Saturday, March 25, 2017

Call Orkin! More Humor.

An immigration essay. (See 1 below.)

Trump is an impatient capitalist and his personna is out of step with that of politicians who are predominantly policy wonk driven, and expert at making that which is simple, complex.

Trump's coalition is the "forgotten" citizen but he does not have the coalition in D.C he needs to pass legislation.  Until he can build one, everything he attempts may die at the hands of a divided party comprised of factions. He will never get any help from Democrats because they remain bitter and of the view he is not only an unworthy president but also an illegitimate one.

Trump is a fast learner and he may eventually pull some chestnuts out of the fire but until he eliminates Obama holdovers (termites) within his government everything Trump attempts will be undercut. He needs to call Orkin.(See 2 and 2a below.)
Cogent and worth repeating. 

When Trump says he inherited a mess that is an understatement which will be proven factual over time. The problem for Trump is that when it comes to seeking solutions, if there are any, he will be blamed for the foreign policy disasters Obama created and the aftermath caused by what Trump does in trying to reach practical solutions. (See 3 below.)
More humor. (See 4 below.)

1)The Immigration Dodge

Today’s bitter divides focus too narrowly on enforcement. All sides need to be clearer about what immigration policy is meant to achieve

By Mark Krikorian

The immigration debate in the U.S. has been contentious for decades, but Donald Trump ’s candidacy and election have taken it to a new level of polarized animosity. Politicians and the public have focused, understandably, on Mr. Trump’s promise to build a “big, beautiful” wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and on what should be done with the millions of illegal immigrants currently in the country.
These are certainly important issues. But they are enforcement issues. They are less fundamental than a question that too often goes unaddressed in our debates: Why limit immigration at all? Almost everyone at least pays lip service to the need for limits of some kind, but we don’t often enough challenge each other to explain what limits we support and why.
If we are ever to have a rational debate about immigration—rather than a screaming match among combatants mostly intent on signaling their own moral virtue or ideological purity—the starting point has to be a candid acknowledgment of our goals and preferences. Politicians and ordinary voters shouldn’t be allowed to get away with saying “Of course there should be limits on immigration, but…” without explaining what they mean.
Almost all of the arguments for limiting immigration share a common theme: protection. Even those advocating much more liberal immigration policies acknowledge the need to protect Americans from terrorists, foreign criminals and people who pose a threat to public health. Supporters of stricter limits, such as me, seek wider protections: protection for less-skilled workers, protection for the social safety net, and protection for the civic and cultural foundations of American society.
Census data show that more than 43 million foreign-born people are now living in the U.S., close to half of them naturalized citizens. Each year, about 1.5 million new immigrants arrive, most of them legally. But the actual demand for immigration to the U.S. is far higher than these levels.In prior centuries, the vast distances that people had to cross to get to the U.S.—to say nothing of the difficulty of communication and of gathering information about prospects here—proved quite effective at limiting immigration. But now that we can talk to anyone in the world at any time and reach anywhere on the planet in a matter of hours, the oceans no longer pose such a formidable barrier.
Even with our current rules, which give out about a million green cards each year (plus hundreds of thousands of work visas), more than four million people are on immigration waiting lists, according to the State Department. And the universe of potential immigrants to the U.S. is much larger still. A 2009 Gallup poll found that 700 million people would permanently leave their countries if they could, with the U.S. as the top choice for some 165 million of them.
Many of these people wouldn’t actually follow through, of course, but there is every reason to think that the flow of immigrants to the U.S. would expand enormously if current limits, which are already badly enforced, were to be relaxed or abolished. Under much more liberal rules, immigration to the U.S. could easily reach 10 million people a year.
And what would be wrong with that? What interests of American citizens would warrant protection from much higher levels of immigration?
The most obvious is jobs and workers. Importing large numbers of people from abroad would depress the wages of workers already here. In some cases, Americans would lose their jobs or not get jobs they otherwise would have. Over time, the economy would adjust, absorbing the new workers, but not without significant cost to American workers.
An authoritative study of the economic effects of immigration, published last year by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, or NAS, provides important context for thinking about the issue. The NAS study found that immigration boosts economic growth in the long term and modestly improves the country’s demographic profile as the native population ages. Immigration also creates a small net economic benefit—an “immigration surplus”—of roughly $50 billion a year, raising the income of the average native-born American by 0.3%.
That net benefit is derived from lowering the wages of Americans who compete with immigrants by about $500 billion. Businesses, in turn, benefit to the tune of about $550 billion, resulting in the $50 billion immigration surplus. In effect, immigration functions as a program of redistribution, shifting wealth from labor to capital.
As the study shows, the native-born workers facing competition from immigrants are mainly those least sought-after by employers: the less-educated, teenagers, recovering addicts, ex-cons, the disabled, single mothers needing flexible hours. The claim that native-born workers don’t compete with immigrants because the two groups are in different occupations—“jobs Americans won’t do” is the shorthand term—is generally false.
Of the hundreds of categories into which the Census Bureau classifies American jobs, only a half-dozen smaller ones in the data for 2009-11 were majority immigrant, and even in those, nearly half the workers were native-born. Most immigrants were found to be working in sectors where most of their co-workers are native-born. This includes maids, taxi drivers, landscapers, construction laborers and janitors. Janitor cannot logically be a “job Americans won’t do” if nearly three-quarters of janitors in the U.S. are native-born Americans.
No specific immigration policy inevitably follows from these facts, but they do help us to see who gets protected by limits on immigration. As Harvard’s George Borjas, the nation’s leading immigration economist, puts it in his recent book, “We Wanted Workers,” we need to ask ourselves, “Who are you rooting for?” Are the costs to less-favored native-born workers worth the benefits reaped by those who enjoy the fruits of immigrant labor? Different answers are possible, but the question can’t be dodged.
Immigration limits are also designed to protect the social safety net. The late free-market economist Milton Friedman argued that you can’t have both relatively open immigration and a generous welfare state. This is because large-scale immigration, whether under current arrangements or more permissive rules, attracts large numbers of less-skilled workers, who will only be able to earn low wages. These low wages mean, in turn, that they would pay little in taxes but are eligible for many means-tested government benefits.
Friedman’s preference was to abolish the welfare state rather than to limit immigration, but in the real world, no such thing is possible. Some form of extensive social provision for the poor is an inherent part of modern society. Tightening is possible, but simply eliminating it is not.
This safety net would buckle under the weight of much higher levels of immigration. Even our current flow of 1.5 million immigrants a year creates a significant fiscal deficit. The aforementioned NAS study examined these costs—the balance between services used and taxes paid by immigrants and their dependent children—and found immigrants to be a net fiscal drain, with the loss as large as $299 billion a year.The progression from little education to low wages to high welfare use is not a moral critique of immigrants. Our welfare system is designed to subsidize the working poor with children, and immigrants are the working poor with children. My center’s analysis of data from a 2012 Census Bureau survey focusing on “program participation” (that is, welfare use) showed that 51% of households headed by immigrants use at least one means-tested welfare program. The most widely used are Medicaid and the nutrition programs (food stamps, the WIC nutritional program, school lunches), which immigrants use at nearly double the rate of the native-born.
There is no avoiding the reality that admitting large numbers of poor people into the U.S. inevitably creates costs for taxpayers. As with the effect of immigration on the labor market, no specific policy follows from these facts, but they clearly show the impact of decisions about immigration limits.
Finally, limits on immigration also protect the stability of our social arrangements. To be successful and harmonious, any society needs to cultivate a sense of fellow-feeling and solidarity among its members. Most of our fellow citizens are strangers to us, and yet we tax ourselves for their benefit, yield to their political choices at election time and perhaps serve in uniform to protect them. We do this precisely because they are our fellow citizens and have a claim on our loyalty and affections that citizens of other countries do not.
In more homogenous societies, like Japan or Denmark or Swaziland, this fellow-feeling may arise organically from kinship ties and a shared cultural heritage. But in a more heterogeneous society like ours, it must be cultivated if it is to flourish, and we can’t ignore factors that undermine it.
This is not to say that immigrants don’t learn English, get jobs, join the military and drive on the right side of the road. They do all those things. But the deeper and more important process of reorienting one’s emotional and psychological attachments from the old country to the new has not fared well in recent decades in the U.S. and would be overwhelmed, I believe, by any dramatic increase in immigration.
In “Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation,” a classic study published in 2001, the sociologists Alejandro Portes and Ruben G. Rumbaut followed thousands of children of immigrants in San Diego and Miami over several years, surveying them when they began high school and then again as they were finishing. Their research covered many issues, including the students’ national self-identification.
At the beginning of high school, the majority identified as American in some form, either simply or in some hyphenated form as, say, a Filipino-American or Cuban-American. After several years of American high school, the primary institution tasked with imparting civic consciousness to young people, barely one-third still identified as American, with most adopting either a foreign national identity (Cuban or Filipino) or a pan-racial identity (Hispanic, Asian). Our educational system continues to do an abysmal job at civic education, not least because of the influence of multiculturalism as a pedagogical principle.
These problems aside, modern society is marked by the loss of what the Harvard political scientist Robert Putman calls social capital. As he showed in his influential book “Bowling Alone” (2000) and in his subsequent research, this decline in connections among individuals and in social trust manifests itself in many areas: falling membership in unions, civic organizations and professional societies, declining church attendance, less participation in politics, even a drop in having friends over for dinner.
This social atomization wasn’t caused by immigration, but it has two important implications for it. First, the institutions that in the past helped to assimilate immigrants into American life are not what they once were. Unions, churches, urban political machines, even broad-based ethnic self-help organizations either no longer exist or are have been significantly enfeebled.
In addition, Dr. Putnam’s research shows that high levels of immigration actually exacerbate the bowling-alone tendencies in the wider society, overloading it with ethnic diversity than it cannot handle. It is not that diversity causes increased hostility between groups, as one might expect. Rather, it causes people to disappear into their shells like turtles. As Dr. Putnam writes: “Inhabitants of diverse communities tend to withdraw from collective life, to distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more but to have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.”
It is no coincidence that Los Angeles, which immigration has made into what Dr. Putnam calls “among the most ethnically diverse human habitations in history,” had the lowest level of social trust among all the communities that his team studied.
So if there must be limits on immigration, for these or other reasons, what should those limits be? That depends on what you think needs protecting and how much protection you think it needs.
My own primary concerns are the stagnating prospects of much of our workforce, the dysfunction of our public finances and the fragility of our civic culture. This leads me to advocate much narrower criteria than those we currently use. I would limit immigration to the husbands, wives and young children of U.S. citizens; to skilled workers who rank among the top talents in the world; and to the small number of genuine refugees whose situation is so extraordinary that they cannot be helped where they are.
Others will reach different conclusions, but they must address the same questions: What family relationships should give rise to special immigration rights? How should skills be determined? And given the misery that prevails in so much of the world, what should the limiting principle be for admitting refugees?
If we can get politicians, analysts and the public to grapple with these questions and answer them forthrightly, we can have a cooler, more reasoned immigration debate. There will still be much disagreement—over what the limits should be and how they should be enforced—but we will at least know where everyone stands.
Mr. Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C.
2) Donald Trump’s Need Now: Find a Governing Coalition
The president is more on his own than is usually the case early in a term, writes columnist Gerald F. Seib
The collapse of Republicans’ first order of business in the new Washington, a health-care overhaul, reveals a startling reality for President Donald Trump: At this moment, two months into his presidency, he doesn’t yet have a reliable governing coalition.
Moreover, he may be on his own to create one.
The effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act failed because Mr. Trump got zero Democratic support, because neither his threats nor his cajoling were sufficient to move enough Republicans, and because he couldn’t count on congressional leaders to change any of that for him.
In a way, that outcome was the logical result of the utterly unconventional character of the Trump presidency. Mr. Trump arrived in Washington as almost a political independent. He campaigned against the Republican establishment, and at the same time was never really embraced by the party’s conservative wing.
There seemed, in his populist campaign message and his appeal to traditionally Democratic working-class voters, the potential to reach out to Democrats to build some new alliances. But that hope has been swamped so far by the Democratic base’s deep antipathy toward Mr. Trump, as well as the decision to start with an attempt to overturn the signature issue of the previous Democratic president.
That leaves Mr. Trump more on his own than a more traditional president might be at this point—and more in need of creating a nontraditional governing coalition. So far, that hasn’t happened.
“Trump’s win put together a very interesting group of people, but what you’re seeing early on is that that group doesn’t necessarily agree on things like the role of government and spending,” said John Murray, a former top aide to House Republican leaders. “That is a tough coalition to put together.”
In the aftermath of the failure of the health bill in the House, Mr. Trump immediately blamed that lack of Democratic support. And Democratic opposition was, in fact, absolute and unshakable. But ultimately the fatal problem was his inability to move enough wavering House Republicans to pass the measure in the way it was always destined to be moved along: on a straight party-line vote
And the biggest problem on the Republican front was Mr. Trump’s inability to pull a set of the House’s most conservative members over the line to support the measure. Some in the party think Mr. Trump should have given it more time.
“It was about three weeks of effort, and then he apparently got tired of it,” said Doug Heye, former communications director for the Republican National Committee and deputy chief of staff to former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. “Compare that to [Barack] Obama, who spent a year and a half on the Hill, giving speeches, going to meetings” on health care.
Still, the difficulty in moving those conservatives also reflected the fact that some of them remain suspicious of Mr. Trump, who they think doesn’t really share their beliefs and didn’t do enough to push their principles into the health legislation.
Many of those House members come from reliably conservative districts, where defying a president and House leaders on ideological grounds isn’t a politically risky step. Mr. Trump’s sway also isn’t helped by the fact that his job-approval ratings are slumping below 40%.
In any case, the question Mr. Trump confronts now is how to build a more reliable coalition to get some things done. He has said that his intention now is to charge into pushing a broad tax-overhaul plan.
And that is, in fact, where many in his party are itching to go. But achieving a tax overhaul also is a long and complex task, and one where competing factions are likely to once again come quickly to the fore.
While that unfolds, Mr. Trump might be well served by exploring whether he can find other issues where he has a better chance of putting together a winning coalition. Mr. Murray advises Mr. Trump and Republican congressional leaders to “get some points on the board through smaller actions, to show the place works.”
He also might try to see whether he can find some of that bipartisanship that seemed possible shortly after he won the election. The one bigger issue where a convergence with Democrats has always seemed possible is a big program to improve American infrastructure.
Democrats like that idea because it does something they’re fond of: It uses government money to help create jobs. Moreover, the kind of construction jobs created by infrastructure spending go directly to many of those blue-collar Trump voters who helped propel him into office.
The trick will be convincing conservatives skeptical about government spending. In any case, the health-care failure only underscores the need to find a way to create a working Trump team of some kind.


Obama Has Put In Place a Secret Database ‘Everything On Everyone’ 

Live leak unearthed an interview with Maxine Waters where she admits that because eventually he would not be in charge, Obama has created a HUGE “Secret Database”!

3)  Column One: Trump’s greatest deal
By Caroline Glick

The Iran deal Trump needs to make with the Russians is clear. What can be done about Iran? In Israel, a dispute is reportedly raging between the IDF and the Mossad about the greatest threat facing Israel. IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gadi Eisenkot thinks that Hezbollah is the greatest threat facing Israel. Mossad Director Yossi Cohen thinks Iran’s nuclear program is the greatest danger facing the Jewish state.
While the media highlight the two men’s disagreement, the underlying truth about their concerns has been ignored.

Hezbollah and Iran’s nuclear program are two aspects of the same threat: the regime in Tehran.

Hezbollah is a wholly owned subsidiary of the regime. If the regime disappeared, Hezbollah would fall apart. As for the nuclear installations, in the hands of less fanatical leaders, they would represent a far less acute danger to global security.

So if you undermine the Iranian regime, you defeat Hezbollah and defuse the nuclear threat.

If you fail to deal with the regime in Tehran, both threats will continue to grow no matter what you do, until they become all but insurmountable.

So what can be done about Tehran? With each passing day we discover new ways Iran endangers Israel and the rest of the region.

This week we learned Iran has built underground weapons factories in Lebanon. The facilities are reportedly capable of building missiles, drones, small arms and ammunition. Their underground location protects them from aerial bombardment.

Then there is Hezbollah’s relationship to the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF).

For more than a decade, the Americans have been selling themselves the implausible claim that the LAF is a responsible fighting force capable and willing to rein in Hezbollah. Never an easy claim – the LAF provided targeting information to Hezbollah missile crews attacking Israel in 2006 – after Hezbollah domesticated the Lebanese government in 2008, the claim became downright silly. And yet, over the past decade, the US has provided the LAF with weapons worth in excess of $1 billion. In 2016 alone the US gave the LAF jets, helicopters, armored personnel carriers and missiles worth more than $220 million.

In recent months, showing that Iran no longer feels the need to hide its control over Lebanon, the LAF has openly stated that it is working hand in glove with Hezbollah.

Last November, Hezbollah showcased US M113 armored personnel carriers with roof-mounted Russian anti-aircraft guns, at a military parade in Syria. The next month the Americans gave the LAF a Hellfire missile-equipped Cessna aircraft with day and night targeting systems.

Lebanon’s President Michel Aoun is a Hezbollah ally. So is Defense Minister Yaacoub Sarraf and LAF commander Gen. Joseph Aoun.

Last month President Aoun told Sen. Bob Corker, the chairman of the US Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, that Hezbollah serves “a complementary role to the Lebanese army.”

And yet the Americans insist that it continues to make sense – and to be lawful – to arm the LAF.

You can hardly blame them. Denial is an attractive option, given the alternatives.

For the past eight years, the Obama administration did everything in its power to empower Iran. To make Iran happy, Obama did nothing as hundreds of thousands of Syrians were killed and millions more were forced to flee their homes by Iran and its puppet Bashar Assad.

Obama allowed Iran to take over the Iraqi government and the Iraqi military. He sat back as Iran’s Houthi proxy overthrew the pro-US regime in Yemen.

And of course, the crowning achievement of Obama’s foreign policy was his nuclear deal with the mullahs. Obama’s deal gives Iran an open path to a nuclear arsenal in a bit more than a decade and enriches the regime beyond Ayatollah Khamenei’s wildest dreams.

Obama empowered Iran at the expense of the US’s Sunni allies and Israel, and indeed, at the expense of the US’s own superpower status in the region, to enable the former president to withdraw the US from the Middle East.

Power of course, doesn’t suffer a vacuum, and the one that Obama created was quickly filled.

For decades, Russia has been Iran’s major arms supplier. It has assisted Iran with its nuclear program and with its ballistic missile program. Russia serves as Iran’s loyal protector at the UN Security Council.

But for all the help it provided Tehran through the years, Moscow never presented itself as Iran’s military defender.

That all changed in September 2015. Two months after Obama cut his nuclear deal with the ayatollahs, Russia deployed its forces to Syria on behalf of Iran and its Syrian and Lebanese proxies.

In so doing, Russia became the leading member and the protector of the Iranian axis.

Russia’s deployment of forces had an immediate impact not only on the war in Syria, but on the regional power balance as a whole. With Russia serving as the air force for Iran and its Syrian and Hezbollah proxies, the Assad regime’s chances of survival increased dramatically. So did Iran’s prospects for regional hegemony.

For Obama, this situation was not without its advantages.

In his final year in office, Obama’s greatest concern was ensuring that his nuclear deal with Iran would outlive his presidency. Russia’s deployment in Syria as the protector of Iran and its proxies was a means of achieving this end.

Russia’s alliance with Iran made attacking Iran’s nuclear program or its Hezbollah proxy a much more dangerous prospect than it had been before.

After all, in 2006, Russia supported Iran and Hezbollah in their war against Israel. But Russia’s support for Iran and its Lebanese legion didn’t diminish Israel’s operational freedom. Israel was able to wage war without any fear that its operations would place it in a direct confrontation with the Russian military.

This changed in September 2015.

The first person to grasp the strategic implications of the Russian move was Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu recognized that with Russian forces on the ground in Syria, the only way for Israel to take even remedial measures to protect itself from Iran and its proxies was to drive a wedge between President Vladimir Putin and the ayatollahs wide enough to enable Israel to continue its raids against weapons convoys to Hezbollah and other targets without risking a confrontation with Russia. This is the reason that Netanyahu boarded a flight to Moscow to speak to Putin almost immediately after the Russian leader deployed his forces to Syria.

Israel’s ability to continue to strike targets in Syria, whether along the border on the Golan Heights or deep within Syrian territory, is a function of Netanyahu’s success in convincing Putin to limit his commitment to his Iranian allies.

Since President Donald Trump entered the White House, Iran has been his most urgent foreign policy challenge. Unlike Obama, Trump recognizes that Iran’s nuclear program and its threats to US economic and strategic interests in the Persian Gulf and the Levant cannot be wished away.

And so he has decided to deal with Iran.

The question is, what is he supposed to do? Trump has three basic options.

He can cut a deal with Russia. He can act against Iran without cutting a deal with Russia. And he can do nothing, or anemically maintain Obama’s pro-Iran policies.

The first option has the greatest potential strategic payoff. If Trump can convince Russia to ditch Iran, then he has a chance of dismantling the regime in Tehran and so defusing the Iranian nuclear program and destroying Hezbollah without having to fight a major war.

The payoff to Russia for agreeing to such a deal would be significant. But if Trump were to adopt this policy, the US has a lot of bargaining chips that it can use to convince Putin to walk away from the ayatollahs long enough for the US to defuse the threat they pose to its interests.

The problem with the Russia strategy is that since Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the presidential race, the Democrats, their allied media outlets and powerful forces in the US intelligence community have been beset by a Russia hysteria unseen since the Red scares in the 1920s and 1950s.

The fact that Obama bent over backward to cater to Putin’s interests for eight years has been pushed down the memory hole.

Also ignored is the fact that during her tenure as secretary of state, Clinton approved deals with the Russians that were arguably antithetical to US interests while the Clinton Foundation received millions of dollars in contributions from Russian businessmen and companies closely allied with Putin.

Since November 8, the Democrats and their clapping seals in the media and allies in the US intelligence community have banged the war drums against Russia, accusing Trump and his advisers of serving as Russian patsies at best, and Russian agents at worst.

In this climate, it would be politically costly for Trump to implement a Russian-based strategy for dismantling the Iranian threat.

This brings us to the second option, which is to confront Iran and Russia. Under this option, US action against Iran could easily cause hostilities to break out between the US and Russia. It goes without saying that the political fallout from making a deal with Russia would be nothing compared to the political consequences if Trump were to take the US down a path that led to war with Russia.

Obviously, the economic and human costs of such a confrontation would be prohibitive regardless of the political consequences.

This leaves us with the final option of doing nothing, or anemically continuing to implement Obama’s policies, as the Americans are doing today.

Although tempting, the hard truth is that this is the most dangerous policy of all.

You need only look to North Korea to understand why this is so.

Seemingly on a daily basis, Pyongyang threatens to nuke America. And the US has no good options for dealing with the threat.

As Secretary of State Rex Tillerson acknowledged during his recent trip to Asia, decades of US diplomacy regarding North Korea’s nuclear program did nothing to diminish or delay the threat.

North Korea has been able to develop nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles while threatening the US with destruction because North Korea enjoys the protection of China. If not for the Chinese, the US would long ago have dealt a death blow to the regime.

Israel has moved Russia as far away from Iran as it can on its own. It is enough to stop convoys of North Korean weapons from crossing into Lebanon.

But it isn’t enough to cause serious harm to Tehran or its clients.

The only government that can do that is the American government.

Trump built his career by mastering the art of deal making. And he recognized that Obama’s deal with Iran is not the masterpiece Obama and his allies claim but a catastrophe.

The Iran deal Trump needs to make with the Russians is clear. The only question is whether he is willing to pay the political price it requires.
4) A Jewish man was leaving a convenience store with his coffee when he noticed a most unusual Italian funeral procession   approaching the nearby cemetery.  
   A black hearse was followed by a second black hearse about 50 feet behind the first one.                                          
    Behind the second hearse was a solitary Italian man walking a dog on a leash.                                            
    Behind him, a short distance back, were about 300 men walking in single file.                                        
    The Jewish man couldn't stand the curiosity. He respectfully approached the Italian man walking the dog and said:                                      
    "I am so sorry for your loss, and this may be a bad time to disturb you, but I've never seen an Italian funeral like this. Whose funeral is it?"
  "My wife's."
    ''What happened to her?"                          
    "She yelled at me and my dog attacked and killed her."                      
    He inquired further, "But who is in the second hearse"                  
    "My mother-in-law. She came to help my wife and the dog turned on her and killed her also."            
    A very poignant and touching moment of Jewish and Italian brotherhood and silence 
passed between the two men.          
    The Jewish man then asked, "Can I borrow the dog?"    
    The Italian man replied , "Get in line."

No comments: