ISIS 101

An introductory note: In a few days Anna I will be traveling out of state where I will be delivering several lectures in a bucolic mountain setting.  In order to make best use of my time, I've turned one of the lectures - "The rise of ISIS" - into this week's blog essay.  If things work out as planned, next week's essay will be based on one of the other lectures - "Israel, the Middle East and the 2016 Presidential Election."

ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, stunned the global community in 2014 when it poured over the Syrian border into Iraq. Born amid the chaos of the Syrian Civil War, and post-invasion Iraq, ISIS represents an enormous challenge to the U.S. and world powers who seek to stop the spread of its virulent, terrifying and homicidal form of Islamic extremism. As America and its allies have begun tightening the noose on areas that ISIS controls, it has begun exporting terrorists and terrorism to Europe and by proxy, even to America. But even if America and its allies could defeat ISIS militarily, it would not, in all likelihood end the phenomenon of jihadism. Its rampage has been marked by war crimes which include the summary execution of battlefield prisoners including Muslims deemed unholy, the wholesale slaughter of civilians and genocidal policies towards ethnic minorities. Combating ISIS will be a focal point for the U.S. and its allies for years to come.

Like most contemporary jihadi groups, ISIS has its roots in Afghanistan. In the late 1980s, thousands of young Arab men – with the backing of countries like the U.S. and Saudi Arabia – flocked to Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union. These men, who became known as “Afghan Arabs,” did not play much of a role in defeating the Soviet Union, but they did foster a myth, and in time, that myth would change the world.  A Jordanian thug, Musab al-Zarqawi (the bearded fellow in the photo), also known as “al-Garhib” – the stranger –was one of those who went to Afghanistan. Upon returning to Jordan in 1992, he was arrested. While serving time in a Jordanian prison he came in contact with the Islamic scholar Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, who would do much to shape his views and theology. Zarqawi became more religious under Maqdisi’s guidance, praying and memorizing the Quran. He also started to attract other prisoners, and fellow inmates started referring to him and his companions as the takfirisi - those who excommunicate - for the way they almost reflexively excommunicated anyone who disagreed with them.

When he was pardoned along with several other prisoners in 1999, he left the country, returning to Afghanistan, where he quickly came into contact with a growing al-Qaeda franchise. Initially, al-Qaeda was mistrustful of Zarqawi. He seemed overly focused on fighting Shi’a instead of the corrupt Sunni regimes and the U.S., which were al-Qaeda’s two primary targets. Eventually, al-Qaeda agreed to support a separate training camp for Zarqawi in Afghanistan that would recruit Palestinians and Jordanians. But it did not invite him to join the organization, and Zarqawi did not ask.  After the September 11 attacks, Zarqawi fled first to Iran, eventually making his way to Iraq. In less than two weeks, Zarqawi had all but driven the UN out of Iraq and sparked a civil war between the country’s Shi’a and Sunni populations. In February 2004, Zarqawi officially applied to join al-Qaeda. In October, al-Qaeda accepted his request. But almost immediately, issues arose. Bin Laden and his deputy, the Egyptian Ayman al-Zawahiri wanted Zarqawi to tone down the violence, particularly when it came to the videos showing beheadings of so-called heretics. Fighting U.S. soldiers was one thing – killing Iraqi Shi’a was another. On June 7, 2006, a pair of U.S. jets flattened the house where Zarqawi was holding a meeting, killing him and five others.

In October 2006, Zarqawi’s group announced the establishment of an Islamic state, proclaiming that a man by the name of Abu Omar al-Baghdadi was now the Amir al-mu-minin - the "Commander of the Faithful" - the caliph or absolute leader of the Islamic state.  Zarqawi’s successor, Abu Ayyub al-Masri was convinced that the Mahdi - the Messiah - was about to return and he wanted a state in place for the apocalyptic battle that some believe will happen at the end of time. In his rush to prepare for the impending apocalypse, Masri announced the state and its commander – Abu Omar al-Baghdadi – before he had either. There was not a state, just al-Qaeda’s old organization in Iraq, and no one by the name of Abu Omar al-Baghdadi. By late 2009, it looked as though the group had all but disappeared. The difference between al-Qaeda and ISIS can be clearly seen in this putting of the cart before the horse.

Then came the Arab Spring. Many of the same issues that animated those protesters would help fuel recruiting for the Islamic state in 2012 and 2013. Five years after the uprisings of 2011, little seems to have improved across the Arab world. There is still high unemployment and a great deal of hopelessness. If anything, it is even worse now, as the Arab Spring's artificially raised people’s expectations, implicitly promising that, if they could only get rid of their corrupt leaders, their daily lives would change for the better. But that has not happened, and the comedown has been difficult.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi issued his first public statement as the head of the Islamic state in early May 2011. At the time, little was known about him. Only 38 years old when elected to head the Islamic state, Abu Bakr’s real name was Ibrahim Awwad Ibrahim al-Badri. Baghdadi (at left) earned a degree in Quranic studies, graduating from the University of Baghdad in 1996. Three years later, he finished a master’s degree and decided to pursue doctoral studies. But in February 2004, less than a year after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Baghdadi was arrested and placed in the U.S.-run Camp Bucca in southern Iraq where he was held for ten months as a “civilian detainee.” (Many scholars refer to Camp Bucca as “the incubator” from which many ISIS leaders and fighters were hatched. In 2007, Baghdadi successfully defended his doctoral dissertation, and began to move up the ranks of what was now being called, at least internally, the Islamic State. When Abu Omar al-Baghdadi and Abu Ayyub al-Masri were killed in April 2010, the Islamic state needed to find a new leader. The Islamic state’s consultative council was made up of 11 members. Because they were being hunted by the U.S. military, they could not meet in person. Instead, they relied on a clandestine network of couriers to deliver messages to one another. One member of the council, a former colonel in the Iraqi army, used this to his advantage, writing to each of the members of the council to tell them that everyone else had already agreed to support Baghdadi as the new leader. When the votes were counted, Baghdadi had been elected by a 9-2 margin.

By the end of 2011 as fighting in Syria between Assad’s troops and protesters worsened, al Baghdadi sent a small contingent of fighters across the border. This group, which he called Jabhat al-Nusra, or the Nusra Front, was commanded by one of his deputies named Abu Muhammad al-Jawlani.   But, much in the same way Baghdadi in Iraq had quietly defied al-Qaeda’s orders from Pakistan and Afghanistan, Jawlani began ignoring his boss. Part of the conflict was the revenue from oil that was being smuggled out of Syria. But there was also a strategic gulf between the two former allies. Jawlani, siding more with the local fighters in Syria, wanted to prioritize popular support in a way that the Islamic state never had in Iraq. Baghdadi disagreed and throughout 2012 and early 2013, the two leaders conducted a slow-moving argument on the best way forward. Finally, in April 2013, fed up with Jawlani’s reluctance to overtly recognize Baghdadi as his commander and the Nusra Front as part of the Islamic state, Baghdadi went public.

On April 9, 2013, Baghdadi released an audio message announcing the formation of a new entity, which he called the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham. In his message Baghdadi explained that both Jawlani and the Nusra Front were part of the Islamic State, but that in the future only the name ISIS would be used. Jawlani strongly disagreed and pledged his loyalty to Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden’s successor as head of al-Qaeda. The split was now out in the open.

Baghdadi’s next move was to send more ISIS fighters into Syria, this time to fight both Assad’s government as well as their former allies in the Nusra Front.

Throughout the summer of 2014 Baghdadi continued to direct fighters to Syria, making good on his public claim of creating an Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham.

ISIS has, at times, in its past, been affiliated with al-Qaeda. But, since its inception, the group has had this different approach with different priorities. Where al-Qaeda focused on defeating the West and corrupt Arab regimes as a way to establish a caliphate, ISIS has concentrated its energies on killing Shi’a Muslims, whom it considers heretics. Al-Qaeda preferred a bottom-up approach, attempting to build popular support before announcing its rule, while ISIS has gone the other direction, relying on a top-down approach: as mentioned in the paragraph above, it announced the caliphate as a way of attracting followers.

Another way in which al-Qaeda and ISIS differ is in their interpretation and implementation of the Islamic concept of al-wala’ wa-l-bara, or "association and disassociation." This is the idea of associating with true Muslims and disassociating with everyone else. Both ISIS and al-Qaeda see this as a key concept, but they differ in their interpretation.

Isis takes a hard line view, disassociating from everyone who is not a “true” believer. This is one of the reasons, along with Zarqawi’s continued influence on ISIS thinking, for the emphasis on attacking Shi’a Muslims. Al-Qaeda, meanwhile, practices a more situational approach to al-wala’ wa-l-bara, disassociating from non-believing Muslims in ideal circumstances but otherwise trying to play down potential divisions within the Islamic community in order to focus on attacking the U.S. and what it sees as corrupt Arab governments.

On February 2, 2014, al-Qaeda renounced any connection with ISIS, saying it could not be held responsible for any of ISIS’ actions.

On June 9, 2014, ISIS made a major push on the battlefield – taking Mosul in northern Iraq. Two days later and nearly 125 miles away it took Saddam Hussein’s home-town of Tikrit. ISIS continued its expansion, pushing toward the border with Syria, taking over large chunks of territory as the Iraqi army seemed to disintegrate in its path. ISIS even made a concentrated push for the small village of Dabiq, just north of Aleppo in Syria.

Dabiq was more of a theological target than a military one. According to an Islamic prophecy, the Day of Judgment is supposed to come after Muslims defeat a Western army at Dabiq. For ISIS, taking the town was a way to hurry on the apocalypse.

As of June 29, 2014, ISIS announced a caliphate that would be known as the Islamic State. This was the first time in nearly 100 years, since Ataturk abolished the Ottoman caliphate in 1924, that there had been this form of Islamic government. ISIS, of course, was not modeling itself after this more contemporary version, which it considered decadent and un-Islamic. In calling itself a caliphate, ISIS was hearkening back to the beginning of Islam and the rule of Muhammad’s first four successors, who are known collectively as the rashidun, or the rightly guided caliphs.  In the immediate aftermath of ISIS’ declaration of a caliphate, its online fan base cheered and expanded. ISIS’ broader message of associating with true Muslims and disassociating from everyone else has been part of the group's driving ideology since the days of Zarqawi.

What of ISIS's spot within the Muslim catechism?

 ISIS and its members adhere to a strict literalist interpretation of the texts of the Quran and the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad. ISIS is a jihadi* group because it believes in using violence to achieve its means. It is a salafi** group because it believes the Muslim community has lost its way and grown weak and divided. The only way to correct this drift is a return to the “pious forefathers,” hence the emphasis on a literal reading of the Quran and the sayings of the prophet Muhamad.

(*Meaning "struggle" or "to strive," Jihad denotes a Muslim's duty toward religious practice amid struggle. The term can refer to both spiritual and religious struggle. **Derived from salaf, meaning "predecessors," Salifis are an ultraconservative branch of Sunni Islam aimed at returning to the ancient “orthodox” teachings of Islam. Although the term salaf has appeared in Islamic religious scholarship for centuries, Salafism started as a reform-oriented movement in the 19th and 20th centuries, and was particularly Egypt-centric. It should be noted that not all salafi groups believe in violence as a means to an end, only jihadi-salafi groups do. What differentiates al-Qaeda from ISIS is the latter’s hard line approach. Both read the same texts and use the same means of Jihad to achieve their goals and yet they are two separate groups with two different styles.

ISIS has both a slick English language magazine called Dabiq, and an impressive online presence that allows it to reach recruits that al-Qaeda never had. Al-Qaeda relied on a personal link, someone to connect an individual in the West with a franchise in the Middle East or Southeast Asia. When not primarily addressing a Western audience, ISIS has shown itself quite skilled in using poetry and jihadi anthems to attract recruits from around the Arab world. It is in verse that militants most clearly articulate the fantasy of jihad.

In early July 2014, ISIS seized one of the largest oilfields in Syria near the town of Homs, and later that month it overran a Syrian military base in Raqqa. In August, ISIS fighters massacred thousands of Yazidi men, taking the women as slaves, in and around Sinjar in northern Iraq.

On August 8, 2014, President Obama authorized air strikes against ISIS targets. Weeks later, the UK and France followed suit by launching their first air strikes against ISIS targets. Despite the number of air strikes since the U.S. and its allies began bombing in 2014, ISIS seems largely unfazed. They continue to receive money from oil that they are able to smuggle out of Iraq and Syria as well as from kidnappings, thefts and the contributions of a sizeable number of oil billionaires from places like Qatar and Saudi Arabia.  

In addition to the caliphate in Iraq and Syria, ISIS has also announced other affiliate groups through the Middle East:

In Egypt a group calling itself Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis pledged loyalty to Baghdadi in late 2014.

A similar dynamic has played out in Libya.  The pattern is repeating itself in Yemen, and to a lesser extent, in Saudi Arabia.  In Yemen, as in Iraq, and elsewhere, many of these attacks have targeted Shi’a mosques in Sanaa.

Boko Haram in Nigeria has also pledged allegiance to ISIS. Isis has also announced provinces in Algeria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The goals appears to be to establish these provinces as outposts, and then build them to make the reality match the rhetoric.

The rise of ISIS has presented the U.S. and the international community with a number of security challenges. Chief among these has been the flood of refugees who have fled the war in Syria as well as ISIS’ military advances in the region. Since the start of the conflict, Turkey has hosted nearly 2 million refugees and another 1.5 million have crossed into Jordan and Lebanon.

As a result, in the last year-and-a-half, more than half a million-and-a-quarter refugees crossed the Mediterranean on their way to Europe, often paying smugglers to ferry them to Europe.

ISIS has responded to the refugee crisis by releasing several videos designed to encourage refugees to return to ISIS-controlled territory. There have also been reports, although largely unconfirmed, that ISIS has attempted to smuggle fighters into Europe along with the wave of refugees. Although not an impossible scenario, this is not a tactic ISIS has prioritized up to this point. In a sense, they don't need to smuggle fighters into Europe. According to a New York Times data-basis, ISIS has either inspired or directed attacks in 11 Western countries, including the U.S., the UK, Canada, Australia, France and Germany. ISIS is eager for its supporters to self-radicalize.   This is a relatively new phenomenon and ISIS has utilized both traditional offerings such as magazines and videos as well as social media to reach supporters in Western countries. What remains unclear is how monolithic of a group ISIS is, and how much command-and-control, the group has over various plots in different countries.

ISIS has also seemed determined to destroy any historical artifact it deems idolatrous. In early October 2015, ISIS destroyed the iconic nearly 2,000 year-old Arch of Triumph in Palmyra, Syria. UNESCO, the UN heritage agency, and others, have described ISIS’ destructive actions as “war crimes.” But, as with other challenges, Western governments have been unable to do much to reduce the threat to historic sites under ISIS’ control.

What policy options are available to the U.S. and its allies - both Muslim and non-Muslim - in the fight against ISIS?

Several factors contributed to ISIS gaining a foothold in Iraq and Syria, but two stand out: The first was the weakness of the Iraqi military – which the U.S. funded and equipped for years – in the face of ISIS assaults. The second contributing factor was U.S. reluctance to return to Iraq. In 2013 and much of 2014, as ISIS was making gains and taking territory, the U.S. watched and waited. Some of the usual methods for dealing with Jihadist statelets might have worked early on in Syria and Iraq, but ISIS is now too entrenched for quick solutions.

The U.S. is unwilling to commit ground troops to Iraq. Instead, the Obama administration has opted for air strikes and training rebel groups, which it hopes will be able “to degrade and ultimately defeat ISIS.” But both of these approaches have serious drawbacks. Air strikes can weaken ISIS targets, but on their own, they cannot defeat ISIS. The same is true for U.S.-trained rebel groups. They may be able to erode some of ISIS’ hold on territory, but ultimately they will be unable to decisively roll ISIS back.

There are serious problems with using proxies in the fight against ISIS. The U.S. might be able to train and equip them, but it cannot control them. Once these groups enter the battlefield, they will pursue their own objectives.

The U.S. has also backed Kurdish fighters who, in November 2015, pushed on the Iraqi town of Sinjar in an attempt to split ISIS’ territory in two by taking the city and cutting off the supply line that ran through it. The U.S., however, is constrained here as well in that it does not want the Kurds to become so strong that they can form an independent state. Current U.S. policy seeks to ensure the territorial integrity of Iraq – even as the Kurds have set up a de facto state – which makes support of the Kurds against ISIS a delicate balancing act.

The U.S. is also struggling to limit ISIS’ finances, partly by working with Turkey and others to prevent oil smuggling. So far, this initiative’s impact has been limited.

There is no silver bullet to the problem that ISIS presents. The group did not arise overnight and it will not be defeated overnight. The U.S. and its coalition partners have been bombing for over a year and while it is true that ISIS now controls considerably less territory than it did when the bombing campaign began, the reach of its terrorist activities has grown.  Conquering ISIS - and whatever comes next - is not as simple as " . . . bombing the sh***t out of 'em," as more than one presidential candidate has suggested.  Unlike the Germans, Italians and Japanese of old, ISIS does not have a capitol, a legislature, a mint or a stationary military headquarters.  It is a fluid, moveable army; here today and gone tomorrow.  Much of its organizational structure - such as it is -  exists in the cyber cloud . . . which is not susceptible to the kinds of military assaults which have been employed in past generations.

Air strikes and support for various groups on the ground are, at best, a holding strategy, designed to prevent ISIS from further growing. But even this modest goal may be too much for the current policy. Still, there appears to be few other appealing options on the table.

It is politics, economics and diplomacy which will eventually put ISIS into a coma, not military might.

Copyright©2016 Kurt F. Stone

We Can All Trust Donald Trump . . . Really!

If we all had aquarter for every time the words "trust" or "likeable" were used with regards to Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in but a single news cycle, we would probably all have enough cash to purchase a brand new Prius. For make no mistake about it: whether or not we like or dislike, trust or do not trust either of these presidential candidates is of great moment . . . at least as talking points.  We've all heard ad nauseam the five word phrase "I just don't trust her" applied to Secretary Clinton or the other five-word phrase "I really don't like him" said with regards to Mr. Trump. Indeed, their negatives are stratospheric.

I'm not sure when likeability first entered American politics as a major criterion for victory.  I mean, think about it: how many people actually knew all that much about the personal habits, likes or dislikes let alone height, weight, demeanor or rhetorical cadences of say, George Washington, Andrew Jackson or Woodrow Wilson other than whatever myths or iconography their campaigns shared with the public? 

Indeed, it wasn't until the mid 20th century that a presidential candidate - General Dwight Eisenhower - would have the great good fortune to be a national hero, and have a nickname that rhymed with the word "like." (Remember "I like Ike?") It would seem that from that point on the so-called "L factor" has come to play an increasingly important role in our politics.  It reached its apex (or nadir, depending on who you are) in the 2004 election when the question became "Who would you rather have a beer with . . . George W. Bush or John Kerry?" Personally, I could give a hoot whether Clinton or Trump are abstemious or prefer Miller Lite, Dos Equis or King Snedley.

I want to know how they will handle a three-hour National Security Council briefing, interrupted by a photo op with the National Spelling Bee champ, an emergency meeting with the head of FEMA about a devastating flood in the Midwest or an earthquake in California and then on to a state dinner with, say, German Chancellor Angela Merkel or British P.M. Theresa May.  To my way of thinking, that's one whole heck of a lot more critical then whether we can see ourselves downing an icy Rolling Rock with one, more than the other.

So much for likeability.  As for trust, that is, as we used to say, "a whole 'nother smoke."

Throughout her nearly 40 years in the public eye - first in Arkansas and then in the world - Hillary Clinton has been knocked, pilloried and lambasted for everything from her early refusal to use her married name, to her lack of style, her "shrill aggressiveness" and her mendacity, duplicity and untrustworthiness.  The last knock - that she cannot be trusted - is the major complaint one hears about her in public opinion samplings.  When asked to put  meat on the bones of this complaint or observation, most demur . . . it is more ephemeral or visceral than corporeal or factual.  Yes, there are those who will cite "Benghazi," "emails," and occasionally even "White Water," "Morgan Guaranty" and "Vince Foster." I've also heard that she is too close to Wall Street, has changed her position on numerous issues, and "she stands for nothing." On occasion, I've asked people to tell me about "White Water" or who Vince Foster was and how he fits into her history of corruption and mendacity.  Frequently what I get in response is a " . . . well, you know, she just can't be trusted."  OK, I get it; she's made a lot of mistakes, gotten away with some and rarely issued public apologies or explanations. Then too, she has changed - or modified or "walked back" -  positions on several issues . . . like marriage equality and the Trans Pacific Partnership (T.P.P.)  But rarely have I heard her accused of being incompetent, unprepared, blustering, lacking intelligence or incapable of making hard decisions.   Just that many people do not trust her.

Now, in Donald Trump, we find a man, a presidential candidate who everyone can and should trust.

How so? 

Donald Trump can be trusted to lie about almost anything. A brief handful of examples:

•  On November 10, 2015, Mr. Trump, in speaking of Vladimir Putin, said "I got to know him very well because we were both on '60 Minutes,' we were stablemates, and we did very well that night." He has repeated this on innumerable occasions while campaigning.  And yet, just this morning, Trump told George Stephanopoulos "I have no relationship with him. I don’t– I’ve never met him . . ."
• In a February 28, 2016 interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, the issue of David Duke came up.  Trump flatly stated "I don’t know anything about David Duke.” The truth of the matter is that Trump not only has mentioned Duke in the past but actually repudiated him during a Bloomberg interview in August 2015. Fifteen years ago, when Trump was considering running for president as a Reform Party candidate, he named Duke a cause for concern. “Well, you’ve got David Duke just joined — a big racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party,” he said. 
• In today's interview with Stephanopoulos, Trump, speaking about the upcoming debate schedule flatly stated "I'll tell you what I don't like. It's against two NFL games. I got a letter from the NFL saying, 'This is ridiculous.'" And the lie? Responding to Trump's claim, a spokesperson for the NFL said "While we'd obviously wish the debate commission could find another night, we did not send a letter to Trump."
• In a May 3, 2016 interview with Fox News, Trump flatly stated that Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s ". . . father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald being, you know, shot. I mean the whole thing is ridiculous. What is this, right, prior to his being shot? And nobody even brings it up . . . What was he doing — what was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before the death? Before the shooting? It’s horrible."

Donald Trump can be trusted to be both insulting and insensitive as well as blustering and boorish.  A few examples:

• Trump has repeatedly stated "I know more about ISIS than the generals," and that with him as POTUS, he would quickly solve the problem by " . . . bombing the sh.t out of them."
• In speaking about foreign policy, Trump has frequently said he has "a good instinct" and thus consults with himself first on these matters.
• Responding to Khizr and Ghazala Khan's contention that unlike their son, who was killed in action in 2004, Mr. Trump knows nothing about sacrifice, Trump said "“I think I've made a lot of sacrifices. I work very, very hard . . . I've created thousands and thousands of jobs."  He also chastised Ghazala Khan, saying she looked “ . . . like she had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.”
• Just the other day, Trump - who has been repeatedly stirring up crowds by telling them that Hillary Clinton should be behind bars because of the email scandal, had the consummate temerity to say "Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing . . . . I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” While I may not be as smart as Donald Trump, this strikes me as an open invitation for Russia - which is definitely not an ally - to invade American cyberspace
• Then there are Trump's comments about Mexicans ("rapists. . . murderers . . . drug dealers"), women ("pigs") his own daughter ("If she weren't my daughter . . . oh boy!") Senator John McCain ("He's no hero") and the judge in the Trump University case who he claimed was incapable of being unbiased due to his Mexican heritage . . .

Put all this together, plus literally dozens upon dozens of other blustering misstatements, untruths, flat out lies and defamatory nicknames and you have a man you can trust . . . to be spectacularly unqualified to be President of the United States.

Trust me.

Copyright ©2016 Kurt F. Stone

Whatever Became of America?

As of this coming Thursday the candidates for POTUS and VPOTUS will be cast in concrete: Trump/Pence vs. Clinton/Kane.  The Republican National Convention concluded this past Thursday; the Democrats begin their confab tomorrow, July 25, in Philadelphia. At the Republican National Convention (RNC) Donald Trump delivered one of the longest (76 minutes) and darkest acceptance speeches in American political history.  His theme was a mutant strain of panem et circensus ("bread and circuses") . . . utter fear and dread: "America is surrounded by enemies. America is in greater danger than ever before. Murder in America is at an all-time high. ISIS is coming to kill us.  America is being led down the path to doom. Hillary Clinton should be in prison, not running for POTUS. Only I can save America." The lineup of speakers ranged from Speaker Paul Ryan and Texas Senator Ted Cruz (who, despite being gifted with a prime-time slot, refused to endorse Mr. Trump) to former teen heartthrob Scott Baio and "Duck Dynasty" star Willie Robertson. 

Unbelievably, one evening's highlight was New Jersey Governor Chris "Bridgegate" Christie's nightmarish version of a "star chamber," in which he prosecuted Hillary Clinton for "high crimes and misdemeanors." Christie presented a laundry list of Clinton's "illegal" activities including Whitewater, Benghazi and her private email server; his dialogic rhythm was punctuated by the convention crowd screaming "GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!" "LOCK HER UP!"  Ironically, in real life(if indeed there is such a thing) Christie is really rather fond of Secretary Clinton.  (Note: if Christie were ever to become U.S. Attorney General in a Trump Administration, he would have to recuse himself from any investigation of Hillary Clinton.)

One Trump advisor, New Hampshire state representative Al Baldasaro went so far as to publicly state that “Hillary Clinton should be put in the firing line and shot for treason.”  Within 24 hours, the Secret Service began investigating Baldasaro; it seems that issuing death threats against a candidate for POTUS is a federal crime.  Not to be outdone, during his speaking slot, former Republican presidential hopeful Dr. Ben Carson so much as accused Secretary Clinton of being in league with the devil. And whether or not the assembled crowd believed that she was a tool of Lucifer - or believe that Donald Trump will actually build a wall between America and Mexico and get the Mexicans to pay for it - they belted out a noxious, pestiferous cadence which could be heard all the way from Cleveland to Rancho Cucamonga.

In the words of Garcia, Weir Lesh, and Hunter: "What a long, strange trip it's been."   

Whatever happened to maturity and civility?  Granted: all national conventions involve a large dollop of theater - especially in the age of multi- and social-media. But when theatricality and out and out bloviating are the most important ingredients, politics devolves into a danse macabre. The debacle in Cleveland was far more vicious, venomous and verbally pugnacious than any political convention I've ever experienced or studied . . . and that includes the storied RNC of 1884 - quite likely the filthiest in American history. And although the Democrats won't gather for their national convention in Philadelphia until tomorrow, Monday August 25,  I'd bet everything in the cookie jar (which as kids we lovingly referred to as "General Fatso Cookie-Belly") that it won't be nearly so visceral, divisive or downright nasty.  Sure, there will be jabs and taunts about Donald Trump, his ego, his hair-trigger and lack of preparedness.  It is more than likely that more than one speaker will bring up a recent New York Times article which revealed that The Donald had actually offered his potential running mates the chance to run the entire executive office - both domestically and internationally. . . "those things which really don't interest him." When asked what in the world Trump would be in charge of, son Eric responded "Making America great again."  But aside from these jabs and jests - and yes, yesterday'sWikiLeaks revelation that the DNC may well have tilted the scales in favor of Clinton over Sanders -  I bet that there will be far more time devoted to precisely what we can do together as a nation to make for a brighter future; more forward positioning, less fearful pandering.  And I would also wager that the name "Hillary Clinton" will be mentioned far, far more often than that of "Donald Trump" - the reverse of what happened in Cleveland. (n.b. Word has just come in that DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz will be tendering her resignation at the end of the Philadelphia convention, and that for the nonce, DNC Vice Chair Donna Brazile will serve in her stead.) 

But you want to know something? Regardless of who wins - and I am personally doing everything I can to ensure a Clinton/Kane victory as well as a retaking of the Senate if not indeed the House and various state legislatures by Democrats - regardless of who wins, there will still be a nagging, overarching challenge: of uniting a highly angry, fearful and fractionated nation that has replaced optimism with dread and a sense of shared humanity with unadorned hate. The great challenge is in giving a sense of common purpose to both those longing to return to the days of Ozzie and Harriet and those having a blast with Pokémon GO; of those who desperately desire to see God in the classroom and evolution out on its rear and those who firmly believe that freedom of speech and religion includes ideas that challenge and freedom from religion; of those who do not believe that the Second Amendment demands unfettered access to any and all weaponry as opposed to those who "know for a fact" that they must arm themselves against a government coming to take their guns away; of those whose vision is monochromatic versus those who find beauty in the rainbow; of those who have no problem discriminating against those who are different as opposed to those who find great joy in being inclusionary; of those who believe that to compromise is to give in to the forces of Satanic darkness and those who think that compromise is the essence of democracy . . . and a hundred other rifts, cleavages and diversions.  Hell, we are at such unbelievable loggerheads that the United States Congress can't even get together to appropriate a measly $1.9 billion for Zika research - a pandemic in the making that won't care if you are rich or poor, Christian or Muslim, conservative or progressive.

None of these can be either solved or cured by a change of president or political party. And anyone who believes that either Secretary Clinton or Mr. Trump can fix everything which ails us is living in a fool's paradise. For the America that one individual, one group or one region cherishes or remembers with great fondness is not necessarily the same America that others cherish or remember.  Just as morality always plays a catch-up game with technology, so too do national dreams and aspirations lag way behind the fast-paced charge of modernity. One would suggest the greatest need is not a change of President or party; it is the need for a serious national dialogue . . . if it were only possible for us to speak to - and not over or through - one another.  For too long, there have been far too many groups and interests roiling the waters for their own purposes and self-interest.  For too long, disunity has been cynically foisted upon a nation which used to be a beacon of light. How - indeed, if - we respond to the challenge of disunity will determine what our future will be.

Does this challenge require leadership?  Unquestionably it does.  The ability to lead with vision, intelligence and purpose is of great importance.  However, what is also needed - and in great abundance - is the ability for all citizens to listen to one another, to engage in civil dialogue and decide once and for all whether we wish to live in one strong and enlightened country or a devolving land mass that is being torn apart by self-interest, pettiness and the ability to "communicate" in 140 keystrokes or less.

Whatever became of America?         

Copyright ©2016 Kurt F. Stone

A Challenge to All Those Considering Voting For Donald Trump

I was originally intending to entitle this piece "A Challenge to All Potential Trump Supporters Who Can Read Above a Third-Grade Level." After giving the matter some thought - and an affable chewing out by my wife - I decided that it was more than a bit too snarky and elitist.  And so, a change of title, but not of message.  Precisely what is the challenge?  Before answering, a bit of background:  As a longtime political writer, blogger and university lecturer,  people are forever seeking to engage me in political discussion; some friendly and civil, some contentious and downright hostile. Some want to know what I think, ask me for a bit of background on someone or give insight into a process or issue; others seemingly have no purpose other than proving - at least to themselves - that I haven't the slightest idea what I'm talking about; that I am nothing but a treasonous drone. 

(n.b. When I started drafting this essay, the "Trump/Pence" logo was au currant.  Now, less than 24 hours later, it has been modified.  Seems there were too many tweets pointing out the unintended same-sex nature of the logo . . .) 

Over the course of many months, I have noticed that the lion's share of those supporting - or at least leaning toward - Donald Trump, expend the lion' share of their political angst in endlessly listing the sins and shortcomings of Hillary Clinton; of how totally untrustworthy, mendacious and left-wing she is. Rarely do these folks utter a single positive reason for why they are supporting - or considering supporting - Donald of Orange.  Nothing about what he would bring to the White House; nothing positive about his policies, personality, vision or knowledge.  It seems that the best - if not only - reason to vote for him is that for all his shortcomings, at least he's not Hillary Clinton.  Many - without actually saying it - are suggesting that electing Donald Trump POTUS would shake up a system, country and world, that just doesn't work; something tantamount to a last-gasp addition of a new cast member to a television show that's been falling off the ratings' cliff. 

Sorry, but that simply doesn't cut it. This is not The Apprentice'; its a presidential election.  And those whose primary - if not sole - reason for supporting Donald Trump is that he is not Hillary Clinton are showing themselves to have an appalling lack of real world knowledge. They spew phrases they cannot parse and repeat gutter innuendoes as if they the God's honest truth.  But then again, these are precisely the kind of folks Trump - now Trump/Pence - cater to.  After all this is the guy who proudly proclaimed "I love the poorly educated. We're the smartest people, we're the most loyal people."  What's he going to do to "Make America Great Again?"  How's can the man who manufactures virtually everything with his name on it - including his cockamamie hats - outside the U.S. of A. - say with a straight face that he's the guy who's going to bring back jobs to America?  How can anyone who claims he reveres the Constitution not know that it doesn't have an article XII and blithely "disinvite" major news organizations fromattending his press conferences because he doesn't like the way they cover him?  Are you comfortable with this obnoxious sideshow?

And herein comes the challenge: To express in positive terms precisely why you support Donald Trump for POTUS - without once mentioning Hillary Clinton.  Heck, I endorsed Secretary Clinton a couple of weeks ago without once referring to Mr. Trump. It's not that difficult when one is supporting a candidate who actually has a record to run on.  Yes, she has had more than her share of bad press - and occasionally for good reason.  Then again, anyone who has been in the media cross-hairs for more than 4 decades will have a lot of crapola sticking to them . . . 

So what is it about Donald Trump guys?

Is it that he is a billionaire?  Do you guys really believe that because he is - or at least claims to be - so terribly, unimaginably ungeshtupt (Yiddish for "overstuffed," meaning incredibly rich) that he must be the best-credentialed candidate when it comes to the economy, creating jobs, issues of war and peace, the challenge of globalization, the environment (including global warming), guns, unifying and healing an increasingly fragmented and injured country, and being the face of the United States of America?   Do you really, truly believe this?  Or, are you willing to overlook so many of his most glaring shortcomings - like being a narcissistic, tactless bully who blithely offends Hispanics, Blacks, Women, the disabled and Jews - are you willing to overlook all this simply because Well, at least he's not 'Crooked Hillary'?  Are you willing to overlook the hard-right platform he's running on; one which favors a strict, traditionalist view of the family and child rearing, bars military women from combat, describes coal as a “clean” energy source and declares pornography a “public health crisis?"  This is on top of the typical Republican gobbledygook about lower taxes for the wealthy, a Constitutional amendment to balance the budget, and overturning both the Affordable Care Act and Roe v. Wade. The platform he's been given to run on refuses to condemn anti-gay discrimination, looks to pass a Constitutional amendment which will once again make same-sex marriage impossible and urges federal funding for so-called "reversion therapy" by which gays are talked out of being gay. And by the way, it also encourages the teaching of the Bible in public schools because, the amendment said, a good understanding of its contents is “indispensable for the development of an educated citizenry.” That's OK by me, so long as the Bible is in Hebrew, and contains the classic Hebrew commentaries of Rashi, Maimonides, Nachmanides, Ibn Ezra, David Kimchi and the rest of the gang . . .

Do you have any idea of what his plan is to "utterly destroy" ISIS?  Has it ever crossed your mind that he doesn't have the slightest idea about how he's going to accomplish it?  Do you really, truly believe him when he says "I know more about ISIS than the generals" . . . this from a man who claims he gets most of his information from television news? Do you really, truly believe he's going to succeed at building a wall down at the Mexican border and then have Mexico pay for it? Not too long ago, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto - who leads one of our strongest allies and trading partners -  said in an interview that Trump’s brand of politicking and his “strident expressions” tended to pose “very easy, simple solutions to problems that, of course, are not so easily solved . . . There have been episodes in human history, unfortunately, where these expressions of this strident rhetoric have only led to very ominous situations in the history of humanity. That’s how Mussolini got in, that's how Hitler got in, they took advantage of a situation, a problem perhaps, which humanity was going through at the time, after an economic crisis.”

Are you comfortable with the fact that the man you want to elect POTUS has publicly praised Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un (the last remaining Stalinist dictator on the planet) and the late Saddam Hussein, while claiming that Senator John McCain is no war hero, Senator Elizabeth Warren is a "loser" (how many "losers" become tenured law professors at Harvard and then get themselves elected to the U.S. Senate?) and columnist George Will as being "wrong almost all the time."  The list of people, institutions and businesses Trump has condemned is legion. And yet, at the same time, he has shown himself to have just about the thinnest skin of anyone in public life. Does this mean nothing to you?  Are you at all concerned that he will sue anyone who disagrees with him at the drop of a hat? (To date, he has been involved in nearly 3,500 lawsuits.)

Then there's the man who would replace him if, God forbid, he became ill, disabled, or simply decided he'd had enough: Indiana Governor Mike Pence.  Pence, who during his stint as a conservative radio talk show host liked to refer to himself as "Rush Limbaugh on decaf," is a lot like another Hoosier, former V.P. Dan Quayle. The only real difference is that Pence has a few more brains and a lot less money.  Pence is likely the most conservative candidate for Vice President in the history of the nation.  As Governor, he signed the “license to discriminate” bill allowing Indiana businesses to deny service to gays, and tried to halt the settlement of Syrian refugees in the state. His position on abortion is so extreme that, as a member of congress, he voted for legislation that would give “personhood” rights to embryos, and defund Planned Parenthood.  And by the way, his first choice for POTUS was Texas Senator Ted Cruz.

Aaaargh!

So go ahead.  Make my day. Try taking the challenge. Tell me what's so great about Donald Trump . . . without mentioning the name Hillary Clinton.

Ready . . . set . . . go!

Copyright ©2016 Kurt F. Stone

Remembering Abner Mikva

Abner Mikva - former Congressman, federal judge and Counsel to President Bill Clinton - passed away the other day.  He was 90 years young, and one of the few people in American history to have served in all three branches of the federal government.  A man of towering intellect and principle, Judge Mikva was also a thorough-going mensch . . . a true gentleman.  What follows is derived from my 2010 book The Jews of Capitol Hill. I had the honor of interviewing Ab Mikva on a number of occasions, the first being nearly 25 years ago. . . 

Although he can trace his ancestry back through five generations, Judge Abner Mikva has never been able to determine precisely when or how his family acquired their rather distinctive name. Mikvah is the Hebrew term for the ritual bath that Orthodox Jewish women are required to visit after each menstrual cycle before resuming sexual relations, and that Jewish men visit in order to purify themselves before the Sabbath or holidays. One might posit that just as Bakers, Coopersmiths, Wacholders and Schneiders are descended respectively, from ancestors who baked, made barrels, distilled gin and were tailors, the Mikvas are likely descended from people who were in charge of the community bath.  It is plausible, but by no means certain. The judge's youngest daughter, Rabbi Rachel Mikva Rosenberg, has another theory: “Mikva comes from a similar Hebrew word; the one meaning hope.” Either theory works well for a politician, especially one from Chicago, for ironically one of The Windy City's best‑known political characters in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had a similar name: “Bathhouse” John Coughlin.

Abner (“Ab”) Joseph Mikva was born not in Democrat Bathhouse John's Chicago, but in Socialist Victor Berger's Milwaukee, on January 21, 1926. His parents, Henry Abraham and Ida (Fishman) Mikva, were both immigrants from Russia. Ab's paternal grandparents, the product of an arranged marriage in the old country, never lived together in America. Grandpa Mikva lived in Monroe, Wisconsin, while his wife resided in Milwaukee. Mikva recalls that his grandfather would come back to Milwaukee for Passover and other major Jewish holidays, and that his grandmother “would throw food at him while she was serving and mutter under her breath.” Apparently, the senior Mikva, throwing off the shackles of the Old World, wanted to sow his wild oats. Grandma Mikva, an old-fashioned woman, could not abide his roguishness and threw him out.

Ab Mikva grew up in a Yiddish‑speaking, left‑wing socialist home. His father, who spent the Depression years working as a clerk for the Works Progress Administration (WPA), was a member of the International Workers Order. Though raised in a strictly Orthodox home, Henry Mikva became an atheist. He sent Ab to kindershul in order to learn to read and write Yiddish, but ordered the boy to “get up and leave the classroom” whenever the instruction turned to Hebrew or Torah. Mindful of his father's admonition, Ab did pick himself up and leave the room whenever the subject matter turned religious. On more than one occasion, the teacher admonished him by saying: “Boychik (young man), come sit down! Don't listen to that meshugeneh (crazy) father of yours!” But Ab, who even at a young age “knew where the power was,” kept on walking. Toward the end of his life, as a tuberculosis patient at Denver's Jewish Consumptive Relief Society, Henry had a change of heart; in his last years, he became the facility's High Holiday chazzan (cantor). Speaking of his “daughter the rabbi,” Judge Mikva quips, “She is a Jewish miracle – that she should grow up in our household.”

Following his graduation from high school in 1944, Ab Mikva joined the Army Air Corps and spent the war as a navigator with the Air Force Training Command. Enlisting as a private, he mustered out a second lieutenant in 1946. Following his discharge, Mikva spent the next two years as a student at the University of Wisconsin and then two more years at Washington University in St. Louis. Despite never having received his undergraduate degree, Mikva was admitted to the law school of the University of Chicago in 1949. Before entering law school, he married Zorita “Zoe” Wise, who became a schoolteacher.

Mikva’s introduction to government – Chicago-style – was “a curt message that it would survive without him.”  It is a story that has become a part of the city’s political lore.

While still a law student, Mikva stopped in the 8th Ward Regular Democratic headquarters looking to volunteer his time.  For some reason, this was “suspect behavior.”

            “Who sent you?” the committeeman asked.

            “Nobody,” Mikva answered.

            “We don’t want nobody nobody sent.  We ain’t got no jobs,” the committeeman told him.

            Mikva told him he wasn’t looking for a job.  This was even more suspect.

            “We don’t want nobody that don’t want a job.  Where you from anyway?”

            “The University of Chicago,” Mikva responded.

            “We don’t want nobody from the University of Chicago in this organization,” he was told.

            Thus ended his career as a cog in the Chicago Democratic machine.

Undeterred, Mikva did find time to volunteer for the campaigns of Governor Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965) and United States Senator Paul Douglas (1982-1976).  In 1951, Mikva was awarded a juris doctor. From all indications, he was the shining star of his class: cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, editor‑in chief of the law review, and Order of the Coif. Following his graduation, Mikva went to Washington, where he spent a year clerking for United States Supreme Court Justice Sherman Minton (1890-1965), a former Senator from Indiana.

Upon his return to Chicago in 1952, Ab Mikva entered private law practice, becoming an associate of future Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg (1908-1990). He eventually joined the firm of Devoe, Shadur, Mikva and Plotkin. The firm's practice dealt largely with labor issues. During his sixteen years with the firm (1952-68), Mikva worked extensively with the West Side Organization (WSO), “an early community–civil rights organization engaged in seeking to break down prejudice in employment, housing and schools.” In the mid‑sixties, acting as WSO chief counsel, Mikva became involved in a case that went all the way to the Illinois State Supreme Court, West Side Organization v. Centennial Laundry Company (215 N.E. 2d 443 1966). In this case, rank-and-file members of WSO organized a protest against Centennial Laundry's discriminatory hiring practices. Centennial obtained an injunction prohibiting WSO from publicizing the laundry's said practices. Mikva successfully prosecuted the appeal, which resulted in the “vacating of the injunction, allowing damages to the West Side Organization for the wrongful issuance of the injunction.” This was a landmark case not only in the area of labor law, but within the realm of free speech as well.

In 1956, Mikva ran for the Illinois State Legislature from the Twenty-third district, a traditionally liberal enclave centered in Hyde Park. The Twenty-third also included Woodlawn, the site of the University of Chicago and home of one of Mikva's political mentors, Saul Alinsky (1911-1972). A political organizer of legendary proportions, Alinsky was the author of two seminal, must-read works for organizers: Reveille for Radicals and Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals. Known nationally as “The Father of Pragmatic Radicalism,” Alinsky taught Mikva his organizing techniques. When the young attorney decided to run for the legislature, Alinsky gave him a bit of advice: “You're going to have to develop two separate strategies, because what you've got to sell in Woodlawn won't sell in South Shore and Hyde Park, and what you've got to sell in South Shore and Hyde Park won't sell in Woodlawn.” Running without the endorsement of the powerful Daley machine, Mikva nonetheless rode to victory. Just as Mikva found a mentor in Alinsky, so too would Mikva, many years later become a mentor to another Alinsky devotee and future member of the Illinois legislature - a young Harvard Law student named Barack Obama.

As a member of the state legislature, Mikva was one of the “kosher‑nostra,” a group of like‑minded liberals whose ranks included future United States Senators Adlai E. Stevenson III (1930- ) and Paul Simon (1928-2003). Mikva, a member of the Judiciary Committee, was voted Outstanding Freshman Legislator by the Springfield press corps. During his decade in the Illinois House, Mikva sponsored measures dealing with crime control, mental health, civil rights, credit reform, and educational opportunities. At the end of each of his five terms in the State House, he was voted Best Legislator by the Independent Voters of Illinois.

In 1966, Mikva gave up his safe seat in order to challenge incumbent Democrat Barratt O'Hara for the Second Congressional District seat. O'Hara (1882-1969), had been a figure in Illinois politics for more than half a century. A veteran of the Spanish‑American War, he had been elected Lieutenant Governor of Illinois thirteen years before Abner Mikva was born.  Despite running once again without the endorsement of the Daley machine, Mikva made a creditable showing, losing by less than 4 percentage points. Following what was to be his only political defeat, Mikva continued practicing law and began working on Mayor Richard Daley in the hope of receiving his political blessing for the 1968 race. In 1968, O'Hara was eighty‑six years old and beginning to fail. Daley suggested that he should retire. When O'Hara refused “hizzoner's” recommendation, the Chicago mayor gave Mikva his “reluctant backing.” This time, running on a platform calling for increased foreign aid, a guaranteed annual wage, fair‑housing laws, abolition of the House Un‑American Activities Committee, and recognition of the People's Republic of China, Mikva won the Democratic primary in a landslide. In the November election, he defeated his Republican opponent with 65% of the vote.

Although Mikva was one the new kids on the block in Congress, he was not without some good friends. Ironically, three men representing California districts had all been raised within a half‑mile of Mikva's home back in Milwaukee: two liberals, Phillip Burton and Fortney “Pete” Stark, and the ultra‑conservative John G. Schmitz. The late San Francisco–area Representative Phil Burton (1926-1983), husband of the late Representative Sala Burton, was, during his congressional career, one of the true powers in the House. Pete Stark (1931- ), who made a fortune in banking before entering Congress, spent 40 years in the House, where he was a stalwart liberal with a passion for universal healthcare. Schmitz (1930-2001), who represented an Orange County district and replaced Alabama Governor George Wallace as the American Party's presidential candidate in 1972, was at one time a member of the ultra‑right John Birch Society. When the four got together to share old memories and the impact that growing up in Depression‑era, socialist Milwaukee had on them, Schmitz remarked, “Well, it had an effect on me, but apparently not the same as on you guys.”

Abner Mikva made an immediate impact in the House of Representatives. As one of the Congress's “most determined . . . opponents of the Vietnam war,” he often found himself denounced on the floor by hawks like Representative Wayne L. Hays. Never at a loss for acidic commentary, Hays referred to Mikva as “an emissary from Hanoi . . . a dupe of the Viet Cong” Because of his consistent opposition to increased war appropriations and his efforts to prohibit the bombing of dams and dikes in North Vietnam, Mikva was put under surveillance by army intelligence officers. When he learned of the army's interest in his person, he was outraged; he called for a thorough public investigation. Taking the House floor, he spoke with angry emotion: “There must be a complete purging of every command official who was responsible for establishing and operating this spy network. I, for one, would urge the resignation of every such command officer, in the interests of restoring America's credibility in its own military.” The surveillance was quickly terminated. In his first term, Mikva was also appointed to the Brown Commission, which provided the main impetus for efforts to re-codify the criminal laws of the United States.

Growing up in Milwaukee, Abner Mikva had experienced little anti-Semitism. That was to come later: “. . . the first time I really experienced it (anti‑Semitism) was in Congress. It came in the person of Speaker John McCormack (1891-1980) who, every time I would seek recognition would say, ‘THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YAWK!’ The parliamentarian would have to lean over and remind him that I came from Illinois. It was either my politics or my religion that made him assume that I came from New York. It was probably a little of each, but mostly the latter.”

Although Mikva was an active legislator during his first term, he had serious reservations about Congress. “What have we done for the people?” he asked one reporter after completing his first term. “What has Congress really done about the real, real problems? . . . The quality of life – is it any better for Congress having met two years? Nothing came out of the Congress for the people – nothing like Social Security, nothing like Medicare . . . . Here I am in Congress, and now I find that Congress ain't where it's at.”

After the 1970 census, Mayor Richard Daley directed that Mikva's white, largely Jewish district be reapportioned out of existence. Heeding Daley's directive, the state commission merged Mikva's Hyde Park power base into the predominantly black First Congressional District, represented by the former Olympic gold medal winner (1932 and 1936 games) Ralph Metcalf (1910-1978). Deciding he did not want to deprive Chicago of a “much‑needed Black Congressman,” Mikva moved his family north to Evanston in order to run in the newly-created Tenth District. In announcing his candidacy for the seat, Mikva told the press, "Any decision to end the career of an elected official ought to be made by the people, not by judicial fiat.” Surviving charges of being a “carpetbagger,” Mikva won the Democratic primary, but lost the general election to Samuel Young, who rode to victory on Richard Nixon's coattails.

During the next two years, Mikva practiced law with the Chicago firm of D'Ancona, Pflaum, Whatt & Riskind, accepted an appointment as adjunct professor of law at Northwestern University, and served as vice president of the liberal Americans for Democratic Action. In 1973, he began gearing up for a rematch with Young. The Tenth, a largely Republican district, was certainly not going to be Mikva's for the taking; it would take a lot of money and a lot of organization. Buoyed by a substantial war chest and a finely honed organization, he succeeded in defeating Young by a narrow margin. Two years later, “in one of the most expensive and hard‑fought Congressional races in the country,” Mikva effectively turned back a gerrymandering attempt by Mayor Daley and defeated Young by 201 votes. Uniquely, while Democrat Mikva was squeaking to victory, presidential candidate Gerald Ford was carrying the district by more than 60,000 votes. In his last election, Mikva defeated newcomer John Porter by a slightly larger margin of 1,200 votes. When Mikva left Congress to accept a seat on the United States Court of Appeals, he was replaced by the Republican Porter (1935- ), who would hold the seat until 2000.

Ab Mikva was considered the darling of the liberals. As head of the Democratic Study Group, he was the acknowledged leader of the liberal faction in the House. This group was responsible for “keeping Democrats and other coalitions abreast of weekly legislative action.” They published a weekly study guide concerning the current week's legislation that would be reaching the House floor. Among Ab Mivka's most important accomplishments was acting as floor‑manager in the debate about giving eighteen‑year-olds the right to vote – an effort that resulted in the passage and ratification of the Twenty-sixth Amendment to the Constitution in June 1971.

Mikva led the fight for a stronger code of ethics for members of Congress. By means of the law he enacted – since revised and strengthened – outside income for members of Congress was limited to 15 percent of their congressional salaries. The bill also eliminated office slush-fund accounts and, for the first time, required members to disclose their financial holdings. Mikva also proposed a measure for partial public financing of congressional elections by which contributions of $100 or less would be matched with monies drawn from the voluntary tax check‑off fund. Defeated in 1978, this proposal is still brought up during every session of Congress.

Long interested in reforming and streamlining government, Mikva was responsible for introducing the first “sunset” bill. Although never acted on, this imaginative proposal would have caused federal regulatory agencies to self-destruct – go completely out of existence – unless they could justify their continued existence. The bill gave Federal regulatory agencies seven years to prove their intrinsic worth; if they did not, they were automatically out of business.

Although a political realist, Mikva often acted more like a starry‑eyed idealist. One example was his efforts to eliminate handguns. Throughout his congressional career, Mikva regularly submitted legislation prohibiting “the manufacture, sale and distribution of handguns in the United States except for use by the police, military and licensed pistol clubs.” Each time Mikva's proposal went to committee for hearings, the National Rifle Association would make a full frontal assault on Congress to make sure that the measure never came to a vote. “No other piece of legislation, no change in our law, no amount of resources for law enforcement could have a greater impact on crime,” Mikva told his colleagues. So thoroughly did Mikva outrage the NRA that when President Carter nominated him for a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the well‑heeled lobby spent more than six months and $1 million in an effort to block his nomination. During Senate confirmation hearings, an NRA spokesman claimed that Mikva's well‑known antipathy for weapons would make it virtually impossible for him to be objective in hearing cases dealing with guns. Undeterred, the Senate confirmed Mikva by a vote of 58 to 31.

Ab Mikva resigned from the House of Representatives on September 26, 1979, in order to take his seat on the second most powerful court in the land. President Carter selected him from among a list of more than two hundred prospective candidates. In nominating Mikva, Carter was returning to the old tradition of elevating members of Congress to the federal bench. After eleven years on the court, Mikva became the court's chief judge.  While on the bench, Mikva attempted to hire a young Harvard Law School graduate as a legal clerk.  The young lawyer turned him down.  His name was Barack Obama.  Later on, the two became friends.  In 2008, Mikva was one of the initialsignatories on a website called “jewsforobama.net.”

During his first congressional stint in Washington, Mikva brought his family with him to Washington. During his second tour of duty, Zoe and their three daughters remained in Evanston, where Mrs. Mikva continued teaching school. With Mikva's elevation to the federal judiciary – and with their daughters now grown – Zoe Mikva moved once again moved to Washington, taking a job with the Advocacy Institute, a Washington‑based group that helped community groups organize.  Daughters Mary and Laurie both became attorneys, and Rachel, as previously noted, a rabbi.

The United States Court of Appeals is quite often a stepping‑stone for appointment to the Supreme Court. In the past two generations, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyar have all made that transition. The closest Mikva got was portraying “Supreme Court Justice Abner J. Mikva” in the 1992 Kevin Cline comedy “Dave,” in which he administers the presidential oath of office to the Vice President, played by Ben Kingsley.  The film also had such notables as Chris Matthews, Robert Novack, “Tip” O’Neil and Senator Paul Simon playing themselves.     Realizing that he was “too old, too white, too male, and too liberal” to ever be named to the Supreme Court, Mikva shocked his colleagues by announcing his retirement in August 1994, in order to become President Clinton's White House Counsel. In assessing this development, the New York Times noted that Clinton had selected a man who would likely be “the most scholarly White House Counsel of the modern era.” Mikva remained at the White House for a little more than a year, being replaced in September 1995 by Vice President Al Gore's chief of staff, Jack Quinn. During his year as White House Counsel, Mikva was faced with the Whitewater hearings and “Travelgate,” the first major scandal in the Clinton White House. News of his retirement led conservative columnists to claim that he had seen how much trouble the President was in and decided to bail out. “Not so,” said Mikva. “It's just time to retire and spend some time with my family, write a few books, and teach a course or two.”

Mikva’s retirement proved to be anything like he had imagined.  For years, he was the Schwartz Lecturer and Senor Director of the Mandel Legal Aid Clinic at the University of Chicago.  Together with wife Zoe, they founded the “Mikva Challenge,” a philanthropic organization which “inspires Chicago high school students to participate in elections and civic activities, develop leadership skills and delve into complicated issues of public policy that affect their lives.”

In 1999, Mikva was the subject of a wide-ranging interview by Harry Kreisler of Berkeley’s Institute of International Studies.  Asked what the differences were between his years in Congress and the then-current political atmosphere, Mikva responded:

You cannot hate your opponents if you are going to sit down and work out an agreement with them.  You have to respect them.  You have to have some measure of trust in them.  And you have to appreciate that they are coming into the process with the same good motives as you are.  If you assume that they are evil incarnate, that they are doing the work of the devil, it’s pretty hard to cut a deal.      

In summing up the career of Judge Mikva, a man who had distinguished himself as a legislator, jurist and White House insider, the New Republic’s Morton Kondracke wrote, “Abner Mikva is different from many other liberals because he doesn't only love mankind; he loves individual people, too.” Indeed, Ab Mikva was a throwback to a better, more congenial time; an era where political enemies could put policy ahead of partisanship and together, forge compromises without forsaking principles.

Rest in peace Judge . . . you did well by doing good.

Copyright ©2010, 2016 Kurt F. Stone

A Brief Interview With Jefferson & Adams on the Fourth of July

An introductory note: Today, the Fourth of July, is the nation's 240 birthday.  On this day, in 1776, the Declaration of Independence - next to the issuance of the Magna Carta way back in 1215 - arguably the most important political document in human history - was unanimously adopted by the Second Congressional Congress in Philadelphia.  Its two primary authors, Virginia's Thomas Jefferson and Massachusetts' John Adams, were classically-trained men of soaring intellect and political brilliance. They were also obdurate, supremely self-confident and as personally different from one another as is a voluptuary from a prig.  Jefferson would serve as Adams Vice President and then defeat him in the election of 1800 - one of the nastiest campaigns in American history.  Jefferson's camp accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." In return, Adams' men called Vice President Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father." As the slurs piled on, Adams was labeled a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant, while Jefferson was branded a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward. Even Martha Washington succumbed to the propaganda, telling a clergyman that Jefferson was "one of the most detestable of mankind."  The venom between the two was so lethal that Adams pointedly snubbed his successor by leaving Washington, D.C. shortly before Jefferson's inauguration. 

And yet, despite the political and personal animus between these two historic giants, they eventually managed to mend the chasm between them and engage one another in what would turn out to be a most noteworthy relationship.  For the last 13 years of their lives, they wrote one another constantly.  Their dozens of letters covered topics running the gamut from the past, present and the future to religion, economics, literature, ancient languages, France, slavery and native Americans.  Chillingly, these two American icons died within hours of one another on the Fourth of July, 1826, the fiftieth anniversary of their greatest joint accomplishment, the Declaration of Independence. Of course, had the two lived today, they would never have seen fit to speak to - let alone correspond with - one another.  For today, partisanship, generally speaking, eclipses patriotism, and reasoned compromise is - in most circles - considered the work of the Devil.  Then too, it is highly doubtful that either could even get elected to high office in the 21st century.  Maddeningly, we live in an era when a polymath like Jefferson would likely be rejected as being too effete and a devoted legalist like Adams for lacking the common touch.   

And so, with this introduction, what follows is a brief interview with Presidents Adams and Jefferson on the nation's 240 birthday.  Their responses are all direct quotations from their writings . . .

Question: Barack Obama is now in the final months of his presidency.  Could you perhaps sum up what he has exemplified during his eight years in office?

T.J. That nothing gives one person so much advantage over another as to remain always cool and unruffled under all circumstances.

J.A.  If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.

Question: We live in an era of gross partisanship where "reaching across the political aisle" is all but impossible. Any thoughts or advice on the subject?

T.J. I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. . . .Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.

J.A. The essence of a free government consists in an effectual control of rivalries

Question: Increasingly in our era, there has been uncovered a vast chasm between public protestations of faith, probity and rectitude and private venality and rapacity.  As a result, far too many Americans have lost faith in leadership.  Any thoughts?  

J.A. Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty; and this public passion must be superior to all private passions.

Question: Any thoughts about Donald Trump?

T.J. He who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world's believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good dispositions.

J.A. Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.

T.J. Nothing on earth can stop the man with the right mental attitude from achieving his goal; nothing on earth can help the man with the wrong mental attitude.

Question: Any thoughts on who you would endorse in the 2016 presidential election?
 

T.J & J.A. We will take this to be a question asked tongue-in-cheek, for obviously, having been deceased for 190 years, we cannot vote.  However, still having a strong stake in the country we helped to create, there is really only one choice . . . and that is our former Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton. For in her, we find a person as well schooled in the art of governance as anyone in the past many generations. Although in life we did not agree on much, in this we are as one . . . Hillary Clinton for President of the United States!

Wishing one and all a Happy, healthy and meaningful Fourth of July . . . along with our eternal thanks to Presidents Adams and Jefferson.  May their conversations and debates up in the celestial balcony continue from now till the end of time. 

We conclude with the last words of history's most fascinating, illustrious and contentious of friends:

T.J. Is it the fourth? I resign my spirit to God, my daughter to my country, and

J.A. It is the glorious Fourth of July. It is a great day. It is a good day. God bless it. God bless you all. . . . Thomas Jefferson survives!

Copyright ©2016 Kurt F. Stone 

Brexit+Frexit+Texit = Ipse Dixit

Gawd, what a week:

The Trump for President campaign filed a financial report which was "highly disappointing" at best, "utterly disastrous" at worst. It showed that the Trump campaign hasn’t raised nearly enough money to run an effective presidential campaign, especially against a well-funded Democratic Party veteran like Hillary Clinton. The Trump campaign raised only $3 million in May, compared with $26 million for Clinton. Even worse, the report showed that heading into June, Trump had just $1.29 million in cash on hand, as compared to Secretary Clinton's $42 million.  The A.P. reported that Trump had a maximum of 30 full time paid on-the-group staffers across the country.  (By comparison, it takes more than 30 people to fully staff a single TGI Fridays. Heck, I attended a Clinton strategy session this past Friday that had more than 30 people in a single room.) 

The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll shows a precipitous drop in Trump's poll numbers: Trump trails Hillary Clinton by 12 points (51 percent to 39 percent) among likely general election voters. And the same survey, conducted after the mass shooting in Orlando, Fla., found 64 percent of Americans don’t think Trump is qualified to be commander in chief. As a result of all this bad news the billionaire bullyboy fired his volcanic campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, who was then hired by C.N.N. to become their newest political commentator, which in turn led to"a near internal revolt" at the cable network and snarky comments from the likes of Meagan Kelly.  Along these lines, the week ended with veteran conservative columnist George F. Will announcing that he had changed party affiliation and would urge Republicans not to vote for Donald Trump, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refusing to say whether he believes his party's nominee is even qualified to be POTUS.

That's all on this side of "The Pond."  Crisscrossing over to Europe . . .

Voters in the U.K. decided to leave the European Union. Within hours, British P.M. David Cameron, who had campaigned vigorously for Britain to remain a part of the E. U., announced that he would resign his post by October. Almost immediately, speculation began to grow that former London Mayor Boris Johnson - a British version of Trump without the gelt - would become Britain's next P.M.  Global markets from Tokyo to Tunis tumbled; market analysts estimated that "The Brexit Panic" had wiped out upwards of $2 trillion in a single day. The Dow Jones 30 stock index fell 610.32 points - a 3.39% loss. The British pound tumbled to its lowest level in more than 30 years, leading more than one political wag to suggest it be renamed "the ounce." Donald Trump, who didn't have the slightest idea to what #Brexit referred on the first of June, interrupted his presidential bid to suddenly jet over to Scotland (which voted overwhelmingly to remain part of the E.U.)  in order to inspect "Turnberry," his newest golf course. In a single unscripted breath on the ninth tee of his golf course, he both took credit for the Brexit vote - if it turns out to be a  good thing - and blamed President Obama for the vote - if it turns out to be bad. (On the latter point, he said: "[Obama] is constantly dictating to the world what they should do. The world doesn't listen to him, obviously. You can see that from the vote. I actually think his recommendation…caused it to fail.")

 And, in a moment of utter tone-deafness, Trump said he was happy about this turn of events, because ". . . if the pound goes down, they're gonna do more business. . . .You know, when the pound goes down, more people are gonna come to Turnberry . . ." One wonders if Trump might be on the verge of changing his campaign slogan from "Make American Great Again!" to "Make America Great Britain Again!"  Then too, it should be noted that Trump endorser Sarah Palin added her discounted 2¢, concluding that "The Brexit referendum is akin to our own Declaration of Independence. May that refreshed spirit of sovereignty spread over the pond to America's shores! It is time to dissolve political bands that connect us to agendas not in our best interest; may UN shackles be next on the chopping block."

Humorously (shamelessly?) Trump told the world that he sees in Britain's vote to leave the E.U., validation for his campaign for POTUS: "I think there are great similarities between what happened here and my campaign. People want to see borders. They don’t necessarily want people pouring into their country — that they don’t know who they are and where they come from.’ "I think I see a big parallel," Trump said. "I think people really see a big parallel — a lot of people are talking about that. And not only the United States, but other countries. People want to take their country back." Of course, no one - save Mr. Trump - truly knows whether it was xenophobia, racism, economic disparity, paranoia, or a world-wide wave of nationalistic bravado that underlay the vote.  Then too, good old-fashioned political ignorance could have played a significant role; unbelievably, within moments of the polls closing, British voters began inundating the online search engine Google with two questions:

1. "What is the E.U?" and
2. "What does it mean to leave the E.U?"

Perhaps people in Britain are having a bit of "buyer's remorse."  A petition calling for another referendum on whether Britain should stay in the European Union has quickly received millions of signatures (more than 3 million as of 24 hours ago) — a level that means it must now be debated by British politicians. It was apparently so popular that the British Parliament's website, where the petition was hosted, briefly crashed.  Precisely what the vote means for the future of the U.K. - let alone the continent or the United States - is anyone's guess. 

Ever since the end of World War II, the world has become a smaller place.  Colonial entities rebelled against their masters, became impoverished countries and grew into powerful nations.  The wonders of technology further aided in the shrinking of a once vast planet, turning it into a series of markets.  Not surprisingly, these changes, while good and positive for many of the world's former have-nots, brought fear, uncertainty and a longing for "the good old days" to those who used to be on top. As such, the world has become a fertile breeding ground for demagogues; for those who are most adept at roiling already turbulent waters and lacing insecurity and uncertainty with the narcotic of fear.  hey prey on those whose knowledge of world affairs - of history, politics and economy - is slight and thus can be easily molded into an amen chorus.

 It is more than clear that what just happened in Britain is not an isolated case of political madness; it is a trend we've seen before.  As the world becomes increasingly intertwined by a network of markets and movements, a return to the political and psychological borders of yesteryear is insane.  Simply stated, tomorrow can never be like yesterday. The rise of Donald Trump is part of a nationalist trend we've seen whenever the challenges of the present make the past look like times of wine and roses by comparison. Today, there are hyper-nationalist movements galore on the continent - and even in the United States - all seriously pushing for disunion. Could this be the beginning of Frexit (France), Nexit (Netherlands), Gexit (Germany) , Dexit (Denmark), Swexit (Sweden), Grexit (Greece) and perhaps even Texit (Texas)?

Examples abound:

• In France, Marine Le Pen, the virulently anti-Semitic leader of the Front National (FN) hailed Brexitas a clear boost for her presidential bid next spring, as well as a move that gave momentum to the party’s anti-Europe and anti-immigration line. “Victory for Freedom! As I have been asking for years, we must now have the same referendum in France and EU countries,” Le Pen wrote on Twitter.
• In The Netherlands, MP , the far right Islamophobic demagogue Geert Wilders called for a referendum on Dutch membership of the EU. “I think it’s historic,” he told Dutch radio. “I think it could also have huge consequences for the Netherlands and the rest of Europe. Now it’s our turn. I think the Dutch people must now be given the chance to have their say in a referendum.”
• In Germany,  Beatrix von Storch, an MEP for the right wing populist party Alternative für Deutschland, welcomed the result: “The 23 of June is a historic day. It is Great Britain’s independence day. The people were asked – and they decided. The European Union as a political union has failed,” said Storch, who was recently expelled from the Tories’ party group in the European parliament after suggesting German police might be within their rights to shoot refugees trying to cross the border.
• In Sweden, the far right Sweden Democrats, who hold the balance of power in Stockholm, tweeted “Congratulations to Britain’s people on choosing independence! Now we are waiting for a #swexit!”
• In Denmark, the powerful far-right Danish People’s party congratulated the British people on their “bold” choice, which, it said, was a “stinging slap to the whole system.” The DPP’s spokesperson Kenneth Kristensen Berth told Danish media: “These European bureaucrats have been unusually adept at avoiding any possible confrontation with the massive popular opposition to the project. The [British] signal cannot be overheard.”
• Back here at home, there is even a nascent "Texit" movement in Texas.  “The win for Brexit opens the door for Texit by establishing, concretely, that it is possible to have an adult conversation on independence and letting the people have the final say,” Daniel Miller, President of the Texas Nationalist Movement [TNM] said in a statement just hours after the British vote. Boasting 261,231 supporters on its website, TNM is calling for more Texans to join and bring pressure on Texas Governor Greg Abbott to allow a vote on independence from the US and its “sprawling Federal bureaucracy.” Failing to put its single issue on the ballot last year, and with the Brexit victory coming too late to rally support for a 2016 attempt, TNM will now aim for the 2018 mid-term election to convince voters to leave the US. The Lone Star State was the 28th to join the Union in 1845, following nine years of being an independent republic. And based on its present day $1.6 trillion economy, if it did become a separate nation, it would be among the 10 top economies in the world, Miller has repeatedly reminded his supporters. TNM 208,643 likes on Facebook, compared to 132,057 for the Texas Democratic Party anda mere 75,470 for the state’s GOP.

This is indeed scary stuff.

Donald Trump - along with the likes of Le Pen, Wilders, von Storch, Berth and Miller - are bent on turning the clock back to a time when white Europeans were in charge; on convincing their huddled masses that their very existence and future is in history's cross hairs and whatever they - the demagogues of nationalism - say is 100% true because . . . because . . . well, because they say it is. In Latin, this is called ipse dixit - literally "he himself said it."  Ever since the days of the Roman orator Marcus Tullius Cicero who first coined the term, it has referred to an arbitrary dogmatic statement which the speaker - who likely knows it not to be true - expects the listener to accept . . . merely because he says it. 

In other words, Brexit, Frexit, Grexit, Texit and Trump are all prime examples of ipse dixit, which is both highly contagious and potentially lethal . . .

Copyright ©2016 Kurt F. Stone

Speaking of . . . speaking

In order to get as clear a picture of the 2016 presidential race as possible, let's spend a bit of time speaking about . . . well, speaking.  For despite the fact that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have yet to put their imprimatur on precisely who their respective candidate will be, their respective strategies for victory - or defeat - are perfectly clear.  It all boils down to speaking; to words . . . words that have been spoken in the past, words spoken today, and words yet to be given voice. For the Clinton campaign, Donald Trump represents an opposition researcher's most treasured dream. For in Trump, the Clinton staff has an opponent whose nasty, vindictive, racist, xenophobic, sexist and just plain head-scratching speeches, tweets and verbal explosions are the stuff of which strategic campaign dreams are made.  In short, Secretary Clinton and her staff of advisors, strategists researchers, surrogates and pollsters are already using Trump's words against him . . . and will continue so doing until either the second Tuesday in November or the day Donald Trump announces that due to "a recently discovered, life-threatening medical problem," must "regrettably leave the presidential race in order to take care of my health." (As much out of left field as this may seem, do not, dear reader totally discount the possibility.)

And there's plenty of fodder for opposition research.  According to Politifact, in 2015, Donald Trump was the "liar of the year." A mere 2 out of 162 claims he made were true (and a combined 36 were either "mostly true" or "half true"), while 96 were either "false" or "pants on fire." By comparison, they found that out of 211 claims made by Hillary Clinton in 2015, 48 were true (and a combined 104 either "mostly true" or "half true") while 27 were either "false" or "pants on fire." And Trump calls her "crooked?"  Methinks this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black . . .

We need neither rehash nor remind of Trump's wont for verbal inanities, self-congratulatory encomia, forensic inconsistencies or outright lies.  When all is said and done, the man is a Hall of Fame-class blatherskite.  And luckily for Clintonians everywhere, virtually the entire Trump aural oeuvre has been preserved and is thus available for use against him: everything from speaking out in favor of abortion and Planned Parenthood to being one of the founding fathers of the anti-Obama birther movement and most recently, dusting off a 1990s conspiracy regarding the suicide of former Clinton aide Vince Foster. And all these are just the tip of the iceberg; an iceberg that will be played out again and again and again in Clinton campaign ads.

Then, there are the speeches of Donald Trump's supposed supporters. When they open their mouths, they do neither themselves nor their candidate a bit of good. As but one example, the other day California Representative Duncan Hunter who, along with Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions co-chairs the Trump Leadership Committee in Congress, spent two minutes at a press gathering attempting to say something positive about his candidate for president.  An excerpt from the encounter speaks volumes:

A Washington Post reporter kicked things off by asking about Trump’s remarks at a Wednesday rally in Atlanta, where he made this suggestion to Republican leaders who are critical of him: “Be quiet. Just please be quiet. Don’t talk.”

Said Hunter, “I’m not going to comment on what he said. Really.”

The reporter followed up: “Is it wise for him to be telling Congress — ”

At which point Hunter interjected, “I’m not going to comment. I’m not going to tell him what’s wise and what’s not. It’s all about Trump.  . . . What I’m done with is trying to articulate or explain or answer for what Donald Trump says,” Hunter said. “I think he’ll be a great president. I think he’ll make good decisions on the economy, on the border, on national security, but it doesn’t mean we endorse what he says. I think what he says and what he’ll do are two different things.”

The Post reporter asked him, “So what should we believe when he says something? What should we believe when it comes out of his mouth?”

“What he said,” Hunter replied.

“But you just said you don’t necessarily believe what he says is what he’s going to do,” said the reporter.

“Right,” Hunter said. “True. But him talking about things and saying things about things is different than him saying what he’s going to do. I think he’ll do what he says he’s going to do. I’m not trying to parse words; I think he’ll do what he says he’s going to do. But he says things about things that I don’t endorse, and I’m not going to try to articulate for him.”

"It’s not my job to answer for Donald Trump,” Hunter said. “Really. I’m not even a surrogate. I’m just an endorser.”

Got that?

Trump's strategy against Secretary Clinton will also involve speaking . . . what she said, who she said it to and how much she was paid for saying whatever she said.  It is of course no secret that the Clintons are quite wealthy. Together, they have earned tens of millions of dollars on the lecture circuit as well as millions for writing bestselling books.  Secretary Clinton is represented by All American Speakers, whose other high-paid speakers include Magic Johnson, Ben Affleck, Jay Leno, Bob Dylan, Meryl Streep and. . . Donald Trump - all of whom earn a minimum of $200,000 a speech. 

Frequently, we hear from Donald Trump - and Senator Bernie Sanders as well - that Secretary Clinton is a creature of Wall Street and international bankers; that because she has given highly paid speeches before banking and investment groups, she is not and never shall be on the side of the middle class. 

Hmmm . . .

The truth of the matter is the majority of the money Secretary Clinton has made from speaking fees did not come from Wall Street. She has given nearly 100 paid speeches since leaving the State Dept., and only 8 were to “Wall Street” banks.  With the possible exception of one speech given to Deutsche Bank, all of Secretary Clinton’s 8 speeches to Wall Street were for a speaking fee of $225,000. That does not even break the top 20 of her highest paid speeches. In fact it’s not even close. For example she received over $275,000 each for three speeches she gave to The Vancouver Board of Trade, the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, and Canada 2020. So apparently Canadians also “own” her.  Nearly all of her speeches were to organizations like American Camping Association, Ebay, Cisco, Xerox, Cardiovascular Research Foundation, United Fresh Produce Association, International Deli-Dairy-Bakery Association, California Medical Association, A&E Television Networks, Massachusetts Conference for Women, U.S. Green Building Council, National Association of Realtors, American Society of Travel Agents, Gap, National Association of Convenience Stores, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, etc.

Does Wall Street have influence with Secretary Clinton? Grow up, of course they do. Whether one likes it or not, Wall Street is one of the key engines of the American economy, and as such has enormous influence with everyone. EVERYONE. Don’t kid yourself on that point. And aside from anything else, she was a 2-term Senator of New York, and this made Wall Street an important corporate member of her constituency. The issue is not influence. The issue is whether or not paid speeches and campaign donations alone are proof of corruption. And they’re not. The last time I checked there was an important difference between association and guilt, between proof and slander. Corporations and Associations pay large fees for important speakers all of the time. And Secretary Clinton got booked fairly often because she is both interesting and popular, and because there’s a great deal of status attached to having her speak at an event. Ignoring all of this however, a large contingent of anti-Hillary people continue to insist that all those speaker’s fees from Wall Street banks were bribes, and that because of this they “own” her. But by that logic shouldn’t we all be asking what in the world the American Camping Association is up to?

Moreover, Secretary Clinton is far from being the highest-paid speaker on the circuit; Donald Trump has been paid more than $1.5 million on numerous occasions without anyone saying a word.  Then too, before he began his run for POTUS in 2007, former New York Mayor Rudi Giuliani had been making in excess of $700,000 PER MONTH in speaking fees, with an average of $270k per speech. It’s estimated that in the 5 years before his run he earned as much as $40 million in speaking fees. Nobody cared, no accusations of impropriety were made, and there was almost no media interest.  And speaking of corruption, after leaving the Florida governor’s office Jeb Bush made millions of dollars in paid speeches. This includes large sums he collected from a South Korean metals company that reaped over a BILLION dollars in contracts from his brother’s presidential administration. Speaking to an Indian newspaper about this type of thing Bush said, “This is the life of being the brother of the president.” Do you remember reading all about that while Jeb was running for President? I didn’t think so. Jeb got a pass too.

So why all the concern over Secretary Clinton?  Could it be because she's a woman?

And so, the strategies seem to be set.  On the one side we have the words, speeches and pronouncements of Donald Trump - plus the halting, faltering statements of his supporters - coming back to haunt him and make him appear to be the political pigmy he is; on the other we have the accusation that because she has given speeches before groups of Wall Street bankers (and won't tell us what she said), that Secretary Clinton is really a stealth candidate representing the interests of the top 1%.  (Of course, there are also several other "minor" factors like policy, knowledge, understanding of the world, tenacity, temperament,  experience, maturity, statesmanship and, while we're at it, hairstyle. Along these lines, not only does Clinton out lap Trump by about 50,000 furlongs; she is, quite likely, the best-qualified [and most tonsorially gifted] presidential candidate in all American history.) 

I don't know about you, but if these are the strategies - i.e. speaking - I feel confident that sometime around midnight on Tuesday, November 8, 2016, the United States of America will have officially elected its first woman president.

Copyright ©2016 Kurt F. Stone

Take a Tip From Tevye's Rebbe

Up until about 48 hours ago, few - outside of diehard conservatives and political nerds - had ever heard of Georgia's junior senator, David Perdue.  But all that changed when Perdue, the former corporate turnaround specialist (Reebok, Pillowtex, Dollar General)  made national headlines for a brief speech he gave at a gathering of the Faith and Freedom Coalition. Senator Perdue opened his remarks by encouraging attendees to pray for President Obama. But, he added in a rather smarmy tone, they needed to pray for him in a very specific way: “We should pray for him like Psalms 109:8 which says: 'Let his days be few, and let another have his office.'” The senator then stood at the dais, wryly smiling while the crowd broke into a loud cheer and gave him a thunderous hand of applause 

To anyone not knowing their Book of Psalms (or Acts 1:20 in the Christian Bible), one might take Perdue's comment as an attempt at a bit of partisan humor. However, given that the group Senator Perdue was speaking before can spout Biblical lines and verses until the cows come home, and given that Perdue's political  modus operandi involves a lot of scripture and public declarations of faith, one can fairly assume that both he and his audience were perfectly in on the real intent behind his citation: to wit, praying for the president's death. When this hit the media, Senator Perdue went from the senate's back bench to the national media's front line. Asked by a reporter from Politico whether he regretted his words, Perdue responded "Of course not!"

Now, to be certain, Perdue's staff and partisan allies claimed that all he was asking the audience to pray for was an end to the Obama Administration - not the life of the president.  "Quit being so sensitive and P.C.," more than one commentator urged.  "Get a life!"  However, at far back as 2009, there were reports ofbumper stickers and tee shirts emblazoned with the words "Pray for Obama - Psalm 109:8."  So to the folks gathered for the Faith and Freedom Coalition confab, this was nothing new.  Moreover,  given how well both Perdue and his audience know their Bible, they must certainly have been very aware that the words of the next several verses (9-13) underscore the true nature of the senator's request - and the cause of their cheers.  For verses nine through thirteen proclaim:

Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.
Let his children be vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread out of their desolate places.
Let the creditor disdain all he has; and let the strangers make spoil of his labor.
Let there be none to extend kindness unto him: neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children.
Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generations to come, let their name be blotted out from under the heavens.

This, dear reader, is about as far away from a gentle joke as a Smart Car is from a Lamborghini Veneno. And, to make matters even worse, not a single Republican leader has taken Perdue to task - nor uttered so much as a single critical syllable.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who spoke immediately after Perdue at the coalition conference, said nary a word about Perdue's pronouncement - or the audience's response.  One would imagine that in his private life, the Senate Majority Leader does not pray for Mrs. Obama to become a widow or Sasha and Malia orphans, or for "none to extend kindness" to the president. And yet, by holding his tongue, he was signaling either his tacit support for Perdue's fervent wish, or an incipient cowardice; fear of losing the support of his party's ultra-Christian wing.  It is as troubling as Speaker Ryan deploring the racist comments of Donald Trump, but continuing to support his candidacy for president.  It would seem that in some circles, hatred of anything involving Obama, Clinton, progressive policy or the Democratic Party easily trumps patriotism or one's love of America.

Make no mistake: what Perdue, the Faith and Freedom Coalition crowd, and so-called "conservatives" without end espouse, is anything but "Christian" in the sense of Jesus of Nazareth's most important preachments:

• "A new command I give you: Love one another."
• "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you . . ."
• "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven."
• “But whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?”

 Perdue's followers are the ones who demand that government stay out of our lives - except when it comes to guns, sex and marriage; who see the needy as pernicious sponges; who believe that the President of the United States is a not-so-secret Muslim bent on destroying America while leading a conscious, Satanic war against Christianity; who spread fear and unreason; who blithely comingle religion and politics and argue that America must be a nation based on Christian principles; who pass on fables as if they were facts, and endlessly mouth bromides based on nothing but hot air. This is not Christianity as I understand it.  What it is, is base hucksterism cloaked in vaguely religious garments; a movement using the fumes of faith in the service of their temporal masters.  Christianity, like Judaism, Islam and virtually all of the planet's religious traditions, is based on love, care and the open hand- not the closed fist.  Regrettably, every religion does have its perverted radical factions, regardless of whether it be called Taliban, Khalistan, Dominionist or Neturei Karta, to name but a few.

As a member of a minority people who have indeed known what a war of extermination is really all about, I suggest that those preaching fear and praying for the death of President Obama, take a tip from Tevye, Yiddish writer Sholem Aleichem's greatest creation.  For, as those who remember Fiddler on the Roof will recall that Leibish, a neighbor of Tevye, the impoverished but irrepressible מילכיגער (dairyman), asks the rebbe (rabbi) if there was a proper prayer for the Tzar - definitely afar, far more ruthless, heartless and brutal tyrant than anyone the Christian right could ever imagine.  "A prayer for the Tzar?" the rebbe mused. "Yes, indeed there is."

"And what is it?" Leibish asks.  The rebbe responds in a singsong patter:

"May God bless and keep the Tzar . . . FAR AWAY FROM US!"  Not a prayer for the death of a real tyrant, but rather a fervent wish that he just take the next train out of town . . . and their lives.

May Senator Perdue and his ilk take a tip fromTevye's rebbe, start acting more like real Christians, and quit using Holy Scripture to call for the death of a president.

Copyright ©2016 Kurt F. Stone 

Out of the Mouths of Babes and Boobs and Donald Trump

There's no getting around it: this past week was one of Donald Trump's worst.  For this was the week that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered an all but universally applauded speech in which she mocked, diced, sliced, skewered and utterly eviscerated her Republican rival for his total lack of political, economic, security and international bona fides. In giving a hint as to the attack strategy her campaign will employ between now and November, Clintonpainted Mr. Trump as a reckless, feckless, childish and frighteningly uninformed amateur who was merely playing at the game of global statecraft.  “This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes,” she said, “because it’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin.”  In responding to this overwhelming body slam, Trump tweeted  “Bad performance by Crooked Hillary Clinton! Reading poorly from the teleprompter! She doesn’t even look presidential.” To this, one can easily respond with the favorite idiomatic expression of the ancient sage Rabban Yohanan Ben Zakkai, "דחית בקנה" literally,  "you have pushed us away with a reed"; which is to say, "Egad, what a pitifully weak response!"

And if Secretary Clinton's powerful attack weren't enough, Trump's week was filled to the brim with other inanities, insanities and ignominies. For within a single week, Mr. Trump:

• Accused the judge in the Trump University Case (otherwise known as the "School for Scandal") of being openly biased because he's of Mexican descent;
• Saw Ruth Guerra, head of Hispanic media relations at the Republican National Committee (RNC) quit her job because she felt she could not no longer defend Trump;
• Learned that the Professional Golf Association (PGA) would move the "World Golf Championship" from the Trump-owned "Blue Monster" (Doral) to Mexico City;
• Was taken to task by House Speaker Paul Ryan who, shortly after issuing a less than ringing endorsement of the former reality-TV star, denounced his candidate for president for his racially-tinged criticisms of  U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel;
• Slammed the media for making him look "very bad" by asking him to set the record straight regarding hisfundraising efforts on behalf of veterans.

And yet, even with all this, Trump's poll numbers have barely budged.  Now, before you reach for a handful of Xanax or a triple Courvoisier, please keep in mind that there are still 2 conventions and 5 months to go until the general election.  And, Trump's core support - those to whom The Donald referred when, unbelievably, he stated for the record 'I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters"- they represent a mere plurality of a minority (Republican primary voters), who are in turn a minority of the entire GOP, and who are an even smaller minority of the overall national voting public.  Facts, figures and rational arguments are never going to change the minds of Trump's disciples.  Did I just write "minds?" As is said in the Bible (regarding the pit that Jacob's brothers tossed him into), הבּור רק, אין בּו מים -" namely "The well is bone dry."

But what about all those folks we come into contact with who aren't so much "pro-Trump" as they are "anti-Hillary?"  With what might we arm ourselves in order to convince them that a vote for Trump is a vote for an America - indeed, a planet - in peril?  We already know that most people don't particularly like him on a personal level, so why not add to this by hanging him with his own words? Let them know what he's said, and what his world view is really like. Here's a verifiable sample of what has come out of the man's mouth over the past weeks, months, and even years:

This is a man who said that more countries should have nuclear weapons, including Saudi Arabia.

ANDERSON COOPER: Saudi Arabia, nuclear weapons?

TRUMP: Saudi Arabia, absolutely.

 This is someone who has threatened to abandon our allies in NATO – the countries that work with us to root out terrorists abroad before they strike us at home.

TRUMP: “We don't really need NATO in its current form. NATO is obsolete… if we have to walk, we walk.”

He believes we can treat the U.S. economy like one of his casinos and default on our debts to the rest of the world, which would cause an economic catastrophe far worse than anything we experienced in 2008.

TRUMP: “I’ve borrowed knowing that you can pay back with discounts... I would borrow knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.”

He has said that he would order our military to carry out torture...

TRUMP: “Don’t tell me it doesn’t work — torture works… Waterboarding is fine, but it’s not nearly tough enough, ok?”

and the murder of civilians who are related to suspected terrorists...

TRUMP: "The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families”

even though those are war crimes.

TRUMP: “They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me, If I say do it, they’re going to do it.”

He says he doesn’t have to listen to our generals or ambassadors, because he has – quote – “a very good brain.”

TRUMP: “I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things...my primary consultant is myself”

He also said, “I know more about ISIS than the generals, believe me.”

TRUMP: “I know more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe me.”

You know what?  I don’t believe him.

TRUMP: “We don't even really know who the leader [of ISIS] is.”

He believes climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese...

TRUMP: “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

and has the gall to say prisoners of war like John McCain aren’t heroes.

TRUMP: “He’s not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured, ok? I hate to tell you.”

He praises dictators like Vladimir Putin...

TRUMP: "I will tell you, in terms of leadership, he's getting an 'A,' and our president is not doing so well.”

and picks fights with our friends – including the British prime minister…

TRUMP: "It looks like we are not going to have a very good relationship. Who knows?"

the mayor of London…

TRUMP: "Let's take an I.Q. test... I think they're very rude statements and frankly, tell him, I will remember those statements."

the German chancellor…

TRUMP: “What Merkel has done is incredible, it’s actually mind boggling. Everyone thought she was a really great leader and now she’s turned out to be this catastrophic leader. And she’ll be out if they don’t have a revolution.”

the president of Mexico…

TRUMP: “I don't know about the Hitler comparison [President Nieto made]. I hadn't heard that, but it's a terrible comparison. I'm not happy about that certainly. I don't want that comparison, but we have to be strong and we have to be vigilant”

and the Pope.

TRUMP: “I don’t think [the Pope] understands the danger of the open border that we have with Mexico. I think Mexico got him to [criticize the wall] it because they want to keep the border just the way it is. They’re making a fortune, and we’re losing.”

He says he has foreign policy experience because he ran the Miss Universe pageant in Russia.

TRUMP: “I know Russia well. I had a major event in Russia two or three years ago, Miss Universe contest, which was a big, big, incredible event.”

And to top it off, he believes America is weak.  An embarrassment.

TRUMP: "I think we've become very weak and ineffective."

He called our military a disaster.

TRUMP: “Our military is a disaster.”

He said we’re – quote – a “third-world country.”

TRUMP: “We have become a third world country, folks.”

That’s why it’s no small thing when he talks about leaving NATO or says he’ll stay neutral on Israel’s security.

TRUMP: “Let me be sort of a neutral guy.”

It’s no small thing when he calls Mexican immigrants rapists and murderers.

TRUMP: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.”

And it’s no small thing when he suggests that America should withdraw our military support for Japan, encourage them to get nuclear weapons...

TRUMP: “And frankly, the case could be made, that let them protect themselves against North Korea. They’d probably wipe them out pretty quick.”

and said this about a war between Japan and North Korea – and I quote – “If they do, they do.  Good luck, enjoy yourself, folks.”

TRUMP: “And if they fight, you know what, that would be a terrible thing, terrible. Good luck folks, enjoy yourself…if they do, they do”

Donald Trump doesn’t know the first thing about Iran or its nuclear program.  Ask him.  It’ll become clear very quickly.

TRUMP: “When those restrictions expire, Iran will have an industrial-size military nuclear capability ready to go." (Politifact: False.)

There’s no risk of people losing their lives if you blow up a golf-course deal.  But it doesn’t work like that in world affairs.  Just like being interviewed on the same episode of “60 Minutes” as Putin is not the same as actually dealing with Putin.

TRUMP: “I got to know him very well, because we were both on 60 minutes, we were stablemates and we did very well that night. You know that.”

He wants to start a trade war with China.

TRUMP: "These dummies say, 'Oh, that's a trade war. Trade war? We're losing $500 billion in trade with China. Who the hell cares if there's a trade war?”

And I have to say, I don’t understand Donald’s bizarre fascination with dictators and strongmen who have no love for America.  He praised China for the Tiananmen Square massacre; he said it showed strength.

TRUMP: “When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength."

He said, “You’ve got to give Kim Jong Un credit” for taking over North Korea – something he did by murdering everyone he saw as a threat, including his own uncle, which Donald described gleefully, like he was recapping an action movie.

TRUMP: "And you've got to give him credit. How many young guys — he was like 26 or 25 when his father died — take over these tough generals…. It's incredible. He wiped out the uncle. He wiped out this one, that one. I mean, this guy doesn't play games.”

And he said that, if he were grading Vladimir Putin as a leader, he’d give him an A.

TRUMP: "I will tell you, in terms of leadership, he's getting an 'A,'

What’s Trump’s [ISIS plan]?  He won’t say.  He is literally keeping it a secret.  The secret, of course, is he has no idea what he’d do to stop ISIS.

TRUMP: “I do know what to do and I would know how to bring ISIS to the table or beyond that, defeat ISIS very quickly and I’m not going to tell you what is… All I can tell you it is a foolproof way of winning.”

Just look at the few things he actually has said on the subject. He actually said – quote – “maybe Syria should be a free zone for ISIS.”  That’s right – let a terrorist group have control of a major country in the Middle East.

TRUMP: It's really rather amazing, maybe Syria should be a free zone for ISIS, let them fight and then you pick up the remnants.

Then he said we should send tens of thousands of American ground troops to the Middle East to fight ISIS.

TRUMP: "We really have no choice. We have to knock out ISIS. We have to knock the hell out of them… I would listen to the generals but I'm hearing numbers of 20,000 to 30,000. We have to knock them out fast."

He also refused to rule out using nuclear weapons against ISIS, which would mean mass civilian casualties.

TRUMP: “I’m never going to rule anything out—I wouldn’t want to say [if I’d use nuclear weapons against ISIS.]”

Trump says over and over again, “The world is laughing at us.”  He’s been saying this for decades.

TRUMP (1999): "[Saudi Arabians] take such advantage of us with the oil... and they laugh at this country.

TRUMP (2010): "I know many of the people in China, I know many of the big business people, and they're laughing at us.”

TRUMP (2011): “We have become a laughingstock, the world’s whipping boy”

TRUMP (2012): “The world is laughing at us."

TRUMP (2013): “After Syria, our enemies are laughing!”

TRUMP (2014): “Mexican leadership has been laughing at us for many years”

TRUMP (2015): “The Persians are great negotiators. They are laughing at the stupidity of the deal we’re making”

TRUMP (2016): “We can't afford to be so nice and so foolish anymore. Our country is in trouble. ISIS is laughing at us.”

He bought full-page ads in newspapers across the country back in 1987, when Reagan was President, saying that America lacked a backbone and the world was – you guessed it – laughing at us.

TRUMP (1987): "The world is laughing at America's politicians as we protect ships we don't own, carrying oil we don't need, destined for allies who won't help… "Let's not let our great country be laughed at anymore."

And it matters when he makes fun of disabled people...

TRUMP: “Now the poor guy -- you oughta see this guy [imitating disabled reporter] ‘aaah, I don’t know what I said, aaah, I don’t remember.’”

calls women pigs...

TRUMP: “Does everybody know that pig named Rosie O’Donnell? She’s a disgusting pig, right?”

proposes banning an entire religion from our country...

TRUMP: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.”

or plays coy with white supremacists.

TRUMP: "I don't know anything about what you're even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So I don't know. I don't know -- did he endorse me, or what's going on? Because I know nothing about David Duke; I know nothing about white supremacists.

Indeed out of the mouths of babes, boobs and Donald Trump have some of the most unbelievable - and utterly frightening - words. Hopefully some will use his words to hang him. Coming as it does at the end of a week in which the Speaker of the House gave, as mentioned above, his less than ringing support of Donald Trump, one is reminded of another Speaker - Thomas Brackett Reed of Maine - who wielded the gavel from 1889-1891 and again from 1895-1899.  Unlike Speaker Ryan, the acerbically witty Speaker Reed was a man who was easily able to call a spade a spade.  Most notably, when asked what he thought about two contentious Housecolleagues who were hell-bent on keeping Congress from accomplishing anything and making the president look bad, Reed responded:

"They never open their mouths without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge."

Hauntingly, the same thing could be said about Donald Trump and his disciples. 

Here's hoping that next week . . . and the week after and the week after that . . . will be even worse for Trump and his campaign to remake the world in his own image.

Copyright ©2016 Kurt F. Stone