As I sit in Terminal Two at the Los Angeles airport, I began to think about this week's blog.  Now you can guess I frequently ponder topics to write about well before sitting down to actually write, but this week was different.  Instead of being at my desk in my cozy office, I spent the last few days traveling to Los Angeles to attend a mediation hearing mandated by a Federal judge in a contract dispute.  Fortunately, the matter was resolved favorably, so now I am awaiting my flight home.  Besides that important task of working my "other job", I found the news this week to once again prove disheartening.  Not so much by the actual news itself, but the continued refusal of Trump supporters to recognize anything that resembles reality.  So much so, that ANY news coming out that negatively reflects on Trump must be vociferously defended...to the extent of claiming those that believe actual news to be all "leftists" and "Non-Americans."  
          Now I know I am not a "leftist" or a "Non-American", so I am reluctantly familiar wth the fake position some take on social media.  Attacking others without knowing anything about them has become standard operating procedure for the abundantly ignorant, but it has left me with a real quandary.  If all news that criticizes President Trump is "fake", then how does one label the current investigations into the Administration? Are they "fake" too?  Perhaps Former National Security Advisor Micheal Flynn ignoring an inquiry thinks the subpoena issued from Congress is also fake?  You can bet the team of lawyers he has hired are real though, right? And what about the news that the President's son-in-law Jared Kushner met with Russia's top spy, Ambassador Sergey Kislyak to create a "secret backchannel" for communications with the Trump Transition Team?  How can this news be considered "fake" when the Russians have themselves confirmed the Kushner efforts?  And if some still feel this news is fake, then why the public acknowledgement from the White House admitting it happened under the guise it was all routine and acceptable.  Except when completing National Security Clearance forms, many in the campaign conveniently forgot their "secret" contacts with Russian spies. How is it possible Kushner innocently omitted his contacts with Russians requesting a  backchannel for communications directly between the White House and the Russians on his security applications? 
          With some now on the right admitting this news is "real", how do they still rationalize such an effort was "routine?" Seriously, with all of the questions surrounding the confirmed efforts of the Russians to interfere with our election, why aren't all Americans up in arms in disgust?  Why do some think winning the election trumps any efforts by a foreign enemy to disrupt our democratic elections?  Consider this.  IF it is indeed routine to set up "secret" backchannels for communications with enemies of the United States, would it make sense that knowing investigations into Russia's active interference with our elections would put Administration officials on notice to be very careful how they proceeded with such interactions?  And although we all know what "secret" means, does it include the intent to omit such contacts on National Security Clearance forms (the epitome of keeping State secrets)? Shouldn't some people at least know what is happening between our Administration and foreign enemies when "backchannel" communications are being established?  I can appreciate the communications needing to be secret, but doesn't keeping it from the people in charge of guaranteeing compliance with our own National Security Network defeat the purpose?  And if nothing sinister was involved, then why the omissions to include it in those required by law in secret disclosure documents? (See: 
www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/28/homeland-security-chief-defends-kushners-alleged-back-channel-to-the-russians-its-a-good-thing/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_pp-kelly-1043am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.01cbcbf4884a#comments). 
            So instead of raising the blanket knee-jerk response "It's Fake News" perhaps we should be pointing out the hypocrisy of those raising the point with the obvious retort - "No, it's your Fake Patriotism?"  Speaking of patriotism, let us honor the memory of all of the brave men and women of of armed forces who fought to preserve our democracy from the perils of all of our conniving enemies.  As President Lyndon Johnson once wrote: "What convinces is conviction. Believe in the argument you're advancing. If you don't you're as good as dead. The other person will sense that something isn't there, and no chain of reasoning, no matter how logical or elegant or brilliant, will win your case for you."  Conviction in support of democracy is real and should never be considered "fake."  Have a safe Memorial Day and a great week!

         Another week and another list of questionable practices from the President and his Administration.  With the appointment of Robert Mueller to serve as special counsel in the investigation of alleged ties and/or collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia, many of us can continue to shake our collective heads in wonder. Will this presidency ever be "presidential?"  Although the appointment of the special counsel should be welcomed by the President since his ill-advised firing of FBI Director James Comey turned agonizingly nasty, some still don't seem to recognize the hypocrisy of their actions, even if it bit them on the nose.
         From Fox News, to Rush Limbaugh to Donald Trump himself, campaign rhetoric was ripe with claims that anyone the subject of an ongoing investigation could not possibly be allowed to serve as President of the United States...unless I guess your name is Donald Trump.  Seems Trump to his followers, can indeed shoot someone in the middle of Time Square and his supporters will believe it was a righteous shooting! (See: www.facebook.com/daniel.r.rubin.9/posts/946084022200560?comment_id=946156992193263&reply_comment_id=946623212146641&notif_t=feed_comment&notif_id=1495160329015730 and www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTACH1eVIaA).   But what about Hillary?  What about Obama? Unlike those that support the President, many folks are like me.  As I have said from the election onward, Donald Trump is my President.  I have no false illusions that the election has to be redone.  I have no illusions that Clinton should be our president.  I simply have a desire for the President to begin to act presidential and stop acting like a childish autocrat hell-bent on doing whatever he wishes because his base of support would rather go down in flames than admit they made a mistake in supporting the man.
          Just look at comments online and in local newspapers.  Some folks don't get it.   The President lies about virtually everything yet that seems to be okay because "everyone else" in Washington lies.  But that's a cop out. Not everyone lies as often as Trump.  "But Hillary"...enough already.  Trump is the president and I'm concerned that he is damaging institutions along the way - which is dangerous to our democracy.  
         Obama allegedly went on an "apology tour" to seek forgiveness from our Arab allies.  Where's the president?  Bowing before the Saudi king to receive the Collar of Abdulaziz. (See: www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/20/trump-mocked-obama-for-bowing-to-a-saudi-king-and-then-he/utm_term=.4065ce977798 and www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-saudi-arabia-trip-curtsey-bow-king-salman-gold-medal-honour-barack-obama-bowing-a7747016.html.)  Where's the outrage?  Cats caught their tongue?  But seriously, I couldn't care less about Obama allegedly bowing to the king, but I do find it strange that the Right Wing Media ignores the fact that President Trump just did the very same thing, yet without critical comment and derision.  Kind of like the argument Obama spent too much time golfing while Trump sets the record for doing the very same thing. 
                  But to my main point.  A letter to the Editor caught my attention this morning.  The letter writer, a supporter of the President, wrote; "It seems every effort is being made to discredit our president."  (Couldn't this have been written within the first 100 days of the Obama Administration?).  It goes on to claim that failing to support Trump will lead to "advancing the agenda of the left.  It will weaken our standing in the world.  It will put our country in the cross-hairs of ISIS." (Change agenda of the "left" for the "right" and the comment is interchangeable with the Obama years)... "It will lead to Trump supporters to rise up even more."  (And do what?).  "Get a grip, people, We survived eight years of Barack Obama, who was far less qualified and far more intent on harming our country."  And there you have it.  The underlying message propped up by Trump and his ilk is that a president always looks out for the good ole' USA, except of course those that have a strangely foreign name like, Obama. Was Obama "far less qualified" than Donald Trump because Obama was a one term Senator after serving in the Illinois Statehouse?  Was it because he was so young entering office (Obama was 47 when inaugurated, Trump 70)?  Amazing how so many believe that running a business qualifies one to administer to a nation - especially one that has taken no steps to understand the presidency or appreciate the separation of powers and checks and balances installed by the Framers of our Constitution. 
                   The hypocrisy of the Trump supporter seems to have no limits.  Just this week, the president claimed "No politician in history, and I say this with great surety, has been treated worse or more unfairly." (See: www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-05-17/trump-tells-coast-guard-grads-hes-worst-treated-politician-in-history).  On top of that, his supporters readily agree with this statement.  Forget about the nonsense we have recently experienced when it comes to politicians, but seriously, the "no politician in history?"  His supporters need to be sent back to school if they truly believe that lie.
(See: www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-ides-of-march-julius-caesar-is-murdered, memory.loc.gov/ammem/alhtml/alrintr.html), www.buffalohistoryworks.com/panamex/assassination/mckinley.htm, americanhistory.si.edu/presidency/3d1d.html, and www.archives.gov/research/jfk).  I could go on if I included the number of presidents that survived assassination attempts.  Get my point?  
                 As President Harry S. Truman once wrote; "The President is always abused. If he isn't, he isn't doing anything."  So President Trump again can't seem to appreciate being president is not a popularity contest, and the more you complain, the less you can govern.  It is not the President's opponents that are discrediting him, it's his own words, actions and administration.  If his supporters don't like it, how will they "rise up even more" if future elections pull the Trump train to a halt?  Have a great week. 

           First, allow me to wish all moms out there a special Mothers' Day shout-out.  Since yesterday was Mother's Day, I spent it with my wife, the mother of our two children rather than sitting down and writing a blog. I am sure most will forgive me.  So, what to say about this week's activity out of the White House?  The President fires the head of the FBI, his staff presents a litany of excuses and foundations for the firing and the President claims in a nationally televised interview that none of the reasons presented by his staff are accurate. (See: www.inauguration.com/videos/trump-contradicts-his-staff-on-how-he-decided-to-fire-comey/).  
        When pointing out how many inaccuracies have been presented by his staff during press conferences, the President simply says he cannot guarantee accuracy from his staff and hints that perhaps no further press conferences be held.  What?  Instead of embracing the long standing expectation that the President of the United States ensure what is given to the American public in the form of rationals for actions, the president threatened to cancel future press conferences. (See: www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/05/12/donald-trump-threaten-cancel-press-briefings-comey-firing/101587488/).  So much for establishing the sincere effort of our president to ensure honesty and integrity is maintained in the White House!  As I have been writing since President Trump's swearing-in, lying to the public will eventually blow up in his face.  And it appears, for a majority of Americans, this is actually happening - despite the die-hard support from his supporters (somewhere in the 32-34% of voting Americans).  What is truly sad are the ongoing efforts by many leaders in the Republican Party to normalize President Trump's actions as if they are what the voters wanted in electing him.  I guess we shall see when the 2018 Mid-Terms Elections roll around to learn how many still support the President and his GOP sycophants.
           Along those lines, I ran across an opinion piece addressing the reality some are claiming through the normalization and acceptance of  "Alternate Facts" and how those also believe such lies are somehow worthy of discussion and consideration.  I found the words from Brian Rosenberg, President of Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota accurately convey what I have been thinking all along.  Rather than paraphrase President Rosenberg, I think actually citing his article should say "it all."  So here goes.
                                                   
                                                   From the Article "The Beauty of Truth."  

           "...we have entered a dangerous new territory within which even the most basic truths have
          become problematic.  Did I say what I just said?  Is 350 greater than 300?...Is this true?  When
         the question becomes "it depends" or "that's your opinion" or "I say otherwise and some people
         agree with me, we have moved beyond... a world unimagined even in the darkest fever dreams of
         George Orwell.
          The causes of our crisis are not hard to find.  Within the endless, dispirited landscape of the
          Internet, one can find not just alternative facts, but alternative universes.  Social media make it
          possible to surround oneself with noise and insulate oneself from sense.  The more extreme
          forms of postmodern relativism severely damaged the idea of expertise and called into question
          the common sense of the academy.
         We have been for some time teetering on the edge of a complete loss of accepted truths and
         complete indifference to the sticky inescapable facts.  It took only an unprecedented amount of
         shamelessness and cynicism, mixed with a dollop of sheer ignorance, to push us over the edge.
         ...The roots of complex thinking are buried deep in the soil of demonstrable fact: of science,
         of history, of mathematics.  What is the value of learning the chemical composition
         of the atmosphere or the timeline of the American Revolution if an acceptable response is "says you?"  
          ... If we lose sight of these distinctions, if we cannot ground our public discourse and our
          search for a better world in an agreement that facts matter, we are lost."
                                                                       
                                                                                   (Brian Rosenberg, Macalester Today, Spring, 2017).

         Which makes my point.  If we can no longer accept demonstrable fact from ideologically driven partisan rhetoric, our great nation and in fact, the human race, is in deep and serious trouble.  One thing the Internet has proven is that it will not keep us from sliding down the slippery slope of ignorance and manipulation designed by some to control for their own selfish agendas.  So alone as humans, must fight against this powerful onslaught of ignorance and manipulation. 
         As President George Washington once wrote; "Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair."  We've got work to do folks!  Have a great week!

​
          With the passage of the GOP Health Care Bill this week, more confusion surrounds healthcare than anytime since the passage of Obamacare.  Just this week, intent on supporting President Trump's campaign promise to repeal and replace Obamacare, Paul Ryan and his GOP team jammed through a revised version of their health care bill through the House of Representatives (by a vote of 217-213, with 100% of House Democrats voting "No.").
          Now with the Trump base getting something of a "win" for their "Team", it is understandable that the "Team" would immediately have shuttle buses ready to take them directly to the White House for a post-vote Rose Garden Victory Party and Photo-Op. (See: www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-05-04/gop-gathers-at-white-house-to-celebrate-passage-of-health-care-bill-with-donald-trump).   As the President gleefully proclaimed ObamaCare "dead", Americans somehow have forgotten (along with the President and the GOP House), that another chamber in the Legislative Branch must agree to the Bill before it can go to the President for signing into law.  That other chamber?  It's called the United States Senate and all indications coming from that chamber are that the GOP House Health Care Bill as written is more "Dead on Arrival" that existing ObamaCare.
(See: www.wsj.com/articles/senators-set-to-write-their-own-version-of-the-gop-health-bill-1493940052). It seems not only that the House Bill was steamrolled through the House so fast, no estimates of its affect on the economy in the form of a CBO review was conducted - or even sought.  In fact, many members of the House admitted to the media that their "staff" reviewed the Bill they voted on, not they themselves.  When asked if they were aware that some of the provisions they voted for would strip Billions in Federal Aid to their constituents, some actually looked puzzled. It must have been from all the beer they were drinking while celebrating with the President for their big "win."  (See: www.cnbc.com/2017/05/04/gop-congressman-i-dont-think-any-individual-has-read-health-bill.html).  One Congressmen's constituents stand to lose $3 Billion in Federal aid if the Bill was approved in its current form. (See: www.businessinsider.com/gop-house-republicans-didnt-read-ahca-healthcare-bill-2017-5. 
             But social media commentary is what really caught my attention.  Seems some supporting the measure for their "Team" appear to think it is okay to rush legislation without knowing what is in it or its general affects on the nation.  Why?  Because the ideologically oriented for-profit media sold them on the notion that ACA/ObamaCare was also jammed down the throats of Americans without committee meetings, a CBO score or any efforts to read the details of the Bill.  But, this foundation provided by some in the media is simply not true.   In fact, not only were several committee meetings held AND a CBO score attained, about 160 GOP Amendments were proposed and considered in the ACA. (See: www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/politics/supreme-court-health-timeline/index.html).  So where would the public get the idea that the democrats hastily tossed together a few ideas relating to the ACA and the GOP never had a chance to amend the measure or even discuss it with Congressional colleagues?  From the Right Wing Media, that's who.  Going so far as to creating misleading ("fake") graphics to confuse viewers. (See: www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/04/fox-news-corrects-obamacare-chart-186120).  So why not blame media in general?  
        Media at the time took more of a "balanced" approach to matters in an effort to convince viewers not to change their channels.  Instead of reporting fake stories as the lies they were, media engaged pundits to discuss the merits of the "arguments" for airing such misleading statements and graphics.  It is no wonder that today so many are now caught up in determining what is "real" media versus "fake" media.  The Media itself is partially to blame. But it is also the electorates' fault too.  Why? Because more and more Americans are unwilling to investigate any issue beyond what their "Team" tells them on their "Team's media outlets."  Opinions have become more important than facts.  And once the public is convinced that fact-checkers are politically motivated and also are subject to challenge, truth becomes a real casualty - as well as the advancement of our democracy. (See: www.americanpressinstitute.org/fact-checking-project/7-things-we-learned-about-fact-checking-this-year/).  
         So when some partisan Americans rejoice when anything related to Obama is repealed, they might want to look a but further into the details.  More importantly, they might also want to look into how their Representative in Congress voted and whether they took the time to bother to read the Bill.   Last time I checked, I voted for a member of Congress to represent me, not an unelected unknown from their pool of paid staff.
          As President Theodore Roosevelt once wrote; "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues."   Have a great week!

           Another great week in Trumpland.  After his supporters decry all polls for being "fake", they all seem intent to spread any polls that show their collective support has not diminished, despite the actual fact that the president has continued from day one to lie about, well...virtually everything.  According to a recent University of Virginia (as opposed to a Trump University poll), 93% of Trump supporters approve everything the president has done in his first 100 days in office.  The excuse for any failings Trump has had?  "He's just getting acclimated to the position."  (See: www.politico.com/story/2017/04/27/trump-voters-100-days-237660).  
       For a guy elected because he was such a smart businessman, how come he gets a "pass" for being so uneducated as president? What does getting acclimated to the position have to do with his continued stance that former President Obama "wiretapped" Trump's offices in Trump Tower?  Just yesterday Trump reiterated on CBS' Face the Nation his wiretapping claim as widely supported!  “I don’t stand by anything,” the president responded. “You can take it the way you want. I think our side’s been proven very strongly. And everybody’s talking about it. And frankly it should be discussed. I think that is a very big surveillance of our citizens. ... And we should find out what the hell is going on.” One problem though.  No one has shown even a scintilla of evidence that his allegations about the wiretapping are true.  Another problem?  He's the President of the United States and he says we should find out what is going on?  Isn't he in the best position to know? (See: www.newsday.com/news/nation/donald-trump-abruptly-ends-cbs-news-interview-after-wiretap-question-1.13547624).   But that is okay in Trumpland. Any attempt to show him as being a bit "light" on his facts seems to becomes a beacon of the "left" trying to tear down "their president" under the banner of "Fake News!"  One thing is sure - Bannon's genius in creating a foundation of doubting anything anyone says against Trump as simply perceived as an attack on supporters directly, hence, to be immediately dismissed as ideological rhetoric.  Except selective perception and reinforcement has been taken to a new level of banality.
            Just this week Fox News posted a graphic to show how successful Trump has been by crediting him with having a low unemployment rating after his first 100 days while Obama had devastating job losses during his first 100 days!  Proof Trump is "making America great again!"  Except anyone with a single working brain cell would recognize that Trump inherited Obama's unemployment rate (under 5%) and Obama inherited a cratered economy still reeling from the crash of 2008.  (See: thehill.com/homenews/media/331246-fox-news-graphics-compare-economy-under-trump-obama-without-context).  So much for claiming "left-wing media" is THE Fake Media!
            But any glance at reactions on social media proves Trump supporters swear on the reliability of everything Fox News airs - no matter how ridiculous! Please don't get me wrong, there are many just as bad on the Left side of the political spectrum believing anything "their" perceived  leaders say.  But our president is not a representative of the Left.  Right now, I'm frankly not sure who Trump is actually leading - except Americans so disillusioned by Far-Right bloggers, Fake News outlets voicing faux outrage and of course, good ole' now reliably fake Fox News (see above nonsense).  
         And the latest?  Trump claiming Andrew Jackson was angry about the Civil War! "I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little later, you wouldn’t have had the Civil War. He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart. He was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War. He said, There’s no reason for this. People don’t realize, you know, the Civil War — if you think about it, why? People don’t ask that question, but why was there a Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?" (See: www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/05/01/trumps-woefully-ignorant-beliefs-about-the-civil-war-and-andrew-jackson/?utm_term=.b3df07385a36#comments).  First, had Jackson been president on the eve of the Civil War, it may not have occurred.  He dealt with the Nullification Crisis to ensure the Union remained in tact.  I get that.  But Jackson left the presidency in 1837.  The Civil War broke out in 1861. It was NOT the Nullification Crisis!  But the rest of his comment is a serious attack on American History.  Not only was Jackson dead (he died in 1845!), we fought a different war between his death and the Civil War.  So if he was "really angry by what he saw what was happening" what were his feelings about the Mexican War (Declared by Congress) that raged in 1846 (a year after his death)?  I wonder what President Polk thought of the Civil War since HE was Commander In Chief during that intervening war?  Oops, he died in 1849!  Makes me wonder whether Trump even knows we went to war with Mexico?  More importantly, that we could have "taken" Mexico?  Or the notion that War had more of an impact on the origins of the Civil War than anything Jackson would have been "angry" about.  But his supporters rallied to his defense claiming he was simply pointing out how divided we are and how we must unite the nation again to avoid such a bad thing.  One problem though folks - Trump "lights up" his followers by using rhetoric designed to divide US!   He's so concerned about a possible civil war in the US that he freely tosses about lit matches at the same time he is throwing down super dry kindling! (See: wskg.org/news/trump-attacks-media-in-defiant-pennsylvania-speech/). 
         As President Andrew Jackson once wrote: "Our government is founded upon the intelligence of the people. I for one do not despair of the republic. I have great confidence in the virtue of the great majority of the people, and I cannot fear the result."  I wish I could agree with Old Hickory in this era of ideologically driven Fake News! Have a great week!