By Florida Bill
It was generally believed that President Trump had recordings of his conversations with the former FBI director, as well as with others with whom he has spoken as the nations 45th chief executive. With all the cannons aimed at him, it would make sense to take precautions whereever possible.
But President Trump surprised many with his announcement to inquiring newsmen that he did not tape any conversations with former FBI Director James Comey, whom he fired on May 9. Whatever government surveillance is going on, he quipped, he had no knowledge of it. He emphasized he personally had no tapes and did not record any discussions with Comey.
Comey and Trump are at odds over private conversations they had after Trump took office as President on Jan. 21 and before he fired Comey on May 9. On February 14, Comey claims that Trump told him to drop the investigation of General Flynn and pledge "loyalty" to him. President Trump has labeled Comey a "liar", and a "leaker" of confidential and privileged documents, and an obsequious phony playing to a biased media hell-bent on bringing him down.
Without any irrefutable recording of who said what, it will be up to an impartial arbiter, in this case, Special Counsel Robert Mueller, to decide who is telling the truth and who is fudging.
But as to Trump's use of a taping system, he has every right to record conversations, speeches and news conferences if he wishes to do so. Why not? There is a rich history of the use of tape recorders in the White House.
The pugilistic Trump may well be designing a taping mechanism. If not now, maybe in the future. He needs to protect himself against a news media which has abandoned any sense of objectivity and basic honesty. Just recently, CNN retracted a story about a Trump associate who allegedly made improper business connections with Russians. It was pure fabrication. Three CNN reporters were fired and the episode stands as an example of what Trump calls "fake news."
Recordings will become an important and essential part of the legacy of any president. After leaving office, a president can draw from an unassailable record as he reviews his days in office and writes his memoirs. Actual tapes will assist him in guaranteeing accuracy of controversial matters.
Since the 1930s, presidents have made use of recordings, some much more than others. Even casual chats with close advisers, as President Nixon discovered, are retrievable, depending upon circumstances. White House tapes are like old soldiers. They never die, only fade away.
Presidential taping began in 1939 under the direction of Franklin D. Roosevelt during the 3rd year into his second term. The word is that FDR disliked and distrusted the press almost much as does President Trump. He was engaged in a continuing battle with the news media, accusing it of distortions and misquoting him. Because of that, he initiated the taping of his meetings with the press as a means of protection against fabricated statements attributed to him and since then, the taped press sessions are pretty much routine. His successor, the feisty Harry Truman, inherited the practice, as well as did President Eisenhower. With Ike, he also recorded meetings in the Oval office via a hidden microphone inside a fake telephone on his desk.
President Kennedy increased the scope of recordings. JFK taped some 260 hours of meetings in the oval office and cabinet room. One of Kennedy's personal secretaries has said that the President wanted an accurate record for his memoirs and personal use after leaving office.
President Johnson made extensive use of recording devices. Johnson historians have said that about 10,000 conversations were recorded and beginning in 1993 portions have been released to the public. Exchanges with Martin Luther King Jr., Bobby Kennedy and Richard Nixon are among voices on the tapes.
Richard Nixon was a real fan of recordings and it did him in. The Nixon episode sent a signal of concern to his successors. Because President Nixon was a fumbler when it came to electronics, he made use of a voice activated system and in his six years as chief executive, recordings covered about 3,700 hours. One conversation with a close adviser contained a "smoking gun" which drove him to resign.
Not a whole lot is known about the use of recording devices in the White House while occupied by Presidents Ford, Carter, Clinton and the Bushes. No doubt they all sought to avoid any repeat of a taping backfire, but my guess is that it was used a good deal. Ronald Reagan did employ a secret system similar to Nixon's. In a 2011 interview, Reagan disclosed that he limited his recordings to official business with heads of state, and said that that was done chiefly to overcome inaccuracies from bad translators.
One interesting story is told of the use of tapes during the days of President Obama by author Mark Bowden. His personal recorder broke down during a private interview with the nation's 44th President, Bowden recalled in a speech. After the interview, he told his audience of how he lamented to Ben Rhodes, an Obama foreign policy adviser, that his recorder quit working and that the interview was of importance and that he needed the record to assure accuracy in his writings.
"Don't worry, we record everything in here," Rhodes told him. "We'll get you a transcript before you leave." It took 35 minutes, and I had the full transcript," Bowden said.
Should presidents record all conversations? Apparently, Obama did, and Trump ought to do so for his own protection. Being President is a tough job. The 45th president, Donald Trump, can use all the protection he can muster to defend himself against his political enemies.
XXX
By Florida Bill
One of the great frauds being perpetrated on the public is the rapid fire polls which allegedly reveal the core feelings and preferences of a nation. I was reminded of this idiocy with the latest "survey" laid upon gullible citizens, designed to put down the new Republican President.
It was a "scoop" announced by CNN that a new survey has determined that more Americans trust CNN than they trust President Trump. That one was the product of Survey/Monkey which seems to specialize in the business of "tell us what you want" and we'll provide it.
Where was it taken and how many were polled and what were the questions. Why not take the survey in West Virginia or the Chicago suburbs. Those polls will show Trump to be extremely popular and climbing. Instead, the polls are being taken in Harlem and in San Francisco. Get the point.
These pollsters claim to have put their "stethoscopes" on the heart of the nation. Pollsters are like wild and hungry chickens after the scattered corn. They can find answers to any situation confronting the planet. So, if you want to know who is up and who is down and who is liked and who is a complete schmuck, ask the well-paid guys with the crystal balls, but let them no hows you are leaning. .
They say that they can tell just what is beating in the heart of a nation with 330 million persons. Give your questions to the professionals and they will have the answers (that you want) post haste. The wackier the need-to-know question, the better. And with today's anti-Trump frenzy, when you can sock it to the Republicans, its go-time for disingenuous members of the print and electronic media.
The Washington Post, which is not a fan of the President or of anything remotely connected with the word Republican, recently reported findings from a survey that "Trump's standing has been weakened since springtime." Another pollster screamed that the USA is "tumbling in the world's regard under Trump." Another reported that if a head-on-head with Clinton were held today, Trump would lose by seven points.
No so long ago, we were told that it has been determined that Hillary Clinton, a loser in the race for president, often labeled as "Crooked Hillary," was the most admired woman in the USA. And then, who is the most popular politician? Of course, it's Denmark-loving socialist Bernie Sanders, the "independent" senator from Vermont. Believe all that? Some do. But it has an odor.
I don't know how much these political surveys cost, but you can bet there will be no tag days for the polling companies. But I don't believe these merchants are going to make you waste your money. If you requested a survey concerning the actions of your opponent, you will not be disappointed. The deeper the wound inflicted, the greater the appreciation by the client.
How are shotgun surveys carried out--with its three per cent "plus or minus" accuracy factor. In principle, we are told that a public opinion poll taps into the heads of a "scientifically constituted" group of maybe 400 to 1,000 persons, and that this carefully selected sample must look and act like the larger population they come from in every important way.
Essentially, questions are drafted and asked over the telephone. We never hear much about the precise questions, or to whom they are put, etc. TV pundits are fed the conclusions which just happen to kick dirt on a Republican, and the media goes bonkers with excitement.
Reaching into political preferences is a manipulated activity in which telephone inquisitors go to areas where the answers are predictable. In the past election, the pronouncement by virtually every poll was that Clinton would decimate Trump. How accurate were those? Any "fake news" in these shotgun polls?
XXX
By Florida Bill
The United States is truly an exceptional nation. But in its 200 plus years of existence--and I would bet that a lot of people do not know this--no one ever succeeded in making "English" the official language of the country.
Routinely, proposals for "Official English" are introduced in Congress. There is often a good deal of talk and predictions that it will become law, but ultimately the bill dies until its resurrection in a future session. It seems like it ought to be a slam-dunk, but it isn't.
In recent days and months, we have heard President Donald Trump point to the importance of speaking English. In one debate, he criticized a former governor for electing to speak in Spanish rather than in English.
"We will stop apologizing for America, and we will start celebrating America," Trump has asserted. "We will be united by our common culture, values and principles, becoming one American nation, and one country, under one constitution, saluting one American flag,"
Currently a bill seeking designation of English as the official language has been introduced by Iowa Congressman Steve King. A long-time proponent of English as the official language of the USA, King has importuned the new president to get behind the legislation. The bill is called the English Language Unity Act.
Europe, it might be noted, has some 50 nations and each has its own official language, and I suspect that residents have pride in their homeland, as America does. Many Europeans actually speak more than one language which often includes English, but in their home territory there is an official tongue. In Spain it is Spanish; in France it is French; in Germany, it is German, and in Italy, it is Italian. The United Kingdom has declared English as its official language as have some surprising spots like Gambia, Ghana, Liberia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Official English in many, many places---but not in the United States.
There are roughly thousands of spoken languages in the world today. The most popular tongue is Mandarin Chinese with 1.2 billion persons speaking that language. If you go to China and insist on speaking a language other than Chinese, and then try to demand government services in your foreign tongue, you won't get too far. What you will get is the China boot.
America is the world's most generous and exceptional nation, where everything is laid out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights--but no language is official. Thirty-two of the 50 sovereign states have enacted a law declaring English as its official and primary language inside its state lines, and five states currently have legislation pending toward that end.
So why isn't English the official language of the USA? American English is the language used for legislation, regulations, executive orders, treaties, federal court rulings, and all other official pronouncements so why not clear the table and have "English" receive its rightful and legitimate blessing. Then there would be something to back us up when we say to our legal (and illegal) visitors, "Learn English!"
Researchers tell us that around 90 per cent of Americans, both Republicans and Democrats, favor the declaration, yet the years pass and legislation is considered, but nothing ever happens. Somehow, with "political correctness" going full tilt, the idea of requiring immigrants to learn English is seen in liberal corners as a "tool of oppression," bordering on racism.
Former President Obama believed that immigrants ought to learn English, but he saw a declaration by the nation that English is its official language as sort of unsportsman-like to immigrants. As a senator from Illinois, Obama voted four times against bills calling for English as the national language. It's unfair to immigrants to face this language burden, argued Obama, who has suggested that instead, Americans just learn to speak Spanish and then everyone would be bilingual.
The late, Phyllis Schafley of Illinois, a prominent and conservative lawyer, was a critic of Senator and President Obama and a passionate proponent of the philosophy that when in America, you speak English. She often criticized President Obama for his negative voice against having English as the official language of the United States, and for his other liberal and anti-patriotic positions.
President Obama stood in real contrast to other presidents. One, in particular, Theodore Roosevelt, had plenty to say on the subject, as he extended a warm and friendly hand to immigrants, but there were caveats.
"In the first place," he said, "we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith and becomes an American and assimilates himself to us-- he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, is not an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
Rep. King has been congress' fiercest advocate of official English in America and particularly when applied to immigrants. King has argued that establishing an official language like other countries would bring consistency and unity. With President Trump, whose patriotism and love of country is worn on his sleeve, and who has said that under his administration, "America will come first," there is optimism that "English" will at long last become the official language of the United States.
XXX
By Florida Bill
In response to vote tallies which showed the new President had not won the popular vote after his surprise election last November, President Trump insisted that if only the legitimate votes were counted, he would have won the popular vote handily. He said that he intended to appoint a commission to investigate illegal voting, and he is following through on his promise.
Does the President have a point, or is he just blowing smoke to massage his ego?
The President's observation and those of his advisers and attorneys touch upon the fact that there are about 11.5 million persons residing illegally in the country and another 32 million immigrants who are permanent and legal residents by virtue of a visa or a green card entitling them to call America their home. But none of these 43 million persons are citizens and therefore none of them are eligible to vote. To President Trump, therein lies the problem.
There is plenty of speculation, from many corners, including opinions from election experts, that immigrants, both legal and illegal, have registered to vote. And it was with this in mind that the president created the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. Some election authorities suspect that non-citizen aliens managed to register as voters and then did indeed show up and vote in the election. How many? Its any one's guess. The president says "millions." His opponents say "No Way--just a wounded Trump ego." Voter rolls change daily, but updating them and keeping them current is a difficult process. The names of voters who die often remain on the voter lists until a canvas, and even then, mistakes are made. With the use of absentee ballots, it is almost inevitable there will be fraud caused by "ballots from the grave" in elections, but overall, it amounts to virtually nothing, and has no impact on the results. So long as men are mortal, there will always be canvases before every election which unintentionally fail to remove all names of deceased voters. This is not the type of illegitimate voting of which the Republican president and his election advisers speak.
If an individual is registered to vote, and his name is in the binders on election day, he will be permitted to cast a ballot. So how does an individual register to vote and what credentials does he need for that process?
It varies from state to state, but in general, there are three requirements for any applicant who wishes to register and become a voter in federal and state elections. He must be a citizen, at least 18 years old on the day of the scheduled election, and he must be a resident of the jurisdiction where the election will be held, and be able to prove it. Once an applicant meets those basic requirements, his or her name is included in the binder that lists voters in the precinct where he will be voting.
To prove citizenship in most jurisdictions, although there are always some variations, the applicant in some jurisdictions needs only to "affirm" the fact that he is a citizen, and he accomplishes that by putting an "X" in the appropriate box. So, hoodwinking the registration process is not terribly difficult, and permanent resident aliens may actually believe they have citizen's rights and are entitled to vote, when in actuality, they are not.
Also, there is speculation that some aliens intentionally misrepresent their status on the application for registration when applying in person at a government office, or, when the process is available, on the Internet. Once registered, the voter will not be challenged except for residency requirements if there has been a change of address. Residency challenges occur when the name of the person seeking to vote is not on the voting list. Generally, these challenges are investigated immediately and if legitimate change of address has occurred, the individual will be permitted to vote. As a general rule, citizenship is never challenged once registration has taken place.
It is President Trump's opinion and belief that immigrant voters who are in the country legally and illegally have registered and voted for Mrs. Clinton because of their Democratic party affiliation, and for their belief in her promises to provide free schooling and medical care and a road to citizenship for legal and illegal residents. When all of these points are taken into consideration, the aim of the new commission is to determine the extent, if any, of illegal voting by non-citizens and its impact on election numbers is a legitimate inquiry.
At last count, more than 40 states have declined to cooperate with the Integrity Commission and provide detailed voting records. Officials in these states assert that allowing scrutiny of records would amount to a gross and unnecessary snooping into the privacy of voting Americans. Federal authorities are promising to protect that privacy and are meeting with state election officials seeking a compromise of some sort. An impasse would probably lead to litigation.
President Trump was elected president on Nov. 8 of last year, receiving a majority of the electoral college votes, 304-227. He lost the popular vote to Mrs. Clinton who received 65.8 million votes to Trump's 62.9 million, a difference of about 2.8 million.
xxx
a
