Tag Archives: Donald Trump

crime news, political news

If only he would say this

Here is a draft of what I would hope comes from the mouth of Donald J. Trump in the wake of the shooting death of Trumpster and MAGA spokesman Charlie Kirk, who was gunned down today at a rally at Utah Valley University.

Bear in mind that there is no way Trump would say these things, but I want to get it off my chest. You also might recognize a Trumpian statement in this hypothetical speech text.

***

Good evening, my fellow Americans.

Melania I are shocked and dismayed at the senseless shooting of Charlie Kirk, a young man who was a staunch supporter of mine and a leader of what is the world’s premier political movement … MAGA.

I want to take a moment to take my measure of blame for the violence that took Kirk’s life. Yes, I am going to do something I don’t normally do. Take blame for a profoundly sad event. I realize that the rhetoric I have stated and that which has come from my supporters have contributed to the intense mistrust among Americans. I have wrongly labeled political foes as “enemies.” I regret using that kind of language.

My expressions of regret won’t solve this difficulty by itself. We need to understand that the nation was founded by a group of dissenters, men who fled Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries to escape repression and create a government founded on the principles of individual liberty.

Let’s dial back the overheated rhetoric as we seek to make our points. Perhaps then we can understand each other, listen to others’ points of view and engage in vigorous — but civil — political discourse.

***

Will the president of the United States ever say such a thing out loud in a public venue? Never in a million years.

crime news

‘A political assassination …’

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, obviously shaken by what had just happened at Utah Valley University, called the event what it is: “This clearly was a political assassination.”

The victim is Charlie Kirk, a dedicated supporter of Donald J. Trump and a leader of the MAGA movement that gives Trump its unquesitioned support. Kirk was conducting an old-school style pep rally at UVU when a shot rang out. A bullet struck Kirk in the neck, killing him virtually instantly.

The nation is shocked. We are stunned. Every former president, Democrats and the lone Republican, have condemned the murder. They and the nation are extending their prayers and support to Kirk’s family, including his wife and two young children.

Kirk was just 31 years of age.

It is not too early to ask this question out loud: Have we become a nation where one’s disagreement with a leading political figure results in this kind of senseless violence?

Is Kirk’s death a symptom of a greater disease infecting the body politic across the land? It’s one thing for members of Congress to argue incessantly with each other, hurling personal insults across the aisle. This event today at Utah Valley University takes this kind of reaction to a whole different and despicable level.

The FBI had arrested a person of interest. Agents interviewed this person and then released him or her.

Others have said as much, but I want to echo what they are saying. It is that we cannot normalize acts of terrorism as political speech. What happened today was a despicable crime targeted at someone who had a clear political agenda. The individual who committed this heinous act needs to be brought to the fullest extent of punishment that justice allows.

Gov. Cox made this point, too, in making his statement about the tragedy: “Utah still has the death penalty.”

media news

Why Epstein matters

I have sought to come to grips with why the media continue to report on Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged relationship with Donald J. Trump. I have figured out why this story matters.

It matters because it could tell us about the relationships that the president of the United States kept not many years before he won election to the White House.

Epstein, of course, is dead, having hanged himself in a jail cell in New York City. His former girlfriend/accomplice is serving a 20-year prison sentence for sex traffricking of underage girls.

The story revolves around the “Epstein files” and what they contain pertaning to Trump’s friendship with the hideous sex trafficker and child molester.

Do I think Trump took part in these hideous activities? No, I do not. Whether he did or didn’t, though, is not the point of finding out what’s in those files. What the public ought to know is this: Did the man who would run for POTUS hang around the seediest man alive and was he actually friends with an individual who he might have known to be the animal we know him to be?

Therein lies the media interest in this matter. It also cuts to the heart of why Democrats and some right-wing MAGA Republicans want this information released to the public. Trump calls it all a “hoax,” meaning he believes all those known victims of Epstein are liars. How does this individual look in the mirror after denigrating victims of sex crimes?

Don’t answer that. I know. He does it because he has zero conscience.

The conscience-free president of the United States finds himself in a tightening circle of evidence that he knew Epstein far more intimately than he’s letting on.

Do you remember when Sen. Barack Obama got pilloried because his preacher once cursed the United States over its slavery policy? Obama, who was running for president in 2008, issued a public statement rebuking the preacher — a longtime friend of his — and then quit attending the man’s church.

I can find no sign of such contrition coming from Trump. He blames the victims for fomenting a “Democrat hoax.” Meanwhile, the questions keep mounting and the public is beginning to ask: Did we really elect to the presidency an individual who would cozy up to scum such as this?

That’s why this story matters.

military news

‘Common defence,’ not war

The preamble to the U.S. Constitution lays out the framework for the nation’s governing document in words that most fifth-graders can understand with absolute clarity.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence … “

I’ll stop there. The “common defence” is the operative phrase for this brief blog post.

The common defense is administered by the most lethal fighting force human history ever has seen. And yet, Donald J. Trump wants to rename our Department of Defense into the Department of War.

What is wrong with (a) that statement and (b) the nimrod who wants to refocus the Pentagon’s fundamental mission?

It was known as the War Department until after World War II, which established the United States as the world’s preeminent military power. Bar fu**ing none! Along comes Donald Trump, who wants to return to the War Department moniker that to my eyes and ears seems absurdly provocative and counterintuitive to the mission of the Department of Defense, which is to defend Americans against foreign adversaries.

None of this should surprise anyone. I’m not surprised that Trump would seek to re-brand the Pentagon, even though when he was of the age when the nation could have summoned him to go to war, he chose instead to rely on some doctor’s view that he was afflicted by those infamous bone spurs.

Those of us who did answer the call of our government should be appalled that this idiot now wants to rattle our sabers with a return to something called the Department of War. What a miserable shame.

crime news

Epstein getting last laugh

Wherever he is roasting in hell where he belongs, Jeffrey Epstein must be laughing his sorry ass off at the tribulation that continues to dog his former pal Donald J. Trump.

I have to admit to enjoying the squirm and the wiggle Trump is employing to wriggle free of the connection he had with the serial child molester, sex trafficker and all-round despicable piece of dog dookey that was Epstein.

This scandal won’t go away for as long as Republicans maintain control of Congress and for as long as Trump hangs his hat in the Oval Office.

Trump won’t win any court battles. Congressional Democrats and a growing number of MAGA Republicans will keep the heat turned up demanding full release of those Epstein files that could reveal the extent of the friendship between the sex trafficker and the future president of the United States of America.

Am I worried that it will inhibit Trump’s ability to do his job? Not one damn bit. He isn’t doing a damn thing as it stands!

political news

Flag burning … it’s protected speech

I am going to try to explain one more time for the thick-skulled among us a fundamental truth about the democratic republic we all call home … and are proud to do so.

It is that burning Old Glory, the Stars and Stripes, Betsy Ross’s most famous piece of stitchery is protected political speech. The protection lies in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in the clause that declares that citizens have the right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Donald Trump, the guy masquerading as POTUS, has issued an executive order that would sentence a flag-burner to a year in jail.

How can I say this diplomatically? No … can … do!

The nation’s highest court has ruled that the First Amendment’s protection makes flag-burning a legitimate way to speak out politically. It’s done so repeatedly. One ruling involved a flag-burning case out of Dallas when someone burned Old Glory in a public square. Someone filed suit. It found its way to the high court. Justices ruled the moron who burned the flag didn’t break any law.

I also want to stipulate one other point. No one ever should burn Old Glory in my presence if they intend to make a political point. I hate the notion of burning a flag I have served and honored for my entire life. I wore an Army uniform for a couple of years in the late 1960s and went to war in service to the Red, White and Blue. No one who has a noble political cause can persuade me of the validity of that cause by burning a flag. I am likely to turn against the cause simply by witnessing that act.

However, I know that the flag itself is not the issue. The flag is a symbol of what we value as a nation, as Americans. One of the valued aspects of being an American is the ability to protest government policy.

Even if that protest involves lighting a match to the cherished symbol of our freedom!

I cannot possibly pretend to know what kind of rationale Trump is using to sign that executive order. The man has rocks in his noggin.

political news

Trump turns politics upside down

Give the man credit for one nearly impossible feat: Donald Trump has managed to turn conventional political wisdom upside down.

You want examples? Here are a few …

Trump calls himself a conservative. He isn’t. He seeks to gather as much power for the executive branch of government, as long as he is in charge. My traditional view of political conservatism meant that power not spelled out in the Constitution fell to the states, per the 10th Amendment. Not in Trump’s view.

Conservatives favor fiscal responsibility. No longer. Trump is piling up deficits that would make Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan do back flips in their resting places. He works to grant tax cuts to the uber-wealthy. He vows to slash trillions of dollars from the federal government but has managed so far to cut only a tiny fraction of what he promised.

Conservatives hate dictators and value democracies. Not Trump. He lavishes praise on demons such as Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un and assorted hamfisted tyrants.

Trump has managed somehow to persuade Americans that he is a populist, that he cares about the little guy. He doesn’t give a rat’s ruby-red backside about anyone other than himself and the toadies who hang onto his every lying word.

It’s been said that even when Trump exits the political stage that this thing called Trumpism will remain far into the future. I hope it vanishes soon after Trump does. Conservatives used to rail against what they called bankrupt fiscal policies. Now they are writing them. We cannot sustain this march toward fiscal ruin.

media news

Not wishing death

My comment in this brief blog post will be directed at a fellow who I must presume believes he is clairvoyant.

A Facebook friend — a member of my family — posted a ditty about Donald Trump not being seen for three days. I responded, “One can only hope.” This other guy, who I do not know, responded with a harsh rejoinder, telling me what I said was shameful and that “I want you to die.”

I couldn’t find the post when I looked for it, but I wanted to tell him that my death is inevitable, “but just not today.” Perhaps he took it down. Whatever.

Do I want Donald Trump to keel over? No. I don’t. My criticism of his policies has been harsh and I will not back away from what I believe are policies that will harm my beloved nation. But I damn sure am never going to wish death on the president of the United States of America. I am acutely aware that statements one posts find their way around the world in a manner of nano-seconds.

Therefore, I am not so stupid than to say such a thing out loud.

As for my private thoughts, that is where they will remain. Locked up and hidden from public view.

national news

Ready, set … judge his place in history!

Some of you might think I am getting ahead of myself by posing this question … but I don’t think so.

The question: Is it too early to begin wondering how history is going to judge Donald Trump’s two terms in office as president of the United States?

Pay attention. Dude is a lame duck. He won’t seek another term in office because the Constitution won’t allow it. Congressional Republicans got alarmed in the 1940s after President Roosevelt was elected for his fourth term in 1944. They wanted to prevent what they feared would be an imperial presidency. So, Congress ratified the 22nd Amendment setting a two-term limit on presidential elections.

I wil concede that historians will have difficulty wrapping their arms around Trump’s two terms. How does history judge someone who wins a second term vowing to be his supporters’ “retribution” and then proceeds to follow through on that chilling pledge? It is clear to anyone with half a functioning brain that Trump wants to rewrite the rules of governance, seeking to scarf up more power for the chief executive than the Constitution currently allows.

Leading economists and constitutional scholars say he is breaking the law by invoking inflationary tariffs on imported goods.

There well might be a special category emerging for this guy. He won’t be judged by history purely by policies he supposedly favors. I say “supposedly” because he doesn’t seem to have a philosophical core that goes beyond what’s good for him.

His obituary will contain the word “impeached” in the leading paragraph. So, for that matter, will Bill Clinton’s obit. Trump went through two of them. You know what? There well might be more of them coming up if Democrats regain control of the House in the 2026 midterm election. The question, though, for Senate Republicans is whether they will find the courage to convict him and toss his sorry backside out of office.

You can bet your final buck that historians are preparing the first draft assessing what this guy has meant to the presidency and to the nation he was elected twice to lead. Therefore , it is not too early to begin that task.

national news, political news, State news

Who’s rigging elections now?

Donald J. Trump spent a great deal of emotional capital — as well as other people’s valuable time — ranting and railing against what he alleged was a “rigged” election for president of the United States.

He even provoked an armed assault on our government the day Congress was to ratify the 2020 Electoral College result that elected Joe Biden president in 2020. Trump never provided a shred of proof of any rigging or corruption, but he damn sure had the MAGA crowd believing the mule dookey he was peddling.

Here are now, in 2025, and we have an actual tangible, provable case of election manipulation — or rigging if you will — of a 2026 congressional election. It is being orchestrated by Trump. He bullied the Texas Legislature into redrawing five congressional districts that were tilting toward the Democrats to places that now reportedly lean Republican. Trump wants to strengthen the GOP’s slim congressional majority and he talked Texas Republicans to sign on as election-fixing co-conspirators.

Where I come from, I believe they call that “rigging an election.” Texas GOP lawmakers bought the crap Trump offered and engineered the redrawing of the lines over the stiff opposition of Texas Democratic legislators who bolted the state for two weeks to avoid a quorum required for the Legislature to do any business.

The reaction in California was swift. Gov. Gavin Newsom persuaded that state’s legislative assembly to put a measure on the November ballot that would legalize an effort to flip several GOP-leaning congressional districts to Democratic-leaning ones. As much as I endorse the principle behind the effort, and the reason for it, I fear that we might be losing “free and fair elections” to the whims of politicians who are, in Newsom’s words, “fighting fire with fire.”

They do it differently in California than we do it here. In Texas, we entrust our Legislature to redraw the lines. In California, they appoint an independent commission to do it. Still, the Golden State remedy has the scent of revenge … and I don’t like the way it smells.

Back to my original point. Donald Trump’s allegation of a “rigged election” in 2020 rings hollower than ever when we witness the real thing taking place in Texas and elsewhere.