http;//www.Californiacontrarian.com

There was a story in my local newspaper the other day about an “undocumented worker,” Victor Coba Alvarez, who along with 31 of his coworkers, was caught up in a February ICE federal search warrant at his place of employment, Zion Market, in San Diego. The article attempted to portray Mr. Alvarez as an unfortunate victim of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and although some of that may be true, he is not merely an innocent bystander. He is an illegal.

Although it did not say for how many years Mr. Alvarez had been an “undocumented worker,” we do know that he had worked at Zion Market for 12 years. The management at Zion Market claims that it did not know that the 32 workers were “undocumented,” because they all had the required two forms of government issued I.D.s. So here we have somewhat of a quandary. Either the management at Zion Market is lying and they knew that Mr. Alvarez and his 31 coworkers were illegal, or Mr. Alvarez and most, if not all, of his coworkers went out of their way to obtain two false government issued IDs each. My suspicion is that both are true . . . Mr. Alvarez probably did have two fraudulent “government issued IDs”, and Zion Market realized that the IDs were fraudulent, but hired them anyway. Either way Mr. Alvarez is illegal.

The article went on to say that the family of Mr Alvarez is also suffering in that the breadwinner for the family no longer has a job. One daughter, age 19, had to cut back on going to school, and the younger daughter, age 17, is in therapy. Mr. Alvarez did say  that the ones most impacted are the children. He is correct, but who is responsible for putting them in that position? Of course, the answer is that Mr. Alvarez, himself, is the one to blame. 

As a matter of fact, I do have some compassion for Mr. Alvarez because if I were in a similar situation, I may well have done the same thing as he did many years ago. Furthermore he has been a productive member of society for many years, and has not broken any laws after his illegal entry into the U.S. The problem with the viewpoints of both President Trump and the Democrats is that they both treat all illegal immigrants the same, when that is far from reality. I do not view him the same way that I view illegals who are breaking laws, abusing spouses, joining gangs, driving drunk, dealing in drugs, etc. Likewise I do not view him the same way as I view those illegals who are here to take advantage of the many social benefits that our state and our country offer. As I have stated, I do not hold any malice toward Mr. Alvarez, as he is not the prototypical gang-banger or lowlife that is here only to take advantage of “freebies.” 

If all illegals are not the same, how should we divide or separate them. What should we do about “the Victors?” Here is my idea. I am proposing that illegals be separated into three separate categories:

1. Those like Victor who are productive and law-abiding. Neither Victor nor his family should ever be allowed to vote, and they would not be qualified to receive any social benefits in the future. They are not citizens, and should not be considered as such in the future.

2. Those who are lawbreakers should be arrested, jailed, and/or deported immediately.

3. Those who are receiving any social benefits (e.g. food stamps, disability, etc.) would have a one year”probation” period, during which time they either become productive or are deported.

I realize that I will again receive heat from all sides, but to me my proposal is fair with a modicum of empathy.

Do both public charter schools and traditional public schools in major metropolitan areas receive equitable per-pupil funding? 

The University of Arkansas has looked at this question for several years, and looked at the comparable funding in 15 cities. The Public Charter School Funding Study is a series of analyses comparing the funding levels between public charter schools and traditional public schools across the country. 

They defined a public charter school as any school that (1) operates based on a formal charter in place of direct school district management and (2) reports its finances independently from the school district. We define all other public schools as traditional public schools (TPS).

The latest study, “Charter School Funding: (More) Inequity in the City,” examines all sources of revenue including federal, state, local and nonpublic dollars during the 2015-16 school year in 15 cities across the nation that have a high concentration of enrollment in charter schools. The 15 urban areas that are included in the study include Atlanta, Boston, Camden, Denver, Houston, Indianapolis, Little Rock, Los Angeles, Memphis, New Orleans, New York City, Oakland, San Antonio, Tulsa, and Washington.

The results generally show that among schools that serve a similar population of students, public charter schools are funded at lower levels than traditional public schools. Charter schools in all 15 cities received on average 27 percent less total revenue than traditional public schools (an average $5,721 per pupil). Differences in the rates of enrolling students with special educational needs only explain the charter school funding gap in the cities of Atlanta and Boston.

In general it is accepted that the students that attend most charter schools do better. For example in 2019 in NYC, black and Hispanic middle school students at the Success Academy Charter Schools network were accepted to the elite NYC high schools at double the rate of their black and Hispanic cohorts citywide. Not a surprise as the same thing happened in 2018. Keep in mind that Success Academy chooses their students by lottery, and the acceptance, or not, to the select high schools is based on a single highly competitive entrance test. 

Many years ago one of my neighbors told me that Dr. X was his doctor because Dr. X charged more for an office visit than anybody else in town, and therefore, he must have been the best. “You get what you pay for,” he told me. Likewise, people who shop at Nordstrom’s know that they while they are paying more for something, they are getting something of higher quality, and that’s okay because, “You get what you pay for!”

So far, so good, but it is here that I get puzzled because the economic adage, “you get what you pay for” does not seem to apply when it comes to educating children. Most charter schools do a better job at educating children than the local TPS, but yet in the comparative study noted above, the charters do so with an average 27% less revenue.

In New York City the revenue discrepancy between charters and TPS is $5,008 per student. Imagine how many of the 50,000-plus New York City school children on charter-school wait list could be accommodated if the total amount of money in that revenue discrepancy could be reallocated to fund more charters in NYC . . . and as a bonus, NYC would actually get what it was paying for, namely better educated children!

“Using human beings-including children-for perceived political gain is reprehensible,” Sen. Kamala Harris (D,CA) wrote on Twitter. This statement by one of the many potential Democratic candidates for the presidency was in response to the reported possibility of transporting illegal immigrants to sanctuary states and cities. Of course, even those who are big Kamala Harris fans know that her statement is purely reactionary and political. Since usually it’s the Democrats that criticize the President for using Twitter, perhaps this is another example of the pot calling the kettle . . . err, err, never mind! I would like to ask Ms. Harris if she has actually thought this through! She might well answer, “Obviously not!”

Perhaps the following logic will help her better think this through, as I am proposing that we look at the situation from the perspective of the brand new immigrant. I suspect that looking the situation from the non-political perspective of the immigrant is probably an alien concept to Ms. Harris. Has she thought about this from the perspective of an new immigrant ? Obviously not. 
To help Ms. Harris learn about what these new immigrants need and want, one of my Spanish speaking friends spoke with Jose, who had recently crossed the Rio Grande with his wife and their two children. The following is an encapsulated summary of Jose’s feelings on this matter:

“I am an immigrant from Central America and I have just come across the border into southern Texas. Do I want to stay in south Texas? Obviously not, as my first priority is getting to someplace away from the border where I can hope to try to start a new life. That is going to involve figuring out a plan and a route through and out of Texas. How am I going to accomplish that ? In what direction should I go ? I wish that someone could help me find a place where I will feel safe. Do I want to be looking over my shoulder every time I do something or go somewhere ? Obviously not. Perhaps there is some place where I would not have to worry about getting grabbed by the INS in the future ? Somewhere safe and secure . . . is there anyplace safer and more secure than what they call “a sanctuary city or state? “ Obviously not, but where is such a place? I speak no English. That can be a big problem if I end up going someplace where everyone speaks only English. How would I find any work in such a place ? And just as bad, my wife and my kids only speak Spanish. How would my wife find friends ? Where would we go to church ? Where would my kids go to school ? We need to settle somewhere where others speak Spanish, where the schools are bilingual, and where the church services are in Spanish. Is there such a place ? How do I find such a place ?Will I be able to find such a place on my own ? Obviously not.

I have heard that the Democrats are sympathetic to us newcomers. Perhaps they will be able to direct me and my family to a place where I will feel safe, a place where a lot of people already speak Spanish. Perhaps they can figure out a way to help me get to a sanctuary state like California, Colorado, or Illinois, or even better yet a city like San Francisco or Chicago. Is it possible that perhaps one of the Democratic candidates vying for presidency can help me.?”
After reading Sen Harris’ Twitter comment on transporting new immigrants to sanctuary cities and states, I must conclude that her answer to Jose’s last question is, “Obviously, not me!”

Who is Pete Buttigieg? My initial answer is, “Does anybody care?” But wait; let’s be more tolerant, as this 37 year old is one of the latest to put his name in the 2020 Democratic hopper, hoping to be chosen as their nominee for president.

First of all, he is a very smart guy who is the son of two Notre Dame professors. He was his high school’s valedictorian, and subsequently went to Harvard where he graduated magna cum laude in 2004. Subsequently he was a Rhodes Scholar in 2007. Like I said, “Pete is a very smart guy.”

In November 2011, he was elected Mayor of South Bend, Indiana. He took office in January 2012 at age 29, becoming the youngest mayor of a U.S. city with at least 100,000 residents. He was re-elected in 2015 to a second term. So far, so good, but there are no more successful chapters in his book. 

His experience in state politics is a goose-egg, as he was the Democratic Party nominee for State Treasurer of Indiana in 2010, and was defeated by Republican incumbent Richard Mourdock, garnering only 37.5% of the vote. Ouch!  On the national level his experience is another zippo.  He ran for chair of the Democratic National Committee in 2017, and withdrew from the race on the day of the election. Ouch!
As he has already stated that he is not going to seek a third term as Mayor of South Bend, what is this 37 year old going to do with his future free time? Well the answer should be intuitively obvious . . . to snowflakes. He should run for President of the U.S.A.!! It is amazing to me that someone who has never had a state, much less a national office, has the hutzpah to run for President! (At least Beto had been elected to the House, and at least Obama had been a Senator . . . albeit for one term. Trump was a uber successful businessman.)

Pete is a far leftist, and in my opinion, those far left Democrats should be encouraged as they are not electable. He supports abortions into the third trimester out of a belief in “freedom from government.” And he won’t rule out tax hikes. “If the only way I can get all of us paid parental leave, universal health care, dramatically improved child care, better education, good infrastructure and, therefore, longer life expectancy and a healthier economy is to raise revenue, then we should be honest about that,” he said. Go, Pete, go!

But it gets better. Since launching his exploratory committee to run for president on Jan. 23, he has already raised $7 million for his campaign. (Somebody must care!) Now, think about that for a second. Who would donate money to a nobody’s presidential campaign ? Who are the 7 million snowflakes that make up this blizzard?  My view – do not discourage this tomfoolery. Encourage donations to Pete’s campaign. The more money these nincompoops donate to Buttigieg now, the less money they will have in the future to donate when there is a substantial challenger to Trump.

A recent Quinnipiac poll found that 4 percent of Democrats would vote for him — the same number that supports Elizabeth Warren, who has been a U.S. senator for six years. Again an amazing statistic. 4%!! Who make up these 4%? I can’t put a finger on a word that means the combination of a “snowflake” and a “nincompoop,” but that neologism would fit here. And finally he has already had a “Hillary deplorable moment” when on “Meet the Press” this past weekend, Pete accused evangelicals of being “hypocrites” for accepting, rather than rejecting Trump. Guess who all of the “hypocrites” will not be voting for?
So now that you are familiar with Pete Buttigieg . . . “Does anybody care?”

Dear Senators Harris and Feinstein,
I know that the Democratic Party has always stood up for the downtrodden and the less fortunate in our society, and with that in mind, I am confident that you will be voting for the Education Freedom Scholarship (EFS) bill, being proposed by Sen. Cruz (R,Tx) and Rep. Byrne (R, AL). If you are not familiar with EFS, let me bring you up to date. 

The following is from the U.S. Department of Education’s website:

“The policy will make a historic investment in America’s students, injecting up to $5 billion yearly into locally controlled scholarship programs that empower students to choose the learning environment and style that best meets their unique needs. The policy would not rely on any funds currently allocated to public education, nor would it create a new federal education program. Participation would be voluntary for students, schools, and states.”

Obviously the State of California has had its disagreements with the Trump administration, but here is a chance for California to take advantage of a new program which will benefit mainly those minority students that are presently trapped in failing inner city schools.

Again from the website: “EFS will be funded through taxpayers’ voluntary contributions to state-identified Scholarship Granting Organizations (SGOs). Those taxpayers will then receive a non-refundable, dollar-for-dollar federal tax credit. EFS will not create a new federal education program but instead will allow states to decide whether to participate and how to select eligible students, education providers, and allowable education expenses.”

To no one’s surprise, EFS has the backing of the Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos who said, “I believe every student in America deserves the opportunity to pursue the education that best meets his or her needs. No student should feel stuck in a school that just isn’t working for them, or feel hopeless because they live on the ‘wrong’ side of town. Education Freedom Scholarships will finally give students the opportunity to learn in places and grow in ways that have too often been denied to them.”

 I realize that for the last two years the Democrats in the U.S. Senate have for the most part opposed just about anything that has had the backing of the Senate Republicans, but I am confident that you will agree with the Secretary of Education and will recognize the benefits of EFS for those children who have been denied a chance at a good education because of partisan past political bickering.

I want to extend my thanks to you both in anticipation of your future presumed enthusiastic commitment to the education of the unfortunate children who are presently denied access to quality education, especially in your home state.

Sincerely,

This past weekend I noticed an obit in the Wall Street Journal. This was unusual for me as I never read obits in the WSJ. However, this one attracted my attention as the name on the obit was very unusual, and there was a sketch of the deceased, a dapper-looking young black gentleman with a stylish long beard and a collared shirt buttoned all the way to the top. His name was Ermias Joseph Asghedom. His father was an immigrant from Eritrea, and his mother was black American. He was born in L.A. and was raised in the Crenshaw neighborhood in South Los Angeles. As a teenager he joined the local Rollin’ 60s Neighborhood Crips gang, and for the most part he stayed in his “scruffy Hyde Park neighborhood” in South Los Angeles. On 3/31/19, he was fatally shot outside a clothing store in South Los Angeles. He was 33 years old. 

At this point he sounds like just one of the many unfortunates who never escaped the ghetto, and really never had much of a chance. But why was his obit in the Wall Street Journal when on most days an obit like this would not even have made the L.A. Times? 
Would it help if I told you that his other name was Nipsey Hussle? If this helps you, then you are much more into rap music than I ! At this point I was still NAC (not a clue!), but then I read his complete obit.

According to the obit, he was a very successful Grammy-nominated rapper who supplemented his music career by trying to revitalize his neighborhood. Instead of leaving South L.A., he bought real estate and opened up stores and created jobs. He said that his music was partly about how to succeed as a young black entrepreneur. He had invested in an organization, Vector90, which provided workspaces and training in science and technology. He had hoped to provide a bridge between Silicon Valley and the inner city.
His death at an early age is full of ironies: His life was ended outside his Marathon Clothing store in Hyde Park . . . a store that he opened in an attempt to revitalize that neighborhood. In one of his songs, he said, “I’m from where homicide boosts the economy.” A trilogy of his recordings was titled “Bullets Ain’t Got No Name.” On April 1, the day after he was shot, he was scheduled to meet with the L.A. Police Commissioner to talk about ways he could help stop gang violence and help kids. And finally, he recently tweeted, ”Having strong enemies is a blessing.”

Wow, what a guy! His death is a big loss to the Hyde Park area and to the multiple inner city kids that live there. It would be a fitting tribute to Ermias Joseph Asghedom, if other black rappers would follow his example. Will any of them step-up ?

With all the falderal about the money for the border wall, I do not believe that I have heard any comments about what’s best for the migrants who are making the onerous journey north from Honduras. Have Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, or any of the uber Democratic liberals in Congress ever been to Honduras? I doubt it, and I also would bet that only a few could find Honduras on a map. I would be astonished if any of them can spell or pronounce the name of Honduras’ capital city, and would be amazed if any had flown into San Pedro Sula or into the capital, Tegucigalpa – the two largest cities in Honduras. Furthermore, I am close to 100% certain that none of the know-it-all politicians have ventured into the back country hinterlands of Honduras, where the poorest of the poor actually live. How can they be so certain that the gospel that they are preaching is indeed what’s best for the Honduran congregation? The answer is quite simple   . . . they don’t know what’s best for them, and furthermore they do not care! It’s all about politics and cozying up to their base, most of which also know zero about Honduras!

Likewise, how many of those politicians, who like to hear themselves talk on T.V., have read Enrique’s Journey? It is a true story about a teenager who makes the dangerous trip from Tegucigalpa to the U.S., so that he can be reunited with his mother who is working for a well to do family in the Los Angeles area and sending most of her earnings back to her family in Honduras. For those of you who are not planning on reading Enrique’s Journey, let’s just say that things do not work out well for the teenager, who has no job skills and cannot speak English. Does anyone think that these unaccompanied minors (teenagers) and the scores of young adult men who make the trek from Central America will have a happier ending than Enrique? 

Among these migrants are there those who would qualify as true refugees? Absolutely, and those applying for true refugee status should do so in their own country, either in the northeast, San Pedro, or in the southwest, Tegucigalpa. For them to make the long journey to the U.S.- Mexico border and to then apply for refugee status only after arriving is cruel and makes no sense.

Unfortunately, poverty is a worldwide problem. Is it a problem in Honduras? Absolutely! What is the solution for those individuals who are trapped in the grips of the poverty in their own country. In my opinion, there is no easy way out for the poor living in Honduras, or anyplace else for that matter. The only feasible answer would involve some sort of sponsorship program in the U.S – sponsorship of a poor family by individuals or church groups. In this sort of program the sponsor would assume responsibility for the housing and the economic survival of the recipient family for years and perhaps indefinitely. Those recipients would not have a path to citizenship, could not vote, and would not be eligible for any of the social programs in the U.S. (food stamps, Medicare, social security, etc.), as all of the responsibility would fall to the sponsors. I would be extremely interested to actually see if any liberal individuals or groups would step-up to the plate and actually help. Chuck, Nancy, you are both extremely affluent. Would each of you sponsor a family? Would you step-up ? If both of you would get into this game and put your money where your mouth is, think of all of good that would follow. You could hit a home run, and potentially make it to the World Series.

But back to reality. In my opinion, the best chance for the future is to invest in the education of the Honduran children. If these children can receive a good education, they have a chance to escape to a better life . . . mostly still within the borders of their own country. Call me an optimist or call me a realist, but I firmly believe that this is the best answer for a problem that otherwise has no end in sight.

FYI: I do know how to locate Honduras on a map, and furthermore can pronounce the name of its capital city! I have been to Honduras three times and am planning on going again this summer. BTW: If Chuck or Nancy wish to go with me in July, my response is “welcome aboard!”

This is something that you will not hear about on MSNBC or CNN, and guaranteed that it will not make the front page of either NYT or WaPo. However, consider yourselves fortunate as I am going to explain Labor Force Participation(LFP).
LFP is defined as the percent of the population aged 16 and over working or looking for work. It is important as a gauge of how fast the economy is growing, and whether or not inflation will be generated. The Labor Force Participation (LFP) bottomed out in 2015, and since then it has stabilized at around 63%, defying expectations. According to the Wall Street Journal on 3/25/19, in the past six months the number of people outside the labor force has fallen by one million, the largest decline on record, and probably because the number of job openings and the rising wages have drawn in more workers in their prime working years, 25 – 54 years old. According to economist Ernie Tedeschi of Evercore ISI, the increase in this age group’s labor participation is from workers who had reported disabilities or were discouraged and are now seeking employment. What makes this all the more noteworthy is that this present LFP is running contrary to the predictions of the Labor Department, the Federal Reserve, and the Congressional Budget Office, all of whom had projected a decline mainly due to the aging of the population, as only 20% of Americans 65 or older work or look for work, and this should lower the overall LFP.
Now I realize that some of you are finding this economic drivel boring, but let’s take a step back, and review:

LFP bottomed out in 2015. 

LFP is defying expectations of demographic-driven decline.

LFP is running much better than had been predicted by the experts.

Why is this? Why will MSNBC and CNN not mention Labor Force Participation?

Duh!! It is because the present outstanding LFP is due to the policies of President Trump. While the Democrats have been caterwauling about Russia, etc., etc., Mr. Trump and his team have been doing things to help the economy. Prior to the 2016 election the prior president was talking about the “new normal” of slow economic growth, but oh, how things have changed since Donald Trump was elected. Coincidence? I think not! As an aside I wonder if ex-President Obama ever sits in his new D.C. home, looks at the present economic data including LFP, and considers if he and his policies were wrong! . . . BTW I would not spend too much time giving this serious thought! In the same vein do not hold your breath waiting for any of the vast herd of presidential candidates from the Democratic Party to mention economics, much less LFP, as they appear to have no idea of what the term implies in the real world!

Almost a year ago there was an op-Ed in the New York Times titled “An Urgent Debate for California Republicans: How to Get Back in the Game.” It pointed out that this will be an enormous uphill battle because of the demographics of what we have now in California, namely that 45% of the voters are registered Democrats while only about 25% are Republican. There is a Democratic governor and both U.S. senators are Democrats. The state legislators are overwhelmingly Democrats.”Oy-vey!” Or perhaps, I should say,”ah caramba!” 

Is there any hope? Not if the Republicans continue to use parameters that are based on common sense. John Cox, the Republican who lost last year’s governor’s race, was campaigning on fiscal sanity and respect for the rule of law – both common-sensical, and therefore both losers! My novel idea . . . start a grassroots campaign to persuade our state Democratic lawmakers to institute a soda tax. At this point I am hearing collective oy-vehs , but hear me out. 

First: I have yet to meet a Democrat that does not think that additional taxes are a good idea. 

Second: This tax would hurt those people who drink a lot of soda (low to medium income) not those who prefer Perrier (higher incomes), and Democrats seem to have a penchant for doing things that hurt those who can least afford it. (e.g. recent gas tax!)

Third: An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal last week was talking about the soda-tax and it’s consequences in Philadelphia. As was pointed out this tax disproportionately punished the poor in Philadelphia. Many have attempted to avoid the tax by buying groceries outside of the city limits which has subsequently eliminated about 300 jobs. The combination of these lost jobs and paying more for Coke, etc.has resulted in approximately 59% of Philadelphians now opposing the tax, and those Democrats who initially backed it are nervous about the upcoming elections. 

Perhaps the California voters will see the light and vote the Democrats out when they are paying more not only to drive to the 7-11, but also more to purchase their Big Gulp! If this works, the next grass roots tax that we need to persuade Democrat legislators to propose is a tax on tortillas. Una buena idea, no?

“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.”