The Attack on Innocents and Parliament

Until Thursday, I had not heard of Aysha Frade, a teacher and mother of two young children, nor had I heard of PC Keith Palmer, who guarded an entrance at the Houses of Parliament. Both are dead, victims of yesterday’s shocking act of terrorism. The terrorist used a car as a lethal weapon as he mowed down dozens of people on Westminster Bridge and soon after knifed PC Palmer to death. ISIL has claimed responsibility for the outrage.

Almost in an instant, the media went into frantic mode, constantly reporting on the event, accompanied by pictures showing virtually nothing. At first, there was actually little to report. For good reason, the authorities were not releasing information in case there were other terrorists ready to let loose their evil trade. Yet the media felt the need to get into “Princess Diana Mode”, reporting on non-news for hours and hours.

Terrorist acts must be so frightening for those close to the scene but there seemed to be little panic elsewhere in town. We Brits are known for our stiff upper lip and a determination to get on with life.  However, this attitude did not percolate through to the press who were in full hot-air flight. Quite how this helps or impresses is difficult to understand. Is it peer pressure? Is it because what one media outlet says needs to be repeated by the others?

Within hours, news anchors were asking whether the event was a failure on the part of our security services. After all the terrorist was a convicted criminal and known to the police. Incidentally, his last conviction was twelve years ago. Quite rightly, the Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, said it was far too soon to make any judgments about security but thus far, she knew of no such failure. Although it was left unsaid, it has been many years since terrorist activities have been on our streets. The London bombings of 2005, the raid on Glasgow Airport in 2007 and the murder of Lee Rigby four years ago are the only examples of which I am aware. At a time when there are far too regular terrorist outrages all over the world, our security services have performed brilliantly keeping us safe. Not that this is a reason to feel complacent. Successive governments and the security services have been vigilant and prevented numerous terrorist acts.

If you are wondering why this event has an American political element, it is because the Trump family have decided to stick their oar in. Yesterday, Donald Trump, Junior, criticized London Mayor Sadiq Khan for saying: “Terror attacks are part and parcel of living in a big city. I am afraid that London, New York and other major cities around the world have got to be prepared for these sort of things. That means being vigilant and having a police force that is in touch with communities.”

Baby Trump has copied his father’s habit of turning to Twitter to air his views: “You have to be kidding me?!” He then copied part of Khan’s statement that terror attacks are part of living in big city. The first obvious comment is that Junior cannot punctuate. Second, what experience does he have of running anything, except a division of his father’s business? He has no experience whatsoever of running a city or even part of it. Third, how is it helpful to take the Mayor’s comments out of context? Khan made these comment six months ago, when he slated the future President for his “ignorant” take on Muslims. Also, Khan was sympathising with Americans for an outrage in Chelsea, Manhattan, with the loss of many lives.

America has no record for Junior to boast about when it comes to prevention of terrorist outrages. In July, 2016, six people were killed and ten injured in Dallas, Texas. Many of the victims were police officers. In November, 2016, in Columbus, Ohio, a vehicle was used to kill one and injure eleven. In January, 2017, at Fort Lauderdale Airport, five people were killed, six were injured and 12,000 were evacuated. In the face of the evidence, does Junior really believe terror attacks are not part of city living?

Why did Junior get involved? The impetuous lack of wisdom and misuse of Khan’s old comments reminds me of the way his father conducts politics, making unconsidered and ridiculous tweets. I would not be surprised to find that Junior’s actions were the result of instructions from his father, whose official comments on Thursday were dignified and low key. Certainly, the brief tweet made by Junior has that senior Trump feel to it. Khan had attacked the President as ignorant. This was the President getting his own back.

Wednesday’s victims came from eleven countries. The Mother of Parliaments has been turned in to a crime scene. And our government now has a very difficult balancing act to perform, weighing liberty and security. What is needed is support from friendly governments, not cheap shots from someone who is totally unqualified and should know better.

 

Donald Trump has been diagnosed with POTUS Interruptus. His second Immigration EO is stuck in the Courts and his American Healthcare Bill is in shreds. Perhaps he might consider that the businessmen, global warming deniers and racists in his cabinet are falling short and that he needs much better guidance on how to co-exist with the legislative and judicial branches of the US Government.

 

 

 

Where Ignorance is Bliss

Until this week, I lived in a wonderful state of ignorance, leading a life that suited me well, being kind to old ladies crossing a road, ruffling the heads of children as they played, rarely speeding, and altogether trying to be a worthwhile member of society. And then, AMT descended upon me, disturbing not only my equilibrium but, as Star Wars fans would term it, “The Force.” I had my Mario Balotelli moment. “Why me?”[1] Why did AMT have to raise its ugly head now when all was right with my world, with the exception of one or two little things, like expenditure exceeding income, not to mention a pain in my back?

If you are still with me, I suspect you’ll be asking, WTF is AMT? The latter stands for “alternative minimum tax.” It is a tax imposed by the American government to ensure the mega wealthy pay a fairer share of tax. We now know in 2005, President Trump was targeted by the AMT police because a two-page section of his tax return has been published by MSNBC. It disclosed that the President paid $38m in federal taxes on more than $150m income. He was then trapped by a tax rule that he has now promised to abolish. If he puts the proposal to Congress, will he be accused of yet another conflict of interest? A point of interest is the level of income he enjoyed twelve years ago and his phenomenal contribution to the US Treasury. If his income has remained at similar levels, by any definition he is an uber-rich man.

Mr Trump took exception to the disclosure, with good reason. The White House accused MSNBC of violating a federal law that prohibits the unauthorised release of tax returns. It is illegal to publish an unauthorised tax return or "return information." Any violation of the law is treated as a felony punishable by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years. It is a serious offence. In response, MSNBC claimed First Amendment privilege. If a media organisation has not conspired to steal material or obtain it from government but simply received it from a private citizen, a criminal conviction is uncertain.[2] So if the President wants to take the matter further, an interesting clash would develop. Do federal laws on disclosure trump – pardon the expression - the Bill of Rights?

The President’s tax history has been under scrutiny since he launched his Presidential campaign. Both Democrats and Republicans and more than a million petitioners have demanded to see his tax returns. During the campaign, Mr Trump first said he would release them once an audit was completed. Then he made a U turn and, just two days after his inauguration, White House adviser Kellyanne Conway announced the President was not going to release his tax returns because “people didn’t care.” You have to admit that Conway is nothing but consistent in her daft public announcements. Such an abrupt refusal followed months of Trump dancing around the issue.

This time, Mr.Trump has law on his side. Individual income tax returns are private information, protected by law from unauthorized disclosure. Indeed, the Internal Revenue Service is barred from releasing any taxpayer information whatsoever, except to authorized agencies and individuals. Like all other citizens, U.S. Presidents enjoy this protection of their privacy.

However, it is not Presidential to hide or appear to hide behind the law. The American people look upon their Presidents as people who have climbed above the hurly-burly of politics and whose responsibilities and obligations are much greater than mere compliance with the law. There is a perceived morality to the Presidency. This office has a higher duty than other political offices. Failure to disclose might cause a presumption that Mr Trump has something to hide.

President Obama was excused from disclosure but it was felt unnecessary because his income was known to be solely his government salary and royalties from his books. His capital assets comprised only government bonds. President George W Bush released partial information but before him Presidents Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter and Nixon made full disclosure. Oddly, Gerald Ford released only summary data. Neither Presidents Johnson, Kennedy nor Eisenhower released any tax information but Truman made full disclosure. FDR released no returns during his Presidency but returns are made available in the Roosevelt Library.

I feel some sympathy for Mr Trump. He is a successful businessman, a self-proclaimed billionaire whose tax affairs will be complex. I know of no serious allegations that he has cheated on his taxes or has broken any tax laws. Indeed, it seems he is audited regularly, thus the IRS must be satisfied with his compliance. However, if the President maintains his refusal to disclose details of his tax affairs, it could result in another brick in the wall being constructed by his many opponents, a wall in which he, not Mexicans, will be enclosed.

 

  

 

---

[1] Mario Ballotelli was a Premier League footballer, constantly in trouble with the authorities both on and off the pitch. He habitually claimed persecution with the cri de coeur, “why me?”

[2] MSNBC journalist, David Cay Johnson, said he had been sent the two-page tax summary “over the transom”, i.e. unsolicited. No evidence has been produced so far to identify the anonymous sender.

The Lying Liars

Bette Davies, one of the greatest Hollywood actresses to grace the silver screen, once famously said, “Show me a politician who’s a liar and I’ll show you a politician.” In other words, all accomplished politicians are also accomplished liars. Actually, Bette Davies said no such thing but as telling lies seems to be in vogue, this was my alternative fact.

Back in 2003, comedian and soon to be politician, Al Franken, now the US Senator for Minnesota, published a book, “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.” Franken challenged media conservative opinion of the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter in a liberal backlash to right wing opinion. Franken was sued by Fox News because his book headlined the phrase, “fair and balanced reporting,” which Fox was using to advertise its News program. I am delighted to say that the courts threw out the law suit, as the litmus test for newspaper reporting since the year dot has been “fair and balanced.” Ironic,” as Mr Trump might say! But I digress.

Lying is part and parcel of a politician’s armoury, although the art was arguably best expressed by the UK’s most senior civil servant, former Cabinet Secretary Sir Robert Armstrong, who spoke of “being economical with the truth.” At present, President Trump is being pilloried for his constant untruthful allegations, often made via Twitter. The most recent (at time of publication) is the assertion that President Obama had Trump’s New York HQ wiretapped. A reader of my blog has asked whether there is a coincidence that Trump’s most shocking tweets are made on the Sabbath, when Jewish son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is not available to lend a calming hand. It is a fair point.

In the interests of fair and balanced blogging, there is a crop of American Presidents who, over the past decades, have lied to the public. Let’s start with the Democrats. Arguably, the most famous lie of all was told by Bill Clinton when he looked fair and square into the lens of a television camera and told viewers, “I did not have intercourse with that woman, Miss Lewinski.” Technically, he told the truth, but only if you accept that oral sex does not count as intercourse.

The most highly regarded 20^th century President, Franklin Roosevelt, lied about keeping America out of World War II. After the outbreak of war in 1939, FDR advocated publicly the policy of keeping the United States at peace. He did this when also engaging in a secret correspondence with Winston Churchill about the US entering the War. The President's pledges of keeping the US out of the conflict reached a crescendo during the last days of the 1940 election campaign. For example, at Boston in October, he said: "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." Yet secret American-British talks were held in Washington in 1940/1 when extraordinary care was taken to conceal from Congress not only the contents of the talks but the fact that they were taking place at all. FDR was preparing for America to go to the aid of its GB ally at the same time when FDR was telling the voters they would not find America as a participant. Mind you, in this he could point to a precedent, that of his Democratic predecessor, Woodrow Wilson, who in 1916 did the self-same thing in relation to World War I.

There are two other Democratic US Presidents who were patently untruthful. In the 1960 Presidential campaign, John Kennedy accused the Eisenhower administration of allowing a “missile gap” to have developed and that the Soviets were a long way ahead of US in both quality and quantity of ICBMs and nuclear warheads. This was a barefaced lie, intended to embarrass his opponent, VP Richard Nixon, and to lay grounds for a massive military expenditure if JFK won.

In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson seized on an incident in the Gulf of Tonkin when, he told the American public, the US gunboat Pueblo had been fired upon by the North Vietnamese. There had indeed been a gunfight but the Americans had fired first. Using the lie, LBJ persuaded Congress to pass a resolution, giving him authority without a formal declaration of war by Congress, for the use of conventional military force in Southeast Asia and “to do whatever necessary in order to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defence Treaty .” The Resolution came to be called ‘the open check.’ It gave LBJ immense power to involve American armed forces in Vietnam without recourse to Congress.

The Republican Presidents post 1968 are no slouches in the lying department. Ronald Reagan was caught red-handed in the Iran-Contra affair, breaking two Acts of Congress. The 1987 Senate investigation chaired by Senator John Tower, a Reagan fan, reached a neutral conclusion but did not clear the President. Reagan’s apology was a masterpiece of obfuscation: “A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions tell me that’s true………..but the facts and evidence tell me it is not. There are reasons why it happened but no excuses. It was a mistake.”

President George W. Bush regarded himself as “a war President” and said so publicly. He also castigated Iran, Iraq and North Korea as “the axis of evil” in the 2002 State of the Union address. He lied to the American people about Iraq’s ownership of weapons of mass destruction, but so did his closest ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair. “W” had a precedent set by his own father who, in the 1988 election campaign, told the press and, by extension, the voters: “Read my lips, no new taxes.”

Sooner than two years after becoming the 41^st President, Bush raised taxes.

Arguably, though, the foremost Presidential liar was Richard Nixon. His political education began in the dirt of California politics. In his run for Congress in 1946, he demonized the Democratic candidate, Helen Geoghan. His lying techniques were keenly honed by June, 1972, five months before his re-election, when the Watergate break-in took place. There has never been proof that Nixon knew of the break-in before the fact but the White House tapes disclosed the President’s involvement in the cover up, a mere four days after the event. From then, Nixon told lie after lie. Worst of all, in a 1973 televised press conference, he claimed: “The people have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well, I’m not a crook.” Sadly, he was telling one of the many Watergate lies.

Back to present times. I have no doubt that Trump lied knowingly when he tweeted he had been wiretapped by President Obama. Why did he lie? My money is his desire to keep control of the news cycle. The Obama wiretap story took the heat off Jess Sessions in the weekend media. Then the Obama story reverted to the inside pages with Trump’s new Executive Order on immigration and the Obamacare shinanigans. While Trump is a liar, he is not only in distinguished company, he also seems to be the master of manipulating the news industry!

 

 

McCarthyism is Back!

Last night, President Trump sent the following Tweet:

            “Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!”

I sat there and read the tweet a number of times. The question I asked myself was, “does this President not know anything?” Then I thought some more, coming to the realization that Mr. Trump had actually got it right. Let me explain.

Joseph McCarthy, the Junior Senator for Wisconsin, was facing an election in 1952 which he was likely to lose. So, he came up with a wheeze. At a speech in Wheeling, Virginia, he spoke about the threat of communism. He waved some papers at his audience, stating he had a list of more than 200 names of people employed in the State Department, all of whom were communists and that there was a “spy ring” at State. The story, published in the Virginia and Wisconsin newspapers, took hold and soon it went nationwide, as McCarthy exaggerated his claims. The numbers of communists employed in the federal government increased but McCarthy failed to name anyone.

Senate hearings were convened and McCarthy and his side-kick lawyer, Roy Cohn, harangued and bullied witnesses. He obtained confessions from only two people, a janitor and a secretary. However, he received support from House of Representative members, as the House Un-American Activities Committee wrecked the lives of actors, writers and academics during the “Red Scare.” Meanwhile, McCarthy proved nothing about State Department officials. He knowingly lied and lied about communist infiltration just to get re-elected.

Like McCarthy, President Trump has offered no proof or evidence whatsoever in support of his claim of wire-tapping by President Obama and members of the Obama administration. Does he really believe that a man like Barack Obama would stoop to such a low level? Of course not. What Trump hates is the growth in evidence that members of his cabinet have been lying to Congress. So, he is retaliating in the way he knows, lie and demonize an opponent. In doing so, he is copying the tactics of Joe McCarthy. Shame on you, Mr Trump.

 

The State of the Trump: The Address to Congress.

There is a famous children's book, "Where's Spot?"  The main character, Spot, is hidden on every page and the child reader is asked to find him. On Tuesday night, I felt Mr Trump played the part of Spot. He gave an address to a joint session of Congress, but where was The Donald we had encountered over the past year? The bullying, hectoring, lying, divisive, racially prejudiced, misogynist was hardly visible. Instead we saw a calm, confident, measured President who kept to a carefully worded script which was a sea change from his threatening Inauguration address. Mr Trump set out a program which included aid for women and support for the environment and public education. Ostensibly, even the poor and disadvantaged were in his plans.

This American set-piece occasion is splendid, if not based on a well-established blueprint. Behind the President sit both the Speaker of the House and the Vice-President, in his capacity of President of the Senate. It is much more fun if the two are from different parties. During the Obama Presidency, John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi put on quite a show centre stage, as one stayed seated while the other stood and applauded the words of the President.

The Chamber is filled with all members of Congress. The President enters, walking past the Democrat section. There was much bonhomie as Trump shook hands with all and sundry, taking three minutes to reach the podium. But when he started to speak, I worried that the Chamber might topple in a game of one-sided see-saw. One half, the Republicans, often stood, cheered and applauded while the other half, the Democrats, sat silent and stone-faced.

More than once, the President said he wanted to reach out to both sides of the aisle so members of Congress would unite with him in the best interests of all Americans. In this, he said precisely what his recent predecessors in the Oval Office have done. However, the reality of Congressional politics came alive when Trump announced the repeal and reform of Obamacare. The Republicans stood and roared at the prospect of some 22 million Americans, newly insured under Obamacare, losing out because Congress is too mean to care for the health of its nation’s poor.

Mr Trump promised all sorts. Vast increases in government expenditure, including a 10% hike in military spending, as well as a huge investment on infrastructure, something Obama proposed and Congressional Republicans rejected. Roads, bridges and airports are to be rebuilt at a cost of a trillion dollars. Is this an annual expenditure? Who knows? I wonder what FDR would have thought. In his first term, he tackled America’s infrastructure, but he did not pay the cost from borrowed funds.

And The Wall is getting built too. Mr Trump did not quantify the numbers of jobs that would be created through all this expenditure but his mantra was ‘American people and American materials’ to complete all the tasks. In fact, Trump promised pretty well everything except a cure for cancer within ten years!

The President mentioned that a substantial tax cut was on its way for corporations and the middle classes. We seem to be returning to Reaganomics. If there is no government surplus and if taxes are reduced, how will he pay for his programs, let alone reduce the American debt? He says his economic proposals will result in massive growth which in turn will pay for the new expenditures. For those of us old enough to recall the heady days of the 1980s, this seems Reagan-like bunk. Reagan hung on to "trickle down" even when the well ran dry.

For now, Mr Trump has an easy task. He has no record to defend yet. However, I suspect his plea for Congress to do its job and govern for all Americans will fall on deaf ears. I have little doubt that the Congressional Democrats will do their best to run Trump programs off the road, much like the Republicans did to Obama. And don't expect Congressional Republicans to lie on their backs and kick their legs. To use an American expression, Trump and his budget might well be given the bum's rush. Already the influential Southern Carolina Republican Senator, Lindsey Graham, has announced Trump’s budget as “dead on arrival.”

I was relieved that Mr Trump did not take a pot shot at the Supremes, as he has at other judges. Still, I worried for them. They and the Joint Chiefs of Staff sat in the well of the Chamber almost underneath the President. At any time they might have been struck by the Pinocchio Syndrome: being hit by a liar’s growing nose. The Washington Post reported on numerous fabrications and economies with the truth in the speech, or as the administration puts it, alternative facts.

“We have begun to drain the swamp of government corruption by imposing a five-year ban on lobbying by executive branch officials — and a lifetime ban on becoming lobbyists for a foreign government.”

There is indeed a lifetime ban on administration officials lobbying for foreign governments but the five-year ban on lobbying does not extend to Congressional officials, nor does it apply to the lobbying of any other than the official’s former agency. Evidently, Mr Trump has weakened bans made by Presidents Obama and Bush (43), as well as reducing levels of transparency.

“We’ve saved taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars by bringing down the price of the fantastic new F-35 jet fighter, and will be saving billions more dollars on contracts all across our government.”

Trump took credit for the reduced cost of the F-35 program. The Pentagon announced cost reductions of some $600 million before Trump began his meetings with Lockheed.

By this time, I truly feared for the Supremes and the Chiefs, especially when President Pinocchio announced a real doozy. I would not have blamed them had they headed for the hills.

“Ninety-four million Americans are out of the labor force.”

In 2016, The Bureau of Labor Statistics stated that 94.4 million Americans of sixteen years and older were not in the labor force. The Donald equated this with numbers out of work. True, there is a civilian, non-institutional American population of 254.1 million people, of which 159.7 million are in the labor force. The difference yields the 94.4 million figure. However, the US unemployment rate is 4.8%. 7.6 million are actively but unsuccessfully looking for a job. Who are the 94 million not in the labor force? According to BLS, 93 percent do not want a job at all. The 94 million consists mostly of people who are retired, students, stay-at-home parents or disabled.

So, what can one conclude? First, Trump was a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Whilst his style was conciliatory, the substance of his message was “business at all costs.” Second, he had the barefaced cheek to dissemble to Congress. This shows not only disrespect but that the President still doesn’t understand that without the support of Congress, his administration will be on a treadmill with a fierce gradient. Third, America is in for a bumpy political ride as the legislative and executive branches of government clash. My money is on the folks on the Capitol Hill.