 On December 1, 2024, President Joe Biden granted his son Hunter a full and unconditional pardon “For those offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024”. The pardon clears Hunter Biden of the nine federal tax charges that he plead guilty to in September and his three felony convictions for lying on a federal firearms application. In his statement announcing the pardon President Biden stated that Hunter had been treated differently and unfairly singled out to hurt Biden’s presidential campaign. The president went on to state that, “I believe in the justice system, but as I have wrestled with this I also believe raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice”.  Reactions From the Right: The reaction from Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans was predictable. Trump called the pardon an abuse of power and a miscarriage of justice. House Republicans called it proof that Joe Biden couldn’t be trusted and that the Biden family was attempting to coverup criminal behavior. This is pure hypocrisy. In justifying his own questionable pardons while president, Trump stated that the presidential pardon power is complete and free of limitations. Trump has pardoned close friends and associates such as Rodger Stone, Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort for various crimes committed in his service. Let’s not forget that Trump pardoned his son-in-law’s father, Charles Kushner who was convicted of tax evasion, witness tampering, and making illegal campaign contributions. To add insult to injury Trump has selected Mr. Kushner to be the next U.S. ambassador to France.  House Republicans have been using their majority over the past two years to investigate Hunter Biden in order to damage President Biden. A since discredited star witness for the Republicans claimed that Joe Biden had financially benefitted from illegal overseas schemes involving Hunter. The House Republicans could never prove any wrongdoing by Hunter Biden, as I have written about in a previous blog .  Reactions From the Left: If you need any further proof that the Democratic Party is adrift, look no further than their response to the Hunter Biden pardon. Party leaders across the country were quick to jump all over Joe Biden for failing to keep his campaign promise not to pardon his son. The hand wringing and moralizing about the degradation of presidential norms and standards is astonishing and speaks volumes about the state of their party. Do they forget who the American people just elected to be the next president of the United States? They have given Trump a pass on every misstep and misdeed, so the bar has already been reset. If the Democrats have a problem with this, they need to have a serious conversation with the American people about standards and norms. Well, what about Joe Biden’s legacy? Biden’s legacy has already been diminished by his decision to run for reelection in 2024 and handing Donald Trump a 2nd term. Pardoning his son will be a mere footnote to the storm that the next Trump Administration will bring.  The Real Issues Raised by Hunter Biden’s Pardon: No one is really very surprised that Joe Biden pardoned his son, and on a personal level they understand it. The issues surrounding the pardon that have caused consternation among legal scholars and politicians are the scope of the pardon and the language used by the president to justify it. The pardon gives Hunter complete immunity for all federal offenses he may have committed back to January 1, 2014. This sets a new precedent and could possibly lead to abuses of the presidential pardon in the future. The pardon may not have caused much of a stir outside of MAGA world if not for the president’s attack on the integrity of the justice system in his statement announcing the pardon. The president’s statement made clear that he thought the prosecution of his son was politically motivated and that Hunter had been unfairly treated by the justice system because he was the president’s son. Democrats fear that Biden’s condemnation of the justice system will bolster Trump’s claims that the Department of Justice had been weaponized against him.  In Defense of Biden: On several occasions over the past year President Biden had pledged not to pardon his son for the tax and gun violations he was charged with. Biden should never have made that pledge, but it was in the middle of a presidential campaign, and he fully expected Donald Trump to lose the election. With a Democrat returning to the White House, Biden thought his son would be protected against further criminal investigations and prosecutions. That was upended when Trump won the election, and Republicans won majorities in the House and Senate.  Biden’s apprehension grew as the new president-elect began to nominate MAGA loyalists to key positions in his administration who are hell-bent on dismantling the “deep state” and seeking retribution against Trump’s enemies. The nomination of Kash Patel to head the FBI and Pam Bondi to be Attorney General, convinced Biden that his son’s legal problems would only intensify. Newly emboldened House Republicans have pledged to continue to investigate the “Biden Crime Family” and other foes of Donald Trump. Given these circumstances it is understandable that Hunter’s pardon was written to provide broad protection to cover the timetable outlined by the House investigation into his overseas business dealings. Hunter’s pardon frees up the FBI and House of Representatives to spend their time and taxpayer money on pursuits more aligned with the needs of the American people.  To the charge that Biden’s expansive pardon of his son clears the way for Trump to pardon January 6th defendants, I say nonsense. Trump has been stating for months that he considered the January 6th defendants to be “political prisoners”, and that he would most likely pardon them if reelected. I expect Trump to pardon some, if not all the January 6th defendants, and it will have nothing to do with Hunter’s pardon, despite his claims to the contrary.  The U.S. Constitution gives the president broad powers to grant pardons, so President Biden did nothing illegal in issuing his son a pardon. It was wrong for Biden to claim that the prosecutions of his son were political, impugning the integrity of the Justice Department. But there is no doubt that investigations into Hunter Biden’s overseas activities by House Republicans were politically motivated to damage President Biden. With the pardon of Hunter Biden by the president, Democrats fear that they have ceded the moral high ground. But to whom? Certainly not the Republicans! With the election of Donald Trump our national politics has entered a period when morality takes a back seat to expediency. The Democrats and the rest of the country need to get over the president’s pardon of his son and focus on the real threat to presidential norms and standards.  If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776 American @gmail.com.
Thanks, Armchair American
0 Comments
 It was not the result that I wanted, but the American people have given Donald Trump a decisive victory over Kamala Harris. He won both the popular and electoral votes. Harris graciously conceded to Trump, and the transition is underway for the 47th President of the United States of America. The silver lining is that the election results are not being litigated in courtrooms across the country, and there will be a peaceful transfer of power. In the history of the United States there has never been a more uniquely flawed candidate at the head of a major party’s presidential ticket than Donald Trump. That is why I thought that Kamala Harris would squeak out a victory. But I was wrong. The American people had been expressing their dissatisfaction with the direction of the country throughout the campaign, and the Democrats were mostly tone deaf to the things that mattered most, namely high prices and border security. Joe Biden was an unpopular president, and by the time he begrudgingly dropped out the race it was too late for any replacement candidate to mount an effective campaign against Trump. Joe Biden was an 800-pound albatross around Kamala Harris’ neck, and she could never effectively articulate how her administration would be meaningfully different than Biden’s. Republican wins in the House and the Senate sent a clear message that the country wanted change, even if that meant bringing back Donald Trump.  The Democratic Party was clearly out of step with the mood of the country. The progressive politics of the Biden Administration pushed the party left while the majority of the country shifted right. The Trump campaign effectively portrayed the Democrats as a party trying to impose a radical left-wing agenda highlighted by racial, gender and identity politics, while the needs of ordinary Americans were being ignored. As a result, Donald Trump and his party will soon control the executive branch and both Houses of Congress.  But What About Trump? Donald Trump was an unpopular president and unpopular presidential candidate. In recent days his favorability rating surpassed 50% for the first time. Voters were willing to overlook the criminal indictments and convictions, the xenophobia and misogyny, the name calling and petty antics, and the circus atmosphere surrounding Trump. None of Trump’s nonsense and misdeeds impacted voters personally, but high prices and the sense of insecurity resulting from a porous border did. It’s true that Trump’s base of MAGA supporters is strong. But Trump was pushed over the finish line by anti-incumbent voters who rejected Joe Biden’s policies, and by extension his political party.  Trump Gets a Clean Slate: The electorate did more than just forgive Trump’s boorish behavior, it gave permission to the Justice Department to dismiss the two federal criminal cases against him. Within the past few days, a court in Washington D.C. dismissed the case which alleged Trump had attempted to overturn the 2020 election. This week the federal documents case against Trump in Florida was also dismissed. In the court filings to dismiss these cases Special Counsel Jack Smith cited a Justice Department policy that sitting presidents may not be prosecuted. Prosecuting a sitting president would certainly impair his ability to perform his duties, but I doubt that the framers of the Constitution intended the president to be above the law.  The door remains open for the prosecutions to be renewed once Trump leaves office, but the chances of that happening are remote. The American people handed Trump a get out of jail free card when they elected him to be the next president of the United States. Trump still faces state charges in the Georgia election interference case, but odds are that case will die a quiet death. It now appears that Trump’s sentencing for his 34 criminal convictions in the New York hush money case will be delayed until after he leaves office.  Going Forward: Despite his claims to the contrary Trump was not given a mandate by the voters to go “full MAGA” on the country. He received just under 50% of the popular vote, which means that half of the country voted against him. Nonetheless, Trump is newly emboldened by his election victory, the Republican takeover of both Houses of Congress, and the dismissal of the criminal cases against him. There will be little to no restraint on his ambitions to become an all-powerful executive in the Oval Office. His cabinet and other key government positions will be packed with loyalists ready to do his bidding, and Project 2025 will be their roadmap.  For the next two years Trump will yield nearly unfettered control over the reins of government. It’s time for Mr. Trump to put up or shut up and “Make America Great Again”. Without those pesky Democrats to get in his way he has no one to blame but himself if he doesn’t execute on his agenda. The good news is that the mid-term elections are two short years away and the American people get cranky when politicians swing too far to their ideologic extremes, just ask the Democrats. The 2nd Trump term will be a test of the resiliency of the Constitution and the rule of law. It will remind voters of the importance of the separation of powers, the need for checks and balances within the federal government and determine whether the co-equal branches of government actually function as such.  Some Crazy and Not So Crazy Predictions:
To sum it up, Harris lost the election because paychecks went further under Trump. In the immortal words of Democratic strategist James Carvel, “It’s the economy stupid!”  If you enjoy reading this type of commentary, please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776 American @gmail.com.
Thanks, Armchair American  As of this writing over 66 million Americans have already voted in the 2024 presidential election, and I was one of them. If you haven’t voted yet you have until the polls close on November 5, 2024. I can’t say it any better than that renowned statesman and gifted orator Donald J. Trump who is imploring his supporters to “Get your fat ass out of the couch” and vote. For me the decision on whom to vote for is clear. It is a decision between a candidate who attempted to overthrow the results of a free and fair election, the bedrock of our democracy, and one who didn’t. Rather than to rehash it all, I thought it would be interesting to revisit two of my blogs from the 2020 election cycle and present a few of their highlights.  Vote 2020 Here it is in the middle of July, and it is ramping up be the summer of our collective discontent. We are in the midst of a worldwide pandemic, the economy is in a shambles, protests against police injustice occur nightly, civil war era monuments are being toppled, and dozens of our citizens were killed by firearms over the 4th of July weekend. The citizenry of this country should be discontented, if not downright outraged. Contentment leads to complacency, and this is not a time to be complacent. Black Lives Matter was considered by some to be a fringe radical group when it started in 2013. Today it is an international movement with support from people of all races. It is an example of a group of people getting together in common cause and raising awareness of racial injustice right here in the United States. I think that their cause is catching fire and will finally lead to some positive changes. But what about the rest of us? How can we make a difference? The answer my friends is at the ballet box! The presidential general election will be held on November 3, 2020, and several state primaries are being held in the months leading up to November. Voting is a fundamental right of every U.S. citizen 18 years of age and older. The free exercise of this right is one of the most effective ways to let your voice be heard and to affect change. There are laws that make voting mandatory in approximately 22 countries, but not here in the United States. No one can force you to vote. But if citizens are complacent and don’t vote, how will change be affected? If you are not motivated to vote, I have listed a few things that you may want to consider. Reasons to Vote:
Voting During the Pandemic: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted just about every aspect of our lives. To top it off we are faced with a national election. How do we do it safely during a time of self-quarantines, social distancing, and enhanced sanitation procedures? We don’t know if the virus will still be with us in November. But we can’t sit idle and wait to find out. We do have some experience with voting during this pandemic, and it wasn’t pretty! During this primary season we have all read and seen news reports of people waiting in long lines, under extreme conditions, to vote. Voters in Wisconsin stood in lines for hours in the frigid cold, to exercise their right to vote this past April. More recently the good people of Georgia endured long waits, in scorching heat, to vote in their primary. Why did this happen? Election officials blame it mostly on the pandemic. Many of the poll workers are volunteers, who were frankly too frightened to work the polls. Those who did work were provided too little, or inadequate training, due to distancing and sanitation rules. Fewer poll workers lead to consolidation of polling places, compounding an already bad situation. Is this what we can expect in the November election? I hope not, and it doesn’t have to be. (Thank God the pandemic is over!)  Is the 2020 Presidential Election Finally Over? The 2020 presidential election is finally over. The Electoral College met on December 14th in all 50 states and the District of Columbia and cast their electoral votes. The Electoral College has spoken, and the winner of the 2020 presidential election is (drum roll please), Joe Biden! It was a very contentious election, and President Trump and his allies have tried every legal maneuver possible to have the election results overturned. But the numbers don’t lie. Here is the election scorecard, which even the most hardened partisan cannot overlook: 2020 Presidential Election Score Card Votes/Challenges Trump Biden Popular Vote 74,223,753 (46.9%) 81,283,495 (51.4%) Recounts in Wisconsin and Georgia * Lower Courts Lawsuits (50+) * Supreme Court Rulings (2) * Electoral College Votes 232 306 Victor * Even before all the votes from the November 3rd election were tallied, the President’s campaign, and members of the Republican Party, began filing over 50 lawsuits in various jurisdictions. The lawsuits contested the election outcome due to outright fraud or voting irregularities. Some of these lawsuits are still pending, but the majority were thrown out or decided in Joe Biden’s favor due to lack of evidence. The Supreme Court challenge, filed by the Texan Attorney General, was denied due to lack of standing (he didn’t have the legal right to sue other states over their election laws). The Supreme Court challenge against the state of Pennsylvania, for liberalizing absentee voting, was denied due to lack of merit. Much to the chagrin of President Trump, the separation of powers is still working. The partial recount in Wisconsin and the full hand recount in Georgia, both went in Joe Biden’s favor. On the floor of the Senate today, Leader Mitch McConnel acknowledged Joe Biden’s victory in the Electoral College. He went on to congratulate President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Harris on their victory. On January 6, 2021, Congress will meet in joint session to count the electoral votes and declare the winner of the presidential election. For the sake of the country, let’s hope that Donald Trump and his millions of admirers accept the outcome of the election so that we can work together on the challenges ahead. (Guess how that turned out!)  If you enjoy reading this type of commentary, please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776 American @gmail.com.
Thanks, Armchair American  In the past I have written that I have disqualified Donald Trump from consideration for the presidency due to his character flaws and lack of moral integrity. Nearly half of the American electorate, including many Christians disagree with me. Christianity is the most prevalent religion in the United States with over 63% of Americans identifying as such. In the latest national polls approximately 47% of registered voters support Donald Trump for president. Most of these voters are Christians who can separate Trump’s moral failings from his policies. I believe in the separation of church and state and have never voted for anyone because of their religious affiliation or beliefs. But the values I learned from my Christian upbringing are so opposed to Donald Trump’s lies and rhetoric that I would have to cast aside my foundational principles as a Christian to support him.  Trumpism: Volumes have already been written in the few short years that the MAGA movement and Trumpism have taken hold of the Republican Party. It has been equated to right-wing populism, Christian nationalism, national conservatism, authoritarianism, and even neo-fascism. Trump may indeed have certain tendencies which puts him into one or more of these political ideologies, but he really doesn’t have a political philosophy. Trumpism is simply a political movement that supports Donald Trump, and he will align himself with any group that supports him, and then coopt their views as his own. Rather than having a political philosophy, Trump has a moral philosophy which he learned from his friend and lawyer Roy Cohn. Trump learned from Cohn that in business and in life, in order to win you must “Attack, attack, attack. Admit nothing, deny everything. No matter what happens, you claim victory, and never admit defeat.” This philosophy of Trump’s is at the root of his conflict with Christian values.  Christianity: I am not a theologian, but I was born and raised a Catholic. I have come to believe that being a Christian doesn’t require affiliation with a particular church, but it requires a belief in and the practice of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Christianity in America encompasses a diverse group of people from many different backgrounds, beliefs and churches. One thing that binds most of these groups together is the teachings of Jesus Christ as written in the New Testament. The teachings that I remember are those found in “The Gospel According to Matthew”, particularly the teachings known as the “Sermon on the Mount”. Before examining how Trump’s campaign rhetoric has diverged from Christian values and norms it is important to review some of the teachings of Jesus, which are foundational to Christianity.  Christian Values: This is just a partial list of Jesus’ teachings. Many of these are familiar to Christians and non-Christians, and also appear in the writings of other religions.
 Jesus also taught about the importance of following the ten commandments. The most relevant commandment for our discussion of Trumpism is “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” To bear false witness against others is to lie about them, and the word “neighbor” as written in the English translations of the bible means an associate, brother, neighbor, companion, fellow, friend, husband, or anyone else. Jesus taught us to be good neighbors to others, to be kind and generous, to help those in need, to be forgiving, to be humble and honest. How do these teachings square with our understanding of Trumpism and the words and deeds of Donald Trump?  Can a Vote for Trump be Morally Justified: The Southern Baptist Convention is the largest Protestant, and second largest Christian organization in the United States. In 1998 it wrote about the candidacy of Bill Clinton in a resolution which stated that “۰۰۰moral character matters to God and should matter to all citizens, especially God’s people, when choosing public leaders.” The resolution further urged “۰۰۰all Americans to embrace and act on the conviction that character does count in public office, and to elect those officials and candidates who, although imperfect, demonstrate consistent honest, moral purity and the highest character.” Twenty-six years after many conservative Christian organizations spoke out against the moral failings of Bill Clinton, how is it that they can now support Donald Trump who falls much lower on the moral purity scale? I don’t consider myself a conservative Christian and will not attempt to justify something that I don’t understand. All I can do is assess the words and deeds of Donald Trump which speak to the character of the man who may very well be the next president of our country.  The Violation of Christian Values: In the final days of the 2024 presidential race, the violation of Christian values by Donald Trump are on full display. He tells lies and spreads false rumors to instill fear, divide the American people, and denigrate a large segment of our population. He calls immigrants rapists, murderers, and blood thirsty criminals “poisoning the blood of our country”. Trump uses rhetoric such as, “the Haitians are eating the pets” to promote hate and set people against one another. He portrays America as a country in decline, ravished by criminal gangs of illegal immigrants. Trump has a record of mistreating women, distaining the rule of law, and undermining public trust in government institutions. He lacks the humility to admit that he lost the 2020 election and continues to push the false claim that the election system is rigged against him. His false claims that the Biden/Harris administration withheld hurricane relief funds from predominately Republican areas, have led to threats of violence against FEMA employees and the closing of FEMA offices. Trump’s lies have led to violence and threats of violence against Capitol police officers, poll workers, elections officials, immigrants in this country legally, and public officials who have attempted to hold him accountable for his actions. Trump has promised retribution against those who have wronged him and to use the power of the presidency to punish those who disagree with him. He has vilified his political opponents by calling them the “enemy within” our country and has suggested that he will use the military if necessary to crush them. Are these examples of love for one’s neighbor, kindness and compassion towards others, forgiveness, humility, and not judging others? Well, the answer goes without saying.  Trump is Not Pro-Life: For decades many conservatives supported the Republican Party due to its pro-life stance. Trump was hailed as a hero in conservative circles for appointing three Supreme Court justices who supported the overturning of Roe v. Wade. But Trump is an unprincipled man who has changed his views on abortion several times to fit the prevailing political winds. Evangelicals and other conservative Christians have supported Trump over the years because he was the pro-life candidate. But it is difficult to reconcile that support with Trump’s shifting position in the aftermath of the overturning of Roe. Trump now claims to be the champion of women’s reproductive rights. He is against a national abortion ban and has called Florida’s six-week abortion ban “too harsh” and “a terrible mistake”. Will this cause conservative Christian voters to withhold their support for Trump? We will know in a few short weeks.  I have made my views on Donald Trump crystal clear during this election cycle. As I have expressed in a previous blog, character counts in the selection of any candidate for public office. My views on the character traits that I feel are important in a candidate were formed by my Catholic upbringing and the teachings of Jesus Christ. That is why I question the morality of supporting and putting into power a man who has hate in his heart, is vengeful, and lacks humility and integrity. Donald Trump has told conservative Christian groups that he “loves Christians” and will defend them against the radical-left. Even for Trump that is a wildly self-serving proposition. If he truly wants to align himself with Christians and their values, I suggest that he reads the Bible rather than hawking his own “God Bless the USA” Bible. One final piece of advice for Donald Trump, “Do unto others what you would have them do unto you”.   If you enjoy reading this type of commentary, please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776@gmail.com.
Thanks, Armchair American  When Donald Trump picked J.D. Vance as his running mate a lot of people were left scratching their heads. Anyone watching last week’s vice-presidential debate between J.D. Vance and Tim Walz now has a better understanding of Vance’s strengths. Vance was poised, polished, smart and an articulate defender of Donald Trump and his policies. He was clearly the best debater on stage that night, but more importantly he presented himself, and by extension Donald Trump, as reasoned, rational and well within the mainstream. He clearly did his job of “sanewashing” the Trump ticket, and that is what troubles me.  The term “sanewashing” has been around for a few years, but it entered the political lexicon this year in the craziness of the 2024 presidential election. It has come to mean the act of packaging or massaging radical and outrageous statements in a way that makes them sound normal. News outlines covering Trump have been accused of this. In some cases it is a purposeful attempt to present Trump in a more favorable light, and in other cases it is simply to help the intended audience make sense of his ramblings. In either case it creates a misleading picture of Trump to the public and sanitizes what can only be categorized as unhinged, delusional and the utterances of an unwell man.  In the hands of J.D. Vance, the concept of sanewashing has been taken to a new level. He has the ability to spin, distort, and deflect in such a way that overcomes any criticism of Trump, casting a favorable light on any of his discredited policies. The vice-presidential debate highlighted the dangers of an articulate Trump enabler like J.D. Vance. Vance’s performance attempted to rewrite the history of the first Trump administration and normalize a deeply flawed candidate who doesn’t have a coherent plan to lead the country forward in a dangerous world.  J.D. Vance may have won the debate on delivery, but he lost it on substance. Most of what he said sounded good, but it doesn’t hold up to close examination. If you are interested in a fact-check of the debate, I refer you to the CBS News’ analysis. I’m not claiming that everything that Walz said was 100% accurate. But the difference is that Walz’s inaccuracies pertained mostly to his own personal history, while those of Vance were misleading or false statements about Donald Trump and his policies.  Here are the most important inaccuracies uttered by Vance that all voters should consider: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Also know as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or Obamacare, it was signed into law in 2010 and was the crowning achievement of the Obama Administration. This law represented the most significant overhaul and expansion of the U.S. health system since 1965, providing affordable healthcare coverage to tens of millions of Americans. It was opposed by all Congressional Republicans, who have vowed to repeal and replace it every year since its inception. In the debate Vance claimed that Trump had “salvaged” the ACA, saying that “۰۰۰when Obamacare was crushing under the weight of its own regulatory burden and healthcare costs, Donald Trump could have destroyed the program. Instead, he worked in a bipartisan way to ensure that Americans had access to affordable care.” This statement was blatantly false. Trump was no champion of the ACA; in fact, he was just the opposite. He did everything in his power to dismantle the program which millions of Americans depend on for affordable health care. During his 2016 presidential campaign Trump vowed to repeal and replace the ACA. On his first day in office, he signed an executive order which proclaimed: “It is the policy of my Administration to seek the prompt repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” Throughout his term Trump pushed Congress to repeal the ACA, with little success. To undermine the law, Trump cut funding for advertising and outreach programs for the ACA and reduced subsidies to insurance companies for low-income enrollees. Trump still doesn’t have a healthcare plan that would replace the ACA and admitted as much in his September debate with Kamala Harris.  Peaceful Transfer of Power: The biggest takeaway from the debate for me was that Vance refused to acknowledge that Trump had lost the 2020 election. This came after Vance claimed that Trump had peacefully handed over the reins of presidential power to Joe Biden. Here is what Vance said, “It’s really rich for Democratic leaders to say that Donald Trump is a unique threat to democracy when he peacefully gave over power on January 20th.” This is a dangerous revision of what actually happened in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election.  The transfer of power from the Trump Administration to the Biden Administration took place in a city under siege. Thousands of troops lined the streets and miles of fences restricted access to the grounds of the Capitol. This all took place in the aftermath of Trump’s failed attempt to overturn the results of a free and fair election. It was not the peaceful transfer of power that Vance claimed.  After losing the 2020 presidential election, Trump convinced millions of his supporters that the election had been stolen. This led to hundreds of election workers and state officials being threatened with violence. The life of Vice President Mike Pence was threatened for refusing to assist Trump in overturning the results of the election. The Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, resulted in over 150 Capitol police officers being injured and the lives of at least seven people were lost. No Mr. Vance, the transfer of presidential power was not peaceful!  Vance did a great job during the debate of sanitizing Donald Trump’s record and sanewashing his often incoherent ramblings. But he doesn’t believe any of it, and neither should you. It was very self-serving. Vance is looking to his own political future and Trump is the most expedient way to move it forward. If you enjoy reading this type of commentary, please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776@gmail.com.
Thanks, Armchair American  I have not been affiliated with a political party for over twenty years. Officially I am known as a No Party Preference voter in the state where I live. I am dissatisfied with both major political parties and feel that they play a role in Congressional disfunction, and in the political polarization across the country. I have voted for Democratic, Republican, Independent, and write-in candidates. I don’t vote for a candidate based on party affiliation. I vote for a candidate’s strength of character and temperament, followed by the policies they champion. The character of the individual candidate says a lot about the type of leader they will be. If a candidate lacks a minimum level of standards and moral integrity, I deem them unfit for office and won’t even consider them when casting my vote. To me character trumps (no pun intended) all other things that a candidate brings to the table, including political affiliation, policy positions, and promised giveaways to voters.  Integrity: This is perhaps the most important aspect of a candidate’s character. Integrity implies a high level of honesty, morality and trustworthiness. In the context of a candidate for the presidency it also implies that they will respect the rule of law and preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.  President Harry Truman kept a sign on his desk which read “The Buck Stops Here!” This was a demonstration that he was personally responsible for his actions and those of his administration. Taking personal responsibility for your actions is another attribute which shows character in a leader. This point brings me to Donald Trump. His moral lapses are well documented, his shady business dealings are legendary, and his legal entanglements could fill a law library. But rather than owning up to his many shortcomings he has perfected the art of denial, deflected his failings onto others, and has draped himself in the cloak of victimhood.  In case you don’t follow Trump’s exploits as closely as I do, here are just of few of the legal entanglements he has faced in recent years which are reflective of his character:
 True to his character, Donald Trump has not taken any personal responsibility for any of his actions relating to the aforementioned criminal cases. Trump simply claims that he is the victim of election interference and political persecution. The prosecutors and judges in each one of these cases are “corrupt” according to Trump, and political lackeys of Joe Biden.  Character as a Guidepost to Leadership: This November we will not be electing a candidate for sainthood; we will be electing a president. No candidate for higher office is perfect, they are human after all. It is incumbent upon us to elect a candidate who has the character to rise above their inherent flaws and self-interest to do what’s right for the American people. Donald Trump’s leadership capabilities during his presidency and in the aftermath of his loss to Joe Biden were shaped by his character. Here are some of the things about Donald Trump that I have learned over the past nine years:
 There are several of my friends who readily acknowledge that Trump has flaws and cringe at some of his pronouncements, but are voting for him anyway. They agree with many of his policies and claim that they are voting for the Republican platform and not necessarily for Trump. But what they fail to realize is that Donald Trump has taken complete control of the Republican Party, and he is the platform. The world is a complicated and dangerous place, and the U.S. President commands an influential and very powerful position. The presidency is perhaps the most difficult leadership position of all, requiring physical and mental stamina, courage, resilience, intelligence, competency and the highest level of integrity. Unchecked power in the hands of an unethical and morally corrupt person, backed up by the enormous resources of the federal government and military establishment, could lead to injustice, cruelty, and much, much worse. After the Supreme Court’s inexplicable decision this summer to strip away the Constituent’s checks on presidential power, it is more important than ever to elect a president of the highest moral character. Donald Trump is not that person.  If you enjoy reading this type of commentary, please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776@gmail.com.
Thanks, Armchair American  The United States is in the throes of a contentious presidential race, and it is no surprise that political rhetoric has risen to a fever pitch. But there is a big difference between political rhetoric and blatant lies meant to hurt and deceive people for political gain. We are now witnessing in real time the purposeful spread of malicious lies by the Trump campaign, and real people are suffering. Haitian immigrants living in the city of Springfield, Ohio are the latest victims of Trump’s lies, vitriol and stupidity, and the entire city is suffering as a result. Most political rhetoric during a campaign is relatively harmless and generally recognized as pandering to prospective voters. But there comes a point when political rhetoric crosses the line and becomes dangerous. Donald Trump has crossed that line several times. The most prominent examples are his insistence that the 2020 election was stolen from him and today Haitian immigrants are eating pets in Springfield, Ohio.  The Big Lie: We are all familiar with the “Stop the Steal” movement created by Donald Trump in the aftermath of his loss to Joe Biden in 2020. The lie about the 2020 election being stolen did much more than massage the ego of a narcissistic man, it extorted hundreds of millions of dollars from gullible supporters and damaged the lives of thousands of Americans. The most visible example was the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021.  It is important to remember that Trump summoned his supporters to Washington D.C. on January 6, 2021 to protest the certification of the 2020 presidential election. At his urging thousands of Trump’s supporters marched on the U.S. Capitol and a violent riot ensued. A bipartisan Senate report determined that at least seven people died in connection with the Capitol riot and about 150 law enforcement officers were injured and many more will carry the emotional scars for the rest of their lives.  Thousands of Trump’s supporters who were at the Capitol on January 6, 2021 had their lives upended by the events of that day. By August of this year over 1,100 people had been arrested in connection with the Capitol riot, approximately 900 have been convicted of crimes, and over 500 of the convictions have led to prison sentences. Ask these folks if their lives are any better for having believed Trump’s Big Lie.  The Big Lie did much more than impact the lives of the people involved in the January 6 Capitol riot, it upended the lives of hundreds of election workers and officials in over a dozen states. Many of these people and their families received threats of violence and death from Trump supporters inspired by his false claims that the election had been stolen. Reuters did extensive reporting on the full extent of the campaign of fear launched against election workers in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election. Here is a link to Reuter’s findings. The devastating impact to the lives and livelihoods of thousands of Americans as a direct result of Trump’s Big Lie should be condemned by all. When you factor in the tens of millions of dollars states across the country had to spend to defend against bogus claims of election fraud, it is a mystery to me how the electorate of this country has let Trump get away with his lies.  Trump’s New Big Lie: During the nationally televised presidential debate on September 10 Donald Trump went on a tirade about how the Biden/Harris Administration had allowed illegal immigrants to destroy this country. Referring to Haitian immigrants living in Springfield, Ohio Trump said, “In Springfield they’re eating the dogs. The people that came in, they’re eating the cats. They’re eating-they’re eating the pets of the people that live there.” This is of course not true, but the Trump campaign has been pushing this lie for over a week. Trump’s running mate, J.D. Vance started the rumor by posting online that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio were abducting and eating pets. Vance also posted the lie that Aiden Cark, an 11-year-old boy who was killed when a mini-van driven by a Haitian immigrant crashed into a school bus, was, “murdered by a Haitian migrant who had no right to be here.” This is a racist lie intended to inflame hatred against immigrants and people of color. Young Aiden’s death was a tragic accident, not murder, and the Haitian immigrant involved in the accident was in this country legally.  Trump and Vance aren’t letting up on their deplorable hate speech against the Haitian immigrants in Springfield. Trump vowed during a press conference on Friday that he would conduct mass deportations of immigrants. “We’re going to have the largest deportation in the history of our country.” “And we’re going to start in Springfield”, Trump said. The rumors of immigrants eating cats and dogs in Springfield are false, and most Haitian immigrants living there are doing so legally. But this has no relevance in Trump world. The lies feed their narrative that illegal immigrants are destroying America, and Springfield, Ohio and the Haitians living there are collateral damage.  Last week city officials began to receive threatening phone calls, and bomb threats closed two elementary schools and caused the evacuation of Springfield City Hall and other state buildings. The lies spread by Trump and Vance have put Springfield, Ohio in the cross hairs of racists and conspiracy theorists who take Trump’s words as gospel. Trump is playing with fire and has proven once again that he will say and do anything to regain presidential power.  The New Trump Whisperer: There have been several influential advisors to Donald Trump since his improbable political rise nine years ago. The most notable of these was Steve Bannon who is currently serving a four-month prison term for defying a subpoena to appear before the House Select Committee that investigated January 6, 2021. The newest Trump whisperer is Laura Loomer, a far-right political activist, conspiracy theorist, and internet personality. She has made a name for herself in far-right wing circles for her frequent racist, sexist, homophobic and Islamophobic comments. Ms. Loomer has championed conspiracy theories, most notably that 9/11 was “an inside job”. She makes RFK Jr. seem like a reasonable guy. No one would much care about Ms. Loomer if not for the fact that she has been getting a lot of face time with Donald Trump in recent weeks. She has been traveling with Trump on his campaign jet, she attended last week’s debate and appeared with Trump in the spin room afterwards. Inexplicably Ms. Loomer attended the 9/11 memorials with Trump last week in Pennsylvania and New York. If a man is judged by the company he keeps, Laura Loomer does not reflect well on Donald Trump.  According to people close to Trump he is listening to Ms. Loomer’s advice. Trump has called Ms. Loomer a “free spirit” and “supporter”. Is she somehow behind Trump’s insistence that pets are being eaten by immigrants in Springfield, Ohio? We may never know. But what we do know is that throughout his political career Trump has listened to “advisors” who flatter him and play to his vanity. We also know that Trump is averse to reading policy statements, and gathers most of his information by watching television and through verbal communications with trusted advisors. This leaves Trump open to manipulation by people pushing a particular policy or agenda, knowing full well that he won’t fact check them or do his own due diligence.  It is frightening to think just how easily Trump can be manipulated by those he trusts. Repeating false claims and conspiracy theories as facts is disturbing and dangerous. But the real danger lies in Trump’s inability to recognize just how vulnerable he is to manipulation by sophisticated foreign adversaries such as Russia and China. Is it any wonder that the Russians would prefer Donald Trump in the White House over Kamala Harris?
If you enjoy reading this type of commentary, please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776@gmail.com.
Thanks, Armchair American  I will not be voting for Donald Trump in the upcoming election, but tens of millions of Americans will be. The voters of America have the right to vote for whomever they choose. But in presidential elections it is important to know the reasoning behind your vote and the consequences of that vote. I respect anyone who can thoughtfully articulate why they will vote for a particular candidate, whether I agree with their choice or not. My wife recently forwarded me a post that is making the rounds on Facebook which justifies a vote for Donald Trump. I am sharing the post because I think it is important that we respect differing views and try to understand those who we don’t always see eye to eye with.  Facebook Post: “ This is not a Jr. High or High School popularity/personality election!! I’m not voting for the person, I’m voting for the platform! I’m voting for the second Amendment. I’m voting for the next Supreme Court Justice and defending the traditional composition and independence of the Court. I’m voting for the Electoral College, and the Republic we live in. I’m voting for the Police, and law and order. I’m voting for the military, and the veterans who fought for and died for this Country. I’m voting for the Flag. I’m voting for the right to speak my opinion and not be censored. I’m voting for secure borders. I’m voting for the right to praise my God without fear. I’m voting for every unborn soul. I’m voting for freedom and the American Dream. I’m voting for good against evil. I’m not just voting for one person, I’m voting for the future of my Country and our Constitution which was written based on Biblical values and protects our freedoms under God! What are you voting for? God Bless the United States of America.”  Part of America’s greatness lies in the diversity of views among its people. Without understanding, our differing views can divide us and weaken our democracy. We all know people with views different from our own. It is our responsibility to reach out to them, respect their opinions, and help to foster greater understanding and friendship across divisive lines.  The operative question from the Facebook post is “What are you voting for?” I now have a better understanding of what some of my Republican friends hold dear and the reasoning behind their support of Trump. But Trump has demonstrated through word and deed that he is not a conservative and will not uphold the principles and values that are foundational to conservative Republicans. Trump has also demonstrated that he is willing to ignore the rule of law and the Constitution if they get in the way of his self-interest. Interestingly, all those reasons given in support of a Trump vote are also reasons underpinning my decision not to support him.  I’m voting for the Second Amendment, which needs to be repealed and replaced. I’m voting for the next Supreme Court Justice to round out the one-sided Court. I’m voting for a Supreme Court which will properly interpret the Constitution and not rewrite it. I’m voting to diminish the impact of the undemocratic Electoral College and to do my small part in assuring that the Republic lives on. I’m voting for law and order and the foundational value that no one is above the law. I’m voting for the flag, which belongs to all Americans. I’m voting for the military and veterans who have sacrificed much and will be called upon again in support of our allies around the world. I’m voting for free speech and for a government that won’t dictate which God to pray to. I’m voting for a comprehensive immigration policy which includes secure borders and a guest worker program. I’m voting for the reproductive rights of women and for the protection of all children. I’m voting for the best that this country can offer, not one which excludes people based on their gender identity, religious views, country of origin, or cultural differences. What are you voting for?  If you enjoy reading this type of commentary, please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776@gmail.com.
Thanks, Armchair American  There was a seismic shift in the 2024 presidential race on June 27 when Joe Biden’s debate performance showed the country that he was not up to the challenge of winning another term against his challenger Donald Trump. The more that President Biden dug in and tried to reassure his party and the country that he was up for the job, the further behind in the national polls he fell. Things began to fall into place for Trump’s return to the White House.  Trump was handed a get out of jail free card on July 1 when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of his immunity claims. The Court ruled that presidents have broad immunity when conducting official acts while in office. This casts doubt on the legality of the remaining state and federal indictments that Trump is facing. To put an exclamation point on Trump’s legal victories, a federal judge in Florida dismissed the classified documents case, finding that the special counsel handling the case had been appointed unconstitutionally.  Surviving an assassination attempt on his life on July 13 cemented Trump’s image among his base of supporters. He was viewed as the divinely chosen candidate destined to retake the White House. Trump himself believed in the inevitability of his winning the presidency. This is borne out by picking J.D. Vance as his running mate. J.D. Vance is the youngest and most inexperienced of the VP candidates that the Trump campaign had vetted. He won’t bring in many new voters, and more importantly, he won’t help Trump’s odds in the all-important swing states. The pick of J.D. Vance shows that Trump was convinced that he would win the election, and he wanted a VP whose ideologic views were aligned with his and who could be the future of the MAGA movement.  Just days after the failed assassination attempt, Trump was welcomed at the Republican National Convention as a concurring hero. The reverence for Trump among his MAGA supporters had never been higher, and even the Democrats thought that it would take a miracle to defeat him in November. That miracle came on July 21 when Joe Biden announced that he was dropping out of the race and throwing his support behind VP Kamala Harris.  Harris Becomes the Democratic Nominee for President: Kamala Harris quickly garnered the support of Congressional Democrats, big donors, and party leaders such as the Clintons and Obamas. Within days of Biden dropping out of the race delegates to the nominating convention began to pledge their support for Harris. On August 6 Harris received enough delegate votes during an online voting process to become the Democratic nominee for president.  Enthusiasm among Democrats for Harris’s candidacy has exploded to levels not seen since Barack Obama was the nominee in 2008. Donors both big and small have been pouring money into the Harris campaign, and in the runup to the Democratic National Convention Harris was ahead of Trump in most national polls.  Readjusting to a New Reality: The Trump campaign was built around defeating Joe Biden, and is scrambling to recalibrate against a new opponent. The past three weeks have not gone well for Trump’s campaign or his psyche. The cloak of invincibility has been pulled from Trump and what’s underneath is disturbing. With all the light shining on Harris, the Trump campaign and the Republican Party have tried to recapture the narrative, but with limited success. Republicans attribute Harris’s surge in the polls as her honeymoon period, but there is more to it than that. The main obstacle to the Republican’s message getting through to swing and undecided voters is Donald Trump himself.  Trump Goes on the Attack: Over the past two weeks Trump has tried to shift the momentum back to his campaign through a series of press conferences and interviews. The press conference at Mar-a-Lago on August 8 was the first of these events and was a prelude of things to come. The Trump campaign had hoped that their candidate would present a substantive case for his election, including his accomplishments and important policy prescriptions. But that didn’t happen. Trump has an inexplicable inability to stay on message and quickly defaults to his old playbook of personal grievances, untruths, bizarre theories, and petty personal attacks. The Trump campaign, and even Trump himself realizes that Harris is vulnerable on some key policy issues, namely the border and inflation. Rather than sticking to a winning strategy against Harris, Trump resorts to personal attacks, nonsensical theories and blatant lies. Below are a few choice examples of Trump’s failing message.  Personal Attacks on Harris: The personal attacks by Trump won’t stop because he claims that he is entitled to them due to the mistreatment he has received from the Biden/Harris Administration. The personal attacks are petty and undignified for a candidate running for the highest office in the country. Here are some of Trump’s recent public comments about Harris:
  Bizarre Theories and Nonsense:
 Untruths and Scaremongering: Trump has always been fast and loose with the truth, but the rapidity with which he tells lies has reached a fever pitch with the rise of Kamala Harris. This makes it difficult to accurately access anything that Donald Trump says, which is why some people dismiss anything he says outright, and others support him out of blind faith. Here are just a few notable lines on his current play list:
 The Democratic Party came to the realization that their presidential candidate was unelectable in the days following the June 27 presidential debate. President Biden’s age, mental acuity and physical stamina were preventing him from being an effective spokesperson for the party and could no longer assure victory in the November election. Party leaders persuaded Biden to drop out of the race for the good of the party and the country. After several agonizing weeks, Biden did the right thing by dropping out of the race and passing the torch to Kamala Harris.  Today the Republican Party is worried that their candidate may be slipping and turning off voters that they will need in November. In many of his public appearances Donald Trump comes across as paranoid, delusional, and stuck in the past. Campaign officials are frustrated with Trump because they are well aware that Kamala Harris is vulnerable on key issues, particularly border security and the economy. If Trump could stay on message his campaign might have a winning strategy. Trump’s dystopian view of America does not play well against Harris’s joyful optimism. Trump should take a page from Ronald Reagan’s playbook, who with hope and optimism portrayed America as that shining city on a hill. It is Donald Trump’s election to lose, and if he does, he has no one to blame but himself. Trump is already setting the stage to contest the election if he falls short on November 5, 2024. But that is a topic for another day.  If you enjoy reading this type of commentary, please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776@gmail.com.
Thanks, Armchair American  Like most Americans I didn’t know much about Minnesota Governor Tim Walz until Kamala Harris picked him as her running mate last week. From what I have read he is a decent man with a long and proud record of public service. He has strong mid-western roots and seems to be a regular guy who can appeal to both urban and rural voters. This has got the Trump campaign worried, and it didn’t take long for it to go on the attack. Swiftboating: This term was coined in 2004 to describe an unfair or untrue political attack and was first used during the 2004 presidential race against the Democrat nominee John Kerry. Kerry was an officer in the U.S. Navy, served a tour of duty in Vietnam in charge of a Swift boat, and received several combat medals for that service. A partisan group called the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” attacked Kerry’s war record during the 2004 campaign, claiming that Kerry had embellished it. The claims were later discredited and proved to be politically motivated, but the damage to Kerry’s campaign was significant. The architect of the “Swift Boat” campaign against John Kerry was political operative Chris LaCivita who happens to be a co-manager of the Trump campaign. Is Tim Walz the victim of swiftboating? Let’s take a look.  J.D. Vance Levels Accusations Against Tim Walz’s Military Record: Within days of Walz being picked to be Kamala Harris’ running mate, the Trump campaign rolled out its vice presidential nominee to go on the attack. Vance served for four years in the Marine Corps, so he was tasked with attacking Walz’s 24 years of service in the Army National Guard. Vance accused Walz of abandoning his unit right before they went to Iraq. Tim Walz filed papers to run for Congress on February 10, 2005, and retired from the National Guard that May. In August of 2005, the Department of the Army issued a mobilization order for Walz’s unit in preparation of deployment to Iraq. The timing might look suspect to some, but there is no proof that Tim Walz timed his retirement to avoid being deployed to Iraq. He did nothing improper in how and when he retired. J.D. Vance also accused Tim Walz of “Stolen Valor” for claims he made in 2018 while speaking to a group about gun control. In support of common-sense gun control laws Walz said that “we can make sure that those weapons of war that I carried in war is the only place where those weapons are at.” Tim Walz never served in a combat zone, so according to J.D. Vance it was a mortal sin for Walz to claim that he had carried a weapon in war. It is true that Walz never served in combat, and therefore did not carry a weapon into battle. But Walz certainly trained with weapons of war in preparation of going into a combat zone during a time of war. The argument is purely semantics, and the Harris campaign was quick to scrub any of its campaign materials referencing Walz’s “weapons of war” comments. The final allegation against Tim Walz’s military record is that he claims to have retired at the rank of Command Sergeant Major. The truth of the matter is Walz did serve as a Command Sergeant Major, but he did not complete the requirements to retire with that rank. He retired at the lower rank of Master Sergeant. The Harris campaign’s website has been updated to reflect that Tim Walz did not retire as Command Sergeant Major, but only served as one. Tim Walz has held political office for nearly two decades. Like any politician running for office he may have embellished his record to cast himself in a more favorable light. In a vacuum that doesn’t look good. In the context of the current political race, it is insignificant and downright laughable when you consider who is leveling the charges. Donald Trump as head of the Republican ticket has no standing in the military community and has an aversion to telling the truth.  What has Trump to Say on the Matter: Donald Trump has been silent on the matter, and for good reason. He has no credibility when it comes to military service, and that’s why J.D. Vance was tasked with the attacks on Tim Walz’s military record. Trump avoided military service during the Vietnam War through dubious means. He received a deferment helped by a medical examination by a private foot doctor who diagnosed bone spurs in his heal. A New York Times investigation in 2018 revealed that the doctor who performed the medical evaluation was a tenant in a building owned by Trump’s father, and that the deferment recommendation was done as a favor to the family. In addition to not serving in the military Trump has often disparaged those who have served. He belittled John McCain’s military career because he was a prisoner of war in Vietnam. When Trump visited a French cemetery for Americans killed during World War I he said it was filled with losers and suckers. Trump lacks any understanding of the service and sacrifice that our veterans have made in defense of our country. Comparing the Public Service Records of the Candidates: Kamala Harris and Tim Walz have spent nearly their entire careers in public service, not so for Donald Trump and J.D. Vance. Let’s compare the public service records of each candidate and you decide which record is more deserving of your vote.  Donald Trump: Trump was never in the military and never held a public sector job. The only elected position he held was a four-year term as President of the United States. J.D. Vance: Vance served in the US Marine Corps for four years. He was a combat correspondent in a non-combative role, including a six-month deployment in Iraq with the Public Affairs Department. He has served as a U.S. Senator from Ohio since 2023.  Kamala Harris: From the time of her graduation from law school in 1989 to the present-day, Harris has worked in the public sector. From 1990 to 2003 she worked as a prosecutor, first as a Deputy District Attorney for Alameda County, then as an Assistant District Attorney for San Francisco, and finally as a special prosecutor with the San Francisco City Attorney’s office. In 2003 she was elected to the office of District Attorney of San Francisco and served in that role from 2004- 2011. In 2010 and again in 2014 she was elected to serve as the Attorney General of California. She successfully campaigned for the U.S. Senate in 2016 and served in that capacity from 2017-2021. She became Joe Biden’s vice president in January of 2021 and serves in that role to this day. Tim Walz: Walz started his career in public service when he enlisted in the Army National Guard at the age of 17. During his 24 years of service, he acquired a college degree and went on to teach and coach in public high schools for approximately 15 years. Waltz left teaching to run for Congress where he served for 12 years. In Congress he sat on the Agriculture, Armed Services, and Veteran’s Affairs committees. Tim Walz is now in his second term as governor of Minnesota.  Let’s hope that the American people can see through this blatant attempt by the Trump campaign to discredit Walz’s honorable military career by spreading falsehoods and casting aspersions. Donald Trump is not even in the same league as Tim Walz when it comes to honesty, integrity, and dedication to public service. Disparaging Tim Waltz’s military career is a losing hand for the Trump campaign and is the height of hypocrisy.  If you enjoy reading this type of commentary, please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776@gmail.com.
Thanks, Armchair American Two Non-Newsworthy Events Create Outrages of the Week. One From the Left and One From the Right.7/31/2024  We are officially in silly season when any innocuous event can trigger outrage in the hyper-partisans and culture warriors. I am referring to Donald Trump’s remarks to a Christian group which Democrats quickly embraced as proof that he would dismantle democracy if elected, and to the segment of the opening ceremony at the Paris Olympics which outraged Christians on Friday night. These people need to take a deep breath and enjoy the remaining weeks of the summer. Let’s first review Trump’s remarks which have many on the left in a tizzy and then move on to the opening ceremony in Paris.  Trump’s Remarks: Trump addressed a group of Christians on Friday night at “The Believers Summit” in West Palm Beach, Florida. Wrapping up his speech Trump said, “Christians, get out and vote. Just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore, you know what? Four more years, it’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine, you won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians.” He went on to say, “In four years you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good; you’re not going to have to vote.” Was this a threat that the 2024 election could be the last before Trump plunges the country into authoritarianism? No, it was just classic “Trump Speak”. He doesn’t fully think through his thoughts before going off script, particularly at campaign rallies and other friendly venues. You must remember that Trump only cares about this election, which if he wins will be his last. Trump is self-absorbed, so whether Christians vote in the next election doesn’t concern him, because he won’t be running.  Olympic Opening Ceremony Riles Christians: The opening ceremony of the Paris Olympic games did not take place in a stadium, which is typical. Rather, it took place in the heart of Paris along the Seine River and incorporated the Eiffel Tower and some of the city’s historic bridges. All the bridges along this stretch of the Seine contained dancers and other performance artists highlighting France’s diverse cultural identity. The performance on the Passerelle Debilly bridge was misinterpreted by many Christian groups as a depiction of Leonardo da Vinci’s painting “The Last Supper”. Christians were outraged that Jesus and his disciples were depicted by drag queens and other members of the LGBTQ community. All this anger proved to be misguided. Even the French know that it wouldn’t be wise to offend Christian communities around the world while the Olympic torch illuminates their capitol city.
Which painting is the more likely inspiration?The Paris Olympic organizers were quick to apologize for any offense taken and to explain that the performance had nothing to do with “The Last Supper”. The performance had been inspired by Dionysus, the Greek god of winemaking, fruitfulness, and ecstasy. According to the ceremony’s artistic director, the performance was meant to celebrate diversity and pay tribute to feasting and French gastronomy. Come on folks, the French invented decadence after all. They have been at the forefront of food and fashion for centuries and have pushed the limits on behavioral norms along the way. The French have the center stage at the Olympics, let them showcase Paris and their culture in a way only the French can. Now let’s get back to watching the Olympic Games and enjoying all that French culture.  If you enjoy reading this type of commentary, please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776@gmail.com.
Thanks, Armchair American  At the time of this writing the Republican National Convention is just getting underway, and the country is coming to grips with a failed assassination attempt on Donald Trump. Voices across the political spectrum are calling for the political rhetoric to be toned down and for the campaigns to focus on issues rather than personalities. Democrats are scrambling to divert attention away from their struggling candidate Joe Biden, so the timing couldn’t be better to turn the focus to policies. Democrats are doing so by raising the alarm about a conservative agenda for the next Republican administration called Project 2025. What is Project 2025, who is behind it, and is it something we should be concerned about?  Heritage Foundation (Heritage): Founded in 1973 the Heritage Foundation’s mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values and a strong national defense. This prominent conservative think tank is based in Washington D.C. The Heritage Foundation is the driving force behind Project 2025 and promotes conservative governing principles through its publication of “Mandate for Leadership”.  Mandate for Leadership: According to Heritage’s website, the vision for Mandate for Leadership was that it would serve as a guidebook of specific policy recommendations for reducing the size and scope of the federal government and for ensuring that it stayed within its constitutional bounds. It was first published in January 1981 and served as a conservative plan of action for the Reagan Administration. Mandate for Leadership was a collective work by conservative thought leaders and former government insiders, many from outside of Heritage, which set out policy prescriptions, agency by agency for the incoming President. The book literally put the conservative movement and the Reagan Administration on the same page. After that first edition, a new Mandate for Leadership was produced every four years. Soon after President Donald Trump was sworn in, his administration began to implement major parts of the 2016 Mandate for Leadership. During the first year alone his administration had implemented 64 percent of its policy recommendations. From the original 1981 Mandate for Leadership to the current 2025 edition, the purpose is to present concrete proposals to revitalize the economy, strengthen national security, and halt the centralization of power in the federal government. The latest edition is called “2025 Presidential Transition Project”, or simply “Project 2025”.  Project 2025: Simply put, it is the conservative movement’s playbook or blueprint for the next conservative administration, presumably Trump’s, to be ready to govern on January 20, 2025. Facilitated by the Heritage Foundation, Project 2025 is the work of over 50 conservative organizations. The full document is 920 pages laid out in 30 chapters revealing hundreds of concrete policy recommendations for White House offices, Cabinet departments, Congress, agencies, commissions, and boards. Project 2025 is built on four pillars.  Four Pillars of Project 2025:
1. Restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children. 2. Dismantle the administrative state and return self-governance to the American people. 3. Defend our nation’s sovereignty, borders, and bounty against global threats. 4. Secure our God-given individual rights to live freely—what our Constitution calls “the Blessings of Liberty.”  Democrats’ Opposition to Project 2025: Democrats fear that if Donald Trump is elected and follows the Project 2025 blueprint it will erode democratic institutions, reduce the rights of citizens, and give him unchecked powers over the federal government. The head of “Stop Project 2025 Task Force’”, Democrat Congressman Jared Huffman, stated that Project 2025 will “abolish checks and balances, chip away at church-state separation, and impose a far-right agenda that infringes on basic liberties and violates public will.” Here are some of the most controversial sections of Project 2025: Personnel: As of 2022, the executive branch of the federal government employed nearly 2.2 million full-time civil servants across more than 400 agencies and departments. This figure does not include the U.S. Postal Service or uniformed military personnel. Currently an incoming president must fill approximately 4,000 positions with political appointees. Project 2025 proposes to revamp the civil service and vastly increase the number of positions that will be appointed by and beholden to the president. This would involve creating a new job category for federal employees, known as Schedule F, that would exempt these employees from civil service protections and make them easier to remove. Federal Agencies: Several agencies would be eliminated or folded into other agencies. These include the Department of Education, Homeland Security, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Some agencies would be privatized, including the Transportation Security Administration. Transgender Rights: Transgender rights and gender identity beyond biological sex are roundly rejected, with such steps as reinstating the ban on transgender Americans serving in the military, prohibiting public school educators from referring to students by anything other than their birth name and pronouns without parental permission, and ensuring no federal funds are used to provide gender-affirming care. DEI and LGBTQ Rights: Project 2025 seeks to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs from throughout the federal government and in universities. It also calls for changing laws that bar discrimination based on sex to exclude sexual orientation and gender identity. Climate Change: The proposal would undo much of the federal government’s climate work, including by leaving the Paris Climate Agreement. It would overhaul the Department of Energy to promote oil and natural gas, deemphasize green energy sources and curtail climate research. The size and scope of the EPA would be reduced. Abortion: Project 2025 recommends that the Food and Drug Administration revoke its approval of the abortion drug mifepristone. It would prevent any abortion equipment or medication from being mailed, bar federal funds being used to provide healthcare coverage for abortion and require states to report all abortions that take place there to the federal government. Education: The Department of Education would be eliminated, leaving the states to direct education policy. An emphasis would be placed on a “school choice” policies that direct public funds to be used for students to attend private or religious schools. The Head Start Program that promotes the school readiness of children from birth to age five would be eliminated. Student Loans: Student loan relief efforts would come to an end, including the public service loan forgiveness program and income-driven repayment plans. Big Tech: TikTok would be banned, and tech companies and social media networks would be shielded from being sued over content on their platforms. Laws would be promoted, like those passed in Florida and Texas, that seek to punish social media companies who ban or suspend users based on their “viewpoints.” Justice Department: Project 2025 calls for a “top-to-bottom overhaul” of the DOJ and FBI. These agencies would be filled with far more political appointees, making them more accountable to the president. Taxes: Project 2025 would seek to get rid of current tax rates and most deductions and credits, instead proposing a 15% rate for anyone under the Social Security wage base ($168,000 in 2024) and 30% for taxpayers earning more than that. This means the lowest-income taxpayers will now pay more and some higher earners will pay less. The corporate income tax rate would be lowered to 18%. Foreign Relations: Project 2025 directs the U.S. to pull out of international organizations when they don’t serve the administration’s interests, including the World Health Organization and various United Nations agencies. Healthcare: Project 2025 does not seek to overturn the Affordable Care Act but would make significant cuts to Medicaid and impose work requirements to receive coverage. It would reform Medicare and make Medicare Advantage, a paid supplement to Medicare, the default option for patients. Medicare’s ability to negotiate drug prices would be repealed. Immigration: More money would be provided to build the wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and the Department of Homeland Security would be dismantled. U.S. Customs and Border Protection would be combined with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to increase their focus and power to secure the border.  Trump Responds: Facing pushback from Democrats, Donald Trump is attempting to distance himself from Project 2025. “I know nothing about Project 2025,” Trump recently posted on his social media platform. He also claimed “I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.” Trump’s assertions that he knows nothing about Project 2025 are disingenuous to put it kindly. As stated earlier, his administration implemented major parts of the 2016 Mandate for Leadership. Several of Trump’s appointees during his administration are now affiliated with Project 2025, including the project’s director Paul Dans who served as the chief of staff at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  My Views on Project 2025: It is very common for presidential campaigns and presidential administrations to enlist the services of think tanks to help draft policy proposals and to promote partisan causes. The Heritage Foundation has been working with Republican administrations and other conservative groups since it was founded in the 1970s. Liberal think tanks, particularly the Center for American Progress, was used extensively by the Obama and Biden Administrations to develop progressive policies. I’m concerned about Project 2025, but not panicked. It is a wish-list, a compendium of conservative thought that has been tailored to align with what Donald Trump and his supporters have been saying for the past ten years. What is laid out in minute detail in Project 2025 should not come as a surprise. Trump is not shy about telling the American people what he intends to do if he regains the White House; much of which is spelled out in his Agenda47. Project 2025 aligns with Trump’s vision of being an all-powerful executive. It also provides him with a means to wrestle control from those departments that were less than loyal or outright opposed him during his first administration. Stripping career civil servants of protections and making them politically accountable to an all-powerful executive is very disturbing. All sorts of mischief can result if the federal bureaucracy is subject to the whims of a new administration every four years, not to mention the chaos it would create. Project 2025 serves as a counterweight to what Trump and his conservative allies view as Biden’s “woke” agenda, which requires DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) and climate mitigation steps be included in every policy and piece of legislation. I believe in the separation of church and state, and Project 2025 would certainly blur the lines between the two. An attempt to legislate morality, as Project 2025 does, would infringe upon individual rights and stifle diverse views and opinions.  The federal bureaucracy is vast and mind numbing in its complexity. No one president or administration can even begin to grasp the intricacies, much less effectively manage the sprawling maze of over 400 departments and millions of employees of the federal government. I welcome any organization, inside or outside the government, willing to examine the bureaucracy with an eye to improving efficiency and effectiveness. Afterall, our country has a mind-boggling national debt of $34 trillion which grows larger by the second. Untangling the vast web of the federal bureaucracy is necessary to begin an effort to reduce that debt. Project 2025 lays out for all to see the conservative playbook for governing, now it’s time for the Democrats or progressives to show us theirs.  If you enjoy reading this type of commentary, please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776@gmail.com.
Thanks, Armchair American  Dear President Biden, I voted for you in 2020 without hesitation because Donald Trump posed a clear and present danger to our democracy and had to be defeated. My vote proved justified as Trump’s lies about “the stolen election” led to one of the darkest days in U.S. history, January 6, 2021. Mr. President your many years of government experience and calm demeanor were just what the country needed to move beyond the chaos and trauma of the Trump presidency. When you ran for president in 2020 you were already well into your 70’s, and many Americans had doubts even then whether you had the physical stamina and mental vigor to take on such a demanding job. You calmed people’s fears about your age by saying that “I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else”. At that time Mr. President you campaigned with Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Senator Kamala Harris and Senator Cory Baker, who you called “۰۰۰an entire generation of leaders”, and “۰۰۰the future of this country”. In other speeches you said that “I view myself as a transition candidate”. You portrayed yourself as a one term president to steady the ship of state before transitioning to a new generation of leaders. Now is the time to begin that transition Mr. President. In the CNN debate last month your goal was to show the American people that you have the cognitive ability to beat Donald Trump and to serve four more years as president. You failed in spectacular fashion. Your performance on the debate stage cannot be explained away due to a cold, jetlag or fatigue. No one is buying your explanation that you simply had a bad night. It will take a candidate with physical stamina and sharp mental faculties to defeat Donald Trump in the fall and to lead this country for the next four years. The American people don’t believe that you are up to the challenge. Your recent interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos did nothing to quell concerns over whether you have the mental acuity to serve another term as president. It proved to me that you are not being honest with yourself or the American people about your health. The shocked reaction to your debate performance shows that your administration has shielded you from public scrutiny and has not been transparent with what is now apparent to all. You are not the man the American people elected in 2020, and your fitness to stay in the presidential race is in doubt. Mr. President, the majority of registered voters were never enthusiastic about a rematch between you and Donald Trump, and the distaste for such a rematch only grows. You have stated that you are the most qualified person to be president and to defeat Donald Trump. But your poll numbers have taken a substantial hit since the debate, and you are now trailing him nationally and in the all-important battleground states. As an incumbent president you should be trouncing your opponent who is a convicted felon, serial liar, and responsible for the January 6th Capitol riot. Your refusal to acknowledge your negative poll numbers shows how out of touch you are with the sentiments in the country. It is hubris to think that you are the best candidate to defeat Donald Trump in the fall. You have criticized the Republic Party as being a cult of personality built around one man. Show the American people that the Democrat Party is a party of principles and bigger than one person. It is not too late to pull out of the race on your own terms and preserve your legacy as a successful president. If you don’t get out, the next four months will be a nonstop test of your mental acuity. Every speech you make, every interview, every utterance will be analyzed for any signs of decline. Your record of successes and the issues important to the American people will be drowned out by a continual sound loop of your verbal stumbles gleefully played by the Republicans. This will take a toll on you personally and politically and will be a drag on other Democrats down the ballot. President Biden, if you put your political clout behind Vice President Kamala Harris it will ignite a spark under the moribund campaign, and improve the Democrat’s chances with independents, undecided voters and those sitting on the sidelines. The decision to stay in the race is entirely yours Mr. President, but the American people will live with the consequences for years to come. Don’t go down in history as the president who oversaw the transition of the United States from a democracy to an autocracy and the ascendancy of King Donald I to the presidential throne. Thank you for your service Mr. President. Sincerely, A very concerned voter. July 8, 2024  If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776@gmail.com. Thanks, Armchair American Update: On July 21 President Biden announced that he would end his presidential re-election campaign. In a speech to the nation he said "The defense of democracy is more important than any title." He went on to say that nothing can come in the way of saving democracy, and that includes personal ambition.
Thank you Mr. President for putting country ahead of self.  The American flag is a symbol of unity, not divisiveness. This 4th of July I will be flying the flag in front of my house with pride and without an agenda. I will not be flying the flag because I am a patriot or affiliated with a particular group or cause, but to show that I am a proud American. I am proud of the document our founding fathers signed 248 years ago which set into motion an extraordinary and courageous set of events leading to the establishment of a new and great nation called America. The path to greatness was not always easy or just, but one of struggles, setbacks, and inequities. Through the wars and internal strife that threatened to rip this country apart, Americans have always pulled together to overcome any challenge and to persevere.  No one individual, group, or party can lay claim to the flag. It belongs to all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, or political affiliation. When the flag is appropriated by a group and becomes part of its messaging, it is meant to divide rather than to unite. This is un-American and denigrates the flag which is a symbol of unity and national pride.  The American flag stands for the highest ideals, not the lowest. Each color on the flag has a specific meaning. Red symbolizes valor and bravery. White symbolizes purity and innocence. Blue symbolizes vigilance, perseverance, and justice. The flag is more than a piece of cloth, it symbolizes the ideals set forth in our founding documents and reminds us that we are one nation and believe in liberty and justice for all. Our forebears in the original thirteen colonies overcame vast cultural and geographic differences to unite in a common cause. I believe Americans remain united in our common humanity and still cherish the notion that we are endowed with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is why I will be flying the flag on the 4th of July.  If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776@gmail.com.
Thanks, Armchair American  According to recent polls approximately fifty-five percent of U.S. adults are dissatisfied with both major party candidates, President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump. Count me among this group. In previous blogs I have written about the need for another major political party in the U.S. to weaken the stranglehold on our politics by the Democrat and Republican duopoly. But now is not the time. In the midst of a razor thin presidential race, a third-party candidate could easily disrupt the race in ways that may not be in the best interests of the county. As a point of clarification, when I refer to a third-party candidate, I am also referring to independent candidates who are not affiliated with a political party.  Here is a list of the major third-party candidates who have obtained ballot access in at least some of the 50 states: Candidate # of States with Ballot Access Robert F. Kennedy Jr.(Independent) 10 (14 pending) Chase Oliver(Libertarian) 33 ( 1 pending) Jill Stein(Green) 23 ( 1 pending) Cornell West(Independent) 6 ( 2 pending)  Obstacles Confronting Third-Party Candidates: Even with all the discontent with the major political parties, third-party candidates have had little success in garnering much national support. Americans have never elected a third-party candidate for president. It takes a tremendous amount of money and the backing of a large political team to run an effective national campaign. In this country most of the big money donors and political talent are controlled by the Democrats and Republicans. Elections are administered by the states, governed by laws written by politicians who are members of one of the two major parties. Just getting on the ballot in each of the fifty states is an arduous and expensive task. The major political parties handle this for their candidates, but independent candidates are on their own.  There are some variations between states, but there are basically three ways to get on a state’s ballot.
Without access to the ballot in all fifty states it is nearly impossible to win the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency. All states, except Maine and Nebraska, award all their electoral votes to the candidate that received the most overall votes in their state. Maine and Nebraska award their electoral votes by Congressional district. In 1992 Ross Perot ran the most successful third-party campaign for president since Teddy Roosevelt’s in 1912. Perot won 19% of the popular vote running against George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. But even the most successful independent run for president in the past 100 years didn’t earn Perot a single electoral vote.  Impact of Third-Party Candidates in Recent Years: Ross Perot in 1992: Bill Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush in the 1992 presidential race with 43% of the vote. Running as an independent, Ross Perot pulled a significant number of Republican and independent votes from Bush, which likely cost him the election. Ralph Nader in 2000: In the closely contested 2000 presidential election between Al Gore and George W. Bush, it came down to the state of Florida to determine the winner. Ralph Nadar was the candidate for the left leaning Green Party and won 97,488 of the Florida votes. Bush beat Gore in Florida by only 573 votes and secured the presidency. Did Ralph Nadar spoil the election for Al Gore? It’s hard to argue otherwise. Jill Stein in 2016: In the 2016 presidential race Hillary Clinton received 2.9 million more popular votes than Donald Trump, yet Trump received 304 electoral votes to Clinton’s 227 and won the election. With approximately 7 million votes going to third-party, independent and write-in candidates, either Clinton or Trump could have benefitted if they received even a small percentage of these votes. Clinton lost Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin by a combined total of less than 80,000 votes, giving all electoral votes from these states to Trump. If all of Jill Stein’s votes went to Clinton in these states she would have won the election. Jill Stein was the candidate for the left leaning Green Party, so this scenario is plausible. The Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson received three times as many votes as Jill Stein and it is impossible to know how many of his votes would have gone to either Trump or Clinton if he weren’t in the race. 2020: In the 2020 presidential election only 2% of the votes went to a third-party or independent candidate compared to 6% in 2016. This is probably no accident. The Democrat Party was convinced that Hilary Clinton lost the election in 2016 due to votes that went to third-party candidates, particularly Jill Stein. Operatives for the Democrats went to work and were successful in limiting the number of states where the Green Party candidate appeared on the ballot for the 2020 election. In that election the Green Party candidate appeared on the ballot in only 22 states compared to 48 in 2016. The 2020 election was extremely close in several key battleground states. If third-party and independent candidates received votes in numbers closer to historical norms, the election could have turned out very different. Joe Biden won Michigan, Pennsylvania and Nevada by less than 3% of the votes. The margin of victory for Joe Biden in Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia was less than 1%. These are sobering facts for the Democrats in the runup to the 2024 election.  Looking Ahead to 2024 Election: The dynamics of the 2024 election are pointing to an election where independent and third-party candidates could play a significant role in the outcome. Current national polls put the race at a statistical dead heat, with Trump and Biden both polling at around 41% among registered voters. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is running a distant third at about 10%, with the remaining voters either undecided or throwing their support behind Jill Stein, Chase Oliver, or Cornell West. It is impossible to know precisely how any one of these third-party candidates will impact the election, but with the overall discontent with the major party candidates, it is something that concerns both campaigns. Of concern to the Biden campaign are left leaning candidates Jill Stein and Cornell West. Chase Oliver is the libertarian candidate but is left leaning and could also pull some of Biden’s votes.  Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is the wildcard in the race and has the potential to be the biggest disrupter. Kennedy has the advantage of his famous name, which gives him instant recognition, and he will be on most of the ballots in the battleground states. He is a former Democrat, but well known for his anti-vax and conspiratorial views. This might explain why he is pulling support away from both Biden and Trump. I think that the Biden campaign has the most to fear from Kennedy due to his strong support among Latinos and younger voters. The Biden and Trump campaigns are both nervous that Kennedy could siphon away votes. Trump is now painting Kennedy as a “radical left lunatic” and a “liberal parading in conservative clothing". Biden has enlisted the help of the Kennedy clan who have thrown their support behind him and denounced their wayward relative.  If history is any guide, most voters will coalesce around one of the two major candidates as the election nears. That will still leave several million votes going to someone other than Trump or Biden. The election will be decided in the battleground states which proved to be decisive for Biden in the last election, but by very narrow margins. An independent or third-party candidate has no chance of winning 270 electoral votes in the 2024 presidential election, so the next president of the United States will be either Joe Biden or Donald Trump. If you prefer either of these candidates, you should make your vote count and vote for them. Now is not the time to issue a protest by voting for a third-party, independent, or write in candidate, or by not voting at all. This election is too important, and the outcome will shape the direction of our democracy for years to come.  If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776@gmail.com.
Thanks, Armchair American  As most of you are aware, former president Donald Trump was convicted last month on 34 felony counts arising from hush-money payments to an adult film star. Trump will be formally sentenced for these crimes on July 11, 2024, at which time his legal team will file an appeal. The appeal process will take months, if not years, and well after the 2024 presidential election is decided. It would be nice if we could all take a collective deep breath and let the case work its way through the legal system. But alas, that is not to be. Trump’s felony conviction has become a major campaign issue for both Democrats and Republicans. To Trump and his allies the case against him was a politically motivated witch hunt, culminating in a sham trial to discredit him in the run-up to the November election. To those who are less inclined to take Trump’s point of view, the conviction is proof that the system of justice works and that no one is above the law.
 Jim JordanThere have been a lot of issues raised about the legitimacy of the trial. Was it a political “hit job” or was justice served? Let’s examine some of the issues raised to see if they have any validity: The Biden Administration has Weaponized the Justice Department to Attack Trump: In a news conference after his conviction, Trump accused President Biden of orchestrating the “sham trial” and using the Department of Justice (DOJ) to go after him. There is no evidence that President Biden or anyone in his administration, including the DOJ, had anything to do with the criminal case against Trump in New York. The case was brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg in a state court where the federal government has no jurisdiction. Earlier this month Attorney General Merrick Garland testified under oath before the House Judiciary Committee to answer claims that the DOJ had influenced the trial in New York. To this and other questions put to him by committee members, Garland stated, “The Manhattan District Attorney has jurisdiction over cases involving New York state law, completely independent of the Justice Department.” He went on to say that the Justice Department did not control the Manhattan District Attorney, has no contact with him and he is free to make decisions regarding New York state law. Alvin Bragg will appear before the House Judiciary Committee next month to answer questions about the hush-money trial. House Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has accused Bragg of conducting a “political prosecution” of Donald Trump. Jordan is one of Trump’s most vocal supporters in Congress and will use his position to attack anyone who dares to cross Trump.  The Trial was Timed to Interfere with the Election: The investigation into Trump by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office started several years before he announced plans to run for president in 2024. The investigation began in 2018 by Alvin Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus Vance Jr. Alvin Bragg became Manhattan District Attorney at the beginning of 2022 and continued the investigation into the hush-money payments, leading to a grand jury indictment of Trump in March 2023. Trump announced his decision to run for president in November 2022, well into the investigation of hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels and others. In all likelihood Trump announced his decision to run for president this early in order to shield himself against mounting legal troubles.  Trump has Repeatedly Claimed “There is no Crime”: Trump was tried and convicted in New York on 34 counts of falsifying business records, which are typically misdemeanors. Under New York law misdemeanors have a two-year statute of limitations. By the time the Manhattan District Attorney indicted Trump, the statute of limitations would have prevented an indictment based on misdemeanor charges alone. But the indictment brought against Trump was for 34 felony counts, not misdemeanors, extending the statute of limitations to over five years (COVID disruptions extended the statute of limitations for felony cases even further). The key to the case against Trump was the ability under New York law for a misdemeanor to be raised to a felony if it was done to commit or conceal another crime. As spelled out in the indictment, the business records were falsified “with the intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof.” The indictment also revealed that the other crimes included violating state election laws and income tax laws. It is true that the falsification of business records case would not have been brought against Trump if the crimes could not have been bumped up to felonies. It is also true that Trump would not have been convicted if the jury had not unanimously agreed that state election laws had been violated. The evidence provided at court by the prosecution to prove that Trump and his organization falsified business records was indisputable. Furthermore, all twelve jurors were convinced that the business records were falsified to shield Trump from negative publicity during his 2016 presidential campaign. This is a clear violation of Section 17-152 of the New York state law.  Judge Merchan was Corrupt and Partisan: Trump has repeatedly called presiding Judge Juan Merchan “crooked”, “corrupt” and “highly conflicted”. There is simply no evidence to back up Trump’s assertions about the judge. The partisan claims against the judge are flimsy at best. In 2020 Juan Merchan donated a total of $35 to Democrat groups, including a $15 donation to the Biden campaign. Trump’s legal team tried to get Judge Merchan removed from the case because of his daughter Loren’s work with Democrat groups. Loren Merchan served as president of a digital campaign strategy agency which did work on Biden’s 2020 campaign and other Democrat causes. The New York State Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics reviewed the conflict-of-interest charges brought against Judge Merchan and found none. If Judge Merchan was recused from the Trump case because of activities engaged in by his daughter, how about other prominent judges whose case work often draws suspicion due to the activities of spouses or relatives. The activities of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife Ginni come to mind. Ginni Thomas is a longtime conservative and was active in the “Stop the Steal” campaign to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. You do not get more partisan than that, yet Clarence Thomas has not recused himself from cases before the Supreme Court involving Trump.  Republican Reactions to Trump’s Guilty Verdict: Not surprisingly the Republicans have circled the wagons around their likely presidential nominee. If you want to stay in Trump’s good graces you publicly denounce the verdict a gross miscarriage of justice brought about by a partisan district attorney, presided over by a partisan judge in a jurisdiction that was biased against him. Furthermore, the investigation and trial were directed by the White House in order to interfere with the presidential election. Trump surrogates such as House Speaker Mike Johnson, Senator Marco Rubio and other potential vice president candidates were tripping over themselves to get in line to denounce the guilty verdict. “A purely political exercise, not a legal one” according to Speaker Johnson. Even that stalwart of law-and-order Florida Governor Ron DeSantis compared the criminal proceedings in New York to a “kangaroo court”.  This is Donald Trump’s Republican Party, and he doesn’t tolerate any disloyalty, just ask former Maryland Governor Larry Hogan. Hogan is a Republican running for the open Senate seat in Maryland who had the audacity to urge all Americans to “respect the verdict and the legal process”. The reply from the Trump campaign to Mr. Hogan was swift and to the point, “You just ended your campaign.” I guess that politics trumps principles in today’s Republican Party.  We may never know if Trump’s guilty verdict will have a decisive impact on the presidential race. But we do know that in the short term it has energized Trump’s base and has been a funding raising bonanza. If Democrats use the verdict to bludgeon Trump it could backfire. On the other hand, if Trump uses it at every campaign stop to prove his victimhood, issues important to American voters could get ignored. If the New York conviction shows anything, it is that Donald Trump is guilty of hubris and greed. Paying out “hush-money” to prevent embarrassing information from becoming public is not a crime. Falsifying business records to hide those payments is a crime. If Trump had simply made the payments from his personal funds, there would have been no crime. Trump will appear before Judge Merchan on July 11, 2024, for his sentencing hearing. He has not done himself any favors by berating the judge every chance he gets. Even so, it is highly unlikely that Trump will be sentenced to serve any jail time. More likely he will be sentenced to probation, a fine, community service, or a combination of these. The felony conviction of a former president is no reason to celebrate. It is a dark chapter in America’s history. It is time to reflect on the state of the partisan divide in our country and on the future of our democracy.  If you enjoy reading this type of commentary, please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776@gmail.com.
Thanks, Armchair American  On May 16, 2024, President Biden announced that his administration took a major step to reclassify marijuana from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule III drug. Biden called the move “monumental”. So, what’s all the fuss about, and what are the practical implications of reclassifying marijuana? Currently marijuana is legal for medical use in 38 states, and fully legal in 24 of these states. The federal government still considers the production, distribution, and use of marijuana to be illegal. But it is the policy of the Department of Justice not to prioritize marijuana enforcement in those states that have legalized it’s use. As long as states have marijuana regulations in place that prevent the use by minors, prevent sales across state lines, and don’t contribute to other criminal activity, the federal government has a hands-off approach.  Federal Regulation of Marijuana (Cannabis): The DEA has the final authority to schedule, reschedule, or de-schedule a drug under the Controlled Substances Act. Only practitioners licensed with the DEA may prescribe a controlled substance, and only DEA licensed pharmacies may dispense them. Marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act (The Federal Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970) . A controlled substance is any drug or chemical with the potential to cause harm through dependency, misuse, or abuse, and falls into one of five schedules of the Controlled Substances Act.
 Timeline of Marijuana Reclassification: October 6, 2022: President Biden directed the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Attorney General to review how marijuana is currently scheduled under federal law. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) then conducted a scientific and medical evaluation on whether marijuana has any current medical use in the United States, it’s potential for abuse, and other factors necessary for rescheduling a drug under the Controlled Substances Act. August 2023: The FDA issued a 252-page report recommending that marijuana be reclassified as a Schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act. The report concluded that there is some scientific support for therapeutic uses of marijuana, and though frequently abused, it is not as dangerous as drugs listed in Schedules I or II. The National Institute on Drug Abuse concurred with the findings of the report. August 29, 2023: The Department of Health and Human Services made a formal request to the DEA to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule III drug. May 16, 2024: President Biden announced that his administration initiated the process of reclassifying marijuana. The Attorney General submitted to the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking initiating the formal rulemaking process to consider moving marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act. May 21, 2024: The Federal Register published a notice of proposed rulemaking to reschedule marijuana to the less restrictive Schedule III. This triggered a 60-day public comment period on the proposed rulemaking change. People objecting to the rule change may request a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. This process could take months or years depending upon the objections raised. Once the process plays out, the Administrative Law Judge will make their recommendation to the DEA who has the ultimate authority to reschedule marijuana.  What Reclassification of Marijuana Will Achieve:
 What Reclassification of Marijuana Will Not Achieve:
 Unanswered Questions:
 Final Thoughts: A recent study published in the journal Addiction shows that more Americans than ever are using cannabis related products. The study concludes that the number of Americans who use cannabis daily is greater than the number of Americans who use alcohol daily. I am not naïve to the dangers of increased access to marijuana, or any other potentially dangerous drug, particularly among our youth. The concentration of THC (the principal psychoactive compound in marijuana) in marijuana today is up to five times greater than it was in the 1990s. This increases the potential for dependence and the development of psychotic symptoms, particularly in young people. I am in favor of strict regulations to limit the sale of marijuana, just like with alcohol, to protect young people and society at large.  Even though reclassifying marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III drug will not be the panacea that many advocates hope for, it is a step in the right direction. Expanding research into marijuana’s potential medical benefits, and moving the cannabis industry out of the shadows, makes rescheduling it worthwhile. If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776@gmail.com. Thanks, Armchair American   A lot has happened in the country since I posted my last blog in early March. It was good to tune out the barrage of news focused on the ongoing wars, politics, the Trump trials, and college protests. But as I reenter the fray, I want to make a few comments on some of the stories that caught my attention.  Speaker Johnson Shows Some Leadership: On March 22 House Speaker Mike Johnson, despite fierce opposite by far-right members of his own party, pushed through a $1.2 trillion bipartisan spending package that will fund the government for the rest of the year. The Senate approved the bill the following day and it was signed into law by President Biden that afternoon. By reaching across the aisle to get Democrat support for the spending bill, Speaker Johnson showed that he was willing to act in a bipartisan way to avert a government shutdown. In April Speaker Johnson once again showed his willingness to put country ahead of party by getting the House to approve the $95 billion foreign aid bill. Among other things, the bill provides urgently needed military aid to Ukraine and Israel, as well as humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza. Getting this bill passed in the House was the right thing to do despite opposition from many Republicans. House member Marjorie Taylor Greene will likely call for a vote in the House to have Johnson removed as Speaker. Many Democrats have vowed to support the Speaker, so his job should be secure. House Republicans are not foolish enough to remove another Speaker and throw the House of Representatives into chaos this close to a presidential election.  “No Labels” Drops Out of Presidential Contest: The centrist political organization No Labels announced in early April that it would not nominate a candidate for the 2024 presidential election. Several nationally recognized politicians were under consideration, such as Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and former Maryland Governor Larry Hogan. But in the end no politician of consequence was willing to run as a third-party candidate and potentially spoil the election for either Joe Biden or Donald Trump. Whoever wins the presidential election will do so by a very slim margin. A third-party candidate backed by No Labels would have certainly swayed the election by pulling many independent voters and some Democrats that are not thrilled that Joe Biden is running for reelection. I am not opposed to third-parties, but with the stakes so high in this election, I am happy that No Labels is not running a candidate for president.  Trump on Trial: Donald Trump is currently on trial in a New York courtroom facing thirty-four criminal counts of falsifying business records. He is the first ever former U.S. president to face criminal charges. The so-called “hush-money trial” revolves around $130,000 paid to former porn actress Stormy Daniels, who claims to have had an affair with Donald Trump. The prosecution claims that Trump falsified checks and invoices to his personal lawyer Michael Cohen to disguise the payments as legal expenses. Paying people for their silence is not a crime. Disguising the payments as legal expenses runs afoul of business and tax laws. Prosecutors are also trying to show that the payments were a criminal effort to deceive voters ahead of the 2016 presidential election. If the payments to Stormy Daniels and others were indeed meant to influence the 2016 election, then Trump’s campaign committee violated campaign finance laws by not reporting them as campaign expenses. Donald Trump will likely get convicted on one or more of the 34 counts that he is facing, but will it matter? Probably not. If Trump is convicted, the conviction will immediately be appealed, and the outcome will not be known until after the election. For me, whether or not Trump is convicted is not as important as the spotlight the trial shines on his character. The salacious and unsavory details brought out in the trial are reminders of the character of the man currently leading the Republican Party. Through his several bankruptcies we know that Trump has always been reckless in his business life. The trial reminds us that ethical behavior, morality and the practice of family values are not his strong points. His personal associations, his ability to twist the truth, and his seeming inability to take responsibility for his actions demonstrate his true character. Trump’s violations of the court’s gag orders during the trial show how undisciplined he is and highlights his disdain for authority. Donald Trump will continue to claim that the trial is proof that the Department of Justice has been weaponized against him, and he will raise millions of dollars in campaign donations as a result. Trump has called the trial “election interference” since it prevents him from being out on the campaign trail. But isn’t the payment of “hush-money” to keep damaging reports of extramarital affairs from the American people the real election interference?  College Campus Protests: Pro-Palestinian rallies on U.S. college campuses began soon after the Israel-Hamas war began on October 7, 2023. But as the war has dragged on and the suffering of the people in Gaza has intensified, pro-Palestinian protests at over 46 college campuses has escalated. Since the middle of April protestor encampments have sprung up at many college campuses to show solidarity with Palestinians and to voice opposition to what they view as a war of aggression by Israel. Protest leaders vowed to keep their encampments in place until the colleges agreed to meet such demands as divestment from Israeli companies and companies that do business with Israel. Many Jewish students have felt unsafe and unprotected on campus, and in some cases have been the victims of intimidation and antisemitism. There have been calls from Congress for colleges and universities to do more to protect Jewish students. Since the beginning of the war, campus protests have been mostly peaceful. But this all changed in recent weeks as counter protests have sprung up on some campuses, aided by outside agitators, leading to violence, destruction of property, and the upheaval of campus activities. This has led many college administrations to call in law enforcement to clear the encampments, leading to over 2400 arrests to date. Most of the protests have been peaceful and lawful. But some, like Columbia University and UCLA , were allowed to get out of control by the campus administrators leading to destruction of property, violence and mass arrests. Colleges need to balance the 1st Amendment rights of students and faculty with campus safety while maintaining orderly operations of their institutions. The exercise of free speech and the right to peacefully assemble should be guaranteed on all college campuses, within limits. These limits should include:
Students have the right to protest, but not at the expense of the rights of other students to study and learn in peace. Students should be allowed to voice their opinions on the Israel-Hamas war, or on any other topic. But when that speech interferes with the rights of other students, or it becomes unlawful, then a line has been crossed and it is no longer protected.  War protests are not new on our college campuses or public squares. Free speech and peaceful protests are protected by our constitution. But expressions of hate and the threats of violence against another person or group are not protected speech. Hate speech should be condemned in the strongest possible way, regardless of which side of the conflict you are on. If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776@gmail.com.
Thanks, Armchair American  In September of last year, the Republican lead House of Representatives opened a formal impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. In a blog that I wrote at the time, I stated that the inquiry was politically motivated to appease Donald Trump and to damage President Biden in the next presidential election. I stand by that statement. The justification for the inquiry was that Joe Biden was involved in corrupt business dealings with Ukrainian energy company Burisma. Hunter Biden sat on the board of directors of Burisma while his father was Vice-President of the United States. The Republican’s smoking gun against Joe Biden was information provided to the FBI by an informant that claimed Joe and Hunter Biden were paid $5 million in bribes by Burisma in return for protection against a Ukrainian government investigation. Despite numerous warnings from the FBI that the information provided by the informant was uncorroborated and its credibility unknown, the Republicans made it the centerpiece of their case against Joe Biden. Republican Representative James Comer, the chairman of the Oversight Committee called the source of the allegation “highly credible”. Republican Representative Jim Jordan, the Judiciary Committee Chairman, called the information provided by the FBI informant the “most corroborating evidence we have”. The informant’s statement, obtained from the FBI, was read into the Congressional Record and included as a “key” document into the impeachment inquiry of Joe Biden.  It has recently been made public that Alexander Smirnov was the FBI informant who made the allegations against the Bidens in 2020. He was arrested last month in Las Vegas on charges that he had fabricated the story to discredit Joe Biden during the 2020 presidential race. The two-count indictment against Mr. Smirnov alleges that he made false statements to the FBI and falsified records in a federal investigation. During the investigation into Mr. Smirnov’s activities, federal prosecutors have determined that he is actively peddling new lies about the Bidens that could impact the current presidential race, and that he has recently been in contact with a number of Russian officials. As a result, federal prosecutors have successfully petitioned the court to keep Mr. Smirnov in jail while he awaits trial.  Since Alexander Smirnov’s arrest, Democrats have called for the impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden to end. But the House impeachment managers have vowed to press on. They are more interested in keeping the investigation into Joe Biden alive and in the press than they are with the facts. James Comer and Jim Jordan are beholden to Donald Trump, not to the truth. This is an election year, and it is politically expedient to hang the prospect of impeachment over the head of Joe Biden and stay on the right side of Donald Trump. If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776 @gmail.com.
Thanks, Armchair American  The South Carolina Republican primary will be held this Saturday, followed by Super Tuesday ten days later when fifteen states and one territory will vote. Short of a strategically placed lightening bolt, Donald Trump will soon be the presumptive Republican nominee for president.  Despite the fact that nearly 70% of registered voters don’t want a Biden-Trump rematch in the fall presidential election, that’s what we will be faced with. There are staunch partisans on both sides of the aisle who will vote for their party’s candidate regardless of who they are. But a large portion of voters in the middle will decide the election. These are the people who need to be persuaded to vote, and vote for the right reasons. That requires education about the candidates and the policies that are important to this country. The next president will determine how our country engages with the outside world and the domestic policies that will impact our everyday lives. This election is too important to sit on the sidelines and take a wait and see attitude. That is why it is so important to educate ourselves and others about the two major presidential candidates and their policy priorities. For my small part in educating people, I will make source material recommendations over the next several months. I have recently finished a book by Liz Cheney and watched a documentary by Frontline that I feel every voter should at least be aware of, if not immerse themselves in.  I found Liz Cheney’s book, “Oath and Honor” to be very readable and compelling. It is an insider’s look at the current state of the Republican Party, and provides a detailed account of the events leading up to the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021. As the vice chair of the House select committee investigating the Capitol riot, Cheney provided intimate details of the hundreds of hours of witness testimony and video footage that were uncovered during the investigation.  If you don’t have the time or inclination to read Liz Cheney’s book, then I urge you to watch the Frontline documentary “Democracy on Trial”. I thought I knew a lot about the 2020 presidential election and the final days of the Trump Administration, but this documentary opened my eyes to a lot of details that I was unaware of. The documentary investigates the roots of the criminal cases against former President Trump stemming from his 2020 election loss. It digs into the House January 6th committee’s findings, and brings the evidence to life through interviews with the people who had first-hand knowledge of the events. This is a must see for everyone before they cast their vote in November. Depending upon where you get your news, Liz Cheney’s book and the work of the January 6th committee may be labeled as partisan hit pieces, if they are reported on at all. Or they may be heralded as heroic and essential for protecting the future of our democracy. That is why it is important for all of us to broaden our perspectives and be open to other points of view when evaluating our choices for national leaders. The future of our country is too important to rely on partisan talking heads and social media posts that are pushing a particular point of view. If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: armchairamerican1776@gmail.com.
Thanks, Armchair American |
AuthorThe Armchair American. 
Archives
November 2024
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed