Amy Klobuchar

Alan Zendell, February 12, 2020

I waited with bated breath for Joe Biden to announce his candidacy. Surely, he was the one who could send Trump home after one term, something more than half of all Americans desperately want. It almost seems unfair that when a moment made for Joe finally came along, he might not be up to the task. I hope he is, I still think the guy who offered to settle things with Trump the way he took on bullies in high school can re-unite the country and restore the moral compass our government has lacked since Trump was elected. For me and a lot of people my age, Trump’s immorality and lack of respect for law are his most overriding flaws.

One reason it feels unfair is because Biden, who stuttered terribly as a child, is still prone to tripping over words when he speaks too fast, and to many voters, that makes him look old and feeble. He’s not, but that’s politics. There was a flash of the real Joe Biden in last Friday’s CNN Town Hall, when a minister asked him what he would say to a parent of a child who stutters. Biden was clearly surprised by the question, but it transported him to a place where he shone. Speaking in passionate but measured tones, he was eloquent, empathetic, and caring – the absolute antithesis to the president he’s trying to unseat. It’s too bad we don’t see that Joe Biden, the one who could hand Trump his lunch in a heartbeat more often. Where has he been?

In this morning’s Washington Post, Megan McArdle asked the same question about Amy Klobuchar, though as Biden’s star may be fading (I’m not ready to give up on him yet) hers is rising. McArdle’s tag line this morning was, “This Amy Klobuchar could beat Trump. Where has she been all year?

Senator Klobuchar caught my eye from the beginning. She’s centered, both personally and politically, she has law enforcement credentials, she’s tough enough to take on Trump without flinching, and she’s popular in Michigan and Wisconsin, two states that could well decide a close election. Initially, given her poor standing in the early polls, I viewed her as the perfect running mate for Biden rather than the standard bearer, though I always hoped she’d finally catch on with voters.

Among the women running for president, she outlasted Kristin Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, and Tulsi Gabbard by doggedly sticking to her message and avoiding food fights. Today, following the New Hampshire primary, she appears poised to do the same to Elizabeth Warren. As disappointing as it was to see Biden crash and burn in New Hampshire, it was inspirational to see Klobuchar catch fire there.

The more I see and hear Senator Klobuchar, the more I like her, the more easily I can imagine her in the White House. If she can build on her momentum from New Hampshire, where she came in third but won more than twice as many votes as the polls predicted, she will be my first choice to run against Trump. She wouldn’t be the first candidate to start slowly and steadily pick up steam. Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama did it, and so can she.

I can clearly recall the debate between Trump and Hillary Clinton in October of 2016, mere weeks before the election, when he stalked her around the stage while she spoke. He was like a hungry predator, unable to control himself, and it clearly threw Clinton off her game. I’d love to see him try to intimidate Amy Klobuchar that way. Good luck, Donald. Country-rock star Jim Croce told us never to pull on Superman’s cape or spit into the wind. I wouldn’t mess with Amy either, on a public stage with the entire world watching. He’ll get it right back in his face and she’ll do it without insults or profanity.

We already know that strong, confident women unsettle Mr. Trump. None of his boorish tactics will work on her. McCardle reminded us of the exchange between Klobuchar and Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh during the latter’s rigged confirmation hearing. She asked him directly if he ever blacked out after drinking heavily, and he angrily retorted, “Have you?” McCardle recalls that, “Klobuchar responded, not with the scenery-chewing histrionics her colleagues had resorted to when challenged, but with a gimlet eye and a chilly smile.”

Klobuchar caught fire in New Hampshire. If she can keep that flame alive in South Carolina and Nevada, she may be exactly what we need to get America back on track and put Trumpism to rest.

Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

American Elections Need a Face Lift

Alan Zendell, February 5, 2020

Anyone who has ever worked as a consultant advising businesses about how to handle data and information could explain what’s wrong with our electoral process in a matter of minutes. It would only take a few additional minutes to outline how to fix it. Here are four ways it can be improved.

Presidential Campaigns are Much Too Long – If I have to explain this, either you haven’t been paying attention or you’re too young to remember when presidential campaigns lasted less than a year. John F. Kennedy didn’t announce his candidacy until January 2, 1960, a mere ten months before the election. Election seasons have gotten longer every cycle, until incumbents today seem to be always running for re-election. Donald Trump filed for re-election the day he was inaugurated and treats virtually every photo op and speech as a campaign event.

Overlong campaigns turn most Americans off and never having a respite from campaigns exacerbates divisiveness, partisanship, and lack of transparency in government. We can’t stop people from announcing their candidacy and spending money on campaign ads two years in advance, but we can decide as a nation to discourage formal campaigning until it’s appropriate. How do we do that?

One way is to define the length of an election season by statute, as many other countries do. Candidates and incumbents would be prohibited from filing for election or re-election before the official start date and fundraising entities like PAC’s would not be allowed to function before then either. Other nations that elect their leaders democratically get it done in weeks or months. Canadian national elections are limited by law to no less than thirty-six days and no more than fifty, and UK elections are required to occur within twenty-five working days, roughly five weeks after the dissolution of Parliament.

Caucuses Should Be Abolished – Except for a lucrative media blitz every four years, caucuses make no sense. They’re not elections – they’re really their own kind of animal. If we weren’t convinced before now, Monday’s disaster in Iowa ought to be the final nail in the caucuses’ coffin. Caucuses require voters to be physically present in large groups, regardless of weather conditions and individual mobility. Caucuses do not permit voting by absentee ballot and they are the polar opposite of secret ballots.

Worse, as caucus rules become more complicated and arcane, vote counting becomes unnecessarily complicated, as we saw in Iowa.  Caucuses make interesting if confusing spectacles on national television, (how many people outside of Iowa understood how or why they work?) but is there any aspect in which they are as effective as elections?

End Scattered Election Schedules – Scheduling primary elections and caucuses has evolved into a states’ rights issue. States like Iowa and New Hampshire vote early in the process simply to attract national attention, and the revenue that accompanies it. There is no rational reason to hold primaries of any type in two states that are relatively insignificant in the overall election process ahead of every other state. Neither state is representative of either party’s national profile, and the effect is to skew the primary process for reasons that have nothing to do with finding the best candidates.

The solution is obvious. General election dates are specified by federal law, while primary election dates are set entirely at the discretion of the political parties and states. That makes no sense, unless we truly want to turn our presidential elections into permanently airing soap operas. The best way to regulate the length of the election season while simultaneously creating a rational process for picking candidates is to establish a national primary election date, just as we define the dates for general elections.

Electoral College – Last but certainly not least is the Electoral College, an artificial eighteenth century construct that has no place in the twenty-first. It worked in a pre-electricity, pre-telegraph, pre-radio era. It does not work in an era that includes high speed transportation and broadband internet. It worked when the only people allowed to vote were white, male land owners. It’s simply absurd when more than 100 million votes are cast throughout the country. No other nation in the world counts its votes in such a ridiculous manner that can be skewed by gerrymandering local legislatures.

Our Two Party System is in extreme peril. Our government is in danger of strangling in terminal, partisan gridlock. It’s not clear how the two party system can be fixed, or whether it can survive the current climate of divisiveness and lack of cooperation, but making our elections fairer and more representative of the will of the people surely won’t hurt.

Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

A Horrifying Scene

Alan Zendell, February 3, 2020

Many Americans who saw these photographs shook their heads decrying the way third world countries operate, relieved that scenes like this never happen here. The pictures must have been taken in one of those shithole countries Donald Trump referred to, places like Paraguay or Somalia, where armed rebels storm the capital and occupy government offices, where military coups d’etat usurp elected authority and suspend normal rules of order.

That’s pretty frightening stuff, even more so because those scenes weren’t from Paraguay or Somalia, or Botswana or Venezuela either. They were recorded by Getty Images three days ago at the State Capital building in Frankfort, Kentucky. The men in the pictures weren’t guerrilla fighters staging a revolution. They were red-blooded Americans, right-wing extremists all, puffing out their chests and showing everyone how tough they were with their fully loaded, military grade weapons.

Apparently, the scene in Kentucky was deemed perfectly legal and appropriate, at least for that one day on January 31st. On every other day, visitors to the capital building are carefully screened, forced to walk through metal detectors and show IDs before they’re permitted to enter. But when the group We Are KY Gun Owners staged a rally to protest proposed new gun control laws being considered by the legislature, they were welcomed with open arms.

Normally, law enforcement takes security very seriously at the Kentucky capital. Civilians carrying guns, either loaded or unloaded aren’t permitted in the building. And it’s not only guns. The Louisville Courier-Journal reported that all manner of dangerous weapons, including “umbrellas and sticks holding protest signs” are routinely confiscated from perpetrators before they’re allowed to enter.

When thousands of teachers rallied at the same location a year ago to peacefully protest a bill that would have trashed their state pension system, they were treated like suspected terrorists. But when 200 Second Amendment activists showed up in full military regalia toting loaded semi-automatic weapons and wearing camo body armor, causing terrified tourists and other visitors to flee the building, security guards simply directed them around the metal detectors and invited them in.

The gun activists were protesting against Kentucky’s proposed Red Flag law that would permit police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who might present a danger to others or themselves. Red Flag laws already exist in fourteen states, including Florida, which passed one in September, 2019 in response to the Marjorie Stoneman Douglass school shooting massacre.

In part, the Kentucky protest grew out of similar (but unarmed) protests in Virginia, which until now has had no gun control laws at all. Virginia is home to the National Rifle Association, which was supporting attempts to have some counties in the state declared Second Amendment sanctuary areas, which means they would be exempt from any gun control laws passed by the state. But on January 30th, reacting to the May 2019 mass shooting in Virginia Beach, the state’s House of Delegates passed seven bills that would overhaul gun policy in the Old Dominion, [and] the state Senate approved analogues to five of the measures.

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam has indicated that he will sign the new law as soon as the legislature sends it to him. In addition to universal background checks and a Red Flag law, the legislation set a one-per-month limit on handgun purchases, restoring a restriction that had been repealed by a Republican controlled legislature in 2012. It also allows courts to issue protective orders that would prohibit abusive domestic partners and other family members from owning guns.

The Virginia law seems to have been the catalyst for the gun rally in the Kentucky capital. Those heavily armed Kentucky protesters considered the actions taken in Virginia to be a threat to their own Second Amendment rights. But are they? The Second Amendment to the Constitution is a simple statement written in straightforward terms: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” That’s it in its entirety. To most people the intent of those words is clear.

Does any serious person believe that Virginia’s new gun laws are intended to abrogate that right? Do you suppose the founders foresaw a Banana Republic scene like the one pictured above in Frankfort, Kentucky? I think not.

Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

The Impeachment Trial Debacle

Alan Zendell, February 1, 2020

As the smoke clears and reality sets in, we should be clear about a number of things. Before we go off the deep end about the near-certainty that Donald Trump will be acquitted by the Senate next Wednesday, we should remember that this is the outcome everyone expected from the first moment the word “impeachment” was uttered. We may have underestimated Mitch McConnell’s ability to keep his caucus in line to the extent that it had the chutzpah to exclude witness testimony and documentation, but we always knew the Senate trial would be a sham.

Most appalling was hearing every member of that caucus swear an oath of impartiality when its leaders, people like McConnell and Lindsey Graham had repeatedly told Fox News that they wouldn’t even pretend to be objective. For those of us who watched the revolting process evolve each day, seeing them all sit like good choir boys and girls as the Senate Chaplain prayed that whichever God they subscribed to would imbue them with the need to faithfully execute their responsibility was almost enough to make us cancel our cable contracts.

As jurors, Senators have the right to vote for or against acquittal as they see fit. That’s especially true of those who insisted from the start that even if he was proven guilty, Trump’s actions were not impeachable. Their issue was never getting to the truth of the matter, because to them it was irrelevant. Some, like Florida’s Marco Rubio, thought Trump deserved to be impeached, but that removing him would not be in the interest of the nation with an election nine months away. As much as I hate the idea of our immoral, self-serving president continuing in office for a single day, Rubio is right. So were all of us who cringed and urged restraint when freshman Democrats in the House screamed impeachment the day they were sworn in.

There’s no mystery here. Republican Senators had to choose between doing what they knew was right and sucking up to an out-of-control demagogue who vowed to destroy them if they were disloyal. Some of them are craven and cowardly, pandering to Trump’s base much the way he does, but it’s not entirely their fault. This was entirely predictable. Nancy Pelosi knew it, and she held out as long as she could until the whistle blower’s complaint was made public. If this was a Hollywood movie, the whistle blower would turn out to be a Trump plant who knew his actions would trigger the process we’ve been witnessing since then.

As many have said from the start, it’s up to us now. It was always up to us. We put Trump in office. We created this mess. Too many of us stayed home in 2016 thinking our vote didn’t matter or he couldn’t win or that our country could never support someone like him. We had no idea that one-third of us think the way he does. He brought out the worst in us, and now it’s our problem to fix.

If you’re a woman, an immigrant, or a person of color, why would you not walk through a raging blizzard to vote against him? I am none of those, but I believe in the rule of law and that our founders intended for all Americans to be able to compete on a level playing field, to house our families, provide decent nutrition and health care, and send our children to school knowing they won’t be shot there. That’s why I am terrified of what four more years of Trumpism will do. Nothing short of a coma will prevent me from voting this year.

The Senate acted shamefully. Knowing the fix was in from the start, the only reason for conducting the trial as they have was to prevent Americans from learning the truth. I get why they did it – if they succeeded it would be their best shot at retaining power next year. If they got it over quickly, American voters would forget by November – but they’re wrong. We’re going to learn all the sordid details. Whether out of self-interest or a sense of duty, people who know the truth will tell us. In 2020, no one will be able to claim they didn’t know what was at stake or fantasize that Trump would be any less despicable as president than he was as a private citizen.

We cannot afford the luxury of short memories or laziness this year. We’ve defended our way of life against wars and economic crises. We can’t let ennui and indolence undermine it now. No excuses this year. The Senate has thrown responsibility for our future back into our laps where it belongs.

Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Impeachment and A Tale of Two Conways

Alan Zendell, January 22, 2020

Conservative attorney George Conway described Adam Schiff’s presentation of the House’s case to remove President Trump from office as an incredibly coherent and comprehensive narrative, something the president’s defenders don’t have. Much like the James Carville-Mary Matalin show that entertained us during the Clinton administration, Conway and his wife Kellyanne continue to ride a political see-saw in full view of the American public. It takes a while to adjust to the bizarre image of one of the president’s most loyal defenders telling us Trump has never done anything wrong, while her husband calls him a pathological liar who is incapable of telling the truth and describes the Republican Senate’s approach to the impeachment trial as an outrageous sham.

It’s tempting to wonder whether the George and Kellyanne Conway we see on television with such violently opposed opinions about this president really coexist in the same household or if their loud disagreements are merely a public relations scam aimed at post-Trump celebrity. But I’d rather focus on what George Conway has been saying today. Kellyanne has repeatedly said Trump can do no wrong.

The pundits at both political extremes aside, the general consensus is that House Manager Adam Schiff did a masterful job of laying out the case against Trump in the context of the intent of our founders. The latter feared that a future president might abuse his or her office for personal gain or refuse to abide by constitutional limitations on executive power. In short, the country had just spent eight bloody years fighting to free itself of a despotic king, and their highest priority was assuring that there would never again be one in America.

George Conway made essentially the same points today. If we didn’t know better, we might assume he was on Schiff’s team, but we do know better. Twenty years ago, Conway was one of a number of prominent Republicans who pushed for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, and his negative opinions about Trump aside, there is nothing to suggest that he has changed his political stripes. He, like a small number of Republican holdovers from before Trump hijacked and remodeled the party in his own image, remains committed to the conservative principles his party once stood for – things like integrity, respect for law, and reverence to the Constitution.

I am heartened by this. If voices as disparate as Adam Schiff’s and George Conway’s believe Donald Trump has abused his office and committed impeachable offenses, it’s possible that the small number of Republican Senators who believe as Conway does will stand up to Mitch McConnell and demand a real trial with witnesses and evidence. It’s difficult to be entirely objective on the issue of impeachment, but it’s even more difficult to listen to Adam Schiff and not find his presentation compelling.

The Republicans cannot contest the facts in the case because the entire world has seen and heard them. President Trump himself seems to believe the facts exonerate him as he openly brags about his actions and claims they’re all perfect. And it’s virtually impossible to listen to Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney’s tirade on national TV in which he said of course there was a quid pro quo, that’s the way business is done and not take notice.

Mulvaney told us to get over it, but Schiff and George Conway believe that getting over an obvious attempt to ask a foreign government to interfere in our elections and illegally extort them to do so by withholding Congressionally mandated aid against Russian aggression is an invitation to undermine our Constitution. They ask whether if that precedent is allowed to stand and future presidents with a Senate majority aspire to be kings, what will be left to stop them?

Nothing has really changed for months, except that the impeachment trial is finally underway. 53% of Americans who had opinions other than “I don’t know” now believe Trump should be removed from office, and upwards of 75% want to hear key administration officials with direct relevant knowledge testify. Given all that, let’s focus on what really matters.

No one ever expected the Senate to convict the president, and now that we’ve entered 2020, it’s fair to say that the outcome of the impeachment trial is almost moot. What is not moot is November’s election. Trump and his supporters in the Senate fear that if Americans are allowed to see all the evidence they will punish Republicans in the ballot box. That happened in a big way in 2018, when Trump was merely facing growing disillusionment with his values and behavior.

Let the Senate vote to not remove him from office. That’s the peoples’ job, anyway. If the facts come to light for everyone to see, the voters will assure Trump’s tenure as president ends a year from now.

Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The High Stakes Gambler at the Helm

Alan Zendell, January 8, 2020

Donald Trump has described his negotiating style as gathering all the players in a room, tossing in a hand grenade, and then swooping in to close a deal before they know what hit them. That sometimes works in business, where the grenade is a metaphor for the threat of financial ruin, but as we’ve often noted, governing the United States of America is quite different than threatening people short on resources with lawsuits.

In his speech today, announcing in effect that his advisers had restrained him from his typical bellicose rhetoric, (the immediate giveaways were the teleprompters and the strained expression on his face that means he doesn’t believe a word he’s saying,) Trump commented that having all our powerful, deadly weapons doesn’t mean we have to use them. That’s very true and we should all be thankful that our generals keep his dangerous toys locked up where he can’t unilaterally play with them.

There’s a corollary to that statement which may be more important. The fact that his latest gamble didn’t lead to all-out war with Iran doesn’t mean it was a sensible risk. Most foreign leaders and most Americans viewed it as dangerously risky and inadvisable. It’s impossible to overstate this. Trump is a gambler. He brags about it, but he’s spent most of his life gambling with other people’s money and leaving a trail of financial ruin in his wake. He’s lost millions in court-ordered settlements and relied on bankruptcy laws to assure that other people bore the brunt of his bad business decisions.

It’s important to look at why we’re not at war with Iran today. Trump and his supporters will tell us that it was his threats to unleash all that weaponry on Iran that prevented war, but I don’t believe it. Iran’s leaders, who Trump likes to characterize as irrational religious fanatics, showed themselves to be level-headed and sophisticated in choosing how to respond to the killing of General Suleimani.

Look back a couple of days and ask yourself how likely it was that we’d be where we are today. With every overpaid pundit predicting what actions Iran would take, did anyone expect them to react with the surgical precision that displayed their military capabilities without harming a single American or Iraqi? They found the only pathway that could lead to today’s outcome. The Iranian military was like a quarterback threading a desperate pass through a crowd of defenders with the game on the line, and they played it out expertly.

Fortunately for all of us, we’ve seen this movie before, but most Americans aren’t old enough to remember. On October 28, 1962, we were at the end game after two weeks of playing nuclear chicken with the Soviet Union over medium-range missiles in Cuba. Much has been written since about the Kennedy administration’s flawed diplomacy and lack of understanding of the Russian mentality. I’ve always believed it was Nikita Khrushchev who saved the world from nuclear chaos and destruction that day. When the chips were down, the world needed an adult in the room when everyone else was losing it.

The Iranian regime is hateful and determined, but what we learned this week was that they’re neither insane nor suicidal. That means they can be reasoned with. It means that chants of “Death to America” have no more substance or value than Donald Trump’s and Kim Jong Un’s threats and bluster. Trump’s belligerence has done nothing to ease the problem of North Korea, and I don’t believe it had any effect on the Iranians. They understood perfectly that in an all-out war Iran would be destroyed. The rest of the world might be too, but it’s certain that Iran wouldn’t survive it.

We got out of this whole for the time being, but we were lucky, and as Yogi Berra might have said, it ain’t over til it’s over. To the president, I say, if you want to gamble everything you own after you’re out of office, that’s your business. But when you gamble with the lives of every American, it’s OUR business. I doubt that anyone was surprised that Trump took the extreme step of assassinating a high-ranking official of another country’s government to distract from his impeachment and re-election problems. He’s as dangerous as a cornered rat.

Suleimani was a bad guy who might have suffered the same fate at the hands of the World Court, but that’s the whole point, isn’t it? It’s why we have lynch laws. Trump is only a president not a judge or an emperor.

Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Every American is at Risk

Alan Zendell, January 5, 2020

I just filled out my absentee ballot for the Maryland 7th Congressional District’ Special Primary Election to fill the seat left vacant by the passing of long time representative Elijah Cummings. Cummings will be best remembered by Americans who are not from Maryland as the recipient of the brunt of President Trump’s vicious and inaccurate attacks on the City of Baltimore. Agree or disagree with him, Cummings was the antithesis of Trump – someone who cared more about truth and the welfare of his constituents than wealth and power. Because I believe she will carry on the fight her husband waged on behalf of his district, I cast my ballot for his widow, Dr. Maya Rockeymoore Cummings.

Elijah Cummings would have been furious to see his constituents serving in the military sent into harm’s way with no justification. He’d have vented his anger on behalf of the families and friends who will wring their hands with worry every time a shot is fired in the Middle East. Again flouting norms for no reason other than his own narcissism, President Trump cloaked his notification to Congress about the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani under a security classification. Why? To prevent Americans from learning the reasons for the drone attack in Baghdad.

That is unprecedented in our history. From Franklin Roosevelt to Harry Truman, to John Kennedy to Lyndon Johnson, and Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, presidents have explained their actions to the country whenever they initiated hostilities that put Americans at risk. Their explanations may have been partially refuted by subsequent events, but they all understood that in a republic, the government is ultimately responsible to its citizens.

Trump doesn’t think he’s responsible to anyone but himself, and that may be his most impeachable offense. Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden got it right: “President Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox, and he owes the American people an explanation of the strategy and plan to keep safe our troops and embassy personnel.” 

Unfortunately, it’s not only our people in uniform and those who care about them who will directly affected by Trump’s decision. Every American is at risk. It’s quite telling that one of my neighbors in Maryland quipped that he was about to head south for the winter, and he was thankful to be getting his family away from the high risk target areas near the Capital. Equally telling is the reaction of many people where I’m wintering Florida that they’re relieved to be out of the line of fire.

If you don’t feel at risk it’s because you’re not thinking it through clearly. Iran has vowed to retaliate. Believe them. The Koran is as clear as the Old Testament about the virtues of revenge. Iran’s Foreign Minister said today that retaliation would be against American military interests. That’s the kind of measured response we’d take ourselves if, say, our Joint Chiefs Chairman had been assassinated by Iranian operatives. Not a great outcome, but one in line with diplomatic conventions.

President Trump, on the other hand, while claiming his intent is to prevent war and de-escalate has done exactly the opposite. Today, he tweeted a threat to attack Iranian cultural sites. That’s not only barbaric, a threat typical of ISIS and Hezbolah, it’s a war crime. You needn’t take the word of Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif on that, Senator Chris Murphy was the first of several in Congress to say the same thing. United Nations resolution 2347 condemns “the unlawful destruction of cultural heritage, including the destruction of religious sites and artefacts [sic]…,” and the same prohibition exists in the Geneva Conventions.

Legality aside, Trump’s threat could be read by Iranian extremists as an invitation to do the same thing. If you haven’t considered the possibilities of who might be at risk, now is a good time to start. I spent weeks wrestling with this issue in writing my novel, Wednesday’s Child. Opening the door to attacking cultural sites is an irresponsible provocation to outright war. There’s no way to harden them all in a nation like ours, and it’s nearly impossible to predict where an enemy like the Quds force could strike.

How do you define a cultural site? The Statue of Liberty? The White House? The National Cathedral? What about Hard Rock Stadium in Miami, where 65,000 people will be watching the Super Bowl in a few weeks? That’s the kind of threat we face when our President’s ego gets in the way of common sense and he ignores his advisers.

This is exactly what we need to put a stop to at the ballot box next November. Trump’s unilateral, autocratic behavior puts every American at risk.

Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments