I keep promising myself to waste no more ink on Donald Trump, but the will to carry on is lost when I eliminate the elephant in the room. That “elephant” is pulverizing the place I call home.
What threw the switch for me this morning was the news that, on order of President Trump, climate change has been removed from the list of national security threats, where President Obama placed it in 2015.
It comes as no surprise, of course. Since taking office, “job one” for Donald Trump has been to expunge any trace of the eight year administration of Barack Obama and anything that smacks of science or intellect. He reminds me of all the despots of history who couldn’t feel really at home until they had hacked off the heads of every statue in the land that honored their despised predecessors.
“Job two”seems to be to destabilize the country and, if possible, the entire world.
But even the gargantuan ego of Donald Trump can’t hold back the impacts of climate change by simply denying its existence. When storms and flooding, draught and fires gradually reduce much of the continental US to permanent national disaster sites, I hope there will be some way to prosecute Donald Trump and his minions for the irreversible harm to which they have willfully condemned us all.
And while we are on the topic of Donald Trump’s War on Science, how about the news this week that the CDC (Center for Disease Control) will no longer be allowed to use the following terms in its budget proposals: “fetus,” “transgender,” “diversity,” “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “science-based,” and “evidence based.”
I wonder if this is a violation of the First Amendment(?)
Does D.T. actually believe that the words have some magical power, and not mentioning them will avoid summoning that power? He clearly believes that truth is a fungible commodity to be swapped out as he sees fit for a more convenient lie.
Then there is the chill in the air at the Environmental Protection Agency. Donald Trump gave that plum agency to one of its chief opponents, Scott Pruitt. Now the EPA’s career staff, appointed under multiple past administrations, Republican and Democratic, is being monitored, Gestapo-style, for any hint of disagreement with current policy, which effectively takes the “P” out of EPA.
When the revisionist reign of Donald I is finally over, we are on track to be light-years behind the rest of the developed world on science in general and climate change innovation in particular. Welcome back to the Iron-Age, folks!
All people have a right to free speech.
In the U.S., this inherent human right and civil liberty is specifically protected by the 1st Am. to the U.S. Const. Our inherent right to free speech is protected in other places as well, but the 1st Am. is the gold standard restriction on the Gov’t from infringement upon this essential right.
The Gov’t does not have ANY rights. It only has authorizations to perform certain functions and pass/execute/uphold the a confined set of laws controlling how we function as the United States. We have a right to hear whatever the government says as well as petitioning it. However, the Gov’t has no “right” to speak, listen or be heard although there are many statutory obligations for the Gov’t to collect, publish and, in sunshine, inform myriad types of data.
The design of our co-equal three branch federal gov’t dictates that the President/Executive branch are in charge of carrying out the laws, as both prescribed and proscribed.
The issue here is whether Mister Trump, or one of the agencies under his executive powers, has Congressional authority to publish false, misleading or ideologically corrupt information.
I acknowledge not reading the primary source document issued by Mister Trump. I will go out on a limb, however, and suggest Mister Trump is most likely acting contrary (i.e. illegally) to the spirit and text of the jurisdictional enabling act by which the initial information was published. Under the constitutional framework establishing our three branches of Gov’t, if Congress does not give a President authority to do something, she can’t.
The issue is therefore: Does Trump have statutory authority, which can include a confined area of discretion, to use specific federal agencies to intentionally mislead the public, policy-makers and/or undermine the Congressionally mandated mission assigned to the particular agency. (aside, if you see this latter point as a legal basis for challenging executive agency disinformation, I agree with you)
Sue, my apologies for going far afield from the subject of your column, the point and argument of which I agree 100%.
Back to our regularly scheduled discussion.
Don’t I wish that you were on the short list for the Supreme Court or one of the many life-time appointments to a lower court, available now since they were essentially stolen from the Obama administration. Alas, the hope of relief from the judiciary or the legislative branch for executive overreach by this administration requires a certain amount of naïveté. The undermining of societal rules and norms continues until ……..
Wonderfully explained, CL!! We need your expertise here!
Rampant GOP head-in-the-sand disease on “climate change”
I’ve got to chime in here so we don’t forget the recent efforts by Governor Scott and his administration to edit references to “climate change” out of official planning documents.
Chip off the ol’ block.