Monthly Archives: August 2017

national news

If only Trump weren’t so critical of others

I am a bit reluctant to say anything critical about Donald J. Trump taking a vacation.

He’s the president of the United States. He’s never “off the clock.” He travels with a personal aide who carries the nuclear launch codes. His family is protected 24/7 by Secret Service agents. The president is merely a phone call away from being briefed on any crisis that erupts without warning. He’s got stay on his toes at all times. Be nimble. Be ready to react and respond.

The president is never not the president, even when he is relaxing with his family and friends.

I’ve defended presidents of both parties for as long as I can remember over criticism of their vacations.

Then again …

This president has popped off incessantly about vacations. He tweeted something critical in 2011 about President Barack Obama taking time off from the rigors of his office. Trump stated via Twitter: “@BarackObama played golf yesterday. Now he heads to a 10 day vacation in Martha’s Vineyard. Nice work ethic.”

Sheesh, man!

He has said publicly that successful businessmen and women don’t need vacations. Their work should be their relaxation, he has said.

However, he’s taken plenty of time away from the office during his still-brief time as president. Much of that time has been spent at his Florida resort and at his club in New Jersey.

As The Associated Press reported: “Don’t take vacations. What’s the point? If you’re not enjoying your work, you’re in the wrong job,” Trump wrote in his 2004 book, “Trump: Think Like a Billionaire.”

Read the AP story here.

So he’s going to flout his own advice. He’s going to fly to his private golf club in New Jersey for 17 days. It’s a good thing, too.

Repair crews are going to fix the heating and air conditioning system at “the dump” where he lives during the week, meaning the White House.

legal news, national news

Grand jury portends intensifying of probe?

Am I able to make a presumption without sounding presumptuous?

I’ll give it a shot.

Robert Mueller, the special counsel assigned to examine Russian meddling in our 2016 election, reportedly has just impaneled a grand jury to begin hearing evidence and, more than likely, call witnesses to tell the panel what they know about this matter.

Here’s my presumption: I am going to presume that Mueller’s investigation is gaining some speed and that the former FBI director just might be smelling some blood in the water around Donald J. Trump and his presidential campaign team.

Recall for a moment another grand jury that a special counsel impaneled. I refer to the panel called into duty at the behest of Kenneth Starr, who was ostensibly examining a real estate transaction involving Bill and Hillary Clinton. Then he stumbled onto something quite unexpected: a relationship that President Clinton was having with a young White House intern. He summoned the president to testify before the grand jury, which asked him about that relationship. The president didn’t tell the truth.

Bingo! Impeachment followed.

Is the past going to be a prologue for what might await the current president?

As the Wall Street Journal reports: “Grand juries are powerful investigative tools that allow prosecutors to subpoena documents, put witnesses under oath and seek indictments, if there is evidence of a crime. Legal experts said that the decision by Mr. Mueller to impanel a grand jury suggests he believes he will need to subpoena records and take testimony from witnesses.”

I believe it also suggests that Mueller might expand his probe into areas other than precisely the Russian meddling and the allegations of collusion between the Russians and the Trump presidential campaign. There might be a subpoena or two coming that deals with, say, Trump’s tax returns and assorted business connections involving Trump’s business interests and Russian government officials.

Here’s another presumption: This story is still building.

national news

Learn English to get in?

Pass the Pepto. I’m feeling a touch of heartburn as I ponder this latest public policy pronouncement from the president of the United States.

Donald Trump wants to impose stricter standards for legal immigrants seeking entry into the United States. They need to have certain skill sets and they need to be employable. They also need to learn to speak English.

I dislike the policy as a general rule. So do enough members of Congress to derail it on Capitol Hill.

It’s the English-speaking element that I want to discuss.

The United States does not have an “official language.” There’s no law on the books. The U.S. Constitution makes no reference to an official language. Thus, why does the president believe it’s imperative for immigrants who go through the process legally need to speak English?

I know that English is the predominant language spoken by U.S. citizens. I also know that many of those citizens are naturalized, that they weren’t born here and that they learned the language through various forms: formal classes, total immersion into society.

Moreover, I also concede that I get I get annoyed when I encounter service employees at, say, a grocery store who don’t understand me when I ask, “Where can I find some peanut butter?” They look at me as though I am speaking Martian. I throw up my hands and look for someone who speaks my language.

Is that sufficient reason to enact a law? Is it reason to require people to speak English?

I guess you can say I am officially undecided at this point, although I tend to lean against the notion of imposing such requirements on those who come to this country.

Yes, they need to speak at least a little bit of English if they seek to become U.S. citizens.

But those who seek green cards or work visas that enable them to live here? I will accept such a rule fully if and/or when we ever adopt English as the official language of the United States of America.

International news, national news

That’s it: Blame Congress now

Here, dear reader, is a tweet that came from the president of the United States. It is just another in an endless litany of shocking pronouncements from Donald John Trump Sr.

Our relationship with Russia is at an all-time & very dangerous low. You can thank Congress, the same people that can’t even give us HCare!

There you have it. The president has blamed Congress for enacting a tough sanctions bill against Russia. He didn’t say a word in that tweet about his signing the bill into law. Lawmakers approved the bill with overwhelming majorities and they undoubtedly would have overridden any presidential veto.

Indulge me for a moment.

The U.S.-Russia relationship has tanked because the Russians have been caught — and please pardon the somewhat dated description here — red-handed in their effort to attack the U.S. electoral process. The Russians sought to meddle in our 2016 presidential election. Intelligence analysts have concluded the Russians did it. Members of the Trump administration have drawn the same conclusion.

The only high-ranking U.S. official to equivocate is the highest-ranking of them all: the president.

Congress acted as it should have acted by imposing new sanctions on the Russians — and by assuring that Congress has the final say on any effort to lessen or eliminate them.

Yet the president continues to hold tightly to this notion that he can “negotiate” better deals with Russians than Congress.

I should add that Trump signed the sanctions bill without the usual fanfare associated with high-profile bill signings. No TV cameras were present; the president didn’t hand out pens to officials as he etched his signature to the document. The signing was carried in the proverbial dead of night. Why is that?

Now he’s going after Congress yet again for doing what it is entitled to do.

Just suppose for a moment that Donald Trump finds himself in grave political trouble down the road. Suppose special counsel Robert Mueller concludes that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian effort to sway the election; let’s also suggest that Mueller might find evidence of obstruction of justice stemming from Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey.

All of this well might bring the president to the brink of impeachment by the House of Representatives. It is at that point that the president is going to need every friend he can find on Capitol Hill to save his backside.

Is this how he nourishes those relationships, by blaming Congress for the deterioration in U.S.-Russia relations?

national news, political news

Tough to keep track of all the lies

White House communications officials — to a person — have the toughest jobs in America. Of that I am now convinced.

They have to respond to mistruths — yes, outright lies — muttered by the man for whom they all work.

Donald J. Trump, the president of the United States, provides an endless supply of them. It’s stunning.

Two of them poured out of his pie hole just this week. The White House communications team had to acknowledge that, yep, they were false.

Trump appeared before the Boy Scout Jamboree and delivered a patently hideous speech that injected partisan politics into a patently non-political event. He said Scout leaders called him to tell him that was the greatest speech ever delivered to the Jamboree.

They never called. Indeed, the head of Boy Scouts of America issued an apology for the tone and tenor of the president’s speech.

Then came the statement, again from Trump, that Mexico’s President Enrique Pena Nieto phoned him to congratulate Trump on cracking down on illegal immigration into the United States from Mexico.

Uhhh, that call never was made, either.

This is part and parcel of the president’s modus operandi: tell a lie and then never, ever atone for it by acknowledging — at minimum — that he might have “misspoken.”

I get that Trump is far from the first politician to fudge the truth. Then-Sen. Barack Obama once made a mention while he was running for president of “all 57 states” in this country. Oops! He missed that one by seven. Do you also remember how Hillary Clinton once told of dodging hostile gunfire while landing in Bosnia? That was a more egregious error.

The current president, though, is making a mockery of the truth. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has accused the Trump administration of launching an “assault on the truth” as it seeks to bob-and-weave its way through the Russia investigation.

The assault is being coordinated — and I use that term with caution — by the man at the top. He cannot help himself. He cannot tell the truth.

How in the name of efficacy does he get away with this?

International news, military news, national news

Where’s the battle plan, Mr. President?

“I know more about ISIS than the generals. Believe me.”

— Donald Trump, while campaigning for president in 2016

This is one of my favorite moments from the 2016 presidential campaign. Donald J. Trump sought to persuade his (now-shrinking) legions of fans that he was the man with the plan to fight the bad guys.

He won the election. Trump took command of our armed forces. The fight against ISIS, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Boko Haram and other terror groups goes on.

Now, though, the president of the United States is angry. Those generals who have been engaged in this fight against terrorists haven’t defeated them yet. Our vaunted military hasn’t yet killed every single terrorist and brought those villainous organizations to their knees.

Trump’s reliance on “the generals” is a ruse, isn’t it? Doesn’t the commander in chief know more about how to fight ISIS and, I presume, other terrorists than they do? Were that the case, then where in the world is the presidential battle plan? Why doesn’t he reveal to the Pentagon brass how they should implement his strategy?

Reports have bubbled out of the White House that the president is dissatisfied with the progress of the Afghan War, which the United States has been fighting since 2001 in response to the 9/11 terror attack in the United States.

The president ought to consider settling down just a bit.

He has a fine man leading the Defense Department, retired Marine Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis. The new White House chief of staff is another retired Marine general, John Kelly. Trump’s national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, is an active duty Army lieutenant general. He has two four-stars and a three-star general as critical parts of his national security team. They’re all brilliant military men.

They also are fighting a profoundly unconventional enemy. These terror groups took the fight to us on 9/11 and we have responded with precision, professionalism and cold calculation. Our nation’s counter-terrorism team tracked down Osama bin Laden and a SEAL/CIA team took him out, killed him dead.

Donald Trump clearly doesn’t “know more about ISIS” than the military professionals who provide him with advice and military counsel.

And, no, Mr. President, the United States is not “losing” the Afghan War. Everyone in America knew this would be a long slog when we went to war in Afghanistan.

If only the president simply would pay attention.

medical news

Is bipartisanship making a comeback in the Senate?

Oh, I do hope my ears and eyes aren’t deceiving me.

I’ve heard during the past day or so that the failure of the Republican-authored bill to replace the Affordable Care Act has produced a remarkable event.

It is that Republican U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Democratic U.S. Sen. Patty Murray of Washington are going to actually talk to each other about how they might find a path toward improving the ACA.

Alexander chairs the Senate Health Committee and is committed to working with Murray to commence bipartisan hearings next month that would fix some elements of the existing health care law.

I do believe this is how effective government is designed to work.

The Senate Republican caucus sought to craft an ACA replacement without any Democratic help. The House of Representatives did approve its version of an ACA replacement, also without Democratic input or votes. It fell to the Senate to complete the job. The Senate failed when they lost three GOP senators, killing the totally partisan measure.

Now the Senate is blundering its way toward a compromise solution. Sens. Alexander and Murray are leading the way.

They’re both Capitol Hill veterans. They’ve been around long enough to know how the place can actually work. Alexander and Murray aren’t alone in that knowledge, to be sure.

It well might be time for Republican congressional leaders — in both legislative chambers — to accept that the ACA is the law of the land and that it’s likely to remain the law of the land.

Many of us out here in the heartland have noted that the ACA is far from perfect. Its chief proponent, former President Obama, has implored Republicans to find a bipartisan solution to repair the law. GOP lawmakers, though, have been hung up on repealing the ACA.

A one-party solution hasn’t worked out for the Republicans.

There now appears some momentum building for a return to the proven strategy of working together — with both parties sitting at the same table — to find some common ground.

That’s how you legislate.

national news

Why the ongoing fight with government ‘partners’?

The president of the United States traditionally is part of a team.

He leads the executive branch of government, which works hand-in-glove with the legislative branch.

That’s what tradition would dictate. Yes? No longer. The current president continues to act as though he is a one-man band, a Lone Ranger who can solve all the problems all by himself.

Donald John Trump Sr., you’ll recall, stood before the Republican Party’s nominating convention in 2016 and declared that “I, alone can solve” the myriad problems he said were plaguing the nation.

He is mistaken. On that. On damn near everything!

Trump signed a bill into law this week out of sight of TV cameras or other media. It calls for tougher sanctions against Russia — along with Iran and North Korea. Trump issued a signing statement that tore Congress a new one. He blasted lawmakers for approving the sanctions bill, saying they were undermining the president’s authority to “negotiate” with Russia. The bill prevents the president from reducing the sanctions without congressional approval. That’s no good, Trump said.

He blasted Congress for failing to enact a law that would replace the Affordable Care Act. Hey, wait a minute! Isn’t that also a presidential responsibility? Oh, wait! I almost forgot. Trump said he wouldn’t “own” the failure, even though he is now the leader of the Republican Party, which controls both chambers of Congress.

The longer Trump trudges down this road to nowhere, the more he seems intent on separating himself from the partners he needs to do anything of importance.

The Russia sanction legislation provides yet another example — as if we need any more — of the president’s utter and complete ignorance of how government is supposed to work.

Effective governance, Mr. President, is a team sport. The president cannot govern all by himself. Put another way, one cannot run one governmental branch the way one runs a business. The two things are mutually exclusive.

International news, national news

Waiting for an epic TV series: ‘The Vietnam War’

I am tempted to start a short-timer’s calendar in anticipation of what I am absolutely certain is going to become an epic television event.

The Public Broadcasting Service is going to broadcast beginning Sept. 17 a 10-part documentary series, covering 18 hours, on the Vietnam War. Panhandle PBS — based at Amarillo College — will broadcast it in real time as it airs.

I am so very hopeful that it deals with a burning question that has nagged me for decades: Why did we fight this war? I spent a bit of time in Vietnam a long time ago as a member of the U.S. Army. I became confused as to the mission and whether it was all worth the fight. So, it is with that lingering doubt about this major American chapter in our national history that I await this program.

Ken Burns and Lynn Novick are the co-producers of this TV broadcast. I’m sure you know about Burns, the iconic historian and documentarian who has compiled a vast body of work over many years on PBS. “The Dust Bowl,” for example, told the story of how the world’s greatest manmade ecological disaster affected the Texas and Oklahoma panhandles, decimated families and steeled those who remained with an unbelievable resolve to recover.

Burns and Novick have collaborated on this Vietnam War package over the span of 10 years.

I read an interview with them in a magazine called “Vietnam.” Novick answered about what made her decide to make this film. with a fascinating notion. “Some people have said, ‘Why are you going to open old wounds? Can’t we let sleeping dogs lie?'”

I would argue that the dogs of the Vietnam War aren’t sleeping. They haven’t slept a wink since the shooting stopped in late April 1975. The nation has been agonizing ever since about the war, its consequence, the wounds it inflicted on us here at home.

“It’s too painful. And it’s still here,” Novick told “Vietnam.”

A generation of Americans who once were young but who now are much older has lived through considerable pain. Some of us came back from that war and were met with open hostility. I did not experience such shameful conduct, but I certainly knew of it occurring all around me. Those attitudes have changed dramatically in the decades since and I accept with gratitude expressions of thanks today for my service during that long-ago conflict.

I welcome this broadcast with great anticipation about what it will reveal about that terrible time in our national history.

I applaud PBS for its continuing relationship with Ken Burns, who has teamed up with another dedicated documentary filmmaker to tell the story of what has been described as the world’s most important historical event of the second half of the 20th century.

Millions of us played a part in shaping that story. We await anxiously this monumental television event.

International news

Another day, another lie from POTUS

Is the president of the United States unable to tell the truth — about anything?

This latest reported fib simply boggles my mind.

Donald J. Trump said he had received a phone call from Mexico’s President Enrique Pena Nieto congratulating him on the success of U.S. efforts to curb illegal immigration across the U.S.-Mexico border.

Trump made the remark Monday as he was introducing former Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly as the new White House chief of staff.

The president said “even the president of Mexico called me” to offer a pat on the back.

Hold on! The Mexican foreign ministry said no such call went through. It said President Pena Nieto did not call the U.S. president. He did not offer an encouraging word in the context that Trump described. The men haven’t spoken for some time, the ministry said.

Who do you believe? The president of a friendly nation who, as near as I can tell, is not prone to fabricate events or conversations? Or do you believe Donald John Trump Sr., the guy who has shown an amazing penchant for prevarication for, oh, his entire professional and political life?

It might be that Trump wished for a phone call. Maybe he dreamt it came.

Whatever. On this one, I’m going to go with the guy on the other side of our border.