Who is more unstable? Trump, or his critics?

After the election Trump’s most ardent critics set sail for sunny and warm climes, armed and ready to criticize his every move. But they boarded the wrong ship and now are headed where the Titanic rests.

Trump, they say, is crass, stupid, dangerous, mentally unfit, etc., and their reactions to him are exercises in petulance, whining, stomping of feet, boohooing, and even releasing real tears in their fits of hellish pique.

Their feel-good, though unfulfilled, dreams of a quick impeachment demonstrate just how irrational their reactions are. Full-on obstruction and subversion may make their over-reactions abate temporarily, but their antics interfere with important national operations, damaging the very nation that they say they are acting to save.  What sensible people do is sit back, shut up, and do an objective analysis of what has happened in the nation since the man the American people elected took office, overlooking the petty objectionable aspects in favor of the positive reality.

Given the disgraceful performance of the mainstream “news” media, most of the good stuff that has occurred suffers from a lack of air (time) and ink, so many or most Americans have been kept in the dark by the “professionals” whose duty it is to keep them well informed.

And the anti-Trump media looks foolish, trying in vain to explain to their audience something that they themselves are incapable of understanding. Donald Trump doesn’t do things in the way they think is essential, so he must be wrong. The idea that “different is not necessarily wrong or bad” is a concept far beyond their narrow understanding of things.

Despite the disbelief and ill wishes, good things are happening with Trump as president.

For example, the number of federal employees has fallen, by as much as 71,000, according to one report, a good start to restoring government to its proper size and function. Many of these employees left because of their dislike of Trump.

Personnel reductions often have negatives attached to them. Large organizations may suffer discord at first, requiring remaining personnel to do more, which is not always eagerly accepted, even when employees didn’t have enough to do to begin with.

Too few people might lead to over-working existing personnel, and/or falling behind on the mission. Having too many people allows for periods for employees to be non-productive, or worse, to do “work” where and/or when there is no real demand for it. In government this condition frequently results in malicious behavior, such as the government badgering people for political reasons because there were too many employees with too much time on their hands.

This was likely the case when IRS employees had so little real and necessary work to do that they had time for misfeasance, targeting and harassing conservative applicants for non-profit status, while approving liberal applicants easily and quickly.

“Of 624 key political positions requiring Senate confirmation, just 240 were confirmed” as of mid-December, The Washington Post reported. The story added that the process was stalled by a slow recruitment and vetting process, and drawn-out Senate confirmation schedules.

However, on the Laura Ingraham radio program in November, Trump explained the businessman’s sensible perspective: “I tell my people, ‘Where you don’t need to fill slots, don’t fill them.’ ”

Called “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” the reactions to Trump as president fall clearly into the realm of madness. While much of the media ignores the positive developments in Trump’s first year, they also have ignored how all the insane predictions from his irrational critics have not occurred.

Predictions such as that the stock market would crash if Trump won; the opposite of which has occurred. Or, that civilization would end, but it still exists and is no worse off, except for the anti-Trump maniacs. Or this one, one that many wish had come true: that celebrities who threatened to leave the U.S. are still here.

The pot calls the kettle black, as his enemies accuse Trump of being crazy. A long and objective look in a mirror might help them. If not that, then a face-to-face evaluation by a licensed (and competent) mental health practitioner might be the answer.

And, the Real Clear Politics average of polling shows that on Inauguration Day 2017, Obamacare’s approval flipped from negative to positive, and has remained there since. And that is just one such issue where support and opposition have flipped since Trump took office.

“The psychology is easy. I don’t like the guy. If he says two plus two is four, I’m going to make it five. That’s human nature,” said Republican Party strategist and pollster Michael McKenna. “The message and the messenger are inextricably linked.”

So, in the confused mind of McKenna, something is only good enough for his support if he likes the person who proposed it, regardless of what the issue is and its intrinsic value to the country. Does this not support the use of the term “unhinged” as applied to many of Trump’s critics?

Trump’s enemies must have enormous egos to believe that their dislike for him is more important than professional ethics and standards, or thoughtful evaluation of issues. So long as this is the standard for Trump’s opposition, the country is in trouble.

The Trump transition is well underway, despite his enemies’ wishes

Two weeks after the presidential election, things are moving forward for President-Elect Donald Trump, who is busy selecting individuals for administration posts.

Last week, Trump’s first two appointments were Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus as chief of staff and former head of Breitbart News, Stephen Bannon, as chief strategist.

Amid assessments of the transition’s first few days as chaotic and on the cusp of failure, Bannon’s choice drew sharp criticism from the leftist Trump opponents and the major media, who are determined to criticize most everything Trump’s team does or says.

Next came the choice of retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn as national security adviser, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) as director of the CIA, and Sen. Jeff Sessions, (R-Ala.) for Attorney General, subject to Senate approval, and meetings Saturday with 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, thought to be a candidate for secretary of state, and with retired Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, who is said to be a potential contender for defense secretary.

Meetings with potential selectees continued through the weekend, stoking the fires of speculation about who might go where and, of course, the predictable Democrat opposition’s criticism of people under consideration, as well as those already chosen.

As bad a choice as media and political enemies believe Trump to be, so far his transition is right on schedule.

Saturday, Trump took action to remove what likely would have become a big distraction to organizing his administration, doing so prior to being sworn in, and which likely would have continued at least into the early months of his presidency. Agreeing to a settlement of $25 million, three lawsuits aimed at Trump University have been resolved. The agreement also includes $1 million in penalties to the state of New York.

Former students of the school claimed that they paid thousands of dollars to learn Trump’s real estate success secrets, but contended that they were lured into paying up to $35,000 to learn from instructors hand-picked by Trump, which they claim did not happen.

The settlement was negotiated between Trump’s lawyers and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and the law firm that brought the suit against the now closed school. The settlement does not require an admission of guilt from Trump, but Trump’s organization issued a statement that said, "We are pleased to announce the complete resolution of all litigation involving Trump University. While we have no doubt that Trump University would have prevailed at trial based on the merits of this case, resolution of these matters allows President-Elect Trump to devote his full attention to the important issues facing our great nation."

If there is a downside to settling the lawsuits, it is that we may never know which side is right. Did Trump defraud the students, or is it merely an opportunity seized upon by students and lawyers hoping for a big payout?

Removing what would have become a huge distraction enables Trump to get on with the business of organizing his presidency, even as his political enemies occupy themselves with petty criticisms about appointments and who he is talking with, suggestions of who he should be talking with, and arguing about whether it was FBI Director James Comey’s handling of the email investigation or the Electoral College that defeated Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump.

Democrats have begun a move to have the Electoral College, the Constitutional mechanism to determine who becomes president, replaced by the popular vote. At the Constitutional Convention, several methods of electing a president were considered, but the Founders well knew the dangers of consolidated power. After much debate and compromise they devised a system that instead distributed power more broadly, balancing federal powers with those of the states, and providing a voice to all states, not just the most populous. 

As Heritage Foundation legal expert Hans von Spakovsky noted: “In creating the basic architecture of the American government, the Founders struggled to satisfy each state’s demand for greater representation while attempting to balance popular sovereignty against the risk posed to the minority from majoritarian rule.”

And the result has been that the Electoral College has provided stability to the process of picking presidents. Though the national popular vote winner typically wins the presidency, that vote failed to determine the winner in four previous elections: 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000, and the republic survived quite well, thank you.

And the wisdom of the Founders has once again been proven in the 2016 election where the least desirable candidate, Hillary Clinton, wound up with a comparatively thin popular vote margin of 50.6 percent of the vote to Trump’s 49.4 percent; 1.4 million votes out of 124.7 million, meaning that Clinton got 1.15 more votes per hundred voters than Trump did.

A margin this thin is well within the margin of error of political polling, and hardly worthy of the hysteria that has been demonstrated by this miniscule difference in vote totals.

What this effort does best is illustrate the level of desperation, disbelief and unwillingness to accept the outcome that is so firmly ingrained into the political left and their sub-faction, the major national media.

But as before, the republic will endure and thrive.

Honor and integrity take a back seat to politics in Austin, Texas

In April 2013 in Travis County, Texas, where the capital city of Austin is located, District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg was arrested for drunk driving. Her blood alcohol level was almost three times the legal limit (.08 is the threshold, and her level was .23), and there was an open bottle of vodka in her car, in violation of the state’s open container law.

Dash cam and police station videos, which are available for viewing on YouTube, show Ms. Lehmberg failing sobriety testing and taunting arresting officers and even threatening them at the police station. One of the officers described action that took place off camera in which she kicked doors and acted violently. Her bad behavior also included rudeness, being uncooperative, and pointing her finger like a gun. And eventually she had to be placed in a restraining device. Reports say her behavior could have earned her a felony charge for assaulting a police officer.

Ms. Lehmberg pleaded guilty to drunk driving and served about half of a 45-day sentence, but said she would not resign from her position of trust as DA.

Ms. Lehmberg has been battling alcoholism for some time, according to reports. Alcoholism does not automatically preclude a person from being a public servant, even a prosecutor. However, someone whose alcoholism leads to an arrest for driving drunk, a crime that too often ends in the death of innocent citizens, followed by the poor behavior demonstrated by Ms. Lehmberg, has proved himself or herself to be unsuitable for the role of prosecutor. Put in the best possible light, it both looks bad and smells bad: You simply cannot have a confessed drunk driver as a prosecutor.

Among those who think Ms. Lehmberg should have stepped down is Texas Governor Rick Perry, although he has no official authority over county DAs.

Following her refusal to step down, Gov. Perry said he would cut $7.5 million in state money from Ms. Lehmberg’s Public Integrity Unit unless she resigned, which he later did through a line item veto. By law, the governor has veto authority.

For acting in the best interest of the people of Travis County, a jury decided it was an abuse of his power, and indicted Gov. Perry on two felony counts.

An Austin attorney filed a lawsuit to remove Ms. Lehmberg from office, but last December a judge ruled that she could keep her job. That attorney has now filed an ethics complaint against her, citing alleged unreported campaign contributions Ms. Lehmberg used to defend herself in the removal lawsuit totaling $227,000.

As it turns out, the Public Integrity Unit has a history of politically motivated prosecutions that failed for lack of substance. Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson was indicted, but never tried, and Republican Congressman Tom Delay was indicted, tried, convicted and then had his conviction overturned on appeal for lack of him having actually committed a crime. It appears the Unit is more concerned with generating political results favoring the Democrat Party than it is with integrity. Sen. Hutchinson may run for governor, and Mr. Delay had earned the hatred of Democrats through his activities. It is not a stretch to use the term “corrupt” in describing at least some of the Unit’s actions.

It’s interesting that the source of the action against Republican Gov. Perry arises from the very office that he defunded because its head, the convicted and jailed drunk driver Rosemary Lehmberg, refused to do the right thing and resign. You see, Travis County, Texas, is heavily Democrat, and Ms. Lehmberg is a Democrat.

Liberal law professor Jonathan Turley had this to say about the indictment: “In this case, the special prosecutor [who answers to Ms. Lehmberg] seemed to pound hard to get these square facts into these round holes. A bit too hard for such a case.” And Democrat political advisor David Axelrod termed the indictment “sketchy.”

Mary Anne Wiley, General Counsel for Gov. Perry, said in a statement following the indictment: “The veto in question was made in accordance with the veto authority afforded to every governor under the Texas Constitution. We will continue to aggressively defend the governor’s lawful and constitutional action, and believe we will ultimately prevail.”

The grand jury process is secret and entirely controlled by the prosecution, and the accused has no opportunity to argue charges made by the prosecution, and in fact is not even present during the process. Which is the reason for the now-famous observation that through the grand jury process you “can indict a ham sandwich.” It is instructive that the staunchest defenders of the grand jury system are prosecutors. Gov. Perry would no doubt prefer to replace the sour grapes on his ham sandwich with Swiss cheese.

During the arrest procedure, Ms. Lehmberg repeatedly accused police of ruining her career by arresting her for being three-times-the-legal-limit drunk behind the wheel. Then, her Public Integrity Unit goes after a sitting governor in a way that results in the Governor having an indictment and a mug shot on his record. Whose career was really damaged by a third party? And who benefits from this episode of gutter politics by Democrats?

We must take a serious look at our laws and how they are enforced

Most people are for law and order, and most obey the laws that keep society functioning. And most have great respect for the men and women who have the sometimes-dangerous job of enforcing those laws.

That said, some laws are just plain dumb and should be done away with, and what is more important, there are so many laws, rules and regulations today that no one can know all the decrees from the federal, state and local governments that affect him or her, and therefore it is impossible to obey them all. This over-regulated environment puts each of us in the position of likely being in violation of one or more of them at any given moment.

What's worse than so many decrees from so many sources, however, is what seems to be a growing tendency of law enforcement agencies at all levels to imagine that even tiny infractions warrant the most dramatic responses.

Case in point: After making a purchase at a Charlottesville, Va. grocery store one night, a 20-year-old University of Virginia student and two roommates were approached in their car by a group of six men and one woman in street clothes. "They were showing unidentifiable badges after they approached us, but we became frightened, as they were not in anything close to a uniform," she recalled in a written account of the incident.

Police say one of the group jumped on the hood of her car. The girl said one drew a gun, and they tried to break out car windows. Unsure who they were, the girl tried to flee the dark parking lot and called 911. Given the circumstances and stories of people being assaulted by phony police officers, who could blame her?

It turned out to be a squad of plainclothes state Alcoholic Beverage Control officers who suspected the girl had purchased beer in the store – she hadn’t – and was under-age. She spent the night in jail as a result.

Question: Who at the ABC thought this procedure actually made sense? Is it reasonable for a squad of plainclothes agents to approach three female college students in a dark parking lot, fail to adequately identify themselves, point a gun at them, jump on their car and try to break out the windows because they think one of them had bought beer that she might not be old enough to purchase?

Prosecutors dropped charges against the young woman, describing her as having panicked at the sight of plainclothes agents who approached her and her roommates.

Case 2: When the Leander, Texas police wanted to serve a warrant on Bradly Simpson, they sent officers to his home. When no one responded to the knock on the front door, a couple of officers walked around the side of the house toward the back yard whereupon they saw two German Shepards coming toward them. One officer pulled his gun and fired three shots. The police said the dog was growling and aggressively coming at them. Fortunately, the officer’s aim was not good and only one of the dogs was hit, but only wounded.

After that spectacle, the police were unable to serve the warrant because they were at the wrong address, and in the wrong neighborhood. Worse than that, not far from where the dog was shot the home owners’ terminally-ill six year-old grandchild was playing.

Worse, yet, the home owners said neither dog was aggressive, that they were merely curious about who was visiting their home, and had never behaved the way the police claimed. And, as it turns out, the lady of the house is a professional dog trainer, and therefore knows about dog behavior, and furthermore noted that there are routinely customers visiting her home, so strangers don’t spook her dogs.

And what heinous crime prompted the police to go to Mr. Simpson’s home to serve the warrant? He had an expired vehicle registration.

Leander police officials say what happened was "an unfortunate accident." Wrong: What happened is that the police screwed up.

The number of rogue law enforcement personnel that intentionally abuse their authority and position is surely very small. Nevertheless, instances of over-aggressive law enforcement action and plain dumb mistakes like these are indefensible and intolerable, and there appears to be a growing attitude toward over-aggressive behavior.  

To maintain the public trust and respect government and law enforcement are going to have to stop doing stupid and dangerous things like these examples, and even worse incidents that have caused serious injury and even death for innocent citizens.

Solutions? Do we really need so many law enforcement officers that seven of them can spend nights sitting around in one store parking lot waiting to catch an under-age person buying beer? Does an expired registration really justify armed police visiting the vehicle owner’s home?

What about accountability? Officials that exercise bad judgment or act rashly must be disciplined, encouraging them to carefully consider how to properly and safely do their jobs, and also demonstrating that public officials really take seriously their duty to adequately serve the people they work for.

Something must be done, and the sooner, the better.

Make Congress less remote by implementing remote working methods

That Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing is beyond debate. A set of polls from five different polling organizations running from June 1 through July 1 show an approval rate ranging from 9 percent to 17 percent, an indictment of current members and what they are doing if ever there was one.

There is little agreement between Democrats and Republicans in both houses on any subject, and Congress stooped to using the most devious process in recent years to ram through the highly partisan Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, which was opposed by a majority of the American people when it was being considered, and is even more strongly opposed today. Congress acted in opposition to the will of the people, a serious breach of trust.

It has long been the practice for Members of Congress to essentially become residents of the DC area when they are elected and spend scant time in their home states and districts, and despite their best intentions cannot avoid becoming Washington insiders to some degree, and thus residents of their home states in name only.

Furthermore, many members of Congress fancy themselves as "special," part of an elite group, and all of them benefit from job-related perks the rest of us don't have access to, like gold-plated health and retirement programs that ought to be illegal, a big salary and staff, being treated like queens and kings, and who often make decisions that are aimed at satisfying special interests rather than making the best decisions for their constituents and for the nation.

What we see today is a fulfilling of Thomas Jefferson's prophecy: "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild (Jefferson's spelling), and government to gain ground," which he wrote in a letter to Edward Carrington in 1788.

Power corrupts, they say, and the lure of power partially accounts for the increasing domination of the federal government over the citizens. Another reason is that it is much easier for special interests to access our Senators and Representatives than for the voters that elected them. That statement is not necessarily a slam at elected officials or their staffs, who may work diligently to serve the citizenry, but a criticism of the geographic distance from the official's home state or district and the small amount of time available to spend back home.

A popular concept about responsive government is that the most responsive leaders are those that can most easily be reached; it's easier to communicate your ideas to members of the city council and county supervisors than to your Congressional representatives. A trip across the street, downtown or to the next town is far more satisfactory than a trip to Washington.

In the beginning, those serving in Congress spent a few weeks in Washington each year and the rest of the time at home working at their jobs as farmers, business owners, doctors and lawyers. Perhaps despite its strong appeal it isn't realistic to return completely to that arrangement, but two Congressmen have suggested a change to the way the House of Representatives works that is a step in that direction.

California Democrat Representative Eric Swalwell recently introduced a proposal to amend House rules to enable lawmakers to take care of business from their district offices, instead of having to be in Washington so much of the time. His idea involves using the latest technologies like video conferencing for hearings, committee meetings and the like, and a secure remote voting system. As of last weekend, two others had signed on as cosponsors, Republicans Cynthia Lummis from Wyoming and New Mexico’s Steve Pearce, who had previously introduced a similar measure that would require representatives to appear in person for certain required or essential House activities.

This idea has great appeal. Wouldn't it be terrific for our elected representatives to be able to attend local events regularly? Wouldn't it be great to find yourself in line at the grocery store in front of your senator or representative, or to run into him or her at a sporting event or a restaurant, and when you visited one of the district offices to find them working there?

Undoubtedly, our officials would have a much better sense of what their constituents think about the pressing issues of the day when they interact with them on a daily basis than when they rarely see them face to face. And it would make more difficult the special interest lobbying that now poisons the legislative process.

Currently, Congress meets only three or four days a week for most of the year, due to holidays and allowances for members to travel to and from home to spend a little time with their families and constituents. Such an arrangement might also result in lower spending for Congressional operations, given the need for fewer flights home and back, and in this day of repeated trillion-dollar budget deficits, that would be a plus, even if the savings were relatively small.

It can't be a bad thing for elected officials to be more available for contact by their constituents. Both accountability and performance would improve.