and her mother was a department store model), went to law school, where she was the editor of law review, and subsequently went on to become the first female judge in Westchester County, New York, and then the first female District Attorney in Westchester County. Sounds to me like an American success story . . . a prototypical rags to riches story due to hard work and perseverance. Why is her story not more widely known?

The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind, the wind of the liberal media. For you see, from the left’s viewpoint, this woman has multiple strikes against her. She is Christian. She is conservative. She is Republican. And perhaps her biggest sin . . . she is an outspoken supporter of President Donald Trump!

If you haven’t figured it out so far, I am talking about Judge Jeanine Pirro, who apparently has been suspended for two weeks from her weekend show on Fox. I say apparently because although Fox has not come out with a definitive statement, her show for the past two weekends has been replaced by a filler, basically about nothing. What was her offense? Those on the left accused her of disrespecting Rep. Ilhan Omar’s wearing of her hijab in a Judge Pirro’s opening statement, and Fox News then did the P.C. thing and is punishing her. Now I have watched her opening statement in its entirety twice from stem to stern. Did she mention Omar’s hijab? Most definitely! However, the context had to do with Sharia Law and its compatibility with the U.S. Constitution. The main focus of that week’s opening statement had to do with anti-semitism, and the cowardice of the Democrats in their refusal to call a spade, a spade, as Rep. Omar has clearly made repeated anti-Semitic comments. Yes, Pirro’s opening statement referred to Omar, but its main focus was on anti-semitism and the inept leadership of Nancy Pelosi, who appears to have lost control of her wish-washy Democratic colleagues.

Now let me be clear, Judge Jeanine will survive. She will not back down from her strongly opinionated positions. Yes, her show has lost some of its sponsors – most of whom I have never heard of! A friend of mine recently told me that, if you have a Smart T.V., that the shows you watch can be tabulated, so starting this coming weekend I am going to record Justice with Judge Jeanine, as my way of showing support for her calling out both Rep. Omar on her anti-semitism and also Speaker Pelosi on her reticence to support both Israel and the Jewish community in the U.S.  I would hope that all of you would do likewise and set your DVR to record Justice with Judge Jeanine, every weekend at least in the near future. Whether you actually watch the show is irrelevant, although I have found her opening monologue to be quite entertaining., 

From Townhall:

“Attorney General William Barr sent a letter to four lawmakers on Capitol Hill Sunday afternoon, 3/24/19, summarizing the findings of Robert Mueller’s two year long Special Counsel investigation. After 500 witnesses and 2800 subpoenas, it reveals that President Trump, in addition to his 2016 campaign and those associated with it, did not collude with Russians to influence the presidential election.” 
So it’s over! The Democrats lost and the U.S.A. won! Wait! Not so fast

Clearly upset at the Justice Department’s unequivocal declaration that no further indictments are coming out of the Mueller probe, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi (S&P) said that Attorney General Bill Barr “must make the full report public and provide its underlying documentation and findings.” 

This, of course, will be impossible and certainly S&P must know that Attorney General Barr can’t possibly fulfill their request. Surely everybody must know that Barr cannot release classified information, as the phrase, “cannot be released as it is classified,” is something we have heard repeatedly over the last few years. Certainly, S&P must know this, as they have both been in Washington for most of their adult lives – much too long!

Additionally, apparently grand jury testimony and materials are sealed forever. I did not know this, but certainly Schumer and Pelosi must know this, as they have been lawyers for decades. This will not change just because the Mueller Report didn’t turn out the way the Democrats wanted. 

Finally, it is a longstanding Justice Department policy never to release derogatory information about people who are not being charged with breaking the law, and here since there are no indictments, no one, other than some Russians, is being charged with breaking the law. This is a foundational principle of professional behavior for federal prosecutors, and it’s a critical protection against abuse of power. Certainly Schumer and Pelosi must know that some people actually have some principles even if they don’t.

So what is S&P’s game plan? It doesn’t take a professional coach to figure it out . . . a Pop-Warner coach could easily figure it out! Obviously, they are setting up an impossible standard that they must know full well can’t be met. When Barr inevitably has to redact certain information from the report he sends to Congress, they will then falsely accuse him of a cover-up.
The major difference between what has been going on for two years with the Mueller investigation, and what will be going on for the next two years, is that the focus will now be on the Democrats. I predict two years of incessant whining prior to the 2020 election. I also predict that by then the American people will know that the Democrats are not attempting to “make America great . . . “

3/26/19

It appears that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation is over, and thus far the main headline is that there are no indictments . . . which means that he has not found any evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

Here’s what our nation’s top leaders had to say about the report.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) issued the following statement:          “I welcome the announcement that the Special Counsel has finally completed his investigation into Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 elections. Many Republicans have long believed that Russia poses a significant threat to American interests. I hope the Special Counsel’s report will help inform and improve our efforts to protect our democracy. I am grateful we have an experienced and capable Attorney General in place to review the Special Counsel’s report. Attorney General Barr now needs the time to do that. The Attorney General has said he intends to provide as much information as possible. As I have said previously, I sincerely hope he will do so as soon as he can, and with as much openness and transparency as possible.”The following is a part of a joint statement by Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi: “. . . Attorney General Barr must not give President Trump, his lawyers or his staff any ‘sneak preview’ of Special Counsel Mueller’s findings or evidence, and the White House must not be allowed to interfere in decisions about what parts of those findings or evidence are made public. . . ”House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MA) issued the following statement:“ . . . I urge the Attorney General to perform his duty to country and Constitution, ensure that this report is made available to Congress and the public, and resist any attempt by the White House to interfere . . . “
Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) issued the following statement:“Like most Americans, I am glad to see that this investigation, which has taken nearly two years and cost tens of millions of dollars, has finally come to a close. The reports that there will be no new indictments confirm what we’ve known all along: there was never any collusion with Russia. The only collusion was between Democrats and many in the media who peddled this lie because they continue to refuse to accept the results of the 2016 election. I am glad Attorney General Barr will now be able to review the report, and I look forward to Congress being fully briefed on its findings, including the cost to taxpayers.”
So far what I find interesting is the tone of the Democratic spokes-persons. They are still making sure that everyone knows that they will still be on the watch for skullduggery from President Trump and the White House. Why not just say that they are anxiously awaiting the full report, but no, again they have to make veiled accusations about something which has not occurred. These 675 days of Special Counsel tomfoolery are theirs, but to me the question remains whether or not they can be reconciled to the findings.

What I am especially looking forward to is the response of Rep. Adam Schiff (D,CA). As everyone is probably aware, he has used this investigation to make unfounded accusations against our President, while making sure that his mug was on MSNBC and CNN. Will he say, “mea culpa?” 

Will any of the Democrats say “mea culpa” to the American people for wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on such an obviously partisan boondoggle?

The college admissions scandal has got everybody talking these days. My personal reaction to the details is . . . LOL! To me it is incredible that multiple parents over a nine-year period have paid $25 million to get their children into certain “elite” colleges  (Pay to play!) As an aside note that most of these extravagant, “money is no object” parents are from California, but this is a topic for another day.

I asked my son, “What is the difference between these shenanigans and the so-called legacy admissions? With legacy, prospective students are given priority if either parent, or perhaps a grandparent, or aunt/uncle graduated from the school . . . of course a donation to the school is implied, and the more the donation, the better the legacy! Having legacy significantly increases the prospective student’s chance that he/she will gain admission to the school to about 34%, compared to a 6% chance for the run of the mill student applicant, assuming the same GPA, test scores, etc. My son answered, “The major difference is that with legacy, the ‘donation’ goes directly to the school – there is no middleman payoff, and thus no criminality.”

This leads to an interesting ethical question ? What if these uber rich parents had  offered the $25 million over nine years directly to the schools in exchange for having their little darlings admitted? This would be an upfront pay-to-play without any deceit, and thus no criminality. From the university’s perspective, what difference does one extra student make ? It could then use this money so that underprivileged and/or minority students would be able to afford these elite, expensive schools. Would not everybody benefit ? (Pay, so that someone else could play ?)

If you were a university president would you accept this money, so that multiple less fortunate students would be able to attend your elite university for free ? Ethical ? What do you think ?

The other side of this issue is: How important is it that one go to an “elite” college ? Does one have an equal chance for success if he/she goes to a non-elite college ?
For many years my answer to this question has been, ”No, not necessary to go to an elite college, and yes one’s chance os success depends much more on the individual, then on the school attended.  I asked a bunch of my friends which college they attended. Keep in mind that all of these individuals are now successful or have already achieved success in their lives.. Only one of these individuals had attended Harvard . . . the same number as attended Illinois Valley College, Loyola Marymount, Air Force Academy, University of Florida, DePaul, University of Pittsburg, University of Wisconsin, Cal State Long Beach, University of Colorado, College of St. Thomas, Cleveland State, Tulane, Northwestern, and San Diego State. Even though all but a few of them presently live in California, I did not discover that any of these successful individuals had attended Stanford or U.S.C., (As an aside, in the past, I knew only one guy that went to U.S.C. for certain, and he wasn’t a success.) Interestingly two of the most successful guys in my survey did not graduate college (but that is a topic for another day).

Many years ago I had to hire people to work in my department. What I thought was critical was not where they went to school, but rather if they seemed like they had a good work ethic and would get along with myself and my coworkers. Years after I had hired them, my initial impression was confirmed as I found no correlation between the college they had attended and their successful acclimation to our work environment. Although I did not specifically ask them, it is possible that some of their parents were from California, but I am quite certain that they had not paid for their children to play.

Sometimes “good” ideas come purely by serendipity with no malice aforethought – for you non-lawyers, no premeditation. Case in point: Today I was listening to music via Alexa. “Alexa, play 60s music on Pandora.” (BTW, I love my Alexa [Echo by Amazon.]) At the same time coincidentally I was reading the newspaper, and the article I was reading was about California planning to sue FEMA. Apparently FEMA has rejected $306 million in reimbursements for California’s repair of damaged spillways on the Oroville Dam. The bread and butter of this particular situation is not of critical importance here, as the important concept is that California is again involved legally with the federal government.

In 2017 California filed multiple lawsuits – 24 of them in 17 different subject areas against the Trump administration. These suits include the Travel Ban, D.A.C.A., the Border Wall, Sanctuary Cities, Immigration Enforcement, Transgender Military Ban, Birth Control, Obamacare, Student Loan Protection, etc.! By February, 2019 California was planning its 46th lawsuit against the Trump administration.
Two questions:

Q. Who is paying for all of these lawsuits?

A. California’s war against the Trump Administration is costing state taxpayers millions of dollars for lawyers and other costs connected to nearly four dozen lawsuits.  The price tag for the California vs. Trump war was $9.2 million for the 2017-2018 fiscal year ending June 30, 2018, up from $2.8 million the previous year — which included six months of the president’s first year in office. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a Democrat and former 12-term member of the House, justified the spending, while Republican leaders and taxpayer advocates say the lawsuits amount to a political stunt and a waste of taxpayer money. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has sued California three times, including over its sanctuary state law and the state’s new net neutrality law. Defending against these suits is also not cheap.

Q. Why so many anti-Trump lawsuits?

A. Certainly anger and spite are involved, and it is always easy to spend money that is       someone else’s, i.e. the taxpayers! But there is another obvious reason. These cases will all eventually be heard in the IX Circuit Court of Appeals that will  assuredly side with California.
Now here’s where Alexa came in. At the same time as I was reading about the latest California disagreement with the federal government, Alexa was playing “Runaround Sue” by Dion from 1961. That’s when the lightbulb went on! What if ? ? ?
What if the cases that were headed to one of the Appeals Courts, were first randomized, and could go then to any of the thirteen Appeals Courts. Sure these California anti-Trump cases could end up in one of the more liberal Courts of Appeal, but at least there would not be malice aforethought. Similarly suits filed in Texas could end up in the IX Circuit Court of Appeals! What fair for the goose, etc.!

For those of you that are against my “out of the box” thinking, do you not think that my “Runaround Suit” idea would decrease the number of vitriolic law suits if the ruling by the Court of Appeals was not pre-ordained?

A few years back I used to volunteer at a nursing home, calling Bingo. Each week I used to make a big deal if I pulled I-26, “my favorite number!” One week I said, “The next number is my favorite number. What is it?” The immediate response from Margaret, one of the regulars was, “Who cares!?”

Well that was also my immediate response to the announcement that Robert Francis O’Rourke, better known as Beto, was running for President in 2020 . . . “Who cares?” However, before I make a snap judgement, let’s examine his qualifications. He is a one term U.S. congressman from El Paso, who lost his recent Senate bid to Ted Cruz.  As Michael Ahrens, Republican National Committee spokesman, pointed out, “Mr. O’Rourke failed to get anything done in Congress, and with extreme policies like government-run health care and tearing down border barriers. It’s telling that the Democrats’ biggest star is someone whose biggest accomplishment is losing,” 
But is he “the biggest star?”

The most recent Harvard CAPS/Harris poll places O’Rourke sixth among a slate of current or potential candidates. The poll, reported first by The Hill, shows Biden leading the pack, with 37 percent of Democrat voters. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) came in second place at 22 percent, while Harris (D,CA) notched a third place finished with 10 percent, according to the survey.
What is he campaigning on? In February, O’Rourke unveiled a 10-point plan which would grant citizenship for “Dreamers” and their parents, along with “millions more” who reside in the U.S. illegally. Brandon Rottinghaus, a political scientist at the University of Houston, told The Chronicle that O’Rourke’s proposal places him to the left of several Democrat presidential candidates. “That is fairly to the left of where most of the people in the Democratic field are,” Rottinghaus noted. Some Texas Republicans say O’Rourke’s proposal is a slap in the face to U.S. citizens and those who immigrated legally.

Who is backing him? During “New Day” on CNN on 3/14/19, Vanity Fair special correspondent Joe Hagan discussed his profile on former Rep. Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke (D-TX) in-which Beto said that he was “born” to run for president. Hagan said he spent some days with O’Rourke and he described the failed Senate candidate as “a regular guy,” “down to earth” and “charismatic.”
So let me get this right! This Democratic rising star is a one term, perhaps charismatic congressman, who did not accomplish anything in Congress, and lost his last election. He is backed by Vanity Fair, and the only issue on which he will be campaigning seems to be unfettered immigration with views to the left of all the other potential Democratic candidates.

After examining his qualifications, I echo Margaret . . . “Who cares?”

Is having a spine a prerequisite for being in Congress? You probably are thinking, “What a dumb question? Just about every living thing has a spine.” But before you definitively answer the question, let’s review some of the recent votes in the Congress, and then you make your own decision. First we have the Rep. Ilhan Omar (D,Minn) fiasco. As everyone is aware she is getting a lot of attention because of the statements that she has repeatedly made about Israel and Jewish people in general. She said that politicians support Israel because of the money, and when asked who was paying off her colleagues, she said that it was AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), who by the way, doesn’t make campaign contributions. So next came a proposed resolution condemning anti-semitism.

From the New York Times: “It started as a resolution condemning anti-Semitism. Then, anti-Muslim bias was added in. After that came white supremacy. And by the end, it cited “African-Americans, Native Americans, and other people of color, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, immigrants and others” victimized by bigotry.” The resolution condemning “hateful expressions of intolerance,” passed the House by an overwhelming 407-to-23 vote, with only Republicans voting against it. (Again from the NYT, “Republicans mocked its all-inclusive approach. “We left out the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we left out Wiccans, we left out Jehovah’s Witnesses, we left out disabled people!” Representative Doug Collins, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, exclaimed shortly before the measure came to a vote, adding, “What makes you feel good doesn’t always heal you.”)
Some veteran Jewish Democrats, who had pushed for a measure that would solely condemn anti-Semitism, were equally dismayed . . . but yet voted for the watered-down resolution. So again I ask, “Is having a spine a prerequisite . . . for being a Democrat in the House of Representatives?”
The situation in the Senate is even worse. For the most part Senate Democrats predictably vote in lockstep with what czar Schumer says. To be fair and balanced, I must mention three Senators who recently essentially said, “I do have a spine,” when they voted against infanticide, while 44 of their Democrat colleagues went along with the czar. These three, Bob Casey (D,PA), Doug Jones (D,AL), and Joe Manchin (D,WV) voted their conscience, and not the party line! As for the other 44, you have to have a spine to follow your conscience and think on your own when Schumer essentially says, “Go ahead and kill babies. It’s okay!” Draw your own conclusions! 

So again I ask, “Is having a spine a prerequisite . . . for being a Democrat in the Senate?
3/14/19

Yesterday I read an article that was enumerating the 2019 inductees into the Women’s Hall of Fame. Before you read any further, think about who you think should be inducted this year . . . dead or alive, old or young, it doesn’t seem to make any difference. Pick someone who you think should be inducted in 2019, or for sure has probably already been inducted.
For those of you not familiar with the Women’s Hall of Fame, it is located in Seneca Falls, N.Y. and has been inducting members for almost 50 years. It is centrally located in New York State, and a visit could easily coupled with visits to the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, N.Y., the FDR Presidential Library just north of Poughkeepsie, N.Y., and Niagara Falls, all of which are within a day’s drive. 
At present the Women’s Hall of Fame has 276 inductees, and 10 more women are scheduled to be inducted this coming September. The past inductees include entertainers (Lucille Ball, Billie Holiday, Julia Childs), athletes (Babe Zaharias, Wilma Rudolf, Althea Gibson), and adventurers (Amelia Earhart, Sally Rand, Ann Bancroft). There are also those women who have been important in the Civil Rights Movement (Coretta Scott King, Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks). 
Wow, it sounds like an interesting place to go. Perhaps next summer.  Book ‘em, Danno!
Perhaps, before arranging for flights, a rental car, and hotels, we should see who is scheduled to be inducted in September of this year. Some of the inductees-to-be include Angela Davis of Black Panther fame, Jane Fonda, an anti-war activist of the 1970s, and Col. Nicole Malachowski, an ex-Air Force Thunderbird pilot and adviser to former First Lady, Michelle Obama . . . you get the idea! I actually reviewed all of the names of the prior 276 inductees, and although I agreed with a large number of past inductees, there were some things I could not understand. In fact, there seemed to be a pattern. Rosalyn Carter was on the list, but Barbara Bush and Nancy Reagan were not. Hillary Clinton was on the list, but Condoleezza Rice was not. Geraldine Ferraro who ran as the V.P. candidate with Walter Mondale was a thumbs up, whereas Sarah Palin who ran as the V.P. candidate with John McCain was a thumbs down. Again, you get the idea!
Hold off with the airline tickets, the rental car, and the hotels in N.Y. state!

BTW: My pick for this year’s inductee is Condoleezza Rice. The fact that she has not already been inducted and is not on this year’s list says all that you need to know about the Women’s Hall of Fame! 
Today I sent a letter-to-the-editor of my local newspaper as follows:
After reading the 2019 list of inductees to the Women’s Hall of Fame (SDUT, 3/10/19), I observed one glaring omission. I then reviewed the list of the 276 prior inductees . . . the same glaring omission! Why is Condoleezza Rice neither a past nor a present inductee? Could it be because she is a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican?

I read something in the paper the other day, and I thought that this would be another new way for the California Democratic Legislature to yet add another tax. This tax is presently alive and well in Germany, and it collects a lot of money every year. Last year this tax collected €11million in Berlin alone! At the present exchange rate, this equates to about $12.5 million per year for just one city that had a population of 3.7 million in 2018. Keep in mind that the Los Angeles population is approximately 4 million, which is similar to that of Berlin, and in addition, San Francisco has a population of about 900,000. Just think how much in additional tax could be collected in all of California with an estimated 2019 population of 40 million. If there are any Democrats reading this, I know that they are envisioning how much additional revenue could be raised. 

In Germany dogs need to be licensed and are subject to a ‘Hundesteuer’, meaning ‘dog tax’. Most European countries scrapped the dog tax in the 20th century but not Germany. In Germany, dog owners have to pay a “dog tax” and receive a tag confirming that they paid the license. This ranges from 24 to 100 euros per year depending on the breed of dog and on the location in Germany. In addition, dog owners pay a lot more dog tax per animal if they have multiple dogs. There are circumstances in which you are exempt from paying the dog tax, for example, if your dog is a service dog. Good news for adoptive pet owners too: if your dog is a rescue dog, you are exempt from paying dog tax for the first year. While cats do need to be licensed, they are not subject to any kind of tax.

Pet owners, be ready, because I think that once the Democratic legislators in California get wind of this tax, they will not be able to restrain themselves. I can almost hear them now. “If we can tax dogs, why not tax cats? In fact, why not tax birds, gerbils, and even ferrets?” Think of the additional millions of dollars in tax revenue that the California Democratic Legislature could put into the state’s coffers . . .  so that they could then spend it frivolously.

Some words of wisdom to my Democrat friends: “Slow down your breathing and do not get too excited!” 

Some words of wisdom to the rest of us Californians: “Shhh, don’t spread the word to them.” 

Some final words of wisdom for the dog down the street: “Auf Wiedersehen, Rover!”