Trump Steals Land From The People To Benefit His Corporate Buddies

Presidents Clinton and Obama, under the Antiquities Act, designated lands as national monuments during their terms. The lands were important to several Native American tribes as heritage sites. Together, the monuments comprised about 3 million acres.

During his first term, Donald Trump tried to downsize both monuments, but President Biden restored both to their original size. 

Now Trump has again downsized both monuments - from their original 3 million acres to about 300,000 acres. He did this in spite of the Antiquities Act giving presidents the power to create monuments, but not to downsize or eliminate them.

Most egregious was the lie he said as the reason for his action - to give it back to the people of the United States. That's ridiculous! As national monuments, the people of the United States (all of us) owned that land.

What he has actually done is to steal the land from the people so he can sell or lease it to special interests - corporate interests who want to mine it for minerals (uranium, copper, and possibly other minerals).

Trump has no interest in history or antiquities, or what is best for the people of this country. He's only interested in what can be bought and sold (and you can bet he will benefit personally from this).

We can only hope that the desecration of these monuments can be delayed until a Democratic president (elected in 2028) can restore them again.

The United States Needs To Erect More Monuments To Donald Trump (Satire)

 The following is a delicious bit of satire by Bret Stephens in The New York Times:

To: Our greatest president

From: Your greatest fans

We are writing to let you know, sir, that we are as outraged as you are that some liberal judge has ordered that your name be stripped from the Donald J. Trump and the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts. Not only is the decision wrong, it’s also backward. You’ve survived three assassination attempts and yet the building will keep his name?

On a related subject, sir, we hope those knuckleheads in Congress won’t let some old law stand in the way of putting your face on a $250 bill. After all, nothing advertises the strength of a country’s economy like high-denomination bank notes. And since restaurant meals now often run to about $250 (minus drinks and dessert) for a party of four, making a bank note with your mug shot on it will be triply convenient: faster payment; a reminder of how affordable things have become under your presidency; and proof that, in the land of the free, you can get away with just about anything.

We’re also big supporters of your plan for your triumphal arch for Washington soaring a proud 250 feet, nearly as tall as the Capitol itself. Hopefully it will include large gold-plated statues of the greatest American leaders, such as Abraham Lincoln and yourself. People are calling it the “Arc de Trump,” like the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. That one was commissioned by Napoleon Bonaparte, just before such strokes of military genius as the Peninsular War, the invasion of Russia and the Hundred Days campaign of 1815.

Do you know they named a bridge and a train station in London in honor of the battle that ended that last excursion?

At any rate, leaders who build gargantuan triumphal arches always go on to greater military glory. Maybe yours will be for the liberation of Hormuz, though that may have to await the deployment of the new “Trump class” battleships after the first one commissions sometime around 2036.

We fear, however, that you may be missing significant opportunities to enhance your and your family’s visibility.

We were tempted to suggest, for example, that you consider renaming the Statue of Liberty the “Melania Knauss Trump Statue of Liberty,” in honor of the first immigrant — a legal immigrant, of course — to become first lady. But Lady Liberty isn’t exactly a “10,” except maybe in her dress size, and the poem about “the wretched refuse of your teeming shore” is not on-brand when it comes to the Trump name.

For now, we have shelved the idea. But have you considered building a svelter “Statue of Melania,” 250 feet tall (not including the base), on nearby Governors Island? The inscription could read: “Give me your Central European catalog models and anyone willing to write a $25 million check.”

Future generations will find it inspirational.

We also believe you were too modest when you chose to rename the Gulf of Mexico after America rather than after yourself, as you had thought to do at first. But why settle for a mere gulf? The Atlantic Ocean is named for Atlas, a figure from Greek mythology, which makes little sense since Greece is nowhere near the Atlantic. And the Pacific Ocean, which is much larger than the Atlantic, was named after a brand of Mexican beer, Pacifico, which makes no sense at all.

You know what does make sense? Trump Oceans. Plural. It simplifies geography while amplifying your name.

And we cannot stop there.

You mustn’t be shy about putting your name to the new White House ballroom. And though we understand that adding your face to Mount Rushmore (for which there’s already a bill in Congress) may, alas, be a geological impossibility, why not, while it’s being repaired and redone, add the name TRUMP in huge gold-tiled letters to the floor of the Reflecting Pool in the National Mall? Ideally, these should be lit up at night in a way that can be visible from 30,000 feet, if not from space.

Speaking of space, aren’t we going back to the moon under your presidency? That’s got to mean naming rights in addition to bragging rights. At a minimum, our first lunar base must be named for you. (The second one can be named for Elon, or maybe Jeff, whoever is first, provided you’re still on good terms with either of them.) But why do we even call our planet’s moon “the Moon,” as if a generic noun should be a proper noun, too? That needs to change.

Get ready for it: Trump Moon.

Mr. President, there are so many ways to honor your priceless achievements and legacy, but we’ve already taken too much of your time. And time being the most valuable thing of all, it reminds us, finally, of a poem:

I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
“My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

Yours sincerely,

Percy, Bysshe and Shelley

Trump's "Crown Envy" Monument To Himself Will Dwarf Our White House

 

Trump Said His Ballroom Wouldn't Affect The White House - He LIED

Donald Trump's narcissism is out of control (or is it dementia). He decided, without congressional or public approval, that he wanted a monument to himself. He decided it would be a huge ballroom named after himself.

When he announced it, he said it would not affect any of the current White House. It would sit next to the East Wing of the White House. HE LIED! Now we learn that he increased to size of the proposed ballroom from a 600 person capacity to a capacity of over 900. And to accommodate the larger version, the East Wing of the White House would have to go.

Without seeking permission (and in secret), he began the demolition of the entire East Wing. We should not have believed his initial promise. We know he lies repeatedly and has no problem with breaking promises - and as Andy Borowitz points out, Trump and his family have a history of breaking promises and destroying beloved landmarks:

Trump learned everything he knows about real estate from his father, Fred Trump—and much of what he knows about wanton vandalism. Steeplechase Park was one of the most beloved amusement parks in Coney Island, Brooklyn. In 1966, after Trump’s dad acquired the property (accompanied by nineteen-year-old Donald at the signing ceremony), with plans to demolish it and build residential units, outraged citizens attempted to save it by applying to have it designated as a landmark.

Before Steeplechase’s landmark status could be certified, however, Fred Trump organized a “demolition party” at which he urged a mob to smash the glass facade of the park’s Pavilion of Fun. “Trump sent out engraved invitations and invited people to throw rocks and bricks through the Funny Face—it was a desecration of an icon, it was insane,” Charles Denson, the Coney Island History Project’s executive director, told the Brooklyn Paper. “Most developers are worried about making a profit, most wouldn’t throw a party to desecrate a stained-glass window.”

Donald Trump would continue his father’s proud tradition of gleeful destruction when he demolished the Bonwit Teller Building on Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue to clear the site for Trump Tower. After saying he’d try to preserve the building’s priceless Art Deco friezes so that they could be exhibited at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Trump discovered that it would cost $32,000 to remove them intact. As a clever solution to his problem, he had his workmen smash them to bits.

The trashing of the Bonwit friezes, as reprehensible as it was, is nothing compared to Trump’s most ambitious act of architectural desecration: the 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. According to a report by the General Accounting Office, the January 6 assault resulted in property damage totaling $2.7 billion, a cost to be borne by American taxpayers.

Trump is just following a family tradition of lying and destruction. And he has done it to feed his own ego by building a huge (and probably crass) monument to himself. A monument nearly twice as large as the rest of the White House. The ballroom will be 90,000 square feet, while the rest of the White House is only 55,000 square feet. 

This is worse than a disgrace - it is a sacrilege!

SCOTUS - Religious Freedom Or Christian Superiority?

(Photo is by Sarah Silbiger in The New York Times.)

The Constitution of the United States, in its First Amendment, guarantees freedom of religion. It has been taken to mean that the government (which our Founding Fathers said was secular) should not favor one religion over any other religion, or demand a citizen adhere to any religion.

But that has not been the case in the past. It is fairly commonplace in this country for religious displays (Ten Commandments, Christmas displays, etc.) to be placed on government property with the blessings of that government -- in spite of the fact that such displays clearly favors one religion (christianity) over others, giving at least the appearance that christianity is the government-favored religion.

A case was argued before the Supreme Court last week that involved this very phenomenon -- the placing of christian symbols on government property. The case involves a 40-foot cross placed on government property by the American Legion that purports to honor World War I soldiers (see picture above). It is clearly a christian symbol, even though not all those soldiers were christian.

Does that cross violate the United States Constitution? I believe it does. We'll find out this summer what the Supreme Court thinks. Sadly, I expect they will allow the cross to remain on government property -- making a hollow joke of the First Amendment's religious freedom clause.

Here is part of what the editorial board of The New York Times had to say:

This week’s hearing, in American Legion v. American Humanist Association, involved a 40-foot cross in Bladensburg, Md., that was erected 93 years ago to honor fallen World War I soldiers. The question before the court: Is Maryland in violation of the First Amendment because the memorial is on public property and maintained with public funds?

Over the years, the justices have tried to come up with rules to assess all kinds of religious emblems and practices carrying the government’s imprimatur — sectarian prayers in legislative sessions, war memorials, Ten Commandments and Christmas displays, and mottos on seals or currency.

Lower court judges are confused about how to apply the Supreme Court’s dictates in this area of the law, so more clarity from the high court — if not a definitive, bright-line rule — is in order.

Alas, such clarity doesn’t seem to be on the horizon. After Wednesday’s hearing, the court seems poised to allow the cross — which otherwise bears no religious inscriptions — to stay. But the justices don’t appear to be any closer to consensus on this issue than they’ve ever been.

“I mean, it is the foremost symbol of Christianity, isn’t it?” Justice Elena Kagan asked at Wednesday’s session. “It invokes the central theological claim of Christianity, that Jesus Christ, the son of God, died on the cross for humanity’s sins and that he rose from the dead. This is why Christians use crosses as a way to memorialize the dead.”

Justice Stephen Breyer, who in the past has wrestled with the Constitution’s religion clauses, pondered whether “history counts” when assessing a monument’s legality. Maybe older displays, erected when the nation wasn’t nearly as religiously diverse, should be allowed, he suggested. “We’re a different country,” Justice Breyer said. “We are a different country now, and there are 50 more different religions.”

The Trump administration, which isn’t a party in the case, has nonetheless weighed in, participating in oral arguments in support of the Maryland monument and other memorial crosses on federal property that could be similarly challenged. In the administration’s view, the Maryland cross is secular in context and not an endorsement of any particular faith, and only displays that “coerce” religious belief or adherence ought to be considered unconstitutional. Taking offense at a passive display is not enough.

Arlington National Cemetery provides a good example of the kind of nondiscrimination the government should be aiming for: Federal rules allow for a wide array of religious and nonreligious symbols on headstones. “That’s the way this sort of thing is being handled today in a pluralistic society in which ordinary people … are not at each other’s throats about religious divisions,” Justice Samuel Alito said of Arlington on Wednesday.

That’s fair enough. But with its recent rulings, the Supreme Court has only muddied the separation between church and state by taking seriously religious objections to contraception, civil rights laws and the allocation of public funds. It is hard to fathom the justices being nearly as accommodating with a publicly funded monument to atheism or a Wiccan pentagram. And last month, the court couldn’t even agree that a Muslim death-row prisoner from Alabama deserved the same rightsas Christians in his final moments.

However the justices resolve this the dispute, they would be wise to not sow more confusion in this area of the law and feed the perception that only certain religions and practices get a fair shake in public life.

It's Time To Remove Confederate Plaque From Capitol Bldg.

The plaque pictured above is in the Texas Capitol Building, and was placed there in 1959 (likely in response to the civil rights demonstrations that were starting to grow at that time). It is not only offensive to have a plaque honoring an enemy of the United States, but the plaque contains an obvious LIE -- that the Civil War was not fought over slavery. The plaque is an abomination to all decent Texas of all colors, and it needs to be removed.

Here is what the editorial board of The Dallas Morning News had to say:

It's never simple raising concerns about Confederate monuments and symbols in this state. There's a fiery debate anytime there's a mention of removing these relics.

Such was the case when state Rep. Eric Johnson started raising questions a full year ago about the Confederate plaque near his Capitol office. We understand the emotional feelings about not erasing history. But imagine suffering the indignity of being face-to-face day in and day out with a hurtful reminder that celebrates keeping your race of people in bondage.

This newspaper has repeatedly argued that these divisive tributes no longer belong in our public spaces. We're flummoxed as to why it's taken so long to get rid of this one. Not only is it offensive, but it also offers a distorted and widely debunked history lesson about the Civil War. It's past time for it to go.

The plaque, erected by the "Children of the Confederacy" in 1959, features the group's creed, including a "pledge ... to study and teach the truths of history (one of the most important of which is, that the War Between the States was not a rebellion, nor was its underlying cause to sustain slavery)."

Historians say that's hogwash. What's more, the time and context for when these tributes took place matter. Many were not done in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, but rather at the height of legally mandated segregation. Bent less on history than on subordinating people. 

So why is this plaque still hanging in the state Capitol in Austin? Stunningly, it seems to come down to a disagreement about who is authorized to remove it.

Johnson, a Dallas Democrat, first made his removal request to the Texas Preservation Board, charged with maintaining and preserving the Capitol, the Governor's Mansion and other properties.

Gov. Greg Abbott, the board's chairman, has said that because the Legislature authorized the plaque's installation, lawmakers should be involved in deciding whether to remove it. More than 40 lawmakers support its removal, according to the Austin American-Statesman. They include Republican House Speaker Joe Straus. 

Rep. Joe Moody, D-El Paso, joined the cause in April, asking Attorney General Ken Paxton to offer an opinion on who has the authority to remove it.

We encourage Paxton to rule soon so this long-overdue removal process can get underway.

But Texas has already made great strides in the kind of state it wants to be today. The Southern Poverty Law Center says Texas has removed more Confederate symbols than any other state in the three years since the killing of nine people at a historic black church in Charleston, S.C., that renewed the effort to take them down.

Texas needs to add one more to the pile. The public seat of democracy is no place for such a thing.

There May Be A Solution To The Confederate Statues

These charts are from the newest Public Policy Polling survey -- done between August 18th and 21st of a random national sample of 887 registered voters, with a margin of error of 3.3 points.

As the top chart shows, the general public is split on the appropriateness of statues in public places of Confederate military figures and politicians (39% support, 34% oppose, and 27% don't know what the hell to think). But when you look at the racial breakdown, you can see the problem this country has. Among Whites, about 49% support the monuments and 29% oppose them. It's different among Nonwhites -- Blacks (11% support and 49% oppose, Hispanics (3% support and 47% oppose), and other races (23% support and 44% oppose).

These monuments expose the racial problem we have in this country. Too many Whites still harboring racist views (shown by their support for monuments honoring those who who fought to keep slavery and white supremacy).

The second chart gives us a ray of hope. There seems to be a solution that a substantial majority of all races can agree upon -- moving the monuments out of the public square and into museums (where they can be displayed in a historical context). That would be supported by 57% of Whites, 63% of Blacks, 61% of Hispanics, and 55% of other races.

It's a compromise, but it's one I think most people could happily live with.

First Permanent Atheist Monument On Government Property

Last year, a christian group installed a 6-ton granite monument featuring the 10 Commandments on county property in front of the courthouse in Bradford County, Florida. The group, American Atheists, immediately filed suit. They did so because allowing that monument on government property amounted to an establishment of religion by the county government (or at the very least a government preference for a certain religious tradition). That is not only unconstitutional, but was a slap in the face to county residents who are not christian or jewish.

That left the county government with a dilemma. They could waste a lot of count money trying to defend that monument, and considering recent court decisions, still wind up losing -- or they could negotiate a settlement with the atheist group. They chose the latter. The result of that settlement will allow the atheist group to put up a monument of their own on county property (and presumably, so could other religious groups -- muslims, sikhs, buddhists, hindus, etc.).

The picture above is of the monument the atheists have built (it's under the tarp). The 1,500 pound monument will be officially unveiled on June 29th -- when it will become the first permanent atheist monument on government property in the United States. It is a granite bench engraved with atheist quotations.

I approve of the county's decision to allow the monument, and the American Atheist decision to pay for its building and placement. My only worry is -- how long will it be before some "christians" deface or destroy it (as they have many atheist billboards across the country). Christians like to brag about how powerful their god is, but their actions tend to show they really don't believe that (since they can't allow any competing materials to exist). I expect the monument will be defaced or destroyed by the end of this summer.

Potter County Bans Religious Monument

I was pleasantly surprised by the decision of the Potter County commissioners yesterday. A few days ago, a group asked the commissioners for permission to put a 3-ton religious monument on county property in front of the courthouse. The monument would have had the 10 commandments plus several quotes pushing the christian religion.

But the commissioners decided yesterday to stay out of the religion game. They voted 4 to 0 to ban religious monuments on county property. They did so because they didn't want to have to spend county money to defend a case they were sure to lose.

County Attorney Scott Brumley told the commissioners that the Constitution forbids the government from endorsing any one religion. The monument would definitely have been an endorsement of the christian religion.

Commissioners also said to remain within constitutional boundaries, they would have to allow many more monuments including the possibility of a monument by some radical group that might offend nearly everyone.

Whatever their reasons, the commissioners did the right thing, and I'm proud of their decision. Many Republicans nowdays seem not to care about the constitution and are willing to violate it to push their chosen religion. I'm glad the Potter County commissioners didn't succumb to that pitfall.

Now that this nonsense is out of the way, they can go on to deal with real issues affecting the citizens of Potter County.

Another Victory For Religious Freedom

The United States Supreme Court has just acted to uphold religious freedom in the United States. Many in this country seem to believe that religious freedom means they have the right to force their particular religion on everyone else.

But that is not what our Founding Fathers thought. To them, religious freedom meant that no one religion would be recognized by the state and forced on those who did not believe in it.

On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to overturn a lower court ruling that it was unconstitutional for Harris County to display the 10 Commandments on a monument on government property.

In 2003, U.S. District Judge Sim Lake ruled that the monument must be removed. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals had upheld the ruling. By refusing to accept the appeal by Harris County on Monday, the Supreme Court is letting Judge Lake's ruling stand.

Randall Kallinen, the attorney for the lady who originally brought the lawsuit against Harris County, said, "The ruling by Sim Lake was a very accurate ruling and actually depicts the law. This case has always been about religious freedom. In the United States, we are a nation of many religions. And to stick with one sect of Christianity, that one represented by the King James version Bible only, is not what America is about."

In America, the majority cannot be allowed to force their religion on others who believe differently. Yesterday, the Supreme Court agreed.