Syria

Yesterday, a friend made a simple and yet astute observation.  It was in the wake of Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical weapons on citizens of Syria.

After the incident the 'saber rattling' began. puppet-spicer, from the White House pulpit, announced that
"[t]oday's chemical attack in Syria against innocent people, including women and children, is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world".  I listened to spicey-boy say this and I found it curious that he tripped over the word 'civilized'.

 Niki Haley, our U.N. Ambassador said that if the U.N. fails to respond in the appropriate way, “there are times in the life of states when we are compelled to take our own actions”.

The astute observation?  trump is oh too willing to 'pull the trigger' on using military force in Syria, but at the same time contradicts himself by not wanting Syrian refugees in our country.  How does he reconcile these two actions that are 180 degrees from one another?  I suspect he hasn't a clue.

Last night, in a speech to our nation, he informed us that he had ordered a strike on the Syrian airbase that launched the chemical attack.  This is a knee jerk response.  I, personally do not have a problem with a measured military response to such  a heinous act, although if possible I would always choose this as an absolutely last resort.  What needs to be understood is the difference between a knee jerk reaction and thought out response as part of a clear strategy to work through a traumatizing world issue.

trump's stance on Assad prior to this week was one of hands off. he refused to see the obvious danger that Assad presents to the world. In recent days, before this chemical attack, trump's various Bozo's described Mr. Assad’s hold on his office as a political reality.  trump et.al. have refused to acknowledge the unstabilizing force that Assad is. This stance was echoed by various administration officials, including Secretary of state, rex tillerson.

Last week tillerson said that Assad’s fate “will be decided by the Syrian people”. This week, after the chemical attack and when asked asked if Assad needs to go, tillerson said, “Assad’s role in the future is uncertain clearly and with the acts that he has taken, it will seem that there would be no role for him to govern the Syrian people.”

tillerson said that to get Assad out of power will require “an international community effort”. he pointed out that it will  involve first defeating the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), then to stabilize Syria as a country to avoid further civil war, and lastly to work collectively with U.S. partners for a political transition. he also said “Those steps are underway.”  It is noteworthy that if you remove tillerson's southern draw, this sounds a great deal like Jon Kerry and President Obama.

During trump's national television broadcast, he told us that we had launched  tomahawk missiles from U.S. ships, that were aimed at the Syrian airbase strongly believed to have  launched the chemical attack.  In his remarks, trump gave, the following as a reason for launching this reactionary unilateral action:

"It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons."

I have to point out here that trump's command of the English language leaves a good deal to be desired. With the use of the word "this", his sentence makes zero sense. If he insists on using the word "this", then he needs to understand that the sentence is unfinished or that different wording was required after the use of the word "this".  If he wanted to end this sentence where it does end, then he needed to use the word "the" in place of "this". Read it both ways and you will easily see what I mean

Okay, making fun of d. j[ackass] aside, these twit tweets from 2013 will clearly show trump for the d. j[ackass] that he is.  President Obama, in 2012, drew a "red line" with reference to Assad using chemical or biological weapons.  In 2013, Assad committed genocide by killing more than 1,000 people with chemical weapons in a suburb of Damascus.  President Obama went to Congress to get our representatives' approval for sustained military action, which the republican dominated Congress voted against.  At that time trump twit tweeted on the subject as you can read, below:

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump

What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.
2:14 PM - 29 Aug 2013

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump

AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!
9:20 AM - 5 Sep 2013

Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump

President Obama, do not attack Syria. There is no upside and tremendous downside. Save your "powder" for another (and more important) day!
9:21 AM - 7 Sep 2013

Due to international pressure, Assad agreed to eliminate his chemical weapons program.  It has been four years and Assad has not used chemical weapons.  I find it odd?, that two and a half months into trump's regime, that Assad does this.  Hmmmmmmm, do ya think he's testing little lord trumpy boy?  Do ya think that Assad's Russian ally is whispering in his ear?

I want to make a point here, that I don't recall any U.S. diplomat, administration, news media outlet or any academician saying.  We, nor anyone else, is going to stabilize Syria and set up a peaceful political transition.  The middle east is a mess.  It has been a mess for centuries, if not mellennia.   This region is and has been unstable for all of this time due to many reasons.  I am not a scholar, I am just an observer.  I am not suggesting xenophobia.  We must stay engaged, but military involvement only serves to ramp up world tensions and further set up humanity for failure. As painful as it might seem sometimes, firm diplomatic pressure over the long haul will be the key to success in the middle east and throughout the world.  As Marvin Gaye sang........."war is not the answer".

I want to acknowledge links to the articles that helped me piece this post together:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/04/05/a-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria-exposes-trumps-assad-problem/?utm_term=.4aeb8f23b2bf

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/05/syria-chemical-attack-trump-administration-response-assad

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tillerson-opens-door-to-syria-regime-change/

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-launches-missiles-syrian-base-after-chemical-weapons-attack-n743636

Push for Green Energy

A few months ago, maybe it was January, I remember hearing a quick blurb on NPR about China announcing an investment in millions of green energy jobs.  In honor of Xi Jinping's visit to the U.S. this coming weekend, I've decided to look at China's investment in the future as juxtaposed to trump's retreat into the past.

The first result I came across was not a news item, it was a blog from a energy employment recruiting company by the name of Fircroft.  Here is a summary of the information in that blog:

- In December 2016  China's National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), the country’s economic planner, issued a five-year plan with solar power set to receive 1 trillion yen in an attempt to increase capacity by five times. 700 billion yen was earmarked for wind power alongside 500 billion yen for hydro.

- The National Energy Administration of China laid out the plans in a document which suggests the investment will create more than 13 million jobs over a five-year period.

https://www.fircroft.com/blogs/chinese-investment-in-renewable-energy-to-create-13-million-jobs-79551650362

Of course, I wanted to corroborate this information that came from a private company which may have its own agenda with a news source that I believe is reputable and reliable.  I found the following in Reuters:

"China will plow 2.5 trillion yuan ($361 billion) into renewable power generation by 2020, the country's energy agency said on Thursday, as the world's largest energy market continues to shift away from dirty coal power towards cleaner fuels.

The investment will create over 13 million jobs in the sector, the National Energy Administration (NEA) said in a blueprint document that lays out its plan to develop the nation's energy sector during the five-year 2016 to 2020 period."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-energy-renewables-idUSKBN14P06P

Now, what are trump and Rick Perry proposing.  trump has signed two bills cutting  back  regulations for coal mining that include regulations for stream protection and financial disclosure requirements. 

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/319938-trump-signs-bill-undoing-obama-coal-mining-rule

Of course there are concerns about cuts in other regulations.  After all trump did call for a reduction in regulations by cutting two regulations for each regulation created.  trump has proposed a budget that will severely cut funding for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).  Does trump really care about the miners?  I guess we'll see.  

Black lung disease and mine accidents are critical issues around coal mining.  Miners need to know that they will always have there respiratory health paid for by the companies they work for and if that fails, then by the federal government.  If mine safety regulations fall by the wayside, if OSHA lacks the funding to make sure that whatever regulations that remain intact are enacted and maintained, then mine accidents will increase.

Furthermore, everyone knows that coal is dirty.  Even trump knows it!  Ask any resident of a community that has or had a coal fired power generation plant.  A plant in Alexandria Virginia was closed in 2012.  In 2003 two local citizens funded a meteorological study that reported that:

"soot deposition was concentrated in the local neighborhood of Alexandria.  Residents complained about coal dust coating cars/window sills, even staining laundry."

The site that I found this information in also noted that:

"Mercury, a minor component in the coal, is vaporized in the burning process. As hot exhaust cools in the air after leaving the power plant stacks, the plume of gas moved over Alexandria and then to the northeast (typically). Mercury cooling from the exhaust gas and soot particles may be deposited near the plant - with "downwash" creating a "hot spot" of lung damage and potentially-toxic soil in the local area."
http://www.virginiaplaces.org/geology/coalfired.html

Sounds clean to me.  It sounds so clean that I'd like to strap trump into a smoke stake of a coal burning plant and measure the amount of time he lives.  What do you give him, two hours, three?  I have no idea.  May be it would be longer, maybe it would less, but the result would be the same.  Now let's strap him to the column of a wind turbine, and make sure he has plenty to eat.  I'm thinking he doesn't have any difficulties staying alive.

There was a report placed on line by CNN with research showing that the citizens in "coal country" want "jobs for the future".  And let's face it, coal jobs do not have a future.  Market pressures are moving away from coal as an energy source and the decline is easily seen since the mid 1980s, but has become much sharper over the last ten years.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/10/debate-and-energy-donald-trump-ignores-why-coal-is-on-the-decline.html



So, here's a guy who looks for votes by lying to people in coal mining regions about how he's going to bring back their coal mining jobs.  Here are people that want jobs, but will they really get jobs in coal mining?  Here's a guy that really doesn't give a hoot about the safety of the miners or their communities.  And here's a guy that is holding America back, with his foolish self serving rhetoric, from getting in on the real ground floor of clean energy capital production (capital in the economic sense of machines that then produce something, you know.......like energy).

China, will take the lead in what is obviously one of the most important changes that will occur over the next 100 years.  They will take technologies that for the most part originated in the U.S. and ramp up the manufacturing of these technologies, most likely improve them in the process and will provide jobs for millions of there citizens.  Millions!!

Xi Jinping ........... visionary.
trump ......... d[umb] j[ackass].

Inciting Violence

d.j[ackass] went too far.  He went too far over a year ago.  We all knew it then and now trump will learn it going forward.  he'll kick and scream and whine and cry.  he'll throw a big ol' tantrum, but it won't change the fact that he will be found guilty in a civil suit for inciting violence.

U.S. federal District Judge David Hale, whose court is in Kentucky, wrote a decision on Friday 3/31 that it is plausible that d.j[ackass] “intended for audience members to act on his words” when he yelled that protesters be kicked out of a campaign rally in Louisville Kentucky  in March of 2016.  Hale noted that "[i]t is plausible that Trump’s direction to ‘get 'em out of here’ advocated the use of force...it was an order, an instruction, a command.”   The ruling was a response to a request by trump's attorneys to dismiss a lawsuit 'alleging' that trump incited violence.

Kashiya Nwanguma, Molly Shah, and Henry Brousseau have filed the suit alleging that little lord trumpy boy yelled “Get ‘em out of here” and they were immediately set upon by members of the crowd, including a white supremacist.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/federal-judge-lawsuit-trump-rally-violence-article-1.3016562


I gotta tell ya, if it were me, I would not settle out of court.  I would take the risk with a jury.  I would nail trump to the proverbial plank and make foie gras out of him.  By the way, for those of you that don't understand this reference; the way to make goose liver pate' (foie gras) is to nail the feet of the goose to a plank and force feed the goose to enlarge it's liver to an abnormal size.

The risk involved with going to trial is the jury.  It will be difficult for the plaintiffs or the defendant to find impartial jury members.  It's obvious that, for the most part, all American's know trump and have an opinion about him, one way or the other.  But again, I would take the risk.  For me it would not be about the money (although it couldn't hurt, he said in an Eastern European accent).  For me it would be about holding trump's feet to the fire, and I believe that win or loose, d.j[ackass] will look like crap.

Furthermore, win or lose, I would also petition the Louisville Distract Attorney (D.A.) to file criminal charges against trump based on Kentucky Criminal code statute:


525.040 Inciting to riot. (1) A person is guilty of inciting to riot when he incites or urges five (5) or more persons to create or engage in a riot. (2) Inciting to riot is a Class A misdemeanor. Effective: January 1, 1975 History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 214, effective January 1, 1975.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=19922

Well he certainly incited more than five persons.  There are two other Kentucky statutes that apply and I would urge the D.A. to file charges using all applicable statutes.

- Kentucky Revised Statute section 525.055: First-Degree Disorderly Conduct

       - First-degree disorderly conduct is committed in Kentucky when the following four elements are all present (I will only list the one that applies along with two of its clauses):

               - Engaging in any of the following acts in a public place with the intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm:

                       - Fighting, or acting in a violent, tumultuous, or threatening way

                       - Creating a hazardous or physically offensive condition without any legitimate purpose

- Kentucky Revised Statute section 525.060: Second-Degree Disorderly Conduct

       - Intentionally causing public inconvenience, annoyance, alarm, or wantonly creating a risk thereof in public while:

             - Engaging in fighting, or violent, tumultuous, or threatening behavior,

             - Creating a hazardous or physically offensive condition without any legitimate purpose

http://statelaws.findlaw.com/kentucky-law/kentucky-disorderly-conduct-laws.html

Anyone that watches the videos of this incident can easily and clearly experience the anger exuded by trump.  Communication is more than words.  In fact many studies have shown that facial cues, body language, tone of voice and the decibel level of a person's voice communicate much more than the words used.

The incident at the Louisville rally occurred on 3/1/16, but shortly after, there was more violence at other trump rallies.  It occurred again at a rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina on 3/9/16.  The perpetrator was a man by the name of John Mcgraw.  After the incident, trump was asked if he was going to keep a previously made promise that he would pay the legal fees of people who would "knock the crap out of [protesters]."  His response was, “I’ve actually instructed my people to look into it, yes.”  

https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/13/donald-trump-says-he-may-pay-legal-fees-of-accused-attacker/

To be clear, trump made this promise a a rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa on 2/1/16, as follows:

“If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously,” Trump said. “Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise.”

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/03/15/fact-check-trump-claims-he-never-said-hed-pay-legal-fees-for-rally-attendees-who-hit-protesters/

So, the door has been opened by Justice hale to sue trump in a civil suit that has been brought by three victims.  The statutes exist in Kentucky to prosecute trump on criminal charges in Kentucky as well.  The evidence of his behavior, mindset and intent are abundant and clear.  I look forward to watching this theater play out. 

Changing the Rules

Karma.

Do unto others .......... The Golden Rule

As you sew, so shall ye reap.  The Bible

The people you meet on your way up are the same ones you'll meet on your way back down. ?

The way you mistreat someone, someone's gonna mistreat you..  Bobby Blue Bland


The full Senate is now set to vote on Neil Gorsuch's appointment to the Supreme Court bench.  The ball is on the twenty yard line, so there are still 20 yards to go to get to the goal line.  The defense is stiffening up now that the Republicans are in the red zone.  But wait, there's a time out on the field and the head couch of the red team is changing the rules.  Now the reds only need to move the ball across the nineteen yard line and they get the score.  Yeaaaaaaaa!! Hooray  for the reds!!  AND ...... that's the new rule from now on.

There are rules set in both houses of Congress, that are long standing and were set up because they were agreed to by all parties at the time.  It was recognized that these rules would be advantageous to all parties at various points in time.  One of those rules is the filibuster (another one of those uniquely American words).  I found a good explanation of how a filibuster will work with reference to the Gorsuch vote in the Chicago Tribune:

[A] filibuster [of the] Gorsuch [nomination is] a tactical roadblock that can only be overcome with the votes of 60 senators. Republicans hold 52 seats, and only three moderate Democrats so far say they plan to vote for Gorsuch.

Furthermore, the Tribune reported that:

On Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., said that it is "highly, highly unlikely" that Republicans will get the 60 votes needed to end a Democratic filibuster. Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," Schumer added that it "is up to Mitch McConnell and the Republican majority" to set the rules and tenor for the confirmation vote.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-gorsuch-supreme-court-confirmation-20170402-story.html

Meanwhile, back on the farm, McConnell doesn't like the fact that Democrats plan to use this long standing rule.

On the Senate floor, McConnell called the Democratic strategy "a new low," saying there was no principled reason to oppose a judge as well qualified and widely respected as Gorsuch.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-gorsuch-idUSKBN1750CM

Was there a principled reason to deny Merrick Garland the decency of the most basic consideration?  Wasn't Garland a "well qualified and widely respected [judge]"?   Hadn't Garland received wide bipartisan support when first appointed to the Federal Bench?  President Obama noted:

"To suggest that someone as qualified and respected as Merrick Garland doesn’t even deserve a hearing, let alone an up-or-down vote, to join an institution as important as our Supreme Court, when two-thirds of Americans believe otherwise—that would be unprecedented."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_nomination

Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans have the ability to remove the filibuster rule with the so called "nuclear option".  Being the curious guy that I am, I needed to know exactly how this procedure works.  I found the following Wiki entry:

The nuclear or constitutional option is a parliamentary procedure that allows the U.S. Senate to override a rule or precedent by a simple majority of 51 votes, instead of by a supermajority of 60 votes. The option is invoked by the presiding officer of the United States Senate ruling that the validity of a Senate rule or precedent is a constitutional question. The issue is immediately put to the full Senate, which decides by majority vote. The procedure thus allows the Senate to decide any issue by majority vote, regardless of existing procedural rules, such as current Senate rules specifying that ending a filibuster requires the consent of 60 senators (out of 100)

If the ruling is challenged, a majority would be required to overturn it. If the ruling is upheld, it becomes a precedent. This would end what had effectively become a 60-vote requirement for confirmation of an executive or judicial nominee, or the passage of legislation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

A little confusing, but the gist, as far as I can tell, is that a simple majority can declare that the filibuster procedure will no longer be a procedural rule.  This will be a precedent, going forward.

Mitch McConnell plans to be pragmatic.  I believe that pragmatism has its place along with the long view into the future.  In my opinion, McConnell is not taking the long view.  He's an old guy and will not be around the Senate much longer.  The Republicans will not maintain the majority in the Senate.  I believe their majority will dissolve in 2018.  What then?  What happens when his party wants to use a filibuster regarding a Supreme Court nomination?

I have already called Senator Schumer's office.  I spoke with a person in his office and expressed my support for a filibuster and asked that Schumer counsel his counterpart to truly think about the far reaching consequences of the precedent he will set.  I tried to call McConnell, but as has been the case except for once, no one answers his phone and he does not give an option to leave a message either.

I encourage you, the reader to support Senator Schumer and your Senator with a phone call.  Neil Gorsuch may be a fine human being, but his views are too far to the right.  Our country needs a jurist on the Supreme Court whose views and mindset are more towards the center.  I have found that extreme views, extremism, is dangerous whether left or right, whether Muslim, Christian or Jewish, whether black or white.  It will certainly be a better choice for our country to go back to the 'drawing board' and choose a Supreme Court nominee that is acceptable to more than a party line vote.

I also encourage you to try to speak with McConnell's office.  Here are some phone numbers and a link to a site to find your Senator's contact information.

Charles Schumer - (202)224-6542

Mitch McConnell - (202)224-2541

https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/

Gerrymandering

gerrymander (v.) 

1812, "arrange political divisions in disregard of natural boundaries so as to give one party an advantage in elections," also from 1812 as a noun, American English, from name of Elbridge Gerry + (sala)mander. Gerry, governor of Massachusetts, was lampooned when his party redistricted the state in a blatant bid to preserve an Antifederalist majority. One sprawling Essex County district resembled a salamander, and a newspaper editor dubbed it the Gerrymander. Related: Gerrymandered; gerrymandering.

[T]he division of this county into districts has given an opportunity for a Caracatura stamped at Boston and freely circulated here called the Gerrymander. The towns as they lie are disposed as parts of a monster whose feet and claws are Salem and Marblehead. It is one of those political tricks which have success as far as they go. [William Bentley, diary, April 2, 1812]

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=gerrymander

What a great story.  Uniquely American.  Also quite human.  My sixty one years of life have shown me that the desire for power and control are common human traits around our globe.  Elbridge Gerry obviously had these desires and thus set up a way for future politicians to exercise their same desires.  

Today, I heard a great story on NPR.  The state of Maryland is moving a bill through its legislature to redraw district boundaries by 2032, but, and this is the key, they will only do so if five surrounding states will do the same first.  Here's the deal:

"[The] plan creates an independent commission to draw legislative districts if five other states — New York, New Jersey, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina — do the same by 2032. They would all have to pass reforms by the end of 2020 for the bill to affect the next redistricting process, which will be based on the results of the 2020 census."

http://www.delmarvanow.com/story/news/local/maryland/2017/03/31/gerrymandering-redistricting-reform-maryland/99880934/

DelmarvaNow is part of the USA Today network.

Fifteen years is a long time, but if I understand correctly, the bill provides that if all states mentioned create these independent commissions prior to the 2020 census then the redistricting can be done immediately after the census results are available.  This is a great idea.  This would mean that six out of the fifty states (12%) would move away from this method of manipulating election results, allowing them to more accurately reflect the wishes of the voters.

Here is Maryland, a reliably Democratic state.  In order to be elected in Maryland, you need to win the primary as a Democrat.  This is great leadership on the part of the Maryland  legislators.  These are people that feel that the good of our country takes precedence  over their own ambitions.  So what would be the roadblock to this great idea taking hold?  I already said it, ambitions of elected officials........in the other states that the Maryland bill calls out.  

For those of us that live in any of these states, please call your state representative and insist that they push a bill in their legislature that matches up with the requirements in the Maryland bill.  They will need to be reminded to get over their political ambitions and their territoriality.  This is a great idea that could take hold throughout our country.  This along with the abolition of the Electoral College will make it possible for votes in a national election to be counted with equal weight. 

Thank you Maryland.

What Can You Buy for $1.85 (per year)?

Not much you say?  Well think again. NPR is asking its listeners and supporters to call their representatives in Congress for the purpose of retaining federal funding for public broadcasting.  It just so happens that for the paltry sum of $1.85 per year per taxpayer, we all get what I believe are two national jewels, National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting System (PBS).

d.j[ackass] trump wants to remove all funding for public radio and television from the federal budget, by defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB).   The first step I wanted to take was to confirm the dollar figure that I heard on NPR.  It's not that I don't believe NPR, but rather that I wanted to independently corroborate their figure.  I constructed two simple equations that would give me the same result and also a percentage of the funds in comparison to the total budget.  These equtions are as follows:

- dollars spent on CPB / total dollars spent = % spent on CPB
   therefore = 445,500,000 / 3,506,000,000,000 = .0001272 = 0.01272 % = a little more than one one hundredth of a percent

- dollars spent on CPB / total # of federal tax payers = cost per person
   therefore = 445,500,000 / 239,874,741 = $1.857/person


Below, you will find the information I used to perform these equations and links to their sources:

Total expenditures	$3.77 trillion (requested) $3.506 trillion (actual)[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_United_States_federal_budget


The CPB's annual budget is composed almost entirely of an annual appropriation from Congress plus interest on those funds. Ninety-five percent (95%) of CPB's appropriation goes directly to content development, community services, and other local station and system needs.^[7]

For fiscal year 2014, its appropriation was US$445.5 million, including $.5M in interest earned. The distribution of these funds was as follows:^[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_Public_Broadcasting



239,874,741 = total returns filed in 2014

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/14databk.pdf


The most recent year that I could find numbers for, for all three categories was 2014 and they confirm NPR's numbers. So why does trumpy boy feel the need to remove this from his budget submission.  I don't think he believes that the dollar amount is a lot of money.  After all, there are estimates that his weekend trips to Florida are costing upwards of $3 million dollars per weekend.  Multiply that by 52 weeks and you've got approximately $150 million.  So, three years of weekends in Florida at his current pace will equal one year of CPB funding.

No.....I think I know the reason.  Non-Fake news.  It's easy to recognize the integrity of NPRs programming and news gathering.  Even trump can easily see this.  And he also must recognize that integrity does not serve his purposes.  So, what does he do?  He attempts to make it more difficult for NPR and PBS to do their jobs.  If d.j[ackass] is successful, he will not stop PBS and NPR, but he will make it difficult for rural affiliates to continue.  Rural areas are where his base is.  He certainly wouldn't want them to become educated or informed.  As I said, that wouldn't serve his purposes.

So, the purpose of this post is to ask all of you, that read it, to call you your representatives in both houses of Congress and demand that the CPB remain funded, so the vital services the CPB can remain afloat.  As usual, here are links where you can find your representatives' contact information.

http://www.house.gov/representatives/

https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/

An Open Letter to ivanka trump

Dear ms. trump,

I am writing to you today, to express my disappointment in you.  I wouldn't be nearly as unhappy with you, except for the fact that expectations of you were set so high.  Whoever it was that managed your public persona, whether it was you or someone else, broke one of the basic rules of customer relations.  I was not given reasonable expectations about who you are.  The expectations were set way to high, which means you were set up for failure.

All during the 2016 presidential campaign, I heard news of how you were the person who could advise your father to be a decent person, how all those that spoke about you just gushed about what a great and decent person you are.  Hell, even Hillary Clinton had only wonderful comments about you.  I heard Chelsea Clinton note that you and she were good friends and that the fact that each one of you had a parent that was running against the other in the presidential campaign, hadn't changed your relationship.  News commentators and reporters from media outlets that obviously held great disdain for your father, always made you out to be an honorable person.

My experience is that, your performance hasn't matched the hype.  For a person that supposedly can get your father to see reason, I'm left believing that either you can't deliver or that you agree with him on many subjects.

Supposedly you are Jewish.  If that is so, I'll tell you right now that no Jew on this planet is ok with steve bannon. I will say this again so that it sinks in all the way; no jew on this planet is ok with steve bannon.  You, of course are aware of his endorsers, the kkk and the american nazi party, neither of which he has distaced himself from.  You are also aware of his self description as a Leninist.

Recently, you were given top security clearance.  If you were truly an upstanding person, you would not have accepted it.  It is clear to anyone that can read, that you had no reason to have clearance.  You do not meet the criteria for that privilege.  Granting you that clearance was neither necessary for or consistent with U.S. security needs.  You weren't even an employee of the United States when it was granted.

Your father gave you an office in the West Wing, and again, you were not an employee of our  government at the time, so what right did you have to occupy office space that tax payers provide.  I'm thinking that your daddy needed some eye candy around him.  After all, we all know how physically attracted he is to you after his many pronouncements to that effect.

Your father has now made you an employee of the U.S. government.  One would have thought that an honest, upstanding American, like yourself, would have said thanks, but no thanks to all of these actions.  Of course you know that having employed you as a United States employee, your father has once again run afoul of the nepotism law  that was signed into law in the mid 1960s.

Even if your employment by the U.S. were legal, you have not entered into a blind trust, rather you have placed your businesses in a trust that is controlled by relatives of your husband and the trust still gives you the ability to make business decisions for your companies.  Because you have security clearance, this is without any doubt a clear case of conflict of interest.

So in review, you have not point blank told your father that steve bannon is unacceptable and must go, you accepted top security clearance when you do not meet the criteria, you accepted an office in the White House even though you were not an employee of our government, you have now accepted employment by the United States government which is illegal due to the nepotism law and lastly you clearly have conflicts of interest between your continued ability to participate in your businesses and the security clearance you have received.  You are obviously not the bill of goods that was sold to me or to the rest of America.  To quote your father ......... so sad!


With no respect at all,

William R. (Bill) Sherman









tracted he is to you