Day 101 Nat'l Emergency: Code Blue, Facebook Follies, Masquerade on Land and Air, Animated Graphs, Fiction or Non Fiction

Code Blue: Defund. Abolish. Deconstruct. Reorient. Reform. Transform. 

The words are plentiful as to what should be done to police departments throughout the land. Depending on your background and experience with law enforcement, they mean different things. 

I’m too ignorant to know which direction policing should go in the wake of the tsunami of mostly unarmed Black deaths at the hands of law enforcement. I agree with what Marian Kaba, director of Project Nia (Nia is Swahili for “with purpose”), wrote in Sunday’s New York Times: “We should redirect the billions that now go to police departments toward providing health care, housing, education and good jobs. If we did this, there would be less need for the police in the first place (https://nyti.ms/2YBa4UG).”

Why would that be?, you may ask. For a partial answer I turn to Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) who recently tweeted: 

“1.7 million students have police in their schools but no counselor.

“3 million have police but no nurse.

“6 million have police but no psychologist.

“10 million have police but no social worker.

“We need systemic change—now.” 

If you don’t see the connection between the presence of police and the absence of social services in schools where childhood character is molded into adult behavior I’m afraid any explanation I could offer would not register with you.

Facebook Follies: Eager to deliver fresh meat to his blood red constituents Donald Trump will embark on his first rally since the COVID-19 pandemic stifled public gatherings. Close to 20,000 will attend an indoor rally in Tulsa on Saturday, June 20, with countless more outside. 

But prior to the self-adulation Trump seeks, here are two recent posts I came across on the Internet:

Surrounding a picture of Trump at an earlier rally, Jim Calvert posted:

June 20 — Tulsa, OK

Coronafest 2020

Come for the racism,

Stay for the plague

Be sure to reserve your

ICU and ventilator!

Under a picture of Trump’s signature Make America Great Again red hat, the following appeared:

“One day the red MAGA hat will be viewed the same way we view the Confederate flag and the swastika.”

Masquerade: It is widely accepted by the medical community that wearing masks can stem the spread of the coronavirus. Yet Republican leaders keep demonstrating their antipathy to science and a cavalier attitude toward their constituents.

The main transgressor is Trump who has disregarded pleas not to hold mass rallies. His ego demands stroking so he is embarking on the first of what no doubt will be many public gatherings of his faithful. 

Though masks for attendees will be provided they are not required to be worn. The arena will become a petrie dish for viral spread. Trump must know this because he is requiring all who come before him to genuflect at the rally to sign a waiver absolving him and his campaign from any liability should they contract COVID-19.

Trump is not alone in dissing medical advice. The Republican governor of Nebraska, Pete Ricketts, Thursday “told local governments they will not receive any federal money to help fight the effects of the coronavirus pandemic if they require people to wear masks in public buildings,” the AP reported (https://www.ourmidland.com/news/article/Nebraska-governor-Mask-requirement-will-cost-15349550.php).

In what rational world do leaders purposely endanger their citizens? 

Not So Friendly Skies: Air travel is slowly making a comeback but its smooth trajectory will be challenged by those opposed to the mandatory requirement many airlines have imposed that passengers wear a mask on board. 

The opening salvo in Trump-inspired civil disobedience came Wednesday when one of his acolytes was removed from an American Airlines flight for failure to wear a mask. The incident happened pre-takeoff (https://mol.im/a/8435857 ).

Next time the unmasking could happen in flight. The airline’s only recourse would be to blacklist the passenger for future flights. Meanwhile, he or she will be compromising the air compliant passengers expected to be breathing. 

Animated Graphs: Ever wonder how COVID-19 deaths stack up against other current scourges of mankind in the United States? 

Using CDC and Worldmeter data, Public Flourish Studio put together an animated graph showing the average number of deaths for the one month period March 15-April 20 for 16 ailments. COVID-19—2,168; Heart disease—1,774; Cancer—1,641; Flu and pneumonia—153. For the complete list, click https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/1830480/. 

For a worldview of COVID-19 vs. other causes of death, from January 1 through June 8, click on this animated graph to view the dramatic rise affecting all humanity: https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/2562261/

Send for a Librarian: Under what genre should we classify John Bolton’s new book, “The Room Where It Happened”? Fiction or non fiction?

Bolton claims it’s all true.

Trump says the book “is a compilation of lies and made up stories.”

The Justice Department says the book contains “highly classified” information.

Never mind asking a judge to adjudicate if the book may be banned from distribution or available to the public. 

What we need is a librarian to classify the tome as fiction or non fiction (https://mol.im/a/8436039).

Day 100 of Nat'l Emergency: Books Plague Trump

If, as John Bolton writes in his new book, “The Room Where It Happened,” all of Donald Trump’s actions have been taken with a view to how they would affect his re-election, even if they undermined U.S. interests, it means Trump has a malevolent opinion of a majority of the American public. 

Trump would have to believe they are racist, misogynist, bigots who would deny equal rights and protections to anyone outside their tribe, be they Moslems, Latinos, immigrants, Blacks, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals, or queers. Women who want equality and Democrats also are not to be tolerated, but dictators in other countries are to be embraced. 

If the facts are as Trump’s former national security advisor writes, it is no wonder the non-reader-in-chief wants to bar(r—pun intended) the book from publication. It also means Trump is either the shrewdest politician of his era or the most incompetent. 

He either has figured out how to win re-election by securing the required 270 Electoral College votes from his malignant base in red states, or he will go down as a president who squandered every opportunity to expand his base into blue states. 

He has foot-in-mouth disease. Even when he tries to explain his actions or tweets he reinforces his meager standing among those who might be willing to grant him the benefit of the doubt, as when he claimed in the wake of Black Lives Matter protests to have done more for Blacks than any other president, including Abraham Lincoln (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/12/trump-criticizes-lincoln-brags-he-has-done-a-lot-to-help-black-americans.html?__source=sharebar|email&par=sharebar), or his rejection of calls to rechristen military bases named for Confederate generals.

Some might say Joe Biden suffers from the same ailment. Theres a difference, however. Former vice president and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Biden misspeaks because his brain cannot keep up with his mouth. So he makes benign miscues, misstating dates or the sequence of events. Troubling, but not egregious.

Trump, on the other hand, doubles down on his whoppers. He fabricates “facts” he believes are reality and chastises any who would challenge his version of the truth. He presumes that as president no one has the right to correct his record. 

Much to his displeasure, he has found journalists and elected officials have the temerity to disavow his “truthiness,” even as his millions of zombie-like followers  believe him. They believe only him.

John Bolton is merely the latest insider who has awakened from the Trump trance. His book, if and when it is officially released (copies have been obtained by various media), will add some spicy examples of political power portioned out by Trump pique and incompetence.

It won’t change any minds. No votes will shift from red to blue or blue to red. Based on current conditions, only two intertwined things will matter to voters November 3—the state of the economy and the status of the novel coronavirus pandemic in America. 

First Enabler: I have long suspected Melania Trump is not a captive of politics, a hostage in the White House, a prisoner of conscience who sends out messages with clothing or a hand slap that she is a reluctant participant in her husband’s attack on our democracy.

Rather than calling her the First Lady she should be called the First Enabler. According to a new unauthorized biography, “The Art of Her Deal” by Mary Jordan, a Pulitzer Prize reporter for The Washington Post, Melania pushed her husband to run for president. She has stood by Trump despite repeated credible allegations of his sexual infidelity and misconduct (https://nyti.ms/2ArHgpA).

Gilda long ago nailed the reason Melania delayed moving into the White House. She wanted a renegotiated prenuptial agreement, Gilda postulated. Jordan agrees.

Family Matters: As if the First Family didn’t have enough reason to stoke a book burning on the White House lawn, one of Trump’s nieces has decided to air some of his dirty linen (https://mol.im/a/8429643). 

Mary Trump, daughter of his deceased brother, Fred Trump Jr., is the author of “Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man,” scheduled to be released July 28. Uncle Donald has threatened a suit to block its distribution because she allegedly signed a nondisclosure agreement about their relationship.

It will be titillating reading, no doubt, but mere reinforcement for anti-Trumpers and of no consequence to his groupies. 

Fact vs. Fiction and Let the Fat Man Sing

Now that the Super Bowl is over, time to get back to the real competition. No, I’m not talking about the Democratic Party primary season which officially gets under way Monday in Iowa. The competition to which I am referring is our ability to parse, fact check actually, Donald Trump’s many pronouncements without getting too discouraged or overwhelmed. 

As they attempt to project a most personally positive story, all politicians skate on the edge of reality whenever they speak or tweet. But more so than any prior year, truth is on the ballot this election. Regrettably, too many of our fellow citizens either do not have the intelligence to discern fiction from fact, or more regrettably, they don’t care. 

I don’t get paid to fact check Trump, but the reporters at AP do, so here’s their commentary on what the fabricator-in-chief had to say over the last week. While reviewing Trump’s words versus AP’s reality check, keep in mind that voters in the Rust Belt states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio will have significant say on who wins in November: 

Car Talk: “TRUMP: ‘We’re going to get a lot more car companies moving in. We have a lot more companies moving in. ... Jobs are coming back, and they’re coming back fast, and they’re coming right here to Michigan. They are coming rapidly. You see what’s going on.’ — remarks in Michigan on Thursday.

“THE FACTS: Automobile manufacturing jobs have not come back fast to Michigan under Trump. They have declined slightly since he took office, according to the Labor Department. 

“Between Trump’s inauguration in January 2017 and the end of last year, auto manufacturing jobs in Michigan declined by 100, to 42,200. Auto-parts jobs grew by 1,300, or just under 1%, to 133,200. No boom has been experienced.

“As for his prediction that many more such jobs are coming, that’s difficult to tell. 

“The three big automakers have altogether announced plans to add over 10,000 jobs in Michigan in coming years. But they’ve also cut or plan to cut thousands of other jobs in the state. 

Dollars and Sense: “TRUMP: ‘The USMCA is the largest, fairest, most balanced and modern trade agreement ever achieved.’ — signing ceremony Wednesday for the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement.

“THE FACTS: It’s not the largest trade deal ever made. It covers the same three countries as before. In contrast, the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations concluded in 1994 created the World Trade Organization and was signed by 123 countries. The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston found the following year that the WTO’s initial membership accounted for more than 90 percent of global economic output.

“TRUMP: The USMCA ‘will make our blue-collar boom—which is beyond anybody’s expectation—even bigger, stronger, and more extraordinary.’ — signing ceremony Wednesday.

“THE FACTS: There isn’t a boom for blue-collar workers, and few economists expect the trade pact to add much.

“Such workers haven’t done substantially better than everyone else, and some of their gains under Trump have faded in the past year as his trade war hurt manufacturing. The mining and logging industry, for example, which includes oil and gas workers, lost 21,000 jobs last year. Manufacturers have added just 9,000 jobs in the past six months, while the economy as a whole gained more than 1.1 million jobs during that period.

“The U.S. economy is still heavily oriented toward services. While factory jobs have grown, other jobs have grown faster, so manufacturing has slightly shrunk as a proportion of the work force since Trump took office.

“The independent U.S. International Trade Commission estimated last year that the trade pact would create 49,700 jobs in manufacturing and mining over six years, a fraction of 1% of the existing 13.5 million U.S. jobs in factories and mines.”

“TRUMP: ‘More Americans are working today than have ever worked in the history of our country. We’re up to almost 160 million people working. We’ve never even come close to a number like that.’ — signing ceremony Wednesday.

“THE FACTS: Yes, but that’s driven by population growth. A more relevant measure is the proportion of Americans with jobs, and that is still below record highs.

“According to Labor Department data, 61% of people in the United States 16 years and older were working in December. That’s below the all-time high of 64.7% in April 2000.”

The Fat Man Hasn’t Sung Yet: While it is a foregone conclusion that the extorter-in-chief will get a formalized impeachment free pass from the Republican Senate on Wednesday, Democrats should at least try to have Trump censured. Such a vote probably would require just a simple majority to pass, not the two-thirds needed for a guilty finding under impeachment proceedings. 

A censure vote would serve two purposes. It would make each Republican go on record as to their acceptance or not of Trump’s actions in trying to strong-arm Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden and his son Hunter. If passed censure would further bruise Trump’s fragile ego, no doubt prompting some very unpresidential responses that would further erode his standing in the eyes of independents and fence-sitting Republicans.  

Democrats should not fold up their investigation powers, as well. Instead, they should borrow from the Republican playbook—just as the GOP House mounted investigation after investigation (six in all) into Hillary Clinton’s actions after the storming of the Benghazi compound, the Democratically controlled House of Representatives should open up new hearings with a star witness—Lev Parnas. Let him spill out all the dirt he has assembled on Trump and Rudy Giuliani’s sordid plan to get Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. 

Unlike John Bolton, Trump’s former national security advisor, Parnas never was a federal employee and therefore cannot be muzzled by claims of executive privilege. 

The House might also deem it proper to hold hearings on the state of election security and what the Trump administration has done to ensure no meddling by foreign powers.   

If Not Impeachment, How About Censure?

What can we take away from Trump’s pending impeachment acquittal by the U.S. Senate next Wednesday? That it was a foregone conclusion given the Republican majority? For sure. That it was a flawed indictment by Democrats? Perhaps. That politics—the raw calculus of survival—has overtaken allegiance to the Constitution? Woe to us all, FOR SURE!

How ironic that on a Friday, the last day of creation according to the Bible the Republican Party forever touts as a seminal element of the Founding Fathers’ thinking, Republican Senators voted to kill our constitutional republic. The so called “greatest deliberative body of the world” was too cowed and cowardly to hear what witnesses might reveal about their demigod Trump. Too much revelation to deliberate. 

Acquittal was never really in doubt. We live in too polarized a political climate to have expected anything else given the number required (67) to convict. But to reject the plea to hear relevant witnesses, especially former national security advisor John Bolton who alleges Trump told him aid to Ukraine was tied to its investigation of Joe Biden and his son Hunter, the Republican controlled Senate enabled Americans and the rest of the world to witness the total capitulation of a once-proud political party to the whims and sleaziness of its leader. Truly astonishing.

And shameful. We are not a banana republic. We are much worse, for Republicans will still claim we are a vibrant democracy, even as Trump skewers congressional oversight by disposing checks and balances into the waste basket of history. 

Trump has a history of ruining reputations. From Sean Spicer to Gary Cohen to generals Kelly, McMaster and Mattis, working for Trump has been a sure-fire way to get a reduction in rank for respect. 

Republican senators have gone AWOL on their ethics and conscience. I’ll leave it to Susan B. Glasser of The New Yorker to pronounce judgment on their charade of objectivity, particularly by Lamar Alexander of Tennessee: https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-trumps-washington/trump-impeachment-trial-the-senate-can-stop-pretending-now?utm_source=onsite-share&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=onsite-share&utm_brand=the-new-yorker.

Now, some may say talk of the fall of democracy is hyperbole. After all, we have an election in November. The people will get their chance to vote on Trump’s legitimacy and continuation as president.

Really? After we have witnessed Trump openly work to undermine our elections by soliciting foreign government interference, after he questioned the validity of the 2016 results before and after he won, after he has repeatedly lied on small and large matters, after his cult followers in the House and Senate have failed to hold him to the same standards of truth and transparency they demanded of his predecessors, after he has whipsawed any and all critics? An acquitted Trump will have no fear, no boundaries in his pursuit of a second term, or longer.

Time and again Republican senators Friday acknowledged Trump had been “inappropriate” in asking Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate his political rival Joe Biden. But inappropriateness does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense, they argued.

How about the next best option, then? Will the Senate vote to censure Trump? That would be a face-saving vote for any senator looking to salvage his or her legacy. But don’t bet on it, as Trump, no doubt, would tar and feather any Republican who voted for censure. 

Bolton's Time To Step Up, His Profile in Courage, Is Now, Before It Is Too Late

The integrity of the United States of America as a constitutional republic where no one is above the law now resides inside the conscience of John Bolton.

Donald Trump’s former national security advisor is said to claim to have pertinent first-hand knowledge of Trump’s innocence or culpability to the impeachment charges that he abused the powers of his office by trying to coerce the Ukrainian government to announce an investigation into his political rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter in exchange for a White House meeting with Ukraine’s president and for releasing congressionally approved military assistance in Ukraine’s fight against Russian-backed insurgents. Trump is also charged with obstructing the House investigation.

Bolton had been portrayed by witnesses during the House impeachment inquiry as being opposed to the withholding of aid. Yet he didn’t testify. Now he says he would talk if subpoenaed, but the Republican-controlled Senate refuses to call him.

The dilemma Bolton faces is comparable to an unidentified eyewitness to a murder whose testimony could convict or exonerate an accused. Does the witness come forward or remain silent, thus risking either the release of a killer or incarceration, even execution, of an innocent defendant?

At a Wednesday press conference at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Trump said he fears Bolton could reveal presidential thoughts on foreign leaders, thus making his job as president harder. (An understandable argument for executive privilege keeping Bolton silent.) He also cast doubt on Bolton’s objectivity since he left the White House under strained relations which Trump indicated were his, not Bolton’s, fault. (A deft way of undercutting Bolton’s credibility.)

Now is Bolton’s “profile in courage” moment. Having teased that he knows something about Trump’s actions in the Ukraine affair, he must publicly declare his knowledge, if not in front of the Senate then in a forum available to all citizens, on television or in print, BEFORE the Senate votes guilty or not guilty on the impeachment charges.

If what Bolton knows upholds Trump’s claim of innocence, so be it. No harm, no foul. Tellingly, it would go a long way in erasing any doubts the public might have that a coverup exists.

But if his testimony would undercut Trump’s innocence, it would be injurious to the nation if Bolton remained silent. There is no guarantee the Senate would convict based on Bolton’s words alone, but a statement from Bolton could uncork additional evidence and testimony from aides Trump has heretofore bottled up. 

The integrity of our government cannot be placed at risk by Bolton’s silence. Bolton’s government service has had a checkered history. He was one of the champions of the Iraqi war on the pretense Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He has been a hawk on issues of national defense and security. 

Honest leaders may disagree on those positions. But it is inconceivable that anyone with relevant information concerning the impeachment trial of a president could knowingly and willfully withhold such information from the Senate and the American public. 

Inaction is not an option for Bolton. The time for him to step up is immediate. It is now. Before it is too late.

Expect Impeachment But No Conviction

After three sometimes gripping, at time contentious, sometimes pedestrian days of hearings by the House Intelligence Committee, the questions to be answered are, Did Donald Trump’s actions rise to the level of an impeachable offense? And, given the Democratic Party majority on the committee and on the Judiciary Committee which would have to pass impeachment charges, and its majority in the full House of Representatives which has to affirm the charges which would then be sent to the Senate for consideration, is there any prospect that the Republican controlled Senate will vote to convict and thereby remove Trump from office?

Yes, the House will vote along party lines to impeach; no, the Senate will not vote to remove.

There was no smoking gun testimony as there was during the Watergate hearings and impeachment inquiry. No secret tapes (as far as we know). Nothing and nobody to testify to direct person to person dialogue with Trump about his actions to withhold congressionally approved military aid to an ally unless Ukraine investigated Joe and Hunter Biden.

Unless, and it is a big unless, former national security director John Bolton chooses to testify. Assuming, of course, that he would finger Trump for actions specifically in violation of his oath of office. 

At the end of the day Trump will get off with no more than a slap on the wrist. Like a cookie jar pilferer who gets caught by an admonishing mother, he no doubt will return to equally provocative acts, believing that as long as the Senate remains Republican controlled he will be immune from removal.

Here’s another question central to our democracy—when, if ever, will Republicans return to their long held beliefs? When will they once again condemn executive office overreach? When will they recall their opposition to a ballooning national debt and their desire for a balanced budget? When will they again champion unfettered foreign trade not hamstrung by tariffs? When will they advocate for strong and respectful international alliances? When will they rebuke a president who trusts Russia more than his own intelligence agencies?

Is the answer only when Democrats regain the presidency?

Have we so tribalized our politics that we cannot accept any action by a president from the opposition party, and the corollary, that we blindly accept whatever “our guy (or  gal)” does?

Has our politics become so toxic that anyone we disagree with immediately becomes the object of smear campaigns and physical threats? 

Don’t expect answers from me. I’m as perplexed, as depressed, as woebegone as you. 

Trump Is at Yogi's Proverbial Fork in the Road

I wonder what his good friend Bibi is telling Donald Trump about the need to show strength in the face of unprovoked attack, about the need to strike quickly to teach miscreants a lesson that Israel, er, the United States is not to be trifled with. Of course Bibi Netanyahu would like nothing more than the U.S. annihilating Iran’s power. Ditto the leaders of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Trump and some of his advisors, notably National Security Adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, want regime change in Iran. They hope to see an Iran not led by a religiously despotic ayatollah. Iran’s last regime change occurred in 1979. Since then the United States has had six regime changes led by half a dozen presidents with divergent world views. Given this historical perspective it is more likely there will be a new president of the U.S. before a new ayatollah with a fresh view that America is not satan. 

Rather than react rashly to the downing by Iran of an unarmed intelligence gathering drone early Thursday morning, Trump trod cautiously, even providing Iran with a plausible explanation for the assault, that a stupid officer went rogue and fired the surface to air missile that shot the drone out of the sky above the Strait of Hormuz. It was an uncharacteristic response from Trump. 

Or was it? A certified bully, Trump, it could be said, reacted just as any bully would when confronted. He cowered at the prospect of actual confrontation. Iran is not like Syria that was in no position to retaliate when Trump twice ordered cruise missiles to strike Syria after Bashir al Assad rained down chemicals on rebels. 

Perhaps Trump’s wariness was the result of an underreported fact about the incident. The drone was capable of flying at 55,000 feet, a height believed to be above Iran’s defensive capabilities. Wrong. “That is a demonstration by the Iranians that they have that capability, something the United States will take note of in the future,” according to The New York Times.

Perhaps Trump’s pulpit has more than bluster. We learned Friday morning he authorized three strikes on three targets. But with 10 minutes to spare, he cancelled the counterpunch. 

Politico reported he said he felt such a move was “not proportionate” to Iran’s attack on an unmanned drone. “We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights (sic) when I asked, how many will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it, not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone. I am in no hurry, our Military is rebuilt, new, and ready to go, by far the best in the world,” Trump tweeted.

Besides Bolton and Pompeo, and perhaps Vice President Mike Pence, the only disappointed faces most probably are in Riyadh, Abu Dhabi and Jerusalem. No one should embrace the idea of a war, but a proxy war by America against Iran would be welcome in those Middle Eastern capitals, even if Iran fulfilled a threat to retaliate by launching missiles into their countries. “Minor” damage and casualties would be a small price to pay for the elimination of an existential threat. 

Iran has complicated the calculus, asserting it exhibited restraint by not shooting down a military transport carrying 35 servicemen that accompanied the drone (how they knew the number of passengers was not explained). 

Trump is at a critical juncture. Yogi Berra allegedly said, “When you come to a fork in the road, take it.” Trump must now choose the path his administration will take and project during his presidency. He blasted Barack Obama for not following through on his threat to punish Assad for use of chemical weapons. 

Few people especially politicians believe Trump is a man of his word. With scant credibility to marshal international or domestic allies Trump must engage a strategy few believe he has any idea how to originate, much less implement (https://nyti.ms/2L3jliS). 

Timing of Trump Presidency in the Balance

In life, it is said, timing is everything.

The future of Donald Trump’s presidency, it may be said, hinges on timing. If one believes the dumpster-in-chief will fire special counsel Robert Mueller, the question becomes not why, but rather, when.

If he wields the twitter ax before the November elections he would galvanize an already white hot opposition, perhaps fueling enough rage to flip the House and Senate into Democratic control. Impeachment proceedings would surely follow in the new year when the next Congress convenes.

He may, therefore, wait to dump Mueller, along with Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein until after the elections. But that route risks providing Mueller with more than seven full months to further his investigation of Russia’s influence and interference in the 2016 elections and the Trump family’s ties to Russia. 

Does Trump want, in his mind, to be a political piñata seemingly forever? According to CNN, Mueller has indicated he has four main topics he would like Trump to address through questioning: his “role in crafting a statement aboard Air Force One that miscast Donald Trump Jr.’s campaign June 2016 meeting with Russians in Trump Tower, the circumstances surrounding that Trump Tower meeting as well as the firings of FBI Director James Comey and national security advisor Michael Flynn” (https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/21/politics/mueller-four-main-areas-questions-trump/index.html).

Though he has repeatedly said he would welcome talking with Mueller, Trump’s propensity to fabricate and dissemble could place him in jeopardy of perjury. It is hard to imagine any intelligent lawyer permitting Trump to appear under oath before Mueller. Of course, that presumes Trump would listen to any lawyer. He believes he always knows best.

During his campaign Trump boasted he would hire the best people (considering how many firings, resignations and abuses of taxpayer money his appointments have racked up, it is startling to think anyone has any confidence in Trump’s capacity to select competent, honest people to serve in his administration). 

Trump lambasted George W. Bush for his foreign policies, particularly as they affected the war in Iraq. So one wonders how he could hire John Bolton as his new national security advisor. Bolton was a prime contributor to Bush’s foreign policy team (https://nyti.ms/2pz9SnY).

Bolton is as hawkish as they come, giving credence to speculation that Trump is surrounding himself with voices that prefer to counsel combat versus conflict resolution, be it with Iran, North Korea or any other trouble spot. 

Timing, again, comes into play. Trump wanted a tougher team behind him, with Bolton and secretary of state nominee Michael Pompeo, rather than General H.R. McMaster and Rex Tillerson, as he prepares to meet with North Korea leader Kim Jong-Un and reaches a decision on staying in or abrogating the Iran nuclear deal. 

In the context of what is good for the country or what is good for Trump, he might favor hostilities as history has shown that at least at the beginning of combat the public rallies around a president. 

In the end, however, a sufficient number of voters will come to their senses. As long as the Democrats do not choose an unelectable alternative, Trump’s tenure in office is just a matter of time ticking off until January 2020, or sooner. 

Existential Threats: Jihadists or Neo-Nazis?

Which form of intolerance is a greater threat to Western civilization—extremist Muslims or neo-Nazis?

I posed that question to a buddy who had sent me an article by Giulio Meotti, cultural editor for Il Foglio, posted by Gatestone Institute, an international policy council chaired by John Bolton, former U.N. ambassador, the gist of which argued that Western civilization is endangered by jihadists, much as Eastern Christianity (in Arab lands) has been “extinguished” by them.  

My friend, a former elementary and high school classmate who is a retired U.S. foreign service officer, replied, “Intolerance is not the issue; the issue is how many innocent civilians have died world-wide traced to Salafist ideology.

“I served for 8 years at the U.S. Special Operations Command on Macdill Air Force Base, under Bush 43 and Obama. The Command categorized U.S. homegrown political extremes, from both the right and left, as the responsibility of Homeland Security and the FBI.  We never viewed Occupy Wall Street or the Alex Jones/Roger Spencer acolytes as an existential threat to the homeland.

“The 24/7 focus of our ops cell was draining the ideological swamp of global Jihadism.  Open Source reference tools outline the global reach of both AQ ( al-Queda) and ISIS and their death toll.

“Yes. I am more concerned with Salafism. ADL (Anti—Defamation League) and The AJC (American Jewish Committee) have the toolbox to handle these American losers on the right. 

“Europe replaced the Jews with Muslims.... that is their problem.”

Never one to shy away from a debate, my response followed:

“I respectfully but strongly disagree. I more fear a destruction of Western democratic values than a takeover of Western governments by a segment of a religion whose vast majority have shown a desire to be part of Western society with its openness and inclusiveness. 

“Sure, you can point to the wanton killings of non Muslims, and even Muslims from the wrong sect, as proof that Islamic extremists are evil. But their killings in Europe and the United States and Canada are insignificant (except, of course, to their victims and their respective families) compared to the “sanctioned” deaths we tolerate from permissive gun laws and violations of environmental and food/drug safety laws. In one year alone the U.S. has more deaths by guns than the total Americans killed by al-Queda, ISIS and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And that includes 9/11. 

“We are witnessing a resurgence of fascism and totalitarianism in Western countries. While it might be said to be ignited by the presence of Muslim immigrants, both legal and illegal, it is not the sole reason. Income inequality and the replacement of meaningful jobs by technology or outsourcing have destabilized economies. 

“Western values are being challenged by a return to tribalism. Parts of Italy and Spain seek independence. Britain has Brexit. Poland is becoming anti-Semitic again not just to Jews but first to Muslims. Then to Jews. 

“Under the guise of trying to control the spread of Islamic terrorism the West is relaxing its commitment to shared values of democracy. We are letting fear dominate our thinking. 

“I am not advocating any abandonment of the battle against Islamic extremism. Hunt them down. Do not let them acquire WMDs (weapons of mass destruction). But do not let the battle destroy our principles. No torture. To the extent possible no civilian collateral casualties. No support for despots who deny their countrymen civil liberties. 

“Radical Islam was born from the oppression Arab rulers practiced on their people with the willing consent of America and other Western powers. That fact cannot be denied. Sadly, even if the extremists were to secure their own country, as ISIS has shown, they would be equally if not more repressive and evil than the rulers they would have ousted. What is clear is that the vast majority of ordinary Muslims reject extremism. 

“To prevent radical thought from spreading in the West we need to provide a stable economic platform plus education and civil rights to all. Regrettably, some will still not accept Western civilization. They will terrorize us. But they will be no more effective than the Las Vegas shooter. Yes, they will kill an untold number of Americans but unless we capitulate they will not be able to kill off our ideals.” 

I await his reply.