Author: d.lundy

The New York Times recently published an explosive report regarding two women, Jessica Leeds and Rachel Crooks, who accuse Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump of making inappropriate advances on them within minutes of meeting them.  The allegations, spanning from the late 1970’s to 2005, paint a portrait of a highly entitled serial sexual abuser.  It’s a damaging picture, indeed.  And, from his response, the Donald knows that all too well:

“Lawyers for Donald Trump have called on The New York Times to retract a bombshell report in which two women claimed that Trump had touched them inappropriately.”

In the open letter sent to the newspaper, demands were made to cease further publication of the report, have it removed from the website, and issue a full retraction and apology.  Threats have been made that lawsuits were being drafted against the Times and The Palm Beach Post, which had published another story about sexual assault allegations against Trump.

It’s easy to see a portrait here of a complete crybaby, someone so thin-skinned that can’t have any criticism at all put out there.  He must have his praises sung at all times as if he’s God Almighty.

With this incident (and many others in the past), a more sinister picture emerges.  It is one showing a man, running for the highest office in the land, who doesn’t understand the point of the First Amendment and a free press.  He simply doesn’t understand that the press is there to hold public figures running for and holding office accountable, and criticize them when they merit critcism.

You do not have democracy when you don’t allow the press to do its job, and you should not be anywhere near the White House if you can’t understand that simple fact.

Maine Governor Paul LePage Stopped by a Conservative radio station for an interview on Tuesday, where he gave his thoughts about how Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump should run the country:

“Sometimes I wondered that our Constitution is not only broken, but we need a Donald Trump to show some authoritarian power in our country and bring back the rule of law…Because we’ve had eight years of a president, he’s an autocrat, he just does it on his own, he ignores Congress and every single day, we’re slipping into anarchy.”

One might be confused as to how it is that the good Governor is complaining on one hand about the apparent abuse of power by current President Barack Obama, referring to him as an “autocrat”, while at the same time saying that the Donald should essentially abuse power.  Also confusing is how he is calling for the restoration of the rule of law by saying that this particular potential president should act in a way that would disregard the rule of law.

What is ultimately confusing, though, is the fact that we have to take a clearly insane, racist, overly corrupt clown seriously in the first place, being that he has the title of “Governor” before his name.

By the way, in the interview, he talked about how a Hillary Clinton presidency would “destroy” the United States, stating that “I could not see how any red-blooded American citizen could vote for Hillary Clinton.”

In September of 2015, Venezuelan opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez was sentenced to 13 years, 9 months, 7 days, and 12 hours in prison, being convicted on the grounds of “public incitement” and “association to commit crimes”.  His conviction, along with that of three Venezuelan students, stem from anti-government demonstrations that took place on the streets of Caracas in February of 2014, where violent incidents broke out.

Looking into this particular case, Human Rights Watch, among other organizations, saw troubling issues arise, including the use of flimsy evidence and a lack of due process.  An interesting note here, related to the “evidence”, comes from the arrest warrant issued for Mr. Lopez, which pinned culpability for his involvement with violent acts during the protests on a series of “subliminal messages” posted on social media.  On top of that, there was little to no evidence shown during trial, save for two witnesses brought forward by the prosecutor to rant against the opposition leader.

That’s not to mention the three Venezuelan students, who were arrested in allegedly brutal fashion soon after the protests took place.  Being held incommunicado for around two days, they suffered abuse at the hands of police and were denied access to lawyers and their families.  A fourth student accused of being involved in the violence fled the country.

Apparently, from what one can deduce logically from last Sunday night’s debate, it is scenarios like this that Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump would like to have happen in the United States.  Using the criminal justice system to go after political opponents.  Often ends well, doesn’t it?

Roughly a month ago, NY Times columnist Frank Bruni touched on a troubling aspect of Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump– that is, his absolute penchant for adulation and praise, regardless of whether it is warranted or not.  He discusses the Donald’s apparent admiration for Russian leader Vladimir Putin and his “82 percent approval rating,” something he gleefully highlighted during the “commander in chief” forum in September.

As Bruni reminds us, Putin’s “82 percent approval rating” exist in a climate of fear and intimidation fostered by an authoritarian government ran by a ruthless strongman.  It would be hard, after all, to dissent against the government when you know you can get in serious legal trouble for doing so.  And that’s saying the least about that situation.

Trump’s apparent praise for Putin, and his own general need for praise, is troubling in terms of what to expect from a possible Trump Presidency.  What happens to those who dare challenge him, who dare to speak out against him and say even a peep criticizing him?  Only God knows at this point, but the signs don’t look good.

Judith Browne Dianis gives us a little reminder of the damage towards voting rights moving along on the state level, bringing up a proposed constitutional amendment to the Virginian Constitution that would deal a significant blow to certain groups of people at the voting booth.  This proposal, by State Senate Majority Leader Thomas K. Norment Jr., would impose new restrictions and obstacles in regards to the restoration of voting rights for the incarcerated, and would even put in place a irreversible lifetime ban for certain others.

In the view of Dianis, this appears to be partisan strike-back for the recent efforts of Governor Terry McAuliffe to restore voting rights for those who paid their debt to society.  This partisan tirade, however, has real consequences, denying the rights of American individuals in society and making them second-class citizens.

This piece by Colbert I. King gives us a warning about what a Trump presidency would mean for African Americans and the civil rights advancements they have made over the years.  First bringing up the irony of the opening of the new African American Smithsonian museum during this particular presidential race, King then gives us a spooky history lesson, discussing the 1876 presidential race and the “compromise” that allowed Republican Rutherford B. Hayes to take office.  This was a compromise, along with actions on the judicial and executive level, and some “white rage” overall against reconstruction, that would set back African Americans for years in the battle for civil rights and gaining respect and dignity in society.

With a little more history and a detailed explanation of the danger of Donald Trump holding presidential power (pushing “stop and frisk” all throughout the country; nominating judges that pose a threat to civil liberties, voting rights, reproductive rights), King lays down an excellent case as to why everyone, but particularly African Americans, should insure that the Donald goes down in flames at the voting booth.

In an continuing apparent bid to prove to the United States (and the world) that he does not care about anyone’s rights, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, stopping by an African-American church today, had this to say about crime and the tactics we should used to fight it:

“I would do stop-and-frisk. I think you have to…I see what’s going on here, I see what’s going on in Chicago, I think stop-and-frisk. In New York City it was so incredible, the way it worked.”

Yes, the Donald promises that, if elected, he will take a controversial, unconstitutional practice that has targeted minority communities nationwide.  He will have law enforcement stop and frisk everyone that they find “suspicious”.  Mind you, this reality TV star is stating his support of this policy in an African-American church of all places.

Given the combination of his statements over the past several days, in which he called for profiling and complained about the treatment of suspects in custody, along with his statements today, a clear picture is forming of the Donald.  An ugly picture of someone running for president, who obviously will not preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump touched on the capture of Ahmad Khan Rahami, the suspect allegedly behind the explosions in New York and New Jersey over the weekend, Monday evening at a rally in Florida.  He first thanked law enforcement for capturing the “evil thug”.  Then, he went on to make this troubling statement:

“The bad part: now we will give him amazing hospitalization, he will be taken care of by some of the best doctors in the world, he will be given a fully modern and updated hospital room, and he’ll probably even have room service, knowing the way our country is…And on top of all of that, he will be represented by an outstanding lawyer. His case will go through the various court systems for years, and in the end people will forget and his punishment will not be what it once would have been.”

Starting out with the obvious, Rahami is, at the end of the day, a suspect at this point, not having gone through trial and being found guilty of anything.  He has rights under our Constitution, such as to due process of law and access to an attorney.

This is not to mention that, as a modern nation, we do civilized things as provide medical care to those in custody, not let them fester in whatever ailments or injuries they may have.

The worst part of what the Donald, running to be our nation’s president, had said, comes at the end, complaining about how “his punishment will not be what it once would have been.”

So, what does this reality TV star think a more appropriate punishment should be?  Burning at the stake?  Beheading?  Hanging, drawing and Quartering?  Or perhaps tossing the condemned off of a roof, cliff, or some other tall structure?

We have a reality TV star running for the presidency.  A man with no basic understanding of a modern, civilized society, our Constitution, and the rule of law.

As is well known now, a series of unfortunate events unfolded over this past weekend.  There was the explosion in the Chelsea neighborhood in Manhattan that injured 29 people on 23rd Street between 6th and 7th Avenues on Saturday night.  There was the discovery of a pressure-cooker device just several blocks away from that blast.  That’s not to mention the bombs found in New Jersey, all of this culminating in yesterday’s New Jersey shootout and capture of suspect Ahmad Khan Rahami.  Adding on top of all of this were stabbings in Minnesota that terror group ISIS took credit for.

The situations that unfolded this weekend could have been worse.  A lot worse.  It is a reminder, however, that we do live in a dangerous world with people who want to harm our nation.

There are smart ways to respond to such a threat, taking a more measured approach that effectively tackles the problem at hand while protecting Americans’ civil liberties and the rights of groups that might particularly be looked upon with suspicion in light of such threats.  And then, there’s Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s response.

In the wake of this Weekend’s events, the Donald called for profiling to be employed, saying on Fox News: “Our local police — they know who a lot of these people are. They are afraid to do anything about it because they don’t want to be accused of profiling.”

Claiming that we don’t have a choice but to profile, the reality TV star said that “We’re trying to be so politically correct in our country, and this is only going to get worse.”

To say the least, it is a little troubling that we have a candidate of a major political party who is brazenly going out there, saying such things.  Saying these things, mind you, despite the immorality, the ineffectiveness, and the illegality of such a strategy.

On this point alone, the reality TV star should be disqualified from Presidential office.  And with the Donald, this is simply scratching the surface.

As you (might) know, the end of a presidential term in office, in particular, brings along with it quite a few pardons, more than a few in the past that have been quite controversial.  It seems that the ACLU and Amnesty International are going to push President Obama to grant a particularly controversial pardon.

These two organizations, well known for their work in civil liberties and human rights, are launching a campaign to get the president to pardon former NSA contractor Edward Snowden by the time he leaves office in January of 2017.  If you can recall, Mr. Snowden was the man who released details of mass phone and internet surveillance by his employers several years ago (he now lives essentially in exile in Russia, having fled there after his revelations).  A pardonsnowden.org website has been created, and social media accounts related to the campaign have also been set up.

Will there be any chance that Snowden would actually be pardoned by January 20th.  The chances appear to be slim to none.  The White House has reiterated what it has said on the matter in the past, that “Mr Snowden should face charges in the US because his leaks ‘damaged the United States’.

Anyone who has followed the actions of the Obama Administration knows that it is not one to go out of its way to court controversy.  Granting a pardon to a man that most in the establishment view as a traitor to the nation would be a surefire way to do so.