Tag Archives: Donald Trump

military news

POTUS takes aim at Senate vets; be careful, sir

Donald J. Trump once said his enrollment in a military high school was equivalent to serving in the actual military.

He was wrong. What’s the president doing now? He has decided to attack at least two actual veterans who now serve in the U.S. Senate.

A word of advice, Mr. President: Do not go there.

First case: Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., reported that Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch called Trump’s tweets criticizing federal judges “demoralizing” and “destabilizing.”

Trump’s reaction was to call attention to Blumenthal’s assertion years ago that he once served in the Vietnam War. Blumenthal didn’t go to Vietnam. However, the senator did serve in the military.

Next case: U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., criticized a military mission that Trump ordered that resulted in the loss of an expensive aircraft and the life of a Navy SEAL.

Trump’s press flack said McCain dishonored the memory of the slain SEAL.

Trump treads on tricky ground.

Remember, too, that candidate Trump once said McCain was a Vietnam War hero only because “he was captured. I like people who aren’t captured, OK?” I’ve spoken my piece already on that shameful and ridiculous assertion.

But as a veteran of the Army myself — who served for a time in Vietnam — I take tremendous umbrage at the president going after veterans when he has no knowledge of what they endured.

In the case of McCain in particular, I would caution Trump strongly to avoid launching anything resembling a personal attack on this gallant war hero.

International news

‘Extreme vetting’ doesn’t sound so bad after all

When he was campaigning for the presidency, Donald J. Trump called for “extreme vetting” of people seeking entry into the United States of America.

Then he became president. What did Trump do then? He signed an executive order that prohibits entry of refugees from seven Muslim-majority countries. The order has raised a firestorm of criticism. The federal judiciary has entered the fray by delaying implementation of the order.

So, my question is this: What happened to “extreme vetting” of every single immigrant who wants to enter the country?

I guess the president needs to define the term. How extreme does the government go? To what end do agents grill incoming visitors? How do they determine a threat to our national security?

The problem I have with Trump’s executive order is its discriminatory nature. I believe the court system might have a similar problem with it, too.

Of course, extreme vetting or any ramping up of security measures will cost lots of money. Congressional Republicans would seem to resist such an expenditure without finding a way to pay for it. Isn’t that what fiscal conservatives are supposed to demand?

If Trump is serious about protecting Americans from threats abroad, then he ought to protect us against all types of immigrants. If this extreme vetting policy is fair and effective, the vast majority of entrants will find a home in the Land of Opportunity.

At least that’s how it’s supposed to work.

media news

Is there no end to POTUS’s sophomoric tweets?

I get that Donald J. Trump is proud of his daughter.

Moreover, I also understand that he wants her to succeed to the fullest.

But for the life of me, I do not get why the president insists on using Twitter in the fashion he uses it. Now he says Nordstrom is treating Ivanka badly and he has taken to Twitter to make his feelings known.

The president has a full plate of issues to consider. You know, things like war and peace, the economy, getting his Cabinet picks confirmed by the Senate. Small stuff, right? Um, no. They’re real big!

So why is the president taking on a department store company because it no longer wants to market Ivanka Trump’s brand of products?

Honestly, I am tired of commenting on this baloney. I feel I must protest, given that the social media maven happens to be the president of the United States of America, the guy who governs the country of which I happen to be a taxpaying citizen.

Someone coined the term “diplomacy by Twitter.” That’s a dangerous practice. The president shouldn’t use this social medium to communicate foreign policy. He shouldn’t use it to criticize federal judges. He shouldn’t use it to boast about crowd sizes and poll numbers or blast those who dispute them.

The presidency is an office that compels maximum respect and dignity. Its current occupant clearly — in my mind — is denigrating the decorum that this high office commands.

State news

Still waiting for the outrage over mosque fire

This just in … investigators have determined that an arsonist set a fire that destroyed a mosque in the Texas coastal city of Victoria.

That silence we’re hearing from Washington, D.C. — namely from the Oval Office — over this despicable act is, well, a bit deafening.

Donald J. Trump hasn’t said a word publicly about it. Nor has our nation’s Department of Justice. Our national security adviser hasn’t uttered a peep; then again, what does one expect from Michael Flynn, who has called Islam a “cancer”?

Yes, we’re at war but supposedly not with Islam. We’re at war with terrorists who have perverted a religion.

I’m gratified, though, to read how the Victoria community has rallied behind the congregation that is suffering in the wake of the fire that destroyed the mosque in late January. I also am glad to know that federal authorities have joined state and local investigators in searching for the culprit who did this deed.

Victoria residents and leaders are teaching a valuable lesson of compassion and empathy that I wish would be heard by those who sit around the offices in the West Wing of the White House.

It’s interesting, too, that authorities have issued a press release that says this: “At this time, the evidence does not indicate the fire was a biased crime.”

According to the Texas Tribune: “Federal, state and local agencies are investigating the Jan. 28 blaze, which grabbed international headlines in part because it roared through the mosque hours after President Donald Trump signed his executive order barring refugees from entering the country and restricting travel from seven Muslim-majority countries.”

Coincidence?

Keep looking, folks. Something tells me you’re going to find something that does indicate “bias.”

legal news

Gorsuch stands up for his judicial peers

I am beginning to think more highly of Neil Gorsuch.

The man whom Donald J. Trump has nominated for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court has put the president on notice, saying that Trump’s tweets about the federal judiciary are “disheartening” and “demoralizing.”

It’s tempting — for me at least — to wonder if Trump is going to withdraw Gorsuch’s nomination because he had the gall (and the integrity) to speak in favor of his federal judicial peers.

Of course Gorsuch is correct. The president’s petulance performance via Twitter has been beyond the pale and below the high standards of respect the presidency should demand.

Trump clearly demands that others respect the office. I submit that he should respect it, too. Perhaps he should respect it more, given that his behavior — or misbehavior — reflects directly on the office to which he was elected.

Trump’s tweets have been in response to a federal judge’s decision to strike down the president’s temporary refugee ban. The president has chosen to demonstrate his anger through this social medium — acting like, oh, a teenager who’s just been told his car isn’t as cool as the other guy’s.

Now a judicial gentleman has taken the president to task.

Good for you, Judge Gorsuch.

International news, State news

They stop everyone coming north from border on I-35

LAREDO, Texas — About nine miles or so north of Laredo you see a line of motor vehicles pulling off the northbound lanes of Interstate 35.

Big ones, little ones. Long-haul trucks, economy cars, mini-vans full of kids and assorted family members. They all stop as they leave this city of nearly 300,000 residents for points north.

What gives? The “porous border” at this one stop at least isn’t quite so porous.

What are the authorities looking for? As my dear mom used to say: I’ll give you three guesses, and the first two don’t count.

They’re looking for illegal immigrants. They’re looking for human cargo. They are on the hunt for drugs, weapons, you name it.

Now, this particular stop-and-search station doesn’t mean the border is air tight. I get that there remain many other points of entry for illegal immigrants to sneak into the United States of America.

There has been this sort of screening for some time. It’s just that when you see it, you look at the long and growing line of vehicles backing up, you appreciate the difficult job that our Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers — as well as our state andlocal police agencies — must perform.

Donald “Smart Person” Trump perhaps has done one thing as he has continued to rail against illegal immigration and keeps yammering about building a wall that he suggests Mexico will pay for; it is that he has elevated our border officers’ alertness.

I am hoping they remain alert.

legal news

Founders got it right, as Trump is demonstrating

Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison … wherever they are, must be enjoying what they are witnessing in the country they helped create.

They are possibly witnessing a supreme test of checks and balances as they intended for them to be used.

Donald J. Trump, the nation’s 45th president, is setting up a yuuuge fight with the federal judiciary. That would pit two of the three co-equal branches of government against each other.

Trump issued an executive order that bans refugees from seven Muslim-majority countries. He cited national security as his reason. He seemingly wants to ban Muslims from entering the country and is using “extreme vetting” procedures to find the bad guys among the refugees who are fleeing their native lands for the Land of Opportunity and Freedom.

A federal judge has ruled that the executive order is discriminatory on its face. A federal appeals court is considering whether to uphold the ban or side with the judge.

Trump, meanwhile, is embarking on a social media campaign to blast the judge who issued the order staying the president’s order, thus possibly enraging other federal judges — namely the eight individuals who sit on the U.S. Supreme Court who might be asked to issue the final ruling on the president’s order.

Thus, a showdown may be born.

The founders established an “independent judiciary” for the best reason possible: to protect federal judges from political coercion. They serve as judges for life. They are supposed to interpret the U.S. Constitution without pressure or coercion from politicians.

But wait! Trump is seeking to apply that very pressure by badgering the judges. He called the federal jurist who struck down the ban a “so-called judge”; he said the nation should “blame” him and the federal court system if a bad guy sneaks into the nation.

Trump is using Twitter to make his specious case against the federal judiciary.

All the while, the founders are looking down while patting each other on the back. “Yep,” they might say to each other, “this is precisely what we had in mind.”

media news, national news, political news

Feuding in Trump White House? Go figure

No Drama Obama has given way to All Tumult Trump.

CNN is reporting that the president of the United States is unhappy with the performance of White House press secretary Sean Spicer. What’s more, there appears to be a turf war building within Donald J. Trump’s inner circle: The Reince Priebus wing vs. the Steve Bannon wing.

Who knew?

Does anyone really doubt any of this?

Trump himself has demonstrated an amazing capacity for stirring up controversy. He seems unable to control his own mouth, let alone anyone else’s.

This all occurs, of course, after Trump pledged to surround himself with the “smartest people” on Planet Earth.

The Priebus wing of the Trump team seems to be the more reasonable folks. Priebus is the former Republican National Committee chairman whom Trump hired as his chief of staff. Priebus is a party guy, well-connected to the GOP’s “establishment wing.” He’s always seemed reasonable to me … even if I have thought he was wrong.

Bannon? He’s of another stripe altogether. He was a flame-throwing editor of Breitbart.com, and a purveyor of white-nationalist rhetoric. Bannon strikes me as a dangerous individual who’s now on the “principals committee” of the National Security Council.

Ye, gads, man!

Trump administration officials dispute the CNN report about Trump’s supposed unhappiness with Spicer. Sure thing. Of course they would.

The rumors and innuendo persist. Ironic, yes? Trump won his party’s nomination largely on the basis of the innuendo he tossed around against his foes — and then he did the same thing to defeat Hillary Rodham Clinton in the general election.

It’s coming full circle.

legal news, national news, political news

Trump vs. The Judges: Pulling for the folks in the robes

Donald J. Trump’s fight with the federal judiciary could be shaping up to be a donnybrook.

The president instituted a temporary restriction on travelers seeking to enter the United States from seven Muslim-majority countries; then U.S. District Judge James Robart in Washington state struck it down, prompting Trump to call Robart a “so-called judge” and said the nation should blame him if a terrorist sneaks into the country and does harm.

There’s more. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing the Trump administration’s appeal and the three-judge panel that heard the case is sounding skeptical of the president’s order.

The plot thickens. If the 9th Court rejects the appeal, then it goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, which at the moment stands at eight members. Suppose, then, that the high court deadlocks — with the four conservative justices voting in favor of the ban and the five liberals oppose it. The lower-court ruling stands.

There’s some chatter now about whether the Supreme Court will be affected in some manner by the untoward things the president has said about the federal judiciary.

Has Trump crossed a serious line? Some scholars believe the president’s Twitter tirades against Robart in particular and the federal bench in general crosses the separation of powers line between the judicial and executive branches of government.

Get a load of this from The Hill:

“The criticism extends beyond judicial scholars.

“Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) warned that Trump’s attacks, if they continue, threaten not only to undermine the separation of powers but also the president’s own policy agenda.

“’We’re a nation of laws and not men, and this idea of ‘follow me because I say so’ is completely at odds with the Founding Fathers’ intent,’ said Sanford, a Trump supporter who has also criticized the president on certain issues.

“’I learned a long time ago in politics [that] attacking the person or the group that will decide your fate on a given issue generally doesn’t work out that well,’ he added.”

This is yet another matter of governance that the brand new president just doesn’t seem to understand.

education news

Betsy DeVos for ed secretary? No way!

I know it’s still a long shot, but I am going to implore the U.S. Senate to “just say ‘no'” to “Billionaire Betsy” DeVos as the next secretary of education.

Just as I believe Donald J. Trump is still unfit for the presidency, he has chosen an equally unfit individual to lead the nation’s public education program.

I emphasize the word “public” for what I believe is a valid reason.

DeVos has zero direct exposure to public education.

She was educated in private schools. Her children have attended private schools. DeVos has talked openly about creating a voucher program for parents, allowing public tax money to subsidize the private education of their children.

Her Senate committee confirmation hearing revealed DeVos’s utter ignorance of public education policy. She believes we should arm teachers with firearms to supposedly deter gun violence in schools.

The president can do far better than to nominate someone other than DeVos, whose only “qualification” has been the large amounts of money she has raised for Republican politicians — including the president himself.

Two Senate Republicans — Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine — have said they won’t vote for DeVos. That puts the count at 50-50, assuming all Democrats and the two independents who caucus with them, vote against DeVos.

Will there be another Republican senator with a conscience who’ll realize that the president has made a mistake in nominating this know-nothing to run the Education Department.

I am hoping one can emerge.

Then the president can look for someone who knows something about the agency he or she would lead.