TRUMP IS HELLBENT FOR CONFLICT AND WAR: TIME FOR THE PUBLIC TO SAY "YOU'RE FIRED!"

After eight full months of the presidency of Donald Trump, the evidence is now totally clear, the man is completely unfit to be President. He has demonstrated a lack of respect for the Constitution, for our Judicial System, for the people he is meant to serve, and for the demands of the office. Being totally lacking of any real empathy for other people, his only focus is on trying to enhance himself, make himself look good, and receive the praise of others. He is failing miserably in this endeavor, as his personal dynamics leave him with only one way of responding in the conflict situations which are so constantly encountered, both domestically and internationally, by a president: attack, insult, and threaten to destroy his opposition. He lives, breathes, and breeds conflict. As President, this quality is potentially devastating, for the nation and for the world.

 In business, Trump's wealth and financial power allowed him to achieve a modicum of success in gaining his goal of respect, along with a lot of notoriety.  In TV entertainment, his outrageousness gained him an audience, but denied him the respect an EMMY carries.  As President, he has already lost the respect of the majority of our nation's citizens, who find that his proposals undercut their best interests and that his incapacity to lead results in an absolute lack of major policy accomplishments. As a world leader, he is seen as a veritable laughingstock, a leader the world needs to take seriously because of the power he commands as US President, but one they cannot take seriously as a person because of his obvious incompetence.  How can our nation, or the world, grant respect to a leader who does not himself grant respect to those he is dealing with in consequential affairs?  In a more fluid type of democracy, such  as a Parliamentary system, Trump would perhaps already have been voted out of office, or would be very close to seeing his tenure end. Our system moves slowly in such circumstances.  Presidential elections are only every four years, impeachment is a lengthy, cumbersome, uncertain process. Special investigations, whether by the Department of Justice or by Congress, take time, and are subject to the usual political pressures. Protests and resistance efforts can help sway public opinion, bringing more people into the movement, but little can really change until voters have a chance to undo the damage at the ballot box. Congressional elections in a little over a year necessarily become the next focal point.

As concerned citizens continue to mobilize their efforts against the reign of Trump, let's take a look at what are seen as his major offenses, and why his Presidency should not continue. His first major responsibility was to appoint the Cabinet members who would serve under him, leading his Administration's federal departments. Without exception, his appointments were people, often with limited or no experience in the field in which they were entrusted responsibility, who were motivated through political or business connections to undo and reverse many of the social, environmental, educational, scientific, medical, or other gains that their agency had produced during the last several decades. Trump had promised to "drain the swamp".  One might hope he was thinking of reducing the lobbying influence of Wall Street and other special interest groups on policies emanating from Washington, or lessening Defense Department spending in maintaining our heavy military footprint in numerous overseas nations.  Putting a halt to being engaged in endless, winless wars in the Middle East would also be consistent with his pledge to "drain the swamp", as would becoming a leader generally responsive to the needs of the primarily middle class people who formed his base and celebrated his victory. The results, unfortunately, have been quite to the contrary.  Vested interests, whether family, corporate, business, or right-wing establishment, prevail more than ever.

Trump's supporters insist, "give him a chance".  Any elected leader does deserve some months to settle into office, discover what works, begin to prove themselves worthy of the office. Giving Trump a pass on his first six months, let's just look at a few of the things that have transpired recently. He took the onset of Hurricane Harvey as an opportunity to announce his pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, freeing him from serving any jail time on his judicially imposed sentence. He choose  the time of maximum TV coverage because of Harvey  so that his anti-immigrant base would have full exposure of his finally achieving  a success in one of his campaign goals. While he does have the right to issue the pardon, most presidential pardons are issued at the end of the President's term, and after the convicted person has served some prison time. Not so with Trump, which goes along with the lack of respect he had previously expressed for judges and for our judicial system. Some legal authorities would find him guilty of contempt of court, in an implicit fashion.  Trump would undoubtedly like to fashion himself as "an Imperial President", able to have the other branches of government follow his whims and do his bidding. Fortunately, he is discovering otherwise.

A second major transgression, recent and still ongoing, concerns his verbal, tweet-generated threats against North Korea, and his continuing a running battle of attack and counter-attack with their immature, pompous leader. Real leaders, in fact, real men, do not do that! It reveals Trump as an equally immature, hot-headed, buffoon-like individual.  Certainly not representative of the way to engage in any kind of competitive interaction with a nuclear-powered nation with nowhere near our strength and resources.  Trump wants his threats of "we will destroy you" to stand alone, even ridiculing his Secretary of State for mentioning that we do have channels available for communicating with North Korea diplomatically, saying such efforts are a waste of time, adding he would take care of North Korea in his own way. Diplomats are aghast with Trump. Does he really prefer war to negotiation and diplomacy?  Let's hope that cooler minds will prevail in the resolution of issues with North Korea, as well as with Iran and with Venezuela, two other nations Trump has sounded off against impulsively, while other officials and advisors are working in more strategic, quieter ways to navigate the conflicts that exist in our relationship with those governments.  A steady hand at the helm would be preferable, not an erratic hothead.

Two other recent examples of Trump's failure at being a president are his response to the Charlottesville rioting, where he had difficulty finding the white supremacy group of rioters, which included people with Nazi and Ku Klux Klan banners and emblems, any more at fault than those who were protesting their march, and also his handling of the Hurricane Maria devastation to the island of Puerto Rico. The later revealed his total lack of empathy and understanding of what the people of Puerto Rico were experiencing, his lack of awareness of the history and the people of the island as US citizens, his putting down of their needs and minimizing their tragedy, and his tendency to attack, this time very viciously and unseemingly, when his leadership ability is questioned. In this case, was it ignorance, racism, or just Trump being Trump?  Does it matter? There can be a tendency to passively accept what cannot readily be changed. With Trump, we cannot let that happen!  It is too important, he is too dangerous, in his mindlessly arrogant, self-serving way. If you share these perceptions, get involved, join groups, speak out, write letters, contact legislators. The country that needs different leadership is our own, our children's, and our grandchildren's.  It's not too late, but the need is imminent, and the dangers are too real.

THE REIGN AND THE RAGE OF TRUMP: OUR NATION AND THE WORLD AT GREAT RISK!

For many observers of Donald Trump, their worst fears of his Presidency are becoming all too true. The open war of words he has been engaging in with North Korea's intemperate leader is the last thing needed if there is to be a genuine endeavor to resolve the differences without nuclear missiles flying in both directions. The young leader of North Korea is well known as speaking like a hothead, making extreme, unrealistic threats as a demonstration of strength, while the reality is he is the leader of a small, economically weak, strategically vulnerable nation surrounded by South Korea (defended by the US}, China, Russia, and Japan. In a world that has not done well to prevent the gradual spread of nuclear technology and weapons, despite extensive efforts, he has acquired considerable nuclear capability, and is working on further developments. The last thing needed by the leader of the nation with the most nuclear destruction potential in its hands is to engage in a war of words with North Korea, with ever escalating threats. Only Kim Jong-Un has much to gain from this, his stature and perceived power being enhanced by open conflict with the US, whether through hostile words or military action. Experienced military and political leaders throughout the world, as well as in the US, advise Trump to cool the rhetoric, nothing is to be gained by  "fire and fury" threats except to perpetuate the danger, to expand Kim Jong-Un's ego, and to provide external justification for his harsh military rule over his oppressed domestic population. Diplomatic professionals strongly recommend working with regional allies, Japan and South Korea, along with Russia and China, to encourage North Korea to come to the negotiation table. This is what these nations, having the most to lose through active warfare, clearly favor. This is not done with threats, only with a "carrot and a stick" approach, with some consideration of incentives for North Korea to reach a non-conflict resolution to the issues which have only magnified since the Korean War was left without any real settlement after the active fighting stopped over 60 years ago.  Asking for submission without offering any inducements or benefits does not work. This has not been Trump's way, his emphasis seems only on threats, maximum exercise of power, and unilateral winning. His constant record of engaging in conflicts, lawsuits, attacks on allied world leaders, on members of his own party as well as on opposition leaders, is an ominous record for a novice in the international field.

Similarly, elsewhere in the international arena, the inexperience and unfitness of Trump is unfortunately all too evident. He has attacked and insulted the leaders of many of our strongest NATO allies, leaving them bewildered and uncertain as to the nature of continuing American leadership in the Western alliance.  His often contradictory statements satisfy no one, adding only to the confusion.  He is threatening going down the same road with Iran as he has been with North Korea, talking of unilaterally cancelling the US's involvement in the multi-nation nuclear agreement the Obama administration negotiated with Iran, regardless of our partners stance on the issue. Trump's own advisors are not in favor of our terminating the agreement, but this has not effected the nature of Trump's threats and charges. In the turbulent Middle East, threatening war with Iran is the last thing needed, but Trump seems to have little regard for facts on the ground or the realistic, reasonable, professional ways issues and conflicts can best be resolved. His threat and attack-oriented approach drives the opposing side toward greater enmity, and risks making the ultimate conflict inevitable.

 His lack of expertise in dealing with the Middle East was further evidenced when he announced his decision to raise our troop level in Afghanistan. While our continuing troop level there, after our already 16 years of involvement, is a legitimately debatable issue, he was at least following military advice in making that call. His statement, though, revealed his absolute ignorance of the political dynamics involved, and included insulting and making unrealistic demands of Pakistan, India, Afghanistan itself, and our other potential allies in the region, all at the same time. In making demands that Pakistan as well as India support our efforts in Afghanistan, he showed he knows nothing of the long-standing, bitter rivalry between those two nations, and that India would have no reason for, and nothing to gain through, their involvement.  In suggesting that we expect to ultimately get something in return from Afghanistan  (eg, natural resources, money, etc.) for our military efforts, he shows no understanding of the history of our involvement there or of the Afghani people, and raised questions as to our bottom-line motivation for being there. In expecting other regional allies and NATO allies to join us in raising their involvement, they were not involved in the decision itself, why should they automatically be expected to support our efforts.  Again, it all suggests an absolute novice at the helm, and if his advisors suggest more sensible policies or statements, his instincts lead him to override them.

Trump's rejection of the Paris Climate Accord constitute another major way in which Trump is clearly threatening the well-being not only of our nation but of the entire world. In trying to satisfy his dwindling base of climate change deniers, Trump has gone against an agreement signed by most other advanced nations of the world, including the major carbon producers and other emitters of dangerous toxins into our atmosphere, oceans, and ground soil.  So the US, rather than following Obama's lead, is no longer the leader of nations in acting to halt the destructive effects of scientifically-proven human-induced climate change. Instead, we are modeling for other nations to disregard the concern.  While ozone depletion, polar melting, ravaging storms, ocean toxicity, etc., continue to increase in intensity and frequency, Trump and the deniers in Congress chose to look in the other direction, not willing, apparently, to offend their political base, or lessen the short-term profits of their donors. Whether blind, weak, or insecure, one must ask, who are they serving?  Themselves? The limited few?  Certainly not the collective best interests of their fellow men, of humanity, or of nature!

In short, it hasn't taken Trump long to reveal that he is in no way fit to be President. Above are mentioned only a few of the dangerous international ramifications of his Presidency.  Domestic examples could have as readily been offered.   The point is that his volatile, erratic, explosive temperament; his absence of knowledge about our Constitution, our history, or the cultures of other peoples we share the world with; and his inability to work with other people in a civil way, an inability to express disagreements and work  sequentially toward a common solution, all these character shortcomings leave him incapable of serving the nation with the type of Presidential leadership that is required.  In a Parliamentary system, he would be immediately at risk of losing his leadership role. Since it takes much longer, and through a much more complex process, to remove a US President, it is our nation, as well as the world, that unfortunately bears the risk of his remaining time in office.

DEVIANT DONALD, AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE AMERICAN DREAM

Through a strange sequence of highly unlikely events, the United States has elected a President like no other. In just over four months in office, Donald Trump has created a tremendous amount of chaos and turmoil in Washington DC, throughout the nation, and in the world. Opposition to his Administration is rapidly spreading, and is reaching severe intensity. For some, it was not unexpected, as there were ample warning signs about his character, his emotional nature, and his fitness and preparation for office expressed and widely circulated prior to his election.  Others, including many swing voters who did want a change in Wash DC, hoped he would grow into the office, rise to the occasion, and disprove the concerns that had been expressed about him.  This has not happened.

The concerns about Trump's nature are again being expressed, now in more serious form, amplified by the reality of the policies he is proposing.  Is he evil, "dancing with the devil", with no regard for the damaging effect of his actions on others?  Is he mentally or emotionally disturbed?  He has been labeled  a psychopath, sociopath, narcissist, self-serving opportunist, megalomaniac, etc. by various mental health professionals. His angry, insulting outbursts, and erratic twitter behavior do raise questions.  Does he have fascist leanings, expressing an attraction for dictators, revealed by making some positive comments about leaders such as Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam Hussein, and Rodrigo Duterte? Is he a racist, influenced by the association his father had had with the Ku Klux Klan; and also by early experiences in real estate, employing questionable management practices when owning tenement housing complexes in minority-dominant areas?  Is he a sexist, in the most negative connation of the word, attracted to women mainly for their beauty, exercising control and dominance over them, and using them readily for his own pleasure, whether consensual or not?  Is he overly combative and conflict-prone?  The fact that he has been involved in over a thousand lawsuits must mean something. The list could go on, serious charges all.

But Trump was elected in spite of these concerns being fully aired. His core backers, perhaps 20 to 30% of the population, are still solidly supporting him, and Republican party leadership is staying with him, to enact as much of their agenda as they can while he is in office, and also to not alienate Trump's voter base from supporting their party,  since they couldn't stay viable politically without the backing of Trump's core supporters in elections. Otherwise responsible Republican leaders are remaining mute or offering support in reacting to Trump's often disturbing antics or questionable actions, seemingly swallowing their principles and their pride in the process. So the Trump machine is rolling on, in spite of the damage it is leaving in its wake, and this is still after only four plus months in office.

Since it is clear it will not be the nature of Trump's character alone that will disqualify him from office, and the potential danger to the nation of a long Trump rule is too great for many who oppose him to accept, what options are open to them. Two immediate avenues remain that could lead to his removal. One is being found guilty of illegal, unconstitutional actions, and a special investigator and congressional investigations are already looking into questionable actions which could ultimately implicate Trump, but only over a long, uncertain, circuitous process. The other option is ever-increasing public opposition to his actions, focusing on the damaging effects his policies are having, and proposed policies likely to have,  on a majority of the nation's population. Whether dealing with healthcare, financial regulation, the environment, education, human rights, consumer protection, women's rights, gun control, voting rights, foreign affairs, etc., many of Trump's actions and proposals are downright dangerous, endangering the well-being of most citizens, especially the most vulnerable, while favoring vested interests, the select few, and his own self-serving biases. Opposition to his designs and policies is spreading in ways not seen since the Vietnamese War opposition. It needs to be vocal and heard loud and clear in the hallways of the Capitol, as Congress will typically not move until they are forced to by their electorate.  The gravity of the threats is seen by many as necessitating such a response, and the crescendo is rising.

Campaigns have been mounted to fight Trump on many of the specific areas in which large groups of citizens feel threatened, and these will grow in size and intensity as the threats come to be more fully experienced. One potentially powerful, overarching campaign which could be launched against Trump is that his entire campaign, Make America Great Again, was based on an entire fraud, just as much of what Trump is, and has done, is based on fraud. He campaigned on becoming a voice for the person in the street, to speak for the forgotten people, neglected by the establishment in Wash. DC and taken advantage of by Wall Street.  His Administration, in fact, is doing exactly the opposite, creating,  a new establishment of the millionaires and billionaires like himself who will call the shots in moving the nation towards Trump's own, more exclusionary, vision for America.

Trump seems intent on destroying the very process that has made America great. During our nation's over 200 years of history, there has been a progressive forward movement, with more and more Americans, often through long-fought political struggles, receiving the rewards of being included in The American Dream. The American Dream involves inclusiveness, equal opportunity, fair play, acceptance of differences, the possibility of upward mobility. It is an ideal, an objective our nation values and tries to achieve, however rarely if ever fully obtained.  Trump's policies directly attack the fundaments of The American Dream.  They are destroying the very principles, purpose, and policies that have made our nation great, the inclusion of more and more people in The American Dream. The progress, through sweat, toil, and tears, our nation has made, he seems intent on rolling back, reversing. Those protesting are equally intent on not letting this happen.

The American Dream is deeply embedded in the American psyche. When people think of America as an "Exceptional Nation", that is one of the prime qualities they are referring to. The long, arduous process leading to the American Dream being what it is today is not to be taken lightly. There was a political battle for non-property owners to gain the right to vote, an even more intense, lengthy battle for women to become able to vote a century later.  Women are still battling for their full share of rights, and against strong forces preventing them.  A Civil War was fought to free the slaves, and another hundred years passed before civil rights legislation was enacted to give African Americans other rights they had long been denied. Intense battles were fought to regulate corporations and holding companies from grossly unfair business and employee practices.  Setting aside some public land to preserve its natural beauty and keep it available for public enjoyment occurred only after long political effort. Programs like Social Security and Medicare, for citizens in their later years, were fought tooth and nail by conservatives. And so it goes. The American Dream had to be fought for, long and hard. Retaining it in the current political climate, especially under Trump's influence, will also be a real battle. One well worth fighting for!

The current weakening of the American Dream began before Trump. A strong, vibrant, mobile Middle Class is vital to the concept of the American Dream, and the Middle Class in America has been under attack and in decline since the eight years of Ronald Reagan. The tax, labor, and budgetary spending changes which were a part of Reaganomics began the decline of middle class strength in the US, and the percentage of wealth held in the hands of an ever smaller percentage of the population began to increase.  Neoliberal trade and economic policies enacted during the Clinton years increased the pressure on the middle class, and its decline, in numbers and in percent of wealth held, continued.  The Bush-Cheney era Iraq War diverted needed domestic spending to defense and war budgeting, while continued lax financial regulation set the nation up for the economic collapse of 2008, from which only the most wealthy have fully recovered. The middle class is still struggling with the effects of employment offshoring and limited domestic employment opportunity, and homelessness and extreme poverty have become growing problems. Obama did what he could to expand healthcare to millions of citizens who lacked insurance, met massive resistance on this and other attempts to met social needs, and was fortunate to achieve what he could. The government was becoming dysfunctional, caught up in polarization and political gridlock, failing to meet people's needs.

Enter Trump, an opportunist of the highest order. He saw an opening, set himself up as an anti-establishment candidate on the right, took advantage of a vast field of  establishment-based Republican candidates, and won the nomination through an insult, divide, and conquer process.  The presumptive candidate the Democrats offered, Hillary Clinton,  assumed victory was hers against such an unlikely candidate, failed to understand and speak to the voters anti-establishment fervor, and was lax in campaigning, not going to some key Democratic, labor-based states,  Not too surprising she lost, considering the lack of enthusiasm her campaign aroused, but still amazing that Trump won, leading to the chaos the nation now encounters.

Domestically, there is a battle going on between Corporatocracy and Democracy.   Thanks to Trump, it is now the high rollers in the corporate world that are not only winning, but winning more than ever.  His  "draining the swamp" is better identified as clearing out all the rules, all the regulations, letting those with the most money and power have their way.  The lust for mega-wealth he exemplifies is creating a capitalism gone berserk, a world of winners and losers, a no holds barred Zero Sum Game, let the participants beware, winners take as much as they can get.  In the Trump World, the Golden Rule as a social ethic, in personal life or  in government, is being perverted from "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" to "Whoever Has the Gold Rules".  Perfect for Trump, for his family, his corporate supporters, the Koch brothers, etc. Not so good for the rest of us! Internationally, too, Trump has his own agenda. The world, to him and his foreign policy advisors, is an "arena" in which to compete. Cooperation, alliances, attempting to work together to resolve international conflict, is overrated, lessening ones ability to gain the advantage. Perhaps Trump offers  the kind of world he is most comfortable in, and the kind of nation he wants to live in. Its not at all the kind of nation and world that many of us desire to be a part of. It is incumbent on us to mobilize our resources and our energies to ensure that his intent, his vision, his inversion of the American Dream does not become the reality we live under. We deserve, and demand, a much better, more just, more inclusive, destiny.

AMERICA IS STANDING AT THE CROSSROADS: WHICH WAY, USA?

Four score and one years ago, our country's blues mythology tells us, an itinerate country blues musician, Robert Johnson, stood at a crossroads in Mississippi and made a deal with the devil. To become a great musician, perhaps the greatest ever, all he had to do was sell his soul to the devil. Johnson, legend has it, made the deal. For the next two years, 1936 to 1938, he was incredibly prolific, writing and performing dozens of blues songs which, when they were fully discovered and circulated after his untimely, premature death in 1938 at the age of  only 27,  came to be recognized as true classics which established Johnson as a legendary blues musician whose influence was seen in all the great blues and rock music that was to follow. Eric Clapton, for one, has called Johnson "the most important blues singer that ever lived", and Johnson was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame at its first induction ceremony in 1986.

Why bring up the story of a blues musician, perhaps partially true, perhaps more mythological fiction than true, in a political commentary?  Many of us who celebrate the overall progressive direction that has occurred in the history of the United States since the Declaration of Independence in 1776, now find that hard-fought-for progress to be under serious attack, under threat of reversal, with reverting to a much more restrictive, divisive, unjust society a real possibility. It is akin to the US standing at a crucial crossroads, perhaps the most significant  one faced since the Civil War, uncertain which road will be followed, and which side will prevail. A significant portion of our population, 35 to 40% if the polls are to be believed, are steadfast in their support of Donald Trump, accepting whatever gyrations in his alternative facts, twitter words, or policy statements he is feeding them at the moment, with his Republican enablers in Congress seemingly swallowing their principle and their pride in going along with him in the hope of furthering the Republican agenda, especially in rolling back the social, human  rights, and economic equality progress our government has made in the last 50 years, in any way they can.

Trump's unexpected victory has activated the progressive, more inclusive, socially responsible factions of our society in ways not seen since the Vietnam War protests and the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's. In contrast, the Far Right, and the more reactionary elements of our society that came out more fully in the open after Obama's election and were adamant in protesting his eight years as president, succeeded in gained a strong foothold within the Republican Party, quieting its more moderate voices.  Trump and his anti-establishment, throwback views were very much  to the liking of this far right faction of the party, creating the energy among Republican voters that allowed them to virtually capture the party from its established leaders and then prevail over their uninspired, dis-organized Democratic opponents in the general election. Hence, the current standoff at the crossroads. Progressives  are struggling to find a way to return the nation to resuming on a path towards more social and economic equality, more acceptance of diversity, and more respectful of our natural environment and the scientific knowledge that has played such a significant role in human progress.  Blocking their way, they are engaged in having to fight against a virtually alien immediate governmental power structure, one that has very vocal supporters, and with a seemingly opposite agenda.

Trump is almost daily revealing that he does not have the background, the knowledge, or the temperament to be President. It is easy to find fault with him as our leader.  It is much more difficult to find ways to effectively combat the vast array of Americans, both the ordinary citizens and those in responsible leadership positions, who are continuing to grant his administration their support. With policies that if fully imposed would literally turn back the clock by decades on advances affecting the social, economic, healthcare, environmental, and educational well-being of the vast majority of our citizens, the lines could not be more distinctly drawn. Democrats during the past 25 years have admittedly been weak in effectively pursuing a strong progressive agenda, and the anti-establishment, Sanders, Warren wing of the party have given and are giving expression to this failure. The  Obama administration did attempt to move the nation in a generally positive direction, but was blocked and largely unsuccessful in this endeavor.  The direction Trump is attempting to take the nation is clearly reverse gear; opposite the general progressive direction of our nation's history. The most notable Republican presidents would be aghast at current Republican  policies, Lincoln protesting their tolerance of civil rights violations, Teddy Roosevelt fighting both the lack of respect and protection of our natural environment, and excessive deference to corporate influence, profit, and power. Eisenhower would not tolerate the presidential arrogance and facility at glibly lying, nor its emphasis on loosely-controlled military and defense expenditures. Even Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes would obviously be often shaking their heads in disbelief at the antics of this administration and current Congressional leadership. There is much to protest, but will the attempts take hold, and return us to a more positive path?

Right now all the real power is still in the hands of the Trump administration and a subservient Congress which has yet to challenge him in telling ways. Little has changed yet in actual policy, after just over 100 days, but the threats are there, and they are all too real. Democrats are not united, and not effective in their opposition. Various citizen groups are mobilizing, have real potential, and are not likely to disappear. They have, however, not come together with a clear focus or agenda.  There are so many elements of the Trump agenda to fight, all bear significant importance, all variously central to different factions of the progressive electorate. So the nation stands, at this moment, at the crossroads, the lines are drawn, the feelings are intense, but no clear movement has yet been made.

Will the same energy be fully activated that has carried our nation generally forward, often hesitantly and haltingly, throughout our past history?  Our nation's founding fathers had  progressive intentioms, their lofty words and intent framed their hopes for the country and its future citizens, but they knew it would be a long term process turning their words and purposes into actual policy and reality.  They knew that future advances would be achieved only through the dedication, commitment, and struggles of citizens willing to work for continuing advances and deal with emerging challenges, new realities, and serious threats. Such are the crossroads where we now stand. The crossroad Robert Johnson stood at when he made his deal with the devil; while it may have had an effect on his life and on musical history,  is likely more mythological than fully real.  The political crossroad our nation stands at is all too real, can have a massive effect on all our lives, and on the world we live in.  Let's choose wisely, and ensure the necessary energy is expended, by all of us who care about our nation's future, in the right direction!

ONLY CNN. WASHINGTON POST AND RACHAEL MADDOW HAVE THE STORY EARLY ON

Here is the story missed by the New York times and evidently by major news outlets.  Rachael Maddow discussed in detail the implications of the story.  Why is the FBI discussing the investigation of Trump's ties to Russia with Trump operatives?  They are tainted.  How could the heads of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees take orders from Trump and call newspaper reporters and tell them that there was nothing or downplay  Russia-Trump ties when they are investigating that very matter!  They are tainted.  And this racist bum Jeff Sessions. a part of the Trump campaign, won't recuse himself from investigations.  We need a 9/11 commission type investigation.  

National Security

Trump administration sought to enlist intelligence officials, key lawmakers to counter Russia stories

White House uses members of intelligence community, Congress to counter Russia stories

Play Video3:01

National Security reporter Greg Miller explains why the Trump administration is enlisting the help of intelligence officials and Members of Congress to counter Russia stories. (Jorge Ribas, Ashleigh Joplin/The Washington Post)

By Greg Miller and Adam Entous February 24 at 11:40 PM 

The Trump administration has enlisted senior members of the intelligence community and Congress in efforts to counter news stories about Trump associates’ ties to Russia, a politically charged issue that has been under investigation by the FBI as well as lawmakers now defending the White House.

Acting at the behest of the White House, the officials made calls to news organizations last week in attempts to challenge stories about alleged contacts between members of President Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives, U.S. officials said.

ADVERTISING

The calls were orchestrated by the White House after unsuccessful attempts by the administration to get senior FBI officials to speak with news organizations and dispute the accuracy of stories on the alleged contacts with Russia.

Checkpoint newsletter

Military, defense and security at home and abroad.

The White House on Friday acknowledged those interactions with the FBI but did not disclose that it then turned to other officials who agreed to do what the FBI would not — participate in White House-arranged calls with news organizations, including The Washington Post.

Two of those officials spoke on the condition of anonymity — a practice President Trump has condemned.

Trump discusses reports of possible contacts between his campaign staff and Russian intelligence

Play Video4:33

President Trump denied he has any connections to Russia during a news conference at the White House on Feb. 16. (Reuters)

The officials broadly dismissed Trump associates’ contacts with Russia as infrequent and inconsequential. But the officials would not answer substantive questions about the issue, and their comments were not published by The Post and do not appear to have been reported elsewhere.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer confirmed that the White House communicated with officials with the aim of contesting reporting on Russia, but maintained that the administration did nothing improper. “When informed by the FBI that [the ­Russia-related reporting] was false, we told reporters who else they should contact to corroborate the FBI’s version of the story,” he said.

The decision to involve those officials could be perceived as threatening the independence of U.S. spy agencies that are supposed to remain insulated from partisan issues, as well as undercutting the credibility of ongoing congressional probes. Those officials saw their involvement as an attempt to correct coverage they believed to be erroneous.

The effort also involved senior lawmakers with access to classified intelligence about Russia, including Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairmen of the Senate and House intelligence committees. A spokesman for Nunes said that he had already begun speaking to reporters to challenge the story and that, “at the request of a White House communications aide, Chairman Nunes then spoke to an additional reporter and delivered the same message.”

Unlike the others, Nunes spoke on the record and was subsequently quoted in the Wall Street Journal.

In an interview, Burr acknowledged that he “had conversations about” Russia-related news reports with the White House and engaged with news organizations to dispute articles by the New York Times and CNN that alleged “repeated” or “constant” contact between Trump campaign members and Russian intelligence operatives.

[5 times Donald Trump’s team denied contact with Russia]

Chief White House Strategist Steve Bannon walks with White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus to Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

“I’ve had those conversations,” Burr said, adding that he regarded the contacts as appropriate provided that “I felt I had something to share that didn’t breach my responsibilities to the committee in an ongoing investigation.”

The administration’s push against the Russia coverage intensified Sunday when White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said in television interviews that he had been authorized “by the top levels of the intelligence community” to denounce reports on Trump campaign contacts with Russia as false.

Priebus’s denunciations ranged from calling the articles “overstated” to saying they were “complete garbage.”

Administration officials said that Priebus’s comments had been cleared by FBI Director James B. Comey and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. In doing so, the FBI’s leadership would appear to have been drawing a distinction between authorizing comments by a White House official and addressing the matter themselves.

Mark Warner, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he called CIA Director Mike Pompeo and Burr to express his “grave concerns about what this means for the independence” of the investigation.

“I am consulting with members of the Intelligence Committee to determine an appropriate course of action so we can ensure that the American people get the thorough, impartial investigation that they deserve, free from White House interference,” Warner said in a statement Friday night.

Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, issued a statement Friday evening saying that if the White House “contrived to have intelligence officials contradict unfavorable news reports, this represents a new and even more grave threat to the independence of the intelligence community.”

Former intelligence officials expressed concern over the blurring of lines between intelligence and politics, with some recalling Republican accusations that the Obama administration had twisted intelligence in its accounts of the 2012 attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya.

“I doubt that there was any enthusiasm from the intelligence leadership to get involved in this in the first place,” former CIA director Michael Hayden said, noting that it seemed unlikely that Priebus’s bluntly worded denials were consistent with the “precise language” favored by intelligence analysts.

“Think Benghazi here,” Hayden said in an interview by email. “This is what happens when the intel guys are leaned on for the narrative of the political speakers. The latter have different rules, words, purposes. Getting intel into that mix always ends unhappily, [and] it looks like we just did.”

The Trump administration’s actions reflect its level of concern about coverage of its relationship with Russia. Trump has continued to praise Russian President Vladimir Putin, even after U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Russia had interfered in the U.S. presidential race to help Trump win.

Trump has also repeatedly disparaged the intelligence agencies that his administration last week turned to for support. Shortly before taking office, Trump accused U.S. spy agencies of a Nazi-style leaks campaign to smear him.

The White House statements on the issue Friday came after CNN reported that the FBI had refused administration requests to publicly “knock down” media reports about ties between Trump associates and Russian intelligence.

Administration officials disputed the account, saying that rather than soliciting FBI feedback, Priebus had been pulled aside by McCabe on the morning of Feb. 15 and told, “I want you to know” that the New York Times story “is BS.”

The FBI declined to discuss the matter.

White House officials declined to comment on the administration’s subsequent effort to enlist other government officials and would not agree to allow the identification of the intelligence officials who had spoken to The Post last week. In separate calls, those individuals insisted on being identified only as “a senior intelligence official in the Trump administration” and “a senior member of the intelligence community.”

In a brief interview on the night of Feb. 15, the senior intelligence official said that the suggestion that there was frequent contact between Russians and Trump associates was false, describing any conversations as sporadic, limited and based on Russia’s interest in building a relationship with the future Trump administration rather than shaping the 2016 presidential race.

The senior intelligence official appeared to be referring to contacts between Trump’s designated national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak before Trump was sworn in as president. Flynn was forced out of his job earlier this month after The Post reported that Flynn had discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with Kislyak and then misled Trump administration officials about the nature of his contacts.

Officials at the CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment on whether senior officials at those agencies had discussed Russia coverage with the White House or been involved in efforts to refute stories on that subject.

CIA Director Mike Pompeo is the senior-most intelligence official in the administration, with former senator Dan Coats (R-Ind.) still awaiting confirmation as director of national intelligence.

As a Republican member of Congress, Pompeo was among the most fiercely partisan figures in the House investigation of Benghazi, which centered on accusations that the Obama administration had twisted intelligence about the attacks for political purposes.

It is not unusual for CIA leaders to have contact with news organizations, particularly about global issues such as terrorism or to contest news accounts of CIA operations. But involving the agency on alleged Trump campaign ties to Russia could be problematic.

The CIA is not in charge of the investigation. Given the history of domestic espionage abuses in the United States, CIA officials are typically averse to being drawn into matters that involve U.S. citizens or might make the agency vulnerable to charges that it is politicizing intelligence.

A U.S. intelligence official declined to discuss any Pompeo involvement except to say that he was “not involved in drafting or approving statements for public use by the White House this past weekend on alleged Russian contacts.”

Whether there were such contacts remains a major point of contention. Beyond Flynn, the investigation has focused on other figures including Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman, who had previously served as a paid political adviser to the Putin-backed president of Ukraine.

U.S. intelligence reports cite multiple contacts between members of Trump’s team and Russians with links to the Kremlin, during the campaign and afterward, according to officials who have seen them. Such reports were based on intercepted Russian communications and other sources, the officials said.

Nunes, who served as a member of Trump’s transition team, has resisted calls for his House committee to investigate alleged contacts between Trump associates and Russia. He said in an interview that after months of investigations, U.S. authorities have turned up no evidence of such contacts.

“They’ve looked, and it’s all a dead trail that leads me to believe no contact, not even pizza-
delivery-guy contact,” Nunes said, appearing to rule out even unwitting contact between Trump officials and Russian agents. Investigators, Nunes said, “don’t even have a lead.”

Philip Rucker, Ellen Nakashima and Julie Tate contributed to this report.

Why We Must Defend The Arts Against Trump

I write for a website called Elephant Journal.com.  Its articles have thousands of views by young people whose votes could have kept Trump out of office.

Please see https://www.elephantjournal.com/2017/02/why-we-must-act-now-to-defend-the-arts-cpb-npr-against-trump/

and my other posts.

TRUMP ADVISOR STEPHEN MILLER NEEDS A STRONG LEFT ARM

Trump senior policy adviser Stephen Miller made the rounds on the Sunday news shows to assail the federal judges who have ruled against the administration’s anti-Muslim refugee and travel ban, and expanded Trump’s attack on the independence of the judiciary.

Miller’s statements accused the courts of “remaking laws” and seeking “judicial law and providing a vital check against overreach by another branch of government.

Perhaps the most interesting moment of Miller’s interviews was the one in which he told CBS’s John Dickerson:

"The end result of this, though, is that our opponents, the media, and the whole world will soon see as we begin to take further actions, that the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned."

He went on to say, "The Fuehrer's authority is absolute in all matters of das homeland’s security."  His left arm restrained his right arm from rising in a salute.  However, he did manage to say, “Hail Trump.”   After that episode his left arm returned to rest on his genital area.  Even with his suit jacket covering it one could tell it was extremely well muscled.