At CNN's Equality Town Hall, Senator Elizabeth Warren was asked how she would respond to someone who believes that marriage is between one man and one woman. "I'm going to assume its a guy who said that," she responded, "and I'm going to say, then just marry one woman...assuming you can find one!" Got to LOVE that response!
Friday, October 11, 2019
Sunday, September 29, 2019
Foreign Intervention in U.S. Elections
The current occupant of the Oval Office invited and encouraged foreign assistance and intervention in the U.S. election of 2016. Now he is facing an impeachment inquiry by the U.S. House of Representatives for pressuring another nation to provide dirt on one of his potential opponents in 2020! If he survives this censure and is reelected, our acceptance of foreign intervention in our political system will be complete (no one will seriously expect the Democrats to refrain from behavior that the Republicans have employed to advantage).
Saturday, August 24, 2019
Teaching History, Science and Literature
As our politics become more polarized, both sides seek to immunize themselves from any exposure to the opinions of the other. I've spoken before about the self-reinforcing bubbles that many of us have created - echo chambers that ensure that we will only hear those things that agree with our philosophy. We want to be surrounded by folks who share our perspective. Unfortunately, this phenomenon has also influenced our attitudes about what constitutes a proper education for the generations who will succeed us.
As more and more parents are opting for home schooling or religious-based private schools, it is incumbent upon all of us to reflect on what we are teaching our children. Do we want to "protect" our children from being infected with, or influenced by, the other sides' ideas? Are we concerned with instilling and perpetuating our values? OR Are we trying to ensure that we are turning out mindless automatons - people who are only capable of programmed responses to different circumstances? Are we teaching children HOW to think? OR Are we teaching them WHAT to think?
In the United States, folks on the right want you to know about what great and Christian men Washington, Adams, Franklin and Jefferson were. Folks on the left want you to know that Washington and Jefferson owned slaves, and that Jefferson wrote his own version of the gospel story of Jesus Christ. Both sides want you to know about the Constitution, but they only want you to hear about their method for interpreting what it means! Folks on the right want to concentrate on the movers and shakers of history, while folks on the left want you to know about the downtrodden and the oppressed. It often never occurs to folks on either side that both perspectives might have value - that both perspectives might be important in truly understanding the forces/people that/who shaped our society/nation.
In the realm of science, the divide is even more starkly defined. Folks on the right want the biblical version of creation taught to their children, or something that allows that a literal understanding of their scriptures is at least plausible. Folks on the left point out that evolution is now accepted science and that any other perspective should be excluded from the classroom. Folks on the right want you to know about the dramatic swings in climate down through the different epochs of life on this planet, while folks on the left want you to know about all of the evidence that the human introduction of carbon into our atmosphere is rapidly warming our planet. Neither side seems willing to consider the possibility that both perspectives might have merit and should be actively considered by anyone who really wants to get to the truth of the matter!
Finally, there is the question of what we want our children reading. The right wants them to read the Bible, and the left wants them to read On the Origin of Species. Here's a novel idea: Let's have them read both! I'm not afraid of letting adolescents read Ayn Rand or George Will. Are you afraid of allowing them to read Marx, Hemingway or Faulkner?
There is a difference between education and indoctrination. They are not the same thing, and pretending that they are is dangerous. Children should be exposed to both the world as it is and the way that we would like it to be. The two are not mutually exclusive! It's natural for us to want to pass on our values and views to our progeny, but it is very unnatural to keep them from seeing what's on the other side of the fence.
As more and more parents are opting for home schooling or religious-based private schools, it is incumbent upon all of us to reflect on what we are teaching our children. Do we want to "protect" our children from being infected with, or influenced by, the other sides' ideas? Are we concerned with instilling and perpetuating our values? OR Are we trying to ensure that we are turning out mindless automatons - people who are only capable of programmed responses to different circumstances? Are we teaching children HOW to think? OR Are we teaching them WHAT to think?
In the United States, folks on the right want you to know about what great and Christian men Washington, Adams, Franklin and Jefferson were. Folks on the left want you to know that Washington and Jefferson owned slaves, and that Jefferson wrote his own version of the gospel story of Jesus Christ. Both sides want you to know about the Constitution, but they only want you to hear about their method for interpreting what it means! Folks on the right want to concentrate on the movers and shakers of history, while folks on the left want you to know about the downtrodden and the oppressed. It often never occurs to folks on either side that both perspectives might have value - that both perspectives might be important in truly understanding the forces/people that/who shaped our society/nation.
In the realm of science, the divide is even more starkly defined. Folks on the right want the biblical version of creation taught to their children, or something that allows that a literal understanding of their scriptures is at least plausible. Folks on the left point out that evolution is now accepted science and that any other perspective should be excluded from the classroom. Folks on the right want you to know about the dramatic swings in climate down through the different epochs of life on this planet, while folks on the left want you to know about all of the evidence that the human introduction of carbon into our atmosphere is rapidly warming our planet. Neither side seems willing to consider the possibility that both perspectives might have merit and should be actively considered by anyone who really wants to get to the truth of the matter!
Finally, there is the question of what we want our children reading. The right wants them to read the Bible, and the left wants them to read On the Origin of Species. Here's a novel idea: Let's have them read both! I'm not afraid of letting adolescents read Ayn Rand or George Will. Are you afraid of allowing them to read Marx, Hemingway or Faulkner?
There is a difference between education and indoctrination. They are not the same thing, and pretending that they are is dangerous. Children should be exposed to both the world as it is and the way that we would like it to be. The two are not mutually exclusive! It's natural for us to want to pass on our values and views to our progeny, but it is very unnatural to keep them from seeing what's on the other side of the fence.
Monday, August 5, 2019
Trump's connection to what happened in El Paso
Sure, there are numerous quotes and references to the El Paso gunman's manifesto available to the public in the online media, but I had to hunt to find the actual document. Of course, the police are still investigating the crime, and it is understandable that folks would not want to give the gunman a platform to attempt to justify his hateful act or serve to further inflame racial passions within our country. Nevertheless, the suppression of public access to the gunman's remarks also serves to obscure the very central role of nativists, white supremacists and Donald Trump in what happened in El Paso.
In the interest of making this clearer, I have provided the following excerpts from the manifesto to demonstrate that document's affinity with the rhetoric of Trump, nativists and white supremacists:
Manifesto: "This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas. They are the instigators, not me. I am simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion." https://www.citizenfreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/shooter-manifesto-elpaso.jpg
Donald J. Trump on Twitter 29 Oct 2018: "Many Gang Members and some very bad people are mixed into the Caravan heading to our Southern Border. Please go back, you will not be admitted into the United States unless you go through the legal process. This is an invasion of our Country and our Military is waiting for you!"
Manifesto: "Due to the death of the baby boomers, the increasingly anti-immigrant rhetoric of the right and the ever increasing Hispanic population, America will soon become a one party state. The Democrat party will own America and they know it. They have already begun the transition by pandering heavily to the Hispanic voting bloc in the 1st Democratic debate. They intend to use open borders, free healthcare for illegals, citizenship and more to enact a political coup by importing and then legalizing millions of new voters." https://www.citizenfreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/shooter-manifesto-elpaso.jpg
Donald J. Trump at a rally of his supporters in Cincinnati, Ohio 1 Aug 2019: ""The greatest betrayal committed by the Democrats is their support for open borders...These open borders would overwhelm schools and hospitals, drain public services, and flood communities with poisonous drugs. It is tough enough...Democrat lawmakers care more about illegal aliens than they care about their own constituents. They put foreign citizens before American citizens." https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/08/01/trump_democrats_put_foreigners_before_americans_care_more_about_illegals_than_own_constituents.html
Manifesto: After advocating dividing the U.S. into racial enclaves and declaring his opposition to "race mixing," the gunman wrote: "My ideology has not changed for several years. My opinions on automation, immigration and the rest predate Trump and his campaign for president. I <am> putting this here because some people will blame the President or certain presidential candidates for the attack. This is not the case. I know that the media will probably call me a white supremacist anyway and blame Trump's rhetoric. The media is infamous for fake news. Their reaction to this attack will likely confirm that." https://www.citizenfreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/shooter-manifesto-elpaso.jpg
Well, at least the line about "fake news" was original! This is just one of many reasons why I (and others) have been saying that another four years of Trump in the White House is a very dangerous prospect for this republic.
In the interest of making this clearer, I have provided the following excerpts from the manifesto to demonstrate that document's affinity with the rhetoric of Trump, nativists and white supremacists:
Manifesto: "This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas. They are the instigators, not me. I am simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion." https://www.citizenfreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/shooter-manifesto-elpaso.jpg
Donald J. Trump on Twitter 29 Oct 2018: "Many Gang Members and some very bad people are mixed into the Caravan heading to our Southern Border. Please go back, you will not be admitted into the United States unless you go through the legal process. This is an invasion of our Country and our Military is waiting for you!"
Manifesto: "Due to the death of the baby boomers, the increasingly anti-immigrant rhetoric of the right and the ever increasing Hispanic population, America will soon become a one party state. The Democrat party will own America and they know it. They have already begun the transition by pandering heavily to the Hispanic voting bloc in the 1st Democratic debate. They intend to use open borders, free healthcare for illegals, citizenship and more to enact a political coup by importing and then legalizing millions of new voters." https://www.citizenfreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/shooter-manifesto-elpaso.jpg
Donald J. Trump at a rally of his supporters in Cincinnati, Ohio 1 Aug 2019: ""The greatest betrayal committed by the Democrats is their support for open borders...These open borders would overwhelm schools and hospitals, drain public services, and flood communities with poisonous drugs. It is tough enough...Democrat lawmakers care more about illegal aliens than they care about their own constituents. They put foreign citizens before American citizens." https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/08/01/trump_democrats_put_foreigners_before_americans_care_more_about_illegals_than_own_constituents.html
Manifesto: After advocating dividing the U.S. into racial enclaves and declaring his opposition to "race mixing," the gunman wrote: "My ideology has not changed for several years. My opinions on automation, immigration and the rest predate Trump and his campaign for president. I <am> putting this here because some people will blame the President or certain presidential candidates for the attack. This is not the case. I know that the media will probably call me a white supremacist anyway and blame Trump's rhetoric. The media is infamous for fake news. Their reaction to this attack will likely confirm that." https://www.citizenfreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/shooter-manifesto-elpaso.jpg
Well, at least the line about "fake news" was original! This is just one of many reasons why I (and others) have been saying that another four years of Trump in the White House is a very dangerous prospect for this republic.
Sunday, July 28, 2019
Judge Napolitano Is Right!
Judge Andrew Napolitano recently penned an editorial over at Fox News that deserves everyone's attention. "Trump has unleashed a torrent of hatred" https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-andrew-napolitano-the-longest-pleasure is well-argued and clear-eyed in its message.
The article was inspired by Trump's remarks on Twitter about four Democratic congresswomen of color already referenced on this blog. Interestingly, Napolitano accepts the Trump apologetics offered to explain the remarks after they were issued and caused such an uproar. It is the "America, love it or leave it!" mantra that the judge gives both barrels.
He wrote: "The phrase itself – with its command of the government's way or the highway – admits no dissenting opinions, suggests that all is well and proper here, and insinuates that moral norms and cultural values cannot be improved. The phrase itself is un-American." I couldn't agree with him more if I tried!
Napolitano continued: "'Go back' is a rejection of the nation as a melting pot; a condemnation of one of America's founding values – E Pluribus Unum (Out of many, one). It implicates a racial or nativist superiority: We were here before you; this is our land, not yours; get out. Nativist hatred is an implication of moral or even legal superiority that has no constitutional justification in American government."
The judge then proceeded to clearly delineate just why this kind of language is so dangerous, especially coming from a president. He wrote: "The problem is that presidential hatred produces division among people and destroys peaceful dialogue. When thousands of people at a Trump rally in North Carolina recently chanted, 'Send her back' referring to a congresswoman born in Somalia – and Trump tweeted that the four congresswomen (including three born in the U.S.) should 'Go back' to where they came from – the inescapable image was of a president trying to divide rather than unite."
Napolitano, however, made clear that the implications of such speech for our society as a whole are of much greater consequence (as he sees it) than simply reprimanding an individual. He wrote: "Hatred is so volatile and destructive that, once unleashed, it takes on a life of its own. It is cover for our deepest and darkest instincts. And it is a cousin to violence, as those Louisiana and Manhattan cops know."
I think Judge Napolitano is exactly right, and his remarks demand even more attention seeing as how they come from a man and network who have so vociferously supported Trump and his policies in times past.
The article was inspired by Trump's remarks on Twitter about four Democratic congresswomen of color already referenced on this blog. Interestingly, Napolitano accepts the Trump apologetics offered to explain the remarks after they were issued and caused such an uproar. It is the "America, love it or leave it!" mantra that the judge gives both barrels.
He wrote: "The phrase itself – with its command of the government's way or the highway – admits no dissenting opinions, suggests that all is well and proper here, and insinuates that moral norms and cultural values cannot be improved. The phrase itself is un-American." I couldn't agree with him more if I tried!
Napolitano continued: "'Go back' is a rejection of the nation as a melting pot; a condemnation of one of America's founding values – E Pluribus Unum (Out of many, one). It implicates a racial or nativist superiority: We were here before you; this is our land, not yours; get out. Nativist hatred is an implication of moral or even legal superiority that has no constitutional justification in American government."
The judge then proceeded to clearly delineate just why this kind of language is so dangerous, especially coming from a president. He wrote: "The problem is that presidential hatred produces division among people and destroys peaceful dialogue. When thousands of people at a Trump rally in North Carolina recently chanted, 'Send her back' referring to a congresswoman born in Somalia – and Trump tweeted that the four congresswomen (including three born in the U.S.) should 'Go back' to where they came from – the inescapable image was of a president trying to divide rather than unite."
Napolitano, however, made clear that the implications of such speech for our society as a whole are of much greater consequence (as he sees it) than simply reprimanding an individual. He wrote: "Hatred is so volatile and destructive that, once unleashed, it takes on a life of its own. It is cover for our deepest and darkest instincts. And it is a cousin to violence, as those Louisiana and Manhattan cops know."
I think Judge Napolitano is exactly right, and his remarks demand even more attention seeing as how they come from a man and network who have so vociferously supported Trump and his policies in times past.
Sunday, July 14, 2019
The Asshole-in-Chief on Twitter
Concerning the former Republican Speaker of the House:
"House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy is a far superior leader than was Lame Duck Speaker Paul Ryan. Tougher, smarter and a far better fundraiser, Kevin is already closing in on 44 Million Dollars. Paul’s final year numbers were, according to Breitbart, “abysmal.” People like.....
....Paul Ryan almost killed the Republican Party. Weak, ineffective & stupid are not exactly the qualities that Republicans, or the CITIZENS of our Country, were looking for. Right now our spirit is at an all time high, far better than the Radical Left Dems. You’ll see next year!"
Concerning his support within the Republican Party:
"94% Approval Rating in the Republican Party, an all time high. Ronald Reagan was 87%. Thank you!"
Concerning Democratic Congresswomen who were born outside of the US:
"So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly......
....and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how....
....it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!"
And, if you don't see that there is anything wrong with the above tweets, you're just as morally bankrupt as the man who wrote them!
"House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy is a far superior leader than was Lame Duck Speaker Paul Ryan. Tougher, smarter and a far better fundraiser, Kevin is already closing in on 44 Million Dollars. Paul’s final year numbers were, according to Breitbart, “abysmal.” People like.....
....Paul Ryan almost killed the Republican Party. Weak, ineffective & stupid are not exactly the qualities that Republicans, or the CITIZENS of our Country, were looking for. Right now our spirit is at an all time high, far better than the Radical Left Dems. You’ll see next year!"
Concerning his support within the Republican Party:
"94% Approval Rating in the Republican Party, an all time high. Ronald Reagan was 87%. Thank you!"
Concerning Democratic Congresswomen who were born outside of the US:
"So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly......
....and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how....
....it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!"
And, if you don't see that there is anything wrong with the above tweets, you're just as morally bankrupt as the man who wrote them!
Tuesday, June 11, 2019
Hey Liberals, DON'T BE STUPID!
A base of support that ranges from 39-45% is not going to get Donald Trump reelected, but there is another group that polls 40-50% of the Democratic Party that could! These are the folks who are very progressive, and there is abundant evidence that they don't like the current Democratic front runner (Joe Biden). https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/liberals-go-after-joe-biden-trying-to-blunt-his-presidential-candidacy-and-the-recent-centrist-surge-in-the-democratic-party/2019/06/02/b0e20be4-8543-11e9-a491-25df61c78dc4_story.html
I'm content to let the process within that party play out (I'm not a Democrat), and I would vote for ANY of the current field over Trump. There is a real danger, however, that disappointed liberals might stay away from the polls next November if Biden is the nominee. My take: Go ahead, sit on your dead ass and watch Trump get another four years!
Thursday, June 6, 2019
Senator Duckworth is a REAL American!
A friend sent this to my personal e-mail account (Trump's recent answers to Piers Morgan about the Vietnam War):
Senator Tammy Duckworth, who lost both her legs while serving in the military during the Iraq War, responded to the comments of a president who skipped out of an earlier war because of bone spurs:
"It’s insulting what Donald Trump said about Vietnam: that he didn’t serve because 'he wasn’t a fan of that war.' No Veteran I know is a 'fan of war,' but unlike Trump, they responded when their nation called them to duty. Like true patriots. Whether or not they had a choice."
"These comments only make one thing clear: @realDonaldTrump got his deferments for the wrong thing. They shouldn't have been for his disappearing, imaginary bone spurs—they should have been for that yellow streak down his back. At least that would have been a real condition. 4/4"
Senator Tammy Duckworth, who lost both her legs while serving in the military during the Iraq War, responded to the comments of a president who skipped out of an earlier war because of bone spurs:
"It’s insulting what Donald Trump said about Vietnam: that he didn’t serve because 'he wasn’t a fan of that war.' No Veteran I know is a 'fan of war,' but unlike Trump, they responded when their nation called them to duty. Like true patriots. Whether or not they had a choice."
"These comments only make one thing clear: @realDonaldTrump got his deferments for the wrong thing. They shouldn't have been for his disappearing, imaginary bone spurs—they should have been for that yellow streak down his back. At least that would have been a real condition. 4/4"
Tuesday, May 7, 2019
The Constitutional Crisis IS Here!
It has been like watching a train wreck in slow motion. The fight between the Trump Administration and the Democratic House of Representatives over access to all of the material and witnesses related to the Mueller Report has been smoldering since AG Barr announced his assessment of the principal conclusions of the Special Counsel's Report and his decision to clear Trump of obstruction of justice.
Democrats in the House have insisted on seeing the full report and all of the evidence which supports its conclusions. In a separate matter, they have also insisted on seeing Trump's personal income tax returns. Heretofore, Trump, Barr and Mnuchin have refused all of these requests and/or subpoenas.
Unfortunately, although the news media and folks inside the beltway are focused on the standoff, the majority of the American public have largely ignored what they perceive to be more of the same (partisan bickering). The reality of the situation, however, is much more serious than almost anyone has so far been willing to acknowledge. In short, if both sides in this battle fail to reach a compromise, the consequences of one or the other side prevailing will be disastrous for our country.
In a rare moment of clarity, Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana gave his assessment of the situation to NBC's Chuck Todd on the Sunday edition of Meet the Press. He said: "If I could make one other point, this business of the dispute between the White House and the House is dangerous to America's institutions. Because if they all go to court -- they need to work it out. If they all go to court, and it becomes a zero-sum game, one of two things is going to happen. Trump's going to win, and that's going to undermine Congress' oversight ability, or Congress is going to win, the House is going to win. And then all of a sudden, the new standard is that the House or the Senate can ask a president or a presidential nominee anything they want to about their personal life, whether it's relevant to being president or not." -- https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-transcripts-n51976
In the final analysis, our individual perspective on who should prevail in this standoff is immaterial to the larger question - the consequences for our constitutional system. In short, we should all be praying that Barr and Nadler are able to reach some sort of compromise today (Indeed, we should be hoping that all of the parties involved will be able to make some accommodations to the other side). The life of our republic may depend on it!
Democrats in the House have insisted on seeing the full report and all of the evidence which supports its conclusions. In a separate matter, they have also insisted on seeing Trump's personal income tax returns. Heretofore, Trump, Barr and Mnuchin have refused all of these requests and/or subpoenas.
Unfortunately, although the news media and folks inside the beltway are focused on the standoff, the majority of the American public have largely ignored what they perceive to be more of the same (partisan bickering). The reality of the situation, however, is much more serious than almost anyone has so far been willing to acknowledge. In short, if both sides in this battle fail to reach a compromise, the consequences of one or the other side prevailing will be disastrous for our country.
In a rare moment of clarity, Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana gave his assessment of the situation to NBC's Chuck Todd on the Sunday edition of Meet the Press. He said: "If I could make one other point, this business of the dispute between the White House and the House is dangerous to America's institutions. Because if they all go to court -- they need to work it out. If they all go to court, and it becomes a zero-sum game, one of two things is going to happen. Trump's going to win, and that's going to undermine Congress' oversight ability, or Congress is going to win, the House is going to win. And then all of a sudden, the new standard is that the House or the Senate can ask a president or a presidential nominee anything they want to about their personal life, whether it's relevant to being president or not." -- https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-transcripts-n51976
In the final analysis, our individual perspective on who should prevail in this standoff is immaterial to the larger question - the consequences for our constitutional system. In short, we should all be praying that Barr and Nadler are able to reach some sort of compromise today (Indeed, we should be hoping that all of the parties involved will be able to make some accommodations to the other side). The life of our republic may depend on it!
Sunday, April 21, 2019
Do they care that they've ruined their reputations?
It is amazing the number of individuals who have shipwrecked their good names on the rock of Trump. Take just a moment to consider a few of the folks who have absolutely ruined their reputations working for and/or defending the current occupant of the Oval Office: Michael Flynn, John Kelley, H.R. McMaster, Rex Tillerson, Jeff Sessions. Each one of these folks enjoyed some measure of success and respect in their respective fields prior to joining Trump's team and has left the White House with their reputations in tatters.
Nevertheless, in my opinion, the most precipitous falls from grace have been reserved for two individuals who are still with Trump: Rudy Giuliani and William Barr. After the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, Giuliani was acclaimed as America's Mayor. According to Gallup, the number of Americans who have a favorable opinion of him has fallen to about 32% https://news.gallup.com/poll/236030/rudy-giuliani-favorable-ratings-hit-new-low.aspx ! Likewise, as the former Attorney General for Bush, Barr enjoyed a reputation as an institutionalist and was widely respected among the rank and file of both parties. After the Mueller Report, not anymore! One has to wonder, do they care that their personal reputations have been destroyed as a consequence of their association with Trump?
Nevertheless, in my opinion, the most precipitous falls from grace have been reserved for two individuals who are still with Trump: Rudy Giuliani and William Barr. After the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, Giuliani was acclaimed as America's Mayor. According to Gallup, the number of Americans who have a favorable opinion of him has fallen to about 32% https://news.gallup.com/poll/236030/rudy-giuliani-favorable-ratings-hit-new-low.aspx ! Likewise, as the former Attorney General for Bush, Barr enjoyed a reputation as an institutionalist and was widely respected among the rank and file of both parties. After the Mueller Report, not anymore! One has to wonder, do they care that their personal reputations have been destroyed as a consequence of their association with Trump?
Thursday, April 18, 2019
The Mueller Report on Obstruction of Justice
Why didn't Mueller make a determination on whether or not Trump obstructed justice?
On pages 1 and 2 of his introduction to Volume II of the report (the portion dealing with obstruction):
"We first describe the considerations that guided our obstruction-of-justice investigation, and then provide an overview of this Volume:
First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that 'the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions' in violation of 'the constitutional separation of powers.' Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction."
"Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible."
"Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes."
"Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
On pages 1 and 2 of his introduction to Volume II of the report (the portion dealing with obstruction):
"We first describe the considerations that guided our obstruction-of-justice investigation, and then provide an overview of this Volume:
First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that 'the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions' in violation of 'the constitutional separation of powers.' Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction."
"Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible."
"Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes."
"Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
The Mueller Report on Collusion with the Russians
On page 33 of the Mueller Report:
"The investigation identified two different forms of connections between the IRA" (Internet Research Agency - The Russian Company based in St. Petersburg that intervened in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election) "and members of the Trump Campaign. (The investigation identified no similar connections between the IRA and members of the Clinton Campaign). First, on multiple occasions, members and surrogates of the Trump Campaign promoted - typically by linking, retweeting, or similar methods of reposting - pro-Trump or anti-Clinton content published by the IRA through IRA-controlled social media accounts. Additionally, in a few instances, IRA employees represented themselves as U.S. persons to communicate with the Trump Campaign in an effort to seek assistance and coordination on IRA-organized political rallies inside the United States."
On page 66 of the Mueller Report:
"IV. RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT LINKS TO AND CONTACTS WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN
The Office identified multiple contacts - 'links,' in the words of the Appointment Order - between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government."
To be fair, Mueller does go on to state that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russians with whom they were in contact.
On page 191 of the Mueller Report:
"The Office determined that certain individuals associated with the Campaign lied to the investigators about Campaign contacts with Russia and have taken other actions to interfere with the investigation."
"The investigation identified two different forms of connections between the IRA" (Internet Research Agency - The Russian Company based in St. Petersburg that intervened in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election) "and members of the Trump Campaign. (The investigation identified no similar connections between the IRA and members of the Clinton Campaign). First, on multiple occasions, members and surrogates of the Trump Campaign promoted - typically by linking, retweeting, or similar methods of reposting - pro-Trump or anti-Clinton content published by the IRA through IRA-controlled social media accounts. Additionally, in a few instances, IRA employees represented themselves as U.S. persons to communicate with the Trump Campaign in an effort to seek assistance and coordination on IRA-organized political rallies inside the United States."
On page 66 of the Mueller Report:
"IV. RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT LINKS TO AND CONTACTS WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN
The Office identified multiple contacts - 'links,' in the words of the Appointment Order - between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government."
To be fair, Mueller does go on to state that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russians with whom they were in contact.
On page 191 of the Mueller Report:
"The Office determined that certain individuals associated with the Campaign lied to the investigators about Campaign contacts with Russia and have taken other actions to interfere with the investigation."
Tuesday, March 26, 2019
Trump had this one in the bag!
Have you read Attorney General Barr's summary of the Mueller Report? The letter seeks to characterize a report that most of us will probably never see. Hence, for all intents and purposes, the Mueller Report is dead on arrival. Without being able to read the actual report and see all of the evidence collected as part of the Special Counsel's investigation, no one will be able to mount a successful challenge to Barr's interpretation of the report.
Why is that a problem? Because there is abundant reason to believe that Barr has mischaracterized that report!
Barr tells us that "The Special Counsel's report is divided into two parts. The first describes the results of the Special Counsel's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel's investigation was whether any Americans – including individuals associated with the Trump campaign – joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: '[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.'” https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/24/us/politics/barr-letter-mueller-report.html
Notice how the fact of Russia's interference in our election gets sidestepped in these remarks. Sure, Barr goes on to tells us that "The Special Counsel's investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election...The second element involved the Russian government's efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election." (Same source as above) Even here, however, Barr reiterates the fact that the Special Counsel "did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts..." (Same source)
Several observations about this portion of Barr's letter seem appropriate. First, it seems highly probable that this is a very truncated summary of an important part of Mueller's Report (the story of Russia's interference in the 2016 election on behalf of the Trump campaign). Second, Barr discloses the legal findings of the Special Counsel with regard to a collusion conspiracy - He does not tell us whether or not any evidence of collusion/coordination was gathered in the investigation. This is an important distinction because the legal standard for bringing formal charges against a person for this crime is beyond a reasonable doubt. Third, it does not explain the Trump Tower meeting with Russian officials, Flynn's Russian contacts or Trump's invitation to Russia to recover Hilary's deleted e-mails.
The second portion of Barr's letter addresses Mueller's findings on whether or not Trump engaged in obstruction of justice. This part of the letter is even more troubling than the other, because Barr plainly tells us that he is making his own determination on this matter.
Barr tells us that "The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel's office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel's obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense." (Same source as above)
In other words, Barr has decided not to charge Trump with obstruction of justice. Mueller merely laid out the evidence, and Barr decided that it was insufficient to prove that Trump obstructed justice.
What evidence did Mueller present? Will we ever see it? What about all of the stuff that went on in plain sight with regard to obstruction of justice? What about the appointment of Bill Barr as Attorney General?
Remember, Barr had a track record on the question of obstruction of justice prior to his appointment as AG. In his nineteen page June 2018 Memo to DOJ on "Mueller's 'Obstruction' Theory," Barr stated that "Mueller's obstruction theory is fatally misconceived." https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5638848-June-2018-Barr-Memo-to-DOJ-Muellers-Obstruction.html He went on to say: "As I understand it, his theory is premised on a novel and legally insupportable reading of the law. Moreover, in my view, if credited by the Department, it would have grave consequences far beyond the immediate confines of this case and would do lasting damage to the Presidency and to the administration of law within the Executive branch."
It looks to me like Trump won this one months ago when he picked Bill Barr to be his AG (after reading this unsolicited memo on "Mueller's Obstruction Theory"). Barr assures us that he made this determination in consultation with Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, but Rosenstein would almost certainly have been aware of his boss' views on this aspect of Mueller's investigation. Obviously, Democrats should have pushed harder for Barr to recuse himself on this matter.
Barr also assures us that his decision in this matter was not influenced by DOJ policy on indicting and prosecuting a sitting president. However, his assurances on this point only raise other alarms. Was this assurance included to forestall congressional Democrats from insisting that they be allowed to see the evidence on obstruction of justice? After all, we know that they would argue that since DOJ policy precluded that department from acting on the evidence that congress was the only body capable of holding the president accountable for his actions.
No, Barr's report on Mueller's report hasn't changed this blogger's opinion of Trump. In fact, it has only reinforced it! Trump continues to pose a serious threat to the rule of law and our democratic institutions.
Why is that a problem? Because there is abundant reason to believe that Barr has mischaracterized that report!
Barr tells us that "The Special Counsel's report is divided into two parts. The first describes the results of the Special Counsel's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel's investigation was whether any Americans – including individuals associated with the Trump campaign – joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: '[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.'” https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/24/us/politics/barr-letter-mueller-report.html
Notice how the fact of Russia's interference in our election gets sidestepped in these remarks. Sure, Barr goes on to tells us that "The Special Counsel's investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election...The second element involved the Russian government's efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election." (Same source as above) Even here, however, Barr reiterates the fact that the Special Counsel "did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts..." (Same source)
Several observations about this portion of Barr's letter seem appropriate. First, it seems highly probable that this is a very truncated summary of an important part of Mueller's Report (the story of Russia's interference in the 2016 election on behalf of the Trump campaign). Second, Barr discloses the legal findings of the Special Counsel with regard to a collusion conspiracy - He does not tell us whether or not any evidence of collusion/coordination was gathered in the investigation. This is an important distinction because the legal standard for bringing formal charges against a person for this crime is beyond a reasonable doubt. Third, it does not explain the Trump Tower meeting with Russian officials, Flynn's Russian contacts or Trump's invitation to Russia to recover Hilary's deleted e-mails.
The second portion of Barr's letter addresses Mueller's findings on whether or not Trump engaged in obstruction of justice. This part of the letter is even more troubling than the other, because Barr plainly tells us that he is making his own determination on this matter.
Barr tells us that "The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel's office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel's obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense." (Same source as above)
In other words, Barr has decided not to charge Trump with obstruction of justice. Mueller merely laid out the evidence, and Barr decided that it was insufficient to prove that Trump obstructed justice.
What evidence did Mueller present? Will we ever see it? What about all of the stuff that went on in plain sight with regard to obstruction of justice? What about the appointment of Bill Barr as Attorney General?
Remember, Barr had a track record on the question of obstruction of justice prior to his appointment as AG. In his nineteen page June 2018 Memo to DOJ on "Mueller's 'Obstruction' Theory," Barr stated that "Mueller's obstruction theory is fatally misconceived." https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5638848-June-2018-Barr-Memo-to-DOJ-Muellers-Obstruction.html He went on to say: "As I understand it, his theory is premised on a novel and legally insupportable reading of the law. Moreover, in my view, if credited by the Department, it would have grave consequences far beyond the immediate confines of this case and would do lasting damage to the Presidency and to the administration of law within the Executive branch."
It looks to me like Trump won this one months ago when he picked Bill Barr to be his AG (after reading this unsolicited memo on "Mueller's Obstruction Theory"). Barr assures us that he made this determination in consultation with Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, but Rosenstein would almost certainly have been aware of his boss' views on this aspect of Mueller's investigation. Obviously, Democrats should have pushed harder for Barr to recuse himself on this matter.
Barr also assures us that his decision in this matter was not influenced by DOJ policy on indicting and prosecuting a sitting president. However, his assurances on this point only raise other alarms. Was this assurance included to forestall congressional Democrats from insisting that they be allowed to see the evidence on obstruction of justice? After all, we know that they would argue that since DOJ policy precluded that department from acting on the evidence that congress was the only body capable of holding the president accountable for his actions.
No, Barr's report on Mueller's report hasn't changed this blogger's opinion of Trump. In fact, it has only reinforced it! Trump continues to pose a serious threat to the rule of law and our democratic institutions.
Wednesday, March 20, 2019
Where in the hell is Lindsey Graham?
Trump (during joint press appearance with Brazil's new president): "I was never a fan of John McCain, and I never will be" https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900061339/utah-senator-mitt-romney-chastises-president-donald-trump-for-disparaging-remarks-about-late-arizona-senator-john-mccain.html
Trump on Twitter this past Sunday: "So it was indeed (just proven in court papers) 'last in his class' (Annapolis) John McCain that sent the Fake Dossier to the FBI and Media hoping to have it printed BEFORE the Election. He & the Dems, working together, failed (as usual). Even the Fake News refused this garbage!" https://twitter.com/potus?lang=en
Senator Mitt Romney of Utah: "I can’t understand why the President would, once again, disparage a man as exemplary as my friend John McCain: heroic, courageous, patriotic, honorable, self-effacing, self-sacrificing, empathetic, and driven by duty to family, country, and God." https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900061339/utah-senator-mitt-romney-chastises-president-donald-trump-for-disparaging-remarks-about-late-arizona-senator-john-mccain.html
Wasn't Lindsey Graham supposed to be John McCain's friend? Where in the hell is Lindsey Graham?
Trump on Twitter this past Sunday: "So it was indeed (just proven in court papers) 'last in his class' (Annapolis) John McCain that sent the Fake Dossier to the FBI and Media hoping to have it printed BEFORE the Election. He & the Dems, working together, failed (as usual). Even the Fake News refused this garbage!" https://twitter.com/potus?lang=en
Senator Mitt Romney of Utah: "I can’t understand why the President would, once again, disparage a man as exemplary as my friend John McCain: heroic, courageous, patriotic, honorable, self-effacing, self-sacrificing, empathetic, and driven by duty to family, country, and God." https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900061339/utah-senator-mitt-romney-chastises-president-donald-trump-for-disparaging-remarks-about-late-arizona-senator-john-mccain.html
Wasn't Lindsey Graham supposed to be John McCain's friend? Where in the hell is Lindsey Graham?
Tuesday, March 19, 2019
Make America Great Again - Dump Trump!
Events since my last post have only served to reinforce my conviction that Donald Trump should not occupy the Oval Office. He has desecrated the office he holds, undermined many of our most cherished institutions and values, and damaged our reputation and relations with our friends around the world. The economic growth that was generated and sustained by his predecessor and has continued through the first two years of his presidency does not justify another term for him. And, anyone who thinks that he has advanced the cause of the pro-life movement with his judicial appointments is delusional. Those appointments, however, do have the potential to have a very negative impact on many other areas of American life (i.e. civil rights, economic interests and environmental issues). Hence, for those who are truly interested in restoring America's greatness, the very best way to accomplish that goal is to get rid of the abomination of desolation which currently occupies our sacred secular place!
Tuesday, February 12, 2019
Donald Trump's Ancestry
Throughout his public life, Donald Trump has focused his attention and ridicule on the origins of folks he doesn't like. He questioned whether or not former President Barack Obama was actually born in the United States and pointed out that his father had been born in Kenya. As part of his pursuit of the Republican nomination for president in 2016, he famously derided the familial connections of Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz. Since gaining the Oval Office, his administration has pursued an anti-immigrant agenda. More recently, he has chided Senator Elizabeth Warren for her claims of Native American heritage.
As Mr. Trump appears to be so interested in the subject of the origins of his enemies, I thought it would be interesting to shed a little light on his own origins. Considering his rhetoric on the subject, we would be justified in assuming that Trump has deep American roots. However, when we take a look at his family tree, that assumption is easily disproved. In fact, it turns out that The Donald's
American roots are extremely shallow!
In Natasha Frost's The Trump Family's Immigrant Story https://www.history.com/news/donald-trump-father-mother-ancestry, we read: "Trump is the son, and grandson, of immigrants: German on his father’s side, and Scottish on his mother’s. None of his grandparents, and only one of his parents, was born in the United States or spoke English as their mother tongue. (His mother’s parents, from the remote Scottish Outer Hebrides, lived in a majority Gaelic-speaking community.)" In fact, Frost informs us that Trump's grandfather (Friedrich) fled Germany in 1885 to avoid "three years of compulsory military service." Frost also reveals that the patriarch and his wife tried to return to Germany a few years later, but they lost their citizenship and had to return to America when it was discovered that he had been a draft dodger.
Apparently, Trump's father (Fred) was ashamed of his German roots as he told everyone that his ancestry was Swedish. In fairness to him, we must put this in the context of the Twentieth Century. Remember, there were two world wars and a holocaust that most folks attributed to Germany.
Nevertheless, genealogical records support Frost's article. For instance, we know that Friedrich Trump was born on 29 March 1869 in Kallstadt, Bayern, Germany to Johann Trump and Katharina Kober (Germany Births and Baptisms, 1558-1898, https://www.familysearch.org). Likewise, we know from Frederick Trump's (Donald's father) birth record that both of his parents were born in Germany (New York, New York City Births, 1846-1909, https://www.familysearch.org). Likewise, the 1940 U.S. Census of Queens, New York lists Mary Trump's (Donald's mother) birthplace as Scotland (https://www.familysearch.org).
Hence, for Donald J. Trump, there is no ancestral connection to the colonial period, the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Mexican War, Civil War, Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II or the Korean War. It should also be noted that Mr. Trump secured several deferments during the period of the Vietnam War and consequently didn't serve during that conflict. Moreover, none of his children or descendants have served in any of the subsequent wars or military actions involving the United States. And, because of his own background, it is perhaps more understandable that two of his three wives were born in Eastern Europe, not in the United States.
Of course, these FACTS are beyond dispute, but they do not mean that we should regard Donald Trump as being less American than any of the rest of us. These FACTS, however, do suggest that Mr. Trump should be more careful about casting aspersions at the origins of those of his countrymen that he doesn't like. You know - the whole people who live in glass houses thing!
As Mr. Trump appears to be so interested in the subject of the origins of his enemies, I thought it would be interesting to shed a little light on his own origins. Considering his rhetoric on the subject, we would be justified in assuming that Trump has deep American roots. However, when we take a look at his family tree, that assumption is easily disproved. In fact, it turns out that The Donald's
American roots are extremely shallow!
In Natasha Frost's The Trump Family's Immigrant Story https://www.history.com/news/donald-trump-father-mother-ancestry, we read: "Trump is the son, and grandson, of immigrants: German on his father’s side, and Scottish on his mother’s. None of his grandparents, and only one of his parents, was born in the United States or spoke English as their mother tongue. (His mother’s parents, from the remote Scottish Outer Hebrides, lived in a majority Gaelic-speaking community.)" In fact, Frost informs us that Trump's grandfather (Friedrich) fled Germany in 1885 to avoid "three years of compulsory military service." Frost also reveals that the patriarch and his wife tried to return to Germany a few years later, but they lost their citizenship and had to return to America when it was discovered that he had been a draft dodger.
Apparently, Trump's father (Fred) was ashamed of his German roots as he told everyone that his ancestry was Swedish. In fairness to him, we must put this in the context of the Twentieth Century. Remember, there were two world wars and a holocaust that most folks attributed to Germany.
Nevertheless, genealogical records support Frost's article. For instance, we know that Friedrich Trump was born on 29 March 1869 in Kallstadt, Bayern, Germany to Johann Trump and Katharina Kober (Germany Births and Baptisms, 1558-1898, https://www.familysearch.org). Likewise, we know from Frederick Trump's (Donald's father) birth record that both of his parents were born in Germany (New York, New York City Births, 1846-1909, https://www.familysearch.org). Likewise, the 1940 U.S. Census of Queens, New York lists Mary Trump's (Donald's mother) birthplace as Scotland (https://www.familysearch.org).
Hence, for Donald J. Trump, there is no ancestral connection to the colonial period, the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Mexican War, Civil War, Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II or the Korean War. It should also be noted that Mr. Trump secured several deferments during the period of the Vietnam War and consequently didn't serve during that conflict. Moreover, none of his children or descendants have served in any of the subsequent wars or military actions involving the United States. And, because of his own background, it is perhaps more understandable that two of his three wives were born in Eastern Europe, not in the United States.
Of course, these FACTS are beyond dispute, but they do not mean that we should regard Donald Trump as being less American than any of the rest of us. These FACTS, however, do suggest that Mr. Trump should be more careful about casting aspersions at the origins of those of his countrymen that he doesn't like. You know - the whole people who live in glass houses thing!
Thursday, January 24, 2019
A slogan instead of a solution
As reports circulated that the Democrats may offer Trump 5.7 billion dollars for border security (but not one penny for his wall), Trump tweeted this morning: "Without a Wall there cannot be safety and security at the Border or for the U.S.A. BUILD THE WALL AND CRIME WILL FALL!"
This tells me that Trump isn't interested in border security. He's interested in using this issue to solidify his support among his base, and that's about all!
And, just for the record, without addressing the issues that motivate our southern neighbors to come here (violence, oppression, poverty) - even increased border security won't do much to stem the flow of refugees northward! This is a much more complex problem than his slogan implies.
This tells me that Trump isn't interested in border security. He's interested in using this issue to solidify his support among his base, and that's about all!
And, just for the record, without addressing the issues that motivate our southern neighbors to come here (violence, oppression, poverty) - even increased border security won't do much to stem the flow of refugees northward! This is a much more complex problem than his slogan implies.
The State of the Union
In Section 3 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution, we read the following about the duties of the President: "He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient..."
I will readily admit that this is a vague provision. You will notice that nothing is specifically said about how often ("from time to time") this information should be provided. Likewise, there aren't any specifics about how the information is to be provided (In times past, presidents had their SOTU delivered to Congress as a written document).
In his initial response to Speaker Pelosi's suggestion that he not deliver his SOTU until the government shutdown ended or consider submitting it to Congress in writing, Trump threatened to find another venue to deliver the address. Later, he changed tactics and acted as if he would deliver the address in the House chamber anyway. However, when she made it clear that this wasn't an option, he decided that he would wait until the shutdown had ended.
He tweeted: "As the Shutdown was going on, Nancy Pelosi asked me to give the State of the Union Address. I agreed. She then changed her mind because of the Shutdown, suggesting a later date. This is her prerogative - I will do the Address when the Shutdown is over. I am not looking for an alternative venue for the SOTU Address because there is no venue that can compete with the history, tradition and importance of the House Chamber. I look forward to giving a “great” State of the Union Address in the near future!"
Alternative venue? I wonder if Trump or anyone else has noticed that this vague provision of the Constitution is very specific that the SOTU has to be given to CONGRESS. Delivering an address to the public on television or in a rally would not satisfy this requirement! Hence, if Trump had proceeded with some alternative venue, he would have been in violation of this provision of the U.S. Constitution!
Friday, January 4, 2019
Minority Rule
Why are the leaders of the Democratic Party so squeamish about using the word impeachment in the same sentence as Donald Trump? Are they afraid of Trump? Are they afraid of his tweets? Is it because there isn't enough evidence of malfeasance and abuse of power to justify such an action? Is Congress waiting for more proof from whatever report Mueller finally issues? Is it because the House knows that the Senate (controlled by Republicans) wouldn't convict and vote to remove him from office?
I think it has more to do with their fear of the 39-45% (depending on the poll) of the American people who still support Trump. From my vantage point, it doesn't appear that they are afraid of him (consider their statements and commentary about the man). They make fun of his tweets. There appears to be an abundance of evidence that he has violated the emoluments clause and actively obstructed justice in plain sight. And, as far as the Republican controlled Senate is concerned, why would those Republican Senators not vote to convict or remove? Do they like Trump that much, or are they afraid of offending and alienating his supporters?
Trump, like most tyrants, is a petty and small-minded individual who doesn't have the character, intellect or ability to inspire real fear or terror in others. Like most demagogues, the secret to his success/continuation resides in the loyalty which he has inspired among his followers. In short, Democrats are afraid of the large and vocal minority of Americans who support Trump. The fear is this: If they move against Trump, his followers will revolt - that they simply will not tolerate their man being dethroned.
And there is strong evidence to support the conclusion that Trump himself is just as afraid of offending/alienating these folks as the Democrats. Don't believe me. Look at the circumstances surrounding the current government shut down.
Trump was ready to sign off on the legislation which the Senate had passed on a BIPARTISAN basis, until some of the folks over at Fox News howled about him abandoning his commitment to a wall on our Southern border. Witness how fast Trump changed his mind - how quickly he said that he wouldn't sign the legislation to continue funding the government. He immediately started demanding full funding for his pet project as a precondition for his willingness to sign any funding legislation to keep the rest of the government open/operating.
So, what do we have? I think it's clear that we presently have minority rule in the United States! Will Mueller's report change this calculation? Only time will tell.
I think it has more to do with their fear of the 39-45% (depending on the poll) of the American people who still support Trump. From my vantage point, it doesn't appear that they are afraid of him (consider their statements and commentary about the man). They make fun of his tweets. There appears to be an abundance of evidence that he has violated the emoluments clause and actively obstructed justice in plain sight. And, as far as the Republican controlled Senate is concerned, why would those Republican Senators not vote to convict or remove? Do they like Trump that much, or are they afraid of offending and alienating his supporters?
Trump, like most tyrants, is a petty and small-minded individual who doesn't have the character, intellect or ability to inspire real fear or terror in others. Like most demagogues, the secret to his success/continuation resides in the loyalty which he has inspired among his followers. In short, Democrats are afraid of the large and vocal minority of Americans who support Trump. The fear is this: If they move against Trump, his followers will revolt - that they simply will not tolerate their man being dethroned.
And there is strong evidence to support the conclusion that Trump himself is just as afraid of offending/alienating these folks as the Democrats. Don't believe me. Look at the circumstances surrounding the current government shut down.
Trump was ready to sign off on the legislation which the Senate had passed on a BIPARTISAN basis, until some of the folks over at Fox News howled about him abandoning his commitment to a wall on our Southern border. Witness how fast Trump changed his mind - how quickly he said that he wouldn't sign the legislation to continue funding the government. He immediately started demanding full funding for his pet project as a precondition for his willingness to sign any funding legislation to keep the rest of the government open/operating.
So, what do we have? I think it's clear that we presently have minority rule in the United States! Will Mueller's report change this calculation? Only time will tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)