Opuscula Is there no way To prevent fraud In our elections?

TWO LOSERS — JILL STEIN AND HILLARY CLINTON are seeking vote recounts in three states. President elect DONALD TRUMP is countering that the Stein-Clinton recount movement is a scam

Most of the Clintonite media blasts Trump’s remarks as having no basis or value, yet Stein and her people admit they have no proof of fraud – just that the pre-election polls and the vote tallies don’t match. The media is strangely silent.

As an old pollster, I know poll results can — and usually are — predetermined by the questions asked, how they are asked, and to whom they are asked.

“Would you rather have a former Secretary of State as president or a businessman who admits he uses every loophole to make a buck?” Note the words “Benghazi” are not used in connection with Clinton nor does the word “legal” appear before “loophole.”

How about “Would you rather have someone with extensive experience with foreign leaders or a businessman with no foreign experience?” Never mind that Trump and his staff have been successfully negotiating with foreign governments for decades.

“Do you still beat your spouse?”

Put all that aside.

Assume that voting machines WERE hacked.

Assume that county clerks managed, despite being under the keen eyes of party representatives, to fail to count some mail-in votes, or who failed to disqualify some mail-in ballots. Possible, but not likely; certainly difficult.

We KNOW a high school kid — maybe even grade school — can hack a computer. The question is: HOW TO PREVENT HACKERS’ ACCESS?

Go back to paper ballots? Where I live, voters fill out paper ballots and then insert them into ballot readers or scanners. I suppose a smart operator COULD write a program to disregard ballots that have the “wrong” candidate’s circle filled in. There would have to be a way to insert the program into all, or at least a majority, of machines. Even then, the program would have to allow some number of votes for the “wrong” candidate to filter through else the effort would be blatantly obvious.

It seems the ONLY way to guarantee a more or less honest vote count is to have paper ballots tallied by hand, again with poll watchers peering over the counters’ shoulders. The final results might not available until a day or two after the election.

Voter fraud cannot be, never will be, eliminated. Voters can be enticed to vote for the “right” candidate in a number of ways. Cash. Free meals. A pardon for convicted felons (as happened in Virginia in 2016) just in time to register and vote for the “right” candidate.

One thing that would give the average voter a feeling his or her vote really counted would be to eliminate the archaic Electoral College. The College is a holdover from America’s early days, before the era of (almost) instant communication. The College was where deals were made to void the popular vote. I am NOT suggesting that the College thwarted the popular vote in 2016; not all early and mail in votes were counted for either candidate, and the only ones claiming Mrs. Clinton had a massive popular vote lead are the media already in her camp. Al Gore won the popular vote and lost the election; he conceded and retired gracefully from the fray. Mrs. Clinton — she claims on the advice of Obama (she has to blame someone) — conceded, and at that point, the competition was over.

Even if a recount in three states shows Mrs. Clinton the overwhelming winner (in those states), it will not change the fact that Mr. Trump is president-elect. It might massage Mrs. Clinton’s ego and help the Clintonite pollsters save a little face, but on January 20, Mr. Trump will take the oath of office as president of the United States.

For all that, between now and 2020, the government needs to seriously seek better ways to cast and count votes, and to seriously consider doing away with the Electoral College.

Meanwhile, the election is over. Trump is president-elect. Period.

Democrats should lick their wounds and examine how they managed to lose so much in 2016 and then think about doing better 2020.

Opuscula Cuba and Israel: “Revolving doors” Need to export wares

NOW THAT FIDEL IS DEAD and Trump wants to renegotiate — NOT CANCEL as the liberal media would have us believe — Obama’s Cuba-U.S. agreement, maybe there is a way for the Cuban expats who turned South Florida into “Cuba North” can help their homeland and — maybe — go back to Cuba (and return South Florida to Americans).

Cuba’s new president — Fidel’s brother, Raul — seems more inclined to loosen controls on the populace. Don’t expect an “American-style” democracy in Cuba — ever. It’s been tried there and always failed.

The U.S. can improve conditions for Cubans by providing them with educational opportunities in high tech. If high tech is combined with a return to at least limited capitalism, then Cuba could become an Israel in the Caribbean.

ISRAEL IS A “REVOLVING DOOR” country, with few natural resources. It has to import raw materials, do “something” with those material, and then export the finished products to “the world.”

It’s been successfully doing this for decades.

Much of Israel’s exports are high tech, although there also are many “low tech” Israeli products on shelves around the globe.

Cuba has — perhaps “had” — two natural resources: sugar and tobacco. Cuba’s cigars apparently were so good that then-president John Kennedy laid in several year’s worth of the product and only agthen instituted the embargo on Cuban products.

The problems with sugar and tobacco are two: farmers in the U.S. increased sugar cane and sugar beet production and “science” developed sugar substitutes (that may or may not be healthy alternatives). Smokers now are shunned in most societies and tobacco use is banned in most public places. (The middle east is one place where the threat of tobacco-induced cancer seems to be ignored; perhaps Cuba should consider export agreements with countries in that region.)

Cuba does have universities, but it needs technically focused schools.

The problem is: What should the schools teach?

It would not be to the U.S.’ advantage to (help) establish tech centers to train people to perform tasks detrimental to the U.S. While missile development is out of the question, perhaps components of sundry high tech systems is in order. Israel, a long-time ally of the U.S., is “allowed” to sell the U.S. high tech components for weapons’ systems. The difference between Cuba and Israel is a relatively agreeable, long-term coexistence between with the U.S. that Cuba has not enjoyed since Castro assumed control of the island.

If Cuba would — as almost ALL Communist countries have done — allow some capital ventures, perhaps — a small perhaps — some of the Cubans who promised to go back “as soon as Fidel is gone” would go back.

The Cuban expats’ return would benefit Cuba: they would bring “Yankee dollars” as well as U.S. expertise in business and possibly provide a taste of U.S.-style democracy to their fellows on the island while at the same time helping South Florida to return to America, where English is the language. I’m not sure how many expat Cubans still receive government assistance, but any reduction in the amount doled out would help the local, state, and federal budgets.

FOR THE RECORD, I am not against any non-English language being spoken at home or in the community, but I do object to a non-English language being the only language used in commerce in U.S. cities and towns. I believe people should keep their cultures and language while integrating into life in the U.S..

I don’t know what Obama promised the Castros or what Trump might renegotiate, but now seems an excellent time to send a message to Raul Castro that a Trump administration might be a good thing for Cuba, its people, and its expats in south Florida . . . even if some of the expats are against any rapprochement with the island nation. (It's OK to have trade with China and Russia — both of which threaten the U.S. economically and militarily, but not Cuba, a nation that is neither a threat militarily or economically? Strange — and petty.)

Opuscula Appeal to Trump: Don’t decimate Financial rules

THERE IS TALK — how much is accurate I won’t speculate — that president-elect Trump is going to wipe out a number of laws and rules that (try to) govern America’s financial efforts.

Eliminating many rules and regulations, it is posited, will encourage more investment and therefore expand employment.

The problem is, the rules and regulations were put into place because of abuses by the people controlling America’s financial efforts.

Sans rules and regulations, anarchy will replace any semblance of order in American business. It will be turning the fox loose in the hen house.

I consider myself a conservative and a “state’s righter” so I rarely welcome what I perceive to be restrictive rules and regulations, be they legislated or promulgated by executive fiat, as was Obama’s wont.

I also consider myself a realist who lost faith in fair play in business (and politics) probably before I know what “fair play” meant.

Admittedly some rules and regulations are outdated and need to be either revised, replaced, or consigned to the dust bin of history

Certainly not all business people and not all politicians are crooked. As a kid in junior high I learned that ”All generalities are lies.” which, of course, is a generality. The point being that people are individuals who can do some good things and some bad things, but most people are neither all good nor all bad. That includes business people and — although after the recent presidential campaign it may be hard to accept — politicians.

Temptation to push the boundaries of good, fair business practices — through bribery, misleading statements and documents, outright lies, and taking advantage of the innocent (as Wells Fargo recently admitted to doing) — always has been, and always will be with us.

Temptation is the reason many of the finance-related rules and regulations were put into place. If humans never gave into temptation there would be no need of breast beating in most of the religions of the world.

As a risk management practitioner I got to know a little about the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (FCPA), a little about Federal banking rules and regulations and the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council. These rules and regulations don’t cover everything — “charities” for example.

There are rules and regulations about driving; violate them and pay a fine or go to jail. The laws are there to protect the public from dangerous drivers – the kinds who run red lights with impunity and travel at unsafe speeds. When the laws are violated, the miscreants, if caught, are punished.

Laws are necessary to keep the financial foxes out of the chicken coop and to at least pretend to punish those who violate the laws and the public’s trust.

Bottom line: Mr. Trump, we need strong, enforced financial industry regulation, not less of it. Please don’t turn the financial chicken coop over to the foxes.

On immigration Under political “sun” Nothing really is new

THE LIBERALS ARE UP IN ARMS over president-elect Trump’s plans to limit immigration of certain people until it can be proven that they are not a threat to the nation.

Trump is calling for a “vetting” process that seems to anger the Left.

This is a bit strange for several reasons.

FIRST, the idea of special vetting – investigation – of selected individuals in specific groups was promised by lame duck president Obama. Trump’s proposal is basically Obama’s plan.

The fact that the promised additional vetting failed to occur during the Obama administration is another matter.

In truth, the U.S. normally does NOT vet people classified as refugees.

This is initially done by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Geneva-based International Organization for Migration (IOM)

The UN is controlled by countries that hardly can be considered as having the nation’s best interest at the fore.

Eventually the refugee is interviewed by State Department and other federal agencies. Unfortunately, State is populated by pro-Arab liberals who thwart any attempts to protect the country – regardless of who is in the White House.

That’s today. What about “yesterday?”

The Puritans put the first immigration law into place on July 12, 1637. This law , the Alien Act, forbade newcomers from staying in the Massachusetts colony for more than three weeks sans the (civil/religious) court’s permission. This Act was to prevent the immigration of people who, although Puritans, held beliefs not held by the governors and majority preachers. (For an in-depth presentation of Puritan New England of the early 1600s refer to “American Jezebel “by Eve LaPlante, ISBN006-056233-1, in particular, Page 110 for information about the Act.)

According to the American Immigration History from Colonial Times to the 1965 Immigration Act, American opposition to immigration dates back to early Colonial days.

The colonies often protested against the landing of criminals and some indentured servants. But as long as they had no independent standing, all they could do was complain.

In 1639, the Pilgrims of Massachusetts called for the expulsion of foreign paupers, setting fines for shipmasters who discharged criminals and paupers. Virginia and other colonies followed suit. Pennsylvania passed a law "for imposing a duty upon persons convicted of heinous crimes and imported into the Province," and another "for laying a duty on foreigners and Irish servants, etc.; imported into the Province." These laws were viewed as too weak and were repealed in 1729 and replaced by a more stringent ordinance.

The General Assembly of Maryland tried to reduce the number of criminals dumped on its shores with a 1676 law requiring all shipmasters to declare whether they had any convicts on board, and attempted to prohibit them from landing if they did. A fine of 2,000 pounds of tobacco was imposed on anyone attempting to illegally import criminals, half going to the government and half to informers. (The first "whistle blower" law?).

In 1700, Massachusetts passed an immigration law requiring shipmasters to furnish lists of passengers and prohibiting the landing of lame, impotent or infirm persons, or those incapable of earning their own keep. Shipmasters were required to return those proscribed persons to their home country.

The Infoplease.com web site chronologically lists U.S. Immigration Legislation with the subtitle "A detailed look at immigration legislation from the Colonial Period to the present."

The list starts with 1790 - well after the Puritans created their Act - and continues through 2014 when Obama announced he was taking executive action to delay the deportation of some 5 million illegal immigrants.

In 2005, The Real ID Act passed; it requires states to verify a person’s immigration status or citizenship before issuing licenses, expands restrictions on refugees requesting asylum, and limits the habeas corpus rights of immigrants.

Internment of U.S. citizens

Normally not considered "internment," the forced removal of Native American (Indians) from their homelands to "reservations" where they often were mistreated and then relocated again when the government wanted the land it had given the Indians: this has to be considered "internment" in the same light as the Italian and later German ghettos.

The best known internment during WW2 is of Japanese-Americans.

However, Italian-Americans also were rounded up and interned. Some German-Americans also were interred during WW1 and WW2.

The WW2 internment orders were issued by Democrat FDR who also was responsible for sending hundreds of Jews aboard the St. Louis back to German and to their deaths.

According to Business Insider Few people know that Executive Order 9066, signed by President Roosevelt, which permitted the roundup of Japanese and their American-born children, also paved the way for the arrest of Germans and Italians whom the FBI considered security risks and labeled as "enemy aliens." Indeed, the day before Roosevelt signed the order FBI agents had arrested 264 Italians, 1,296 Germans, and 2,209 on the East and West Coast. The hunt for perceived enemies was on.

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952

The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, a.k.a. the McCarran-Walter Act (An act to revise the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality; and for other purposes) was passed by the 82nd Congress in June 27, 1952. The bill was vetoed by Democrat President Truman and then Congress, with a Democrat majority, overrode his veto.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 was meant to exclude certain immigrants from immigrating to America, post World War II and in the early Cold War. The McCarran-Walter Act moved away from excluding immigrants based simply upon country of origin. Instead it focused upon denying immigrants who were unlawful, immoral, diseased in any way, politically radical etc. and accepting those who were willing and able to assimilate into the US economic, social, and political structures, which restructured how immigration law was handled. Furthermore, the most notable exclusions were anyone even remotely associated with communism which in the early days of the Cold War was seen as a serious threat to US democracy. The main objective of this was to block any spread of communism from outside post WWII countries, as well as deny any enemies of the US during WWII such as Japan and favor “good Asian” countries such as China. The McCarran-Walter Act was a strong reinforcement in immigration selection, which was labeled the best way to preserve national security and national interests.

Carter and Iran

On April 7, 1980, then president Carter, a Democrat, announced a series of new sanctions, including the following:

the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.

ON THE OTHER HAND

Top officials at the Department of Homeland Security considered a specific policy to strengthen security screenings for foreign visa applicants’ social media accounts, but the proposal was ultimately not adopted, according to an internal department memo obtained by MSNBC.

While the U.S. visa screening process does not include formal vetting of social media accounts, the memo proposed the Obama administration “authorize” customs officials to “access social networking sites” to vet applicants. Such vetting could help catch applicants bent on fraud, crime or “national security” risks, the memo stated.

The federal government considered that policy, according to a former senior official in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), but officials passed on it in 2011.

Opuscula Blame it on The media

PRESIDENT ELECT TRUMP contends that the media and professional rabble rousers are behind the continuing DUMBonstrations.

Most people with eyes to see, hears to hear, and a functioning brain understand that sans media coverage, the DUMBonstrators would act like adults, go home, and prepare for the 2020 campaign.

AND HILLARY STILL HAS NOT TOLD THE CLINTONITES TO GROW UP, GO HOME, AND PREPARE FOR 2020.

That probably would not be enough for some of the Clintonites — some U.S. citizens and some foreign nationals. As examples:

Last week a UK-based journalist, New York Times and Guardian writer Monisha Rajesh, sparked a similar controversy when she tweeted “It’s About Time For A Presidential Assassination!” It’s unclear if her UK employer, the Guardian — never known for truth and accuracy in reporting — sent her packing.

A Los Angeles Times writer, Steven Borowiec, was fired days before the election for a tweet calling for Trump’s demise.

There is “freedom of speech” and there is “shouting fire in a crowded theater.” The two “journalists” — as a former newspaper printer, reporter, and editor I cringe at calling these people “journalists” — crossed the line and are well into the “crowded theater” where freedom of speech must be tempered with a modicum of common sense.

I don’t recall — that is not to write that it never happened — that any “journalist” published a call for the assassination of Obama, although undoubtedly many may have, in frustration, privately wished for his removal from office.

---

You won't read this in the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, or see it on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox, or most other national media. You can read it in foreign and tabloid media.

CEO steps down over online threat to ‘kill’ Trump

The chief executive officer of a digital security company has been forced to resign, following a series of violent rants directed at President-elect Donald Trump.

Matt Harrigan, founder and now former CEO of PacketSled, stepped down on Tuesday from his position at the San Diego-based company after a series of Facebook posts on Monday led to a Secret Service investigation.

In his comments, Harrigan explicitly threatened to murder the president-elect.

“I’m going to kill the president. Elect [sic],” he wrote, saying he was “getting a sniper rifle and perching myself where it counts. Find a bedroom in the whitehouse that suits you mother******. I’ll find you.”

Harrigan even taunted the president-elect’s security detail, writing: “Bring it, secret service.”

At the end of his extended online rant, Harrigan expressed his disgust with the United States, writing, “In no uncertain terms, f*** you America. Seriously. F*** off.”

The response was not long in coming for Harrigan, and within hours PacketSled had placed him on leave, and had notified the Secret Service of his stated goal of assassinating the president-elect.

"PacketSled takes recent comments made by our CEO, seriously. Once we were made aware of these comments, we immediately reported this information to the secret service and will cooperate fully with any inquiries. These comments do not reflect the views or opinions of PacketSled, its employees, investors or partners. Our CEO has been placed on administrative leave."

Harrigan attempted to play down the incident, claiming his comments were “intended to be a joke, in the context of a larger conversation, and only privately shared as such. Anyone who knows me, knows that I do not engage in this form of rhetoric with any level of seriousness and the comment does not represent my real personal views in any regard.”

Despite his attempt to walk back the violent posts, however, by Tuesday Harrigan was forced to resign from the company.

While Harrigan — a name now besmirched but once famous in song * — contends his rants were “intended to be a joke, in the context of a larger conversation, and only privately shared as such they WERE published online and that belies his contention that they were only privately shared . There is no privacy on the Internet as any person involved with the medium surely knows.

Did Harrigan commit a federal crime? Currently, “No.”

According to Jack Cafferty once of CNN,

An appeals court in California has overturned a man's two convictions for threatening to assassinate President Obama. The grounds? Freedom of speech.

In 2008, two weeks before Barack Obama was elected the first black president in this nation's history, a California man posted violent, racist messages about Obama on an online message board: One posting said, "Shoot the ____" using a racial slur to describe Obama. Another post said Obama would end up with a "50 cal in the head soon."

The Secret Service tracked down this individual as you might imagine - a guy named Walter Bagdasarian - within weeks. He had a .50-caliber rifle and five other guns and ammunition in his possession when they found him. He was arrested, and after waiving his right to a jury trial, Bagdasarian was convicted by a federal judge of two felonies for threatening to kill a presidential candidate.

But recently, a court of appeals in San Francisco overturned that decision. In a 2-to-1 ruling, the court said his actions were protected by the First Amendment and that while his words were "alarming and dangerous," they were not illegal.

On the Quora web site, Zev Sero writes that

Yes, incitement to commit any crime is a criminal offense. But in US law “incitement” has a very specific and narrow meaning. It means speech that is both intended and likely to cause someone to imminently commit a crime. Imminently means right away, as soon as they hear the speech, not some time in the future.

Speech that merely advocates a crime, while leaving it entirely up to the audience whether to commit it or not, is not incitement. Nor is speech that is calculated to cause a crime to be committed at some time far in the future. No court has yet ruled on the exact time limit, but it’s very unlikely to be more than a few days at most, and probably no more than a few hours.

Cafferty makes no claim to be a lawyer and I suspect Zev Sero is the pseudonym of another non-lawyer; bottom line: caveat emptor.

I’m curious. If Harrigan hates America so much, why doesn’t he pack his bags and join the celebs promising to leave the U.S. if Trump was elected.

---

Also see:

Tech CEO vows to murder Donald Trump with a sniper rifle, gets fired

CEO of cyber security start-up resigns after threatening to assassinate Donald Trump during an election night Facebook tirade

CEO vows to assassinate President Trump

*   George M Cohan’s Harrigan song lyrics: Harrigan “is a name that a shame never has been connected with, Harrigan, That's me!“

AFTER THOUGHT

Look up the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 also known as the McCarran-Walter Act Of 1952. Nothng new under the sun.

Opuscula Hateful words painted By Clintonites on homes, Churches and schools

WHILE THE CLINTONITES (Hillary’s followers) rail that Trump & Company are racists, xenophobes, anti-this and anti-that, the evidence is that they — the Clintonites — are the ones painting racial slogans on churches, on schools, and on homes (of deplorables?)

An Indiana church had Heil Trump spray painted on its wall.

A Clintonite mother (?) threw her SEVEN YEAR OLD child out of his home because he voted for Trump in a mock election at his school.

An elementary school child — ON CRUTCHES — was beaten up by fellow students because he voted for Trump in a mock election. Where did the students learn this behavior? Clintonite parents.

AND HILLARY STILL HAS YET TO CALL FOR HER FOLLOWERS TO GO HOME, ACT LIKE ADULTS, AND PREPARE FOR 2020.

I am amazed at the number of Clintonites who are certain that Trump is all things bad when all the evidence at hand suggests that the racist, xenophobic, and whatever else they dislike is being propagated by Clintonites, Hillary’s followers.

It is not likely that a Trump loyalist would paint “Heil Trump” on a church, nor is it likely that a Trump supporter would spray paint a swastika on a person’s home, even if the person was classified by Hillary at a “deplorable.”

Trump contends that many of the demonstrations are less than spontaneous; that they are the product of paid organizers. Who has the money to pay such people? Well, Trump does, but he’s about to take a financial hit, serving for $1-a-year in a job that paid Obama $400,000 a year for 8 years. Not as much as an NBA star, but then he can’t shoot baskets like an NBA star, either. Still not bad, especially when you consider the “perks.”

Could the Clinton Foundation be footing the bill for professional rabble rousers?

Yet, despite all the evidence that Trump and his fans are innocent of the racist, xenophobic, and other bad behavior, Clintonites still blame Trump for the crimes no sensible person would commit; if nothing else, Trump is sensible, or as Obama said, “pragmatic.”

---

Other web sites carrying graffiti articles include:

Inclusive Church in Indiana Targeted with ‘Heil Trump, Fag’ and Swastika Graffiti: WATCH

2 More Churches Vandalized With Trump, Racist Graffiti

Racist graffiti spray-painted on Spokane MLK Center

Maryland Elementary Students Find Racist Graffiti on Bathroom Wall

The Hate After Trump’s Election: Swastikas, Deportation Threats, and Racist Graffiti

Other web sites carrying the "throw the child into the street" story include:

Mother kicks her young child out for voting Trump in school (youtube)

You Vote For Him, You Get Out ... (with video)

Mom on viral 'kicked out for voting Trump' video: It was a joke

Other web sites carrying the "beat up the kid on crutches" story include:

AWFUL. 11 Year-Old Student on Crutches Beaten Up for Voting TRUMP in Mock Election (VIDEO)

Indoctrination: 11 Year Old Trump Supporter Beat Up, Put On Crutches

Opuscula Main difference between Liberals, Conservatives: One listens, the other doesn’t

I HAVE — PERHAPS NOW “HAD” — several liberal (”Call me “progressive”) acquaintances who are proving why it is wasted effort to try to explain something they don’t want to hear/read.

---

BULFLASH (More “bull” than “flash) Now the Clintonites are saying Trump must call for an end to the demonstrations that their leader tacitly encourages. Only in 2016 America.

---

FOLLOWING TRUMP’S victory and Clinton’s non-conciliatory concession speech, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of her supporters took to the streets, blocking traffic, setting fires, and vandalizing property.

According to some news reports — if any “news” report can be trusted in 2016 — the demonstrators are demanding that the Electoral College give the presidency to Clinton, denying the people’s will.

This is the first time a defeated candidate — Clinton — has tacitly approved demonstrations disrupting cities and towns across the Several States. Neither she nor Obama has told the demonstrators to “go home, prepare for the 2020 elections.”

When Al Gore lost to Bush in the Electoral College, despite apparently winning the popular vote — hanging chads not withstanding — no one went into the streets; no one organized demonstrations to damage America’s image, to damage property. When Obama won in 2008 and 2012, Conservatives didn’t go into the streets protesting what was commonly believed to be the election of a person born outside the U.S. (Obama’s questionable birth certificate didn’t show up until he was well into his first term.)

I sent an email to a number of acquaintances, some of whom supported Clinton’s candidacy.

The email did not promote Trump. It basically asked, given our past presidential transitions, WHY NEITHER CLINTON NOR OBAMA IS SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THE DEMONSTRATORS?

I don’t recall writing anything positive about the president-elect other than perhaps to note that he called for all Americans to join together to work for the good of the county, something (I did NOT add) that Clinton failed to suggest.

Yet I received several replies from the Clinton camp telling me not to send any more “pro-Trump” emails; as “they are not my ilk.” This from a highly educated lady who, apparently, read something into my email that wasn’t there.

One rambled on and on about how Trump will be a disaster; never mind he has yet to take office and never mind that — until Obama’s plethora of executive orders — presidents had to find support in Congress for measures to become law.

No one denies that Trump won enough Electoral College votes — votes that Clinton presumed she had locked up until the votes were counted — but there even is a question of she won the popular vote. It turns out that not all mail-in ballots are counted in races where one candidate clearly won at the voting machines.* If Clinton’s demonstrators were wise, they could have sought a count of ALL ballots to see if Clinton did, indeed, prevail in the popular vote.

Regardless, she conceded, albeit belatedly. (Gracious losers normally concede shortly after it is clear the other candidate prevailed. Clinton didn’t get around to making an appearance until almost noon on the Wednesday after Election Tuesday.)

My six-year-old grand-daughter occasionally throws a temper tantrum. She’s six years old after all and is the product of “enlightened” parenting. Perhaps the Clinton supporters destructively demonstrating also were raised by “enlightened” parents.

The current generation is the Gim’me NOW ! generation of young people who feel “entitled” to whatever they want when they want it; Trump may not be their president, but their generation certainly is not one I want running my country.

---

*   Are absentee ballots counted?

Opuscula What did Obama do Right? CUBA

While Obama still has nearly two months to go in the White House — and there are serious questions about what he will do to “punish” Israel for failing to kiss his ring — it’s time to give him credit for the one good thing he accomplished in 8 years.

He ended the 50-failure called the Cuban embargo.

---

THE SILENCE IS DEAFENING. Liberals, a/k/a “progressives,” are demonstrating in the streets of America, blocking traffic, setting fires, and vandalizing property because Trump defeated Clinton in the 2016 election. NEVER has this happened before in U.S. history when losers, acting like a 6-year-old, threw a temper tantrum because they failed to get what they wanted. They didn’t do it when Al Gore lost nor did Republications do it when Obama won in 2008 and again in 2012.

When will Obama and Clinton tell their loyalists to get off the streets, go home, and prepare for 2020? Their silence gives the demonstrators their tacit approval.

---

Now, maybe, the thousands of Cubans in south Florida and elsewhere will take American “democracy” as they know it and go back to Cuba to do by example what America’s military was unable to do — once again lead Cuba to a “democracy” of sorts.

Cuba never functioned as a “American-style democracy” despite several U.S. led attempts. Some people simply need a dictator, benevolent or otherwise.

I don’t really expect a mass exodus of ex-pat Cubans from south Florida, nor do I expect to hear English spoken on the streets of Miami as it was when I was in school there.

Given that, if news reports are accurate — and we know from the election that news reports very often are NOT accurate — the majority of the Cubans supported the Democrat candidate, but unlike some disgruntled WASPs that threatened — promised? — to leave the country if Trump was elected, I don’t hear the same threats/promises from the Cuban community.

The Cubans did return a Republican one of their own, Marco Rubio, to the U.S. Senate, a body he disparaged when he was a senator, a job he rarely performed, priming himself for the 2016 GOP primaries. The “absentee senator.” (See Rubio gives up on Senate: ‘He hates it’)

Why the Cubans were anti-Trump is beyond my ken.

According to tv’s talking heads, he, more than his Democrat opponent, would be more likely to cancel Obama’s Cuban initiative. His opponent would continue her mentor’s legacy. Canceling the detent with Cuba is a aim of most Cubans in Miami.

What Trump really said is, according to an interview with the DAILY CALLER

DAILY CALLER: What do you think of the opening with Cuba? Do you think that is a good policy, or do you oppose America’s opening with Cuba?

DONALD TRUMP: I think it’s fine. I think it’s fine, but we should have made a better deal. The concept of opening with Cuba — 50 years is enough — the concept of opening with Cuba is fine. I think we should have made a stronger deal.

Most of the “news” media found it easier to declare Trump would cancel Obama’s Cuban initiative. Truth no longer is a tenet of journalism..

Why?

First, the Castro boys derive some benefit from the diplomatic interaction. They also derive needed revenue — hard cash — for their country.

Second, the ex-pats may feel pressure to go back, to give up the life they have in the U.S. and all their special benefits.

I am convinced the second reason is greater than the first.

Over his 8 years in office, Obama managed to mess up the Middle East with the “Arab Spring” — and had a little help in Benghazi from his then-Secretary of State — and he threatened – actually it turned out to be nothing more than a bluff — Iran with sanctions that he not only backed off in short order, but paid the international center for terrorism billions of dollars — for what?

He blustered when North Korea fired off yet another ICBM, following Iran’s lead – but did nothing to North Korea’s master, China, even knowing China is a bigger military and financial threat to the United States than North Korea and Iran combined.

Obama played political games with Israel’s Netanyahu; they are two of a kind and neither is to be trusted. Meanwhile, he bows to Saudi princes and gets a welcome mat for U.S. troops who he sends to die for the kingdom that won’t allow non-Muslims to practice their religion in their land.

Trump made a lot of statements about what he is going to do on his first day in office. Spouting hot air is not a good start for a new president.

He promised to get rid of Obamacare and put something better in its place — that is not something that can be done in a day . . . unless he “pulls an Obama” and forces Congress to pass a bill before it can be read and understood. Keep in mind that while Republicans dominate the Congress, they are not “Trump Republicans.” Trump may end up having to rely as much on the Democrat minority as much as — perhaps more than — the GOP majority.

Between now and the day Trump assumes the office in January, he needs to gather together the best of the best and set them to working on ways to at least begin implementing his First Day promises on the first day. They need not be “ready for prime time,” but it is imperative that there is progress to be seen by Joe and Jane Public – Republican and Democrat. Based on her “concession” speech, Hillary is waiting to attack the man who defeated her on November 8.

I’m glad Obama did at least one thing right, but getting only one thing right in 8 years is hardly anything to brag about.

---

It’s a funny thing about Microsoft 2007 applications: they insist on auto-correcting OBAMA with OSAMA; spell check lacks “Obama” in its dictionary. Maybe Microsoft knows something we don’t know. Interesting.

---

Packing their bags

Or, Don’t let the door hit you on the way out

Ruth Bader Ginsburg off to New Zealand?

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told The New York Times it’d be time to move to New Zealand if Trump were to win.

“Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand,” she said. “I can’t imagine what the country would be with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.” Wonderful; one more seat for Trump to fill.

Others who threatened — promised — to abandon the county that gave them their fame and fortune include:

Al Sharpton who told a reporter he’s “reserving my ticket out of here if [Trump] wins.” Take your ticket to the counter and fly away.

Bryan Cranston said he hopes he doesn’t have to pack his bags, but would “definitely move” if Trump won. If you need help packing your bags, call on an American who loves America.

Samuel L. Jackson slammed Trump for running a “hate”-filled campaign and said he would move to South Africa if he wins. Are you sure you'll be welcome in South Africa?

Lena Dunham says she knows a lot of people have been threatening to do this, but I really will. I know a lovely place in Vancouver.” And you are? Do you know what the Canadians demand of Americans squatters?

Neve Campbell, an actress vowed to move back home to Canada. C$ is worth less, taxes higher, but you have socialized medicine – Obamacare-North (only better)

Natasha Lyonne said she would hightail it to a mental hospital. Seems appropriate.

Cher tweeted she's moving to Jupiter. Shoot for Planet 9 - it's father from earth.

Jon Stewart said he would consider “getting in a rocket and going to another planet. Please, take Cher with you.

Amy Schumer said she'd head for Spain. Iberia has great rates to Madrid and Barcelona. Hasta la vista, baby.

Chelsea Handler (who IS Chelsea Handler, anyway?) bought a house in another country. The WWW can direct you to some cheap international freight forwarders.

Whoopi Goldberg, always a fair minded person with those who agree with her, thinks it may be time to move elsewhere. How far will your money take you? I can spare a buck if you need it.

Keegan-Michael Key said he'd go home to Momma in Canada. Keep US$5 in your jeans for the toll; US$10 if you're dragging a trailer. If you need help, friends in Michigan can float you a loan.

George Lopez, who I always thought was a very funny guy, said "we'll all go back" to Mexico. Leave your U.S. passports at the crossing; it should be a one-way trip.

The Town Hall web site lists 23 "celebs" who we can expect to see joining an American ex-pat community somewhere.

Your NewsWire.com leads off with Miss Liberal Democrat Barbra Streisand. How other lists missed her is beyond me. The site lists another 17 people who promised to leave.

Bye.

Opuscula Hillary fails As a leader

THE DEFEATED HILLARY CLINTON has made two major mistakes since Donald Trump became president-elect.

One: While Trump praised Clinton for a hard fought campaign, he called for all Americans to come together.

Mrs. Clinton in her concession speech did neither.

Two: Her supporters are taking to the streets in cities across America expressing their displeasure at the results of a democratic election.

Mrs. Clinton — as of 6:30 pm Eastern time — has remained silent, refraining from telling her supporters to accept the nation’s will, go home, and prepare to work with the new president.

Mrs. Clinton fails Leadership 101, and this is the person America might have had as its chief executive. After eight years of Obama, could the country have survived Hillary? (Probably)

A New York times headline, Anti-Trump Demonstrators Take to the Streets in Several U.S. Cities and datelined Berkeley, CA, the Times reporter wrote: Chanting “Not my president,” several hundred protesters streamed through the streets of Berkeley and Oakland in the predawn hours of Wednesday venting their anger at the election of Donald J. Trump as president. Demonstrations were also reported in Pittsburgh, Seattle and Portland, Ore.

I suppose it is only partially Mrs. Clinton’s fault. As I watched the “news” this evening I heard talking head Tom Brokaw state that what Trump needs to do is make a statement calling for Americans to come together. I guess Brokaw is deaf since in Trump’s morning speech – in which he had kind words for Mrs. Clinton, he said (a) he would be a president for all people and that we must come together as a nation. I think Brokaw is working for Mrs. Clinton – as, apparently, much of the media was working for the liberal candidate.

Mrs. Clinton’s supporters not only embarrassed America at home, but overseas as well. Places where America’s history of calm transitions of government is something to which these nations aspire are reporting on Mrs. Clinton’s supporters hitting the streets, some peacefully, too many as rioters.

The UK’s Daily Express headlined Riots on the streets of USA as Hillary Clinton supporters protest and chant 'f*** Trump', noting that Supporters of Hillary Clinton were heard chanting “f*** Trump” as they rushed down the streets at the University of Oregon.

Universities in California have also reported disturbances following Mr. Trump’s shock victory.

The question has to be: Since these events are getting media attention, why isn’t Mrs. Clinton or her staff calling for her supporters to go home and prepare to work with the new president?. Is she as blind as Brokaw is deaf? Or, perhaps, is she quietly encouraging these civil disturbances until they turn criminal (as happened in Oakland CA).

Mrs. Clinton: Act responsibly and tell your supporters the election is over and to work together to unite America. It’s the American way. If you remain silent, it proves you are not presidential material, no matter what the media claims.

---

Other publications that reported on Mrs. Clinton’s supporters who tarnish America’s image include:

Protesters take to the streets following Trump's stunner

Liberals RIOT After Trump Destroys Hillary Clinton

Hillary Supporters Burn American Flag, Riot, Threaten To Kill Trump After Losing Election

Donald Trump’s US presidential election win sparks riots by Hillary Clinton fans as fighting erupts outside the White House

Election fever boils over: Trump and Clinton supporters brawl outside the White House as violence erupts across America

Opuscula Felons expected To vote for Hillary

60,000 or 200,000 felons eligible to vote

According to numerous reports out of Richmond VA, the state’s Democrat governor just pardoned thousands of felons so they can register and vote in Tuesday’s election.

Virginia Governor Restores Voting Rights to Felons

WASHINGTON — Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia used his executive power on Friday to restore voting rights to more than 200,000 convicted felons. The action effectively overturns a Civil War-era provision in the state’s Constitution aimed, he said, at disenfranchising African-Americans.

The sweeping order, in a swing state that could play a role in deciding the November presidential election, will enable all felons who have served their prison time and finished parole or probation to register to vote. Nearly half are African-American, a core constituency of Democrats, Mr. McAuliffe’s political party.

Virginia Governor Pardon’s 60,000 Convicted Felons Just In Time For Election

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe has granted voting rights to as many as 60,000 convicted felons just in time for them to register to vote, nearly five times more than previously reported and enough to win the state for his long-time friend, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

McAuliffe sought to allow all of Virginia’s estimated 200,000 felons to vote, but state courts said each individual felon’s circumstances must be weighed. To get around that, McAuliffe used a mechanical autopen to rapidly sign thousands of letters, as if he had personally reviewed them.

McAuliffe managed Clinton’s unsuccessful 2008 presidential campaign.

Virginia Gov. Pardons 60,000 Felons, Enough To Swing Election

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe has granted voting rights to as many as 60,000 convicted felons just in time for them to register to vote, nearly five times more than previously reported and enough to win the state for his long-time friend, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

McAuliffe sought to allow all of Virginia’s estimated 200,000 felons to vote, but state courts said each individual felon’s circumstances must be weighed. To get around that, McAuliffe used a mechanical autopen to rapidly sign thousands of letters, as if he had personally reviewed them, even as his office was saying the total was 13,000.

Now, The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group has learned that McAuliffe — who managed Clinton’s unsuccessful 2008 presidential campaign — churned out five times as many letters before the registration deadline than publicly claimed.

Virginia’s recent political history has seen multiple races that were decided by tiny margins. The 2014 U.S. Senate race, for example, was decided by only 17,000 votes, while the attorney general’s race came down to a mere 165 votes.

BACK IN THE DAY the party bosses rounded up the homeless and drunks and paid them to vote “early and often” for the boss’ slate.

McAuliffe went them one better, letting Virginia’s taxpayers – I once was one – foot the bill for publishing the pardons for convicted felons, primarily blacks. Blacks, according to the information above, traditionally vote for the Democrat party. (Please note it is “Democrat” NOT “DemocraTIC” party, which is OK since the U.S. is NOT a democracy; it never was and likely never will be, regardless of what party controls the government.)

According to a 60 Minutes segment that aired on November 6, 2016 titled Focus group reflects nation's dark mood ahead of Election Day,

It is no secret that most Americans are angry and disappointed with the process and the choices that they have been offered. That was confirmed last week in a CBS News/New York Times poll that found 82 percent of likely voters more disgusted than excited about the election.

CBS asked Republican pollster, public opinion analyst and CBS News consultant Frank Luntz if he could put faces and voices to this dark national mood by scientifically selecting a focus group that would reflect those polling results. And he did.

Speaking of the sample group, Luntz told CBS' Steve Kroft that I want to listen to them. I want to ask them questions, and then sit back, and let it all roll over me. And the problem is people become so angry. And they become so vicious.

Kroft asked: This is new? You’ve been doing this a long time.

To which Luntz replied It’s never been like this. Look, I did this for you 18 years ago. We were talking about the impeachment of a president, and each person spoke their turn. No one talked over each other. Nobody yelled at each other.

Today, there’s none of that.

Luntz added that It took two minutes for them to explode. It took five minutes to actually get to the point where I lost control.

I'm not certain if the candidates are generating this ill-will or if Americans are getting what we deserve in the candidates.

Either way, America looses.

Opuscula You can learn A lot from comics

I GREW UP READING the Sunday Funnies. When I worked for newspapers, I was a comics loyalist – as well as a devotee of “ROP” fillers.

I still get my daily dose of comics, but now they appear on a computer screen thanks in large part to gocomics.com/.

Some of the comics are actually educational. I learned a new, family-rated word the other day thanks to Jef Mallett’s Frazz.

While I easily can define “octothrope,” “podiumed” had me stumped. I had to look it up.

That was embarrassing since I preach to one and all that English, akin to Hebrew and perhaps other languages I don’t know, largely is ROOT BASED.

Think about it. A quick, off the top of the head example: Command-Commander-Commandment-Commandant.

I know and love the words “ubiquitous” and “picayune”. When I was citing threats to my risk management clients, I always included “and the ubiquitous other” at the end of a risk list.

I am a “pedant” (but not a “pendant”) for the correct use of the word “unique.” My Spouse and children know well that if something is “unique” it is – no modifiers appropriate; no “most unique” or “very unique” and they delight in catching tv talking heads mis-speak.

I share my word fetishes with friends, at least one of whom is a former librarian – no, she’s not named Marian.

I once wrote poems, but mostly my “poetry” was closer to Burma Shave signs and puns.

Word play, give me Thave’s Frank & Ernest.

I confess that I follow more than just these two on an almost daily basis. It’s always nice to start the day with a chuckle, but spare me the political slams for/against any candidate. I get enough of that on the tv – thank goodness for the mute button.

I realize it is a Dilbertian world so I also follow Scott Adam’s Dilbert, usually agreeing with the cartoon’s point. Usually. Everyone who worked for someone else had a PHB with whom to contend at some point.

---

Octothrope: Octo=8, thorpe=point, ergo the # symbol no matter what anyone calls it (pound sign, hash tag)

Podiumed: Placed on a podium (especially as a result of winning, or coming second or third, in a race or similar competition)

Ubiquitous: Existing or being everywhere, especially at the same time; omnipresent. Does NOT take a modifier; it either is or is not ubiquitous.

Picayune: In addition to being a newspaper in New Orleans LA (the Times-Picayune), the word means
adjective
1. of little value or account; small; trifling
2. petty, carping, or prejudiced
noun
3. (formerly, in Louisiana, Florida, etc.) a coin equal to half a Spanish real
4. any small coin, as a five-cent piece
5. Informal. an insignificant person or thing.

According to Historical New Orleans, the paper, before merger with the Times, was named for its price, a picayune - small coin.

Pedant: 1. a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning
2. a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details
3. a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to common sense
4. Obsolete. a schoolmaster.

I will admit to only the second definition, preferring the Chicago and GPO style guides over Fowler's Modern English Usage which, incidentally, sits over my desk. (There is a story there, but it's long and deserves to be told on its own.)

Unique:
adjective
1. existing as the only one or as the sole example; single; solitary in type or characteristics
2. having no like or equal; unparalleled; incomparable
3. limited in occurrence to a given class, situation, or area
4. limited to a single outcome or result; without alternative possibilities
5. not typical; unusual
noun
6. the embodiment of unique characteristics; the only specimen of a given kind

Like ubiquitous, unique is NOT a word to be modified; something either is unique or it is not.

Marian the Librarian: From the Music Man.

Opuscula Trump supporters Pay for Hillary’s Campaign booster

HE’S BACK FOR THE SECOND TIME in a month.

“He” is Hillary Clinton’s #1 (or maybe #2) pitchman, the incumbent president.

He was in south Florida a few weeks ago; he’s back again.

At taxpayer expense.

The president – any president – travels at the taxpayers’ expense.

Air Force 1, a Boeing 747 – at least it’s U.S.-made and not an EU Airbus - costs, according to the U.S. Air Force, $228,288 an hour to operate, a massive $48,535 jump from the 2012 estimate of $179,750, or 27 percent. USA Today notes that Costs for each trip are even higher when factoring in the passenger and cargo aircraft that often accompany the president's plane, although those figures weren't specified in the eight-page report.

The president spentmore than $7.3 million on just three trips in 2013, including $2.1 million to appear on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” in August, according to new flight documents provided by the Air Force to a public watchdog group.

Judicial Watch reported that the sky-high jet travel costs for the first family's 2012-2013 Christmas vacation in Hawaii, their beach vacation on Martha's Vineyard last summer and President Obama's brief trip to California in August totaled $7,396,531.20.

The normally left-to-far left of center National Public Radio (NPR) under the headline FACT CHECK: Air Force One, Who Pays? answers its own question thusly:

That's the question a lot of people were asking after Hillary Clinton hitched a ride to Charlotte, N.C., this week with President Obama for their first joint campaign appearance.

While it's unusual for an incumbent president to campaign actively for his would-be successor, the question itself is not new. It's been raised before whenever presidents travel for their own re-election campaign or on behalf of House and Senate candidates and campaign committees.

"There are payments that are made by the [Democratic National Committee] to the federal government anytime the president is traveling for political purposes," White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters, who were also flying aboard the presidential 747. "Those rules apply both for routine fundraising trips but also when Secretary Clinton is aboard Air Force One."

The rules allocate a portion of the flight costs to the DNC or the Clinton campaign. But they do not cover the full cost of operating Air Force One, estimated at $206,337 per hour.

NPR goes on to explain that
Reimbursement rates are based on what it would cost to charter a plane to carry only campaign travelers. According to the Federal Election Commission (FEC regulations), this plane "need not be the same size as the government-operated aircraft actually used. ... For example, a significant portion of Air Force One may be occupied by personnel and equipment mandated by national-security requirements and other needs associated with the office of the President, not the campaign."

In practice, reimbursement rates might be based on what it costs to charter a smaller Boeing 737, which is cheaper to operate than Air Force One. (Bold emphasis mine.)

Journalists and “the public” traveling on AF1 pay calculated commercial airfares unless there's a separate press charter, in which case journalists pay the full cost of that plane. Campaign rules also spell out an alternative reimbursement rate that candidates can use for government aircraft on which the public is allowed to travel for a published fee. NPR does not define who constitutes the "public" Campaign advisors? Nor does NPR give a clue as to how commercial airfares are calculated. Anyone who has flown recently knows that airfares vary from airline to airline, from day or week and time of day.

The Washington Post, hardly a bastion of conservatism, generally agrees with NPR.

Under a headline reading "Air Force One is a heck of an expensive perk — for taxpayers", the Post notes:

Flying from New York to Mumbai in Etihad Airways' three-room suite (which comes with its own butler) will run you about $38,000 for the 21-hour journey. That's about $1,800 an hour -- only about 71 times what the average American earns as an hourly wage.

That's not the priciest flight in the world, though. That honor may belong to a trip on the luxury Boeing 747-200B that includes a bedroom, kitchen, office and plenty of seating for friends, family, dignitaries, reporters and Cabinet secretaries. Because we are talking about Air Force One. Trips on the president's plane cost about $200,000 an hour, according to CNN, although the primary passenger gets his rides comped.

What about everyone else? When it was announced over the weekend that President Obama would be campaigning with Hillary Clinton in North Carolina on Tuesday, Donald Trump quickly questioned who was footing the bill. "Why is President Obama allowed to use Air Force One on the campaign trail with Crooked Hillary?" he tweeted. "She is flying with him tomorrow. Who pays?"

The answer is: Clinton -- but mostly you. Clinton's campaign told Fox News that it would "cover its portion of the costs," as is "standard practice." That's true, but that portion still leaves Obama's normal expense-payers making up most of the cost.

While AF1 probably is the biggest cost, the chief executive also manages to consume taxpayer dollars on the local level, and then has the chutzpah to tie up highways and byways for presidential (and candidate) motorcades. Candidates are supposed to pay for police escorts, road blockages – often during rush hours – and supplemental (to their own) security. There is a military term for this, but as a ”family friendly” blog it will go unwritten.

Obama and Clinton are not the first politicians to abuse the taxpayer. Before the plane became the primary mode of long distance transportation, trains carried both elected officials and those who hoped to be elected. Political trains, having Priority One, forced all other trains onto a siding until they passed.

For all that, I cannot understand why I have to pay a red cent for a politician’s jaunt to disturb my community. Politicians – or their party coffers – pay for media advertisements. Why not travel as well. The parties pay for land transportation – candidate Obama traveled around in a several hundred thousand dollar Made-In-Canada mobile mansion. (Why he could not Buy America was beyond me at the time; having watched him in action, I now understand.)

As the military reporter with the Trenton Times-Advertiser, I was invited to participate in a joint Air Force-Army exercise. I flew – gratis – in an Air Force plane, along with about 80 fully equipped 82nd Airborne paratroops. No room to turn around. I few back and forth between my quarters and the exercise site on Air Force, Navy, and Army aircraft. I paid for my meals, but my billeting was gratis.

The price I was expected – and did – pay was one or more write ups in the newspaper.

Hardly AF1. (I returned in a DC 3 to Andrews AFB where AF1 is based.)