Donald Trump and maga Republicans are stealing taxpayer money to build ugly Trumpian "brand down" relics

A failed president and his edifice complex | Editorial

Published in the Sun Sentinel in Florida

In September 1941, the death of a family member prompted President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to say how he should be remembered.

Dump tRump #ImpeachNOW ❗

One of America’s greatest presidents wanted only a plain block of stone, about the size of his desk, to be placed on the front lawn of the National Archives Building, with the words “In memory of … ”

Friends — not the government — installed it, 20 years after he died. It’s still there, although a more elaborate memorial to one of our greatest presidents now stands beside the Tidal Basin.

An elegant simplicity

Another great president, Thomas Jefferson, also insisted on simplicity. The epitaph on his gravestone would state only that he had written the Declaration of Independence and Virginia’s Statute for Religious Freedom and had founded the University of Virginia — not that he was elected president twice.

The accidental president, Gerald Ford, pocket-vetoed a bill to name a Michigan post office for him, writing that it would be “improper for me as an incumbent president to approve legislation which places my name on a federal building. This is a precedent I do not wish to establish.”

Such modesty is lost on Donald Trump, who constantly memorializes himself with monuments to bad taste, from Washington to West Palm Beach.

He slapped his name on the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts; intends to build a vastly oversized ballroom in place of the White House East Wing he razed without Congress’ consent; proposes a triumphal arch larger than any that the ancient emperors built for themselves, which would crudely overshadow Arlington National Cemetery; and plans an enormous “Garden of Heroes” with 250 statutes of notable Americans among whom, one suspects, there will be yet another gilt image of Donald John Trump, fist raised.

When asked by a CBS News reporter whom the arch would honor, Trump replied ‘Me’.”

Trump's ugly and unpopular name is on a State Department building. His image is on gold commemorative coins, passports and national park passes. His signature is going on paper currency. He wants a new class of white elephant battleships to be named for him.

And the airport, of course

The licensing deal for Palm Beach International Airport to be named for him, as demanded by a law the state Legislature passed without local consent, requires a logo resembling the White House seal, in — you guessed it — gold with gold stars.

The renaming and branding will cost taxpayers $5.5 million and Trump will control who will be allowed to operate concessions there.

Trump’s personal edifice complex is unmoored to any qualifying achievements or to any corresponding esteem from any sector of the public, other than MAGA diehards.

In a new Washington Post-Ipsos poll, Trump’s approval rating has sunk to 37% and his disapproval has climbed to 62%. His approval among Republicans was 85%, but among independents it’s 25%.

Across the entire electorate, the public disapproves of how he’s handling every major issue, especially inflation, the cost of living, the overall economy and his illegal war.

He argues heedlessly that he needs the colossal ballroom to protect him from potential assassins, with the recent attempt at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner as the pretext.

But that thought conflicts with his personality, because it presumes that he would hunker down in the White House, never leaving for MAGA rallies or rounds of golf. It would not be an acceptable venue for independent associations that need to keep a respectful distance from whoever is president. The East Room was adequate for John F. Kennedy’s state dinners and for the one to which Trump welcomed King Charles III last week.

A poem by Percy Bysshe Shelley, “Ozymandias,” taught to generations of Florida high school students, is still listed in the state language arts curriculum. It behooves Trump to read it. It’s short enough that he could do so, without having someone read it to him:

I met a traveler from an antique land,

Who said: “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone

Stand in the desert … Near them, on the sand,

Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown

And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,

Tell that its sculptor well those passions read

Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,

The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:

And on the pedestal, these words appear:

My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:

Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!”

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay

Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare

The lone and level sands stretch far away.

The Sun Sentinel Editorial Board consists of Opinion Editor Steve Bousquet, Deputy Opinion Editor Dan Sweeney, editorial writers Pat Beall and Martin Dyckman, and Executive Editor Gretchen Day-Bryant.

Constitution 101: Judiciary is equal co-branch of government. Will somebody finally deliver that message to Donald Trump?

Two echo opinion letters published in the Los Angeles Times:

To the editor: The Trump administration’s argument against nationwide judicial injunctions with respect to the issue of birthright citizenship is, at best, tissue thin (“Justices skeptical of Trump plan to limit birthright citizenship but also injunctions that block it,” May 15).

The administration’s idea that all judicial push-back injunctions (yes, plural) to the Trumpian rewrite of birthright citizenship should be confined merely to the specific plaintiffs before the federal judges, the district of those federal judges or the particular state in which the judges preside is, by necessity, precluded by the wording of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That 14th Amendment language clearly confers not only a state citizenship upon the native-born, but also a federal U.S. citizenship. By that wording, any injunction issued preventing President Trump’s attempted rewriting of the 14th Amendment must necessarily carry country-wide scope.

This latest Trump appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is nothing but an obvious unconstitutional dodge and betrayal of his oath of office to see to it that the laws are faithfully executed.

From David L. Clark, in Saticoy, California.

To the editor: Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison from Paris on March 15, 1789, when delegates at the Constitutional Convention debated inclusion of a bill of rights: 

“In the arguments in favor of a declaration of rights, you omit one which has great weight with me, the legal check which it puts into the hands of the judiciary.” The Supreme Court may hobble the judiciary as a coequal branch of government.

The judiciary has helped advance liberty when Congress refused. Lower courts advanced liberty in United States vs. Wong Kim Ark (1898) by upholding the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. They ruled that passage of California Proposition 14 in 1964, which would’ve allowed landlords and property sellers to racially discriminate, violated the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment. Lower courts started the liberation for interracial couples to live as husband and wife in Loving vs. Virginia (1967).

I hope future elections uphold the legal check of the judiciary against mob and monarchical rule as a threat to liberty.

From Glenn Shockley, Winnetka, Los Angeles, California

White House must recognize the importance of the free press

"Donald Trump has taken that umbrage to a new level, launching a very public campaign to discredit....the media...." Editorial published in the MichiganLive newspaper.

In my opinion, Trump does not value independent journalism and has wrongly created the faux montra of "fake news".

America's free and independent press has a storied history.

Back 240-some years ago, it was printing presses and anonymous pamphlets that inspired the American Revolution. Freedom of the press was enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

Thomas Jefferson once wrote if he had to choose between "a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."

To be sure, Jefferson and almost every U.S. president has his tussles with the media.

But  the entire institution. The cries of "fake news" about any less-than-flattering story. Leading jeers against journalists at his rallies. The many, many tweets.

Among his most recent broadsides: Journalists are "enemies of the people" who are "very sick & dangerous."*

And Trump isn't even subtle about his motives.

"You know why I do it?" Trump reportedly told CBS journalist Leslie Stahl about his "fake news" rhetoric. "I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so when you write negative stories about me, no one will believe you."

Every American should find this deeply, deeply troubling.

Do we really want a country where public institutions go unchecked? Where the press is cowed and intimidated?

Countries like that exist, of course. And they aren't democracies.

The fact is, we can't sustain a democracy without a free and independent press.

We aren't the enemy of the people. We are the people.

When we ask questions, we are the voice of a public wanting explanations. When we file a Freedom of Information Act , it's on behalf of our readers. It's everyday people we think about as we seek out the truth; track down both sides of the story; hold public officials accountable; and shed light on decisions made behind closed doors.

We represent those seeking to speak truth to power.

As the old saying says, power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. The press is an essential element in an informed public, which is a critical check on powerful individuals and institutions alike.

That's true whether it's covering a local school board meeting, reporting on the state Legislature or bird-dogging events in Washington.

Time and time again in Michigan, we've seen the power of the relationship between the press and the public.

Without that relationship, Flint might still be drinking water from the Flint River, with no one the wiser. Larry Nassar likely would still be seeing patients at Michigan State University. Nobody would know enough to care about Enbridge's Line 5 or PFAS contamination.

Our state has had its own experience with politicians demonizing the media to distract from their own shortcomings.

Recall Kwame Kilpatrick, the former Detroit mayor with a fervently loyal fan base. It was the media that uncovered Kilpatrick's lies, his corruption, his abuse of power and taxpayer dollars, his perjury in a court case that cost Detroit millions of dollars.

Remember how Kilpatrick said the media was out to get him? 

It's the favorite refrain of politicians when the facts were not on their side.

*Not True!* The press as enemy of the people? Hardly.

If you value democracy, you can't muzzle the watchdogs.

MLive Media Group is joining newspapers across the country to address attacks against a free and independent press. 

The effort was started by the Boston Globe to reiterate the importance of the press as the watchdogs for the American people.

*Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) website

Echo opinion letter from Abilene Texas - Freedom of Speech

This echo opinion letter was published in the Abilene Reporter News, with quotes from patriotic leaders.  An interesting letter written from a reader in a Republican leaning Texas community.

ABILENE, Texas: The U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution affirming “the press is not the enemy of the people” and condemning “attacks on the institution of the free press” (Aug. 16) - a direct refutation of the pernicious president's contemptible claim the press is “the enemy of the people.”

The U.S. president's sworn oath includes “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” The Constitution prohibits lawfully “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

“Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing the Freeness of Speech.” (Benjamin Franklin, 1722).

“Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” (Thomas Jefferson, 1786).

“The freedom of the Press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.” (James Madison, 1789).

“In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.” (US Supreme Court, New York Times v. United States, 403 US 713, 1971).

“Freedom of the Press is one of our most important freedoms and also one of our oldest.” (Ronald Reagan, 1985).

“If you want to preserve democracy as we know it, you have to have a free - and many times adversarial - press. 

And without it, I am afraid that we would lose so much of our individual liberties over time.” (John McCain, 2017 – who the draft dodger president disrespectfully denied was an American military hero).

— John Compere, Baird

Free Speech editorial published in Pennsylvania Republican Herald

The Republican-Herald joins 200 other newspapers across the country, in an initiative launched by The Boston Globe, in rejecting that notion of enmity and reasserting the value of the free press — not in terms of individual journalists or certain news organizations, but as a crucial democratic institution.

EDITORIAL / PUBLISHED: AUGUST 16, 2018

An old adage holds that if you pitch, you also have to catch, and it applies especially to journalism. 

That is, journalists who report news events and columnists and editorialists who offer opinions on them, cannot consider themselves to be above criticism in response to their work.

That’s why newspapers offer readers space to respond to news stories, columns and editorials and include comment sections online, and why editors spend a fair amount of time dealing with complaints about coverage, sometimes publishing corrections.

All of that back-and-forth always has occurred within a commonly accepted context — that a free and independent press is fundamental to a successful representative democracy. That is embedded in the nation’s DNA through the First Amendment’s admonition that “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

Also as old as the republic, is tension between people in power and the press that covers them.

Thomas Jefferson, speaking to the importance of literacy and informed opinion in what was then the novelty of a self-governing nation, often is quoted as declaring: 

“The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.”

But Jefferson, while in office as president, also lamented, “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”

So, if Jefferson was concerned about what he considered to be “fake news,” why should anyone be worried about President Donald Trump’s frequent citations of supposed “fake news,” including recently in Wilkes-Barre Township?

Trump, indeed, is not unique in lamenting his press coverage. All of his predecessors, beginning with George Washington, did so during or after their presidencies. The profound difference is that, unlike Trump, none of his predecessors questioned the validity of the free press as a bedrock of representative democracy by holding that journalists are “enemies of the American people.”

Today, The Republican-Herald joins 200 other newspapers across the country, in an initiative launched by The Boston Globe, in rejecting that notion of enmity and reasserting the value of the free press — not in terms of individual journalists or certain news organizations, but as a crucial democratic institution.

Enemies of the American people? Not the 48 journalists who died in the field in 2017 and not the 262 who were jailed by dictators who, perhaps, understand better than anyone that journalism is an invaluable instrument of democracy. Not the five reporters who were murdered in their newsroom June 28 at The Maryland Gazette. And not the journalists at The Republican-Herald, who strive to learn what politicians do with your tax money, hold powerful interests to account, feature the exploits of civic heroes, celebrate the academic and athletic prowess of your children and otherwise chronicle the life and culture of Schuylkill and surrounding counties.

It would indeed be “fake news” if anyone in any form of news media proclaimed perfection. But by commitment, training, experience and an understanding of the role of journalism in our free society, journalists at The Republican-Herald and industrywide strive to get it right.

There is no fake news regarding the truth as stated by Marty Baron, executive editor of The Washington Post: “We’re not at war with the administration, we’re at work. We’re doing our jobs.”

Students write - Hampton New Hampshire point of view: Immigration

While the Donald Trump administration continues to cower to the right wing of the Republican party by forcing cruel policies, there are many Americans (a growing majority) who believe the most detrimental impact on our nation's democracy is the president who wants to ban immigrants based on religious affiliation. In fact, by being from one of 7 predominantly Muslim countries, will prevent anyone from those nations from entering the USA. (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen - but, notably missing in this list are Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Pakistan.)

This policy makes no sense and is detrimental to the purpose of our Constitutional values: "We hold these truths to be self-evident...."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thomas Jefferson- circa 1787

Yesterday's June 5, blog reported about an opinion editorial published in the Portland Maine "Baxter Academy of Technology and Science", student newspaper. In the opinion essay, the student Declan Morgan summarized, with footnotes, the history of times when society overcame religious bigotry.  He called for history to repeat this accomplishment with regard to Muslim bigotry.

Today, I found another student essay, published in a Letter to the Editor, in the Portsmouth New Hampshire "Seacoast On-line".  

U.S. should welcome immigrants

In my opinion, these two letters are harbingers of a hopeful future, where youth awareness will conceivably transcend the tide of right wing extremism by supporting policies to heal our nation's divisions.

To the Editor:

As everyone knows, on Jan. 27 President Trump signed into effect an executive order called, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” which bans travel into the United States from seven predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East or North Africa. Many people have questioned his judgment in signing this order, and rightly so- the matter is made even more suspicious when it’s taken into consideration that most of the White House’s administration, including the Department of Homeland Security, were not allowed to know the details of the order until the day it was signed.

Three times in the order does Trump use the phrase, “detrimental to the interests of the United States”:

“I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from [Iraq or Syria], would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry... of such persons for 90 days.”

“I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until... sufficient changes have been made... to ensure that the admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.”

“I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until...additional admissions would be in the national interest.”

When Trump looks at the refugee crisis (i.e., in Europe and other countries), he sees numbers that don’t line up with the “interests of the United States.” 

But what exactly are the interests of the United States? 

The last time I checked, our US population was and still is made up of immigrants from all over the world who had hope for a better life. Refugees have the exact same mindset- hundreds are risking their lives every day for the hope of a better and safer life. They are no different than us. There’s always going to be a risk of terrorism, no matter who is in the country; in fact, of the 250 American citizens who had tried to join ISIS by May of 2016, some were born and raised in the US, even raised Christian.

Terrorism is no doubt a threat to our country, but the “interests of the United States” should not be to keep out thousands of like-minded, innocent people who need a safe place to go.

Adele Sinagra

Student at Winnacunnet High School in Hampton New Hampshire

Doris Kearns Goodwin on Journalism and the President

In the past, some US Presidents have instinctively known how to get along with the news media, while others have ignored this responsibility.Yet, the days are past when US President's can lead our nation, while remaining aloof of the news media. Moreover, the days are also  in the past when a US President can create news with facts alone. 

News has become a 24/7 experience whereby facts are re-processed by well paid personality pundits. By the time a 24 hour news cycle passes, the facts of any given story are filtered through the spin of liberal and conservative think tanks. At the end of this punditry, facts often become irrelevant while spin becomes reality. 

Clearly, the free press relies on the ability of reporters to tell people what's going on in the world, without anybody editing the facts. Obviously, reporters want their accounts of the news to be fresh and more timely than their peers, who are often competing for the same stories. At the same time, those who create the news are often preferential to reporters who present favorable impressions of the facts. In other words, news reporting is a synergistic relationship between news makers and the media. They need to work together.
But, who prevents a synergistic relationship from becoming cozy?

President Franklin Roosevelt's leadership ability relied on his symbiotic relationship with the press, says historian Doris Kearns Goodwin. Roosevelt was able to take press criticism in stride. His presidency was marked by the innovative use of a term he coined, "the bully pulpit," or the national platform afforded to the presidency to shape public opinion.
The president of the United States must have — at a very minimum — a decent relationship with the press. This symbiotic relationship, best understood by Theodore Roosevelt, is a hallmark of democracy that the commander in chief must embrace, says historian Doris Kearns Goodwin.

Pulitzer Prize-winning author Doris Kearns Goodwin writes about this relationship between US Presidents and the media in her most recent book, "The Bully Pulpit: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and the Golden Age of Journalism.

First, breaking news comes in. Before you know it, she says, whatever it was you were focusing on, something else comes in the way.  Complicating the problem, she says, is when everyone has their own bully pulpit, like the bloggers, or people on Facebook, who can start talking with a megaphone which can be as loud sometimes as the president.
There was once a time when reporters enjoyed spontaneous discussions with US Presidents. But now, media handlers sculpt every word. Today, even the seconds between a question and an answer are timed. Don't wait too long to answer a question, or the length of the pause makes news. Words matter today, more so than ever before. Instant communications prevents candid conversations. Actor James Cagney's colorful portrayal of "off the record", as in this YouTube video, is today's entertaining anachronism .http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV-U1DJxsAM

At risk in this symbiotic relationship is the potential loss of highly qualified leaders who simply can't be media personalities. For example, Thomas Jefferson couldn't have kept his relationship with his Negro mistress quiet in today''s intense media spotlight.

Yet, American democracy was engineered by Thomas Jefferson.

As Americans bereave the 50th annivesary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, we realize how this young president's style raised the bar for presidential media relations. Kennedy had a natural instinct for managing the media and shielding his family from negative news. He could be glib and humerous, like he was during press conferences. Conversely, he also knew when to be extremely serious, as he was during the Cuban Missle Crises.  

Fortunately, President Kennedy used his bully pulpit to improve the human condition or to defend our nation. Consider how a similarly charismatic leader could use the same talent for nefarious purposes. 

Consequently, it's essential for our news media to hold all leaders accountable to the truth. A symbiotic or synergistic relationship between US presidents and the media should never be allowed to become cozy. Americans need oversight of the media because competition in the news business can create compromising relationships.

Although bloggers and facebook pundits can be annoying because we are challenged by objecivity, we can also serve the purpose of keeping media moguls honest. Independent oversight of the media's symbiotic relationship with the US President can assure transparent freedom of the press.  

Perhaps Doris Kearns Goodwin can be a blogger after she is finished writing all of her interesting history books. She could sure help to keep the bully pulpit transparent. 

Beware Republican Voter Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering the electorate: why would anybody risk this devious under handed political tactic, in the state where Washington and Jefferson lived?

Virginia Republicans are proposing to change the way in which the state counts its electoral college votes in a manner that would weaken the influence of urban voters, which, of course, is the area of their state where the most people live!  

In other words, Virginia Republicans want to control the outcome of Virginia elections in a way that would marginalize the essential vote count.  This is happening in the state where patriots George Washington and Thomas Jefferson lived and died! 

George Washington led the American Revolutionary colonials who fought against "taxation without representation" and Thomas Jefferson penned the words, "We the people..." in the Declaration of Independence.

Virginia Republicans who support this gerrymandering have indeed lost their political souls. They need to take a US History class.

Gerrymandering is defined:  dividing a state, county, etc., into election districts so as to give one political party a majority in many districts while concentrating the voting strength of the other party into as few districts as possible.

If Republicans are able to get away with this slight of political hand, ie, gerrymander elections, then the entire premise for the American Revolutionary War and the Declaration of Independence would be rendered irrelevant.  In fact, gerrymandered elections should be declared illegal in our US Constitution.  Some brave Virginian legislator should stand in the footsteps of the state's patriots like Patrick Henry who preached "give me liberty...." and call for a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw gerrymandering. 

Americans should eliminate the cumbersome Electoral College and require that every voter who casts a ballot is counted. Most important, a Constitutional Amendment should require, once and for all, that the candidate with the most votes wins elections.  

Let's stand by our democratic elections, rather than usurp the very ideology our forefathers brilliantly created.