Thoughts At Large

Passionate thoughts on random topics

#FreePress

Free Press

In May of 2016, a research article was published showing the rising level of partisanship in Congress from the 81st Congress (1949-1951) through the 112th Congress (2011-2013). The video, posted by Business Insider in 2016, looks like some bizarre red/blue organism’s mitosis except the resulting two cells have nothing to do with the original host cell. It is less mitosis and more segregation.

But that was in 2BT, a time which only seems like 2,000,000 years ago on the geologic time scale. A time we now call Before Trump (BT). Now in 2ST (Since Trump), we live in the “post-fact” world, a world of “alternative” facts. A world where, according to the Washington Post’s Fact Checker, as of August 1, 2018, in 558 days of the Trump presidency, Mr. Trump has made 4,229 false or misleading statements (an increase of 978 in two months). For those wearing neither their 1970’s calculator watch nor wanting to do a quick calculation on their smartphone, that works out to an average of 7.58 false or misleading statements per day.

And while no president thinks the press treats them with the deference they feel they deserve, the Founding Fathers felt so sure that a free press was necessary as a check on power they acknowledged it in the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Edmund Burke’s “Fourth Estate” was thus protected.

But now in 2ST, the president considers the press “an enemy of the people.” Although, let’s be clear, only those institutions who disagree with his positions. Today, over 350 papers across the country printed editorials restating their mission and discrediting Trump’s outlandish statements. Of the several places my family or I have lived and/or the newspapers to which I subscribe I give you a sampling of these editorials:

The Boston Globe

The New York Times

The Houston Chronicle

The Providence Journal

The Cape Cod Times

The Hartford Courant

The Austin Statesman

And before anyone rebuts with an argument of “well, if you’re such a fan of the First Amendment” how can you want every media outlet to remove Alex Jones?” Alex Jones, the InfoWars clown who once interviewed Donald Trump on his show and on which Trump said of Jones, “”Your reputation is amazing. I will not let you down.”

Simple, the press is responsible for reporting facts. As longtime New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” In response to a different assault on reason, Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson also once said, “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.”

When newspapers get the facts wrong, they print retractions and corrections. The Wild West world of social media has no such disciplinary mechanism other than the individual organization’s self-government. However, as private companies, users of these social media platforms are subject to the organization’s guidelines. I find what Alex Jones has said and instigated, specifically to the families of the children and educators murdered in Newtown, CT, beyond abhorrent. Oscar Wilde’s once commented,

“I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself,”

Private social media companies owe Jones no such freedom. He remains free to spew whatever hateful, disgusting lies he chooses (in order to continue selling snake oil tinctures to tin foil wearing well-armed survivalists awaiting some impending race/religious/political philosophy/government Civil War redux), it’s merely that no platform is forced to publish it.

So today I stand with news outlets across the country to call out a delusional president living in his own, self-created echo chamber determined to silence critics of his “agenda.” And I sleep confidently that the First Amendment can withstand calling out the president while private companies exile Alex Jones.

Advertisements

Celebrate Knowledge

Professor Hawking

“We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.”

 

Earth has lost one of its great thinkers. Stephen Hawking died at age 76.

Consider this: Professor Hawking was born 300 years to the day after Galileo died and died on Albert Einstein’s birthday. If he stood on the shoulders of other intellectual giants, perhaps his most significant achievement lies in the number of scientists who have followed him into science. He sought answers from the cosmos and conveyed it to the masses.

In an age where we celebrate celebrity, where fame is counted in magazine covers and computer clicks, Professor Hawking was famous for his mind! Today that seems as fundamentally difficult to grasp as Hawking radiation. And yet, in an America whose president conveys policy and fires cabinet secretaries in 280 characters or less, Professor Hawking, along with Jacob Bekenstein, was able to describe the thermodynamic entropy of a black hole in eleven characters.

Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy Formula

Celebrate Professor Hawking’s life today and contemplate what we value. Consider valuing health over drama, love over money, and intellect over fame. Idolatry is not the answer, knowledge is.

Happy Pi day.

Groundhog Day, Again

I’m pissed, and I’m tired, again. We’ve had another mass shooting in America. Surprise!

Our Founding Fathers (capitalized for respect!) were human, both flawed and determined. Their intellect and debate resulted in the living breathing document we call the Constitution. It, like them, is flawed and determined. It, like them, should not be considered sacrosanct. As a living, breathing document, created by humans, not gods, it is malleable to time. It is time we repeal the Second Amendment and confiscate the guns.

Sorry, Mr. President, sorry Congress, the United States is not burdened with higher levels of mental health issues than other countries. It is merely awash in guns. That is the problem. And until we face it, “active shooter” training in schools, emergency direction notices before movies, “thoughts and prayers” after every shooting from gutless politicians led by Republican intransigence at the direction of their NRA marionette masters will result in a continuing momentary sense or shock followed by a pandemic ennui throughout the public.

We now consider mass shootings and daily gun violence the new normal in America. The rest of the world also sees it as the new normal in America, and wonders why. We don’t even bother to wonder why anymore. This is not normal and should not ever be considered normal. Gun violence is a scourge injected into our society by flooding our lives with guns. Guns or drugs, it’s the business model. Flood the streets with them, deposit the cash, sit back and watch the inevitable, ensuing death metastasize. And the solution? More guns! Guns as the answer to fear caused by guns. Good marketing technique! A terrible shift in our collective consciousness.

We wring our hands and lament the “impossible,” multifaceted response required to address gun violence. No! The answer is simple. Remove the guns. No guns, no gun violence. That is my position. Call me a Democrat, call me a liberal, call me an asshole. I don’t care. No guns, no gun deaths. The Twenty-first Amendment repealed the Eighteenth, ending prohibition. Write a new Amendment abolishing the Second. And then have a big bonfire for the 300 million plus guns in an America with a new normal.

MLK, Jr. Today

MLK MonumentToday we celebrate Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in America. We mark it under a racial cloud because of what our president said recently about African and Caribbean nations. “Shithole/Shithouse nations” according to our, at best, racially obtuse president, and at worst, racist president.

Solomon Northup, in Twelve Years a Slave, wrote, “There’s a sin, a fearful sin, resting on this nation, that will not go unpunished forever. There will be a reckoning yet… it may be sooner or it may be later, but it’s coming as sure as the Lord is just.”

Northup wrote that in 1853, eight years before the outbreak of the American Civil War, 10 years before the Emancipation Proclamation, 12 years before the ratification of the 13th Amendment, 76 years before Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birth, 111 years before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and 115 years before King’s murder. And today, 50 years after King’s assassination and 165 years after Northup’s account, we are still paying the price of what President Obama termed “America’s original sin.”

There are epochs in history, categories into which we place significant events. We may consider ancient history to encompass the construction of the great pyramids or the rise and fall of Rome.  And we may believe the American Civil War to be “ancient” within the framework of the United States’ existence. Too quickly we relegate events to history and therefore outside an era upon which our brains must examine events contemporaneously. If we think of an event as being “history,” we can, to a certain extent, dismiss it as being old and no longer relevant.

Consider this, then: Martin Luther King, Jr. would have been 89 years old today. Conceivably still living, had he not been murdered in 1968. His contemporaries, those also born in 1929 and still among us include journalist Barbara Walters, actor Christopher Plummer, actor/comedian Bob Newhart, actor Ed Asner, author Eric Carle, and actor Max von Sydow. Dr. King was only 39 years old when he was murdered. This April 4th will mark 50 years since his slaying. By 2008, King had been dead longer than he had ever lived. Imagine what he might have achieved, where we might have been as a nation concerning race relations, had he lived these past 50 years.

Martin Luther King, Jr. is not the monument in the photo above that I captured in Washington, D.C. last summer touring the city with my children. Do not let the black and white pictures you have seen or grainy, less than 1080p online video fool you. He is a contemporary man who was trying to make the world a better place, not an ancient figure no longer relevant. He words still give rise to voices now because we still have work to do.

Perhaps the rise of nationalism and xenophobic tendencies we see, not only in America (Trump) but all around the globe, is cyclical. At its worst, we devolve into world wars. I hope that what we see today is a venting, a voice being periodically given to those otherwise so staggeringly ignorant we usually must drag them kicking and screaming toward a better future for all creatures living on this small blue dot careening through the universe. I hope that this is only a venting and authoritarian plutocracies do not get a foothold. I hope that we will again celebrate President Kennedy’s (via Ted Sorensen) aphorism “a rising tide lifts all boats” and we are not moving toward a future resembling 1853 or some other cataclysmic date in our collective “ancient” history.

I Dreamed a Dream Where I Could Dream

Empty Dream Catcher

To sleep, perchance to dream—ay, there’s the rub,

For in that sleep of death what dreams may come

When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,

Must give us pause. There’s the respect

That makes calamity of so long life.

In Act 3, Scene 1, as part of Hamlet’s famous “To be, or not to be?” soliloquy, Hamlet wonders if in death, which he assumes is only sleep, what dreams may come. And whether they are different from the dreams of the living after the distractions of daily life have been removed. He wonders if these dreams are to be feared, which, he posits, may be the reason we are unwilling to end life’s suffering at our own hand. Such are the thoughts of a plotting Danish prince who knows his uncle has recently murdered his father and married his mother to make himself king. But the premise upon which this fantastic speech is based is one I can appreciate but not experience. You see, Hamlet dreams.

I do not dream, and therefore, do not experience worlds beyond the one my eyes reflect. Reality is my only realm. The wondrous, stupefying, and horrific experiences of reality comprise all of my knowledge. I am not the unwitting audience of my imagination’s creation and performance each night. People’s wishes of “sweet dreams” are lost on me. So, too, any dread of nightmares. But is that a willing price, were I able to negotiate this? I think so. I wish I could dream. That is my waking dream. So why not me?

I’ve heard people say we all dream, it is merely a matter of when during the sleep cycle we awaken that allow us to recall dreams. However, I find it improbable that I can awaken every morning in any sequence of sleep other than that which will enable me to remember dreams. And this is in spite of the fact that I do not go to sleep at the same time every night and that my sleep is unnaturally interrupted each morning by an alarm clock rather than me surfacing from my slumber of my own volition. Of the 365 nights each year, I may recall five dreams, essentially one dream every two and a half months, meaning over 98% of the time I will not dream. By comparison, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern flipping a coin and it landing on heads 85 times in a row seems relatively unremarkable.

I can think of no higher representative of humanity than our imagination. It can be both terrible and beautiful. No other creature possesses this power. Schools and society attempt to beat imagination out of us, which is why children should be encouraged to maintain and develop their creativity separate from the societal structure and the constraints we place upon them. And in no realm other than sleep does imagination manifest itself freer than in our dreams.

This condition leaves me longing for (and angry about and jealous of) what others tell me from time to time. People will, on occasion tell me they dreamt about my late wife. How it was nice to see her, hear her, laugh with her, as if she had taken the train from heaven to spend a little time with them in some previously negotiated agreement with God in a place between heaven and earth called sleep. Please do not misunderstand. I am very happy for them if it brings them comfort and happiness. Perhaps, too, they have the obverse of that same coin. Maybe they have nightmares about her suffering and dying  (presumably not previously negotiated with God by Lisa) and they compassionately choose not to share those unwelcome dreams with me.

But I am left wondering if I am somehow not worthy of these almost tangible meetings. As if I am doing something wrong when I sleep. It leaves me lost in my waking conscience and subject to my limited imagination. Daydreams are malleable, but predictable in that they are rendered on the plane of consciousness, limited to reality’s laws of physics and rationale. Any comparative daydreams of mine are, in fact, nothing more than misremembered or subjective memories. Not so dreams. People dream of flying, falling, and, of course, spending time with people both famous and familiar who have died. Why not me?

A.A. Milne’s Winnie-the-Pooh says, “I think we dream so we don’t have to be apart for so long. If we’re in each other’s dreams, we can be together all the time.”

Nothing against anyone else, but why not me?

 

Now?

Enough

Is it too soon to talk about gun violence prevention after the murders in a Texas church?

Too soon? Insensitive? Politicizing?

Then can we talk about it related to Las Vegas?

No? Still too soon?

What about Orlando? Still too soon?

Yes?

Charleston? Roseburg? San Bernardino?

Really?

Washington Navy Yard?

Still? Hmmmm.

Surely Aurora?

No?

Okay, Sandy Hook?

No? Really? 5 years ago, almost?

Okay, you tell me. What time frame needs to pass before we can discuss an incident?

 

 

 

Still waiting.

 

No other country ranks their mass killings like the United States. No other country needs to rank them! No other country needs to rank the mass murders in their churches like the United States. Something is very wrong here. Sorry, Mr. President, Americans are not any more mentally deranged than any other country. The difference is access to guns. When is enough enough? When will Congress address this? Why do we tolerate inaction? Oh, sorry. Still too soon?

Diamonds

Two Diamonds

 

Weightlifters are strong. Carbon fiber is strong. America is strong.

These are the things we are taught represent strength. But in my experience, these items are breakable. Weightlifters may be able to bench press a Buick, but given enough reps, they can lift no more. Carbon fiber has a known tensile strength beyond which it breaks. And America has shown itself corruptible at various times throughout its history for a variety of reprehensible reasons. Why aren’t we taught that it is the individual who is strong?

I have known many people in my life. Some I can unconditionally qualify as kind, decent people. Others prove their lack of knowledge and compassion every time they profess their intellect. Most of us are a homogenization of sound and poor traits, just trying to get through life without the benefit of a manual. And then there are those who personify strength and determination.

The first trait of the strong is honesty. Honesty is the best policy for everyone until the truth hurts. The honest person is often seen as someone’s best friend until the honest person is honest with the friend. Often, the friend wilts beneath the eye of truth and the relationship itself withers. This requires there be a certain amount of strength to befriend a strong person. And I am not equating a strong person with having a strong personality. The two are not always required to be linked. The strong person leads a determined life while the strong personality may only be projecting a determined life.

The second trait of the strong is their response to the inevitable appearance of obstacles in life. Whether they be health concerns, family crises, professional challenges, or some other impediment, the strong know no other response than to fight. I also believe they find it easier to fight for someone other than themselves. Indeed, I believe they often garner the will to face indescribable personal challenges by projecting the need for success on the impact failure will have on those they love. Lao Tzu said, “”Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength while loving someone deeply gives you courage.”

A third trait of the strong is the ability to let go. This may sound counterintuitive but bear with me. In her column, Ann Landers once wrote, “Some people believe holding on and hanging in there are signs of great strength. However, there are times when it takes much more strength to know when to let go and then do it.” Whether this is a response to a terminal illness after fighting for as long as possible or the self-preservation associated with ending a relationship, letting go requires its own hard decision and determination to see it through.

In each of the traits outlined above, the only people I have known who have incorporated each of them and lived their lives accordingly have been women. This is not to denigrate men or relegate them to some pile of the weak. Instead, it is merely a reflection on the strongest individuals I have encountered.

I lost another of these incredible, inspiring women last night when Cathy Nance passed away. Cathy leaves two small children and a loving husband. But that is only the beginning of her legacy. You see, the legacy of the strong is strength. A strength her husband Scott will need to draw on now to carry on and a force her family and friends will need to harness to continue her work.

I met Cathy in Texas as accidental activists moved to action by the gun murders of twenty elementary school students and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012. Ignorance and acquiescence were no longer options for many people following that day in December. In the months that followed I met incredible people as we spoke out demanded better for our nation. To a person, everyone I met was a woman. It is hard enough being a woman given the male-dominated society we live in. We nod to some amorphous, chivalrous maxim while ignoring the sexism rampant in every facet of life. Imagine then how difficult it was to stand up and challenge gun violence and the gun culture in Texas where guns probably outnumber people.

I was only in Texas because we were seeking cancer treatment for my late wife. She was the strongest person I believe I will ever meet, encompassing every trait of the strong and radiating enough of it to allow me to survive her and continue living. Cathy’s own cancer diagnosis followed sometime after that. Why is it that the strongest people I know, people with the determination and courage to face any injustice or personal challenge, are hit with an unwinnable foe? It never seems to be a fair fight. I’ve known people who have beaten cancer, but their cancer was either caught early or of a nature that science had a remedy. That is not to say those survivors were not strong, they are, but why is it that the strongest are hit with something unbeatable? And what is it in these individuals that they continue to fight unabated? It is the embodiment of Faulkner’s line in Absalom, Absalom!, “If happy I can be I will, if suffer I must I can.” That is the hallmark of the strong.

Weightlifters and carbon fiber and America may be strong (with limitations), but perhaps the best example of strength is, ironically, something associated with women. It is the diamond.

There is one more quote I would like to reference here, and it aptly references a gun. I can think of no better summation of my friend Cathy.

“I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand. It’s when you know you’re licked before you begin, but you begin anyway and see it through no matter what.

― Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

I have known several diamonds in my life, and we lost one last night. Thank you, Cathy, for showing us what strength looks like. May we all harness the strength you radiated to continue your work and to strengthen ourselves. A fitting legacy to another lost diamond.

Without You, Again

Wedding Photo

We were denied our 26th anniversary two years ago when cancer took you a week before. Now I’ve had to endure what should have been our 27th and 28th without you. If our vows said “until death do us part,” why does it feel as though part of me died when cancer took you? Happy anniversary, Lisa. I’m doing the best I can without you. Thank goodness for the kids. And fuck cancer.

25

Trump Twitter

The President of the United States yesterday showed the world who he really is. However, instead of revealing a wizard behind the curtain, this reveal was no reveal at all. Many believed the mantle of the presidency would temper Trump’s showmanship, believing there was a measured, intelligent individual behind the bluster; that he used television and social media to gain the position but that he would eventually perform some hairpin pivot. Yesterday proved once again that his use of social media simply displayed the real man in plain sight. To appropriate his apologists’ favorite phrase, “there is no there, there.”

Yesterday’s rambling press conference essentially threw a grenade on the measured clarification (read: hostage tape video) he issued Monday to the outrageous, equivocating statement he made on Saturday. The statement on Saturday was, as written, not offensive. It did not call out the neo-Nazis, white supremacists, or KKK by name, but it was not unseemly. How low a bar we have set for this president! Instead, he went off script and injected his actual position by asserting blame be placed “on many sides, many sides.”

While Robert Mueller continues his investigation, whispers have once again been heard of invoking the 25th Amendment. For that to work, for America to cast off a racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, pathological liar, three individuals and the majority of the Cabinet would have to summon true courage (and face withering condemnation from Trump). Vice President Mike Pence, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, and Senate President pro tempore Orrin Hatch (numbers two, three, and four in the line of presidential succession) would need to invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment. It reads:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

However, if today’s Republican reaction to yesterday’s press conference is any indication, nothing will happen. Republicans, on congressional recess, are harder to uncover today than white truffles in an Italian forest. That silence is in itself a statement. Perhaps it is fear of being the “victim” of a Trump Twitter tirade, maybe it is the fear of being out front on such an issue, or perhaps it is because they do not want to anger their base, which includes some pleased with Trump’s comments yesterday. Nevertheless, it is just these people, emboldened by Trump’s comments, who need to be brought to task and this is just the time to be out front. All politicians fancy themselves historical figures who changed the world. Has there ever been an easier softball for them to hit? So, where are they?

Just as politicians envision themselves historical figures, the average citizen must have wondered what they would have done during historical events. What would you have done during the Revolutionary War? How would I have acted during the civil rights movement? It is against that backdrop that we must ask ourselves, what do we do now? Moreover, looking toward the future, when this week’s events are indeed history, how do we respond to our children and grandchildren when they ask what we did when President Trump defended bigotry? History and our descendants will ask.

Publius ad absurdum

 

“Bill rejected coverage for my new knee,” bemoaned Karen as she read the form letter with the very personalized facsimile of Bill’s signature.

“You’re kidding!” exclaimed Harry. “And after I sent him that Bundt cake and paid for his lawn to be thatched!”

“I know!” continued Karen. “What is this country coming to if the head of the homeowner’s association can’t see his way clear to providing coverage for necessary medical procedures. And just because I told his wife, Claire, that I liked their old flowerbed better than that mulch monstrosity they now have!”

“I liked it better when the cities and towns used to control healthcare,” said Harry, wistfully.

“Me, too,” Karen said softly. “The Henderson’s moved from Cypress Heaven to Wimbledon Estates and Ken lost coverage for his cancer treatment. A “pre-existing condition” they said. Remember when the city used to cover healthcare?”

“Remember? I can remember when the state used to provide coverage! And my parents remember when the federal government used to cover it! Something called Obamacare, after that old guy, Brock Obama. Used to be president.”

“My parents remember that too! They said it provided coverage for the majority of those who didn’t have coverage, but then something called the Tea Party obstructed Obama on everything he tried to do, just so they could prevent him from succeeding. That was standing up for your principles! Of course, then Supreme Leader Trump was elected, isn’t that quaint! They used to elect leaders! And in order to make the federal government smaller, he transitioned most essential services to the states, who in turn, transitioned it to the cities and towns, who, ultimately, transitioned it to the homeowner’s associations.”

“Yeah, I’ve read about that. Back when Supreme Leader Trump was just the president he said the federal government should only be responsible for dealing with things like North Korea. Of course, that was back before we had a coalition with North Korea, Russia, and China against the aggressors from South Korea, Australia, and Canada.”

“Strange, though, the federal budget still runs a deficit. I wonder what might cause that?”

“In fact, I looked it up on EuroGoogle, the illegal search engine not associated with the officially mandated WikiLeaks search engine, and the federal budget in 2016 was half the budget of 2020. It seems that when essential services were transitioned to the states, the budget for the military doubled. I guess that’s why they make us drive half-tracks and tanks now instead of sedans and SUVs.”

“I guess. But back then you didn’t get free upgrades on handguns, rifles, and silencers. Talk about pre-existing conditions! Can you imagine living in a country where it wasn’t mandated that everyone openly carry his or her firearm? How barbaric! What were people supposed to do? Talk to one another? Trust people? Come on!”

“Anyway, I guess I’ll have to continue using this wheelchair. We can’t afford the surgery and maybe Ken’s cancer will just go away.”

“Let’s pray it does.”

“Did you hear about Madge?”

“No! Is she okay?”

“She’s fine, but was raped.”

“I don’t understand. Are you saying what I think you’re saying?”

“I’m afraid so. She’s now got a pre-existing condition and will lose her health coverage.”

“That doesn’t seem fair! I mean, I could understand it when Claire lost her coverage after she left David because of the domestic violence. After all, she used to wear those jeans that showed almost all of her ankle, but Madge? She didn’t do anything wrong!”

“Well, to paraphrase that great statesman, Mo Brooks, why should all of the good people, who’ve led good lives pay for those who haven’t.”

“Will she be okay?”

“Oh, sure. She’s still got her job. Although teaching over at Glen Estates Heaven Cypresswood isn’t what it used to be.”

“What do you mean?”

“Well, I mean, that subdivision lost quite a few residents after the deportation squads cleaned the Others out.”

“Oh, right. They had non-Christians over there. Yikes!”

“Well, at least if she loses her coverage and her job she’ll be among those like her.”

“Hey, like the Supreme Leader had inscribed on Trump Patriot Lady after he had that silly Statue of Liberty renovated, “Made America Great Again.”

“Thank God for Trump!”