Tag Archives: Donald Trump

national news, political news

‘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.

legal news

Stop and frisk: let’s hold on

1 Comment

90

Donald J. Trump wants American police officers to institute the “stop-and-frisk” policies that a judge has ruled to be unconstitutional.

That doesn’t matter to the Republican presidential nominee.

He’s the “law and order candidate” for president … he says.

We’ve entered another difficult time. Police shot an unarmed man to death in Tulsa, Okla. Charlotte, N.C., residents are protesting tonight in the wake of another fatal incident involving police officers. And yes, the shooting victims were black; the officers are white.

We’re on edge once again.

Trump’s response is to double down on that “stop-and-frisk” idea.

A judge in New York said the practice appears to discriminate against Americans based on the color of their skin. U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch weighed in, contending that the practice wasn’t an effective law enforcement tool.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/09/loretta-lynch-trump-stop-and-frisk-228533

Yes, some communities are experiencing terrible spikes in violent crime. GOP partisans not surprisingly are blaming Democratic municipal administrations for incompetence and for adhering to policies that create such an environment.

C’mon, folks. Let’s be rational and reasonable.

As Politico reports: “Lynch, who spent two stints as chief federal prosecutor in Brooklyn before being nominated as attorney general, said she wasn’t opposed to stop-and-frisk techniques under certain circumstances.

“‘As with every police procedure we want to empower law enforcement to be responsive to community needs. We want to empower them to protect the community. We want to give them the training they need in order to do it in a way that is constitutional, safe and effective and promotes trust,’ Lynch said. ‘It’s not really a yes or no answer.'”

The concern about stop and frisk is its widespread use. Trump, as is his tendency, wants to bring the policy to bear across the board.

I’m going to stick with the AG’s more reasonable and rational approach.

media news, national news, political news

Clinton v. Trump: made for television

politics-word-cloud

Americans who care about the election that will choose the next president of the United States are going to tune in to what is shaping up as the perfect made-for-television event.

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Donald J. Trump — Democratic and Republican presidential nominees, respectively — are going to face off in the first of three televised joint appearances.

I don’t know about you, but I’m intending to watch every second of it.

This might be the ballgame. Or, it might throw the whole contest into yet another cocked hat.

You know my bias already. I detest Trump. I am not enamored of Clinton. It’s a grim choice we all face. One of them, though, is going to win this election on Nov. 8.

To get there they have to prove how nimble they are. They have to show us who is better equipped to deal with the myriad challenges facing the country. This isn’t a time for cheap, easy, throwaway solutions. We need some detail here, folks.

Who between them will provide the detail and depth we ought to be seeking? Well, my money will be on Clinton.

They’ll have 90 minutes to make the case.

I remain hesitant to call this a “debate.” I’m not privy to the format established. The moderator, NBC News anchor Lester Holt, will pose the questions. The candidates will answer him. They won’t debate each other in the classic sense.

Hey, let’s not quibble. These events aren’t set up to be pristine debates. They are created to allow us — the voter — to size up both candidates.

Given the enormously unconventional nature of this election cycle, it might be unwise to suggest that a major gaffe by Trump — who’s committed untold numbers of them already — will doom his campaign. This clown has demonstrated that he’s so far been virtually bullet-proof. He fires off a stream-of-consciousness riff about an opponent that causes millions of Americans to groan in disbelief; but his supporters cheer him on, demanding more of the same.

Yes, there’ll be an audience. They’ll cheer for their candidate. Maybe they’ll boo the other one. It’s TV, folks.

It’ll be a big night in what is shaping up as one of the more bizarre elections any of us can remember.

I keep hearing about the expected huge viewership expected for this event. How does it square with the lack of enthusiasm for these major-party nominees and the incredible negative ratings that burden them both?

Whatever. I’ll be watching.

And you?

national news, political news

Sessions invokes Reagan … while crowing about Trump

doanld

Jeff Sessions is arguably Donald J. Trump’s best friend in the U.S. Senate.

The Alabama Republican was on board early in Trump’s campaign for the presidency. Now he is upset that members of a big-time GOP family have turned their backs on Trump, the party’s presidential nominee.

Here’s the best part, though, of Sessions’ rant against former Presidents George H.W. and George W. Bush, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

He said, according to columnist Byron York: ” … millions of Americans, including this one, worked their hearts out for the Bushes in 1988, 1992, 2000, and 2004. And it wasn’t Bill Clinton that helped the Bushes get elected. It was the same voters, in large part, that elected Ronald Reagan and stand to elect Donald Trump.”

I am amused that Sessions would invoke Reagan’s name, suggesting that today’s Trumpkins mirror those who backed the Gipper all those years ago.

There’s another part of that calculation that needs a bit of scrutiny.

I cannot prove this, but my strong belief is that President Reagan would be aghast at Donald Trump’s ascent to the pinnacle of GOP power.

If only the president were alive today to weigh in.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-sessions-on-bushes-trump-snub-theyve-forgotten-who-elected-them/article/2602526

The former presidents Bush and Jeb Bush haven’t forgotten a thing. They are dedicated Republicans who have seen their party hijacked by a con man/entertainer/hustler/narcissist.

They, too, were loyal Reaganites. Indeed, George H.W. Bush was so loyal to the president that he tossed aside his long-standing pro-choice view on abortion to become a pro-life vice president during the Reagan administration.

Is Trump the true-blue conservative who would have earned the Gipper’s endorsement? Hardly.

He is an ignorant imposter seeking high public office for reasons that remain a mystery. He wants to “make America great again”? He has insulted the very people who continue to maintain America’s greatness in the world.

I refer, of course, to the men and women in uniform who fight every day to protect us.

Ronald Reagan would have nothing to do with this charlatan.

national news, political news, State news

Don’t give in to endorsement pressure, Sen. Cruz

trump_cruz_jpg_800x1000_q100

It pains me to say something positive about U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.

I don’t like the guy. He appears in my view to be far more interested in self-aggrandizement than service to Texans. He’s a loudmouth, a showboating self-promoter.

But shoot, man, I have been happy to see him stand by his principles — even if I disagree with them — in his dispute with GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump.

Cruz hasn’t endorsed Trump’s bid for the presidency. Why? Because he believes — as I do — that Trump is a fraud, a charlatan, a con man, an unprincipled opportunist, a phony.

Now, though, I hear reports of Cruz reportedly warming up to Trump. He said some nice things about Trump recently.

Dammit, Ted! Don’t go there, young man!

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/09/22/the-brief/

Trump inserted some amazingly harsh innuendo into the GOP primary campaign as he sought to vanquish Cruz’s challenge. He actually implied that Cruz’s father, a Cuban immigrant, had been seen in the company of Lee Harvey Oswald, the guy who murdered President Kennedy. The suggestion was that the elder Cruz was somehow, in some way, complicit in that act.

Plus, let’s not forget how Trump insulted Heidi Cruz, the senator’s wife, with that unflattering Twitter photo. Sen. Cruz was rightfully outraged by that tactic and called Trump a coward.

Against that backdrop, are we now going to believe that Cruz is going to make nice with this guy? That he’s going to say “Hey, let bygones be bygones” and endorse Trump’s bid for the presidency?

I happen to share Cruz’s previously stated outrage at Trump’s behavior, which I believe firmly would carry over into a Trump presidency.

Let’s not forget, either, that Cruz urged his fellow Republicans at the party’s nominating convention to “vote your conscience” this fall.

Stay true to your own conscience, Sen. Cruz.

national news, political news

Trump makes weird pitch to black voters

trump

So much about Donald J. Trump’s bizarre presidential candidacy confounds me.

Let’s start with the fact that he’s making a race of it against Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton. The Republican nominee has insulted his way to this competitive situation. In other election cycles, it would be a deal-breaker.

Now comes his bizarre “outreach” to African-American voters.

He tells white audiences that black voters are living in the worst neighborhoods imaginable; he tells them blacks attend inferior schools and are getting an inferior education; he says African-American neighborhoods are more dangerous than cities and towns in Afghanistan.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/is-trump-racist-228472

But here’s the best part.

He says — again to white audiences — that President Barack Obama is the worst president in history and that race relations are at their lowest ebb “ever, ever” under the president’s leadership.

Yep, he tells a key American demographic group that holds Obama in high esteem that the man they adore is leading the nation straight to hell in a handbag.

This is how Trump seeks to win the hearts and minds of voters who — according to those pesky polls — cannot stomach the notion of this guy becoming president of the United States?

business news, national news, political news

Tax returns, Trump, tax returns … release them!

21wed1web-master768

I am taking a bit of a leap here in challenging the New York Times on an editorial … with which I happen to agree.

The Times says Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump needs to release his tax returns. He needs to do what candidates of both parties have done since 1976. There’s no law requiring him to release the returns; it’s merely been customary for candidates to do so to reveal to the public just how they conduct their personal financial business.

Here’s the editorial. Take a look. The Times raises excellent points.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/21/opinion/mr-trumps-stupid-excuses-on-taxes.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

What the Times missed, though, is a simple point: It didn’t challenge Trump’s assertion that he’s being audited by the Internal Revenue Service.

The audit is the lame excuse he and his campaign team — mainly his sons — have used to keep the information from public information. The IRS, though, says an audit doesn’t preclude releasing the tax returns.

More to the point, though, is that Trump hasn’t even provided evidence that the IRS even is conducting an audit. He hasn’t given us any indication of a letter, or a notice, or a note tossed in over the transom alerting him of the audit.

He is asking us to take his word for it that the IRS is conducting an audit.

All of this is a shameful, disgraceful display of hypocrisy and duplicity from someone who for years demanded proof of President Obama’s place of birth and his academic records … not that any of it matters to those who have backed his candidacy.

OK, Donald Trump. The time has long passed for you to come clean and do what you have demanded of Barack Obama.

business news, national news, political news

Wealth an issue in this run for the White House

ar-140629403

One candidate for the U.S. presidency, the Republican, keeps harping on his “fabulous” wealth.

Donald J. Trump likes to boast about all the dough he has made in business, erecting tall buildings and getting his name slapped on the sides of them. It’s that boasting and braggadocio that make the release of his income tax returns a campaign issue … that and the questions about whether he’s paying his fair share of taxes and with which foreign governments he’s been doing business.

Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton, on the other hand, has said a number of other things about her wealth. She has claimed to have been “dead broke” when she and her husband exited the White House in January 2001.Then she said she isn’t “truly well off.”

https://highplainsblogger.com/2014/06/not-truly-well-off-mme-secretary/

She’s pretty damn “well off” now. Collecting six-figure speaking fees every time she or her husband, the former president, stands before a microphone adds up quickly.

Now, am I as concerned about her wealth as I am about Trump’s stubborn refusal to release his tax returns? Not at all.

Hillary and Bill Clinton have released their returns. The public has seen where and how they have acquired their wealth. They haven’t enriched themselves through the Clinton Foundation or the Clinton Global Initiative.

Yes, the “dead broke” statement was troubling. You know and I know she and her husband weren’t “dead broke” in the way many Americans understand the meaning of the term. Heck, they were able to secure financing to purchase a high-end home after they left the White House; lenders don’t dole out money to those who are “dead broke,” if you know what I mean.

However, her financial portfolio is an open book. Hillary Clinton’s role in the various works of the foundation and the CGI have been scrutinized to the nth degree.

Trump, on the other hand, remains a man of mystery regarding his supposedly vast holdings.

He keeps bragging about them. In public. For all to hear.

Inquiring minds want to know the truth behind the bluster.

business news, national news, political news

Trump’s wealth called into question once more

gop-2016-trump

Wait a second!

How can a presidential candidate who keeps crowing about his fabulous wealth spend a six-figure amount of dough to pay off legal debts from a charity he founded.

That’s what the Washington Post has reported in connection with Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee.

The Post reports that Trump dipped into his charity foundation’s pool. He snatched $258,000 out of it to pay off some legal bills he had accrued.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html

Doesn’t that betray a trust he made to the donors of his charity? Is this the way to spend money dedicated to do “good work”?

And how does someone with the kind of wealth he keeps telling he has need to use charitable foundation money in the first place?

The Post has compiled a thorough investigation of the story. Trump’s campaign, of course, declared it was full of errors. No one has specified the errors, or even said the story is false.

We all know, of course, that Trump can prove his wealth simply by releasing his tax returns to the public as other presidential candidates have been doing for the past 40 years.

Oh … wait.

International news

Where is the fear in Europe of terrorists?

train

A journey to Germany and The Netherlands didn’t produce many surprises, truth be told.

My wife and I know they are beautiful countries. We know that many — if not most — citizens of both countries speak English. We know that they generally like Americans.

We also assumed something about their view of international terrorists that might have been a bit overblown.

I, at least, had this notion that Europeans were outwardly, demonstrably fearful of terrorists. The media have portrayed the continent’s mood as wary, bordering on angry at the refugees who have gone there while fleeing oppression in the Middle East.

Donald Trump keeps talking here at home about that fear and he’s seeking to promote more of it among American voters as he seeks the presidency.

But here’s what we discovered.

We boarded a speedy train in Nuremberg, Germany on Sept. 10 bound for Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

We saw our share of Muslim women with their heads covered according to Islamic custom. Many of them were accompanied, I presume, by their spouses and children.

They sat quietly as the train sped toward Frankfurt and then on to Amsterdam.

Funny. They behaved, oh, quite normally.

The return trip on Sept. 14? Same thing. We changed trains in Hannover, Germany, where the terminal also had a number of Muslims scurrying about in search of their connection.

I didn’t spot a single shady-looking character among ’em.

Oh, and one more thing.

Not a single security agent demanded to rifle through my wife’s purse or demanded that I empty my pockets. Were the terminals devoid of security? Oh, no. We noticed the video cameras peering down on everyone as they walked through. We also saw our share of heavily armed uniformed personnel making sure all was well.

This element — the lack of hands-on enhanced security — proved to be the biggest surprise of our vacation. It wasn’t nearly as intense as I expected it to be, given the terror tragedy that has befallen Europe ever since 9/11.

I must say that it was a pleasant one, indeed.

Is there something to be said, therefore, about our politicians in the States — and one prominent individual in particular — who keep stoking the embers of fear?