Tag Archives: birther

Trump continues his rampage

Donald J. Trump is having a busy week, indeed.

The president has taken direct aim at (a) the Affordable Care Act, (b) the Iran nuclear deal and (c) the United Nations. To what end? To show the world he’s putting “America first” and that he doesn’t care what the rest of the nation that didn’t vote for him thinks about the policies he is dismantling.

* Trump this week declared his intention to discontinue the subsidies the government pays to reduce health insurance premiums for Americans who need them to purchase insurance under the ACA. He’s seeking to destroy former President Barack Obama’s signature legislative achievement, no matter how many millions of Americans he hurts along the way.

* The president has decided against recertifying the Iran nuclear pact that Obama’s foreign policy team negotiated with five other nations. It seeks to demand that Iran quit developing nuclear weapons. International analysts say Iran is complying with the deal; Trump says the Iranians aren’t complying. Hmm. Who do you believe, the experts or a pathological liar?

* Trump has decided to pull the United States out of UNESCO, a UN-affiliated organization dedicated to developing world peace through collaborative educational, scientific and cultural reforms. That sound pretty nefarious, right? He cites an alleged “anti-Israel bias” in the UN. So, he’ll just pull us out of UNESCO. That’ll teach ’em.

The president just cannot stop doing things that make many of us angry. Sure, he pleases a lot of folks around the country with this so-called “no-nonsense” approach to domestic and international policy.

In my own view, though, he is forsaking policies only because they were crafted by his predecessor, the fellow Trump defamed by suggesting for years he wasn’t qualified constitutionally to serve as president; it’s that “birther” thing.

As for the UNESCO pullout, Trump is managing to anger allied nations who do not view the world through the same distorted prism the president uses.

But, by golly, he’s telling it like it is.

This election’s fallout will take time to settle

constitution-burningb

I usually am not one to fret too much about the future of our country.

My belief always has been that our national resilience and the framework established as our governing document — the Constitution — would see us through the most troubling times.

The fallout from this just-completed presidential election is testing my faith in that resilience. I won’t throw in the towel … at least not yet.

Donald J. Trump’s election as president has challenged just about every conventional political norm we’ve all known.

Hillary Rodham Clinton had the money, the organization, the backing, the experience, the whole package that should have enabled her to win the presidency.

It all failed her.

As a result, we’ve got a lot of Americans all across the country lugging around a ton — or three — of bitter feelings.

We’re a “divided nation,” the pundits and pols are telling us. Really? Do you think?

We’ve been divided sharply perhaps since the 2000 election, which Al Gore won more popular votes but lost the election to George W. Bush. Except for a brief respite from that division — which occurred in the weeks and months right after 9/11 — we’ve drifted far apart.

Barack Obama’s election in 2008 was thought to be a monumental moment in our history. In many ways it was, with the election of the first African-American president. Then came the opposition not just to Obama’s presidency, but to the very idea from some quarters that the president wasn’t really legit. The “birther” movement sought to delegitimize the president. It became ugly on its face.

Do not for one moment excuse this hideous movement as anything less than a race-inspired hate campaign against Barack Hussein Obama.

Now we’ve turned yet another corner by electing Trump.

I’ve stated my piece already about Trump’s “qualifications” to hold the highest office in the nation. I won’t revisit those thoughts … at this moment.

I am hoping that as we move along toward Trump’s inauguration and as he commences his term in office that we can argue points of policy differences without the hideous personal attacks that punctuated the campaign we’ve just concluded.

Sadly, my faith that we can do such a thing, that we can set aside our personal anger over the result is being tested sorely.

This country has endured world wars, deep scandal, serious constitutional crises, a civil war, assassination of its leaders and economic free fall. We’ve managed to stumble and bumble our way out of the morass — as well as fight heroically against our enemies.

We’ve been resilient and resolute.

I am hoping we can find the resolve to argue our differences intelligently, even though we shouldn’t harbor any serious hope of settling them.

Reaction to Trump … merely a continuation

nc_signshocks_141119

Just so we’re clear, I dislike the street protests that have occurred since the election of Donald J. Trump as the 45th president of the United States.

It ain’t my style. Got it? OK.

But before the nation’s Trumpkins get all wadded up over the anger being expressed by those who voted for Hillary Clinton, I feel the need to remind them of what transpired after the election of the 44th president, Barack H. Obama, in 2008.

The anger then perhaps was even more palpable, more demonstrative and more, um, hateful than what we’re seeing now. (See picture attached to this post.)

May I remind everyone about the signage that portrayed the then-new president as some sort of alien? Or suggested he was a terrorist sympathizer? Or that he was not a legitimately elected individual, that he didn’t qualify for the office because he was born in some far-off foreign place?

Who was one of the leaders of that slanderous endeavor? Oh, wait! Donald Trump!

I hope the Trumpkins of this nation spare us soon the “Get over it” mantra.

There’s a lot of anger out there. Trump himself tapped into it while winning this election. Much of the anger is misplaced and it doesn’t do any good.

It’s real, though.

It also is a carryover from two previous elections.

And we’re finding out that, by golly, the other shoe does fit.

Transitions should be peaceful … always

obama-trump-meeting-at-wh-jpg

Barack Obama and Donald J. Trump are giving Americans a fascinating civics lesson.

A bitter, divisive, ruthless and occasionally slanderous presidential has come to an end. The president is about two months out from the end of his two terms in office. The president-elect — one of the principals in the aforementioned campaign — is about to take the reins of the only public office he’s ever sought.

The two men met for 90 minutes in the Oval Office on Thursday.

They sat before the media and spoke of the transition that has begun. No outward sign of the acrimony that punctuated this campaign. No apparent hard feelings over the amazingly nasty things these men said about each other.

As Trump noted, they had never met face to face — until Thursday.

Now, to be sure, the backdrop isn’t entirely peaceful. Demonstrators have been marching in major-city streets for the past few days protesting Trump’s election. They vow to keep it up. Nor will the outward peacefulness at the White House dissuade others from making angry statements about the winner of this campaign, or about the candidate who lost, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

That shouldn’t cast too large or too dark a pall over the formalities that are occurring at and/or near the center of power.

The president is vowing a smooth transition; indeed, he wants to model the hand-off he got from President Bush and his team in 2009.

The peaceful transition of power is a marvelous aspect of our system of government. It becomes especially noteworthy when the presidents are of differing political parties.

In this particular instance, the transition should become a virtual miracle given the fiery rhetoric that was exchanged over the course of the past 18 months. Indeed, in the case of Trump, he’s been at the forefront of one of the biggest political lies of the past century: the one that suggested that President Obama wasn’t a legitimate American citizen.

None of us knows what the men said to each other in private. I would love to know how that conversation went.

However, we’re entitled to hear what they say in public. I am going to retain my faith that the tradition of peaceful political transition at the highest level of power in the United States will continue.

It’s all part of what enables the United States of America to remain the greatest nation on Earth.

‘Birther’ label still sticking to Trump

380799

Donald J. Trump made a tepid declaration the other day that Barack H. Obama actually was born in the United States of America.

That ended the Republican presidential nominee’s idiotic assertion over the course of the past five years that the president is constitutionally ineligible to serve, right?

Not even close.

As A.B. Stoddard writes for Real Clear Politics, “Once a birther, always a birther.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/09/23/once_a_birther_always_a_birther_131876.html

Indeed, the nature of Trump’s alleged disavowal of what he has stated for all those years only has fueled speculation that he still stands behind the lie he has been telling about the 44th president.

As Stoddard writes: Dodging the question of what led him to announce last week that President Obama was indeed born in the United States, Trump told an Ohio radio station on Wednesday: “Well, I just wanted to get on with you, you know, we want to get on with the campaign. And a lot of people were asking me questions. And you know, we want to talk about jobs, we want to talk about the military. We want to talk about ISIS, and how to get rid of ISIS.”

So, there you have it. Trump just wants to change the subject. He wants to get people talking about things other than the lie.

I’ve tried to set the record straight in this forum, declaring that Obama’s place of birth isn’t even relevant, given that his late mother was a U.S. citizen, a fact that granted U.S. citizenship to Baby Barack at the moment he came into the world.

Thad didn’t stop Trump and other birthers.

So, now he says he has “ended” the birther debate simply by saying in a single sentence that President Obama was “born in the United States, period.”

No. It hasn’t ended the debate at all.

Media, Trump need to end their love affair

bbwhsff

Donald J. Trump’s newfound friends in the conservative political movement need to cease declaring that the “mainstream liberal media” are out to “get” their guy.

That they despise Trump, and that the GOP presidential nominee hates them in return.

They love each other. The media love Trump, who in turn loves the media. He plays the media for the suckers they are.

He called a press conference in which he said he would make a major policy announcement. Instead, he used the event to tout some business deal, a hotel, in which he boasted about how great it is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/its-time-for-tv-news-to-stop-playing-the-stooge-for-donald-trump/2016/09/16/bc66812e-7c28-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html

The press conference was supposed to center on Trump ending his racist rants about President Obama’s birth. It wasn’t about that. Sure, he said Obama “was born in the United States. Period.” But the bulk of the event was to shower praise on himself his business success.

This is where Trump is crossing a very troubling line: mixing personal business with a campaign for the nation’s highest political office.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump%E2%80%99s-anything-goes-campaign-sets-an-alarming-political-precedent/ar-BBwi7sm?li=BBmkt5R

Indeed, this latest stunt is part of a pattern.

The media are playing a major role in it.

Trump will continue to rant and rail about the “dishonest political press.” His supporters will cheer him on. He’ll give them more of the same. They’ll cheer him even more loudly.

Meantime, the rest of us are left scratching our heads and wondering: When will this charade stop?

Trump seeks to shed ‘birther’ label

trump_obama_03234

Nice try, Donald Trump.

You’ve been spreading falsehoods for nearly eight years about President Barack Obama’s supposedly fraudulent birth record, contending he was born in Kenya and, therefore, was not constitutionally qualified to lead the United States of America.

Now you say he was “born in the United States. Period.” That’s supposed to end all that innuendo just like that. Is that how it works?

No. The Republican Party’s presidential nominee will have to live with the lie he fostered through his contention that Barack Obama wasn’t qualified to hold the office to which was elected twice.

Sure, he’ll lay the blame at the feet of his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, who once raised the issue herself. She backed away long ago, saying that Obama is as qualified to serve as president as she is, or as Trump is.

That never stopped Trump from yapping, yammering and yowling the falsehoods about the president.

But now he’s taking it all back.

Sort of.

Here’s what he ought to do: He ought to issue a formal apology and declare for all the world that he lied through his teeth.

Will that happen? Never.

Thus, the lie he has promoted must remain part of the debate over his own fitness to serve as leader of the greatest nation on Earth.

Birther debate getting muddier

rs-trump-cruz

Ted Cruz didn’t need to go where he went . . . but he did.

The Texas Republican U.S. senator raised a curious and completely irrelevant issue in seeking to refute presidential rival Donald J. Trump’s questions about Cruz’s eligibility to run for president of the United States.

During the GOP debate in North Charleston, S.C., Cruz said that under “some theories” Trump might not be eligible to serve because his mother was born in Scotland.

Oh, boy.

Sen. Cruz? That’s even more of a non-starter than the questions that Trump and others are raising about your own eligibility.

Trump keeps questioning whether Cruz can run for president because he was born in Canada. Cruz’s mother is an American, which by the reckoning of many constitutional scholars, makes him eligible; he became a U.S. citizen simply because of his mother’s citizenship.

End of discussion? Not even close.

Cruz muddied it up even more by suggesting that Trump’s mother’s birthplace might jeopardize the frontrunner’s eligibility.

This discussion is venturing into a realm that is reaching far beyond ridiculous.

Trump’s mother’s place of birth is not an issue. Neither is Cruz’s place of birth. Both men are qualified to run for the presidency.

How about staying focused on the real issues of this campaign?

Such as how they intend to govern.

 

Donald Trump: birther in chief

Polls%20and%20Surveys%20pic

Donald J. Trump has a birther fetish.

When he was leading the polls by a country mile, he saw no issue with the background of fellow Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz. The Canadian-born U.S. senator from Texas has qualified fully to run for president, Trump said. “He’s in fine shape,” he said of his GOP rival.

But wait! Circumstances have changed. Cruz is neck-and-neck with Trump. He’s overtaken him in Iowa, according to some surveys.

Now-w-w-w there’s a problem, Trump said.

“People” have called Cruz’s qualifications into question, Trump said. It could present a problem for the Republicans if Cruz is their nominee, Trump added.

So, which is it, Donald. Is Cruz eligible to run and serve as president or isn’t he?

Trump has raised this birther crap before. The other time involved President Barack Obama, who was born in Hawaii — one of the 50 United States of America. Trump, though, didn’t believe it; for that matter, I’m not sure he believes it yet.

The Constitution stipulates that only “natural-born” citizens can run for the office and serve if elected. Yes, Cruz was born in Canada. But he earned U.S. citizenship the moment he came into this world because — get ready for it — his mother is an American. Daddy Cruz is Cuban, but that doesn’t matter. Cruz is eligible to run for the highest office.

Don’t take my word for it. Others who are a whole lot smarter than I am have said the same thing. Constitutional lawyers have affirmed Cruz’s eligibility.

So, what’s Trump’s beef?

Oh yeah. It’s those polls.

I love, too, how Trump keeps shoving this issue off to “people” who’ve said such things. Well, Trump has said it, too.

It kind of reminds me of the time Sen. Walter Mondale — the 1976 Democratic vice-presidential nominee — came to Portland, Ore., to campaign for the White House. He held a press event in which a reporter asked him if Watergate was going to be an issue in the presidential campaign.

Mondale, grinning from ear to ear, said, “I am not going to make President Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon an issue in this campaign.”

I guess Mondale was going to let “people” talk about it.

 

Sen. Cruz is eligible, period, Rep. Grayson

cruz

Alan Grayson is a Florida Democratic U.S. representative who repeatedly exhibits his ability to be the loudest blowhard on the block.

Grayson vows to file a lawsuit if the Republican Party selects Texas U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz as its presidential nominee next summer. Why? Well, Grayson said Cruz isn’t constitutionally qualified to serve as president. Grayson, thus, has become the de facto head of a new  presidential birther movement.

News flash, Alan: Yes … he … is!

Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban father and, here it is, an American mother. That, right there, made young Teddy a U.S. citizen from the very moment he came into this world. He is qualified to run for president. He would be qualified to serve as president.

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution stipulates that “no person except a natural born Citizen” is qualified to serve as president. Mrs. Cruz gave birth to her baby Teddy and that is all the qualification he needs to run for the presidency.

Meanwhile, Rep. Grayson needs to devote a lot more of his attention to the affairs of his Florida congressional district and stop looking for ways to garner cheap publicity.