The New York Times published a scathing editorial about Donald Trump with glee. Even the title of the article, “The Law Is Coming, Mr. Trump” is telling. When a distinguished newspaper is ecstatic about the travails of a sitting president, you have to scratch your head and ask what the hell is going on with the liberal press.

The paper is expressing its opinion, so there’s nothing unethical about their childish essay. Many Americans dislike Donald Trump, but they don’t revel in the problems of their leader and most powerful man in the world.

The editorial suggests that this president having legal problems is a unique moment in history. There are countless similar situations in recent history. Bill Clinton lied under oath about a tawdry affair with an intern, a capital offense that completely undermines the basis of our judicial system, and obstructed of justice. Sound familiar? He was actually impeached by the House of Representatives and let off the hook by a Senate controlled by Republicans that wanted to avoid a constitutional storm.

Hillary Clinton destroyed evidence relating to her personal servers, and with her husband has been investigated for a number of crimes and corruption over the years that included taking money (for their foundation) for favors, sham investments and so much more.

After being encouraged by Robert Mueller, the Special Counsel, the FBI raided the offices of Michael Cohen, Trump’s personal attorney, and the individual that gave a pornographic actress $130,000 to sign a non-disclosure agreement about a consensual affair with Trump long before the election. Somehow this has mushroomed into a potential illegal campaign donation. Really? Does this even compare to Bill Clinton who had an affair while president in the anteroom off of the Oval Office?

The FBI raid was a bold legal move that has been used infrequently because it’s fraught with so many issues and problems. Seldom are attorneys’ files confiscated because of attorney/client confidentiality.

The information must be carefully vetted, lest a judge not allow it to be used in court, and it must prove the attorney was involved in the crimes of the accused. Given that the issue at hand is a payment to an actress to keep her mouth shut, the FBI lawyers will be fortunate if the judge doesn’t laugh them out of court. Messing with such important constitutional issues for such a minor offense is indicative of the bias against the president existing in the Special Counsel’s office and the FBI.

Trump vehemently objected to the FBI actions and could fire some of the top people in the Justice Department who signed off on the raid. Many politicians on both sides of the aisle are advising the president not to do so.

The Times editorial also went into a long diatribe about all of Trump’s shady acquaintances, his management style, etc. All these things are already well-documented and not new information. The editors seemed to feel that there were enormous revelations in the piece, and there weren’t any.

The following is an excerpt from the Times editorial that showcases the Times’ venom for the president.

Mr. Trump has spent his career in the company of developers and celebrities, and also grifters, cons, sharks, goons and crooks. [the editors exhausted synonyms for ‘bad dudes’] He cuts corners, he lies, he cheats, he brags about it, and for the most part, he’s gotten away with it, protected by threats of litigation, hush money and his own bravado.

[Editors, why don’t you tell us how you really feel.]

Come on Times editorial people. Give us something new and prove it, if you can. Don’t criticize politicians for being underhanded, bragging and being involved with celebrities. The schoolyard taunting should end now.

I’m not a Trump advocate or his apologist. During his campaign this blog attacked the candidate on many issues. After he was elected president my criticism continued especially relating to the man’s style and self-aggrandizing persona.

Yet the overwhelming assault on Trump by the liberal press irks me. And, I’m saddened that so many Americans want to see a sitting president fail. It’s very un-American.

Donald Trump is not a nice guy. He believes that a stick is more effective than a carrot in his efforts to convince others to accept his will, a philosophy that served him well in his business career. The world has become such a contentious place that American leaders must take a tougher stand to protect the country and to encourage other nations and leaders to do the right things.

On immigration, previous administrations have turned a blind eye as more than 10 million illegals have overrun our nation. Why did they let this happen? Trump refused to follow suit, so he campaigned for immigration reform. The plight of immigrants traveling through Mexico has divided the US. It’s nothing like the orderly and legal migration of earlier immigrants. The latter followed the law, built lives in the new world, were assimilated into our culture and made America a better place.

Many immigrants crossed over our borders illegally and have become a huge financial and political burden. Even more disconcerting is that they, and some misguided Americans, think illegals have a divine and/or legal right to come to the US. What is the cost of all this to the US taxpayers, you ask? The number is estimated at $116 billion each year after the receipt of income tax payments. This money should have been used to benefit American citizens.

It’s too late to reverse history. At this point it makes sense to accept the productive and law-abiding illegals that are already here. But a growing number of Americans believe that not one additional person should be allowed to enter the country illegally. So, is a one-time $25 billion expenditure for a wall (plus associated operating costs) a good investment for America? Damn right it is. The problem is Trump has done a lousy job selling the proposal to his constituencies. He spends more time trying to jam it down our throats than explaining the long-term benefits of more restrictive immigration policies.

When considering the problems around the world and the diminished reputation of the US, attributable to previous presidents, you should surmise that kindness and unrestrained foreign aid are not the answer. The world takes our generosity for granted every day. An iron fist to fend off the likes of North Korea, Syria, Iran, Russia and China is needed.

Trump has done a masterful job dealing with rogue regimes. Kim Jung-un may be ready to negotiate nuclear disarmament. This would not have been possible if Trump had been “more” diplomatic in his approach.

Syria is totally out of control even as Russia and Iran pull the strings. It’s time for the US to respond to chemical attacks by the Assad regime on his own people, along with many other atrocities. Trump will likely, and rightly, punish Assad, the mass murderer, for his ungodly actions.

Iran is making a mockery of sincere efforts to craft a pathway to peace in the Middle East. The nuclear treaty is a farce and should be abrogated immediately. And Trump should continue to work with Israel and Saudi Arabia to destabilize Iran economically and politically.

Russia has become a principal antagonist of the US just as it was during the Cold War, notwithstanding the attempts of Putin and Trump to develop a relationship. The Russians are dishonest and should not be trusted. I’m confident that Trump knows this and is acting accordingly in spite of overt actions that would lead some to think otherwise. Reagan bankrupted the Soviet Union 35 years ago. Trump should continue to keep economic pressure on Russia and do it again.

China is a clear and present danger. A trade war was inevitable. China protects its industries aggressively and the US does not creating unsustainable trade deficits. The Trump economic offensive against China will have a positive impact in the long run, even though there will be some short term pain.

In all these situations Trump has made smart moves against America’s adversaries. It’s true however that Trump creates problems for himself by doing things that many Americans find disturbing.

One is his reliance on his family members. The Kushner family is not worthy of a vaunted role in the administration. Jared was not given top-secret clearance for a reason. And, he’s not qualified to make peace in the Middle East. His business interests are creating conflicts for his father in-law. Trump should disassociate himself with him.

The president’s sexual adventures of yesteryear are sucking the air out of his administration. We have so many substantive problems to deal with in America, and the liberal press can’t get enough of Trump’s dalliances. The president should do what ever he can to end this sordid chapter.

Trump has mastered the art of communicating directly with America. Unfortunately his tweets are often idiotic and ill conceived, but he’s able to stay ahead of the press and make news. I suspect social media will be an important tool for all future politicians.

The rift between Democrats and Republicans has paralyzed the country. It’s not Trump’s fault. Nor are the issues that have surfaced between moderate Republicans and conservatives. He inherited this bizarre state of affairs. Although his style creates unneeded static for our country, his determination to get things done is admirable. Trump has been very aggressive with his political opponents and members of his own party. This is necessary to achieve his agenda.

Finally there is the media. Personal assaults and disrespect by the press directed at the president are unacceptable. The outrageous commentary by sanctimonious columnists at the Times and Washington Post is not good for our country. The liberal intelligentsia on both coasts is losing face every day. The rift between our leaders and lawmakers does not move average Americans and should not be encouraged in the newspapers and on TV. It’s even gotten to the point where Joe Biden challenged Trump to a physical confrontation. What an ass! Unless we’re going to encourage pistol duels at dawn like in the old days, the rhetoric needs to be ratcheted down.

Trump is far cry from a great president. Yet he has the determination to get things done under the most extreme circumstances. Maybe the liberal know-it-alls should cut him some slack. We can vote Trump out in 2020 if the situation deteriorates any further.

 

 

A study in March 2018 by the Department of Homeland Security gives insight into the nature of a mass murderer.

To this point gun enthusiasts and gun control advocates have been doing battle in the media, on the streets and in Congress. Our children are still not any safer, and the emotional protests by youngsters against guns are likely to fade away into history along with all the victims.

The aforementioned study is a review of the backgrounds of murderers based upon significant investigative work by the police and various governmental agencies.

The study begins by indicating that there were  28 incidents of mass attacks in 2017, during which three or more persons were harmed in public places across the United States. The resulting loss of 247 lives and injury to nearly 700 others has shaken America to its core. And it’s spilled over into 2018. Yet there has been little progress on the gun control front. An agency of the federal government examined these 28 incidents in excruciating detail and identified key themes that will hopefully enhance threat assessment and investigative practices.

Regardless of whether these attacks were “acts of workplace violence, domestic violence, school-based violence, or terrorism,” similar themes were observed about the killers including:

• Half were motivated by a personal grievance.
• Over half of the perpetrators had a history of criminal charges, mental health symptoms and/or illicit substance use or abuse.
• All had at least one significant “stressor” within the last five years (a traumatic life experience), and over half were financially unstable.
• Over three-quarters communicated and/or elicited concern from others prior to the attacks.

Here are a number of other observations. At public site attacks:

• 46% took place at businesses (banks, retailers, law offices).
• 32% were in open spaces (sidewalks, large outdoor events).
• 14% were at education institutions (colleges and elementary schools).
• The remainder took place at an airport and at churches.

Regarding weapons:

• 82 % involved a firearm.
• 11% vehicles.
• 3% knives.

The resolution of an attack:

• 29% of attackers committed suicide.
• 32% were taken into custody at or near the scene.
• 25% were apprehended at another location.
• 14% were killed by law enforcement.

About gender and age:

• All were male.
• The ages ranged from 15 years to 66 years.

Substance abuse:

• 54% had a history of illicit drug use.

Criminal charges and domestic violence:

• 71% had a history of criminal charges.

Mental Health:

• 64% experienced mental health symptoms.
• 25% had been hospitalized or prescribed psychiatric medication.

Motives:

• 46% involved personal grievances.

Beliefs:

• 25% involved perceived government conspiracies.
• A very small percentage involved race and ISIS.

Targeting:

• 57% resulted in harm to only random persons.
• 14% involved pre-selected individuals.
• 21% included random and specific people.

Eliciting Concern:

• 79% engaged in communications or exhibited behaviors that caused concern in others.

Note: significant stressors were most often related to: family/romantic relationships (spousal estrangements, divorces, romantic breakups, rejected proposals, physical or emotional abuse or death of a parent), personal issues (living conditions, physical illness, other disorders), work or school environments (being fired or suspended, disrespected, bullying and gossip) and contact with law enforcement that did not result in arrests or charges (domestic disturbances).

The question you should be asking is whether authorities, co-workers, classmates, family and friends should regularly observe and report individuals that might go on rampage, find a weapon and kill others. The answer is that diligence could very well enable the authorities to prevent a mass attack, but it’s a long shot.

The problem is that it is unrealistic to turn in people that are “having a bad day.” There are about 320 million people in the country. How many are having a bad day? Millions, probably?

The process of alerting authorities must be more carefully orchestrated. There are certain items in the extensive list provided earlier that should give concerned persons evidence that a tragedy may be imminent.

Eliciting concern from others is one of these items. If a person, young or old, talks about hurting others or posts messages in this regard on social media, they should be referred to the authorities immediately.

This study has caused me to consider whether the prevalence of guns is a reason for mass attacks. Interestingly, other than the use of firearms in 82% of the attacks, violence is not specifically attributed to gun ownership. In other words, if you own guns, it does not foretell a propensity to use them in a mass attack. Then again, mass attacks almost always involve guns.

The other important items that are almost always prevalent are past criminal activity, illicit use of drugs and alcohol and mental illness. The existence of a stressor in every case is not really helpful because so many Americas have had traumatic experiences in the past five years.

The study did not give a profile of a high probability future mass murderer. Rather it identified what characteristics that person will probably have. Unfortunately I don’t think this study will do very much to predict the actions of mass murderers. Nor does it give gun control advocates fodder to demand that the number of guns owned by Americans be reduced.

 

In a very interesting historical article, The New York Times looked back several decades and uncovered some important context about gun control in America.

A very young president was murdered in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Lee Harvey Oswald purchased a mail-order rifle for $19.95, plus shipping and handling. John F. Kennedy was his victim.

On April 4, 1968, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was gunned down at a motel in Memphis. Nine weeks later Senator Robert F. Kennedy was fatally wounded in Los Angeles.

John Kennedy’s successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, “a master of turning tragedy into legislative gain,” used the death of the president to push through Civil Rights and Voting Rights legislation. He then set his sights on gun control.

“The voices that blocked [gun control] were not the voices of an aroused nation. They were voices of a powerful lobby, a gun lobby, . . .”

Nevertheless Johnson was able to win approval of legislation that outlawed gun sales to several groups: felons, drug abusers, minors and those who are mentally will. It banned most out-of-state and mail-order sales. And it curtailed the importation of guns, including “cheap, tiny pistols used in many homicides.”

King’s assassination along with riots that took place in Washington “spurred” further efforts by Johnson to tighten gun control laws.

Johnson wanted to treat guns like cars: “They would be registered and their owners would be licensed.” Passage of this law would have been a landmark achievement and the US “might look more like Britain or Australia where guns are tracked and gun violence is a fraction of what it is here.” Alas, the legislation could not muster enough votes in Congress.

This year legislators did not feel the same urgency as Johnson. They debated with themselves and with President Trump, but ultimately caved to the N.R.A. It should be noted that the murder rate has “fallen sharply” since the 1960s. However mass shootings are all the rage threatening young people in schools, concerts, nightclubs and theaters.

A smaller percentage of American households now own guns, but the country has a greater number of them. Unfortunately these include many more semiautomatic rifles, the mass murderer’s weapon of choice.

The fact is that most Americans want more gun control. In the meantime a large number of Americans respect the right of their neighbors to own guns. Why can’t safeguards be enacted without violating the Second Amendment? Why do some gun enthusiasts and the N.R.A. object to common sense legislation that would make children and all other Americans a little bit safer?

The objective of gun legislation is not to take guns away from law-abiding people. It is to decrease the amount of violence in the country and make everyone more secure. It is true that humans are responsible for using guns nefariously. The N.R.A. keeps telling us that guns don’t think and break laws, and shooters are the culprits.

All this philosophical debate is moot. Proposals to ban semiautomatic weapons are wise and will save lives if enacted. These weapons are manufactured to kill humans, not deer and birds.

We should also ban large magazines that hold many bullets. This will make it more difficult for murderers to increase their kill count. Why does anyone need to shoot 20 or so bullets in less than five seconds, unless they are hunting humans?

We should ban bump stocks, which enable rifles to shoot like automatic weapons.

If we increase the age to buy guns to 21 we will be putting weapons in the hands of more mature people. It might have an impact.

If we increase the vetting process (time and depth) to buy guns,  it will make it more difficult for an unbalanced person to attack others in a current fit of rage.

As I review these items I see no reason why a reasonable person would object. Gun owners will still be able to buy as many guns as they want to hunt, shoot at targets and protect themselves and their families.

The youngsters who protested against guns changed the calculus. The N.R.A. is not omnipotent any longer. Yet the Second Amendment will persevere.

Let’s do it now America. Let’s try to stem gun violence with common sense legislation. We should not wait for the next crime against humanity.

 

A Hail Mary pass “is a very long forward pass in American football, made in desperation, with only a small chance of success . . .”

Democrats are desperate for a seminal moment that will destroy the Trump administration. For too long liberals have been hanging their hats on Hail Mary passes to reassert themselves with voters at Trump’s expense. It’s a losing strategy.

The greatest disappointment to Democrats is going to be the outcome of the Special Counsel investigation. It’s not exactly clear what Robert Mueller is doing at the moment or what direction he’s going. His initial mission was to determine whether Trump and his political hacks colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 elections.

Proof of collusion on the part of Trump would be a grand slam homerun for Democrats who despise the president more every day. However, when you consider the absolute nonexistence of political IQ in the White House and the chaos that emanates from it, you can rest assured that Trump and his minions were incapable of orchestrating a grand conspiracy of any kind, much less one that influences a nationwide election in the US.

Probably, Mueller will indict a few more irrelevant Trump groupies that no one has ever heard of, and he will criticize the president for not keeping his neophytes on a short leash. But, there’s nothing here.

This is not to say that Russia didn’t try to influence American voters via social media. By the way, the US frequently expresses it preferences and observations about elections taking place in other countries.

Mueller purportedly is also investigating whether Trump obstructed justice. Did he fire Comey, the pathetic FBI Director and Chief Leaker, because the Bureau was investigating administration personnel? It’s going to be impossible to prove obstruction or any other offense that would lead to an impeachment.

The bottom line is that Mueller’s investigations will result in one great big yawn when it wraps up with no grounds to incriminate Trump. In the meantime the investigation has created such discord and in effect paralyzed the federal government.

Trump would be wise to tell Mueller that his funding will be cut in, say, three months, so he should just tell Americans what he knows now. This would be in lieu of what should take place- the firing of Mueller.

Democrats plan to use the DACCA imbroglio, the wall, immigration and sanctuary states and cities to defame the president going into the midterm elections. They are all losing propositions.

Trump proposed a DACCA solution and Democrats turned him down because they believe the issue has political traction. Trump indicated that he would offer protection to 1.8 million, or so, young people, in exchange for $25 billion to build the wall and the elimination of two types of immigration techniques that are a threat to US security. This number of DACCA young people is substantially higher than the original proposal. Democrats should jump all over the deal.

Regarding the wall and immigration in general, many Americas are becoming more frustrated every day with the concern liberals have for a group of people who entered the country illegally and are draining our resources. Americans want Congress to refocus on the problems of citizens, not illegals.

And finally, sanctuary states and cities are abominations perpetrated by rogue governors and mayors. They protect illegal aliens and make it difficult for immigration officials to root out and expel felons. It’s an outrageous and illegal activity being orchestrated by incompetents in several urban centers. These people should be arrested for obstructing justice.

The FBI investigation by Mueller continues with no end in sight. Much to his dismay Mueller is likely to find that FBI senior personnel were conducting activities that were biased against the president of the United States. And the group was illegally leaking confidential information. The Bureau is supposed to be apolitical. It has not been in recent years. This situation will not strengthen the Democratic position in the coming elections.

But the greatest Democrat Hail Mary is the possibility that either Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton may win the Democratic nomination. In this blog I indicated that Trump couldn’t win another election. I was mistaken. If either of these two has-beens are nominated, Trump will be around for another four years. Please Democrats, dig up some better candidates for the 2020 presidential election.

Where is the leadership in America? It certainly does not exist in the White House or Congress. Why hasn’t the country been able to inspire great leaders to run for public office? What issues are making it so difficult for our elected officials to meet our most basic needs?

The world has become a more complex and dangerous place. Our leaders are dependent upon expert advice from seasoned diplomats, technicians and bureaucrats. These people have not been effective for some time based upon the performance of the country politically and financially.

Partisanship has made it impossible for politicians to find universal support on any issue. It’s not fashionable for Democrats to join forces with Republicans, and visa versa, regardless of the benefits to the country.

Historically liberals and conservatives shared interests and cooperated on legislation that was above politics, such as national security, civil rights, defense and fiscal responsibility. Now every debate in Congress is to the death. And the venom and spite that flows between the opponents has made Washington toxic.

Our political representatives are not listening to their constituencies. Americans want bipartisan cooperation. They crave honest debate. They want America’s leaders and lawmakers to listen to their problems. Too many politicians feel obligated to toe the party line regardless of what the people back home think.

This is a disastrous phenomenon as it makes elected officials more vulnerable when they seek reelection. It also gives rise to radical and destructive forces such as the Tea Party, which has torn apart the Republican Party for several years.

Every politician’s dream is to be reelected in perpetuity. Insatiable ambition to capture lofty positions within the party structure has diminished the loyalty of politicians towards voters.

Every week the integrity of one leader or lawmaker comes into question. Vetting of candidates has fallen short. Far too many people with skeletons in their closets are outed after they take office. All this has dampened the opinion of Americans about their elected representatives.

In the same vein is the plague of money in politics. America would be a better place if our elected officials spent less time trying to cozy up to big donors to whom they then are indebted. Somehow our judiciary has determined that the right of free speech protects campaign donations. Americans want great politicians, not men and women expert at raising money.

In recent elections and during cabinet appointments, our leaders and lawmakers have opted for unconditional allegiance rather than experience.

The past two presidents are/were lacking a resume that supported their elections. The result has been disastrous.

Obama was a lone wolf who could not navigate through the multitude of issues facing the leader of the free world. His inexperience was exacerbated by his similarly inept choice of advisors.

Donald Trump’s dearth of governmental experience has impeded his ability to implement a strong agenda. Cabinet and advisory departures have hampered the administration. Trump also does not listen to his too few experienced counselors.

The current president does not appreciate the importance of statesmanship. Knowing how to act in the presence of other world leaders and distinguished guests is important. Trump gets a failing grade in this regard. Frankly he’s an embarrassment to the American people.

Our presidents must represent all Americans. Obama and Trump both play/played to their base and abandoned the other half of the electorate. Obama continuously denigrated affluence in America. To him exceptionalism was a dirty word. Trump is hated by an enormous number of liberals and the media. His every word, tweet, action, comment is micro analyzed for a negative purpose.

Washington should be a place of compromise and comity. A two-party political system is good for America. But if deals cannot be negotiated and members on both sides hate each other, our government will be ineffective.

A huge majority of Americans loved JFK and Ronald Reagan. How important is it for presidents to be considered “nice guys (and women)?” Very much so. These types of individuals find it easier to convince the electorate to accept their worldview.

America is off course. The reservoir of great talent is uninterested in becoming engaged in politics. It’s too dirty. The election of the past two presidents is a wake up call for America. It’s time to encourage more experienced and empathetic people to run for office.