Category Archives: government

The Theory

Posted on by
1

Moderator: I was looking at one of Wylie Miller’s “Non Sequitur” comics the other day it inspired me. Look at this:

So we’re going to play a game called Conspiracy Theory.  Let’s make one up, right here.  All five of us around this table.  Each of us contributes one “fact” with the next person building on that “fact” until we have a theory we can float out there.

Person One: How about this? Donald Trump isn’t the real President.

Person Two:  He did win the office in an election, but—

Person Three: He’s just a figurehead!

Moderator: Wait a minute.  Figurehead?

Person Four: I think I agree. Yeah, he’s just the guy out front but somebody else is really pulling his strings.  Think of all the times he has said, “I don’t know” when he’s been asked questions by the press. And just recently when somebody asked him who stopped arms shipments to Ukraine, he said, “I don’t know. You tell me.”  We need to point a finger at someone we can pass off as the string-puller.

Person One:  Hmmm.  Why don’t we “suggest” it’s Stephen Miller?

Moderator: Wow!  That’s an interesting road to go down. How can we cook up something to explain that?

Person Two: Well, what about we say that Miller is dreaming up all of this deportation business.  I mean, he recently tried to explain how much better the country would be if we got rid of all of the immigrants. Like, “You would be able to see a doctor in an emergency room right away.” He was talking about how Los Angeles would be better but aren’t there emergency rooms all over the country that would be better off if we didn’t have immigrants falling off of roofs or burning themselves in a Mexican restaurant kitchen, or having a heart attack while picking lettuce on a 110-degree day? Stuff like that.

Person Three: Y’know, he also talked about schools. He said, “Your kids would go to a public school that had more money than they know what to do with.”

Person Four: And he also said “Classrooms would be half the size. Students who have special needs would get all the attention that they needed.” Of course, all of this was being said about the same time the administration was withholding tons of money for summer programs and other school things.

Person Two: Do you think his immigration talk was just a smokescreen to distract attention from the school forecasting?

Person Four: Interesting suggestion.

Moderator:  All of the claims are provable nonsense, of course. And here in Missouri, a lot of school funding is based on attendance numbers so that might mean LESS money for Missouri schools if there are fewer students.

Person One: And don’t forget: “There would be no fentanyl, there would be no drug deaths.”

Person Three: None?

Person One: That’s what he said.

Moderator: Thanks for mentioning that. It sure sounds like the kind of stuff Trump actually has said.  It’s also not true, but truth and conspiracy theories are incompatible. So, we need to make sure we say this thing about Miller often enough that people will think, “If they keep saying it, it has to be right.”

Person Two:  Those things do sound like stuff he might cook up to feed Trump to say during one of his cabinet meetings or maybe during a graduation speech somewhere.  Trump does like to be given a fact that he can blow up into a major talking point even if he doesn’t know what the fact is all about—-and then keep repeating it during his interminable public speeches.

Person Three: Speaking of feeding Trump things.  D’you think he really reads the executive orders he signs?  I don’t. Somebody announces what the thing is about and then gives it to Trump who signs the document, holds it up for the photo ops, then waits for somebody to tell him what’s in the next one. Somebody else clearly writes the things—the spelling and capitalization are all properly done and I haven’t heard yet that any of them end with MAGA!

Person One: And there are so many of them!  You can’t tell me that he personally signs all of them. We just see the ones he does on television. Why don’t we suggest the Trump autopen is in Miller’s office?

Person Four:  Good point. I’ve got another one. His speeches. He reads his prepared remarks as if he hasn’t seen them before and then goes off-script with some whoppers in his usual style for several minutes and then might drift back to the prepared remarks.  It must drive people like Miller crazy when he goes off the reservation like that. But we can make the case that he doesn’t sound like he knows what he’s talking about when he’s on-script because he’s just mouthing words provided by Miller until he thinks he can make the point better if he mixes it in with ad-libbed revenge language or something.

Person One: You’re right. The prepared stuff sounds too rational to be Trump’s real words and when he reads it off the teleprompter it sounds as if he’s never seen it before. It’s not until he goes off on a tangent that we get the real Trump and that makes people forget what somebody prepared for him. I think that makes our theory stronger.

Person Two: Hold on a minute. We’re kind of drifting away from creating a well-rounded theory here.  Let me suggest this: Stephen Miller actually runs Donald Trump.

Person Four: Could we suggest he’s a shape shifter and he actually IS Donald Trump?

Person One: That’s over the edge, I think—although people who dress up as Wookies might believe it.

Person Three: Getting back to our point. Maybe we can suggest it’s the kind of stuff that Trump will embellish to even more outlandish dimensions in his speeches or cabinet meetings, which will let the media think he’s the one most loudly pushing this stuff.

Person Four:  But we say he’s not, that the main thing he’s interested in is becoming wealthier so he lets Miller run the presidency and create quotes while Trump cooks up new ways to make more money

Person Two: And playing golf.

Person Four: And playing golf.  AND getting a gift airplane he can repaint to look like Air Force One and take it home as a souvenir when he leaves office.

Moderator: We’re drifting off topic again, folks. Let’s get back to the Trump-as-front-man for Miller theory.

Person Two: What else do we have?

Person Three: Well, there’s Jeffrey Epstein and Vladimir Putin.

Moderator: That’s an interesting pairing. But I think that’s going to take some work before we put it out there.  Remember, Trump has been accusing Ukraine of starting that war and he browbeat Zelinsky during that Oval Office embarrassment and now Trump has figured out that Putin doesn’t care what he says.  We need to spend some time figuring out how Miller can be behind that.

Person Three: How about Epstein?

Person Two: Oh, Lord, I’m not sure we can add anything to that mess. Let’s leave that to Glenn Beck. He has five theories and we don’t want to crowd the field. He’s creative enough to handle that himself and we should let nature take its course on that one. If there are a half-dozen conspiracy theories around, things will be confused enough that MAGA people can take their picks.

Sooner or later that drawing of the woman is going to leak out, if there really is one. However, even without that, we do know that Trump has used his magic marker to draw things for auctions as well as for things other than signing executive orders and re-drawing weather maps. So he and his marker are certainly capable of a lot of things. But we need to talk more about that.

Moderator: Listen, we shouldn’t get too complicated with our theory.  The best conspiracy theory is a simple one that susceptible minds—the gullible idiots—can easily latch onto. We don’t want to get over the heads of those people.

Person One: That’s a good point. Why don’t we just go out there with the “Trump is just a front man” theory. The mainline media will pummel that possum flat and the Trumpers will deny it. But a few of them might think, “Maybe there’s something there.” We use this as our first theory to weaken the obsessive support Trump has from a lot of people and then we flesh out some of the other things we’ve kicked around or that might come up.

Person Two: We could do a lot with swollen ankles, you know.

Person Three:  Oooh, great idea.  Maybe we can suggest that problems with blood flow to his legs can be an indication of problems with blood flow to the brain.

Person Four: What makes you think that would work?  The medical profession probably wouldn’t support it?

Person One: I think it COULD work. With RFK Jr., running the country’s health agency, a lot of the public might buy the brain vein idea and probably some other theory we can develop—like Trump wearing a catheter. That could be a good one, too.

Person Two: What could we do with his bald spot?

Moderator (ignoring Peron Two): Okay, I think we need to stop before we go farther off the deep end. We’ve come up with some great ideas. Let’s get together in the next few days and polish our first one before we send it to MSNBC where Rachel and Chris can spend a week or more developing it for us.  We probably should make sure FOX hears about it, too, so they can interview Trump whose denials and threats will only add credence to our theory.

Person Four: Don’t forget to give it to One America and Newsmax. They won’t be able to ignore it and we’ll get even more exposure when they call it a hoax.

Moderator: Now, listen.  You raised the issue of threats. We have to be careful so that nobody knows where this came from. We don’t want to get sued by Trump. Of course, we don’t have nearly enough money to make it worth his while but that doesn’t stop him.  We’re just innocent private citizens having a little fun at his expense.

Person Two: You know, of course, that we wouldn’t have to worry about such things if Trump had a sense of humor.

Moderator: Yeah.  Well…….

(Non Sequitur by Wylie Miller is distributed by Andrews McMeal syndicate.)

-0-

Be Careful What You Wish For 

Posted on by
Reply

It’s an old idiom with several variations but it has a currency in today’s politics as some states are hopping to President Trump’s demands to redraw congressional districts so a cooperative Republican majority will not offer any checks or balances to his policies throughout the rest of his term.

Republican friends, you would be well-advised to tread carefully into this Trumpswamp.

We have witnessed numerous lawsuits stemming from the seven redistrictings we have covered or observed. The authors of the realigned districts always deny they have gerrymandered districts either to protect an incumbent or to oust an incumbent the majority party wants to target.

But this is different. The President has specifically asked legislatures to gerrymander districts to make sure more Republicans are elected to the U. S. House in 2026. He has a small and shrinking majority there now and he is seeing some ferment within his MAGAites and his response is not to correct any of his own behaviors but to ask state legislatures to make sure he doesn’t have to.

Some leaders of the Missouri legislature would not be surprised if Governor Kehoe calls a special session to redraw our congressional districts to oust one of our two Democrat members of the House, in this case the Rev. Emanuel Cleaver of Kansas City, one of our senior congressmen.

They tried to do that once before, putting him in what I called a “dead lizard” district (because its outline looked like a dead lizard, lying on its back with its feet up) that stretched as far east as Marshall, thus putting more rural conservative voters in play. But the legislature made a mistake by letting him keep too many of his Kansas City constituents and he won anyway.  It is unlikely the legislature will make that same mistake this time.

In the past, legislators accused in lawsuits of gerrymandering denied doing so intentionally, forcing critics to prove their defenses untrue.  This time, however, there will be no denying intentional gerrymandering; the President has ordered it.

It will be blatantly intentional, therefore harder to defend.

There are other issues in play, too. They must consider whether they are enacting a boomerang.

First, there is the question of the population basis for the new plan. Trump wants a new census that can be used in apportionment. That’s a reason to delay redrawing the lines. His desire to exclude some people in that census will draw lawsuits. More delay.

Why, therefore, the rush?  No census. No determination of the census’s legality. How can the numbers used to calculate new districts be accurate without that census and the determination of its constitutionality?

Whether the districts will exist a year from now, in the 2026 election cycle, depends on the court attacks on the plan—and there will be attacks. The timing of the challenges, the hearings, the appeals, the appeals hearings, the rulings and the appeals to an even higher level will chew up a lot of time.  The legislature can approve the plan. But whether it will withstand vigorous court challenges on numerous fronts from the accuracy of population numbers as well as the overt partisanship behind it is uncertain. Whether opponents can run out the clock on the plan also is uncertain.

It also is possible that Trump’s continued misadventures politically, legislatively, socially, and judicially will have further inflamed his existing and his new critics by election time in ’26 and voters will take it out on Republicans generally and the Republican running to oust an incumbent Democrat in particular.

If this plan goes into effect, Democrats can launch numerous attacks and use it to put forward attractive candidates than will have a significant ready-made issue to make a strong run at Republicans. It could backfire.  Some concerns already are being heard in the GOP ranks.

Sometimes it is better to let incumbent dogs lie (read that how you prefer) than it is to stir up a public that is capable of switching to the other party on election day. Experience shows that the public is a fickle creature.

It’s a risk/reward situation for Republicans no matter how they cut it. They should consider the potential hazards of getting what they wish for because they easily could get what they don’t desire, especially if Trump continues in the next year to alienate his base and Americans generally with his Big Ugly Bill and subsequent actions and legal problems.

Present trends seem to indicate his behavior is doing potentially prospective Republican candidates no service, something incumbents might consider as they ponder their own futures. Is he worth the risk in which they might be placing themselves?  And if they decide he isn’t, will they have the courage to stand up?

Rigging the Election

Posted on by
Reply

A normally sane person might think that a person who has claimed a rigged election is wrong would be reluctant to try to rig one himself.

But we are living in Trumpworld.

President Trump wants red states such as Missouri to adjust their congressional districts so more Republicans might be elected next year. A president’s party historically loses congressional seats in midterm elections and Trump and his party don’t have any seats he can spare.).

Texas Republicans have jumped at the opportunity to make the master happy although the GOP already dominates the state’s delegation in the U. S. House of Representatives 27-12.  That’s not good enough for Trump. The effort has led to a confrontation with their Democratic colleagues that has become, our mind at least, a national embarrassment for Texas politics and politicians.

What’s going on here?  Trump is scared.  Of what?  National Review correspondent Audrey Fahlberg said recently on CNN, “The White House is driving this because clearly they are worried about losing the midterms.  They’re convinced that if House Democrats flip the House, that Trump is going to get impeached again…The ‘big beautiful bill’ is not polling super well right now, so they’re going on offense here. They’re driving this into motion in Texas. They’re looking at other states, as well. We may see this continue in states like Florida, Indiana.”

And Missouri appears likely to get into this, too. Republicans have six of our eight House seats but apparently that’s not enough. Senate leader Cindy O’Laughlin has told the Missouri Independent that it is “likely” the governor will call a special session to redraw lines so Republicans would be likely to take away the seat held by one of our senior members, the Reverend Emanuel Cleaver of Kansas City. He’s one of two Missouri African-Americans in our congressional delegation.

Missouri is not out of whack in the D/R balance of our congressional districts.  Last year, President Trump got 58 percent of the popular vote in Missouri. Kamala Harris and minor candidates got 42 percent.  A 6-2 congressional breakdown fits those results.

The Missouri legislature is more than 2-1 Republican so a walkout by Democrats similar to the Texas walkout wouldn’t stop the GOP from aiding and abetting Trump’s need to have a pliant Congress. The Missouri House Minority Leader, Ashley Aune of Kansas City, has told the Independent, “Everyone I’ve talked to, especially on my side of the aisle, expects to go down and get steamrolled…during a special session.”

In about a month, legislators will reconvene to consider overriding any vetoes dispensed by Governor Kehoe after the regular session and a special  session could meet concurrently with that veto session. It’s been done a few times before.

We can anticipate one of the arguments opponents will make. Our state constitution’s Article III, Section 45 says:

 When the number of representatives to which the state is entitled in the House of the Congress of the United States under the census of 1950 and each census thereafter is certified to the governor, the general assembly shall by law divide the state into districts corresponding with the number of representatives to which it is entitled, which districts shall be composed of contiguous territory as compact and as nearly equal in population as may be.

The average citizen is likely to think this language is clear—the state constitution provides for redistricting after each census but has no authorization for redistricting midway through a census decade. The language about “contiguous territory as compact and as nearly equal in population as may be” has been used from time to time to challenge redistricting plans that critics think wander too far from “contiguous” and “compact.”

Missouri has revised congressional district maps after the decennial census is taken beginning, as noted in the language, after the 1950 census. The only time the legislature redistricted between census counts was in the 1960s with a case that went to the United States Supreme Court that ruled against a redistricting map. A key part of the ruling said:

Missouri contends that variances were necessary to avoid fragmenting areas with distinct economic and social interests and thereby diluting the effective representation of those interests in Congress. But to accept population variances, large or small, in order to create districts with specific interest orientations is antithetical to the basic premise of the constitutional command to provide equal representation for equal numbers of people. “[N]either history alone, nor economic or other sorts of group interests, are permissible factors in attempting to justify disparities from population-based representation. Citizens, not history or economic interests, cast votes.”

If we understand Trump’s demands, he wants the Missouri legislature to create “districts with specific interest orientations.” The U. S. Supreme Court is much different than it was in the sixties so we’ll have to see if this precedent carries any weight with today’s Trump-dominated court.

Not all Missouri Republicans are in lock step with Trump. One is Senator Mike Moon of Ash Grove, a member of the so-called Freedom Caucus, a minority group within the Republican Party that took control of the chamber and blocked action on hundreds of bills in the last three years. Another is the Speaker Pro Tem of the House, Chad Perkins of Bowling Green who worries that “a 7-1 map is easily a 5-3 map in a year that doesn’t go the way that conservatives want it to go.”

Perkins also makes the point that Democrats should not moan and wail too loudly about Republican attempts to hold their advantage by changing districts in the middle of a decade because the Democrats in Illinois and California are doing the same thing to gain an advantage to offset any pick-ups Trump might make in other states.

The latest wrinkle in the planned rigging is Trump’s order for his Commerce Department to run a new census that does not include undocumented immigrants, the U. S. Constitution notwithstanding.

Article I, Section 2 does not seem to allow what Trump demands, at least for your observer’s untutored reading.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. 

The Constitution recognizes the census taken every ten years as the only legitimate census. By including “the whole number of free persons,” it does not exempt immigrants, which at the time the Constitution was written was a considerable number. Indians were not counted (although they were probably the freest people in the nation’s history until the Europeans showed up). Slaves WERE counted but since they were not free they were considered only three-fifths of a person—a provision the southern states demanded so representation would be balanced with states in the north.

And the article says the only census that will be constitutionally recognized is the one done every ten years.

Trump’s order is not helpful to his demand that new congressional districts be drawn. Right now. The first part of Amendment 1, section 2 says the districts will be drawn based on census figures.  The census has to come first, then the districts, a constitutional provision that seems to say Texas is jumping the gun and Missouri would be doing the same. Doing a census the way Trump wants it done could be pretty difficult and time consuming because a lot of Latino people whether here legally or illegally are making themselves as scarce as possible.

To coin a phrase, Trump seems to be engaged in unconstitutional bundling.

Trump’s political cynicism does nothing to reduce the general public’s distrust of our political system. In fact, he has played upon it to get elected.

Politics sometimes has been a mud-and-blood-and beer wrestling match although not as untrustworthy as many see it today. Some observers have suggested this state of decline began with Ronald Reagan’s inaugural remark 44 years ago that, “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government IS the problem.”

Reagan had it right but he sure didn’t foresee the much different way the statement is true today.

The central issue in this frantic competition to diminish a minority within a state’s congressional delegation is this:

We have a President and a GOP House and Senate that recognize their statements and their actions are counter to the public’s increasingly self-recognized best interests. They are uncertain that the public, if given the chance, will let them keep doing to the country and its people the things they are doing.

Thomas Jefferson and the Second Continental Congress had the answer many of today’s  politicians want to ignore:

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Read that last sentence again.  When a despotic government becomes destructive of the inalienable rights of citizens like you and me, WE have the RESPONSIBILITY to resist and to form a new government that provides for our “future security.” The Trump bunch is afraid the people might want to do that now that the see that Trump was less than honest (to put it mildly) in his campaign.

Too many in today’s politics care less about life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness than they care about power, especially power that can be abused to benefit the few by harming the many. Re-drawing congressional district lines by those focused on power more than on the government our forefathers imagined helps assure that the people have reduced chances for benefitting from their inalienable rights.

There is an odor of desperation in the air on the part of those who believe in power above service as they see public sentiment for them weaken.

The redistricting game is being played by people who have come to believe they cannot win if they do not rig next year’s elections for Congress—-and they’re flouting their ambitions right before our eyes when they consider a mid-term re-drawing of congressional district lines based on ignoring counting “the whole people” to protect a President who now seems far less confident in his future than he did six months ago.

They might be imperiling themselves if they proceed, these legislators, as we will discuss in our next entry.

Is He Just Joshing Us?  

Posted on by
Reply

“Joshing,” as in “teasing,” or “joking with” others.

Senator Josh Hawley recently proposed the federal government issue $600 tariff rebate checks per person—a family of four getting $2,400.

Such a deal he has for us!

What makes no sense is that in true Trumpian fashion, he is blaming President Biden for the perceived necessity for the checks. “Americans deserve a tax rebate after four years of Biden policies that have devastated families’ savings and livelihoods,” Hawley said as he announced his plan, and suggested, “My legislation would allow hard-working Americans to benefit from the wealth that Trump’s tariffs are returning to this country.”

Now, hold on a minute. He’s spouting totally misleading statements that rely on public ignorance of how tariffs work.

We are going to un-ignorance any of you who think other countries are paying the United States big taxes, the tariffs of which President Trump is so proud. They are not.  WE are the ones taking it in the billfold. Britannica.com makes it easy to understand:

Let’s review how tariffs work.  First, neither a foreign company nor its home country pays any additional tax when it brings products here. United States companies buying the products are the ones paying a tax (the tariff) to Customs and Border Protection at the port of entry. They pay the foreign manufacturer the price of the goods and then they pay an additional amount to CBP before the products are released to them.

And how do those companies recover that extra fee, including the tariffs President Trump seems to arbitrarily set?  As the illustration shows, they make you and me pay more for our Korean refrigerator, our Canadian steel, our Chinese fireworks, Indonesian shirts, etc. We already are seeing some stores post signs telling customers how much more items cost because of the President’s tariffs. He’s intimidates some companies into not doing that. But he can’t scare all of them.

Therefore, Hawley’s proposal would have the federal government give us a rebate check to offset some of the extra money that we are paying for foreign-made products because of the Trump tariffs and we will use that money to buy more products with inflated costs because of the tariffs.

This is an economic program based on the Menard’s rebate system.

So, when Hawley says, ““My legislation would allow hard-working Americans to benefit from the wealth that Trump’s tariffs are returning to this country,” he is indulging in nothing short of verbal sleight of hand. There is no money “returning to this country.” It is here already and WE will pay it. In effect, he proposes putting some money in our right-hand pocket after the Trump tariffs take money out of our left-hand pocket.

Six hundred dollars might not come close to reimbursing us for our tariff-increased out-of-pocket expenses in the purchase of a new car, or the accumulated costs of less costly things we buy throughout the year.

And how much will this gracious gesture cost our debt-ridden federal government? How much of the tariff-raised money that could go toward reducing the Trumpian increase in our national debt will instead be sent back to us as a fake bonus?

A few days ago the census bureau put our national population at 342,201,496.

In our calculations, we probably are over-simplifying the math and the subtleties of who would be eligible for a rebate. We don’t know, for example how many of those 342.2 million people are criminals, mental patients, gang members, and drug-sellers from south of the border who wouldn’t be eligible to receive anything and, if the administration has its way, won’t be here to collect a check anyway. But just by multiplying the population number by 600, we could up with a total expenditure of $205,320,897,600. That’s $205.3 BILLION of our own money that will be returned to us.

Missourians (our population of 6,282,690) would receive $3,769,614,000 of their own money back.  The best thing that can be said for the deal is that it’s better than the Menard’s rebates that you only get if you buy something else later.

HOWEVER all of us might not get one of these checks if Congress falls for this scheme—your vigilant observer for example.

Hawley has told listeners to Steve Bannon’s podcast that  Trump’s tariffs are “on track to raise over $150 billion this calendar year alone,” well short of the calculated total above. But that shortfall can be adjusted because Hawley says it won’t go to those who supported Trump’s favorite punching bag, Joe Biden. “You’d give it to our people,” he said. “The rich people don’t need it…All those Democrat donors of Wall Street, all these fund guys, who all hate the tariffs…We ought to give a portion back to our working class blue-collar voters who powered the Trump revolution, who got this president into office multiple times, and who are the backbone of this nation.” Multiple times meaning “two.”

Get out the hip boots, folks. It’s awfully deep in here.

I’m not saying I supported Joe Biden in 2024, thus becoming disqualified under this  Hawley/Trump frequent flyer program. It’s just that you will never find my lip prints on the presidential ring.

Pro-Trump blue collar folks will be rewarded for their loyalty but anti-Trump blue collar workers won’t be rewarded? We suppose he knows how to separate a red blue-collar worker from a blue blue-collar worker.  Perhaps he’ll use the people from ICE who are widely respected for their skills of discerning who gets hauled off to God knows where, largely based on physical appearance, to determine awardees.

This pinpointing of disloyal blue collar workers and keeping the Washington bureaucracy (what’s left of it, anyway) from sending checks to undeserving garbage men, grave diggers, and gas station operators should keep the total outlay below the amount we just computed.

And remember, this scheme just gives us back our own money that otherwise would be used for such things as building more wall in the Southwest where we are still waiting for the first check from Mexico that Trump promised would pay those costs, reimbursing this country for all those miles of fence.

This country is more than $30 TRILLION in debt. Where will it find the money for Hawley’s warm and fuzzy give-back plan? You and I will provide it by paying for Trump’s tariffs, as we have provided the money for the wall Mexico will pay for.

So far he hasn’t tied tariffs on Mexican products to the recovery of fence costs.

While thousands of his constituents have to deal with cutbacks in the food stamp program, the school meal programs, safety net reductions, cuts in disaster aid, attacks on disease prevention and control, and friends and relatives hauled away by masked hooligans in ICE outfits, he’s going to load up on a souvenir airplane, build a ballroom where even more of his friends can pay a lot of money to be in the same room with him, and gather as many other shiny tchotchkes that catch his eye. And he and Hawley hope to take our minds off of his meat-cleavering of programs that serve the people at large by giving us back a few hundred of the bucks it’s costing us to buy any of the myriad of things made somewhere else that they are making us pay more to buy.

Blaming President Biden for all of the broken promises or created problems of this administration as well as giant increases in the federal debt has become a misleading Republican whine that is beyond tiresome. Liars might figure, but figures don’t lie. And the figures show Trump stands balding head and shoulders above Biden and Obama when it comes to running up the national debt.

A study by consumeraffairs.com shows the Biden administration increased the national debt by $6.17 trillion while the first Trump administration drove it up by $8.18 trillion. (The Obama administration, ran it up by $8.34 trillion, but it took him eight years.) The calculations show Biden increased the national debt by 21.7 percent. Trump hiked it by 40.43% and some analysts say his Big Ugly Bill will add $2.5-3.8 trillion more.

Last we heard, Hawley hadn’t attracted any supporters, particularly others in his party, many of whom think the tariff revenues should be used to reduce the national debt or at least to retard its growth.

Next thing you know, Trump will be demanding the Nobel Prize for Economics—as he also wants it for Peace achieved through international bombing and national cruelty.

Let’s wait and see how Hawley figures out a way to get this dead bird to fly. Just remember, it’s our money that you and I might someday get back, not dollars paid by any foreign government or foreign manufacturer.

Six hundred dollars that we can use to pay tariff-inflated prices on other goods..

Maybe it’s not so different from Menard’s rebate system after all.

Liars Figure

Posted on by
Reply

—especially when they don’t like the truth that figures tell.

When the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported job growth figures well under those our president had been bragging about or boasting did not, in fact, materialize, he killed the messenger, another indication that he cannot tolerate people who tell the truth.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported only 73,000 jobs had been created nationally in July, a third month that the numbers came up short of what had been promoted or predicted.  The department, as it has done at times in the past, adjusted previously-announced figures for May and June substantially lower than originally reported. And our President—with no evidence the bureau was not being accurate with the adjustment—fired the director.

Trump hasn’t liked Director Erika McEntarfer anyway and has accused her of faking employment numbers last year to make Kamala Harris look good. He claims the July job figures are the latest thing “rigged in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad.”  He says he will hire someone “much more competent and qualified” to take McEntarfer’s place.

We wonder which “more competent and qualified” FOX news anchor he will pick to replace McEntarfer, who has a doctorate in economics from Virginia Tech and was an economist in the Census Bureau’s Center for Economic Studies during Trump’s first term. Before that, she worked in the Treasury Department Office of Tax Policy. During the Biden presidency she was with the Council of Economic Advisors as a senior economist. The Republican-controlled Senate showed its confidence in her with a confirmation vote of 86-8 for  directorship in early 2024.

What seemed to pull Trump’s cork was that  revision downward of numbers from May and June and a paltry 73,000 new jobs reported in July. The original report for May calculated only 19,000 new jobs were created. The original report for June calculated 144,000 new jobs but was revised downward by ninety percent to only 14,000.  The new three-month total is 106,000, well below the original report just for June.

The outlook for much improvement is gloomy.  Coresight Research forecasts 15,000 stores will close this year. That’s added to the 7,325 closed last year.

From various sources we have put together a list of store chains shutting down big parts of their holdings:

Walgreens 500 this year, 1200 by end of 2027.

Advanced auto Parts 727 by mid-year.

Macy’s 150 stores through 2026.

Family Dollar  370 this year (600 last year)

CVS  300 stores already closed.

Big Lots  500-700

Joann Fabrics  all stores

Forever 21 all locations

Rite Aid  200 in fourteen states

Denny’s Restaurants 100 this year; 50 last year

Red Robin  70

Foot Locker  More than 400 by 2026

Dollar Tree  30

7-11  440 (out of more than 13,000 locations)

And none of those figures look at the jobs that are lost because workers are shipped off to some mysterious location and there hasn’t been time for Medicaid recipients to replace them in the face of threats to take away their benefits if they don’t work.

Political cowards do not accept bad news and often have a tendency to look for scapegoats rather than flaws in their own policies.  Leaders look for ways to turn bad news around. Cowards kill messengers. Leaders do not fear truth to power; they welcome its challenges to be better.

Trump claims the national economy is booming because of his policies. The numbers say otherwise. His solution is to fire someone who looks at the numbers and tells us truths he doesn’t want us to hear—.

—as is the case with Federal Reserve Chief Jerome Powell, who won’t embrace the rosy picture Trump paints of the economy. He lies awake at night—-maybe we should put some punctuation in there so it more accurately reads, “He lies, awake at night”—because he lives in his own world where truth is kept under mental lock and key, and he cooks up new insults and threats to throw at those who have the courage to stand up to him.

When will this country, particularly those who have so easily shrunk from their responsibilities to the people at large, reach a tipping point with him?

 

Two-faced

Posted on by
1

Our Missouri Republican delegates in Washington, House members and Senators, have supported the Trump administration’s major legislative effort to control the information Americans—and, in particular, their constituents—can receive.

In the case of Congressman Mark Alford, whose district stretches from Kansas City and the western border to Columbia and almost to Springfield, his support of the crippling recission of funds from public broadcasting might not be as hypocritical as you can get but it’s close.

On March 20, Alford and two other members of the House formed the Broadcasters Caucus. He said THEN, “As a longtime TV news reporter, including anchoring Kansas City’s top morning news show for nearly twenty-five years, I’m proud to help lead the Broadcaster’s Caucus this Congress. Our time in the media gave us a front row seat to the stories that impact our constituents’ lives, as well as insight into how misguided public policy can harm the local radio and TV stations Missourians rely on. I look forward to working with Co-chairs Flood, Soto, and Boyle to educate our colleagues, bridge the partisan divide, and solve the issues that matter to the broadcasting community.”

“Broadcast journalism is the cornerstone of how Middle America receives its news,” said Congressman Flood (NE-01). “The significance of local radio and television stations cannot be overstated—they help connect communities to the news that shapes our way of life. As someone who grew up in the broadcasting world before coming to Congress, I know firsthand how critical this kind of advocacy is for broadcasters. I’m pleased to be joined by Congressmen Alford, Boyle, and Soto as co-chairs as we continue the caucus’ mission in the 119th Congress.”

“I helped start the Broadcasters Caucus five years ago to support the important work of our local radio and television stations, and I’m excited to continue the Caucus’ bipartisan mission in the 119th Congress. Both as a student broadcaster and as the Representative for the people of Pennsylvania’s 2nd district, I have seen firsthand how many Americans rely on our local broadcasters for the news they need about our communities and the world. I look forward to working alongside Congressmen Alford, Flood, and Soto to support the vital work of our local broadcasters,” said Congressman Brendan Boyle (PA-02).

Congressman Darren Soto chimed in, “Helping lead the Broadcaster’s Caucus this Congress has been a privilege, especially as we work to amplify the voices of Central Florida. Our region’s diverse communities and dynamic growth demand that we stand together to ensure fair representation, and I’m proud to be part of this effort to strengthen the future of broadcasting for all.”

(I added the bold face emphasis)

Noble words then. The National Association of Broadcasters was thrilled. Association CEO Curtis LeGeyt commended this  bunch for recognizing “the vital role local TV and radio stations play in every community across the country.”  He pledged the NAB would help these four “advance bipartisan policies that allow local stations to continue serving their audiences with the trusted news, sports, weather and emergency updates they depend on every day.”

But a few days ago, Alford was singing the Trump song about the media that seems to be strikingly different from what he said in March: “NPR and PBS have gotten funding from the taxpayers and they’ve gone way too far to the Left. The taxpayer dollar should not be funding propaganda.”

No, it’s best to only circulate Trump propaganda. And it’s easy to throw around a vague accusation without showing that TV shows on quilting and painting and teaching kids how to respect each other and their elders are somehow dangerously socialistic or woke.

Columbia television station KMIZ (Columbia has two publicly supported radio stations including NPR affiliate KBIA that operates satellite transmitters in Mexico and Kirksville) got a statement from Alford praising the cuts.

Alford continued, “With the proliferation of free, high-quality education content across the internet, NPR and PBS have outlived their usefulness. In addition, these outlets — especially at the national level — routinely show a clear left-wing bias, which should not be subsidized by taxpayers. For more than 25 years as a television news anchor, I competed against these taxpayer-subsidized entities. NPR and PBS should compete in the marketplace for advertising dollars just like ABC 17. It’s time for Big Bird to leave the nest.”

The Big Bird nest thing has been around for a long time. Surely he could have found a more original way to demonstrate he really didn’t mean all the good things he was saying about broadcasters, no exceptions, in March.

In truth, Alford probably didn’t compete much against PBS and NPR because PBS and NPR focus on national and international news and he was more locally-focused.  Plus, it’s hard to believe that the underwriters of public broadcasting would be significant sponsors on his commercial station.

And just where does he think Big Bird will find a home in today’s commercial TV world—because that is what the cut off in public funding will force the welcome world of commercial-free information, entertainment, and creative educational programming to go. And if public broadcasting has to start doing the kinds of advertising we hear on commercial stations, wont that increase competition for the already-limited advertising dollars that support traditional commercial media?

Big Bird is a big problem to the Trumpers.  Sesame Street has been teaching children about tolerance and respect for others as well as counting and learning the alphabet for decades. Big Bird never cultivates fear or disrespect of other creatures, all of which are concepts Trump and his toadies love to promote on commercial stations.

KBIA’s general manager told KMIZ, “As publicly funded organizations, NPR and the Public Broadcasting Service are legally required to follow principles of fairness, balance and objectivity in their programming, according to the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. The use of these guidelines by public and private news media has come under question during both Trump terms with the President coining the phrase ‘fake news.’”

I’ve got news, real news, for these members of Congress and their presidential bed partner. Alford’s comment that, “With the proliferation of free, high-quality education content across the internet, NPR and PBS have outlived their usefulness,” is a pretty blatant reversal from his comments about broadcasters in March.

Listenership and viewership of NPR and PBS programming give lie to his claim that the internet has made both of them no longer useful. If they are no longer useful, then his commercial broadcasters are just passengers in the other end of the boat. His real problem, and Trump’s real problem, is that the PBS Newshour is not the evening news on the One America Network and that NPR’s Morning Edition is not Newsmax’s “Wake Up America.”

Big corporations own commercial radio stations these days and few of them want to invest in much local programming, if any at all. Spending money on people reporting on city councils, school boards, county commissions, local weather (they don’t even have their own announcer giving weather forecasts) doesn’t help dividends to stockholders. In the Jefferson City/Fulton/Columbia market, it’s hard to find a radio news person who actually covers local news in person or a station that sets aside time for reporting it.  A search of their webpages for “local news” turn up nothing or next to nothing—except KBIA.

Radio might be a dying medium and if it is, it is a self-inflicted wound because corporations give listeners no reason to listen and Alford and his companions, despite their March words, are doing nothing to change that system.Without local voices talking about local issues, why should people listen, especially if the program schedule is more focused on influencing public opinion rather than informing it and the same programs or kinds of programs can be found all up and down the dial.

The story is similar throughout the United States including a tragic development in Missouri.  Recently, the stations founded by radio pioneer Jerrell Shepherd of Moberly in the late 40s and early 50s have been sold to a company that told staff members showing up for work one day earlier this year that were fired at the end of their shifts.  And these were stations widely known for “owning” their markets because of their local news coverage.

The decline in local news coverage is infecting some television markets, too. One major TV conglomerate owner has replaced most local reporting with its own reporters in Washington and other places. Some time is allotted to local weather and local sports (very little to sports) but viewers don’t get much local or regional information anymore.

And newspapers. The internet has sucked huge amounts of revenue from newspapers. Look at the classified ad pages of today’s newspapers and recall when there used to be several. Look for grocery advertisers or car dealer ads; you won’t find them.  Real estate sections are long gone.

Too many small-market weekly newspapers have been cornered by a limited number of larger companies that see them only as a profit center, not part of a community. One person with a camera and a computer is the editor/reporter and the newspaper is filled with material from other towns under the same company ownership. It’s happening in a lot of larger markets, too.

If newspapers and commercial radio stations struggle to find revenues to continue fulfilling their vitally important traditional roles in our communities, then we—as responsible citizens—need NPR and PBS.  And if we have a country that believes in an educated, intelligent citizenry, then our country owes it to all of us to make sure public radio and television can flourish independent of government dictation or censorship, an independence President Trump and his loyalists do not want to exist.

At a time when it is critical to have more eyes on government, the number is shrinking badly. Local news deserts are increasing all across the country thanks to corporations that find it cheaper to bring in talk shows from outside, forget about offering anything that actually serves local audiences with information about local agencies and organizations are doing. Automate everything and dump news staffs.

Public radio stations not only are, in too many places, the only places on the dial where you will hear local voices, where you will hear local news AND where you will hear a variety of programs that are well above politics.  Intelligent discussions of issues are running counter to the desire of some elements to have only one view on the air.

I have watched and listened to public broadcasting for decades. Our household has memberships at KBIA and at the PBS Station in Warrensburg, KMOS-TV.  We are enriched because we get a variety of information programs that apparently are objectionable because they do not advocate the line of the party in power, particularly the leader of such a party who wants to control the narrative American people are allowed to hear. If it’s not some lie from his mouth, it’s fake news.

To that point (and I’ve said this before): I have never indulged in reporting fake news but I have done news about fakes.  If I were still an active reporter and on the national level, I would be swimming in the latter pool.

And I’d be asking some pretty severe questions about those such as Alford who mouthed about support of a caucus that provides insight into how misguided public policy can harm the local radio and TV stations Missourians rely on but who then turn around and get in bed with a president who prefers nobody offer any such insight, and who is quick to punish those who question his statements, his policies, and his morals.

This entry has gone on long enough. I dare not get into the CBS sellout except this note:

I dearly hope that Rupert Murdoch and The Wall Street Journal do not wilt in the face of a big revenge lawsuit filed by President Trump against them for reporting on a cartoon he reportedly sent to his close buddy, Jeffrey Epstein. He has put himself in the crosshairs of a more comprehensive investigation by filing this suit. Who knows what will crawl out from under the rocks that are lifted in the discovery process.

All the Wall Street Journal has to do is put that drawing on the internet and the heat will greatly increase under the cooking goose.

The Disaster 

Posted on by
Reply

We pause today to pay tribute to the humble and often-maligned FEMA trailer, the refuge for those who have watched all that they have wash away, be blown away, burned away in a natural disaster.  The Federal Emergency Management Agency has given hundreds of thousand of victims of fires, floods, earthquakes, and windstorms places to live while they begin to reassemble their lives.

FEMA Trailers often are criticized for their condition or their environmental problems. But they also are symbols of a nation that believes all of us must help some of us in times of disaster.

That concept is strange to the people in charge in Washington, led by a person who has never known and has no sympathy for those socially and mentally beneath him.  And that is why the trailers and the federal agency that provides these crucial shelters are endangered.

The administration in Washington is reacting poorly to reports that the emergency management system locally and federally was broken when more than 150 people lost their lives in the July 6 Texas flash flood.

The New York Times has described some of the dimensions of the disaster that the administration has inflicted on the nation’s disaster agency:

“On July 5, as floodwaters were starting to recede, FEMA received 3,027 calls from disaster survivors and answered 3,018, or roughly 99.7 percent, the documents show. Contractors with four call center companies answered the vast majority of the calls.

“The next day, July 6, FEMA received 2,363 calls and answered 846, or roughly 35.8 percent, according to the documents. And on Monday, July 7, the agency fielded 16,419 calls and answered 2,613, or around 15.9 percent, the documents show.”

Unbelievably, a statement from FEMA claimed, “When a natural disaster strikes, phone calls surge, and wait times can subsequently increase. Despite this expected influx, FEMA’s disaster call center responded to every caller swiftly and efficiently, ensuring no one was left without assistance.”

And what one person appears to be behind that totally untrue statement, delivered to the newspaper through an unsigned email?

On that very day, July 5, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem failed to renew or extend the agreements with the contract operators of those call centers leading to layoffs of thousands of employees. She has to approve any expenses of more than $100,000 and she didn’t do it for five days.

Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee also say Noem did not authorize deployment of search and rescue teams until three days after the flooding began.

Earlier this year, President Trump called for elimination of the entire agency and in June, FEMA stopped going door to door in disaster areas to find those needing help.

The Times identified the acting administrator of FEMA as David Richardson, “who has no background in emergency management.” He took the position May 8 and a week later, according to The Wall Street Journal, admitted privately that he did not have a plan for the spring Atlantic hurricane season. Reuters reported on June 2 that he had told the staff he didn’t know there was such a thing—a comment the agency claimed later was a joke. CNN has reported he went to Kerrville, Texas on July 12 but refused to answer any questions from reporters.

The President has said often he wants to transfer much of the responsibility for disaster response to the states that already are facing struggles because of large cuts in federal funds going to them for various programs.

If you are old enough to recall the great 103-day1993 flood, you are likely to remember the thousands of FEMA trailers brought to Missouri from numerous other states to be temporary homes for our people.  Imagine the state having to find—and pay for—those trailers while also dealing with the costs of fixing destroyed roads, bridges, and public buildings and paying for the massive extra personnel costs of first responders, National Guard sandbaggers, and healthcare givers among thousands of other expenses.  The Weather Service estimated the damages totaled twelve to sixteen billion 1993 dollars.

Or more recently:

Sure, the state of Missouri can handle something like this. Easily. The amateurs and idealogues in Washington know it can. Without doing any research.

These things are permanent parts of our lives. There were 27 disasters causing at least one billion dollars damage reported last year alone.

The Times has reported FEMA grants totaling $3.6 billion dollars already have been revoked. The money was earmarked for protection of communities from wildfires, hurricanes, and other disasters.  One in five agency staff members are likely to be gone by the end of the year.

Trump wants to shut down ten NOAA laboratories in the next fiscal year that research changes in weather patterns. The studies are based on global warming, something the President doesn’t believe in. One of the targeted labs is the one that sends hurricane hunter airplanes into storms to collect important forecasting data and other information.

Another cut that’s important to us in Missouri would cut programs that use river gauges to forecast floods. Those gauges check river levels every fifteen seconds and are used to issue flood alerts.  They showed the sudden rise of the river in Texas July 5th.  They measured the weeks of Missouri and Mississippi River floodwaters in 1993. Trum wants to eliminate more than twenty percent of the budget of that program.

Times reporters say the Weather service did issue appropriate warnings for the area flooded in Texas but staff cutbacks had left the San Antonio office without a warning coordination meteorologist.  That’s the person that works with local emergency managers to warn people of floods and helps them get to safe ground.

From gutting the national weather service to hamstringing the call centers and other response entities and reducing abilities to forecast hurricanes and floods and to crippling disaster responses, the administration is once again acknowledging that the word “humane” is not in its dictionary.

The real disaster is not wind, fire, and water.

(Photo credits: Trailers–Magnolia Reporter; Joplin Tornado–National Standards for Technology; Flood–USGS)

Inspiration

Posted on by
Reply

We need a break from the heavy and depressing things we have been addressing lately. We need some inspiration.  Unconventional inspiration.

Journalists sometimes seem to have a warped sense of humor. It’s a contrariness that good reporters have to have because we must deal with so much righteousness, often self-righteousness (especially when we deal with politics).  We also have to deal with some things that are so incredibly serious that, as Abraham Lincoln once remarked, “Gentlemen, why do you not laugh? With the fearful strain that is upon me day and night, if I did not laugh, I should die.”

None of us often has a “fearful strain” upon us, although our times present great opportunities for it.  But all of us at some time have broken a dark scenario with a joke.

Think of the last memorial service or celebration of life you attended. The ones I have attended have been more light-hearted than mournful.

Your faithful correspondent has never been impressed by companies that post beautiful pictures on walls or in offices, the pictures accompanied by some drivel that is supposed to be uplifting.  That is why he had a series of counter-uplifting posters at his desk that did a different kind of uplifting.

This one is from a company called Despair Incorporated. Its website informs visitors:

“No industry has inflicted more suffering than the Motivational Industry. Motivational books, speakers and posters have made billions of dollars selling shortcuts to success and tools for unleashing our unlimited potential. At Despair, we know such products only raise hopes to dash them. That’s why our products go straight to the dashing.”

For many years, I secretly harbored but never carried out the ambition to steal into my company headquarters under the cover of darkness and replace motivational posters with Demotivational posters from the folks at Despair—such as this one which goes to the very heart of the issue:

One of the founders of this company is E. L Kirsten, who has a Ph.D., (which might stand for perverse humor director) and once was a professor of organizational communication. He got his degree from Southern Cal,

He has a book:

The book, like the company products, satirizes the motivational poster industry. A promotion for it says:

Motivation. The Futile Quest.

Motivation has become a multi-billion dollar industry, courtesy of the patronage of corporations and the noble intentions of Executives who lead them. At the heart of this colossal confederation of inspirational speakers, platitudinous posters, parable-filled management books, and increasingly complicated incentive programs lies an alluring promise: that with enough encouragement, empowerment, and esteem, employees will become productive and loyal, to the benefit of both their employers and themselves.

Yet, in spite of the staggering expenditures on packaged esteem, polls show that worker morale has reached critical lows, with a majority of employees even claiming to hate their jobs. How is this possible? And more importantly, what can Executives do about this crisis of employee dissatisfaction?

In this revolutionary new management book, Despair, Inc.® founder Dr. E. L. Kersten plumbs the depths of employee discontent to find its root cause. Though most live lackluster lives filled with wasted opportunities and trivial accomplishments, employees grow ever more certain of their enormous worth and glorious destinies. Why is this so? Because most are the products of a narcissistic age, the spiritual casualties of a grand social experiment gone terribly awry.

Ironically, managers attempting to motivate employees by increasing their self-esteem only compound the very problem they seek to solve. Reinforcing employee delusions of grandeur only increases their irrational sense of entitlement to the wealth, stature and privilege that justice dictates be reserved for the truly accomplished and inarguably worthy: namely, Executives.

With The Art of Demotivation former professor and current executive Kersten offers not only a comprehensive analysis of the problem but a prescriptive solution; one grounded not in the fantasies of infinite human potential so often advanced by the motivation industry, but in the grim realities of a broken world. Managers who seek a productive, loyal workforce must first liberate employees from the prison cells of their narcissism by forcing them to confront that which they expend enormous energy to avoid:
their true selves.

There are three editions of the book. One, the Chairman edition, goes for almost $1200—actually at the bargain price of $1,195, a price fully in keeping with the company, uh, philosophy.

We mention all of this NOT to be giving this company a lot of free advertising. We’re just doing it to keep from being hit with a copyright violation.

But we do think these posters perform a valuable service to some places that take themselves far too seriously. These are some of those days when, as a friend of mine once observed, “The people in Washington have it backwards.  They take themselves seriously but not their jobs.” These posters would make great billboards there.

It’s sold out.  Why are we not surprised?

And for those who like the Disney theme song—-the first three notes of which are a big part of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind:”

I love these things.

Let’s wrap this up with a couple of others that I don’t recall seeing among the Despair products. There are other internet sites that have their own offerings. They lack the sophistication of Despair but that doesn’t mean they can’t provoke a smile or a snort or even a laugh.

I think we have arrived there today.

The Pious Silence

Posted on by
Reply

“With gratitude and humility, we pray for President Trump. You assigned him, you appointed him, you anointed him for such a time as this. We ask You to cover him with the blood of Jesus, empowering him to advance an agenda of righteousness and justice, truth and love.

Protect him from all evil as he undergirds our nation with the firewall of our Judeo-Christian value system. Fulfill Your purpose in his life.”

—Prayer given in the oval office, March 23, 2025, by Rev. Samuel Rodriguez of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, one of several evangelical pastors who laid hands on President Trump, a repeat of a ceremony at the start of his first term. The President appeared to be earnestly participating.

Shortly after, podcaster Todd Starnes attacked those who question Trump’s Christianity and the motives of those who regard him as a national savior: “The ‘Christians’ complaining about Christians praying over President Trump in the Oval Office are not Christians.”

Last year, just before the Iowa caucuses, a television add proclaimed: “And on 14 June 1946, God looked down on his planned paradise and said: ‘I need a caretaker.’ So God gave us Trump,

“God said I need somebody willing to get up before dawn, fix this country, work all day, fight the Marxists, eat supper, then go to the Oval Office and stay past midnight at a meeting of the heads of state. So God made Trump,”

When the similar group of Christian Nationalist preachers held a laying-on of hands ceremony in 2017, the Reverend Robert Jeffress, a Texas Southern Baptist preacher, told Trump, “Mr. President, we’re going to be your most loyal friends.”

Among all the voices protesting Medicaid Cuts, using government agencies to punish opponents, indiscriminate roundups of immigrants, the dismantling of government agencies and programs helping the poor with food and medicines, and—most recently—the burning of hundreds of thousands of pounds of food that could have kept thousands of African children alive, where are these preachers?

The silence of these pious ministers is thunderous.

Is THIS a President whose words and actions show he wants “to advance an agenda of righteousness and justice, truth and love?”

Is this President—who has jerked everybody around on the Epstein matter, who has deported people to nations far away from their own, who reportedly is jamming people into Florida cages, and who has cut Medicaid payments—undergirding the nation “with the firewall of our Judeo-Christian value system?”

Is he fulfilling God’s purpose?

Let’s hear it, preachers.  Tell us, God, that what we are seeing and getting—of which we have only scratched the surface in the lists above—fulfilling your purpose?

Tell us, most loyal friends, why you aren’t saying anything about all of this?  Do you believe a loving God is rooting for Trump to do all of the mean, cruel, unfeeling, un-loving things to others?

Can you watch what has happened since you prayed for him and still believe God “assigned him…appointed him (and) anointed him for such a time as this?”

Do you really believe his acts and statements truly represent our Judeo-Christian value system? Was Jesus a lying bully?

Is not Donald Trump exposing the falseness of the proclamations of pious faith leaders such as yourselves?

And what is it you have faith in?

Who’s not a Christian, Mr. Starnes—those who seek to serve others or those who seek power to serve themselves?

A lot of us are praying these days but not for Trump; for our country.

I lost a good friend this week, a gentle man who celebrated sixty years in the ministry just a few weeks ago with what became his last sermon. The Reverend John Bennett dedicated his life to social justice and told an interviewer a few years ago, “My guideposts as I move forward in my life and ministry are Micah, Chapter 6, verse 8.  ‘Do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with God,’ which is to walk in solidarity with all who hurt.”

And how did he hope others would remember him?

“He was a gentle and passionate man, on fire for social justice, rooted in his deep faith.”

I will take one John Bennett for 500 of those who would lay hands on Donald Trump.

(photo credit–Facebook)

6:30 a.m., Longmont, Colorado, July 5, 2025

Posted on by
1

It was a beautiful, clear morning in this city of 120,000 just a half hour from Rocky Mountain National Park when I took my morning walk.

Sixty degrees headed for the mid-eighties, the morning after Nancy and I watched our granddaughters celebrate Independence Day with fireworks in the driveway and in the Cul de sac of the subdivision where our son and his family live.

I started the day reflecting on July 4 in Longmont deeply worried about the nation into which those girls will grow up. I was out and about quite a bit on Independence Day in this city where one in four people is Latino, beginning the long walk through his and the adjoining neighborhood, much of it along a shady sidewalk on a street called Mountain View.

Later I did a brief prowl in the business district, checked on a bookstore I like, visited a big strip mall, got a hot dog at Sam’s Club and lunched on a bowl of chili at Wendy’s.

Not once did any of the Latino people I mingled with, did business with, or bought food from offer to sell me any Fentanyl.  I saw no tattoos signifying gang membership. None of them appeared to be former mental patients, killers, rapists or other criminals supposedly released from jails so they could “invade” our country and practice their hobbies on us.

All I saw were ordinary people, and I wondered how they feel in today’s American political climate that indiscriminately lumps them in with the few criminals who cross the border. Could I have been mistaken?  Shouldn’t I realize that people such as them are lesser people in the eyes of the country’s leader who is advocating a form of ethnic cleansing?

I started wondering about those who subscribe to the idea that citizenship is arbitrary and can be taken away at the whim of a leader who acknowledges no limits on his authority, typified by obsessively targeting one man jailed and tortured in a strange land by mistake—his tortures described in contemporary news accounts—who, having finally been returned to this country is targeted again on suspicious charges that only now will involve due process denied him earlier and still denied to many others caught up in a cruel system.

It has become a country where its leader speaks with pride of a detention camp called “Alligator Alcatraz,” where five thousand people of Latin origin can be imprisoned without due process.

He thinks it is funny to say, “We’re going to teach them how to run away from an alligator, OK? If they escape prison, how to run away. Don’t run in a straight line…And you know what? Your chances go up about 1%.”

His press secretary amplified the tragic absurdity of the whole idea, saying,  “When you have illegal murderers and rapists and heinous criminals in a detention facility surrounded by alligators, yes, I do think that’s a deterrent for them to try to escape.” Neither of them wants to address how they know all of these people are “illegal murderers and rapists and heinous criminals.”  (Illegal murderers?)

The Republican Party in Florida adds an additional flair to “appalling” by selling Alligator Alcatraz merchandise.  Imagine seeing a baby in an Alligator Alcatraz onesie. The Florida GOP will sell you one. They come in several colors and only cost twenty-five dollars.

Hilarious.

The President has caused some serious whiplash by calling for expulsion of migrant farm workers (without indicating how his zealous ICE agents will differentiate the legal ones from the illegal ones when they swoop down on agriculture facilities) then saying he’ll give them a pass, then his Secretary of Agriculture say there will “no amnesty” for those workers—-

—-and then Ag Secretary Brooke Rollins brushed aside industry concerns that mass deportations would have severe consequences on American farming by making the completely bonkers suggestion that 34-million able-bodied people on Medicaid could replace those migrant workers “quickly” because of the work requirements for Medicaid recipients in the Big Ugly Bill.

He also recently said he’s looking into taking over Washington, D. C. and New York. And his obsession with punishing Harvard University because it has resisted his intimidating demand to shape education in his image further confirms his limited toleration of “freedom.”

The idea that Trump would want to “take a look” at denaturalizing Elon Musk because Musk dared criticize his proposed big policy legislation, or that he would consider denaturalizing the legally-elected Democratic candidate for Mayor of New York on specious, if not spurious, reasons is an indication that this president is even more dangerous to all of us in one way or another.

Today’s children and grandchildren are going to inherit from this generation that which it refuses to reject. It will not be a good legacy that we give them.

I felt pretty good when I started that walk.  By the end of the day, after watching innocent youngsters celebrate the founding of this now deeply-troubled country, I feared for them.

And I remembered that on that morning stroll, that I walked past a young brown girl sitting on a shady curb and talking to a friend, in Spanish, on her cell phone. A block later, I passed a house with a July 4th yard decoration.

God, Guns, and Trump.

A lady saw me take the picture and shouted out her window, “Happy July 4th.”  I wished her the same as I continued the walk.  And I wondered if she would have said the same thing to the brown girl I had seen a block away if she walked past that sign.

Independence Day isn’t as much fun as it should be anymore.

(photo credits:  onesie—markayshop.com; Lake and Mountains—shutterstock; Mountain View and the yard decoration: Bob Priddy.)