Mountain Views News          Saturday, September 10, 2016

B4

OPINION

Mountain Views-News Saturday, September 10, 2016 

Mountain 
Views

News

PUBLISHER/ EDITOR

Susan Henderson

CITY EDITOR

Dean Lee 

EAST VALLEY EDITOR

Joan Schmidt

BUSINESS EDITOR

LaQuetta Shamblee

PRODUCTION

Richard Garcia

SALES

Patricia Colonello

626-355-2737 

626-818-2698

WEBMASTER

John Aveny 

CONTRIBUTORS

Chris Leclerc

Bob Eklund

Howard Hays

Paul Carpenter

Kim Clymer-Kelley

Christopher Nyerges

Peter Dills 

Joe Frontino

Rich Johnson

Merri Jill Finstrom

Lori Koop

Rev. James Snyder

Dr. Tina Paul

Mary Carney

Katie Hopkins

Deanne Davis

Despina Arouzman

Greg Welborn

Renee Quenell

Ben Show

Sean Kayden

Marc Garlett

RON Paul

TOM Purcell


TEACHING THE YOUNG 

HOW TO VOTE

HOW TO SOLVE THE ILLEGAL 
IMMIGRATION PROBLEM

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s recent speech on immigration 
really missed the point. I understand Trump’s frustration over the U.S. 
government’s inability to control the U.S. borders and keep out those who would 
come to this country illegally. Trump was right that the media ignore legitimate 
questions we have on our immigration policy and he is right that special interests 
have a great interest in maintaining the status quo. 

 However when it comes to really solving the immigration problem he gets it all wrong. And instead 
of making us more free and prosperous, his solutions will accelerate our downward slide toward 
authoritarianism.

 First let’s consider his idea of building a big wall between the U.S. and Mexico. It is said that all one 
needs to get over an eight foot fence is a nine foot ladder. Or perhaps a shovel. So walls are never very 
good at keeping people out. But they are very good at keeping people in. Just ask the East Germans. 
The communist government claimed in 1961 that it had to build a wall around the portion of Berlin it 
controlled to keep the population safe from the evil capitalist wreckers and saboteurs. It didn’t take long 
for the world to realize that the real threat to the East German leaders was that the people trapped in East 
Berlin would try to get out. We have all seen the horrific videos of East German civilians risking – and 
losing – their lives to escape that prison of razor wire and cinder block.

 Is this really what we want for our own future? 

 What a wild conspiracy theory, some may claim. The wall would never be meant to keep us from 
leaving. Well ask the IRS. Under a tax enforcement provision passed in 2015, the US government 
claimed the right to cancel any American citizen’s passport if Washington claims it is owed money. 

 Trump also made E-Verify the center of his immigration speech. He said, “We will ensure that 
E-Verify is used to the fullest extent possible under existing law, and we will work with Congress to 
strengthen and expand its use across the country.”

 While preventing those here illegally from being able to gain employment may appeal to many who 
would like to protect American jobs, E-Verify is the worst possible solution. It is a police state non-
solution, as it would require the rest of us legal American citizens to carry a biometric national ID card 
connected to a government database to prove that the government allows us to work. A false positive 
would result in financial disaster for millions of American families, as one would be forced to fight a 
faceless government bureaucracy to correct the mistake. Want to put TSA in charge of deciding if you 
are eligible to work?

 The battle against illegal immigration is a ploy to gain more control over our lives. We are supposed 
to be terrified of the hoards of Mexicans streaming into our country and thus grant the government 
new authority over the rest of us. But in fact a Pew study found that between 2009 and 2014 there was a 
net loss of 140,000 Mexican immigrants from the United States. Yes, this is a government “solution” in 
search of a real problem.

 How to tackle the real immigration problem? Eliminate incentives for those who would come here 
to live off the rest of us, and make it easier and more rational for those who wish to come here legally to 
contribute to our economy. No walls, no government databases, no biometric national ID cards. But not 
a penny in welfare for immigrants. It’s really that simple.

Ron Paul is a former Congressman and Presidential candidate. He can be reached at the RonPaulInstitute.
org.

 “Son, you’re 18 now. As an American citizen that means you’ll vote for 
the first time in the upcoming election.” 

 “Gee, dad, I can’t wait to do my civic duty. How do you suggest I 
prepare?” 

 “Well, son, a good place to start is to re-read the American 
Constitution to understand the basic principles upon which our country was founded.” 

 “It’s been a while since I read it in school, dad.” 

 “Son, the Constitution is the highest law of the land. All new laws in our country originate 
from it or should. However, not all politicians buy into the Constitution. Some think it is old 
and outmoded.” 

 “Outmoded, dad?” 

 “The Constitution establishes a framework for how our government functions. It 
establishes a system of checks and balances, so that none of our three branches of government 
— the legislative, executive and judicial — can become too powerful. Some politicians hate 
having such limitations placed upon them, however. They want to do as they please with the 
taxpayers’ money or impose laws on citizens without following the constitutional process. So 
you’ll want to know their position on the Constitution before you vote.” 

 “OK, dad, I’ll re-read the Constitution and be sure to research what each candidate thinks 
about it. What else should I do before I vote?” 

 “You’ll also want to study the Bill of Rights, son. The bill represents 10 amendments to 
the Constitution designed to protect the civil liberties of individuals. For instance, the First 
Amendment protects the freedom of speech, religion, assembly, the right to petition the 
government and freedom of the press.” 

 “I remember learning in civics class that a free, objective press is essential to the survival of 
our republic.” 

 “Which is a worrisome thing, son, when you see how in the tank the major media are for 
one presidential candidate over the other. You’ll also want to read the 17 other amendments. 
The 16th Amendment, for instance, was passed into law in 1913. It created the federal income 
tax.” 

 “I’m already very familiar with that painful amendment, dad. What else can I do?” 

 “Well, son, it’s important to study the issues. There’s lots of disagreement in America and 
how to move the country forward. Some people think our government is too big and isn’t 
following the limited-government spirit of our Constitution. However, other people think 
the government should double down and spend lots more.” 

 “More, dad?” 

 “Yes, some people think ‘the rich’ aren’t paying their fair share. They think we can impose 
massive tax increases on them and redistribute the money to others who don’t have as much. 
But others think that would create a huge negative economic backlash that would end up 
hurting everyone, in particular the poorest among us.” 

 “So you want me to study the political promises each candidate makes and then vote for the 
best person, dad?” 

 “Yes, son, but that takes time and effort and too few voters are willing to do any due 
diligence on the candidates. Since many people get their information from the mass media, 
candidates who raise the most money to pay for the most negative advertising are often able 
to sway poorly informed voters.” 

 “That’s disturbing, dad.” 

 “It surely is, son. A thoughtful, well-informed public is the heart and soul of a thriving 
republic. In my opinion, the candidates who best embrace our country’s founding principles 
will be best able to tackle the incredible challenges we face — debt, spending, government 
bureaucracy, a flat economy. Regrettably, however, few people think as I do.” 

 “Maybe so, dad, but you offer sound advice. I promise to be as well-informed as I can before 
I pull a voting lever on Election Day.” 

 Tom Purcell, author of “Misadventures of a 1970’s Childhood” and “Wicked Is the Whiskey,” 
a Sean McClanahan mystery novel, both available at Amazon.com, is a Pittsburgh Tribune-
Review humor columnist. Send comments to Tom at Tom@TomPurcell.com.


Mountain Views News 
has been adjudicated as 
a newspaper of General 
Circulation for the County 
of Los Angeles in Court 
Case number GS004724: 
for the City of Sierra 
Madre; in Court Case 
GS005940 and for the 
City of Monrovia in Court 
Case No. GS006989 and 
is published every Saturday 
at 80 W. Sierra Madre 
Blvd., No. 327, Sierra 
Madre, California, 91024. 
All contents are copyrighted 
and may not be 
reproduced without the 
express written consent of 
the publisher. All rights 
reserved. All submissions 
to this newspaper become 
the property of the Mountain 
Views News and may 
be published in part or 
whole. 

Opinions and views 
expressed by the writers 
printed in this paper do 
not necessarily express 
the views and opinions 
of the publisher or staff 
of the Mountain Views 
News. 

Mountain Views News is 
wholly owned by Grace 
Lorraine Publications, 
Inc. and reserves the right 
to refuse publication of 
advertisements and other 
materials submitted for 
publication. 

Letters to the editor and 
correspondence should 
be sent to: 

Mountain Views News

80 W. Sierra Madre Bl. 
#327

Sierra Madre, Ca. 
91024

Phone: 626-355-2737

Fax: 626-609-3285

email: 

mtnviewsnews@aol.com

 

LEFT TURN/RIGHT TURN

 CHRISTINE Flowers

DICK Polman


TRUMP’S REAL PAY-TO-PAY 
SCANDAL IGNORED BY 

THE MEDIA


TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION 
SPEECH SOUNDS GOOD, 
BUT RINGS HOLLOW

How refreshing it is, after weeks and months of faux Clinton 
Foundation “scandals,” after all the fatuous media talk about “optics” 
and “perceptions,” to finally have a real Foundation scandal to chew on. 
An actual example of pay-to-play, of money given and a favor granted. 
And it comes to us courtesy of Donald Trump.

 The Washington Post has done most of the spadework, but most of the so-called “liberal” 
media has inexplicably ignored it. Fortunately, Trump himself pumped some oxygen into 
the story when he denied any and all wrongdoing.

 Three years ago, the Donald J. Trump Foundation, the family’s nonprofit charity, gave 
a $25,000 campaign contribution to a group that flacked for Florida attorney general Pam 
Bondi. That donation was illegal, because nonprofits are barred by the IRS from giving 
money to political campaigns. And at the time the illegal donation was made, Bondi was 
deciding whether to go to bat for all the Floridians who had been allegedly bilked by the 
phony Trump University. Should she join the State of New York’s class action lawsuit, or 
not?

 Trump’s foundation sent the money to Bondi. A month later, Bondi decided not to 
prosecute Trump University. She claimed that her office had received only one complaint. 
That was a lie. More than 60 aggrieved Floridians had sought her help, hoping to recoup 
their money from the scam school.

 The donation, followed by the decision not to prosecute… what timing! By the way, you 
may remember Bondi’s gig at the Republican convention in Cleveland. She was the one 
who spoke in rapt terms about championing the rule of law.

 It gets worse. After The Post and a citizens watchdog group raised hell earlier this year, 
the Trump Foundation paid a fine to the IRS — right there, we have a proof of guilt, far 
beyond any of the Clinton “optics” and “perceptions” — but the Foundation still insisted 
that it had merely made what it called an “honest mistake.” Supposedly, it had intended 
to send the money to a charitable group in Kansas that had roughly the same name as 
Bondi’s political committee, but gee, somehow the money went to Bondi’s committee, not 
to Kansas.

 It gets even worse. Under IRS rules, the Trump Foundation is supposed to withdraw its 
illegal donation. Bondi’s political group has tried to give it back; as the group’s treasurer 
told The Post, “I wrote a check, sent it via FedEx.” But what happened next? “I received a 
call from the Trump Foundation, saying that they had declined to accept the refund.”

 Which brings us to Trump’s remarks. He denied that he had ever tried to buy Bondi for 
$25,000 in the hopes that she’d leave Trump University alone. “I never spoke to her, first of 
all. She’s a fine person beyond reproach,” Trump said. “I never even spoke to her about it at 
all. She’s a fine person. Never spoke to her about it. Never.”

 Well, that was interesting. Because, just three months ago, Bondi political consultant 
Marc Reichelderfer told the Associated Press that Bondi and Trump had spoken — 
personally, one on one — about a possible Trump donation. The AP quoted Reichefelder 
on that, and referenced it in the opening paragraph of its June story, and neither Bondi or 
Trump denied it.

 So was Trump lying yesterday when he said that he and Bondi “never” spoke about a 
donation that turned out to be illegal? An illegal donation that landed in Bondi’s political 
account shortly before she decided to leave aggrieved Floridians high and dry — a decision 
that benefited Trump as well?

 That’s how the game works — according to Trump himself. You give money to pols, 
you get political favors. In the summer of 2015, he told The Wall Street Journal: “As a 
businessman and a very substantial donor to very important people, when you give, they 
do whatever the hell you want them to do.” 

 When he was asked about that statement during a debate last winter, he replied, “You’d 
better believe it.” And he said this, at a rally in Iowa: “When I want something, I get it. 
When I call, they kiss my ass.”

 Now let’s try a little test. Reread all the aforementioned info, and replace Trump’s name 
with Hillary Clinton’s. If she had ever concocted a fake school that allegedly defrauded 
consumers, and if she had made an illegal political donation to an attorney general who 
then opted not to prosecute fraud, and if she had tried to cover it up by insisting that the 
money was supposed to go to Kansas, and if she had ever denied speaking with that AG 
despite recent statements from an AG ally that she in fact had spoken about a donation ... 
Well. The mainstream media would be banging on this 24/7.

 You know, for the sake of “balance.” And that’s more disgraceful than Trump’s actual 
scandal.

 Copyright 2016 Dick Polman, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

 Dick Polman is the national political columnist at NewsWorks/WHYY in Philadelphia 
(newsworks.org/polman) and a “Writer in Residence” at the University of Pennsylvania. Email 
him at dickpolman7@gmail.com.

As an immigration lawyer, I approached Donald Trump’s speech 
Wednesday night with anticipation, hope and trepidation. 

 I was willing to keep an open mind about a topic that, next to 
abortion rights and religious freedom, is the most important issue 
for me in this campaign. I was prepared to praise the man if he came 
out with an honest, workable, non-tweetable attempt to address the extremely complicated 
factors that go into the whole concept of “illegal immigration.”

 To say I was disappointed is an understatement along the level of “Houston, we have a 
problem.”

 I listened politely as the Republican presidential nominee spoke about building his wall, 
and understood that this was an appealing concept to many - including myself - who are 
troubled by the fluidity of our borders. As he discussed the modalities that would be used 
to build that wall, evoking technologies apparently not yet in existence, I realized that his 
use of this concept was much more symbolic than anything else. “Build a wall” has been 
an effective slogan over the years for many conservative opponents of immigration, and it 
doesn’t require much cerebral heavy lifting.

 Trump sounded more poetic than Maya Angelou: “On Day 1, we will begin working on 
an impenetrable, physical, tall, powerful, beautiful Southern border wall.” He talked about 
“above- and below-ground sensors” which other people call “tunnels.” He talked about 
aerial surveillance, towers and additional manpower. 

 He also said Mexico would pay for the wall, even though the Mexican president whom 
he’d met only hours before made it clear that Mexico “no paga.” So the estimated $8 billion 
to $12 billion needed to build this “beautiful Southern border wall” will have to come from 
somewhere.

 Beyond the wall, and the absolute lack of detail on the methodologies by which it would 
both be built and financed, Trump talked about how he would increase the border patrol 
force by about 25 percent. I think that is a fantastic idea, but I’d like to know where that 
money is coming from, too, especially after we build those walls.

 Then Trump announced the revolutionary concept that he would change enforcement 
priorities by “removing criminals, gang members, security threats, visa overstays, (and) 
public charges.” I stood up and gave him a standing ovation when I heard that. But I gave 
President Obama that same standing ovation when he announced those same priorities in 
November 2014. Yawn.

 Trump then talked about screening refugees, and no one who has seen the brutality 
wreaked by ISIS and other Islamic terror groups should object to that. But, as experts 
have noted, refugees generally undergo the most rigorous and time-consuming process of 
any category of immigrants who enter the U.S. Sometimes the process can take up to 18 
months, or more. So again, nothing new.

 And he talked about jobs, which is a big part of his appeal, the great job creator. Good 
for him. I agree something must be done to bring workers out of the shadows, provide 
them with work authorization, give them identification cards and continue to allow 
them to work legally in our restaurant kitchens, mowing our backyards and cleaning our 
bathrooms. Oh, yeah, and winning Olympic medals for us when they become naturalized 
U.S. citizens.

 But the thing that finally made me realize this was not a serious speech was the last part, 
when Trump brought the mothers of slain citizens on stage to say “Vote for me.” In this 
powerful, hardly subliminal attack on so-called “sanctuary cities,” Trump did what the 
Democratic National Convention was justifiably criticized for doing when it trotted the 
mothers of Michael Brown and other so-called victims of police brutality on stage. I was 
appalled then that we would use mothers’ grief to advance an agenda, and I was appalled 
when Trump did the same thing.

 The suggestion that illegal aliens must be kept out of the country because they have an 
innate tendency to be more violent and homicidal than the average native-born American 
is wrong. Debatable, but still wrong. Statistics consistently show that immigrants commit 
violent crimes at a significantly lower rate that the native-born. It’s an argument we can 
have; I’m fine with that.

 My problem is using death to make your partisan point.

 “My boy was shot by a cop. They’re bigoted monsters.”

 “My boy was killed by an illegal. They’re homicidal maniacs.”

 Same tune, different verses.

 And if you don’t think it’s the same tune, that’s because your ears are registered with a 
different party, and you think some mothers are less entitled to grieve than others.

 As for me, I’m thinking Helen Keller was lucky.

Flowers is an attorney and a columnist for the Philadelphia Daily News, and can be reached at 
cflowers1961@gmail.com.

Mountain Views News

Mission Statement

The traditions of

community news-
papers and the 
concerns of our readers 
are this newspaper’s 
top priorities. We 
support a prosperous 
community of well-
informed citizens. 
We hold in high 
regard the values 
of the exceptional 
quality of life in our 
community, including 
the magnificence of 
our natural resources. 
Integrity will be our 
guide. 

Mountain Views News 80 W Sierra Madre Blvd. No. 327 Sierra Madre, Ca. 91024 Office: 626.355.2737 Fax: 626.609.3285 Email: editor@mtnviewsnews.com Website: www.mtnviewsnews.com