Did those political windbags think no one would notice? -- Pug Mahoney
Politicians often say one thing to satisfy their base voters but do another to repay their donors.
Media watchdogs, meanwhile, track what the politicians say and compare it to what they do. And every time it happens, the politicians seem surprised, if not astonished, when confronted with their contradictions.
When will they learn that this is what journalists do? They watch, listen and remember, then pounce when the politician wanders from the straight and narrow and stumbles into a trap of his own making, surrounded by his own mistakes, misbehaviors and lies.
And rather than acknowledge, admit and apologize for their misdeeds, they get defensive, deny, double down and attack those who expose them, as if the reporters are the liars.
Sound familiar? There's nothing new here, except that the New Guy in Washington is more flagrant in his denials and accusations, accompanied by his devoted acolytes.
One major consequence of the example the New Guy sets is that he drags his herd of followers down to his level and into the same corner of shameless lying that brought him to where he is.
How did this happen? Largely because the watchdogs in the media noticed what was going on and spread the news. Hearing this (or sniffing the stench of a good story), others joined the pack and gleefully joined in, happily howling, growling and snapping at the cornered target.
However much criticism there is of the practice of wolfpack journalism, the result is that the public learns of the attitudes and misdeeds of the political partisans who misuse and abuse the system for their own profit, at the expense of the citizenry at large.
The metaphorical bottom line remains that the public as well as conscientious prosecutors finally learn of the political, legal and moral malpractice of the politicians and act accordingly.
The argument can readily be made that politicians should not behave that way to begin with, which is true. Nevertheless, they persist in doing what they do, regardless of law, morality or conscience. And it's the responsibility of a free press to document and report what politicians say and do. When they say and do well, that is reported. But when errant politicians say and do things harmful to national values, journalists raise a howl of alarm, and others join the pack, tracking down and cornering them.
This is how the system works, and the freedom of the journalistic pack to expose those who endanger the system is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
While the U.S. may have been the first country to put that guarantee in writing, the reality is that other nations also have that tradition, and it's spreading.
Demagogues and would-be dictators beware: The journalistic pack is watching.
Politics, like Nature, abhors a vacuum.
"I belong to no organized political party. I'm a Democrat." -- Will Rogers
Donald Trump saw a power vacuum in American politics, then combined that with the prejudices and fears of a vocal minority to fill the vacuum with his own brand of leadership.
Previously a registered Democrat, he saw opportunity in the Republican Party, sensing that it had lost contact with the feelings of a disaffected base. Result: He sold the fearful, disaffected voters a bill of goods, claiming, "Only I can fix it."
But can he? Judging from his performance of the past nine months, he can't. Moreover, it's likely that he doesn't care, because like the pitchman he has always been, he made the sale.
It doesn't matter that the Republican Party, like many of his other ventures, is now bankrupt.
So the question for the remaining members of the GOP is, what do we do now?
There are three options: Fight, flight, and start fresh.
Some will stay and fight, trying to regain control of the Republican establishment in the face of increasing dominance by the president.
Others will drop out, realizing that the odds of their re-election are somewhere between slim and none.
The third option is to reorganize and form a new political party to continue the fight.
A danger, however, is that third parties in American politics have often been spoilers, splitting the opposition to the party in power, thus reducing their chances of turning them out.
Nevertheless, they persist.
The decision then becomes whether to join the Democrats in opposition to the Party of Trump, forming a united front against them, or to organize a third party.
Joining with the predominantly liberal Democrats is not likely, since many of the GOP dropouts are long-time conservatives themselves.
So if they form a new party, what shall this be called?
Option one: Conservative Party. This would uphold traditional fiscal values of the Republican Party and would invoke the spirit of Barry Goldwater, the founder of modern Republican conservatism, not only the fiscal sense but also reminiscent of conservationists who, like Goldwater, were concerned with preserving Nature, rather than using all of the earth's resources for capitalist profits.
A problem here, however, would be knee-jerk opposition from liberals.
Option two: Progressive Party. This points to traditional values of Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican who was instrumental in establishing national parks in the name of conservation.
The danger of a third party is that it would split the vote of opponents as well as traditionalists. In 1912, this meant that the Republican incumbent, William Howard Taft, lost his bid for re-election to Woodrow Wilson, the only Democrat to serve as president between the terms of Grover Cleveland and Franklin Roosevelt.
An advantage of this name, however, is that it could base its appeal on concern for workers and conservationists, and emphasize its devotion to "progress" rather than opportunism for the wealthy, which they could stress as the main strategy of the Trumpians. Or, put another way, concern for the working class over the greed of the super-rich.
Another strategy could be to say the Republican Party has become the "Capitalist Party" controlled by real estate mogul Donald Trump and his corporate allies.
Other possible labels for the new movement could be Populist Party, but that has negative connotations similar to those used by Trumpians. Socialist Party or Labor Party would be too closely connected to extreme leftist movement, whether the accusations were true or not.
A reality is that social welfare programs -- read "socialism" -- have been steadily growing in America since the Great Depression of the 1930s, and are not likely to be surrendered easily.
In addition, the label "Populist Party" is at first vague, and then is used to mask the isolationist "America First" chatter that dates to the 1930s and only led to economic disaster.
So what, then, is the most likely name for a new political movement to challenge the Party of Trump?
The vote from here goes to the Progressive Party, since it evokes the spirit of Republicans Theodore Roosevelt and Barry Goldwater, as well as concern for the middle class, workers, preservation of natural resources and the general idea of progress for everyone.
The economy is doing well, with a growth rate of 3 percent in the third quarter, according the Bureau of Economic Analysis, continuing its steady recovery that goes back seven years.
However, that's no barrier to blaming the Obama Administration for what Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross called the "dismal economy" that the new administration inherited. Or, as the new president said, "I inherited a mess." In his statement, Ross added that once proposed tax cuts are in place, the U.S. economy will come "roaring back."
Fact check: The economy has been steadily recovering since soon after Barack Obama took office. However, that hasn't stopped the new guy from discrediting the past seven years of economic health and claiming credit for just the past nine months.
So, since the economy is now doing well, the White House seems to think now is the time to remove all monitoring, guidance and regulation from government agencies and the independent the Federal Reserve so the economy can take off "like a rocket," as the president put it.
That, and make more money available to the top one percent of business managers, investors and stockholders so they can pass the extra cash down the social and economic strata to consumers and workers and everybody benefits.
It's called "trickle down" economics, and the theory is that everybody wins. Eventually. In the long run. Over time.
Reality check: That's been tried before, and it doesn't work.
The Federal Reserve Board is responsible for trying to keep inflation at a reasonable level and to encourage economic growth, also at a reasonable level. And that means a growth rate of about 2 percent, according to Fed policy.
More than that means a risk to over-heated growth and potential sudden, sharp drops in the economy. So the Fed is holding back, trying to prevent any soaring growth rate.
In addition, there is the issue of rising prices even as income levels rise more slowly. It doesn't take much thought to realize that if prices rise faster than income, there's a problem.
For most people, that is. Except for those at the top 1 percent income level, who will benefit most from the proposed tax plan.
Which may be why the president is considering changing the makeup of the Fed Board of Governors so the super-rich will become even more super, at the expense of lower-income folk who will pay higher taxes, and higher health care premiums under the proposed fiscal and budget policies of the current administration.
"Our country. May she always be in the right. But right or wrong, our country." -- Stephen Decatur
Trumpistas are celebrating the coming departure of two establishment Republican senators, as well as what appears to be a cleansing of mainstream GOP politicians from legislative bodies nationwide.
But how long with the party last?
A fight or flight decision is always difficult. This time, however, the future of the celebration -- and the organization -- depends on how many will stay to fight the expansion of extremist populism or will choose to leave and continue to fight from outside the increasingly radicalized organization.
"America First" is a useful and patriotic slogan, but when it leads to an attitude of "America Only," it becomes a rallying cry for victory over anyone and everything, no matter the issue.
And as Stephen Decatur pointed out in the early 19th Century, it's possible that the country may not always be in the right. Nevertheless, patriotism and loyalty to its principles remain. Note also his use of the plural pronoun "our," acknowledging that the principles of the republic apply to everyone, not any single favored group.
Americans now face a decision as to whether the current administration is leading the country down the right path to peace and prosperity or toward economic destruction (with some few exempt from the disaster), intergroup animosity and perhaps even war.
Meanwhile, here's a news item to consider. Donald Trump has congratulated Xi Jinping on his elevation by the Chinese government to the status equal to Mao Zedong, founder of the communist nation, thus sanctifying the current leader and making any disagreement with President Xi heresy.
In a TV interview on Fox News, Trump also said Xi is "a powerful man," and that "some people might call him the King of China -- but he's called president."
The current U.S. president has in the past praised Vladimir Putin for his "strongman" tactics as ruler of Russia.
What does that tell you about the attitudes and ambitions of Donald Trump?
"Send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee." -- John Donne
"Enough." -- Sen. Jeff Flake
The Republican Party as we have long known it is dying. Whether it survives with the same name it has had since the days of Abraham Lincoln is the question. Realistically, the GOP is no longer the party of Lincoln. It is now the party of Trump.
With the announcements by two senior Republican senators, Bob Corker of Tennessee and Jeff Flake of Arizona, that they will not seek re-election next year, along with the clear independence of John McCain, also of Arizona, and their strong opposition to Donald Trump, the party has lost its dominance in the U.S. Senate.
In announcing his decision to retire, made in a speech on the Senate floor, Flake said he has had "enough," and that he cannot follow with "complete and unquestioning loyalty" the demands and instructions of President Donald Trump.
Increasingly, the sentiments spoken by these senators are being discussed privately by others, illustrating the erosion of support for the radical positions pushed by the president.
The danger to democracy is growing, they point out, and they can no longer in good conscience follow the lead of the current president.
In his speech, Flake said, "The impulse to scapegoat and belittle threatens to turn us into a fearful, backward-looking people," and also threatens to transform the GOP into "a fearful, backward-looking minority party."
The president often belittles opponents with references to their height. And he regularly disparages others with similar comments on other aspects of their personhood. As if the size of his own -- whatever -- is an essential qualification for political office.
The latest target of this tiresome tirade is Sen. Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, and that's only since Corker spoke in opposition to presidential policies that the guy in the Oval Office dubbed him "Liddle" Bob.
Earlier, the president belittled Sen. Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, with a similar epithet.
Reality check: Sens. Corker and Rubio stand about the same height as the average adult man in America today, which is the same as the average cavalry trooper who rode with Gen. George Armstrong Custer at the Battle of the Little Big Horn.
Moreover, that measurement has nothing to do with skills, ability, intellectual capacity, intelligence or empathy. Several of which are lacking in the Overweight Big Mouth who currently occupies the Oval Office.
And, yes, he is taller than average, at six feet, three inches. (At least, that's what he claims. Other sources put him at six feet, one inch.)
But he is not the tallest person to be elected president. That label goes to Abraham Lincoln, who stretched to a full six feet, four inches, followed by Lyndon Johnson at six feet, three inches, Thomas Jefferson at six feet, two and half inches, and four other presidents at six feet, two inches.
The shortest American president was James Madison, at five feet, four inches. Most of the others stood in the range of five feet, six inches to five feet, eight inches. For the record, Sens. Corker and Rubio are of average height among all American men, at five feet, seven inches.
That figure is for white males. Other ethnic groups post different height figures.
However, Donald Trump does rank among the fattest of American presidents, ranking sixth, at 245 pounds and a body mass index of 30, according to data gathered by the web site www.presidentstory.com.
That, however, is not likely to be a claim to fame he will brag about.
Who ya gonna believe, me or reams of scientific data?
The U.S. had the lowest number of jobless claims since 1973, and the unemployment rate is at 4 percent.
Nevertheless, the president persists in lamenting the severe draining of American jobs and the dire need to rebuild the manufacturing sector.
Which is it?
Either the U.S. economy is suffering badly and needs tax breaks to enable it to recover, or it has been steadily recovering for the past seven years.
Who, then, is more credible, a president who voices conflicting statements within minutes of each other, during the same speech, or a series of data points published over months by independent government agencies like the Labor Department, the Commerce Department and the Federal Reserve Board?
In the week ended Oct. 14, initial claims for unemployment benefits totalled 222,000, a drop of 22,000 from the previous week, the Labor Department said. This was an advance estimate, and could well be revised. The agency revised the previous week's level upward by 1,000 claims, to a total of 244,000.
It's also true that the ability of local agencies to process claims was severely disrupted by the two hurricanes that struck Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Therefore, once power is restored and people can make their way to unemployment offices, the number of claims in these two American territories will likely rise substantially.
So while the president's comment that initial claims for jobless benefits are the lowest since 1973 is true as far as it goes, it's important to remember that the comment doesn't go very far, since it leaves out the disruption caused by two hurricanes. Moreover, the comment contradicts the president's regular warnings about job losses.
Evidence of that contradiction is the report that total employment nationally is likely to grow by 11.5 million jobs over the next ten years, to a total of 167.6 million, according to a projection by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This job growth will be led by the health care sector. Note: These are jobs that cannot be exported. Hospitals and doctors serve their local communities, and cannot care for sick people via long distance telecommunications.
In addition, Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the total value of goods and services produced in America, will grow by an estimated 2.0 percent through 2026, the BLS said. That's about the level of the Federal Reserve Board's preferred rate.
As for the Trump family's devotion to jobs in America, TV commentator Ali Velshi of NBC compiled a list of countries where garments for Ivanka Trump's clothing line are made. The list was: Other countries, six, the U.S. zero.
Surveys are wonderful things as a way to gather public opinions.
But.
Too often, surveys sent out by politicians consist of loaded questions, designed to elicit responses favorable to positions the sender already has.
The results can then be used as "support" for the politician to continue his or her fight for or against a particular issue.
And, yes, both sides do it, as well as special interest groups.
There are, of course, reputable polling organizations that carefully frame their questions to remain neutral, and they use careful phrasing as they collect responses, in order to increase the statistical validity of the survey.
Others, however, don't care. They want only answers that bolster their established positions. Or the questions are so simplistic as to be unanswerable with a straight yes or no.
Here are some examples, taken from a survey sent out by Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, Republican of Pennsylvania, to his constituents:
"Should the U.S. strengthen our current border security policy?"
Why does it need strengthening? This question plays to the preconceived notion that the country is being overrun with illegal immigrants.
"Should the U.S. continue to fund Planned Parenthood?"
Again, this is based on the current flap over abortions. The reality is that Planned Parenthood counsels people on health and birth issues, but does not provide abortion services.
"Should there be more or less privatization of veterans' healthcare?"
What is meant by "privatization"?
"Do you support concealed carry reciprocity for gun owners?"
What is meant by "reciprocity"? The question implies that carrying a concealed weapon is a good thing.
"Do you believe the U.S. defense budget should be increased or decreased?"
A negative response suggests the reader is against defense spending.
"Do you believe the government should cut its spending to balance its budget?"
The calls for a knowledge of national economics that many constituents may not have, and is based on the premise that federal budgets should be balanced. Reality check: State budgets must be balanced every year. This is not true for federal budgets. Or, as former Vice President Dick Cheney said, "Deficits don't matter." And as Nobel economist Paul Krugman put it, "A company is not a country."
And finally, "Should the federal government take action to combat climate change?"
Considering the widespread propaganda campaign by many conservative politicians who insist that climate change does not exist, this could easily elicit a "no" answer. Reality check: Those of a certain age can remember ice skating on local ponds in winter, and know they can't do that anymore. They don't need reams of scientific data to tell them the climate has changed. And they also know the difference between climate and weather, unlike some TV commentators.
"It's highly inappropriate to question a general," said the White House shill to a room full of journalists.
It's Sarah Huckabee Sanders' job as White House spokesperson to recite and expand on the president's opinions and positions at the daily briefing to reporters who cover the news in Washington.
But really. Is that what the president really thinks, that Americans cannot or should not question or disagree with government officials?
It may be true that enlisted military personnel may not question a lawful order of an officer, but John Kelly is no longer an active duty four-star Marine Corps general. He is now chief of staff to the president, a civilian position.
And it is the responsibility -- the duty -- of journalists to ask questions of those in charge of actions taken by and on behalf of the government, whether they be military officers or government officials.
Background: Kelly defended the president's criticism of a congresswoman who challenged the president's remarks to the widow of a soldier killed in action by saying the congresswoman should not have listened in on the supposedly private telephone conversation. But the congresswoman is a family friend of long standing, and was in the car with other family members on the way to meet the casket at Dover Air Force Base. And it turns out that Kelly, the retired general and current chief of staff, was in the same room with the president, also listening to the conversation.
So if the congresswoman and family friend should not have listened, then neither should Kelly.
Journalists are civilians, not military, and they have a constitutionally protected right to ask any question of anyone at any time. In fact, that right extends to every American citizen. (They may not get an answer, but they certainly can ask a question.)
It's called the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, ratified by a three-quarters majority of the states within a few months after the Constitution itself was written in 1789.
By extension, if the president believes people may not question a general simply because he is a general, then that same belief would extend to the commander in chief of the military, who also happens to be president and chief executive of the United States.
So we must not question the president because he is the president?
In your dreams, pal.
Taken one small step further, that means we may not criticize a president. But isn't that what the current occupant of the Oval Office did to his predecessors? And still does, nearly every day?
Journalists are citizens first, last and always. They have the same rights as every other citizen. By virtue of their chosen profession, they represent other citizens by taking on the job of gathering important information and disseminating it to the public.
Journalists have no special rights and privileges than any other citizen, but they have no fewer privileges and no less a right to question those in political, military or civilian office than any other citizen.
Their job is to speak truth to power and to challenge those who overstep the bounds of their authority, whether elected or appointed.
And to those who have dreams of power not provided by the electorate or the Constitution, it's time to wake up from that dream and remember that a watchful free press is on duty to remind you that your pretense to autocracy is only a dream.
You can dress up a stallion like a parrot and call it beautiful plumage, but an alert observer will say the plumage don't enter into it, and recognize it as horse feathers.
Likewise with much of what passes for political discourse in America today.
Respect for Sen. John McCain, who survived POW torture in Viet Nam and who is now fighting the same type of brain cancer that killed Sen. Ted Kennedy and Beau Biden, son of former Vice President Joe Biden.
When asked about the current president's criticism of him, McCain smiled and said, "I've had tougher fights."
"Figures don't lie, but liars do figure." -- Mark Twain
"The public be damned. I'm working for my stockholders." -- William H. Vanderbilt (1821-1885), president of the New York Central Railroad
Carefully selecting data and stressing alternative facts is what enables demagogues to succeed. They begin by shading the truth, then selectively focus on a few minor statistical data, claiming that this one small size fits all.
They continue this tactic, regularly expanding their pitch as they attack those who disagree as being unpatriotic purveyors of fake news even as they themselves are spreading loose interpretations of limited information bordering on and often surpassing the definition of falsehoods.
Here's an example: The current administration in Washington insists that massive and sweeping tax cuts will fuel the economy so it will take off "like a rocket," and that the average family will gain $7,000 from the proposed tax reform.
They cited a study by Harvard economists to support their contention. But the authors of the study pointed out that their conclusion led to a benefit of just $800 to the average family.
Separately, it turns out that a study by another government agency that did not support the White House contention was deleted from the agency's web site.
Nevertheless, the White House persists in touting the benefits of its plan, including the part that would eliminate the estate tax. As if this would benefit millions of people. Fact: The estate tax is levied only on the excess of an individual's $5 million in estate value. The first $5 million of an estate is not taxed.
How many people do you know have an estate valued at more than $5 million?
In any case, the chant continues that the administration's policies will lead to a rocketing recovery of the nation's economy. This especially is based on the claim that corporate tax cuts will be passed on to workers in the form of higher wages.
Fact: Such benefits are passed on to shareholders and senior management in the form of dividends, stock buybacks and bonuses, not to workers.
Fact: The nation's economy has been steadily recovering for the past seven years. The latest Beige Book survey from the Federal Reserve Board said all twelve of the nation's Federal Reserve Districts reported increases in economic activity in September through early October, despite "major disruptions" in some areas from Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.
Fact: Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers amounted to $859 in the third quarter of this year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Fact: Real hourly earnings, seasonally adjusted, faded by 0.1 percent in September, while the Consumer Price Index rose by 0.5 percent, the BLS said.
Fact: Economic conditions in Europe are healthy, according to the International Monetary Fund.
Fact: Stock averages on Wall Street have soared to an all-time high.
Fact: Very few Americans have substantial holdings in the stock market.
Fact: The stock market is a poor reflection of economic conditions. Rather, it reflects the sometimes "irrational exuberance," as a former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board put it, of investors.
For many years, the study of economics was based on the premise that people make rational decisions about the consumption expenditures.
More recently, however, the field of Behavioral Economics has documented the fact that people are not necessarily rational in what they do, a concept that led to the award of the Nobel Prize in Economics to its leading proponent.
All things considered, look for a major change in stock market averages as investors look to take in profits from the soaring prices.
And on yet another front, look for the president to replace Janet Yellen, chair of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, with someone more attuned to his preference for less government regulation and control of business and economic activity.
Unintelligent, no. Stupid, yes.
The evidence for mental instability, lack of competence and inability to do the job is piling up, and there are increasing calls for either the Cabinet or Congress to invoke the 25th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and evict the current occupant of the Oval Office.
The latest example of his arrogance, ignorance and stupidity is his attack on Sen. John McCain, warning the Arizona Republican that "At some point I fight back, and it won't be pretty." This after some criticism from McCain as he was awarded the Liberty Medal for his lifetime of service. The medal was presented by former Vice President Joe Biden.
As if this will have any effect on a man who survived five years of torture as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, turned down an offer of early release because it would not have been his turn and was based largely on the idea that his father was an admiral -- which to McCain was not relevant -- and who is currently battling brain cancer.
So a verbal threat from a man who has never done any military service, who now holds his first and only political office, is not likely to have any effect.
Meanwhile, the so-called Goldwater Rule is being abandoned, leaving mental health professionals free to document and illustrate the evidence that the New Guy is, in fact, incompetent and unfit to be president of the United States of America.
The rule was set at the time Sen. Barry Goldwater was running for president, and was criticized by some psychiatrists and psychologists as being unstable and unfit for the office.
After a challenge, based on the idea that the critics were diagnosing a person whom they had not personally met and interviewed, the American Psychiatric Association issued a rule that their members should not issue such comments or diagnoses.
Times have changed. It's becoming increasingly clear that the person referred to is, in fact, unbalanced and unfit to hold office.
The Goldwater Rule was set by the American Psychiatric Association after the 1964 presidential campaign, and has generally been followed since 1973. The 25th Amendment was approved in February, 1967.
A separate group, the American Psychoanalytic Association, now says it's okay to make such comments.
It is a sad day when the president of the United States decides he has better things to do than call with condolences and sympathy to the families of American soldiers killed in combat.
Especially when he accuses his predecessor of not making such calls.
Or spends the day playing golf when the coffins of the slain return to the U.S.
And when a reporter challenged the president's claim during a press conference on the White House lawn, the current occupant of the Oval Office admitted he "doesn't know" whether his predecessor telephoned bereaved families.
He added that he will make such calls "when I can." Or he will write letters.
Perhaps playing golf is more important. That's what he was doing last week when the dead returned home.
This from the same person who dismissed John McCain's status as a war hero only "because he was captured. I like people that weren't captured."
McCain was a Navy pilot who was shot down over enemy territory and spend five years undergoing torture before being released. He later became a U.S. senator and candidate for president.
The current president got several draft deferments and did no military service because of an alleged bone spur on his foot, but later could not remember which foot.
Other presidents have routinely telephoned families, and have gone to Dover Air Force Base to meet the flag-draped coffins of American war dead.
Not this guy. He has more important things to do.
Or is it the impervious presidency?
In your dreams, pal.
Some dream quotes that reflect the attitudes of the current occupant of the Oval Office:
Don't blame me, it's the fault of Congress, because they won't do as I say.
After all, I'm the president and they're not.
The three branches of the U.S. government may be equal, but the presidency is more equal than the others. I read it somewhere. You could look it up. On second thought, you don't have to look it up. Just believe me.
And if you don't believe me and do as I say, I'll pick up my hair dye and go home. So there.
It's not illegal or unconstitutional to criticize the president. Any president, any time, anywhere.
The current president criticized his predecessor to the point of libel, insisting on spreading lies long after they were proven wrong.
The pity and the danger to the republic is that his Devoted Followers continue to accept and believe whatever he says, no matter how foolish.
In the latest display of ignorance on the part of government officials, Rep. Diane Black, Republican of Tennessee, said health care professionals should have the right to refuse treatment at hospital emergency rooms, and the proposed changes in federal health care rules will solve that problem.
In an interview with Chuck Todd of NBC, Rep. Black said she was speaking as a nurse who formerly worked in hospitals, adding that a return to free market principles in health care would be a good thing.
Problem: Health care is not a free market, and if it ever was, a return to that status would mean medical help would be available only to those who could afford to pay for it.
Health care professionals take an oath to provide help to any and all who need it. Secondly, hospitals are required by law and ethics to care for any sick person who enters an emergency room. To enable or encourage hospital personnel to turn away anyone, for any reason, would be a violation of law and ethics, as well as humanity and morality.
Hippocrates would be appalled.
Add that comment to the statement by the president that during his tour of storm ravaged Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, he met with "the president of the Virgin Islands."
Huh? There is no such person or position. The Virgin Islands is not an independent country, and therefore does not have a president. It is a U.S. territory, as is Puerto Rico. This is another example of the president's apparent belief that the people of these islands are not Americans, and therefore are not entitled to receive help from the federal government for any extended period.
And don't forget the president's threat to have NBC's license revoked. You can't revoke what doesn't exist. Licenses are issued to individual stations, not to the network. Better luck trying to revoke the First Amendment.
Ignorance has gone viral in this administration.
John Q. Public: "How stupid do these politicians think we are?"
Pug Mahoney: "Very."
The president claimed the rising federal deficit is offset by increased stock market values.
Say what?
Corporate stock values have no relationship to government spending. Zero. Zip. Nothing. Nada.
It's possible that shareholder value can lead to more tax revenue, but not if rates are cut, which is the current White House plan.
In any case, Wall Street markets have been steadily rising for the past seven years, long before the current president took office. Therefore, this president does not deserve credit for it.
The White House also insists that corporate tax reductions will be passed on to workers in the form of higher wages.
Fat chance.
Any benefits to a company from higher stock value or lower taxes mean higher dividends to stockholders and/or increased bonuses to senior management.
Concluding advice to White House leaders and flunkies: Stop Blowing Smoke at the public. No matter how many times you say it, two plus two will never equal five.
"It's frankly disgusting that the press is able to write whatever they want to write."
So said the president of the United States of America today, October 11, 2017.
Couple that with the quote attributed to him earlier today calling for a challenge to a television network's license. Keep in mind that broadcast licenses are issued to individual stations, not to networks, and not to cable television operations.
But the biggest danger signal is the one that says someone can or should control what the press is allowed to write.
Who decides that? Such a statement implies that the president himself can decide what an independent group, or an individual, can write.
As if the solution to the dilemma of reducing the number of stories critical of a president would be to repeal the Constitution, specifically the First Amendment guarantee of free speech and a free press.
Civics lesson: The Constitution does not grant any rights, but guarantees rights that Americans already have, by birth in a free society.
Meanwhile, there are reports circulating that this president will not complete his first term in office.
There are three ways this can happen: resignation, impeachment or removal under the 25th Amendment of the Constitution.
Which is the most likely would be a matter for bookies to consider.
But consider them in order.
Resignation. Possible, but not likely, since that would mean an admission of failure. However, he could claim that he's leaving because he's not getting any support and cooperation from Congress and others in government. That would reflect his attitude that he's in charge, and Congress should obey him in everything.
Impeachment. Possible, but very time consuming, since it would require evidence and proof presented to the House of Representatives that he was guilty of treason, bribery or some other other high crime or misdemeanor, followed by a full trial in the Senate.
Finally, the 25th Amendment provides that the vice president and Cabinet members could get together and decide that the president was no longer fit to do the job. Alternatively, a committee appointed by Congress could take on the task.
Any one of the three could well provide the means to remove the president from office. Which one and when is the open question.
As to none of the above happening, the odds are against that.
The Chief Twit called for a challenge to NBC's license because of its reporting on Oval Office activities.
Problem One: Broadcast licenses are issued to individual stations in metro areas around the country. Not every station in the NBC network is owned by NBC.
Problem Two: There is a limit to the number of stations an individual company may own. To shut down NBC would be a bureaucratic nightmare, challenging each and every NBC-owned station as licenses come up for renewal.
Problem Three: Other stations not owned by NBC would likely continue their news coverage of Oval Office activities, using their own staffs and news sources.
Problem Four: Regulation of broadcast networks is a separate issue from station ownership.
Problem Five: Regulation of cable TV operations is yet another separate issue. They are not broadcast operations, which is the primary responsibility of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
Problem Six: Other networks, cable operations and independent stations would continue their reporting of Oval Office activities, especially those that criticize the president's attitudes, actions and comments.
Problem Seven: All news operations, including those with broadcast licenses as well as print news media, which are not licensed by any government entity, will join in the protest against any attack on First Amendment press freedoms.
Problem Eight: Attacking and threatening to shut down any news media operation critical of a president creates the question of which ones would survive. Would it be only those news media that agree with the government?
Problem Nine: This would create a government controlled news operation, equal to a propaganda machine. So much for the First Amendment.
Problem Ten: Even if the president were to succeed in shutting down one network, there are many other news media that will continue to report what government officials say and do.
Headline news: Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross wants more immigration officers, more federal prosecutors and more physical barriers to further reduce the "influx of illegal aliens."
"That will be money well spent!" his press release says.
Never mind that illegal immigration has dropped sharply on its own, beginning long before the new guy took office.
Sounds like a full employment act for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, lawyers and wall builders.
Another headline: EPA Fights Clean Power
Scott Pruitt, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, says he will repeal the climate policy set forth by President Barack Obama that encourages power plants to reduce carbon and air pollution by using less coal.
Also: Children Become Bargaining Chips
The president wants to trade easier rules on refugee children for more money to build a bigger wall.
Meanwhile, the medical care program for youngsters, known as CHIP, is about to run out of money unless the program is renewed.
Fake News Faker
The president claims he coined the term "fake news."
To the extent that he invented the practice thereof, he may be right.
Here's a civics lesson for the guy sitting at the big desk in the Oval Office.
The term of a U.S. president is four years, not eight. Stop talking as if you have a guarantee you'll be there that long.
The people of Puerto Rico are American citizens.
A 140-character message sent out via Twitter is not an official executive order, and has no -- repeat, no -- standing in law. It is only gossip, nothing more.
There is no such thing as "clean coal."
Demanding loyalty and obedience from employees of a business may work, since you can fire them with a single word, but members of Congress do not answer to your every whim. You are an elected official, not a sanctified monarch. Stop acting like one, or you will be diselected.
You are subject to the laws of this nation and of the states in which you do business. When you break a law, you will be caught and punished. The same goes for members of your family. Working in the White House does not exempt you and your family from the law.
As chief executive of the United States government, your duty is to enforce laws, not ignore them.
A free and responsible press is essential to democracy. If you destroy that, you destroy democracy.
Insulting people may satisfy your ego for the moment, but people have long memories. Especially reporters and TV people, who can rerun the video of things you say and do. There is more "fake news" on Twitter, Facebook and other social media than in the mainstream press.
The Second Amendment is an important part of the American system, especially the part about a "well regulated militia."
In another Friday night news dump, the Department of Commerce announced 20 sets of regulations that the president should cut as a way of "removing roadblocks to American job creation."
This on the same day that another government agency, the Labor Department, said the unemployment rate dropped yet again, to 4.2 percent. To economists, this means that nearly everyone who wants a job has been able to find one. The report also noted that total employment faded by 33,000 jobs last month, largely due to hurricanes that roared through Florida, Texas and neighboring states.
The total number of unemployed persons actually fell by 331,000 last month, to 6.8 million, out of a total civilian labor force of 161.15 million.
Separately, the president claimed that proposed tax cuts will provide "rocket fuel for our economy."
However, experts have long warned that a faster rise means a harder fall in a nation's economy, and this philosophy has guided the strategy of the Federal Reserve Board as it modulates the nation's money supply to stabilize unemployment and inflation.
Economic experts have also cautioned that the president's recent appointment of Randal Quarles, a conservative, as the Fed's vice chairman for supervision is another step in his campaign to ease government regulation of business.
And come February, the president will have another opportunity to roll back the Fed's outlook and strategy, when Janet Yellen's term as chair ends. Even if he does not renominate her as chair, she will remain as member of the board of governors.
Meanwhile, the board of governors is still three short of its full complement of seven members. This gives the president still more opportunities to bend the regulatory body's attitudes to his hands-off philosophy of business and financial markets.
The nation's economy has been steadily improving for the past seven years under the guidance and influence of the current Fed board of governors. Whether removing a plethora of government regulations, enabling the economy to hit "rocketing" growth, is a safe and sane strategy, is another question, one which economists insist is too dangerous to attempt.
How many people must be shot dead before government acts on gun control?
What is the quota?
Does the quota include members of Congress and their families?
Does one politician's death by gunfire count for more than another American citizen?
If so, what is the ratio? Does one murdered politician equal five voters? Ten? Twenty? Fifty-nine, which is the number of people shot dead in Las Vegas last week?
Who decides the number? Has the National Rifle Association taken on the task of determining a quota before it will agree to reasonable gun regulation?
When and how will the NRA decide on an "acceptable" quota?
And who gave them the right to decide that?
Today, the NRA announced it was willing to "enter a conversation" about more firearm regulation, even as it claimed that gun ownership is a "God-given right."
That's odd, considering that God existed long before firearms were invented. Even more odd, since gunpowder was invented by the Chinese long before Western religion reached that country.
In any case, has God spoken to you recently about anything, including the right to own dozens of weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition?
And for those ready to quote the Bible to support their position on gun control, which the NRA apparently wants to do, isn't there a conflict with the bit that says, "Thou shalt not kill"?
As for "entering a conversation" about gun regulation, echoed by the president after he first said, "Now is not the time to talk," consider this: Talk alone is meaningless, unless it quickly leads to action. Otherwise, talk can drag on for years, until people get tired of endless yammering and arguing about increasingly minor details. And when the initial furor is over, nothing gets done.
It is long past time for talk. Action is long overdue. Government officials attack those advocating gun control for "politicizing" the issue.
But it is, in fact, a political issue, and only politicians can deal with it.
If not now, when? How many more must die before politicians develop the moral gumption to act?
Who sets the quota?
How many is enough?
If not now, when?
Las Vegas, Nevada, Oct. 1, 2017 -- 59 dead, 500+ wounded.
"Now is not the time" to talk about gun control, said the president and other political leaders.
Tucson, Arizona, Jan. 8, 2011 -- Six dead, 11 wounded, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
Not the time to talk about gun violence.
Seal Beach, California, Oct 12, 2011 -- Eight dead.
Not the time yet.
Oakland, California, April 2, 2012 -- Seven dead in a college classroom.
Not the time.
Aurora, Colorado, July 20, 2012 -- Twelve dead, 58 wounded in a movie theater.
Not the time.
Oak Creek, Wisconsin, August 5, 2012 -- Six slain by a white supremacist at a religious temple.
Now is not the time.
Newtown, Connecticut, December 14, 2012 -- Twenty children, six adults dead at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
Not the time.
Washington, DC, September 16, 2013 -- Twelve people shot dead at a Navy Yard.
Not time yet to talk about gun violence.
Fort Hood, Texas, April 2, 2014 -- Three dead, 16 wounded.
Not time yet.
Isla Vista, California, April 5, 2014 -- Six slain at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Not the time to talk about gun control.
Charleston, South Carolina, June 18, 2015 -- Nine people shot dead in a church by a white supremacist.
Not the time.
Roseburg, Oregon, October 1, 2015 -- Nine slain at a community college.
Not the time to talk.
Colorado Springs, Colorado, November 29, 2015 -- Three slain at a Planned Parenthood clinic.
No time for talk.
San Bernardino, California, December 12, 2015 -- Fourteen killed at a community center.
Not the time to talk. Donald Trump denounces "political correctness" of anti-gun talk.
Orlando, Florida, June 12, 2016 -- 49 dead, 58 wounded at a gay night club.
Not yet time to talk.
Dallas, Texas, November 22, 1963 -- President John F. Kennedy slain by a man who bought a sniper rifle by mail order for $12.78.
Washington, DC, March 30, 1981 -- President Ronald Reagan shot and wounded.
New York City, December 8, 1980 -- John Lennon shot and killed.
Alexandria, Virginia, June 14, 2017 -- Rep. Steve Scalise shot during baseball practice.
Over the years, four U.S. presidents have been assassinated by gunfire: Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, William McKinley and John F. Kennedy. Ten others were shot but survived.
There are more guns in America than there are people, with a few owning many guns. The shooter in Las Vegas brought 19 weapons with him to his hotel room, and investigators found 23 more at his home.
More Americans have been killed by guns than have died in all its wars combined.
But now is not the time to talk, because it "politicizes" the tragedy of gun violence, say some government leaders.
Yes, it does "politicize" the issue, as well it should, and it must. Gun violence is indeed a political issue, and can only be dealt with through political measures.
Yet the NRA would have us believe that the answer lies in more guns, more powerful guns, held by more people, including children whose weapons would have silencers to "protect their hearing."
And they insist that "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."
Correction: People use guns to kill people.
Finally, the U.S. Constitution is right when it acknowledges the right of the people of a state to have a "well regulated militia" to protect its security.
That does not acknowledge the right of every individual to own dozens of fully automatic machine guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition.
Unless he is a member of a well regulated militia. The Las Vegas shooter was not, nor were the many others responsible for the killings listed above.
Every time there is a mass shooting in America, political leaders are quick to offer their "thoughts and prayers" to the victims and the families of the dead.
That, of course, is good as far as it goes. Unfortunately, it doesn't go very far.
Nothing is said about limiting the availability of guns to those who should not have access to them.
"Now is not the time" to talk about gun control, say the politicians as the nation mourns the loss of dozens of people shot down indiscriminately by a deranged gunman armed with an arsenal of military style weapons.
But when is the right time? Next month, next year, next election cycle?
Now is precisely the time to talk about gun control.
Advocates of unlimited ownership of guns of any and every type often cite the need for self defense. As if everyone in a crowded theater or children in a grade school classroom should have a pistol so they could shoot back.
"Self defense is important in case of invasion by a foreign power," they insist.
Such a claim only shows a lack of trust in the U.S. Marine Corps, the 82d Airborne Division, the 101st Airborne Division, Army Rangers and every other unit of the U.S. military, as well as local and state police departments nationwide.
In any case, when was the last time the U.S. mainland was invaded by a foreign military force?
Elementary history knowledge says it was during the war of 1812, some 214 years ago.
What well regulated militia?
Nevada has virtually no regulations at all for gun ownership and use, thus enabling one person to gather an arsenal of automatic weapons and fire randomly into a crowd.
This defies the Constitution, which guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but this guarantee is couched in terms of a well regulated militia.
Don't believe me? Look it up. The phrasing of the Second Amendment is clear, regardless of what the National Rifle Association and its devotees insist.
The almost total lack of control of weapons in Nevada easily enabled a single gunman to carry ten rifles into a hotel room in Las Vegas, then open fire on a crowd gathered for a concert in an open space below.
Hunters do not use automatic weapons to kill deer because they feel it is unsportsmanlike. Using similar weapons to kill dozens of people apparently is acceptable.
The NRA insists on emphasizing the last part of the Second Amendment, which says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
But the first part speaks of a "well regulated militia." That, in itself, is an infringement, and an appropriate and necessary one, as are many other regulations set up by society and government to ensure domestic tranquility.
Remember that phrase? It, too, is in the Constitution, at the very beginning. Domestic tranquility cannot exist without some regulations. Otherwise, anarchy results.
Trump golfs while Puerto Rico collapses.
The president of the United States relaxed at his New Jersey golf course while 3.4 million American citizens on the island of Puerto Rico struggled to survive the devastation wrought by two hurricanes.
He did, however, take some time out to blame the victims and attack the mayor of San Juan for a "lack of leadership" in trying to arrange recovery efforts.
On Sunday morning, the MSNBC television outlet showed side by side pictures of the president on his golf course, and images of the devastation in the island's largest city.
As for the president's criticism, San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz said, "Bring it on," and added, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn," a classic line from the movie, "Gone With the Wind."
And despite the president's claims that support operations are going "really well," Mayor Cruz said, "Damn it, this is not a good news story."
The islanders need help, she repeated. "We are dying here," she said, and the federal government doesn't seem to care.
Meanwhile, there have been almost no news stories about Red Cross involvement in rescue efforts, to the point that it would seem that organization had been disinvited from joining.
Published lists of aid organizations sending help to the battered island do not include the Red Cross. The group has been widely criticized for temporarily suspending its registration system for victims of Hurricane Harvey in Houston. Earlier, an investigation by ProPublica and NPR News reported that of the nearly $500 million raised to help Haiti after a major earthquake there in 2010, little of that money actually went to help rebuild.
The Red Cross claimed that all the money went to help 4.5 millions "get back on their feet," according to the ProPublica-NPR report. That would be "100 percent of the urban area" at the time, said a Haitian official. "The would mean the American Red Cross would have served entire cities."
In one instance, the report noted, the Red Cross claimed to have helped more people than actually lived there.
Typically, the Red Cross takes a cut of the money it raises for administrative costs, and gives some of the rest to other organizations which also take a slice of the funding.
The investigative report noted that such costs can eat up a third of the money that was supposed to help Haitians.
Here's link to the NPR story: http://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-red-cross-500-million-in-haiti-relief.
Meanwhile, the president spent much of the first few days after Hurricane Irma battered Puerto Rico attacking the National Football League and its players who protested police mistreatment of minority groups, rather than focusing on the damage in the U.S. territory.
One wonders about his priorities.
