Senator Toomey RESPONDS To Another Letter

Last week while I was away celebrating free speech in front of Trump Tower I received two Toomey response letters.

TWO!

I'll deconstruct the first (dated June 15, 2018) today and the second (dated June 18, 2018) tomorrow.

I am guessing that something's definitely shifted in the Toomey office as BOTH of the letters are 2-pagers. The last response we've received (see this post from May 27) was also a two pager. Safe to say this is now the default setting.

Now we have to determine which of my letters Toomey's office is answering.  As I stated above, the letter's dated June 15, so it's safe to assume it's not commenting on any letter written after that date.  So anything after the sixty-fifth is out.

The letter begins:

Since President Donald Trump's inauguration, I have heard from a number of Pennsylvanians both in support of and opposition to the administration. In a state as large and diverse as ours, I understand there being a wide array of opinions on the administration's policies and actions. I appreciate you taking the time to share yours.

Nothing specific there. With his next paragraph, Toomey congratulates himself on his priorities and bipartisan-ness:

As a member of the United States Senate, my goal is to advance an agenda that benefits Pennsylvanians and the American people to the greatest extend possible. One of my highest priorities since coming to the Senate has been restoring fiscal responsibility to Washington and reining in our nation's unsustainable deficits and spending. My focus has also included finding ways to create jobs, boost wages, cut excessive regulations on small businesses, bolster our national security, and support our law enforcement officials. Since my first campaign for public office, I've made clear I will work with any one - Democrats, Republicans, the President, and private citizens - who share these goals.

And he boasted in the next paragraph that:

I am glad that the 115th Congress worked closely with President Trump and his administration to bring about the most historic reform to our tax code in over three decades. The vast majority of lower and middle-income taxpayers will pay less in federal taxes beginning in 2018 because of lower individual rates, in addition to a doubled standard deduction and child tax credit.

So let's take a closer look at this boast::

One of my highest priorities since coming to the Senate has been restoring fiscal responsibility to Washington and reining in our nation's unsustainable deficits and spending.

On that alone Senator Toomey has been a failure. Take a look at this from The Congressional Budget Office:

In CBO’s baseline projections, which incorporate the assumption that current laws governing taxes and spending generally remain unchanged, the federal budget deficit grows substantially over the next few years. Later on, between 2023 and 2028, it stabilizes in relation to the size of the economy, though at a high level by historical standards.

As a result, federal debt is projected to be on a steadily rising trajectory throughout the coming decade. Debt held by the public, which has doubled in the past 10 years as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), approaches 100 percent of GDP by 2028 in CBO’s projections. That amount is far greater than the debt in any year since just after World War II. Moreover, if lawmakers changed current law to maintain certain current policies—preventing a significant increase in individual income taxes in 2026 and drops in funding for defense and nondefense discretionary programs in 2020, for example—the result would be even larger increases in debt.

Projected deficits over the 2018–2027 period have increased markedly since June 2017, when CBO issued its previous projections. The increase stems primarily from tax and spending legislation enacted since then—especially Public Law 115-97 (originally called the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and called the 2017 tax act in this report), the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-123), and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141). The legislation has significantly reduced revenues and increased outlays anticipated under current law.

You were saying, Senator?

Toomey then looks to distance himself from Trump on an important issue: Tariffs, not Trump's blunders with North Korea (the subject of the sixty-fifth letter), or Stormy Daniels (the subject of the sixtieth) or even Trump's many many attacks on the Constitutionally protected free press (the subject of the fifty-second). No, he's most concerned about tariffs.

Interesting.

Toomey does try to distance himself from Trump with his penultimate paragraph:

I have also heard from many Pennsylvanians concerned with the nature of some of the President's rhetoric and use of social media. I believe that the use of intentionally demeaning speech to criticize individuals is an inappropriate and ineffective way to engage in political discourse, whether it comes from protesters, journalists, or the President of the United States. As someone who came to Washington to tackle the serious issues facing our nation, I understand your frustration with the use of such language.

Notice, however, that Toomey almost immediately shifts to a "it's bad when the other side (protesters, journalists) do it too!" argument. The only problem with this argument is that "protesters" are not The President. Members of the press are not The President.  Donald Trump (thanks be to Article II of the Constitution and not a majority of voters) is. He has the so-called "bully pulpit." Journalists and protesters do not.

Whenever he speaks (or tweets) Trump is representing the United States. When a journalist calls Trump dishonest or when a protester flips off Trump Tower each are exercising a fundamental American right guaranteed by the First Amendment: The right to criticize those in power.

Putting them on the same moral ground is absurd, Senator. It's also a way to deflect the discussion away from the topic: Donald Trump's behavior.

Isn't THAT your point, Senator?

The letter:

This Was Done In OUR NAME

My name is Miriam.

This cruelty was done (and is still being done to other families) in our name. It was done to "Make America Great Again."

This is Trump's America. If you don't denounce it, you're complicit in it.

A Note About This Week's Toomey Letter

This week's letter was about yet another stupid tweet from the orange vulgarity currently infesting the White House (Dayvoe, some civility, please!) rather than his nomination of one of the authors of The Starr Report to the Supreme Court.

Indeed, last night, Senator Toomey tweeted:

My statement on President Trump nominating Brett Kavanaugh to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. pic.twitter.com/8hDTcMHrrO

— Senator Pat Toomey (@SenToomey) July 10, 2018

However, seeing that the question from last week's letter still applies regardless of the nominee:

Given that Trump is the subject of an FBI investigation into any links between the Russian government and his campaign and any matters connected to that (which would, I assume, include any potential obstruction of justice), do you think it wise for him to be able to appoint anyone to the Supreme Court until this investigation has concluded? Any by that I mean, as part of the ongoing investigation legal questions will inevitably arise (Can a sitting president be subpoenaed? indicted? If he can't be for federal crimes, can he be subpoenaed/indicted for state crimes?) that will need to be answered by the Supreme Court. How is it not a conflict of interest for Trump to, in effect, pick one of his own judges? What if the person he picks just happens to be the swing vote in his favor?

Especially since Kavanaugh's on the record saying that a sitting president should not be indicted.

Hmm - is it any wonder Trump picked him?

My SIXTY-NINTH Open Letter To Senator Pat Toomey

I'll be dropping this letter to Senator Pat Toomey in the mail today:

Dear Senator Toomey:

It's me, again - the constituent who writes for the local Pittsburgh-based political blog, "2 Political Junkies."

I need to ask you again about a recent tweet from Donald Trump.

Recently he tweeted that he "[j]ust won lawsuit filed by the DNC and a bunch of Democrat crazies trying to claim the Trump Campaign (and others), colluded with Russia."

However, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle wrote in her dismissal that "it bears emphasizing that this Court’s ruling is not based on a finding that there was no collusion between defendants and Russia during the 2016 presidential election."[Italics in original.]

So Trump's tweet is 100% untrue. Either he knew that what he was tweeting is untrue in which case he lied to us or he can't be bothered to make sure his tweets (which is to say his communications with the American people) are 100% true. Either way, he has a dishonest relationship with the facts.

So here's my question: Why do you continue to support this dishonest man's administration? When will it be enough for you to finally rebuke this presidency?

Thank you and I await your response.

And I will be posting whatever response I get from him or his office.

Follow-up:

• Round-up Volume 1
• Round-up Volume 2
• Round-up Volume 3
• Round-up Volume 4
• Round-up Volume 5 
• Sixty-second letter - no response yet
• Sixty-third letter - no response yet 
• Sixty-fourth letter - no response yet 
• Sixty-fifth letter - no response yet 
• Sixty-sixth letter - no response yet 
• Sixty-seventh letter - no response yet 
• Sixty-eighth letter - no response yet

Celebrating Freedom This Fourth Of July

This is still in effect, right?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We'll see.

Fuck you, Mr Trump. Fuck You.
Some thoughts from a more patriotic time:

If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.

And:

But, above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.

The First Amendment is still in force, right? ICE agents aren't going to deport me (with no due process, of course) to one of Trump's "shit hole countries" because he has a thin skin and simply can't abide anyone one not praising him as devoutly as a starving North Korean farmer, right?

We'll see.

July, The Fourth

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

This is not what the framers had in mind...

My SIXTY-EIGHTH Open Letter To Senator Pat Toomey

I'll be dropping this letter to Senator Pat Toomey in the mail today:

Dear Senator Toomey:

It's me, again - the constituent who writes for the local Pittsburgh-based political blog, "2 Political Junkies."

Senator, now that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has resigned (this coincidentally, happening only one day before it was reported that Kennedy's son had arranged for Donald Trump to get $1 billion in loans from Deutsche Bank, his employer), I'd like to ask you about the next step in Trump's Supreme Court appointment process.

Here it is: Given that Trump is the subject of an FBI investigation into any links between the Russian government and his campaign and any matters connected to that (which would, I assume, include any potential obstruction of justice), do you think it wise for him to be able to appoint anyone to the Supreme Court until this investigation has concluded? Any by that I mean, as part of the ongoing investigation legal questions will inevitably arise (Can a sitting president be subpoenaed? indicted? If he can't be for federal crimes, can he be subpoenaed/indicted for state crimes?) that will need to be answered by the Supreme Court. How is it not a conflict of interest for Trump to, in effect, pick one of his own judges? What if the person he picks just happens to be the swing vote in his favor?

Wouldn't it be better for the country to wait? You were perfectly OK with waiting a year or so to fill Antonin Scalia's seat, so a gap in time should not be an issue for you, true?

Thank you and I await your response.

And I will be posting whatever response I get from him or his office.

Follow-up:

• Round-up Volume 1
• Round-up Volume 2
• Round-up Volume 3
• Round-up Volume 4
• Round-up Volume 5 
• Sixty-second letter - no response yet
• Sixty-third letter - no response yet 
• Sixty-fourth letter - no response yet 
• Sixty-fifth letter - no response yet 
• Sixty-sixth letter - no response yet 
• Sixty-seventh letter - no response yet

What Happens When An Editorial Board Goes Down The Far-Right Gravity Well

Take a look at today's editorial at the once proud left-of-center Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

Soon the president will send to the U.S. Senate a nominee to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court of the United States.

This is a moment for law and not ideology.

It is a moment to lower voices.

The right model is the Neil Gorsuch nomination.

And so on. The board has been pulled so far to the right that the nomination of Neil Gorsuch is seen as "the right model" of "a moment for law and not ideology."

Neil Gorsuch - who only sits in Merrick Garland's seat because of more than a few moments of raised voices on the right who succeeded in twisting the rules in order to gavage their own politically acceptable nominee into the Supreme Court Chambers.

So yea, Gorsuch is a moment for law over ideology. Sure.

The editorial's next two (rather oxymoronic, in a way) sentences further crazy glue in teh crazie:

Mr. Gorsuch is not a zealot. He is a conservative constitutionalist.

Have you ever met a "conservative constitutionalist" who was, I dunno, timid about it? No, for better or worse, our nation's conservative constitutionalists are nothing but zealous of what they see their defense of the original intent of the Constitution. Trying to portray Gorsuch is misleading.

Then there's this part of the editorial:

The Gorsuch confirmation hearings were also a model we should employ now. They were orderly and civil.

Really? The  NYTimes reported:

Judge Neil M. Gorsuch presented himself on Monday as a creature of consensus during a sharply partisan Supreme Court confirmation hearing, clouded throughout by the bitter nomination fight that preceded it over the past year.

That was the first sentence of the Times' coverage.

What actual news (if any) about the Gorsuch nomination were they reading in Toledo?

Where was the civil then?

As for the civil now the editorial board pleads for it this way:

Let’s not make the hearings that will soon commence on a Supreme Court nominee another zoo riot.

The message, however, as to the source of the riot is clear by the examples used in the previous paragraph of previous riots: Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. It'll be the democrats' fault if it gets noisy!!

The board goes on with their definition "centrality" here:

Hence the president, for his part, should avoid nominating a firebrand, who, for instance, wants to totally roll back Roe v. Wade.

Can I ask, why the need for the adverb? Let's take it out and see, by it's absence, what the editorial board really wants us to understand.  Here is the previous sentence without the adverb:

Hence the president, for his part, should avoid nominating a firebrand, who, for instance, wants to...roll back Roe v. Wade.

See how the inclusion of the word "totally" changes the entire meaning of the sentence, um, totally? By rejecting the nomination of a firebrand who wants to totally roll back Roe, they're allowing (indeed they're advocating) the nomination of someone who'd want to partially roll back Roe.

See how the politic-speak goes?

And if you speak up against it, you're creating a another zoo riot that'll put ideology above the law.

Indeed, let's unpack more of the whole "abortion" paragraph:

Certainly the nation could use a fresh and an honest debate on abortion and just what our citizens want the law and public policy to be. And there may be points of popular consensus. For example, most Americans find partial birth abortion an abomination.

What sort of "fresh and honest debate" are they thinking?  And why is it "certain" that the nation could use it?

Pew Research shows that in 2017, 57% of Americans believed that abortion should be legal "in all or most cases."  The number in 1995? 60%. The number hasn't changed much and the percentage of those who believe that abortion should be illegal "in all or most cases" has never been above the percentage of those who favor choice.

Never.

So why does the editorial board assert that "certainly" a fresh debate is needed?

There just doesn't seem to be any actual facts presented to support that "certainty."

Then there's this sentence:

For example, most Americans find partial birth abortion an abomination.

True, Gallup found, in 2011, that 64% of those polled opposed so called "partial birth abortion." But here's the important detail conveniently omitted by our editorial overlords from Toledo - they oppose it "except in cases necessary to save the life of the mother."

So when would an "intact dilation and extraction" procedure (the proper medical term, by the way)  take place if not "to save the life of the mother?" How often is that not the case?


They're not saying - and by leaving the argument ambiguous, they're misleading their (diminishing) readership.

And so it goes. This is now the editorial policy of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

I can't wait until they doubt climate science. Or evolution. Or Obama's birth certificate.

Trump On The Press Shooting - And The Press

We all know by now about the mass shooting at the Capital Gazette. The police are still investigating the details of the crime (motive and so on) so we'll get back to that when they've established something. (So no post hoc ergo propter hoc, here.)

Donald Trump, however, did tweet this:

Prior to departing Wisconsin, I was briefed on the shooting at Capital Gazette in Annapolis, Maryland. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. Thank you to all of the First Responders who are currently on the scene.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 28, 2018

Thoughts and prayers. A rather tepid response to the deaths of 5 people working in a constitutionally protected field, when you think about it.

Not so tepid, here:

This was Trump on Monday night calling the free press "the enemy of the people". #CapitalGazetteShooting pic.twitter.com/Dhscs5SE0V

— Matt Rogers (@Politidope) June 29, 2018

Or here a year and a half ago:

President Trump, in an extraordinary rebuke of the nation’s press organizations, wrote on Twitter on Friday that the nation’s news media “is the enemy of the American people.”

Even by the standards of a president who routinely castigates journalists — and who on Thursday devoted much of a 77-minute news conference to criticizing his press coverage — Mr. Trump’s tweet was a striking escalation in his attacks.

Then there's this:

Donald Trump ignored questions about the killing of five people at a newspaper in Maryland, walking silently past reporters at the White House as they asked him for “any words about the dead”.

The president did not respond when asked for “any words of condolence” for families of the victims of the shooting at the Capital Gazette's offices in Annapolis on Thursday.

Cold. Callous. Authoritarian. Donald Trump.

We're Fucked.

This is one thought that kept me up at night during the late summer of 2016:

I don't know what a post-Trump America is going to look like.

Well, we've gotten a few clues recently and:

My SIXTY-SEVENTH Open Letter To Senator Pat Toomey

I'll be dropping this letter to Senator Pat Toomey in the mail today:

Dear Senator Toomey:

It's me, again - the constituent who writes for the local Pittsburgh-based political blog, "2 Political Junkies."

I was going to ask you about about Donald Trump's flip flop on North Korean denuclearization (first he tweeted they're no longer a nuclear threat but only four days ago he still signed an executive order stating exactly the opposite) but instead I'd like to ask you about Trump's Oath of Office.

He took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the U.S. Constitution and part of that Constitution is the legal requirement of due process. Yet recently he tweeted that "we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases" deport "these people who invade our country." No due process despite the fact that the Equal Protection clause is part of the Constitution that Donald Trump swore an oath to uphold.

So here's my question: Why do you, Senator Toomey, continue to support as president a man who simply fails to respect our Constitution?

Thank you and I await your response.

And I will be posting whatever response I get from him or his office.

Follow-up:

• Round-up Volume 1
• Round-up Volume 2
• Round-up Volume 3
• Round-up Volume 4
• Round-up Volume 5 
• Sixty-second letter - no response yet
• Sixty-third letter - no response yet 
• Sixty-fourth letter - no response yet 
• Sixty-fifth letter - no response yet 
• Sixty-sixth letter - no response yet

imagine

Time Magazine Cover

Trump: Making America Great Again. One scared, crying little girl at a time.

Thought bubble for what Trump would be thinking in this photo: "Hey this is on you. If you didn't want this to happen to you, you probably shouldn't have left your shithole country."

Meanwhile Outside...

From the scientists at NOAA:

The May temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.44°F above the 20th century average of 58.6°F and the fourth highest for May in the 1880-2018 record. The years 2014-2018 rank among the five warmest Mays on record, with 2016 the warmest May at 1.58°F above average. May 2018 also marks the 42nd consecutive May and the 401st consecutive month with temperatures, at least nominally, above the 20th century average.

And:

The May average Arctic sea ice extent was the second smallest in the 40-year record at 420,000 square miles (8.1 percent) below the 1981-2010 average, according to an analysis by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (link is external) using data from NOAA and NASA. Only the May Arctic sea ice extent in 2016 was smaller. The near-record low Arctic sea ice extent was mostly due to much-below-average sea ice in the Bering and Chukchi Seas.

And:

Antarctic sea ice extent during May was 330,000 square miles (8.6 percent) below the 1981-2010 average, the third smallest May extent on record. Antarctic sea ice expanded at a rate faster than average during May, with below-average ice coverage continuing for parts of the Weddell Sea.

Meanwhile in GOPland:

Four Republican senators are calling for an investigation of the National Science Foundation over a program that educates meteorologists on climate change, saying it “is not science — it is propagandizing.”

Ah, the GOP. Where scientific fact (climate science, evolution and so on) is propaganda and outright BS (Pizzagate, Obama's "fake" birth certificate - and of course Climate Science denial) is taken seriously.

And they're the folks in charge.

Meanwhile, it's getting warmer out there.

I REALLY DON'T CARE,

DO U?

Springsteen, Last Night

First, he said this:

I never believed that people come to my shows, or rock shows to be told anything.

But I do believe that they come to be reminded of things. To be reminded of who they are, at their most joyous, at their deepest, when life feels full. It’s a good place to get in touch with your heart and your spirit, to be amongst the crowd. And to be reminded of who we are and who we can be collectively. Music does those things pretty well sometimes, particularly these days when some reminding of who we are and who we can be isn’t such a bad thing.

That weekend of the March for our Lives, we saw those young people in Washington, and citizens all around the world, remind us of what faith in America and real faith in American democracy looks and feels like. It was just encouraging to see all those people out on the street and all that righteous passion in the service of something good. And to see that passion was alive and well and still there at the center of the beating heart of our country.

It was a good day, and a necessary day because we are seeing things right now on our American borders that are so shockingly and disgracefully inhumane and un-American that it is simply enraging. And we have heard people in high position in the American government blaspheme in the name of God and country that it is a moral thing to assault the children amongst us. May God save our souls.

There’s the beautiful quote by Dr. King that says the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice. Now, there have been many, many days of recent when you could certainly have an argument over that. But I’ve lived long enough to see that in action and to put some faith in it. But I’ve also lived long enough to know that arc doesn’t bend on its own. It needs all of us leaning on it, nudging it in the right direction day after day. You gotta keep, keep leaning.

I think it’s important to believe in those words, and to carry yourself, and to act accordingly. It’s the only way that we keep faith and keep our sanity.

I’ve played this show 146 nights with basically the same setlist, but tonight calls for something different.

Then he sang this:


May God save our souls.

Too Brutal To Face

From George Orwell:

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.

And now there's a new political euphemism - Tender-Age Shelters.

From the AP:

Trump administration officials have been sending babies and other young children forcibly separated from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border to at least three “tender age” shelters in South Texas, The Associated Press has learned.

Lawyers and medical providers who have visited the Rio Grande Valley shelters described play rooms of crying preschool-age children in crisis.

This is being done, let's remember, to Make America Great Again.
This is being done, let's remember, in our name.
This is what the Trump Administration is doing for all of us to make America great again.

Any citizen who does not denounce this today is complicit in its cruelty.

My SIXTY-SIXTH Open Letter To Senator Pat Toomey

I'll be dropping this letter to Senator Pat Toomey in the mail today:

Dear Senator Toomey:

It's me, again - the constituent who writes for the local Pittsburgh-based political blog, "2 Political Junkies."

We need to talk about the crying children at the border. This Trump administration policy (and yes it is a new policy enacted by the Trump administration and not, as Trump dishonestly stated, a holdover from the previous administration that only the Democrats can fix) is so reprehensible and indefensible that you're either against it or you're complicit in its cruelty.

Some recent poll data suggest that about 2/3 of American voters oppose Trump's immigration cruelty while a little over half of members of your party are OK with it. I thought your party was the "pro-family" party.

Simple question this week. Where, exactly, do you stand on this, Senator Toomey? Are you OK with it, as 55% of the members of your party seem to be, or are you against it? When will you stand up to denounce Donald Trump's cruel policy separating children from their parents?

Thank you and I await your response.

And I will be posting whatever response I get from him or his office.

Follow-up:

• Round-up Volume 1
• Round-up Volume 2
• Round-up Volume 3
• Round-up Volume 4
• Round-up Volume 5 
• Sixty-second letter - no response yet
• Sixty-third letter - no response yet 
• Sixty-fourth letter - no response yet 
• Sixty-fifth letter - no response yet

We are torturing children over misdemeanors committed by their parents

The media needs to ask every Republican who repeats the line 'when people commit crimes, they are put in jail and separated from their children,' if they walked out of the room right now and jaywalked across the street if they would be thrown into jail and their children would be taken away?

They need to ask that because fully ***91%*** of parents being prosecuted at the border and forcibly separated from their children are being prosecuted for a *misdemeanor.*

A gotdamn misdemeanor!

Just stop lying

1) There is no 'law' that says we must separate children from their parents at the border.

2) Not only is it not a 'Democrat law,' it's not even a Democratic policy.

3) Nor are the Democrats 'the only ones who can fix this.' Republicans control Congress and the White House.

4) Every time Trump and Huckabee Sanders repeatedly say any of this, they are lying.

5) I have to stop literally screaming 'liar' at my TV screen when they do as I'm scaring my cat.

My SIXTY-FIFTH Open Letter To Senator Pat Toomey

I'll be dropping this letter to Senator Pat Toomey in the mail today:

Dear Senator Toomey:

It's me, again - the constituent who writes for the local Pittsburgh-based political blog, "2 Political Junkies."

We have to talk about this week's G7 meeting and the summit with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.

In the space of a couple of days this week, Donald Trump, the man whose administration and policies you support (and the man, let's all remember, you voted for) picked an unnecessary fight with Canada (a country that's been among our closest allies politically as well as geographically) and yet took time out to say it was "an honor" to meet Kim Jong Un, the North Korean dictator, a man who is guilty of committing some of the most horrific crimes against humanity.

Simple question for you this week: If this isn't enough for you to finally turn your back on the leader of your own party and say, "Enough!" what then, is?

By remaining silent, Senator, you are complicit in all of Trump's indecencies. You do know that, don't you? You could be among those doing something to stop him from committing more damage to the country. If you choose not to, then part of the responsibility for that damage will be yours. You do know that, don't you?

When can we expect to hear you speaking out?

Thank you and I await your response.

And I will be posting whatever response I get from him or his office.

Follow-up:

• Round-up Volume 1
• Round-up Volume 2
• Round-up Volume 3
• Round-up Volume 4
• Round-up Volume 5 
• Sixty-second letter - no response yet
• Sixty-third letter - no response yet 
• Sixty-fourth letter - no response yet

My SIXTY-FOURTH Open Letter To Senator Pat Toomey

I'll be dropping this letter to Senator Pat Toomey in the mail today:

Dear Senator Toomey:

It's me, again - the constituent who writes for the local Pittsburgh-based political blog, "2 Political Junkies."

Senator I'd like to revisit the 22nd letter I sent to you. It's from August of last year if you need to search through your files to find it. You've never sent me a response to it, by the way.

In that letter I asked you about the reporting done at that point by the Washington Post relating to a meeting that Donald Trump's son took with some Russians in Trump Tower. The post said the statement released some time later was dictated by Donald Trump.

The Trump Administration and his legal team had been denying that allegation for nearly a year.

This past week we learned by way of a memo Trump's legal team sent to Special Counsel Robert Mueller that they were lying. They admitted he had written the statement.

So here's my question: Do you still support this administration? If the answer is yes, can I ask why on Earth are you still supporting this administration?

Thank you and I await your response.

And I will be posting whatever response I get from him or his office.

Follow-up:

• Round-up Volume 1
• Round-up Volume 2
• Round-up Volume 3
• Round-up Volume 4
• Round-up Volume 5 
• Sixty-second letter - no response yet
• Sixty-third letter - no response yet

My SIXTY-THIRD Open Letter To Senator Pat Toomey

I'll be dropping this letter to Senator Pat Toomey in the mail today:

Dear Senator Toomey:

It's me, again - the constituent who writes for the local Pittsburgh-based political blog, "2 Political Junkies."

I need to follow up on the last letter you sent me. Specifically, it's about your shift in support for the investigation being conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Last summer you wrote to me, about the Special Counsel, saying:

I have every confidence that Robert Mueller will execute these responsibilities with integrity and professionalism.

This past week, however, you wrote:

Mr. Mueller ought to conduct a thorough and complete investigation to ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice. It is also important that Mr. Mueller's work be conducted in an apolitical manner so that his findings are credible and nonpartisan.

So here's my set of questions: Do you believe that Robert Mueller is not conducting a "thorough and complete investigation" into the Russian meddling?  Do you believe he's not conducting this investigation in an "apolitical manner"? And upon what are you basing this change of position? Your constituents have a right to know your thinking on this.

Thank you and I await your response.

And I will be posting whatever response I get from him or his office.

Follow-up:

• Round-up Volume 1
• Round-up Volume 2
• Round-up Volume 3
• Round-up Volume 4
• Round-up Volume 5 
• Sixty-second letter - no response yet. 

Fact-Checking Donald J. Trump's Commencement Speech At The US Naval Academy

As of this writing, the speech itself has not yet been posted at Whitehouse.gov. You can, however, read it here or here or here.

And this being the perpetual liar/misinformer Donald Trump, the fact-checkers are doing their patriotic fact-checking duty:

• Politifact - Trump said:

  "We just got you a big pay raise, first time in 10 years. We got you a big pay increase, first time in over 10 years. I fought for you. That was the hardest one to get."

Politico responded:

That’s flat wrong, which is why we rated a similar statement Pants on Fire. In fact, the last time that service members didn’t receive an annual pay increase was in 1983 (and that was only because of a one-time technical quirk).

The increase of 2.4 percent in 2018 represented the biggest bump since 2010. But there have been increases every year since then, ranging from 1 percent to 2.1 percent. For 2019, the White House is proposing a 2.6 percent increase; the bill to enact that pay raise is working its way through Congress.

Other than 1983, you have to go back to 1961 to find a calendar year without a military pay increase, which suggests that the increase wasn't so hard to get.

• New York Times - Trump said:

  And very soon, we are going to get to 355 beautiful ships. That is almost a couple of hundred more ships

NYTimes Responded:

False.

In 2016, the United States Navy had 275 active ships in its fleet. Mr. Trump’s plans to increase that number to 355 would amount to just 80 more.

I'd like to add my own fact-check, if I may. In the speech Trump said:

Seventy-five years ago this summer, [LTCD Bruce Voorhis] was in the South Pacific commanding Bombing Squadron 102 during the battle of the Solomon Islands. That was a rough battle. His only brother had been killed and the Bataan Death March. On July 6, Bruce volunteered for a mission to destroy a crucial enemy base. It was a rough time. It was a rough, tough situation. He knew full-well that he would likely never return. He knew he was going to die. But he also knew his daring action could prevent a surprise attack on large-scale American forces.

So, his plane took off alone on a 700-mile flight. Bruce flew through the darkness to his target, a tiny speck on the vast open sea. He braved unrelenting anti-aircraft fire, like nobody had ever seen at that time, and a trail of enemy planes to single-handedly destroy this large enemy base, including multiple fortifications, and a critical communications link. And in this final act of valor, Bruce was caught in the blast of one of his own bombs and perished in a remote lagoon very far from here. His life was lost, but his legacy will live forever.

For his bravery, he was posthumously promoted to Commander and given the Medal of Honor.

So what did the liar-in-chief get wrong?  Reread the paragraphs above again and note the terms "alone" and "single-handedly."  It would be safe to infer that he was flying alone, right? That he "single-handedly" did all that stuff.

That would have been difficult for one man to do all that stuff piloting, as he was, a B-24 (specifically a PB4Y-1 Patrol Bomber). Did you know that there were ten other men on that plane? For their bravery and valor, the co-pilot was awarded the Navy Flying Cross and the rest of the crew the Distinguished Flying Cross.

Doesn't their bravery deserve a mention?

Senator Toomey RESPONDS To Another Letter (Toomey has Shifted His Stance On The Mueller Investigation)

It's been about three and a half weeks since Senator Toomey (or his office) has responded to a letter of mine. Last night I received in the postal mail a letter from his office.

This one is different in a number of ways and not so different after all. First off it's two pages (well, one sheet of paper but text on both sides) and that's never happened before.  Second, the punctuation isn't up to Toomey's usual polished standards.

I realize it's perhaps a wee bit nitpicky but when you see a sentence like this one:

President Trump fired Mr. Comey, and nominated Christopher Wray as the next FBI director.

Or this one:

On October 30, 2017, Mr. Mueller announced charges against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and campaign advisors Rick Gates, and George Papadopoulos.

where the use of some completely redundant commas coming from the office of a United States Senator you have to wonder who's checking this stuff? And don't they care about proper punctuation?

It's a tiny point but still.

So which letter is Toomey answering?  Let's go see.

He opens with:

Thank you for contacting me about the ongoing Department of Justice investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. I appreciate hearing from you.

Well that certainly narrows it down!  Too bad I've been keeping copies of Toomey's responses as this letter is looking all too familiar.  With some alterations, Senator Toomey's office has sent me this same letter three times.

The first two, I write about them here, are from the summer of 2017.

Here's how the June '17 opened:

Former FBI Director James Comey recently testified before Congress that an investigation into potential coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government is still ongoing. While the former director did not say whether any coordination has been found, he confirmed there is no evidence of vote tampering. President Trump recently fired Mr. Comey, and has nominated Christopher Wray as the next FBI director. It is now up to the Senate to vet and confirm this nomination.

And August '17:

Former FBI Director James Comey recently testified before Congress that an investigation into potential coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government is still ongoing. While the former director did not say whether any coordination has been found, he confirmed there is no evidence of vote tampering. President Trump fired Mr. Comey, and nominated Christopher Wray as the next FBI director. On August 1, 2017, the Senate voted 92 - 5 with my support to confirm Wray's nomination.

And this week's:

On March 20, 2017, former FBI Director James Comey testified before Congress that an investigation into potential coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government was still ongoing. While the former director did not say whether any coordination had been found, he confirmed there was no evidence of vote tampering. President Trump fired Mr. Comey, and nominated Christopher Wray as the next FBI director. On August 1, 2017, the Senate voted 92-5 with my support to confirm Mr. Wray's nomination.

Same letter, updated by a year. Can't we expect a real response from an elected official - especially on such an important matter?  So what's changed?

Paragraph two from June '17/August '17:

(In the interim/Meanwhile), Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel to continue the investigation into any links between Russia and individuals associated with the Trump campaign, and any matters that arose from such investigation - an assignment that encompasses the recent allegations surrounding Michael Flynn and Mr. Comey. I have every confidence that Robert Mueller will execute these responsibilities with integrity and professionalism.

And this week's:

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate any links between Russia and individuals associated with the Trump campaign, and any matters that arose from such investigation. On October 30, 2017, Mr. Mueller announced charges against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and campaign advisors Rick Gates, and George Papadopoulos. The Department of Justice (DOJ) alleges, among other things, that Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates failed to register as foreign agents while working on behalf of the Ukrainian government, and conspired to launder money. Mr. Gates has since pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate with the special counsel. Further, DOJ has secured a guilty plea from Mr. Papadopoulos for making false statements to the FBI regarding conversations he had with the Russian ambassador. Under terms of his plea agreement, Mr. Flynn will cooperate with the special counsel's investigation going forward. [New Material Highlighted.]

The interesting thing about this, what looks to be a messy rush job on Toomey's part, is found in the last sentence. See that? That's the first mention of "Mr. Flynn" in the letter. Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, and George Papadopoulos each get two mentions, the first with their entire names and a second with a "Mr." All poor Michael Flynn gets is a "Mr." 

Messy editing job, Senator. Your office is looking amateurish.

I'm also wondering why Toomey chose the milder, rather informal "alleges" instead of the harsher, more formal "has charged" or "indicted" in the second sentence.  Manafort was arrested, eventually freed on bail and now there's a scheduled court date. Why camouflage the charges behind a bland "alleges"?

But here's the bug news. Toomey's changed his tune about the Mueller investigation. In last year's letters, he ends with:

While I am not a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, please be assured I understand your concerns and will keep your thoughts in mind moving forward. Thank you again for your correspondence. Do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.

This week's letter inserts this sentence before that ending:

Mr. Mueller ought to conduct a thorough and complete investigation to ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice. It is also important that Mr. Mueller's work be conducted in an apolitical manner so that his findings are credible and nonpartisan.

Last year's letters included the sentence:

I have every confidence that Robert Mueller will execute these responsibilities with integrity and professionalism.

This week Toomey says that Mueller "ought to conduct" a fair, impartial and apolitical investigation (not that he is already doing so). So no longer does Pat Toomey have "every confidence" that Mueller will conduct himself with integrity and professionalism.

This is a big change. And Pat Toomey owes it to his constituents to explain this change.

Full Text of the letter:

Thank you for contacting me about the ongoing Department of Justice investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. I appreciate hearing from you.

On March 20, 2017, former FBI Director James Comey testified before Congress that an investigation into potential coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government was still ongoing. While the former director did not say whether any coordination had been found, he confirmed there was no evidence of vote tampering. President Trump fired Mr. Comey, and nominated Christopher Wray as the next FBI director. On August 1, 2017, the Senate voted 92-5 with my support to confirm Mr. Wray's nomination.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate any links between Russia and individuals associated with the Trump campaign, and any matters that arose from such investigation. On October 30, 2017, Mr. Mueller announced charges against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and campaign advisors Rick Gates, and George Papadopoulos. The Department of Justice (DOJ) alleges, among other things, that Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates failed to register as foreign agents while working on behalf of the Ukrainian government, and conspired to launder money. Mr. Gates has since pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate with the special counsel. Further, DOJ has secured a guilty plea from Mr. Papadopoulos for making false statements to the FBI regarding conversations he had with the Russian ambassador. Under terms of his plea agreement, Mr. Flynn will cooperate with the special counsel's investigation going forward.

On February 16, 2018, DOJ charged 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities with violating U.S. criminal laws in order to interfere with U.S. elections and political processes, beginning as early as 2014. In a press conference that same day, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein emphasized that there were no allegations in the indictment that any Americans were aware of the Russian election interference scheme or that the scheme has any effect on the outcome of the 2016 election.

I look forward to reviewing the findings of Mr. Mueller, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, and other congressional committees investigating Russian actions during the election. To the extent that the Russian government, or its agents, meddled in our election, they should face serious consequences. Towards that end, I was pleased to support legislation (Public Law 115-44) that codified and strengthened existing sanctions on Russia. If the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government in an attempt to influence the election, then that should be disclosed and acted upon, too. Russia remains a dangerous threat, and Congress must remain vigilant against our adversaries' attempts to expand their influence and undermine trust in our government.
Mr. Mueller ought to conduct a thorough and complete investigation to ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice. It is also important that Mr. Mueller's work be conducted in an apolitical manner so that his findings are credible and nonpartisan. While I am not a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, please be assured I understand your concerns and will keep your thoughts in mind moving forward. Thank you again for your correspondence. Do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.

[Line Spacing In Original]

My SIXTY-SECOND Open Letter To Senator Pat Toomey (UPDATED)

I'll be dropping this letter to Senator Pat Toomey in the mail today:

Dear Senator Toomey:

It's me, again - the constituent who writes for the local Pittsburgh-based political blog, "2 Political Junkies."

I'd like to as you about our new Director of Central Intelligence, Gina Haspel. You wrote on your Facebook page that you support her nomination. I'm curious about that support, considering how she oversaw a program that tortured someone. Reportedly, she was also involved in the destruction of video tapes showing other detainees at other CIA "black sites" being tortured. There was torture and then covering up torture - all overseen in one way or another by Gina Haspel.

The UN Convention Against Torture was signed by Ronald Reagan in 1988 and ratified by the US Senate in 1994. It is US Law. It says that torture is illegal - no mitigating circumstances allowed. No one can claim to have been "simply following orders" No one can claim it was necessary in the face of an emergency. Torture is simply illegal and Gina Haspel oversaw a torture program.

So here's my question: Now that she's been installed as head of CIA, how could we as a nation possibly criticize any other country for whatever torture programs they might be running when our own Director of Central Intelligence oversaw (and covered up) just such a program?

I await your response.

And I will be posting whatever response I get from him or his office.

UPDATE: The Senator has responded to this letter. 

Follow-up:

• Round-up Volume 1
• Round-up Volume 2
• Round-up Volume 3
• Round-up Volume 4
• Round-up Volume 5

Meanwhile Outside...

From the climate scientists at NOAA:

The global land and ocean temperature departure from average for April 2018 was the third highest for April in the NOAA global temperature dataset record, which dates back to 1880. The year-to-date (January-April) global temperature was the fifth warmest such period in the 139-year record.

And:

The April temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.49°F above the 20th century average of 56.7°F and the third highest for April in the 1880-2018 record. Only April 2016 (+1.94°F) and 2017 (+1.60°F) were warmer. Nine of the 10 warmest Aprils have occurred since 2005. April 2018 also marks the 42nd consecutive April and the 400th consecutive month with temperatures, at least nominally, above the 20th century average.

Meanwhile from the Washington Post:

The news came on a Friday evening in late April last year: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had removed an informational website about climate change, taking down a page that had been up, in some form, for nearly two decades and under three presidents.

Before its removal, the page had plainly stated a position on climate change: It is caused by humans, and there’s no significant doubt about that. But that position contradicted statements by the new EPA chief, Scott Pruitt, who had expressed doubts about human activity being the dominant driver of climate change.

EPA said at the time that the site had been taken down for review and that it had been archived and was still available as part of a “snapshot” of the state of the site on Jan. 19, 2017, just as the new administration took command.

This is some of the information you can find from that archived site:

In general, climate changes prior to the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s can be explained by natural causes, such as changes in solar energy, volcanic eruptions, and natural changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations.

Recent climate changes, however, cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Research indicates that natural causes do not explain most observed warming, especially warming since the mid-20th century. Rather, it is extremely likely that human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming.

And this:

On the other hand, on the Trump-era EPA page we see this:

The text immediately below it reads:

Thank you for your interest in this topic. We are currently updating our website to reflect EPA's priorities under the leadership of President Trump and Administrator Pruitt. If you're looking for an archived version of this page, you can find it on the January 19 snapshot.

And that leads you to the year old data.

It's still getting warmer out there regardless of the efforts of the science deniers in power who are actively blocking that information from you.

Toomey Time Round-Up! (Part The Fifth)

So far, I've written 61 letters to Pennsylvania's junior senator, Pat Toomey.  The first round up of letters can be found here. The second, here. The third, here. The fourth, here.

Today, it's time for a fifth.

Of letters 48 through 61, Senator Toomey (or his office) have so far answered only two:

• Fiftieth
• Fifty-third

And now, for your edification and amusement, here are the letters Senator Toomey has decided not to answer:

• Forty-eighth - where I asked about the overall lack of security clearances among his advisors (including Jared Kushner) and wonder what his reaction would be if the same situation were to take place during a democratic administration.
• Forty-ninth - where I asked about Trump's refusal to faithfully execute the law passed by Congress to sanction Russia for its election meddling.
• Fifty-first - where I asked about a recent "joke" of Trump's. He "joked" about extending his term beyond the constitutionally limited two. I wondered to Senator Toomey what his reaction would be had a Democratic president made the same "joke."
• Fifty-second - where I asked about another Trump attack on a free press.
• Fifty-fourth - where I asked Toomey to comment on whether the $130,000 payoff to adult film star Stormy Daniels constituted an "in-kind" (and illegal) contribution to the Trump Campaign.
• Fifty-fifth - where I asked Toomey to comment on the reaction of the business community to his tax-cut legislation. He said it would create new jobs and a report from the Atlanta Fed said it didn't.
• Fifty-sixth - where I asked Toomey if he agreed with Trump regarding the FBI raid on Michael Cohen's offices - were they a disgrace, and a witch hunt as Trump said, or does he still have faith that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller will do his job with "integrity and professionalism."
• Fifty-seventh - where I asked Toomey if he supported Senator Lindsay Graham's legislation protecting Special Prosecutor Mueller if Trump sought to fire him.
• Fifty-eighth - where I asked Toomey if he agreed with his Senate colleague Bob Corker when he, Corker, said, "any Republican senator who hasn't been conflicted over this presidency is either comatose or is pretty useless in their blindness."
• Fifty-ninth -  where I asked Toomey about his reaction to his Senate colleague Marco Rubio's assertion that after the tax cut to big business, "there’s no evidence whatsoever that the money’s been massively poured back into the American worker.” 
• Sixtieth -  where I asked about Trump's lies regarding the payoff to Stormy Daniels and whether the Senator was OK with the lies.
• Sixty-first - where I asked about Trump's violation of "the Iran Deal" and how, in Toomey's eyes, it's made the world safer.

These are the questions that my senator has, so far, refused to answer.

My SIXTY-FIRST Open Letter To Senator Pat Toomey (UPDATED)

I'll be dropping this letter to Senator Pat Toomey in the mail today:

Dear Senator Toomey:

It's me, again - the constituent who writes for the local Pittsburgh-based political blog, "2 Political Junkies."

I need to ask you about Donald Trump's decision to violate the JCPOA (a.k.a "The Iran Deal"). You posted on your website that you support the decision to withdraw (ie to violate) the agreement adding that the agreement "pav[ed] the way for Iran to develop nuclear weapons in a few short years" and "provided immediate sanctions relief and $100 billion" to Iran.

Let me start about the money. Isn't it true that the $100 billion in question is actually money from the sale of Iranian oil that the US Treasury had frozen in banks around the world? (Yes, it is.) And so aren't you (at the very least) misleading the public by using the verb "provided" rather than the more correct "returned"? It is their money, is it not? The verb "provided" seems to imply that the money was coming from someplace other than Iran itself.

And now the agreement itself. You said that the agreement paved the way for Iran to develop nukes in a few short years. But isn't it far more accurate to say that it stopped Iran from developing those weapons that quickly? It reduced Iran's capability of producing weapons grade uranium, reduced the number of advanced centrifuges and so on.

But now with those controls off, now Iran is capable of creating a nuclear weapon much more quickly, isn't that true?

So here's my question: How have you made the world safer? No, wait. I'll answer that one for you: You haven't.

But if you can comment on why you're misleading your voters about The Iran Deal, that'll be great. THANKS.

I await your response.

And I will be posting whatever response I get from him or his office.

UPDATE: The Senator has responded to this letter.

Follow-up:

• Round-up Volume 1
• Round-up Volume 2
• Round-up Volume 3
• Round-up Volume 4
• Forty-eighth letter - no response so far 
• Forty-ninth letter - no response so far 
• Fiftieth letter - Toomey responded here
• Fifty-first letter - no response so far 
• Fifty-second letter - no response so far 
• Fifty-third letter - Toomey responded here
• Fifty-forth letter - no response so far 
• Fifty-fifth letter - no response so far 
• Fifty-sixth letter - no response so far 
• Fifty-seventh letter - no response so far 
• Fifty-eighth letter - no response so far 
• Fifty-ninth letter - no response so far 
• Sixtieth letter - no response so far

The New GOP - Even More Disgusting Than The Last

As far back as I can remember, I had always perceived a rather nasty narrative emanating from the conservative right in this country.

This goes at least as far back as Ronald Reagan's "Welfare Queen" homey anecdotes, I suppose. While she  was certainly a real person who committed real crimes, as Mark Levin wrote in Slate:

Linda Taylor, the haughty thief who drove her Cadillac to the public aid office, was the embodiment of a pernicious stereotype. With her story, Reagan marked millions of America’s poorest people as potential scoundrels and fostered the belief that welfare fraud was a nationwide epidemic that needed to be stamped out. This image of grand and rampant welfare fraud allowed Reagan to sell voters on his cuts to public assistance spending. The “welfare queen” became a convenient villain, a woman everyone could hate. She was a lazy black con artist, unashamed of cadging the money that honest folks worked so hard to earn.

By magnifying the reality, the GOP was able to redefine everyone on welfare as possibly or even probably a "lazy black con artist, unashamed of cadging the money that honest folks worked so hard to earn." With that they were able to assert that the welfare state, for the sake of those honest Americans, needs to be dismantled.

Never mind the real suffering such a dismantling based on a dishonest magnification of one person's crimes caused.

However disgusting that was, it's rather different from the current disgusting.

From The Hill:

A White House official mocked Sen. John McCain’s brain cancer diagnosis at an internal meeting on Thursday, a day after the Arizona Republican announced his opposition to President Trump’s nominee for CIA director, Gina Haspel.

Special assistant Kelly Sadler made the derisive comments during a closed-door White House meeting of about two-dozen communications staffers on Thursday morning.

“It doesn’t matter, he’s dying anyway,” Sadler said, according to a source familiar with the remarks at the meeting.

And on Fox this happened:

Former Fox News military analyst Thomas McInerney on Thursday condemned Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) rebuke of President Trump's CIA director nominee Gina Haspel, saying that torture "worked on" McCain, whom he referred to as "Songbird John."

You can agree with Senator McCain's politics or not (and I definitely do not) but such open attitudes abound in Trump's GOP.

 And we all know where this comes from, right? Here:

Appearing on Saturday at the Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa, the real estate mogul took his running feud with Arizona Sen. John McCain to a new level.

“He’s not a war hero,” said Trump. “He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”

But even that wasn't exactly new to the disgusting GOP. Take a look at what I found back in 2008. The "Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain" called him a "songbird" ten years ago and the story had enough traction that Politifact had to address it - ten years ago.

Can we not take a lesson from Reagan's "Welfare Queen" anecdote and now safely assume that every Republican, unless they publicly denounce this current GOP disgusting narrative of Senator McCain, actually agrees with it? Can we not ask, every Republican to answer for it?

Yea, I think we can. And we should.

My SIXTIETH Open Letter To Senator Pat Toomey

I'll be dropping this letter to Senator Pat Toomey in the mail today:

Dear Senator Toomey:

It's me, again - the constituent who writes for the local Pittsburgh-based political blog, "2 Political Junkies."

I'm sorry Senator but we have to hold our collective noses and wade back into the ever-steaming swamp of Donald Trump scandals.

A few days ago the NYTimes reported that Donald Trump knew about the $130K payoff to adult film actress Stephanie Clifford "months before he denied any knowledge of it to reporters aboard Air Force One in April." If true, that would mean he out and out lied in public when he said he didn't know about the payment.

In a tweet on May 3, Donald Trump acknowledged that the payments were done as "a monthly retainer" and that money was a reimbursement for those payments. If true that would mean Trump out and out lied in public about the source of the payments only a few seconds after lying about knowing about the payment to Ms Clifford.

So this week's question: Is ANY of this acceptable with you? If so, how much are you ok with? And if it's not acceptable with you when will you be denouncing the man you voted for in November 2016? And if it IS acceptable to you, for Heaven's sake, what WOULD it take for you to find Trump's behavior unacceptable?

I await your response.

And I will be posting whatever response I get from him or his office.

Follow-up:

• Round-up Volume 1
• Round-up Volume 2
• Round-up Volume 3
• Round-up Volume 4
• Forty-eighth letter - no response so far 
• Forty-ninth letter - no response so far 
• Fiftieth letter - Toomey responded here
• Fifty-first letter - no response so far 
• Fifty-second letter - no response so far 
• Fifty-third letter - Toomey responded here
• Fifty-forth letter - no response so far 
• Fifty-fifth letter - no response so far 
• Fifty-sixth letter - no response so far 
• Fifty-seventh letter - no response so far 
• Fifty-eighth letter - no response so far 
• Fifty-ninth letter - no response so far

Donald J Trump Lies. And Then Lies About Lying

This is May 4 - a few days ago - and this is the official transcript found at Whitehouse.gov:

Q    Mr. President, why did you change your story on Stormy Daniels?

THE PRESIDENT:  I’m (We're) not changing any stories.  All I’m telling you is that this country is right now running so smooth.  And to be bringing up that kind of crap, and to be bringing up witch hunts all the time — that’s all you want to talk about.  You’re going to see —

Q    But you said —

THE PRESIDENT:  Excuse me —

Q    — on Air Force One that you did not know (anything about the payments).

THE PRESIDENT:  No, but you have to — excuse me.  You take a look at what I said.  You go back and take a look.  You’ll see what I said.

Q    You said, “No,” when I asked you, “Did you know about the payment?”

THE PRESIDENT:  Excuse me, you go take a look at what we said.  But this is a witch hunt like nobody has ever seen before.  And what they should do is look at the other side, where terribly bad things have happened, where terribly bad things have been done. (My minor corrections are in blue)

You can watch it for yourself:


And this is the conversation that reporter referenced.

Q    Mr. President, did you know about the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels?

THE PRESIDENT:  No.  No.  What else?

Q    Then why did Michael Cohen make those if there was no truth to her allegations?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, you’ll have to ask Michael Cohen.  Michael is my attorney.  And you’ll have to ask Michael Cohen.

Q    Do you know where he got the money to make that payment?

THE PRESIDENT:  No, I don’t know.  No.

In between there was this:

President Donald Trump said Thursday reimbursement to his personal lawyer for hush money paid to porn actress Stormy Daniels was done through a monthly retainer and “had nothing to do with the campaign.”

And here's what Trump said in a series of tweets:

Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement, a private contract between two parties, known as a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA. These agreements are...very common among celebrities and people of wealth. In this case it is in full force and effect and will be used in Arbitration for damages against Ms. Clifford (Daniels). The agreement was used to stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair,...despite already having signed a detailed letter admitting that there was no affair. Prior to its violation by Ms. Clifford and her attorney, this was a private agreement. Money from the campaign, or campaign contributions, played no roll in this transaction.

So the money was repaid by Trump via a retainer - so he did know.

So he lied and then lied about lying.