Michael1942's Blog

Speech by a smart person highlighting future paths for Graduates. MA

Deirdre Fernandes 8 hrs ago

CAMBRIDGE — German Chancellor Angela Merkel offered a sharp and not-so-veiled rebuke of President Trump and his brand of nationalism during her commencement speech at Harvard University on Thursday.

Merkel never mentioned Trump by name, but warned graduating students of the dangers of building walls and approaching the world’s problems — from climate change and trade to terrorism and forced migration — with an isolationist, go-it-yourself philosophy.
“Tear down walls of ignorance and narrow-mindedness,” Merkel told a sea of Harvard students and their family members, alumni, and university leaders who gathered for the annual rite of passage. “Changes for the better are possible if we tackle them together. . . . Take joint action in the interests of the multilateral, global world.”

Merkel, who has served as chancellor since 2005 and announced that she will step down in 2021, has a fraught relationship with Trump. They have clashed on issues of trade and immigration, with Trump threatening tariffs on European cars because of the trade imbalance between the countries. Trump has also taken to Twitter to suggest that Merkel is “ruining Germany.”
On Thursday, Merkel argued that protectionism and trade conflicts jeopardize both countries and “the very foundations of our prosperity.”
She also took what was seen by many in the audience as an apparent dig at Trump’s frequent and often unrestrained Twitter postings, and urged graduates to “take a moment to stop, be still, think, pause. Certainly, that takes courage,” Merkel said to a rousing ovation from the crowd. “That requires us not to describe lies as truth and truth as lies.”
Merkel was one of nine notable figures to receive an honorary degree from Harvard during its 368th commencement ceremony events this week. The German leader, who grew up in East Germany before the country was unified and who was trained as a chemist, is considered one of the most powerful politicians in Europe.
Her presence was also a reminder of how far Europe and the United States have come in a couple of generations. Merkel reminded students that her parents were about their age at the end of Hitler’s reign, and she spoke in front of Harvard President Lawrence Bacow, who is Jewish and whose mother survived the Auschwitz concentration camp.
Merkel, who spoke mostly in German and used a translator, spent much of her speech reflecting on her career and her country’s transformation this past century. She noted that post-war Germany was shaped at a Harvard commencement ceremony more than 70 years ago, when retired General George Marshall gave a short speech outlining a massive aid plan for Europe that helped turn Germany from a US enemy to a close ally.
She also stood by the European Union, even as it has come under attack by Trump, nationalist forces in Europe, and Britain, which is trying to leave the membership.
However, when Harvard’s alumni president suggested in her introduction that Merkel was the “defacto leader of the European Union,” the chancellor shook her head in disagreement.
For Merkel, the speech offered an opportunity to defend the ideas that have been the backbone of the US-European relationship since after World War II and why they remain relevant to the next generation of leaders.
“The transatlantic partnership based on democracy and human rights has given us benefits on all sides that have lasted more than 70 years,” she said.
Merkel recalled being a young scientist in communist East Germany, where the government prosecuted political dissidents and monitored its citizens. She would pass the Berlin Wall, which separated her from democratic West Germany, on her way to work and have “to turn away from freedom at the last minute,” Merkel said. “The Berlin Wall literally stood in my way.”
But that barrier eventually came down in 1989 as a wave of anti-communist protests swept across much of Europe.
“The fall of the Berlin Wall allowed me to step out into the open,” Merkel said.
Merkel did not speak directly to Trump’s call for a wall at the US-Mexico border to deter immigration at the southern border.
Critics have argued that the wall would be an ineffective way to curb illegal crossings and limit drug trafficking, and they have accused the president of using fear tactics and demonizing Central American immigrants.
Merkel counseled the 2019 Harvard graduates to remain optimistic that they can address the challenges ahead, including climate change.
But she reminded them to remain vigilant.
“Freedom is never something that can be taken for granted,” Merkel said. “Walls can collapse, dictatorships can disappear, we can halt global warming, we can eradicate starvation, we can eliminate diseases, we can give people, especially girls, access to education. . . . Let us surprise ourselves by showing what is possible.”
Deirdre Fernandes can be reached at deirdre.fernandes@globe.com.

Please Donate

How far would you trust this head Neer do  well?

The silence and impotent utterings of this so called leader should be troubling to us all no matter what party we ascribe to. His actions have been as divisive as TOTUS. He can smile since his retirement and investments are secure and he allowed the high court be shifted to an extreme which will affect us all.

Please Donate

To Those who support TOTUS-Wakeup! This delusional person has your future in his small mind and hands. He operates on perceived personal assaults on him as well as his ineptitude in the office. MA.
POLITICS 05/22/2019 11:47 am ET Updated 5 Days ago

By Paige Lavender and Igor Bobic
Plans to talk about infrastructure collapsed when Trump decided to hold an impromptu press conference about the Mueller probe. Negotiations over a bipartisan infrastructure package meant to overhaul the nation’s crumbling roads, bridges and waterways collapsed suddenly on Wednesday after President Donald Trump walked out of a previously scheduled meeting with top congressional Democrats at the White House.
Democrats waited about 15 minutes for Trump. Once he arrived, he spoke for about three minutes before leaving the room. In a press conference at the White House Rose Garden just afterward, Trump said he would not deal with Democrats on infrastructure matters until they ceased investigations of his administration following special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.
The president then accused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), one of the participants in the meeting, of being inconsiderate for saying earlier Wednesday that Trump “is engaged in a cover-up.”
In the press conference, Trump stood behind a sign reading “no collusion, no obstruction” and argued he’s “the most transparent president in history.”
“This meeting was set up a number of days ago … all of a sudden I hear last night they’re going to have a meeting right before this meeting to talk about the I-word,” Trump said, referring “impeachment,” not “infrastructure.”
Pelosi did call a meeting Wednesday morning to brief her caucus on the various efforts to oversee Trump’s administration. House Democrats have reportedly pushed the speaker to begin impeachment proceedings, with more and more speaking out publicly about the need to hold Trump accountable.
That apparently upset Trump, who refused to discuss infrastructure with Democratic leaders just before his press conference.
According to a source familiar with the meeting, Trump walked into the room, did not shake anyone’s hand or sit in his seat, and said talks over infrastructure, trade and farm assistance would have to wait until congressional investigations are done. He then walked out without acknowledging anyone in the room.
“He just took a pass,” Pelosi told reporters, surmising Trump left the room because of “a lack of confidence on his part.”
“I pray for the president of the United States and I pray for the United States of America,” she added.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), meanwhile, said Trump’s behavior during their meeting would “make your jaw drop.” He described the president greeting lawmakers with curtains closed in the room, accusing the White House of orchestrating a pre-planned stunt.
Sen. Chuck Schumer on Trump’s actions during his meeting with lawmakers
“It’s clear this was not a spontaneous move on the president’s part; it was planned,” Schumer said of Trump’s dismissal of infrastructure talk. “When we got in the room, the curtains were closed, there was a place for him to stand to say why he wouldn’t do infrastructure, then he went to the press with pre-made signs.”
Trump has criticized Democrats for continuing their inquiries around Mueller’s investigation. He also engaged in a public battle this week with GOP Rep. Justin Amash (Mich.), who accused the president of engaging in “impeachable conduct.”
“They would have loved to have said we colluded. … These people were out to get us,” Trump said of the Mueller probe. “This was a one-sided, horrible thing. The bottom line is they said there’s no collusion, no collusion with Russia.”
Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation did not find enough evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. Mueller’s report says it “uncovered evidence of numerous links (i.e., contacts) between Trump Campaign officials and individuals having or claiming to have ties to the Russian government,” but that the links were not “sufficient to establish or sustain criminal charges.”
Although Mueller declined to make a formal determination on whether Trump obstructed justice, he laid out 10 instances of potential obstruction by Trump, and the report explicitly states that it “does not exonerate” Trump.
″[I]f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice,” the report says, “we would so state.”
Ryan Reilly and Sebastian Murdock contributed to reporting.

Please Donate

Where is “Botch: McConnell in all of this? As a “leader” he should be on the front line of this and other poor decisions made by this Administration. Another clear case of aiding and abetting a criminal enterprise. MA

By David Brown 11 hrs ago

The Trump administration on Friday notified Congress it plans to sell $8.1 billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates without congressional approval — a move that has incensed members from both parties who have sought to cut off military aid for the Saudi-led coalition fighting Iranian-backed rebels in Yemen.

The decision covers 22 pending transfers of munitions, aircraft parts, and other supplies “to deter Iranian aggression and build partner self-defense capacity,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement. “These sales will support our allies, enhance Middle East stability, and help these nations to deter and defend themselves from the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
Normally such sales are subject to congressional approval. But Trump is using a loophole in the Arms Export Control Act that allows him to bypass the process in case of emergency. The move is similar to Trump’s declaration of a border emergency this year, which allowed him to divert military funds to pay for border barriers.
Pompeo, who cited previous instances in which the arms sales authority was used by Presidents Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, said the step was critical to help allies maintain their armed forces in a period of “increasing regional volatility.” And he lashed out at Congress for delaying the shipments.
“These national security concerns have been exacerbated by many months of Congressional delay in addressing these critical requirements, and have called into doubt our reliability as a provider of defense capabilities, opening opportunities for U.S. adversaries to exploit,” Pompeo said.
But he insisted that the decision would be “a one-time event.”
“This specific measure does not alter our long-standing arms transfer review process with Congress,” he insisted.
Nonetheless, the move was deeply unpopular on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers have sought to halt arms sales to the Saudi-led coalition fighting Houthi rebels in Yemen. The coalition has been blamed for rising civilian deaths in that country.
Trump recently vetoed legislation that would restrict American support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen.
In a statement Friday, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) confirmed that the relevant committees had been notified of the pending sales.
“There is no new ‘emergency’ reason to sell bombs to the Saudis to drop in Yemen, and doing so only perpetuates the humanitarian crisis there,” Murphy said. “This sets an incredibly dangerous precedent that future presidents can use to sell weapons without a check from Congress.”
Murphy said he’s looking into new legislation to restrict the sales. “We have the constitutional duty to declare war and the responsibility to oversee arm sales that contravene our national security interests,” he said. “If we don’t stand up to this abuse of authority, we will permanently box ourselves out of deciding who we should sell weapons to.”
Several other members of Congress have announced their intention to block any further weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
“Every bomb sold to Saudi Arabia is another bomb for Saudi bomber jets to drop on Yemeni hospitals, weddings, markets, and school buses,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), an outspoken opponent of America’s involvement in Yemen, said in a statement. “Any claim from President Trump that selling weapons to Saudi Arabia constitutes an ‘emergency’ is a farcical attempt to obscure the shameful reality that ‘made in the U.S.A’ bombs are killing innocent civilians and fueling the world’s worst humanitarian emergency in Yemen.”
Pompeo insisted, however, that the administration sees little choice but to bypass Congress. “The United States is, and must remain, a reliable security partner to our allies and partners around the world,” he said. “These partnerships are a cornerstone of our National Security Strategy, which this decision reaffirms.”

Please Donate

Why is that “BOTCH” can’t see the forest for the trees?. Maybe it’s because Nancy would become President? MA

By Tom Coleman Special to The Star
May 22, 2019 08:35 PM, Updated May 24, 2019 08:32 AM
US President Donald Trump reacted to a freshman Democratic congresswoman’s diatribe predicting his impeachment while using a vulgarity, by saying “You can’t impeach somebody doing a great job.” By AP
According to the redacted Mueller report, candidate Donald Trump, along with members of his team, on multiple occasions welcomed Russian interference on his behalf during the 2016 presidential campaign. For example, the report details a meeting between the Trump campaign chairman and a Russian intelligence asset where polling information and campaign strategy were shared.
While Mueller did not find sufficient evidence that Trump or his campaign had violated a criminal statute, the net effect was that the Trump campaign encouraged a foreign adversary to use and misrepresent stolen information on social media platforms to defraud U.S. voters. Because the presidency was won in this way, the president’s election victory brought forth nothing less than an illegitimate presidency.
Mueller presents a strong case that in addition to receiving campaign help from Russian operatives, the president obstructed justice — a crime in itself. Mueller declined to charge the sitting president because of current Department of Justice regulations that prohibit it. That policy is wrong in my opinion, and must be changed in the future when reason and rationality return to our politics.
What should be done now? There are some Democratic members in the House majority who want to put off any discussion of impeachment until after the 2020 election. They believe it will only strengthen the hand of the president, who will claim he is a victim and will respond with his mantra of, “No collusion, no obstruction, case closed.” Other Democratic members of Congress want impeachment proceedings to begin.
The political calculus not to pursue impeachment is understandable. Current polls show a majority of voters do not favor it. But critical times require exceptional leadership. Lawmakers of both parties should not blindly follow the polls but instead follow the evidence and their conscience. Politics should not rule the day. Partisan politics is what got us to this dangerous place — so dangerous, I believe, that the survival of our democracy is at risk.
Contemplate the possible behavioral problems of a Trump untethered from the law and who is frequently untethered from reality. Would we be surprised if he were to repeatedly brandish his get out of jail card while breaking, at will, democratic norms, presidential precedents and criminal statutes? Trump said early in his campaign that he “could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?” Are we now at that point?
Because DOJ regulations put a president above the law while in office, I believe the only viable option available is for the House of Representatives, under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, to open its own investigation, hold public hearings and then determine if they should pursue removal of the president through impeachment. There is a trove of evidence in the Mueller report indicating Trump has committed multiple impeachable offenses, including abuse of power and lying to the American public. Both were part of the articles of impeachment brought against President Richard Nixon. This process would allow a full public review of wrongdoing, while providing Americans an opportunity to obtain a better understanding of the consequences to our national security and the lingering threat to our democracy.
If this process leads to impeaching Trump in the House of Representatives and also results in convicting him in the Senate, his illegitimacy would survive through Vice President Mike Pence’s succession to the presidency. Because the misdeeds were conducted to assure the entire Trump-Pence ticket was elected, both former candidates — Pence as well as Trump — have been disgraced and discredited. To hand the presidency to an illegitimate vice president would be to approve and reward the wrongdoing while the lingering stench of corruption would trail any Pence administration, guaranteeing an untenable presidency. If Trump is impeached, then Pence should not be allowed to become president. The vice president should resign or be impeached as well if for no other reason that he has been the chief enabler for this illegitimate president.
Alternatively, the 25th Amendment to the Constitution provides for the removal of a president. It sets forth a cumbersome procedure requiring the vice president to convince a majority of the Cabinet to recommend removal to Congress because the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office. By a two-thirds vote, Congress could then end a presidency. The removal of the president and replacement with the vice president would have the same result as if the president had been impeached. The vice president would succeed to the presidency.
In addition to these constitutional provisions, the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 sets the order of officials who are in line to succeed a president, regardless of the reason. The first three officials listed are the vice president, the speaker of the House and the president pro tempore of the Senate. If the vice president were unable to ascend to the presidency for whatever reason — for example resignation or impeachment — then the speaker would become president. Today that individual is Rep. Nancy Pelosi. It is unknown whether she would agree to serve as president or that the majority of the House would want her to do so.
The Constitution does not require the speaker of the House actually to be a member of the House of Representatives. Under these circumstances, with the specter of a national crisis looming over the vacancy of the presidency and vice presidency simultaneously, consideration should be given by House members to draft a nationally-known individual for speaker who would appeal to the vast majority of Americans. That person, after being sworn in as speaker, would ascend to the highest office in the land. Under the provisions of the 25th Amendment, the new president would nominate a vice president, who would take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both chambers of Congress.
What if House Democrats decide not to embark on impeachment? If that were the case, I believe the public would conclude Democrats are no better than the Republicans who have enabled Trump for the past two years, putting party above country. It could hand Trump a second term. Failure to pursue impeachment is to condone wrongdoing. To condone wrongdoing is to encourage more of it. To encourage wrongdoing is to give up on the rule of law and our democracy. To give up on the rule of law and democracy invites autocracy and eventually dictatorship. History has taught us this outcome. In my lifetime, it has occurred in other places including the Soviet Union and Germany, as well as in Russia and Venezuela today.
Tom Coleman is a former Republican U.S. representative from Missouri. He has served as an adjunct professor at New York University’s Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service and at American University.

Read more here: https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-commentary/article230713224.html#storylink=cpy

Please Donate