The Trump Presidency

A New Era Has Begun——————————————————————

                A commentary

By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

 

                It was a rainy day in the nation’s capital but the weather didn’t diminish the enthusiasm of President Trump’s supporters as they listened to his inauguration speech. It differed markedly from others in that it seemed primarily directed to those supporters who, against all odds and in spite of a hostile press and political establishment, made him the 45^th president of the United States. He promised that power was being transferred from Washington back to the people and he pledged never to let them down as so many politicians have in the past.

 

The speech also made it clear that his will be a different kind of presidency, just as he has been a different kind of candidate. Faced with a consistently antagonistic news media, he will continue to reach out directly to the people using social media. The mainstream media will continue to hate him for it but they will hate him anyway, so deeply infused have they become with liberal ideology. Tweeting can be dangerous in the conduct of foreign relations but it will have its advantages in building support for his ambitious social and domestic agenda.

 

                The critics were quick to pounce, of course. It was a dark speech, they said, that painted America as less than great and certain to arouse fears among our allies that America will now be going its own way, concerned mainly with its own interests. Here’s news for the critics: nations have a right to act primarily in their own interests and most do. Too often ours has not. Successful heads of state always act in their nation’s interest. That doesn’t mean that we won’t act in concert with other nations when appropriate and when it suits our interests but those interests must not be sacrificed just to gain world approval. This is how most Americans now appear to want their president to act and presumably why they elected Trump.

 

                Mr. Trump was also criticized for not appealing more to unity. But there was plenty of that in his speech if only critics were willing to recognize it. He said that patriotism leaves no room for prejudice. Black, brown, white or any other color, we all bleed the same color. The president said that he wanted to improve the lives of all Americans from the inner cities to the wind-swept plains. He wants to provide jobs that will lift them from poverty and dependence on welfare. Can anyone really oppose that goal except, perhaps, those who would prefer to remain on welfare? Should we not at least give him a chance to achieve it?

 

                I had the good fortune during over 30 years as a naval officer to serve as commanding officer of three ships and a shore command. I was always impressed and inspired by the depth of good will and support a new commanding officer receives from the crew right at the outset. They want the captain to succeed, perhaps for the simple reason that life is usually better for them when he does. Life can be miserable under a failing commanding officer. So, too, will the nation be better off under a successful president. No one benefits from a failed presidency except our enemies.

 

                President Trump faces tremendous challenges and resistance. He will learn that cultures and habits are deeply ingrained and that transformational change is easy to talk about but exceptionally hard to implement. Bureaucracies resist change and they learn to do it well. He will bring fresh faces to Washington but he will still have to deal with entrenched bureaucrats.

 

                Democrats in congress apparently intend to fight most of his agenda as will the mainstream media. This will be a challenge for Mr. Trump but it poses a significant risk for Democrats, too. Trump’s unexpected victory revealed that many more voters than they ever thought would have simply run out of patience with a ruling class in Washington that has become insulated from the problems of average working Americans and, as Mr. Trump put it, are all talk and no action. I believe that they will also quickly run out patience with those politicians who refuse to give the president, whom they elected specifically to change things, a chance. Elections, as former president Barack Obama said eight years ago, do have consequences.

January 26, 2017

 

The LA Chargers

v

Lament for a Lost Franchise—————————–

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

The new year didn’t start out well for San Diego. It lost its NFL franchise, perhaps forever. The  San Diego Chargers left what used to be known as America’s Finest City for the tacky, traffic-choked outskirts of Los Angeles. After fifteen years of dickering with city officials over financing of a new stadium, owner Dean Spanos abandoned the team’s home of over half a century and retreated to la la land where he is receiving a tepid welcome. The team will play two seasons in a 27,000-seat soccer stadium in fashionable Carson before being able to play as a tenant in the LA Ram’s new stadium. Wouldn’t it have been more cost effective to stay at the 70,000-seat Qualcomm Stadium until then?

 

Much of the area is in mourning over the loss which has since dominated the news and opinion coverage in the county’s largest daily newspaper. Whatever will the U-T’s platoon of sportswriters writers now write about when the Padres or Aztecs aren’t playing?

 

The somewhat more than one-half of city residents who voted against a plan to finance a new stadium with hotel occupancy taxes which would have cost locals nothing uttered a collective good riddance. The city didn’t lose the Chargers, they said, the Chargers lost San Diego. San Diego doesn’t need an NFL team to be a great city. There are plenty of other attractions like the zoo and Sea World, that is, until the animal rights activists drive them away, too.

 

But the loss of one of its two remaining major sports franchises will leave a huge void. Over half of the area’s residents wanted to keep the team and they are grieving. Professional football provides a major source of entertainment to millions of Americas and rooting for the home team is part of the culture. We have lost our home team and something will never be the same. They can still watch on TV (sometimes), but they won’t have a horse in the race anymore.  It’s different.

 

There are many things that combine to make a city great. We have the best climate in the world but other attributes matter. Things like parks, museums, universities, corporate headquarters, theatre, opera, symphony orchestras, and yes, major league sports franchises, combine to make a city truly world-class. San Diego is the nation’s eighth-largest city and it can’t support an NFL, NBA or NHL franchise? Really? There are cities less than half its size that do.

 

But what San Diego has mostly lacked is effective city government. It’s easy to place all the blame on the greed of the owner, but the politicians at City Hall also dropped the ball. They had many years to figure out a way to keep this team and they blew it. Many communities much less affluent than ours are willing to do almost whatever it takes to keep or attract an NFL franchise.

 

Ten years ago the team offered to finance a new stadium in Mission Valley in return for just 60 of the 160 acres of land at the current site. The improvements that the team envisioned would have generated needed tax revenues. The land is in a flood plain alongside an oil tank farm. What else is it good for, more housing to add to the traffic congestion every day? The city should have jumped at the chance. Instead, it dithered as usual and an unnecessarily abrasive city attorney poisoned further negotiations.

 

The 1997-1998 San Diego County Grand Jury, on which I served as foreman, wrote a report criticizing the City for the infamous Charger ticket guarantee. The mayor at the time told me that she didn’t want to be known as the mayor who lost the Chargers. Now all the subsequent mayors and council members can share that dubious honor.                 The team was always a regional asset but the city never really reached out to the rest of the county except perhaps for money. It wanted total control. At least half of the fan base lives outside the city limits. Yet, those of us who do never had a chance to vote on any of this.

 

The area will miss the charitable activities the team provided and its contributions to the city’s reputation. It will miss the pride that most of us experienced when we had a winning team. It will miss the experience of having, as members of our community, highly-talented athletes like Phillip Rivers and Antonio Gates playing at the height of their careers, inspiring young athletes. We have lost a valuable community resource and we will be the poorer for it.

(Kelly was foreman of the 1997-1998 San Diego County Grand Jury).

January 22, 2017.

 

War on Law Enforcement

Justice vs. Law and Order—————————————-

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

On the afternoon of Sept. 27^th, El Cajon police responded to a 911 call regarding the erratic behavior of a man who some onlookers thought might be armed. The call was placed by the man’s sister who reportedly said that her brother was not acting like himself and she needed help in taking him to a mental facility. She reportedly told the dispatcher that he didn’t have a weapon.

 

The brother, Alfred Olango, was a 38-year-old refugee from Uganda with prior drug and firearm convictions. U.S. Immigrations and Customs officials had twice tried to deport him. When officers arrived, they found him in a parking lot with his hand in his pocket. One of the officers reported seeing a bulge in the pocket that appeared as if he had something else in the pocket beside his hand.

 

Police ordered him to remove his hand from the pocket. Mr. Olango reportedly refused at first, continuing to move around. Cellphone and security camera video revealed that Olango then pulled what appeared to be a shiny object from his pocket and aimed it at an officer in what was described as a shooting stance, even simulating a recoil action. The officer fired, fatally wounding Olango, while another officer used a taser. A witness told investigators that she believed the object was a gun and that the officer had every right to shoot or be killed. The object turned out to be an e-cigarette vaping device. Mr. Olango reportedly was found to have cocaine and alcohol in his system.

 

Protests erupted immediately after the shooting. Some turned violent. Autos were vandalized and police were assaulted with rocks and bottles. It was an all too familiar scenario. Police shoot another unarmed black man. Demonstrators demanded justice for the victim and chants of “no justice, no peace” were heard.

 

After a lengthy investigation, District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis announced that the shooting was justified and that the officer who shot Mr. Olango would not face criminal charges. “As prosecutors,” she said, we have an ethical duty to follow the law and only charge individuals when we have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The only reasonable conclusion was the officer’s actions were justified.” She said that Mr. Olango’s actions in abruptly pulling an object from his pocket and raising it appeared to be “a purposeful, intentional act to place (the policeman) in fear that he was about to be shot.”

 

The reaction was again immediate and reflexive. “War has been declared on humanity and the battle lines have been drawn,” Olango’s father was quoted as saying.  The usual voices weighed in. The president of the San Diego branch of the National Action Network is demanding that the governor appoint a special prosecutor. The Rev. Al Sharpton called on the Justice Department to investigate. The family has reportedly filed a wrongful death claim and will “seek justice for the family through the civil justice system and (seek) the reforms that will work to ensure that this type of homicide does not occur in the future,” according to a Los Angeles attorney representing the family.

 

While the father’s grief is understandable, war has not been declared on humanity except, perhaps, in places like Chicago where people, mostly African-Americans, are murdered every day by black-on- black violence. Rather, it seems, war has been declared against law enforcement. Justice, in the view of the demonstrators and their supporters, apparently means that every officer who uses lethal force against a black perpetrator who later turns out not to be armed with a gun is guilty of homicide, even if he acted out of fear that his own life or someone else’s was in danger. Forget about justice for the officer. It appears to be more about vengeance.

 

There have, to be sure, been tragic instances of wrongful deaths as a result of officers using lethal force but they have been the exception. Certainly of at least equal concern is the increase in assaults on police and the refusal by so many persons to obey lawful orders from policemen trying to do their job and protect the public. The constant barrage of criticism leveled at law enforcement personnel is clearly resulting in increased reluctance on the part of officers to use force or to stop suspects. A survey of nearly 8000 officers conducted by Pew Research and the National Police Research Platform found that 78% of officers say they are now more reluctant to use force and 72% say they are less willing to stop and question suspicious people.

 

This places all of us at greater risk, especially minorities who live in areas where violent crime rates are high and rising.

January 19. 2017

California Takes On the U.S.A.

California vs. The Unites States of America——————————

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                The nation’s most populous and liberal state took the victory of Donald Trump exceptionally hard. Some Hollywood celebrities, Sacramento politicians and coastal big-city elites had even threatened to defect to Canada if he won. When he did, there was much sobbing and hysteria among them but no noticeable efforts to flee the country. Apparently, they have decided to stay and fight.

 

The president-elect has promised to build a wall along the southern border, crack down on illegal immigration and deport those with criminal records. He has also expressed some skepticism regarding the role that people and carbon-based fuels play in global warming and climate change. These are fighting words to left coast liberals. They run entirely counter to California’s pro-illegal immigrant and radical environmentalist culture.

 

Sacramento legislators have even suggested that they may put to a state vote any federal government attempt to build the wall along California’s southern border. Perhaps they haven’t noticed that one already exists along much of it. Perhaps they also don’t realize that the federal government, not the states, has exclusive jurisdiction over international borders, immigration matters and border security.

 

The state senate’s president pro tempore, Kevin de Leon, and assembly speaker Anthony Rendon, both Democrats, of course, said that they expect the Trump Administration will bring extraordinary challenges for California. I’ll say it will.  Those changes may well include the withholding of certain federal grants which require the recipients to show compliance with federal laws. California received over $18 million in Justice Assistance Grants in 2016 alone.

 

Mr. de Leon has introduced a bill called the California Values Act which would prohibit local law enforcement agencies from reporting people for immigration enforcement purposes or even providing access to databases for that purpose. In other words, it would criminalize efforts by local law enforcement to report people who broke federal laws or to co-operate with federal authorities in identifying or finding them. Earlier legislation passed in 2013 called the California Trust Act forbade local law enforcement from even holding persons in jails or prison solely for the immigration officers to come and take custody of them.

 

California has a number of so-called sanctuary cities and the state seems to regard itself as a sanctuary state for illegal immigrants. Mr. Trump has threatened to deny federal grants to sanctuary cities. A loss of federal grants to California and its cities could have major impacts on a number of important programs including research grants to state universities.

 

Foreseeing trouble ahead, trouble purely of its own making, California’s liberal rulers have hired former Obama Administration Attorney General, Eric Holder, Jr., a partner in the Washington law firm of Covington& Burling LLP, to head a team of high-priced lawyers to represent the legislature. Mr. Holder and his team will be advising the legislature in its “efforts to resist any attempt to roll back the progress California has made,” according to a joint announcement by Messrs. De Leon and Rendon.

 

Gov. Jerry Brown, who regards the war against carbon-based fuels and the role they play in creating greenhouse gases and climate change as much a part of his legacy as Barack Obama does, recently declared, “We’ve got the scientists, we’ve got the lawyers and we’re ready to fight.”

 

Good luck with that. When a state, even an enormous one like California, picks a fight with the federal government over matters where the supremacy clause of the Constitution is involved, guess who wins? Among the losers, of course, will be the over-taxed citizens of the Golden State who pay the bills for such folly. Only in California.

January 10, 2017