Born in the USA

  By Florida Bill          

                               With all of the talk about a border wall and the deportation of immigrants who are in the United States illegally, the subject of babies born on American soil to an undocumented mother again is the subject of fresh consideration and discussion.  
                                Also under review by the Trump administration is the status of young children, known as "dreamers," who have been brought to America by undocumented parents.  There are an estimated 800,000 such youngsters in the country today, and President Trump has said recently that their non-citizen status is under review.  
                               Infants born in America of parents who are in the country illegally, are frequently referred to as "anchor" babies, a label considered by liberal Democrats to be cruel and disparaging. To these critics who are sensitive to "political correctness," use of the term connotes a subtle form of anti-immigration and racism.  
                                We are told of pregnant women who are in the final days of gestation when they slip across the border or are boated over the Rio Grande into the USA.  Birth occurs with care of the mother provided by a hospital, and the infant becomes a citizen entitled to benefits which include social security and education in a public school. 
                              Last year, a Honduran mother flew to the USA and gave birth to her Zika baby.  The child, a citizen, will cost taxpayers at least $1 million for treatment and care until emancipation.  America is generous, no question about it, but is the uncontrolled largess fair to families footing the costs? 
                               Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina described it as a "drop and leave" policy which needs to be changed by amendment or statute.  To have a child in America, a woman crosses the bridge, goes to the emergency room, has a child and that child is automatically an American citizen entitled to welfare and other benefits.  "That shouldn't be the case.  It attracts people here for all the wrong reasons," said Graham.
                               President Trump has been critical of the narrow interpretation of the constitution which gives citizenship, under any conditions, to a baby born on American soil.  The 14th amendment to the Constitution provides: 
                               "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law"                               
                               According to testimony  by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security,  between 350,000 and 400,000 children are born annually to an illegal-alien mother residing in the United States — as many as one in ten births nationwide.  Babies of undocumented residents are actually born at the rate of one every 93 seconds, researchers say.                                                             Correspondingly, some government offices estimate that a child born in 2013 would cost his parents $304,480 from birth to his eighteenth birthday, with a significant amount coming from government. 
                                    During the past campaign, President Trump, then a candidate, raised the subject of the "anchor" infants. It was a divisive subject triggering cheers from citizens who wanted conditions placed on birthright citizenship; and approval from others who said that such rights were guaranteed in the constitution, and immutable. It does not take a genius to recognize that birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment  works as a magnet for at least some parents across the globe. 
                                     Where the children of illegal aliens accompany their parents to the USA, they too remain as illegal aliens, along with their parents. But greater concern is given to these children since the USA is the only home they have ever known.  In most cases, these youngsters called "dream children" adapt and become solid Americans, but without credentials as a citizen.  This is a problem which Congress must address and determine if there is a path to legalization or citizenship for them. It is anticipated that the "dreamers" will be put onto  path to citizenship.
                                          President Trump has been critical of the unchecked flow of illegal immigrants, primarily from Mexico.   During the campaign he was straightforward with his belief that such uncontrolled births by women who have entered the country by sneaking over the southern border was not right and was unfair to citizens footing the costs. Other members and former members of Congress have strongly agreed with him.                         

                         Is the meaning absolute as some say?  Is it conceivable that if a visiting couple becomes stranded in the United States for unanticipated and bizarre reasons, and the woman gives birth prematurely to a baby, that baby would automatically be registered as an American citizen?   I think not.  And as has been maintained by some, the 14th amendment does not control and the child does not become a U.S. citizen, but remains subject to the jurisdiction of the country from whence his parents came. 

                       Some legal experts will argue that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means as of the moment of birth and therefore it is the land on which you are born at the moment of birth.  Other scholars dismiss that interpretation.                                                        It would be absurd to argue that the founders of this nation ever intended anchor baby citizenship, with no guidelines or control.  The intent of the 14th amendment, according to scholars, was drafted with non-whites in mind so as to guarantee that children of all men who might have at one time been slaves be considered natural born Americans entitled to receive all benefits accorded to American citizens.

                       Conceivably, the 14th amendment  can be amended so as to more clearly define natural birth and citizenship. However, the amendment process is lengthy and cumbersome requiring a constitutional convention and ratification by the legislatures of at least 38 states. It is doubtful that that will ever happen. 
                       There is extensive differing of opinion as to what might be done so as to clarify the amendment dealing with citizenship. Some believe that congressional legislation might be appropriate in establishing the parameters of the birthright provision. Restrictions can be placed upon constitutional rights without rendering those restrictions as unconstitutional.  The best examples of placing restrictions on constitutional rights can be found in controlling abortions and in controlling speech such as prohibiting the screaming of "fire" as a joke in a crowded theater or arena.  
                     Anchor babies and dream children are a complicated issue and a divisive problem.   Dreamer issues, and questions concerning birthright citizenship are ripe for examination by the President,  Congress and the Supreme court.

                                               XXX 

Special counsel and the Inspector General

  By Florida Bill  

                                   Washington has become so tangled in its investigations that one has to wonder when, and if the "swamp" is ever going to get drained.
                                    I have an idea that investigators are stepping on each other, arguing about subpoenas and witnesses and who will be called to appear before the grand juries in Washington or Virginia, and who is first in line to testify before the Congressional Intelligence committees of the U.S. House and Senate.  Who gets lauded by the biased media, and who gets hammered for incompetence? 
                                    By most accounts Special Counsel Robert Mueller is considered the principal and most powerful investigator. If that is accurate, where does Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz fit into the detective work?  Mueller's mission is to determine if President Trump and his team "colluded" with Russians in its effort to help defeat Hillary Clinton; and Horowitz is investigating to determine if Former FBI Chief James Comey, Mueller's close friend, conducted a sham investigation of Mrs. Clinton to prevent her candidacy from being derailed.
                                     The first investigator out the door got started on January 12, 2017, when  Horowitz announced in a news conference that he would investigate the techniques and possible "misconduct" and "leaking" of documents by then FBI Director Comey.  The director had become the target of criticism and accusations from both Democrats and Republicans for a variety of alleged misdeeds in his (Comey's) investigation of Hillary Clinton and her mishandling of classified emails.  If criminal misconduct by anyone is found, Horowitz assured newsmen, he will recommend prosecution, and also provide a full written report on his investigation. 
                                     Horowitz is one of 73 Inspector Generals  appointed to monitor federal offices.  Horowitz's area, since 2012,  is the Department of Justice with its attorney general, thousands of lawyers and the FBI.  His position is authorized by Congress and he has immense power and heads a large staff of lawyers, accountants, auditors, investigators and office personnel. He is a powerhouse, and his announced mission to evaluate the acts of an FBI chief is almost unprecedented, as he is questioning the revered FBI, an office with a world-wide reputation for efficiency, honesty and bipartisan objectivity.   
                                     On May 9, the new Republican president fired Comey as FBI chief for what he said was incompetence and misconduct.    Republicans cheered, but Democrats who had been accusing Comey of dishonesty and of causing Clinton to lose the election,  promptly reversed direction and charged that Trump was now "obstructing justice" by attempting to kill the FBI investigation into Russian "collusion."  
                                      Fiery objections came from Democrats and the fawning and biased media, and that drum beat led to the appointment of 72-year-old Robert Mueller as Special Counsel to investigate Trump's "collusion" with Russia and according to his contract, "anything else which might arise" in connection with it.  It made Mueller into a loose cannon who can investigate anyone or anything he deems relevant. 
                                     Mueller, whose friendship with Comey is well known, has hired 17 other attorneys to assist him and you can bet his investigation will go on for "forever and a day," and will cost taxpayers many millions of dollars.  President Trump says it is the biggest political "hoax and witch hunt" ever perpetrated on American citizens.  
                                     Mueller has plenty on his table to investigate, but then so does Horowitz. How they coordinate their gumshoe activities is any one's guess, but neither wants to be outshined by the other.  The evidence that Comey fell down in his job of investigating Mrs. Clinton and her apparent mishandling of classified documents is strong.  The best thing going for Comey is that he is a close friend of Mueller's. 
                                      Alongside Mueller and Horowitz are the intelligence committees of Congress.  Senators and representatives on both bodies believe that Attorney General Loretta Lynch had told the FBI director Comey to go easy on Hillary in its investigation of her handling of emails, and and that the Comey investigation was a total sham.  Comey has even confirmed under oath that Lynch told him to treat the FBI email criminal investigation as a ho-hum "matter," and that he acquiesced to her order.  
                                        Talking about investigations--we shouldn't overlook Judicial Watch, a dedicated bipartisan government watchdog organization.  It has initiated 20 or more lawsuits aimed at Hillary Clinton and Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch for several matters including Lynch's sneak meeting with Clinton's  husband, the former President, which was grossly improper.  
                                       Theoretically, the House of Representatives and the Senate can recommend prosecution of any miscreant to Attorney General Jeff Sessions with or without the consent of Mueller. Horowitz can do the same as can grand juries empaneled by Mueller. Reportedly, Mueller's men have raided the home of a former campaign director of President Trump's campaign and have seized documents. 
                                       Mueller has the ability and resources to  chop into any related matter as he sees fit to do. No limits and he and his team get paid for every hour of work.  Doubtlessly, he will seek payment at the rate of $1,000 an hour.  So if each lawyer worked six hours in a day, the bill would be around $96,000. Mueller's salary would be on top of that.  But it's taxpayer money, so who is counting. Horowitz gets no special bonus for his work---it's just part of his job. 
                                       Congressmen on the intelligence committees also are seeking answers from President Obama's security chiefs, Susan Rice, James Clapper and John Brennan concerning their "unmasking" and snooping into private telephone conversations involving Trump and his supporters. Rice and Clapper have told conflicting stories on this and President Trump has said that Gen. Clapper has lied to Congress in the past and that Rice, with her "unmasking" has broken the law. Mueller should have some interest in those matters.  
                                        President Trump would like to fire Mueller because he has assembled on his team a number of attorneys who have supported Hillary Clinton financially and cheered for her to win the election.  That is a clear conflict of interest which would justify his termination as "special counsel." That question remains open, and has been recommended to the President by some advisers and lawyers.   
                                                                                       
                                              xxx

The Culture of Fox News

  By Florida Bill   
                                                       
                                                 Just recently,  Eric Bolling, an iron man anchor at Fox News, was informed that he was being suspended for 5-year old instances of lewd texting, when he allegedly sent photos of  his private "package" to three female colleagues at the popular cable station.
                                  That Huffington Post exclusive story had barely hit the Internet when a woman who had appeared as a guest on "The Specialists" show which Bolling hosts at 5 p.m. daily, filed a complaint accusing him of sexual harassment. The station is investigating, but there are reports that Bolling may be out permanently, and that a new host, possibly Laura Ingraham, could take his place.   Bad week for Eric!!!
                                   The 54-year-old Bolling who has been a Fox News employee for nearly 10 years, angrily denied all wrongdoing, and has filed a $50 million dollar lawsuit for defamation against the Huffington online news site, and its 32-year-old Iranian- born free lancer, Yashar Ali, who wrote the Bolling story.   
                                    The sexual harassment accusation came from Caroline Heldman, who is an associate professor of politics and political science at Occidental College in Los Angeles.  She has charged that Bolling embarrassed her on the air by referring to her as "Dr. McHottie."  Off air, she said, he has time and again sought a sexual rendezvous with her.  It's all fabricated garbage from a woman seeking attention, Bolling has fired back. 
                                    But Journalist Bolling was not alone in getting caught up in all these "sexting" charges.  In 2013, Ed Henry, one of Fox's top Washington reporters and a popular on-air personality, took a four-month hiatus after reports surfaced that he had texted photos of his manhood to a Las Vegas stripper with whom he had become friends. He stayed off the air for the 120-day vacation, and returned, and sure enough, talk of his sexual misadventures went away.  His popularity never took a hit, but I doubt that Henry will be sending out any more such photos to his female acquaintances. 
                                    The idea of sending photos of private parts to work colleagues has me scratching my head.  Aside from the weirdness of sending unsolicited manhood photos by phone, text or social media,  I have to wonder about how the photos are obtained.  Straight on "Selfies" with the cell phone? Mirror shots? Portraits by a friend?
                                   But as today's free spirits say, if it's what you enjoy, go for it. But watch out who you send it to, and make sure you do not violate some federal obscenity law.    
                                          About a month before Bolling was accused of the sexting, a pink suspension slip landed on the desk of Charles Payne, who is the host of "Money Talk" on the Fox Business affiliate on grounds that he was being accused of sexual harassment. 
                                        Payne's accuser, Scottie Nell Hughes, had been a guest on his show on numerous occasions, and had acknowledged trysts with the married Payne.  She contended that she cooperated with Payne's invitations in return for his promised help in obtaining for her full time employment with Fox.  She has produced racy emails authored by her in which there was talk of sex play and "thrusting" in a swimming pool.  The matter is now under investigation by Fox, and Payne has said that he will fight these ugly lies "like a lion armed with the truth." 
                                            If the most recent Bolling and Payne episodes of alleged sexual misbehavior inside the offices of Fox News are not enough, management now confirms that it has fired Jamie Horowitz from his executive spot with the Fox Sports outlet in New York for sexual harassment of women. Also in hot water with the station and under investigation is Francisco Cortes who oversees the Spanish side of Fox news.  His alleged indiscretions go so far as to include a sexual assault of a woman, and that too is under the Fox microscope.    
                                 Over the past couple of years,  Fox executives and on-air personalities have been clobbered by accusations of sexual misbehavior and for hitting upon attractive women on staff, and guest contributors.  A person might legitimately wonder about what's going on inside the studios at Fox News, the nation's most popular cable news station for more than a decade, that would make so many of its biggest names feel that this kind of behavior is okay.  One former contributor has described Fox as “a sex-fueled, Playboy Mansion-like cult."        
                                   Some might say such a jaded corporate culture starts at the top. The chief executive of Fox, Roger Aires, resigned in 2016, after a former Miss America accused him of seeking sexual favors in exchange for her getting ahead. Other Fox women, including Andrea Tantaros and Julie Roginski, also complained of his inappropriate sexual behavior toward them. Shortly after Aires left, his closest aide,  Bill Shine and a couple of other assistants, were pushed out the door.  
                                 "Big Dog" Bill O'Reilly, one of the industry's most popular conservative pundits, was fired after it was revealed that Fox had spent some $13 million dollars settling claims against him over the past 15 years.  Comely women reporters and on-air personalities have claimed that O'Reilly pursued them in a sexual way, often by telephone calls in which he breathed heavily and panted.  One African American office worker claimed that O'Reilly kept staring at her breasts, and referred to her as "hot chocolate." O'Reilly has denied all wrongdoing.                                         Internet "sexting" and emailing and hitting on the  ladies is not the exclusive recreational activity of newsmen. Perhaps the most recent publicized example of the behavior is by six-term New York Congressman Anthony Weiner who had a penchant for sending photos of his private parts to women that he knew and to those he had never met. For a period he did so using the alias, "Carlos Danger."  Eventually, his obsession became known and he resigned from Congress, and he even ran unsuccessfully for Mayor of New York explaining that he had undergone  therapy and was a new man and that he had stopped "sexting" on the Internet.  But his internet sex play continued and subsequently he was arrested for sexting with a 15-year-old girl.  He plead guilty in federal court, and is scheduled to be sentenced on September 8.  He faces a maximum 10 years in the penitentiary.                                                                                                   When the first such charge hits the media, things can typically go one of two ways. Other women who were previously afraid to come forward on their own join the chorus of complaints which in some cases becomes a groundswell. Or, on the other side: there are surely those with no involvement at all who jump on the bandwagon in hopes of getting a fat payoff. Truth or blackmail, or both?
     Nevertheless, with all of those allegations, the culture might be questioned concerning the free wheeling sexual attention paid to Fox workers and station contributors by Fox execs and on-air celebs. New chiefs at the station appear to be far less tolerant of such unprofessional conduct and seem hell-bent on bringing professionalism and courtesy to the ranch. Just how much house cleaning are they going to have to do?

                                                xxx 










o                                               

Sea Turtles, We Have Your Back.

  By Florida Bill     

                          If you are strolling along one of the many Florida beaches, you might catch sight of a path leading away from the water, resembling one made by a truck tire.  It won't remain there long as the tide will soon wipe it away.  But it was there for a special reason. It marked the arduous, sand-flipping journey of a sea turtle who crossed the beach to dig a nest in the sand, deposit her eggs, and return to the water. 

                         In some 45 to 70 days, those eggs will break open and hatchlings will emerge en masse and with their tiny flippers, wend their way to the water.

                         For about one out of every one thousand of these tiny creatures, it will be the beginning of a long life in the water.  For the rest, Mother Nature has laid out a perilous journey, strewn with pollution, chemicals, discarded fishing gear, disorienting beach lighting, boaters, coastal development, and of course, natural predators.

                        Among the sea turtle species are the Leatherbacks, Greens, Loggerheads and Hawkbills.  Each nest in the sand, shaped like a light bulb, will contain from 80 to 120 eggs the size of ping pong balls. Each mother can lay multiple nests.

                        Sea turtles are endangered species pursuant to Florida law and in accord with the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973.  Nova Southeastern University manages the Broward County Sea Turtle Conservation Program in partnership with Broward County. An important part of this effort is the Marine Environmental Education Center (MEEC), based in the Carpenter House, which is situated along the shores of the Atlantic in Hollywood, Florida. 

                        The facility is open to the public from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Tuesday through Saturdays, and the friendly staff will deliver a full plate of "turtle talk," and answer questions concerning the fascinating life of these animals. (Visit nova.edu/meec for more information.)                                                             The life of sea turtles can last for 50 to 75 years   Starting their life as a one inch long hatchling, some species like the loggerheads and leatherbacks will grow mightily and attain a weight of 1,500 to 2,000 pounds, explained the facility director, Dr. Derek A. Burkholder, a turtle and shark marine scientist. Their life is then spent gliding about the ocean floors like Jules Vernes' Nautilus, surfacing from time to time for air and for depositing eggs into their nests in the sands.  

                         About 30 student and alumni volunteers assist the NSU researchers and staff who mark and monitor some 22-24 miles of shoreline for nesting mothers.  Nesting season begins in about mid-March, and continues through June, hatching continues into September.  So far this years, some 32,000 nests have been observed.  As the hatchlings  burst from their eggs and from the nests, staffers monitor them with red lights to make sure they make it to the water.

                        The nests are then inventoried, and any hatchlings who did not make it out by 7 a.m., along with those who were disoriented during their own march to the sea, are gathered up and kept in a dark, dry container at room temperature and released under supervision after 9 p.m. Hatchlings deemed unfit can be kept for two or three days. If they still aren't ready, they are sent to rescue facilities. Every step is part of the effort to improve those grim survival odds.
                        As part of a small group observing the baby turtles' race to the sea late one evening, we watched by dim red light--even the moon can disorient the hatchlings and send them flippering off in the wrong direction--as the turtles who had been collected earlier because they were in need of release, scattered and ran along the sand until they were swept up by the waves. Laggards were scooped up to try another night. 

                        Carpenter House also is home to a 52-pound (and gaining) Green turtle whose life for the last couple of years has been inside a pool fitted with a special filtration system next to the house.  With plenty of staff affection, that lady has been named "Captain" and she swims with abandon to the delight of her watchers, with all meals and necessary medical care provided, explained Dr. Burkholder.

                        Captain was injured several years ago when she was struck  by a  boat which cracked her carapace, rendering her unable to dive and surface, and causing a condition known as "bubble butt."   To correct this, said Burkholder, staff scientists have affixed weights to Captain's carapace giving her the ability to function normally.  As she grows, the weights have to be adjusted. Captain eats about a head of lettuce and a good amount of vegetables daily, all provided in a special dip net device.  Green turtles live a long life and their weight may hit 250-400 pounds.  So,  Captain has some growing to do," Director Burkholder told a group of patrons visiting the facility.

                         Does the Captain get lonesome?  No, said Dr. Burkholder, I don't think so.  However there has been talk of introducing a second female Green by the name of Morgan into the pool, but there has been no decision on that. Captain seems quite content, said the director. Periodically, he said, she is lifted from the pool and examined by the scientists to assure that her vitals are in order, and that the carapace with its crack, is okay for swimming, diving for food and surfacing for air.  Turtles have lungs, as do other animals, and needs to surface to breathe from time to time, although they can remain under water for an extended period of time. 

                         The conservation facility also will intercept sea turtle mothers on their way to nest and will equip them with a flipper tag and an electronic satellite tag which enables the scientists to follow and record movements.  In some cases, the turtles will swim for thousands of miles, but generally will return to the same nesting vicinity every other year. 
                          There is also a sea turtle emergency response hotline. If you come across a dead, sick or injured sea turtle or hatchling, call 954-328-0580.
                                     
                       

                                                                               xxx

                 

Mueller's Grand Jury

  By Florida Bill     

                                       While it should not come as any surprise, it has been reported that the special counsel retained to investigate alleged "colluding" by members of the Trump team with Russians has empaneled a grand jury, maybe even two, and is fast at work. 
                                             Some newspapers and pundits on the air waves exclaimed, "Wow, he means business. Subpoenas are going out. There will be indictments.  It's 'Trumpgate,' so get ready for the fireworks." 
                                              The 23-member juries have been set up in Virginia and in Washington D.C. With the D.C. forum it looks like Mueller has given himself a leg up to find misbehavior by Trump, in that the District of Columbia voted 96 per cent in favor of Hillary Clinton in the presidential election. Republicans just cannot be found in that environment. 
                                              It is notable that Alan Dershowitz, a widely-known and respected Harvard University professor and author, and a long-standing Democrat, believes that Mueller seems to be stacking the deck against the President with the D.C jury.  And together with his assistants whose past endorsement of Clinton is a matter of record, it appears that the supposed straight-shooting Mueller is not quite the fair minded investigator he was held out to be.  
                                             Aside from the frenzy and elation exhibited by CNN, NBC, CBS and an assortment of dopey talking heads, the assembling of a grand jury is in itself essential, to a complicated investigation,  particularly in this one in which tentacles of accusation of wrongdoing reach far and wide.  President Trump and his associates are definitely under the microscope, but so also must be the former FBI director James Comey, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and an assortment of officials from both the new Trump administration and the Obama White House. 
                                           There are reports also that former President Obama was advised that the Russians were interfering in USA election matters long before Trump was nominated.  Did Obama do anything about it, and if so, what?  Mueller should want to know about that.  There is no restriction on subpoenaing a former President for testimony under oath.    
                                             A Grand Jury has two functions.  It is an investigating tool, and it can return indictments. It can issue subpoenas for documents and for witnesses who will be compelled to testify under oath.  An investigation  without a grand jury is like a woodman without a saw.  Remember the "investigation" of Clinton and her emails--there was never a grand jury.  Witnesses were never compelled to testify under oath and relevant items like DNC computers and records were never turned over to the FBI.  Plain and simple, that investigation was a complete sham.  
                                             For sure, the 72-year-old Mueller will be busy.  According to his May 17 appointment, his mission will be to investigate "any links and/or coordination between Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Trump....and any other matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."  The "any other matter" in that contract opens the door and almost commands Mueller to investigate Clinton and Comey and Loretta Lynch, the former Attorney General, if he is to do his job.                              
                                              Did Trump and his aides "collude" with Russian statesmen on orders from President Putin?  The FBI investigated this for months and found nothing. Virtually every intelligence chief, including James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence during the Obama presidency, has said that he has seen no evidence of any collusion.  Former CIA director John Brennan has said about the same. The FBI investigation supposedly determined that Russia had hacked and poked its nose into election activity here, but found nothing to demonstrate Trump's knowledge of it or his encouragement and cooperation. President Trump says its a "hoax" and a "witch hunt" pushed by Democrats bitter over Hillary Clinton's loss.  
                                              But it is not just President Trump who allegedly held hands with Russia.  Mrs. Clinton had her own flirtatious deals with President Putin's Russia, and apparently with the Ukrainians, which must also be investigated by the Mueller men. 
                                              Concerning Russia, Secretary of State Clinton approved the sale of 20 per cent of America's uranium reserves to Russians, and presto, the "Clinton Foundation" received more than $100 million dollars in  donations from the Russian uranium buyers.  And husband Bill, the ex president, got an honorarium of $500,000 for a dinner speech sponsored and arranged by a Russian connected to the acquisition.  Another interesting twist is that top Ukrainians visited the DNC during the heat of the campaign and promised to do whatever they could to help Mrs. Clinton. Even Clinton's campaign chief's brother had connections with Russians.   Any "colluding" there for the Mueller team to look at?                                           
                                                For Mueller and the attorneys, it is a great spot to make money as the cash faucet will flow without interruption. It will cost the taxpayers many million, but then who is counting. It will go on for--who knows how long. For each attorney, a sweet pay day.  Mueller has engaged 16 other lawyers, maybe even more,  to assist him in making the investigation, including a number who are Clinton supporters who contributed to her campaign.  Some of the lawyers resigned or took a leave from another position to answer the call from Mueller, a former FBI director. Trump and his attorneys have raised the question of a "conflict of interest" on the part of Mueller, and theoretically "conflict of interest" is grounds for replacing a special counsel. 
                                              Some legal observers say that Mueller is looking into the possibility that the President obstructed justice by firing Comey on May 8.  That's a pipe dream since the President can fire anyone working for him for any reason or for no reason.  Comey, himself,  has said the same thing.  More pertinent perhaps is the question of Comey's leaking to the press the contents of privileged communications with the president and that is a crime. 
                                                  Comey's investigation of Hillary Clinton concluded in July of 2016 with his announcement that Mrs. Clinton would not be prosecuted.  Comey has revealed that he had been told by his superior, Atty. Gen. Loretta Lynch, to characterize the Clinton email criminal investigation as a ho-hum "matter."  That testimony by Comey under oath accused Lynch of  endeavoring to protect Mrs. Clinton, and he acknowledged that he went along with the cover.                                                  
                                                  Lynch, Clinton and even former President Obama should be subpoenaed for their sworn testimony. Mrs. Lynch will also be asked to explain her clandestine meeting with Clinton's husband prior to the announcement that Mrs. Clinton had committed no criminal wrongdoing.   It's all on the table as part of the "Russian investigation," and I believe Mueller will have some explaining to do if he dodges these Clinton matters.  
                                                   

                                                xxx 
  

          

TRANSGENDERS

  By Florida Bill 

                                                  A few days ago, President Trump announced in a morning tweet that transgenders would not be permitted to serve in the military in any capacity.  While the tweet revealed the president's intentions, it did not make new law.  But it lifted the curtain on a whole new controversy, coming just a year after his predecessor had ordered that transgenders would no longer be banned from serving openly. Trump's tweet read:
                                "After consultation with my generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. military.....Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail."
                                            Almost immediately, the anti-Trump machine led by CNN, NBC and the New York Times labeled the Republican president a racist and a bigot, and phony shotgun polls were published that Trump's popularity "had hit a new low."  One congressman told Fox News' Tucker Carlson that barring transgenders from serving was shameful and would cause the country to be less safe. 
                                            Aside from the absurdity of diminished safety, it was maintained by liberal pundits that "tens of thousands" of transgendered men and women wear the uniform of their country.  Others put the number at 15,000 now serving in the army, navy, marines and air force.  One conservative organization estimated that there were a mere 250 transgendering military persons. 
                                            Speaking of "how many," the Department of Defense said that the exact numbers of transgenders serving is simply not known as there is only "very limited data" available. Rand researchers in 2016, at direction of the DOD, reported estimates of between 1,300 and 6,600 on active duty and between 830 to 4,100 in the reserves. With such wide-ranging numbers being bandied about, it is clear no one has a clear idea of what is going on on the transgender military front.
                                            The president believes that their presence in the ranks is "disruptive."  He is wrong and a bigot, assert liberal CNN pundits, most of whom have never served in the military and have zero idea of what goes on in barracks and around servicemen. 
                                            Do you believe that there is anything out of line when a transitioning man is assigned to the female barracks, splashing about in the shower room?  Is it appropriate for a woman seeking to become a man to take up residence in the men's barracks before and after the genital reassignment surgery. Apparently, Trump and his generals believe it is "disruptive" and something to be avoided.  Are you a bigot if you believe that Trump makes a good point?
                                            As to transgender costs, it probably is a tiny percentage of money spent on health costs in the military, but still it is not exactly peanuts.  If genital surgery, hormones, drugs and follow up therapy cost $40,000, as is estimated by some, and 4,000 transition, the cost would be $160 million dollars. Nothing to sneeze at.  Transgender defenders argue that the cost would not exceed $8 million annually, a mere drop in the bucket.  These defenders point out that some $80 million is spent annually by the military for Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs, so why not take care of servicemen who wish to transition to another sex.                                                      I was a soldier a good many years ago  and never encountered any transgenders. No one even knew what it meant back in those days. I was curious as to what other former military men and women think about the possible changes among today's troops, so I queried friends who had served their country in more innocent times. 
                                               Gail Carrick of Colorado said she supports the President on this.  "I don't care if gays want to be in the military," she said, "but I draw the line at paying for sex change operations.
                                             "Maybe I am old fashioned," she added.  "I have been reading posts on Facebook where conservatives are quoting the Bible.  My opinions have nothing to do with religion.  I am more of the opinion that our military is not there for social experiments.  I did my 22.5 years in the Air Force and I had a hard enough time with the open bay showers without allowing men to shower with the women.  I don't know who thinks this is a great idea, but I sure don't."
                                                Charlie Morris of the Chicago area was a commander in the Navy and served on the USS Safeguard in the Pacific. He knows how men and women live in close quarters on  ships and submarines  and how the captain is kept busy resolving disputes, some sexual.  Now, says Morris, with bringing the LGBT onto the vessels, there is additional commotion. But be clear, he said, I have no objection to women serving in the navy and in the other branches of the military, and would point out that women have done an outstanding job in the service of our country.
                                                 I do not oppose service from transgenders in the military,  but I would restrict their service to non combat positions, and from service on naval ships, said Morris. "Transgenders on ships are likely to trigger unnecessary disruptions," he added.  
                                                "It makes me shiver to think of the male surgery and what it is that gets attached to the females," said former Navy lieutenant John Siewers of Chicago.  "Let's just say I would prefer not to bunk with them."  
                                                   Former Chicago Tribune labor editor, Jim Strong, said simply "never in combat."  Jim Ward a retired business executive, opined, "I support Trump on this one." 
                                                   Mike Hanley who was a fighter pilot during the Viet Nam war and later a captain for Pan Am and Delta, says he has nothing against transgenders. "I have never known any," he stated.  "I fear, however, that it would be 'hazardous' for these individuals, given the anti-transgender sentiment which seems to be prevalent in the military ranks.  Its safer for them to stay out of the military," he concluded. 
                                                    In the l990s, the country took up the question of gays serving in the military and it was decided that they could serve, but they had to be mute on the topic and not announce their sexual preferences inside or outside of their barracks.  The program was known as "don't ask, don't tell." That remained the rule in the services until a few years ago when President Obama directed that gays, and subsequently, transgenders, could serve openly in the military, and that is the current status.                          
                                                   The tweet from President Trump was indicative of his thinking.  However, his tweets do not have the force of law, and there will be no change in regard to transgenderd serving in the military, until Trump, as Commander-in-Chief, issues a formal directive reversing the current rule which allows them to serve openly and to receive special medical care.
                                                    Could it be his tweet was just a way of testing the waters to see how much hysteria results? 

                                                 xxx


( 

Live in America, and Speak English

   By Florida Bill  

                                             The United States is truly an exceptional nation.  But in its 250 plus years of existence--and I would bet that a lot of people do not know this--no one ever succeeded in making "English" the official language of the country.
                                              Routinely, proposals for "Official English" are introduced in Congress.  There is often a good deal of talk and predictions that it will become law, but ultimately the bill dies until its resurrection in a future session.  It seems like it ought to be a slam-dunk, but it isn't.  
                                              Iowa Representative Steve King has a bill pending in Congress seeking to have English declared as the nation's official language.  His confidence in its passage has increased with the election of President Trump whose has made "America First" a priority with his administration.  
                                              Europe, it might be noted, has some 50 nations and each has its own official language, and I suspect that residents have pride in their homeland, as America does.  Many Europeans actually speak more than one language which often includes English, but in their home territory there is an official tongue.  In Spain it is Spanish;  in France it is French; in Germany, it is German,  and in Italy, it is Italian.  The United Kingdom has declared English as its official language as have some surprising spots like Gambia, Ghana, Liberia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.  Official English in many, many places---but not in the United States.  
                                              There are roughly 6,500 spoken languages in the world today.  The most popular tongue is Mandarin Chinese with 1.2 billion persons speaking that language.  If you go to China and insist on speaking a language other than Chinese, and then try to demand government services in your foreign tongue, you won't get too far.  What you will get is the China boot.                         
                                              America is the world's most generous and exceptional nation, where everything is laid out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights--but no language is official.  Thirty-two of the 50 sovereign states have enacted a law declaring English as its official and primary language inside its state lines, and five states currently have legislation pending toward that end.  So why isn't English the official language of the USA, asks King, Congress' most aggressive proponent of English as the nation's official language. 
                                            English is the language used for legislation, regulations, executive orders, treaties, federal court rulings, and all other official pronouncements so why not clear the table and have "English" receive its rightful and legitimate blessing, said King. Then there would be something to back us up when we say to our  legal (and illegal) visitors, "Learn English!" 
                                            Researchers tell us that around 90 per cent of Americans, both Republicans and Democrats, favor the declaration, yet the years pass and legislation is considered, but nothing ever happens.  Somehow, with "political correctness" going full tilt, the idea of requiring immigrants to learn English is seen in liberal corners as a "tool of oppression," bordering on racism.  
                                           Former President Obama believed that immigrants ought to learn English, but he saw a declaration by the nation that English is its official language as sort of unsportsman-like to immigrants. "Nonsense" said King.  English is the dominant language in the USA, and Spanish is second, although depending on where you live, it may seem that order is reversed.   
                                           As a senator from Illinois, Obama voted four times against bills calling for English as the national language.  But he was not alone.  Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden opposed it also, as did more than 30 other senators, mostly liberal Democrats.    It's unfair to immigrants to face this language burden, argues Obama, who has suggested that instead, Americans just learn to speak Spanish and then everyone would be bilingual. 
                                          President Obama stood in real contrast to other presidents, including Pres. Clinton, who favored English as the language of America.  One, in particular, Theodore Roosevelt, had plenty to say on the subject, as he extended a warm and friendly hand to immigrants, but there were caveats. 
                                          "In the first place," he said, "we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith and becomes an American and assimilates himself to us--  he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else... There can be no divided allegiance here.  Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, is not an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."   
                                           In recent months, we have heard  President Trump point to the importance of speaking English.          "We will stop apologizing for America, and we will start celebrating America," Trump has asserted. "We will be united by our common culture, values and principles, becoming one American nation, and one country, under one constitution,  saluting one American flag," 
                                           With the new President, whose patriotism and love of country is worn on his sleeve, and who has said that under his administration, "America will come first,"  there is increased optimism that "English" will at long last become the official language of the United States.  Correspondingly, immigrants would be obligated to speak English if they are to assimilate into the American way of life. 
                                                xxx