Monthly Archives: July 2018

national news

Trump denigrates Bush 41, too!

Donald John Trump thinks he is operating in a free-fire zone.

Political foes are open targets for his insults. That’s a given.

But a former president? Of the current president’s own party?

The 45th president of the United States decided Thursday to denigrate the charitable program initiated by the 41st president of the United States. He told the rally crowd in Great Falls, Mont., that he didn’t understand George H.W. Bush’s “Thousand Points of Light” program, the one that called on Americans to help one another, apart from government.

“What the hell does that mean?” Trump asked.

Mr. President, it means charity. It means selflessness. It means public service in the purist sense of the term.

For this president to denigrate the work of a man — President Bush — who just buried his beloved wife of more than seven decades speaks volumes about his absolute callousness.

And I hasten to point out here that President Barack Obama honored President Bush when he awarded the 41st president the Presidential Medal of Freedom — the nation’s highest civilian honor — for the very work that Trump decided to disparage.

This is how you pay tribute to a great American:

Pay attention — for once in your life! — Mr. President.

 

national news

POTUS ridicules ‘Me Too’? No kidding?

Donald John Trump Sr. no doubt would boast about the “stones” he packs around.

I’ll refer to them in the proverbial sense, given that he stood before that rally crowd in Great Falls, Mont., this week and actually poked fun of the “Me Too” movement, which grew out of revelations of sexual harassment/assault/misbehavior among powerful men in politics and entertainment.

He did precisely that even though the president himself has been accused by women of groping them, of committing sexual assault. He has actually acknowledged that his “star” status has enabled him to grab women by their genitals.

And so for Trump to ridicule the Me Too movement in the manner that he did demonstrates clearly and without equivocation that he doesn’t give a rat’s rear end about the country beyond his blindly faithful base of voters.

They cheer, laugh, hoot and holler when he denigrates others.

Donald Trump relishes it.

Sickening.

national news, political news

We’ll see about ‘judicial activism’ from SCOTUS nominee

Donald J. Trump says he will reject any candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court who advocates “judicial activism.”

Well now. How about that?

Here’s part of what he said in a radio address:

Judges are not supposed to rewrite the law, reinvent the Constitution, or substitute their own opinions for the will of the people expressed through their laws,” Trump said. “We reject judicial activism and policymaking from the bench.”

“In choosing a new justice, I will select someone with impeccable credentials, great intellect, unbiased judgement, and deep reverence for the laws and Constitution of the United States,” he added.

Justice Anthony Kennedy’s upcoming retirement from the Supreme Court has launched a serious national debate over the future of what many call “settled law,” meaning the legalization of abortion in the United States.

U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said the next justice must leave his or her hands off of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that legalized abortion. Any hint of overturning it, she said, is a dealbreaker.

That brings up a critical point. If Roe v. Wade is “settled law,” does the court run the risk of becoming a panel of “judicial activists” if it decides to repeal any or all of the reproductive rights guarantee?

The president has said he would appoint a justice who would overturn Roe, but then has said he won’t ask any of the candidates that question explicitly. He’ll know their views on the issue if he takes time to read their writings or understands their notion of the how justices should rule on these matters.

I guess I could add that judicial activism isn’t  a malady that afflicts only liberal judges. Conservatives can get pretty damn activist, too.

national news

Trump vs. Warren gets going early!

Donald Trump must believe U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren is going to run for president in 2020, and … that she well might be the Democratic Party nominee for the office Trump currently occupies.

He went after Warren in typical Trumpian fashion Thursday at a rally in Great Falls, Mont., calling her by that derisive nickname he has hung on her, “Pocahontas,” owing to her claim of having Native-American heritage in her background.

Trump has been dismissing that for years. He gets lots of laughs from his political rally crowds.

But here’s my observation about the manner that Trump might campaign for re-election. He won’t take the high road. He won’t ride the moral altitude that his high office allows him.

Oh, no! He’s going to return to the insults and the innuendo that energized his base and helped him get elected in 2016. We’re witnessing it again as he rails and rants against potential rivals for his job.

His rally speech in Great Falls flew off the rails — quite naturally.

He said the following, according to The Hill:

“I’m going to get one of those little kits and in the middle of the debate, when she proclaims she’s of Indian heritage — because her mother said she has high cheekbones, that’s her only evidence,” Trump continued.

“We will take that little kit, we have to do it gently because we’re in the “Me Too” generation, we have to be very gentle,” Trump said mocking the movement that seeks to expose sexual misconduct in media, entertainment and politics.

“We will very gently take that kit and we will slowly toss it, hoping it doesn’t hit her and injure her arm, even though it only weighs probably 2 oz,” he said.

“And we will say, ‘I will give you a million dollars, paid for by Trump, to your favorite charity if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian,” Trump said. “And we’ll see what she does. I have a feeling she will say no but we will hold it for the debates.”

Doesn’t that sound like a man immersed in the dignity of his high office? Of course not! Dignity and decorum are foreign to this guy.

entertainment news

Conservative actor gets the boot?

I don’t like the tenor and tone of the news I’m hearing about one of my favorite actors.

James Woods says his agent has dropped him because of his pro-Donald Trump, conservative political leanings.

C’mon, dudes! What is going on here?

I didn’t even know about Woods’s politics until, oh, about a year or two ago. I haven’t cared one damn bit about them. I don’t care now!

I like the man’s art. I like watching him perform on big screen or on TV. I like James Woods, the actor.

I might think differently about James Woods if he were to shuck his acting career and enter the political world. He hasn’t. He remains an entertainer.

Woods revealed that his agent, Ken Kaplan, was dropping him. According to The Wrap: “It’s the 4th of July and I’m feeling patriotic. I don’t want to represent you anymore. I mean I could go on a rant but you know what I’d say,” said Kaplan, who Woods described as a “political liberal.”

Sigh.

Reports such as this give progressives a bad name. If by definition their politics espouses “liberal” policies, doesn’t that imply an open mind, a quest for other points of view, an inclusive world view?

I simply detest the idea that one of our nation’s premier actors is being kicked around — allegedly! — because of political views that, to my way of thinking, have nothing whatsoever to do with his art.

media news

Let’s hear it for Twitter!

OK, I’ve made fun of Twitter. I have criticized the president of the United States for his Twitter fetish.

I want to say a good word about it.

I recently posted my 19,000th message via Twitter. I don’t like using the verb “tweet,” given that it reminds me of Tweetie Bird, the Looney Tunes character whose voice came from the late Mel Blanc.

Whatever. I use Twitter extensively. It is one of the social media platforms I use to distribute this blog. I don’t have a gigantic Twitter audience. It hovers at just a bit less than 950 at the moment. I haven’t yet been able to crack the 1,000-follower threshold. I hope to get there someday. Maybe soon.

I do enjoy the tweets I get from those I do follow. Yes, I follow @realDonaldTrump, whose tweets show up continually on my Twitter feed. Do I “enjoy” the president’s blatherings? Not really. But they are instructive, to say the least.

My preference for using Twitter is to retweet items I see and then add a pithy comment along with the item that I am sending back out there.

Almost daily I do offer my own comments via Twitter. I also like sending earlier posts from High Plains Blogger back into cyberspace via that platform.

All of this brief post is to tell you that I have adopted this social medium for my own purposes. I am not in a position to use it to make public policy pronouncements. I do like to use it to comment on others who do use it for that purpose.

I’ll use this post to make another request. If you get these musings via Twitter, feel free to share them. I am not too high-falutin’ to ask for help in distributing these blog posts.

Therein lies the beauty of Twitter.

national news

Connecting some dots inside the White House

I feel like connecting a few dots. So … here goes.

The 2016 Republican Party presidential nominee was revealed in a decade-old recording boasting about how he could grab women by their “pu***” because his status as a “star” gave him license.

The nominee, Donald John Trump, was elected president.

He declares war on media outlets that he finds disagreeable. He calls them “fake news” and then submits to interviews almost exclusively with Fox News, which was run by the late Roger Ailes.

Ailes, meanwhile, gets hit with complaints of sexual harassment by a number of high-profile female journalists; Megyn Kelly and Gretchen Carlson are two of them.

Ailes gets the boot. But his No. 2 man, Bill Shine, stands with him and allegedly covers up for the boss.

Then, just this week, Shine — who left Fox News — has been named deputy White House chief of staff in charge of communications.

So, we have the president — who has a history of sexual harassment complaints leveled against him by many women — hires a guy with a sexual harassment history of his own. The White House underling is now director of communications for the administration.

It’s fair to wonder about Trump’s values. He never rails against accusations of sexual harassment. He defends those against whom these complaints are leveled; he called former Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly — who also faced such accusations — a “good man.”

Trump reportedly takes a dim view of the “Me Too” and “Time’s Up” movements, believing that the women who make accusations against powerful men are off base.

Oh, and then his former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, paid Stormy Daniels $130,000 in hush money to keep quiet about a tryst that Trump says never happened.

What do you suppose is the common denominator here? Let’s see. I think it’s boorish behavior toward women, which appears to have Donald Trump’s fingerprints all over it.

legal news

Hoping that SCOTUS leaves ‘Roe v Wade’ alone

Let’s talk about abortion rights, shall we?

The talk of the nation appears to be the future of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in the United States of America.

The ruling didn’t give women carte blanche to obtain abortion on demand. It merely declared that the U.S. Constitution contains a provision that gives women the right to choose to end a pregnancy. They are allowed to consult with their partner, with God, with their doctor, their conscience.

It is their call. No one else can make that call for them.

The Supreme Court vacancy that Donald J. Trump wants to fill well might put Roe v. Wade on the line.

I do not want the court to mess with that ruling. I do not want the court to toss the law back to states. The Supreme Court ruled correctly, in my view, to give women the right of choice and to ensure that they alone can decide whether they want to give birth.

Do not accuse me of being “pro-abortion.” I am not. I never could counsel a women to get an abortion. Thankfully, I’ve never faced that dilemma. No woman has ever asked me for my advice on that most personal of decisions.

My point is that this decision doesn’t rest with me. Nor should it rest with lawmakers at the state or federal level.

Roe v. Wade has been at the center of a political firestorm for the 45 years since the nation’s highest court shook up the world with that decision. It well could boil over and might damn well explode if Donald Trump picks someone who is intent on tossing Roe v. Wade aside at the earliest possible opportunity.

environmental news

Pruitt shows sickening fealty to POTUS

Scott Pruitt is gone as head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

The myriad ethical scandals overtook him. I’ve already commented on that. With this post, though, I want to offer a brief look at the sickening letter of resignation that Pruitt sent to Donald J. Trump.

So help me, Pruitt didn’t understand something about the job he occupied. Which is that he worked for you me. He didn’t work exclusively for the president. Yet his letter speaks of how “God’s providence” helped elect Trump.

His letter says in part: My desire in service to you has always been to bless you as you make important decisions for the American people. I believe you are serving as President today because of God’s providence. I believe that same providence brought me into your service. I pray as I have served you that I have blessed you and enabled you to effectively lead the American people.

Good grief.

It’s the kind of fealty that Trump demands of those who join his administration. To that end, Pruitt fulfilled his charge.

The rest of us paid the price.

Scott Pruitt had no business caring for the nation’s environment. He exhibited little interest in environmental protection. Instead, he demonstrated time and again a commitment to his own creature comfort.

He worked for us, not for the man who selected him for the job.

legal news, national news

Schumer to Trump: Why not select Merrick Garland?

It won’t happen in this universe, but it’s worth calling attention to this strange idea.

U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer — the Senate’s top Democrat — has urged Donald Trump to select Merrick Garland to succeed Anthony Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Hell would freeze over, Earth would spin off its axis and the sun would rise in the west for that to happen.

However …

Schumer is making the request in the name of national unity. Garland, a centrist appeals court judge, was nominated by President Barack Obama in 2016. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — within hours of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia — declared any high court nominee Obama would put forward would go nowhere. McConnell announced his intention to obstruct the nomination and confirmation process.

Garland got nominated. His nomination languished. Trump got elected president. The new president nominated Neil Gorsuch, who then was confirmed.

We’re still divided, significantly because of the theft of the Supreme Court seat by McConnell.

Unification could occur if Trump were to follow Schumer’s advice. I mean, Trump has promised unity. Hasn’t he?

It won’t happen. The idea of nominating Merrick Garland does cause a tingle or two among many of us out here. I’m one of them.