Avi Gets Recognition. Another Rant. Prager Is Glum. Democrats Fence Over Wall.

This photograph taken by a friend and fellow memo reader.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My friend, Avi, continues to received accolades. (See 1 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Will Mueller's report, if it ever comes out in our lifetime, be boring? (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
They have done it before. Hopefully, they will do it again.  (See 3 below.)

And:

So what's new? (See 3a below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Another Rant. (See 4 below.)

And

Prager is Glum.Probably should be. (See 4a below.)

Finally:

Democrats fence over the wall. (See 4b below.)

York and others suggest $5 billion is a small relative amount.  I remember when $5 billion was the entire budget.

When you are in a mode to spend there is no limit.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)

Dear Colleagues and Friends, I couldn't be more pleased to share a recent speech delivered by FCC Chairman, Ajit Pai, in Jerusalem at the Israel Business Conference, where he speaks about the underlying thrust of my book. This event, sponsored by Globes, the Hebrew-language financial newspaper, is the longest-established and largest economic conference in Israel, held annually for over two decades.

“A disproportionate share of the innovations that come out of Israel also wind up making the world a better place. I find this argument to be both appealing and inspiring.”

Chairman Pai closes his speech with the following: Early in my remarks, I briefly touched on why the FCC is focused on next-generation technologies like 5G. I’d like to close by extending this point. Earlier this year, the American author Avi Jorisch released a book called Thou Shalt Innovate, which examines how Israel became a tech powerhouse. His central thesis is that previous explorations of this topic, which identify factors like world-class universities, government investment in R&D, and a talent pool that draws immigrants from around the world, overlook a key element—the Jewish tradition of Tikkun Olam, or “healing the world.” Jorisch writes that a disproportionate share of the innovations that come out of Israel also wind up making the world a better place—from modern drip irrigation to the first firewall to protect data online to United Hatzalah, a smartphone app that deploys highly trained EMTs on retrofitted motorcycles to high-traffic areas in a fraction of the time of traditional ambulances. Jorisch argues that your commitment to improve the lives of others across the globe, to be a “light unto the nations” was integral to these breakthroughs. As a government official charged with advancing the public interest, I find this argument to be both appealing and inspiring. Digital innovations like 5G are not ends in themselves; they are the means to improve people’s lives around the globe. Israeli innovations are playing a disproportionate role in helping solve some of the humanity's biggest challenges. In a part of the world that has more than its share of darkness, the stories featured in my book serve as rays of light. Wishing you a prosperous and wonderful 2019. With warmest regards, Avi https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-355677A1.pdf Shalom (שלום)! Thank you to Globes for the opportunity to speak with you all this afternoon. It’s an honor to be at the Globes Business Conference. And more important, it’s wonderful to be in Israel. I’ve been here for a few days already, and it’s been a remarkable and rewarding trip. It’s one thing to read about the strong bonds of friendship between the United States and Israel. It’s another to experience them firsthand. I’m grateful to everyone who has made me feel so welcome. Special thanks to my Israeli government counterpart, fellow speaker, and—if I may say so—my friend, Director General Nati Cohen, for being such a gracious host. Our two nations are connected by shared values and shared interests, and that is certainly true in the field of communications. Each of our governments is committed to connecting all of our citizens with what I like to call digital opportunity. And on Monday, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission and the Israeli Ministry of Communications put this commitment into practice. We convened the first meeting of a new Joint Working Group to exchange information and learn from each other’s experiences. I’m pleased to report that the relationship between our two agencies has never been stronger, and I look forward to continuing our cooperation in the years to come. This is the first set of formal remarks I’ve delivered on this trip. And as an American speaking to a largely Israeli audience, I’m reminded of a story from when Intel was growing its business in Israel. To bridge the differences between their American and Israeli employees, Intel hosted what it called “cross- cultural seminars.” Shmuel Eden, who served as President of Intel Israel, ran these seminars. And he had a memorable take on our cultural differences. Eden said, “It’s more complicated to manage five Israelis than 50 Americans because the Israelis will challenge you all the time—starting with ‘Why are you the manager; why am I not your manager?’” I share this quote for two reasons. One, I thought it was funny. By your laughter, I’m relieved that you agree. And, two, to lodge a complaint. When it comes to challenging authority, I’d like to think that we Americans take a back seat to nobody. I think this disruptive spirit is part of our shared DNA, something that has made our alliance indispensable for both nations. I also think this assertiveness—chutzpah, if you will—is a big reason why our nations are at the forefront of technological innovation. They call Israel the “Start-up Nation.” That’s because you have more startups here per capita than any other country in the world. And during my trip, I have seen your innovative spirit for myself. I’ve visited companies like Siklu, Sckipio, and Gilat Satellite. Using a variety of technologies, they are helping to connect people around the world with high-speed Internet access. In a similarly progressive fashion, I’m proud to say that the United States still leads the world in venture investment with no signs of slowing. Venture capital investment in the U.S. was 160% higher in 2017 than 2010, and we saw more venture investment during the first half of 2018 than we did during most full years of the previous decade. The United States and Israel are setting the pace in the global digital economy. As shown by the subject of this session, one of the emerging battlegrounds for technological leadership will be 5G, the next generation of wireless technology. In just the past few months, I’ve taken part in discussions on 5G in venues ranging from the White House to the International Institute of Communications Conference in Mexico City to the India Mobile Congress in New Delhi. Why is everyone focusing on 5G? Well, as David Ben-Gurion used to say, “It’s not enough to be up to date. You have to be up to tomorrow.” And our wireless tomorrow is definitely 5G. Indeed, the first wave of 5G rollouts is happening now. This fall, consumers in Houston, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, and Sacramento became the first people in the world to enjoy home Internet service that relies on commercial 5G wireless technology. Tomorrow, a in And all four major wireless carriers in the U.S. have plans for meaningful 5G deployments by mid-2019. These new networks could effectively remove speed, latency, and capacity as meaningful constraints on wireless innovation. Wireless networks will be 100 times faster, maybe even more. The lag time between a device’s request for data and the network’s response will be less than one-tenth of what it is today. Wireless networks that today support 1,000 connected devices per square kilometer could instead support 1 million. These are major advancements. And they’ll open the door to new services and applications that will grow our economy and improve our standard of living. For example, smart transportation networks that link connected cars—reducing traffic, preventing accidents, and limiting pollution; ubiquitous wireless sensors that enable healthcare professionals to remotely monitor your health and transmit data to your doctor before problems become emergencies; connected devices that empower farms to apply precision agriculture. And much more, including advances which we can’t even conceive of today. At the FCC, we certainly feel a sense of urgency around 5G, and we are acting accordingly. Let me just briefly walk you through what we are doing at the Commission to promote 5G innovation. We call our strategy the 5G FAST plan, and it has three key components: (1) freeing up spectrum, (2) promoting wireless infrastructure, and (3) modernizing regulations. Here are some highlights in each area. On spectrum, the first part of our plan, the FCC has moved aggressively to make more airwaves available for the commercial marketplace because the services and applications of tomorrow will require much more bandwidth. That’s why we are currently in the process of auctioning the 28 GHz band and will follow that up with an auction of the 24 GHz band. And that’s why we will be auctioning three more spectrum bands in the second half of 2019: the Upper 37, 39, and 47 GHz bands. Altogether, we will release almost 5 GHz of spectrum into the commercial marketplace by the end of next year. That’s more than all wireless carriers in the United States are currently using for mobile broadband. We’re also working to make many other spectrum bands available for commercial use, including for unlicensed. In particular, we believe that the 6 GHz band can help drive the next generation of Wi-Fi, and I am optimistic that we will be able to make it available for unlicensed use in 2019. Turning from spectrum to physical infrastructure, the second part of our 5G FAST plan, analysts project that deploying 5G in the United States will require an estimated 800,000 new cell sites by 2025. This is because 5G will require densified networks of small cells rather than just a few large towers dotting the landscape. For context, there are roughly 300,000 cell sites in the U.S. today. So we have work to do. To further illustrate our infrastructure challenges, consider this: In the United States, it takes about one or two hours to install a small cell on a utility pole. But it can routinely take more than twoyears to get the approval to install it. Another problem is excessive fees imposed by short-sighted local governments. Siting fees per small cell can be as low as $50 in an investment-friendly place like Phoenix, but as high as $5,000 elsewhere. We cannot and will not let today’s red tape strangle the 5G future. That’s why the FCC has reformed our wireless infrastructure rules, and why we’ll keep doing so. Earlier this year, we reformed our historic preservation and environmental regulations so that small cells don’t have to jump through the  same regulatory hoops as a 200-foot tower. And this fall, we approved an important order promoting 5G infrastructure. It sets a reasonable shot clock for cities to rule on small-cell siting applications. And it sets reasonable limits on siting fees, limits that allow localities to cover their costs. The third part of our 5G FAST plan is modernizing regulations. In that regard, the FCC is revising or repealing outdated rules to promote investment in the wired backbone of 5G networks. We recognize that 5G isn’t just about wireless. To make 5G networks a success, you also need a lot of fiber for backhaul. So that’s one of the reasons why we decided to move away from utility-style regulation of broadband networks and toward a light-touch, market-based regulatory framework. And that’s why we are making it cheaper and easier to string fiber lines on utility poles with what we call “one-touch make-ready.” This policy would allow a single entity to do the advance work to make space for broadband infrastructure on a utility pole. It will substantially lower the cost and shorten the time to deploy broadband on utility poles, and thereby promote more deployment and competition. Now, that’s 5G. Hand-in-hand with our work on that, the FCC is looking at the ways other emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing, blockchain, and the like, are changing the communications marketplace and could potentially benefit consumers. Three weeks ago, the Commission hosted a forum on AI and machine learning. I hope this will be one of many on emerging technologies. It’s important to note that this event was about discussion and demonstration, not preemptive regulation. For example, one of the topics discussed was how AI could make it cheaper to operate communications networks and improve network resiliency. I do not intend for the FCC to pursue regulation in this area. History tells us that new technologies will evolve in ways that people don’t or can’t anticipate, and that early intervention can forestall or even foreclose certain paths to innovation. This makes it foolish and counterproductive for government to micromanage—or more accurately, try to micromanage—the evolution of these technologies. *** Early in my remarks, I briefly touched on why the FCC is focused on next-generation technologies like 5G. I’d like to close by extending this point. Earlier this year, the American author Avi Jorisch released a book called Thou Shalt Innovate, which examines how Israel became a tech powerhouse. His central thesis is that previous explorations of this topic, which identify factors like world-class universities, government investment in R&D, and a talent pool that draws immigrants from around the world, overlook a key element—the Jewish tradition of Tikkun Olam, or “healing the world.” Jorisch writes that a disproportionate share of the innovations that come out of Israel also wind up making the world a better place—from modern drip irrigation to the first firewall to protect data online to United Hatzalah, a smartphone app that deploys highly trained EMTs on retrofitted motorcycles to high-traffic areas in a fraction of the time of traditional ambulances. Jorisch argues that your commitment to improve the lives of others across the globe, to be a “light unto the nations” was integral to these breakthroughs. As a government official charged with advancing the public interest, I find this argument to be both appealing and inspiring. Digital innovations like 5G are not ends in themselves; they are the means to improve people’s lives around the globe. That is why our work matters here. That is why our friendship and collaboration will make a difference. And that’s why I look forward to working with all of you to promote digital opportunity in the United States, in Israel, and throughout the world. Thank you—toda (תודה). +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2) Mueller’s Report Will Be a Bore The real truth about 2016 will be found in the declassified doings of the FBI and CIA. By Holman W. Jenkins Jr     The thread that runs through the matters Mr. Mueller is ignoring concerns the actions of official agencies, the FBI and CIA. The press has averted its eyes because it considers these matters a pro-Trump story, though the media could salve its biases by noticing the possibility that these blundering agencies helped elect Mr. Trump. We now know the multiple intercessions of FBI Director James Comey were set in motion by captured Russian intelligence. Enough of the story has leaked that Mr. Comey (while not publicly acknowledging that it was Russian intelligence) has awkwardly tried to insist several times that the information was simultaneously “false” and “legitimate.” That is, it was false in the sense that it falsely purported to comprise evidence of a corrupt agreement between the Clinton campaign and Obama Justice Department to bury the Hillary Clinton email investigation. It was legitimate in the sense that its existence nevertheless justified Mr. Comey’s protocol-violating actions. The information wasn’t a Russian plant. It wasn’t just random fluff found on a Russian server somewhere whose significance the FBI inflated for its own purposes. Mr. Comey’s first intervention led to his second intervention, reopening the Hillary investigation just before Election Day. This second intervention, the Justice Department’s inspector general suggests in a critical report on Mr. Comey’s actions, was partly driven by fear that the FBI’s New York office would leak the existence of the Anthony Weiner laptop, which had been found to contain new information relevant to the Hillary email investigation. In essence, Mr. Comey reopened the investigation to maintain the credibility of his original intervention, which the public had been told was part of a standard criminal inquiry, not a counterintelligence operation. Let’s get to the bottom line. A handful of U.S. intelligence officials, with Mr. Comey out front, meddled in the presidential race, potentially altering its outcome. They did so on grounds that they were somehow protecting America from Russia. This was their rationale for getting around the obvious and important inhibitions against such meddling. Even Adam Schiff, lead Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, now acknowledges that if Mr. Comey’s latest account of his actions is true, it represents the most “measurable” and “significant” Russian influence on the race. Mr. Comey’s own justification remains a non sequitur: The false info might leak, discrediting the Obama Justice Department. But how did he make things better? The info could still leak, and all involved would still have to maintain that its implication of a corrupt Clinton-Obama bargain was false. It’s no longer realistic to think Mr. Comey was doing anything other than trying to give the Obama administration a hand in clearing up the email problem of its anointed successor. Mr. Comey himself has admitted that he might not have taken his fateful second intervention if he was not certain Mrs. Clinton was going to win anyway. Maybe the story here is simply one of unintended consequences. Maybe it all comes down to an overly bumptious FBI chief who couldn’t let pass an opportunity to be really, really important. But I don’t think so. Before there was the Steele dossier or the warrant to eavesdrop on Carter Page, there was the Hillary email investigation, which we now know launched a series of intelligence-agency interventions in U.S. domestic politics in which ostensible concerns about Russian intelligence activities were opportunistically entwined with anti-Trump motives. Especially if you’re unhappy about Mr. Trump, this untold story shrieks for more attention. Unfortunately, much of the alleged reporting consists of waiting around for anti-Trump tidbits to be dropped in the press’s lap. Mr. Mueller himself has taken a tack seemingly designed to make sure that, even after the desired collusion is not found, the FBI’s pre-election activities seem justified. Mr. Mueller might well issue a report in 2019 that concocts a confection of guilt by innuendo based on the Russia-related dealings and statements of Mr. Trump and the people around him. Alternatively, he could clear the air: Mr. Trump’s election was the doing of the American voter and nobody else. But it’s already pretty obvious that he’s not going to tell us anything that will greatly shift our understanding of the 2016 race. Whereas, in the still-classified appendix of the Justice Department inspector general’s report on Mr. Comey’s actions are the beginnings of an untold and important story: how U.S. intelligence agencies, using Russia as an excuse, fiddled ineptly and improperly in our election and quite conceivably undermined the Hillary victory they were so obviously trying to secure. ++++++++++++++++++++++ 3) Will Democrats  Overplay Their Good  Hand? By Jason L. Riley Trump is vulnerable, but the public is looking for an alternative in tone, not a left-wing mirror image. Sen. Elizabeth Warren has made it official. The Massachusetts progressive is seeking the Democratic nomination for president. The new year has barely begun but it can’t end soon enough for liberals, so certain are they that Donald Trump is toast in 2020. Their early optimism seems warranted. The president hasn’t delivered on his central campaign promise of building a border wall, even though his party has controlled Congress for the past two years. His job-approval rating hovers in the low 40s, and his unpopularity was a significant factor in Republicans’ losing control of the House in November. Mr. Trump had a net positive approval rating in 38 states when his term began. That number is down to 24 as of last month, according to a Morning Consult tracking poll. Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama endured midterm losses and managed to win second terms. But Democrats will rake the Trump administration over the coals for the next two years. The Congressional Progressive Caucus, a group of the most liberal members of the House and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, will be bigger than ever, and newbies like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez believe they were sent to Washington to obstruct the president, not work with him. Impeachment proceedings are inevitable, and the president shouldn’t count on the Republican-controlled Senate to acquit him if his support among GOP voters starts to wane. House Democrats will lead more than two dozen oversight committees beginning this week, and high on the agenda are the president’s tax returns and the finances of the Trump Organization. Adam Schiff, incoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, remains unconvinced that the president was legitimately elected and is eager to explore what he calls “serious and credible allegations” that Russians laundered money through Mr. Trump’s businesses to gain leverage over him. Even the president’s family, including sons Donald Jr. and Eric, could find themselves in Congress’s cross hairs for their activities during the 2016 campaign and its aftermath. And we haven’t even gotten to the hay Democrats will make of Robert Mueller’s eventual report and the criminal probe involving Mr. Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen. The administration’s headaches are about to become migraines. The big question, as ever, is whether the Democrats will misread public sentiment and overplay what looks today like a strong hand. Will they try to chalk up accomplishments to run on next year, or will they play to the “resistance”? Ms. Warren’s candidacy is an early indicator that centrists and independents could be a secondary concern. Mr. Trump should be so lucky. The problem isn’t Ms. Warren per se, but that so many potential candidates share her view that voters are eager to replace Mr. Trump with a left-wing populist bomb-thrower. Other Senate Democrats thought to be eyeing the White House, from Kirsten Gillibrand to Cory Booker to Kamala Harris, are falling over one another trying to get as far to the left as possible. The smarter move for Democrats might be to field a more moderate candidate—moderate not so much in terms of issues but in tone. Someone who can begin to reduce the anger and hyper partisanship, who plays well with others, who is closer in comportment to Mr. Trump’s opposite. In October, Obama adviser David Axelrod told Politico magazine that he disagreed with recent comments by Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder and others that seemed to endorse uncivil behavior toward political opponents. “I don’t think people will be looking for a Democratic version of Trump,” he said. “I don’t think they’ll be looking for people who can go jibe for jibe and low blow for low blow. I think people are going to be looking for someone who can pull this country out of this hothouse that we’re in.” While such Democrats have yielded party influence to progressives in recent years, they do still exist. Joe Biden comes to mind, as do Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio. Theoretically, they could be counted on to perform in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and other states that flipped from Barack Obama to Donald Trump two years ago and cost Mrs. Clinton the presidency. For some on the left, the problem with such a list is that it’s comprised of white men, which is a nonstarter if you believe in the primacy of identity politics. Democrats may be forced to decide whether electability is more important to them than political correctness. 3a) Former New York Times Boss Makes Shocking Anti-Trump Admission By TTN Staff The former leader of the New York Times, Jill Abramson has admitted that the paper is blatantly anti-Trump and this approach is eroding the paper's credibility.  According to Fox News: A former executive editor of the New York Times says the paper’s news pages, the home of its straight-news coverage, have become “unmistakably anti-Trump.” Jill Abramson, the veteran journalist who led the newspaper from 2011 to 2014, says the Times has a financial incentive to bash the president and that the imbalance is helping to erode its credibility. In a soon-to-be published book, “Merchants of Truth,” that casts a skeptical eye on the news business, Abramson defends the Times in some ways but offers some harsh words for her successor, Dean Baquet. And Abramson, who was the paper’s only female executive editor until her firing, invoked Steve Bannon’s slam that in the Trump era the mainstream media have become the “opposition party.” “Though Baquet said publicly he didn’t want the Times to be the opposition party, his news pages were unmistakably anti-Trump,” Abramson writes, adding that she believes the same is true of the Washington Post. “Some headlines contained raw opinion, as did some of the stories that were labeled as news analysis.” Abramson went on to point out that the more anti-Trump the paper was perceived to be the more mistrusted it became. She also noted that younger staffers took the viewpoint that urgent measures were needed to stop Trump. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 4) China is suffering a worse slowdown than had been expected. A credible economic data source in China said it is now just growing at 1.7%, and may be headed for no growth. The government even admitted manufacturing is contracting. As I mentioned recently, once the Christmas production was completed and shipped early to beat tariffs, China would see a major slowdown. Some experts suggest Xi is now under a lot of pressure to resolve things with the US as the economy slows and consumers pull back. Unhappiness could potentially result in more protests than already occur. Zi has to take full responsibility as he is the ultimate leader and it is his plans for the economy which are being carried out. They are in a real bind. There is gross excess leverage across the economy, and the effort to reduce debt is not possible to maintain in light of no economic growth when stimulus and easy money are the antidote.  Now we had the phone call this weekend with Trump and Xi and the Chinese announced it went very well and they look forward to doing a deal. We will see. China is great, like Trump, for rosy statements, but we will see what they really agree to do and then over the next year if they adhere to what they agree to, which would be different than their normal behavior or of promise anything and then do the opposite.  Trump is the perfect person to negotiate a deal with them since he did the exact same things when he was in business. That is why no US bank would deal with him. So he will be able to see and understand how China will try to cheat and maybe head it off. This is why I have often said better to have our own bad guy negotiating with the other really bad guys, then fools like Obama who had no clue and got taken to the cleaners by everyone. The January meeting in Beijing is the big thing to watch and see where things really stand.  Both sides have enormous pressure to do a deal. If it appears a real deal is coming together and has a real chance of happening by March, the stock market will have a big rally.  Many of you may be saying -see his all equity strategy did not work. Well, we had the unusual bear market of December, but for the full year 2018 my portfolio is only down .4% vs S&P down 6.2%.  We will see what 2019 brings. It is not the all equity strategy. It is the individual stocks within that strategy that makes the difference, and playing the long game. If you have a stock where you believe the company is especially strong, and has very good growth long term ahead, then staying in through periodic downturns like this one we just had, is the best strategy. Boeing is a prime example. It appears the market has taken a deep breath, and most investors realize there will not be a recession in 2019, and maybe there really can be a deal with China. There is a good chance a lot of the losses of December can be recouped in Q1 depending on what the algos do. What dropped can shoot up again if momentum becomes the strategy of the machines. (scary isn’t that concept).  Italy reached some sort of agreement with the bureaucrats but it does not changed the fact that Italy is essentially insolvent and incapable of fixing its major problems. France has gone quiet after Macron essentially bribed the protestors to go home, but now the French economy is worse off because there will be no further reforms of taxes and labor laws and almost nobody wants to invest there. Major companies have fled in large numbers. There is no real hope for France now. Brexit looks less likely than ever, but maybe it gets postponed, or who knows what happens. It is not even clear it can be postponed since the referendum is currently the decision. I have no idea if May can postpone or only Commons, or the court. It is going to get very ugly in two weeks when the next vote happens and then May might be forced to resign. Anything can happen from here. Germany is transitioning now away from Merkel, but it is a slow walk so no major changes there yet.  One local medical professional has sent out an email stating that the situation in German healthcare is now a disaster with all the Muslim refugees. Not only do they have many bad diseases, but their cultural issues get in the way of normal hospital procedure so that working in healthcare now has become very difficult and the system is in serious trouble. Apparently the German press has been forbidden to report on this. There is no corroboration of this report, but it makes sense, since you have almost 1.5 million illiterate and crude refugees, many of whom have not seen doctors in years, with no real experience in EU healthcare procedures and major issues of men dealing with female nurses and doctors. We still do not really know what the strategy is for Syria after Lindsay Graham said it is evolving. We will have to see what happens, but the message Trump sent will have very bad ramifications. If he really slows the withdrawal and really does destroy ISIS, and if he sets up a way to protect the Kurds, than maybe he really has backed off and gets it now, but that is not clear. The damage has been done no matter what he now does.  We are off to a bad start for the new year. The press is in love with the extreme left wing kid Castro in Congress, even though so far she has demonstrated a complete ignorance about economics, geopolitics and just about everything else. The Dems will be introducing a series of bills for transforming America into France. Free everything and tax the producers of jobs. Apparently they do not pay any attention to France, Italy, Greece, the EU, Venezuela who they would be copying. It defies my mind how anyone can just look at all these countries, and then look at the US under Republicans with near historic low unemployment, especially for minorities, rising wages, over 3% growth in GDP, strong growth in consumer incomes and savings, a very strong banking sector, growing manufacturing, and the only economy in the world that is experiencing strong growth, and go before the press and say they are going to make workers lives better after 8 years of go nowhere under Obama. Maybe I am just a simple guy who looks at data and facts and takes a world view. Try to have a happy new year despite what is going to be a new level of disgusting behavior in DC. 4a) By Dennis Prager  The Left Will Make 2019 a Dark Year . . . I rarely make predictions -- whether of election results or anything else. My policy has always been to say what I believe should be done, not what will be done. . . . I am making an exception with regard to America . . .  2019 will be a dark year in America. Thanks to the left's control of the House of Representatives and the news media, Americans will be kept in a fevered state throughout 2019 -- with innumerable hearings, exposes, criminal investigations and possible indictments of those around the president and the president himself. Truth will not be the point. Defamation will. Anything that might muddy the president, no matter how spurious, no matter how thin the evidence, will be pursued with gusto. The media will drop "bombshell" after "bombshell." If lives and careers are ruined, so much the better; no one should be associating with this president anyway, as far as the left is concerned. The Robert Mueller investigation into alleged "collusion" between the Trump campaign and the Russian government -- which has led to guilty pleas and imprisonment of people around President Trump for offenses having nothing to do with such collusion -- is a preview of what lies ahead. The goal of the left, to weaken, disable and impeach the president is the heart of its mission to undo the 2016 presidential election. If the Republicans had done anything comparable during the Obama administration, the Democrats and the media would not only have charged Republicans with racism -- as they labeled all criticism of Barack Obama -- they would have howled "fascism." And, for once, they wouldn't have been far from the truth. The misuse of government institutions for political ends is indeed a fascist tactic. But because most media serve as the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, there will be no protest from the media, only support. There is nothing Trump or any member of his administration has done that is comparable to Hillary Clinton's use of her own email server while U.S. secretary of state, or her destroying tens of thousands of emails after they were subpoenaed by Congress, or foreign governments' and corporations' paying vast sums of money to Bill Clinton and The Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. Nor is there anything Trump or anyone in his administration has done comparable to the Obama administration's use of the IRS to suppress conservative nonprofits; its selling guns to Mexican drug cartels, at least one of which was later found at the scene where a Border Patrol officer was killed; or the lies it told about the cause of the murder of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi. Yet any suggestion by Republicans that these activities be investigated is effectively shouted down by the Democrats and the media. And let's not talk about the real collusion in 2016 -- between the FBI, the State Department, the Clinton campaign and the Obama White House, using material sourced in part from the Russian government -- to undermine the Republican candidate for president and his presidency. The mainstream media isn't interested in that. In other words, the Democratic Party and the media will do to American political life what it has done to the arts; the universities; the high schools; the Boy Scouts; race relations; religion; the happiness of so many women (misled by feminism regarding marriage and career); the moral fabric of American life (morality reduced to feelings); late-night television; mainstream Judaism, Catholicism and Protestantism; pro football; and the sexual innocence of the young: It will poison it. From the French Revolution to this day, the two great aims of the left have been promising utopia to the malcontented and accumulating as much power as possible. All moral values are subservient to these goals. After all, what could be more important than "social justice" (the left's term for everything it advocates); "equality" (of result); women's liberation from the "sexist oppression" of the "patriarchy"; combating "white privilege"; fighting the "rape culture" that pervades campuses; saving life on planet Earth from the "existential threat" to it; "resistance" to the "authoritarian," "fascist," "white supremacist," "racist" Trump administration; supplanting national identities and institutions with a "world citizen" identity and international institutions; and undoing the most fundamental built-in identity of the human race, that of male and female, in the name of transgender rights? Compared with almost any country, America is freer; gives its people more opportunities to economically advance; is less racist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic; has a friendlier population; has less corruption; and has far more medical innovation. Yet this coming year, the left, the Democratic Party and the media will continue purveying the lie that the Trump administration is fascist, racist and authoritarian and poses a mortal threat to American democracy. (Given all this Trumpian fascism, how exactly did the Republicans lose the House?) Thanks to Democratic control of the House of Representatives, the left will use the levers of government to keep the American people in a constant state of agitation. The only thing the left hates more than a happy population is losing elections. And it knows the two are linked -- because happy and grateful Americans rarely vote Democrat. The road to Democrat victories lies in convincing women, blacks, Hispanics, Jews and young people to be as unhappy, ungrateful and angry as possible -- in the greatest country ever made. That is the left's agenda for 2019. . . . Nevertheless, in wishing a happy new year to my fellow Americans, I hope I'm wrong.  4b) When Democrats Embraced the  'Southern Border Fencing Strategy' By Byron York In 2006, Congress passed the Secure Fence Act, which mandated the construction of multilayer pedestrian fencing along about 600 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border. It passed with big, bipartisan majorities: 283 votes in the House and 80 in the Senate. Some top Democrats who are still in the Senate today supported the fence: Charles Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Ron Wyden, Debbie Stabenow and Sherrod Brown. Just the next year, Congress made clear it didn’t really mean what it said. The new law was amended to make fence building optional. In 2013, Congress got back into the fence game. The “Gang of Eight’s” comprehensive immigration reform bill included something called the “Southern Border Fencing Strategy.” It called for 700 miles of at least single-layer pedestrian fencing along the border. It wasn’t a standalone measure; the fence was to be part of a broader package of border security measures, alongside provisions that would create a process by which the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants would ultimately gain a path to citizenship. With citizenship in the deal — even citizenship that would take a decade to achieve in some cases — Democrats were fully on board for a border barrier. The Gang of Eight bill passed with unanimous Democratic support in the Senate. Name any Democrat who is in the Senate today who was there for that 2013 vote — Schumer, Durbin, Murray, Baldwin, Bennet, Blumenthal, Brown, Cantwell, Cardin, Casey, Coons, Feinstein, Gillibrand, Hirono, Kaine, Klobuchar, Leahy, Manchin, Menendez, Merkley, Murphy, Reed, Sanders, Shaheen, Stabenow, Tester, Warner, Warren, Whitehouse, Wyden — name any, and they voted for the bill that included the Southern Border Fencing Strategy. In the House, the Republican leadership blocked the Gang of Eight bill from coming to a vote. But the overwhelmingly majority of House Democrats were said to be in favor of it, so there is no doubt that had the bill been put to a vote, House Democrats, like their counterparts in the Senate, would have supported the fencing provision. Had it become law, the bill would have given a provisional legal status to illegal immigrants who did not have criminal records. But the Gang of Eight said that border security measures, including the fence, had to be funded and built before those illegal immigrants could be given permanent legal residence in the United States. The Department of Homeland Security could not grant permanent status, the bill said, until six months after it certified “that there is in place along the Southern Border no fewer than 700 miles of pedestrian fencing which will include replacement of all currently existing vehicle fencing on non-tribal lands on the Southern Border with pedestrian fencing where possible.” The Gang of Eight bill passed the Senate in June 2013, five and a half years ago. Now, many Democrats say there are no circumstances under which they would support President Trump’s proposal for a border wall proposal — even if it is, in fact, a fence, or barrier, or whatever Democrats would prefer to call it. Many observers have noted that the Democratic Party has changed dramatically in the last half-dozen years or so, and one of the areas in which that change has been most pronounced is immigration. On that issue, the party has moved far left. Today, Democrats will not even support a relatively small amount of money, $5 billion, to build a portion of the barrier that Trump wants. A possible deal — wall funding in exchange for DACA legalization — fell through earlier this year, in part, because Trump added new demands to the wall proposal, but also because a federal judge in California stopped the president’s move to rescind DACA. It was at best a questionable decision — the court said a president cannot use executive action to undo an executive action of a previous president — but it was later backed up by other courts, and it gave Democrats the assurance that they might get what they want from the courts without having to give away anything in a deal with Trump. And now the Democratic position appears to have hardened further still. Nancy Pelosi recently called a border wall “immoral.” How could her party make any deal to support, even a little bit, something her colleagues believe is immoral? It is unclear whether Pelosi thinks all the barriers currently in place on the U.S.-Mexico border are immoral, but it seems clear that she would never support any new ones. The U.S.-Mexico border is nearly 2,000 miles long. Significant parts of it are so rugged that barriers are simply unnecessary. According to the Border Patrol, there are now 354 miles of single fence along the border. There are 37 miles of double-deep fence and 14 miles of three-deep fencing, for a total of 405 miles of pedestrian fencing. In addition, there are 300 miles of vehicle fencing, which keeps cars and trucks from crossing the border but allows people to move freely. The Gang of Eight bill would have replaced that with 700 miles of pedestrian fencing, some of it multilayer. Now, amid a partial government shutdown, Trump, despite his years of talk about a “wall,” would very likely take such a deal. The question is whether there are any circumstances under which Democrats would ever agree to what they once supported. COPYRIGHT 2019 BYRON YORK ++