How Donald Trump is learning that being POTUS is not the same as being a CEO

A Seattle federal judge ruled against President Trump's executive order of an entry ban of those coming from seven Muslim majority countries and the judge's ruling was upheld by a Court of Appeals.

Darn, that pesky rule of law and an independent judiciary. Trump is learning that being a CEO is not the same as being POTUS. As a CEO he could set the rules with his memos. Presidential executive orders are still subject to laws, the Constitution, and judicial rulings.

Once again, as he has done before in the Trump University case, he launched on a tirade against the judge who first ruled against his "ban".

The lesson for all in our democracy is that the rule of law and an independent judiciary are the keystones for maintaining the democracy we treasure. The lawsuits against the Trump executive order are increasing in number daily. The bases range from discrimination to the lack of factual reasons for the ban (i.e. if the purpose is to prevent terrorists who would harm the US from entering the country, then none of the terrorist attacks we have had on our homeland came from the banned countries, yet the terrorist attacks we have had come from other Muslim majority countries not banned..) The fact that the Trump administration would give priority to Christians over Muslims in entry adds fuel to

argument against the ban based on religious discrimination. It also illustrates the question of Trump's business causing conflict of interest in his role as president since the majority Muslim countries left out of the ban were the same in which Trump had business interests.

He may have been fulfilling a campaign promise, making his followers happy, but it is a promise he should not have made and he often had to backtrack and recraft as many pointed out to him during the campaign the legal issues such a ban would raise. Nonetheless, he forged ahead within a couple of weeks of being sworn in as President.

His lack of respect for the judiciary, launching personal attacks against the ruling judge, as he did against the "Mexican judge" who ruled against him the Trump University civil case, is the type of behavior we would expect of a tyrant in a non-democratic society.

Watch now how he goes about trying the stack the lower courts with his appointments he can count on to walk lock step with him. That is a technique used by wannabe dictators to get around their own constitutions similar to ours. That replacement of the judiciary is the tool of choice by those attempting to undermine the democratic process, upsetting any checks on the executive, and to seize power. It is going on now in Turkey. Their president attempting to become the dictator of the country by replacing judges with those who support his power grab.

Attacking and disrespecting the rule of law or judicial rulings is the Trump modus operandi. This is a very dangerous time for our US democracy and requires vigilance and push back from those who understand the Constitution and the fundamental importance of separation of powers.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/court-denies-justice-request-immediately-090952370.html?.tsrc=fauxdal

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/trump-christian-refugees/

http://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/state-washington-vs-donald-j-trump-et-al

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-judiciary-idUSKCN0ZH4IZ

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/01/29/trump-s-muslim-ban-excludes-muslim-countries-linked-to-his-busin/21702521/

What is world leadership and Trump's bad start to be a world leader.

So much is what is your definition of a world leader? One who cuts and runs and leaves the field to others or one who provided the leadership to assemble many countries to meet a common goal?  In the first couple of weeks, Trump has managed to try to bully Australia, Germany, Mexico and  put the English PM in trouble back home, and  ticking off others  with the Muslim ban by another name as a way to achieve foreign policy goals.  This may be his making of a deal, but the deal it has raised has been bad will, a great deal of it.



In response to a facebook posting, a reader responded: "After the debacle of 8 years of Obama, it will be very difficult to re-establish our role as world leader. Obama virtually did away with NATO, totaled screwed up the situation in Syria, botched the Crimean problem and drove a dagger in the heart of Israel. How's that, for world leadership?"


My response: "He declares NATO obsolete as a mutual defense pact, wants to lift sanctions against Russian encroachments in Crimea and Ukraine, sanctions that Obama negotiated, Leaves the TPP, action that will only enhance Chinese trade and influence in SE Asia, a treaty which Obama negotiated; wants Russia to take over the Syrian war and thereby strengthening Iran's hand; ..How is all of this making the US a world leader? It is simply leaving the world with a vacuum to be filled by Russians and China. "    That is not world leadership by any definition.

World leadership is also not delivering muddled messages.  Recently the Trump administration announced "it was putting Iran on notice" after a ballistic missile test.  Does that mean throwing out the Iran nuclear deal as Trump proposed in his campaign, or keeping it and making Iran stick to the agreement?   

It is also issuing executive orders that result in chaos and misunderstandings with the enforcers. Incompetence was the case in the recent order to halt incoming people even with legal entry who come from the seven Muslim countries.
It  may not only be poor leadership and an inconceived, messy , confusing rollout, but also may be unconstitutional. A Seattle federal court issued a restraining order, halting the ban from the seven Muslim countries on the basis that it was not issued on the basis of fact since none of the acts of terror committed on US soil were by anyone from those countries and noted that where the 9/11 terrorists came from, used to justify the ban,  was from Saudi Arabia, not on the ban list. Others have  observed that the Muslim countries escaping the ban list were those in which the Trump organization had business interests.

The fallout from these first few weeks in office indicate trouble down the road as Trump tries to reshape US foreign policy.  If the US sees it in its national interest to get involved militarily,  by ticking off  our closest allies, we could , be on our own, meaning it will be our blood and treasure alone that will be on the line.  

There is also a nagging fear that Trump could use such a military adventure for domestic political reasons if he needs to increase his favorable ratings  Right now, 53% of Americans disapprove of his handling the office since he was sworn in.  44% approve.  Those are historically low ratings for the beginning of an administration.  One thing we know about TV star Trump is that he relishes his ratings above all and that he would take action to boost them is not out of the realm of possibility.   

Bernie Sanders, speaking in Arlington Virginia recently, as reported by Yahoo News, expressed a fear I have heard from others personally around me.  The question is what leadership position would a Trump take if he finds his poll numbers falling and the rest of the world refusing to take his lead?  We have seen this movie again and again over history:  start a war so everyone rallies around the flag (i.e.Trump).   Said Sanders, "ARLINGTON, Va. — Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, speaking at a conference on the “Politics of Love” Thursday evening, said he feared that President Trump would plunge the nation into war.

“This is one of the things that scares me most: For a demagogue to succeed, they need to cultivate hatred. Now the hatred may be against immigrants — we’re all supposed to hate immigrants, and maybe it’s other minorities, African-Americans, Latinos,” Sanders said. “But also I worry that the hatred will spill over to foreign affairs, and that we are maybe entering into a situation where a Trump needs a war — and war and war — to rally public support.”

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/donald-trump-approval-rating/index.html?sr=fblead0203trumppoll

re: incompetence in the "Muslim" ban order process:     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQCrSPXujwU&utm_

https://www.yahoo.com/news/seattle-judge-blocks-trump-immigration-order-000739102.html

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/01/29/trump-s-muslim-ban-excludes-muslim-countries-linked-to-his-busin/21702521/

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/27/is-trump-abandoning-americas-role-as-a-world-leader/

GOP and Trump planning to discriminate against women's health access

Back to the old ways. When Trump and the GOP say they want you to pay for just the parts of health insurance that suits you and you do not have to pay for the parts you do not need, that is code for women paying more for health insurance and deductibles so that men do not pay for women's health needs, , as required now by  the Obama law.. Even if women opt out of insurance that provides the blue pill, screenings for prostate cancer and  male urinary, reproductive  tract problems, they will still pay more because health care for women include well care, mammograms,  pre natal examinations, delivery, the pill , services that just cost more. It is not an even trade.

 The number of unwanted pregnancies and the number of abortions have decreased dramatically with the coverage of the pill. By each sex paying for their respective care as "choice" would allow, the cost is no longer  spread around  in a large pool so that it becomes more affordable for all. Especially helpful in Obamacare was coverage  of  care of both sexes  required of all insurance, those by employers, those in the exchanges, those in the private market. Those, too, would go away and it is back to ye old high deductibles and increased out of pocket expenses. In fact, costs would increase since costs are no longer in a pool of those who use it and those who do not. . Those who are well heeled have no problem, but most in the middle class and lower usually just skip preventive medicine until some symptoms nag them. By then, sometimes it is either too late or or extremely expensive to treat. 

Before Obamacare, health care related debts  were the leading cause of bankruptcies but now that amount is about 20% of bankruptcies. That is still not good enough, especially since the federal reserve estimates that 47% of families have only $400 in reserve for emergencies. If you feel on the edge of finances, be aware you are in danger of going over the edge if Obamacare is repealed. You will find yourself skipping annual physicals and cancer screeinings to meet your own limited budgets. If you are sold a GOP plan that lets you cherry pick coverage and you take just take catastrophic coverage and do not include these preventative measures, you will just become part of "making America sicker again"...and women once again draw the short stick.

Even more discriminatory is the religious right campaign to cut out required benefits of birth control pills specificially part of Obamacare. However, if presecription drug benefits are included in any replacement, and the pink pill is not, the blue bill would still be covered if it is by presecription. Beware of the GOP bearing gifts of choice in any replacement plan.  The choice may be a bitter pill for women to  swallow.


Read more:

My blog post: 1/16/17 Some GOP's proposals to replace Obamacare are  baiting  and switching consumers 

Blog post of 1/5/17: Ignorance and not caring about others, two biggest political problems facing Obamacare
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-abortion-rates-20170117-story.html

https://www.yahoo.com/news/risk-womens-health-benefits-seen-health-law-repeal-083450656--politics.html?.tsrc=fauxdal

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2598797

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/

http://amjmed.org/under-aca-medical-bankruptcy-continues/

http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/under-tom-prices-aca-killing-plan-18m-lose-insurance-and-premiums-rise/

https://www.federalreserve.gov/2015-report-economic-well-being-us-households-201605.pdf

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/11/29/503720671/5-things-to-know-about-rep-tom-prices-health-care-ideas

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-tom-price-republicans-obamacare-233605

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/brink-repeal-obamacare-has-never-been-more-popular-n707806

The law of unintended consequences: ending TPP

Pres. Trump withdrawing from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) may be popular domestically but it may have long term damage to our national security.

The law of unintended consequences is at work here. In fact, this law could apply to the Trump administration's blow up of multi national treaties, from Europe to Asia. It opens the door for our allies to seek trade agreements with China or to go it alone and ignore the US. Power vacuums get filled, either by China or Russia, and countries going it alone means US will lose its leadership and the ability to shape world affairs in American security and economic interests.

From my blog posting August 25, 2016; "However, the New York Times digging around found that Donald Trump’s pronouncement  on foreign affairs issues show a connection to his business dealings.  He owes the Bank of China and Goldman Sachs in his finance dealings and his goals and business dealings with Russia are no secret now.  Trump’s  anti Southeast (TPP) trade agreement) positions may be a problem, too.  
Opposing the TPP may be a lure  for the Midwest belt  voters lying in rust with job killing globalization, but the TPP was also promoted to strengthen allies in Southeast Asia against Chines expansionism in the region.  His bromance of mutual flattery and echoing Russia’s President Putin’s  declaring NATO was obsolete, Russia did not grab eastern Ukraine  or that his reliance on debts to Wall street is indeed has a  suspicious connection to this business dealings. In these cases, there is fire of policy positions within the fog of smoke."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/26/politics/trump-nafta-tpp/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/donald-trump-debt.html?_r=0