This whole Federalism thing

States' rights is the reason the Trump Administration gave for rescinding the Obama directive on transgender bathrooms, and while I agree that the Federal government doesn't belong in the public's bathrooms, it doesn't belong in many other places, either. The framers of our Constitution didn't take government overreach lightly, and they wisely said that those powers not enumerated as the Federal government's in Article 1. section 8 of the Constitution were vested in the  states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved, respectively, to the people." The White House and its principal inhabitant are not 'the people' though they often act like it. The founders intended the doctrine of enumerated power to be our principal defense against a potentially overbearing and overreaching government, something the last Administration, unfortunately, proved itself to be.

This  not to say that the Obama Administration was the only administration that acted too big for its britches; many previous administrations have governed as if they possessed the reigns of legislative power and have imposed policies on citizens without legal justification or precedent. While we always have the courts to fall back on as a means of last resort to reverse or negate such overreach, the process takes an inordinate amount of time, and while this is happening the Federal bureaucracy is able to sink its roots deep into the fine print of implementing regulations. This makes it hard to undo unwarranted power grabs.

So, what should we do to stop such executive edicts? The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California showed us, recently, just how with its temporary restraining order stopping the Trump Administration's immigrant moratorium on seven countries that have insufficient capabilities to properly vet their would-be emigrants or visitors to the United States. One can disagree with the court's ruling, but it is hard to ignore their power. And while they may have stayed this executive order, they will fail to stay the next one because the Administration has learned a valuable lesson; haste makes waste. A new order will exempt those foreigners who have already been issued visas to the U.S. and all Permanent Resident Card ('green card') holders.

The whole issue of the enumeration of powers goes to the heart of our Constitutional Republic and the right of the people to be free from unjustified intervention into the law-making of individual states. States must be free to enact their own laws that govern their own residents as long as those laws don't infringe on existing Constitutionally-sound Federal laws. There are several instances of U.S. Supreme Court rulings where reasonable people can disagree. The most egregious ruling, in my opinion, is the one concerning the right of the Federal government to force all Americans to purchase health insurance. This ruling is a landmark one in that it gives sweeping power to the Federal government, allowing it to require people to purchase something they, in some cases, do not want nor can afford. To add insult to injury, the Obama Administration had the temerity to even decide what the product should look like, requiring seniors, for example, to have contraceptive measures as part of their insurance plans.

If we were to take that example one step further and apply it to other mandatory purchases, how would gun control advocates feel if the new Administration were to require every household to own a firearm and to qualify at a firing range once a year and pay a Federally-set fee or pay a penalty? Abuse of power is the central issue here. When the Federal government goes off the reservation and enters our private sphere it is acting as a dictatorship. There is simply no other word to describe such actions. The coming years will test the Trump Administration's resolve and its ability to resist making the same mistakes that its predecessors have made. It is up to the people to remain vigilant and to call them out when and if they do exceed their power just as it is the people's responsibility to demand speedy adjudication of any Constitutionally questionable overreach. If we do not, we have only ourselves to blame for the consequences.

Stephan Helgesen is a retired U.S. diplomat, now author and political strategist. He has written over 600 articles and six books on politics, economics and social trends. He can be reached at stephan@stephanhelgesen.com

Return of the Goths?

For many on the Left, President Trump is acting imperious, like a Caesar of the Roman Empire, governing by decree (Executive Order). They bemoan the loss of their society, the one that was carefully and skillfully constructed during the reign of Obama the First. They are also filled with rage at the prospect of living under 'Trumpian Rule' and determined to take back control.  On that note, the Democrats are meeting this weekend to elect their General (the head of the Democratic National Committee) who will, presumably, lead them into battle against the forces of the evil one, Donald Trump.

Like the ancient struggle between the Romans and the Goths (a Germanic tribe frequently referenced for their part in the fall of the Roman Empire), the Democrats are intent on waging all-out war to topple the regime and will use whichever tool and tactic they can to insure its defeat.

There may, indeed, be some similarities between the Goths and the Democrats. The Roman historian, Tacitus, said of the Goths (the parentheses are mine), "Their principal strength, on the whole, consists in their infantry (their organized grass roots): hence in an engagement these are intermixed with the cavalry (the media); so well accordant with the nature of equestrian combats is the agility of those foot soldiers, whom they select from the whole body of their youth (recruits from college campuses), and place in the front of the line (protestors). In the election of kings (candidates) they have regard to birth (political dynasties like the Clintons) for; in that of generals, to valor. Their kings have not an absolute or unlimited power (they defer to the Party platform); and their generals command less through the force of authority, than of example. If they are daring, adventurous, and conspicuous in action, they procure obedience from the admiration they inspire. The Germans transact no business, public or private, without being armed (with 'fake news' and rumor-mongering): but it is not customary for any person to assume arms till the state has approved his ability to use them."

There is no doubt, given their performance in the first thirty days of the Trump Presidency, that the Democrats will employ a variety of historically successful battlefield tactics and weapons to bring the Trump Administration to its knees. The first salvos of opposition have already been fired with a 'boycott' of the inauguration by 60 Democrat Congressional Representatives. Later, there have been systematic attempts to de-legitimize his Presidency by propagandizing ('Russiagate') and by delaying the vote on his cabinet appointees while their arrows, dipped in the poison of character assassination, were unleashed to destroy his cabinet choices. Then there is the third wave of attack, principally mounted by a fifth column of Obama-friendly government employees who are leaking classified information to the press, coupled with an onslaught of phony news stories by media zealots that see themselves as 'defenders of democracy' but whose actions resemble those of resistance fighters.

These are going to intensify with time as the Democrats' heavy artillery is moved into position. Unlike the Goths, they will employ a classical Roman approach. They will attempt to divide and separate Republicans' support for the President and then encircle them with their armies of foot soldier protestors, Congressional leaders and supporters from special interest organizations like women's and environmental groups, alternative lifestyle and immigration rights groups, etc.. Then, they will steadily close that circle and eventually disarm them. Finally, they will push for a national day of 'cleansing' - the impeachment - of President Donald J. Trump.

Before you say that is preposterous and cite Will Rogers' quote that, "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat" or believe that the Party is not that circumspect, take the pulse of the liberal nation. Watch a CNN evening broadcast, read the Washington Post or the New York Times.

In ancient times, the Goths were thought to be nothing but barbarians. In the third century A.D., Historian Herman Wolfram described them that way, "Their language does not sound human, more like stammering and mere noise. (They) also speak diverse languages all at once or side by side, for in their eyes language is no criterion of tribal membership. Their religion is superstition, and though not actually pagan, it is hardly more than corrupted Christianity, heresy and worse. For barbarians can neither think nor act rationally; theological controversies are Greek to them. If a storm approaches, they fear the heavens are collapsing, give up any advantage they may have on the battlefield, and flee."

But the Goths did not flee or back down. They adapted and eventually sacked Rome.

While history is made one day at a time and visible for all to see, man inexplicably continues to prove his unwillingness or inability to learn from it. We should all remember the Ides of March and the threat to Democracy that exists from those who would subvert it...in order to preserve it.

Stephan Helgesen is a retired U.S. diplomat, now author and political strategist. He has written over 600 articles and six books on politics, economics and social trends. He can be reached at stephan@stephanhelgesen.com

Losing one's voice

A had a voice once, but that was before I joined the ranks of the diplomatic service over thirty years ago. Upon taking the oath of office, I lost it, or rather subordinated it as the price of joining the Foreign Service, along with thousands of other Americans who also lost their voices for the same reason. We all made a deal to give up part of our First Amendment right as a condition of employment so that our government would not have to explain why some of 'its own' were saying things that contradicted the foreign policy line of the current administration. This deal wasn't expressly written into our contract, but it was understood that we were to avoid controversy by not expressing our own personal or professional opinions when stationed in a foreign country.

Instead, the Embassy would speak for us. It and the Ambassador were the official mouthpieces for the U.S. Government. If we really disagreed with government policy or internal procedures our agency would take it up in Washington, D.C. with the appropriate office. Everybody knew that if it went that far (to WASHDC) it would invariably end up costing somebody, something. Maybe a job, maybe a promotion, maybe a reprimand, or maybe just some diplomatic 'egg' on their face.

That, in itself, is a very sobering reality. It meant that we self-censored and, essentially, had only one choice...to try to work out our problems and settle our differences 'at post.' Not a bad idea, really, but when you work for another department's Foreign Service like I did, it made the task of settling disputes with the State Department nearly impossible. Why? Because the State Department runs the Embassy with an iron fist in a velvet glove. It is the landlord and building superintendant of the Embassy. It manages all the administrative functions, and its general services office takes care of all the officers' residences. It disburses your funds and pays your agency's bills, and its Regional Security Officer assures your safety. The Deputy to the Ambassador (DCM) is the bad cop to the Ambassador's good cop. He/she will make sure that your agency is 'folded under' the State Department's wing and is an equal member of the 'country team' (if it suits him/her) or marginalizes you if it doesn't.

I spent 20 years on country teams and worked under a dozen Ambassadors and as many DCMs. Most knew how the game was played and would ask for your opinion if other officers were asked for theirs, but when decision-making time came, it was the State Department's position that usually triumphed. Sure, there were instances when it didn't, but those were generally situations where it would have been political suicide to take a contrary position. I can understand how that might sound like 'sour grapes' from an agency representative that had to accede to the wishes of another larger government department, but it isn't. It is truth-telling at its finest.

There were other ways to get one's point across without speaking out, and some chose to take them. One was leaking unclassified information to the press. A second was slow-walking implementation of disagreeable policies. A third was cherry-picking some part of a decision and suggesting that it was 'against regulations' and asking that it be sent back to the lawyers. A fourth was involving others 'back home,' but as I said earlier that could have negative consequences, so one had to be careful. 

What is happening today with the leaking attacks on the new Trump Administration is the work of cowards and traitors. These people aren't patriots or 'whistle-blowers.' They are simply angry, disgruntled spoiled government 'brats' that don't want to play by the new rules or work for the new boss. So, what do they do? They spend valuable government time devising ways to smuggle information out of the citadel. Remember the theft of government documents from the National Archives by  former Security Advisor Sandy Berger in 2003? Berger didn't have to find his voice, all he had to do was ford the stream of permissions for entry into the Archives and steal what wasn't his. The same is true of the leakers today. They are stealing what isn't theirs and should be apprehended and punished. It cost Sandy Berger $50,000, 100 hours of community service, his security clearance and his law license for stuffing documents into his BVDs. 

If honest people like myself are given Top Secret security clearances and told that our voices must be silent on matters of government policy, the least we can do is make sure that everybody adheres to the same rules and are not regarded as heroes of the revolution. Find the leakers. Reveal their identities to all of us and then punish them, publicly. I would stop short of making them wear a scarlet letter on their Armanis, but I would definitely have them suit up in chic prison orange for a few years.

Stephan Helgesen is a retired U.S. diplomat, now author and political strategist. He has written over 600 articles and six books on politics, economics and social trends. He can be reached at stephan@stephanhelgesen.com

Accepting the rule of law

There are basically two groups of people in the United States: those that believe in the consistent and fair application of our laws and those that don't. That may be a little too simplistic for some to hear, but try to think about it in terms of our attitudes and how those attitudes are formed.

Many professionals believe that the vast majority of our attitudes are formed as a result of modeling others' behavior or listening to those older - and presumably wiser - than ourselves. Our own personal opinions that are formed as a result of questioning and processing all that information from our elders may influence our attitudes as well. For example: Are we resentful of our lot in life? Are we jealous of others that are better off or have the right pedigree? Do we feel oppressed by authority or unfairly treated by another race of people? Do we feel victimized by 'the system?' Were we abused by our parents or bullied by classmates? Did we feel that the laws of the country (or the playground) didn't apply to us or adequately protect us? Did we see people flaunting the law and avoiding punishment because they had money or a good lawyer? Did we do the same? On the other side of the coin, were we privileged to live in a loving home with a simple and fair set of rules and regulations? Did we get punished when we broke them? Were we rewarded for exceeding expectations? Did our teachers and parents occasionally praise us?

I'm not a psychologist, but I would submit that many of our attitudes about the fair and consistent application of the law have, as I said, a strong connection to our early role models and what kind of behavior was acceptable in our homes and schools. If we saw injustice in rule-making or in the inconsistent administration of those rules, chances are we would have incorporated that into our worldview and accepted it as normal behavior. It's not a stretch then to predict that children holding those views would grow up with them as their principal governing moral philosophy.

That's a simplistic hypothesis, but who among us doesn't look in the mirror, occasionally, and see our mothers or fathers staring back at us? Like many of you, I grew up with 'rules of the road' for how to act and react in the home and outside its walls. If I didn't come when called for supper, I either got no supper or was punished in some other way. If I sped through a school zone as a teenager, I got a ticket (and my parents would have grounded me). If I didn't turn in a book report I got an 'incomplete' on my report card. And on and on it goes. Some of my classmates weren't so lucky. One in particular, a good friend of mine, got crosswise with the law and ended up in prison. Another chose the 'California lifestyle' of cocaine and died. Others were killed in Vietnam. The point I'm making is that it's not only the choices we make that create consequences, but it's also our worldviews and attitudes that influence the choices we make that create consequences.

Take our immigration debate, for instance. This is one debate, I predict, that will divide Americans on a grand scale, and much of it will be directly attributable to our worldviews and our upbringing. Here's how it will play out...

Those espousing the consistent application of the law (usually conservatives) will base their arguments for the deportation of criminal illegal aliens on existing U.S. immigration law and point to the overarching right of our country to legislate immigration policy and enforce it as reasons for doing so. It's as simple as that. For them, it's not a matter of fairness; it's a matter of law (it is assumed that 'fairness' is what undergirds our immigration laws in the first place). This presents a big problem for those (usually liberals) that believe that we should be making exceptions to our laws for whole groups of illegal immigrants because the laws, themselves, are either unfair or the penalties (deportation) are too stringent. The following question will be asked, repeatedly over the coming years: "How do we as compassionate and fair people square that circle?" Answer: we can't, easily, because if we admit that our existing laws are unfair and/or the penalties too stringent then we will have to admit that we have not been following the 'true North' of America's moral compass and will need to re-make our laws and re-think our attitudes.

Should this happen, it will upend our ideological applecart and create a firestorm of disagreement among conservatives and liberals, the consequences of which will be wholesale chaos within the immigrant community, the law enforcement community, the politicians, the hard-liners on immigration policy from both sides and you and me. There must never be a Mason-Dixon Line separating Americans on this issue. We must get our immigration policy right this time. The only way to do that is with an open dialogue among opposing groups, no matter how heated it may get. Should we fail to convince one another, so be it, but we must try now because we won't have the opportunity once the shouting begins and the wheels of mass protests are set in motion. If there's one thing Americans understand it is the power of the people to affect their own lives.

Stephan Helgesen is a retired U.S. diplomat, now author and political strategist. He has written over 600 articles and six books on politics, economics and social trends. He can be reached at stephan@stephanhelgesen.com

The last safe space

It seems that everybody is looking for a safe space these days. College students want a place   "where seldom is heard a discouraging word and the skies are not cloudy all day." (Thanks to Dr. Brewster M. Higley of Smith County Kansas for his inspirational poem, "My Western Home" that led to that great American song, "Home on the Range.") But college students aren't the only ones seeking protection from the real world. Many non-students are also dissatisfied with the new direction the USA is taking under our new President, and they want the entire country to be declared one big safe space. Many would like that space to be one where an undergraduate degree would be free for all, a nation without borders, guaranteed minimum incomes, low or no-cost healthcare and ample legalized marijuana to smooth out all of society's rough edges.

I hasten to add that not all young people think this way, but there are a fair number of them suiting up for protest marches against the Trump Administration and all conservative Republicans who, for them, are the enemy. What is ironic with all of this is that the 'no-Trumpers' and the more militant single-issue groups are bent on turning our country's safe streets into unsafe zones for regular Americans! They are intent on expressing their anger by converting all our public squares, airports and stadiums into impassable human minefields, complete with 'Thunderpower Megaphones' that can put out as many as 122 decibels (for those of you unfamiliar with noise measurements, a thunderclap is 120 db and a jet takeoff is rated at 133 db). 

So much for the peace and quiet of America's streets. Nearly every conceivable anti-Trump special interest group or subgroup is actively fund-raising, courting wealthy donors and recruiting new advocates for their cause. And there are plenty of willing foot-soldiers for them to choose from. They come from the ranks of the youthful unemployed, sixties counter-culture types, Hollywood celebrities, academics, women's organizations, and disgruntled Democrats. The pool is about 65 million people (the number that voted for Hillary Clinton in the General Election). All are busy honing their skills on smaller demonstrations and are undoubtedly reading Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" and Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" as well as watching old film footage of Abbie Hoffman, Bill Ayers, Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden, to name just a few. 

By my reckoning, there is only one safe public space left where most of us can spend a few minutes alone in relative solitude...the toilet, but that, too, has been under attack by the Left. It was on the Obama Administration's hit list. The Administration felt that the 0.3% of Americans that self-identified as transgender people (source: Williams Institute, April 2011) were being discriminated against and needed protection. So, states were told that they had to accommodate people who were 'in transition' from one gender to the other. They were required to provide third toilets for them or allow people who 'felt' like the opposite sex to use the toilets of their chosen gender. The punishment for not complying was loss of Federal funds (13 states filed suit against the Administration which has held up the transformation).

We should all have empathy with individuals going through such a traumatic transformative process. It can't be easy, but when the number of affected people is 0.3% of the entire population, it hardly seems defensible to spend billions on re-purposing America's restrooms to accommodate them, not to mention upsetting the other 99.7% that frequent them. What I am about to say now should not be taken as being insensitive to their plight...but this last final refuge from the cacophony of daily life should not be on our "To Do" list when we have so many other pressing problems confronting us. Considering the new age of protesting that we are entering, it might, however, be a target for those of us feeling oppressed by eight long years of an Obama overreach and by the growing protests of no-Trumpers.

We, the silent majority, need to make our voices heard. That's why I suggest that on August 4th of this year (the baptism date of John Harington, the inventor of Britain's first flush toilet in 1596) that a "Million Man Toilet March" be held.

On that day, precisely at noon, men from all over the country would spontaneously self-identify as women for one hour and demand access to women's lavatories from sea to shining sea. Goodness knows the women's Johns (Jills?) will be crowded for an hour, but isn't it a small price to pay for freedom from bathroom tyranny? Remember to put the seat down, fellows.

Stephan Helgesen is a retired U.S. diplomat, now author and political strategist. He has written over 600 articles and six books on politics, economics and social trends. He can be reached at stephan@stephanhelgesen.com

The new Dutch courage of social media

"Gentlemen, take your positions" were often some of the last words heard by 18th and 19th century disputants just before their disagreements were permanently settled by a ball of deadly lead.  Dueling with a loaded pistol was the last resort in settling a dispute among gentlemen and gave some consolation to the injury of a besmirched reputation or tarnished honor. According to the Smithsonian Magazine, even George Washington was nearly involved in one, "The story, as Parson Weems tells it, is that in 1754 a strapping young militia officer named George Washington argued with a smaller man, one William Payne, who made up for the disparity in size by knocking Washington down with a stick. It was the kind of affront that, among a certain class of Virginia gentlemen, almost invariably called for a duel. That must have been what Payne was expecting when Washington summoned him to a tavern the following day. Instead, he found the colonel at a table with a decanter of wine and two glasses. Washington apologized for the quarrel and the two men shook hands. Whether or not this actually happened—and some biographers believe that it did—is almost beside the point. Weems’ intention was to reveal Washington as he imagined him: a figure of profound self-assurance capable of keeping an overheated argument from turning into something far worse. At a time in America when the code of the duel was becoming a law unto itself, such restraint was not always apparent."

Today, a couple centuries later, we consider ourselves infinitely more civilized, preferring instead to sully each other's reputations and spread disparaging comments and lies from behind the safety of a Facebook or Twitter account. "Take that," we say as we plunge our electronic epithets deep into the boundless ether of the Internet with nary a worry or second thought about the long-term consequences to ourselves or others. We are the new warriors that approach the battlefield of personal contact remotely and without body armor. Spurred on by a politically-correct climate, campus safe zones and a complicit media we feel comfortable in lashing out at people who disagree with us from our computer or smartphone. No battlefield medics needed here, for there is no spilt blood. The only wounds requiring attention are those of our online reputations. Without the ability to confront one another, personally, we are resigned to sending rebuttals through the protagonist's medium. We cannot swat our opponent with our coat sleeve hanky and then choose pistols or swords, so the contest then becomes one of who can scream the loudest in print or mobilize the most Twitter followers to flood the zone with 'likes.'

Those of us who grew up in an America that didn't fear personal intercourse are disheartened to say the least by the new Dutch courage of the (un)social media. It is 30,000 ft. warfare, not hand-to-hand combat. Our enemy's face is protected by a hash tag and our fight is fought in darkness. We see no cuts or bruises and are incapable of feeling remorse (even if we wanted to) after landing a staggering blow to the body. Instead, we employ exclamation points, upper case letters, bold print and the occasional expletive to replace jabs and uppercuts.

This is not courageous; it is cowardly. Had we our opponents standing nose-to-nose with us or at least in the same room would we dare be so provocative or callous? Would our tone be as combative and antagonistic, and would our words be selected for total and immediate destruction? I doubt it, because most civilized men listen to their instincts instead of their testosterone and choose a different tack when they find themselves in potentially explosive situations. Not so with social media. There are no holds barred, no illegal punches. Everything is allowed. Attack a person's veracity, their motives or their family. Nothing is out of bounds, and if you're ever criticized for your criticism, say that they had it coming and you were just doing your duty to the 'community.'

It's time to engage our opponents, personally, but first we must come out from under the cover of our mother's skirts and leave Facebook and Twitter to lesser men and women.

Stephan Helgesen is a retired U.S. diplomat, now author and political strategist. He has written over 600 articles and six books on politics, economics and social trends. He can be reached at stephan@stephanhelgesen.com

Trump presidency creates new industries

It's time to give President Trump a little credit for his clever use of creative goading that has led to the massive stimulation of the American economy in just one short month! Take the protestors, for example. The 'Million Women's March' on Washington may have been the first group to have kick-started the new opposition economic miracle. If we assume that there were only a quarter million women that descended on Washington on January 21st, they had to have gotten there by car, bus, train or plane. If each of them spent just $200 on round-trip transportation and stayed at a Holiday Inn in the nation's capital or just outside the District in neighboring Virginia or Maryland they probably paid $100/night, times two nights, at least. Even protestors get hungry so they had to eat at least twice a day, and at DC prices they could easily have racked up $30/day per person. Then there were those cute pink stocking caps with ears. Figure $10 apiece. Their printed signs probably cost a pretty penny, too. All in all, that march probably brought in about a half-billion dollars or more to transportation companies, hotels, restaurants, printers, etc. Not bad.

After the inauguration, the protest class (especially the more violent ones) really shifted into high gear, taking to college campuses and creating mayhem. Here we have other items they purchased locally (no imports from Mexico or China) like alcohol for their Molotov cocktails, lots of Balaclavas to hide their faces, standard issue hooded sweatshirts and, of course, their army surplus gas masks and combat boots (great for kicking in plate glass windows). Add this to transportation charges from Über drivers, the costs for replacing broken windows and the repair or replacement of other public property that was destroyed and the 'heroes of the revolution' should get the equivalent of the Medal of Freedom for their contributions to their local economies.

Yes, dissension is good business for America's businesses. It's great for the non-profit, special interest organizations and politicians, too. Take Senator Elizabeth Warren, for example. After she tried to read a 40-year old letter from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s wife, Coretta King, denouncing Senator Jeff Sessions on the floor of the Senate (and was promptly shut down by a Senate rule that prohibits the impuning of a fellow Senator), it was reported that donations to her political coffers soared! I'm sure that angry Liberals are also giving more money to Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, Senator Charles Schumer and Senator Bernie Sanders, too. Then there are the lobbyists and the lawyers - the hired guns of DC. They will switch allegiance at the first whiff of money and sue anybody for anything. We can always count on them to charge, mightily, for their services. Case in point, former Attorney General, Eric Holder, has been hired to 'help out' California to the tune of $25K/month.  What a bargain!

The media are also big winners. Filing negative stories about the President gets the Trump haters' blood boiling and that increases ratings which also raises the advertising prices networks and papers can charge for airtime or column inches. Who loves you, baby? Trump does. With every over the top statement he makes, the presses turn faster and our flat screens and smart phones flicker brighter. Every network political 'contributor' with a political axe to grind or a cheap shot in their back pocket is invited to be a panelist with others of their ilk to trash talk the President and take home a few thousand shekels for venting their spleen on national TV. Every time Mr. Trump's family is skewered (like his daughter, Ivanka, whose line of clothing was not renewed by the politically correct West Coast clothier, Nordstrom's), Trump supporters step up and buy more of her clothing at other stores to show their solidarity. Finally, recent stock market gains show that American investors have more confidence in our economy now and are buying more shares. That adds value to our country's bottom line. All this proves my point that protesting pays off big time for America. It's the industry that keeps on giving, and Mr. Trump knows this which could be why he delights in getting under the skin of his detractors. I say, up with the First Amendment! It's better than a tax cut or a border surcharge or even the repeal of Obamacare. It's so typically American.

 Stephan Helgesen is a retired U.S. diplomat, now author and political strategist. He has written over 600 articles and six books on politics, economics and social trends. He can be reached at stephan@stephanhelgesen.com