New York State

The Odyssey Of Donald Trump: From Roy Cohn To Michael Cohen, 1973-2018

Donald Trump first became a public figure in 1973 when he defended his father’s discrimination against African American tenants in his real estate projects in Queens County, New York. He utilized infamous attorney Roy Cohn, who had been the major figure assisting the despicable Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy in his tirade against those in government and academia, who he labeled as being Communists, “Reds”, a danger to the American people, all part of his “Red Scare”, also known as “McCarthyism”.

Cohn well knew the falsehoods of Joseph McCarthy, but he played “hardball”, while living a very corrupt life long after McCarthy had fallen from power, and died in 1957.

Cohn connected with Organized Crime interests and led a lascivious lifestyle, including being openly gay, while denying and condemning gays and lesbians, a true hypocrite, and at the end, he died of the effects of AIDS.

But he became after 1973 an adviser to young Trump, and Trump has said that Cohn was a shaping force in his life.

And now, Donald Trump has been very close to his attorney, Michael Cohen, who has done all kinds of “good deeds” for him, including dealing with Trump’s love life scandals, and after the raid on his home, hotel room and offices, apparently was enmeshed in scandalous activities that may help to bring Donald Trump down, and cause Cohen to face prison time.

So Donald Trump’s odyssey has been to go from the disgraced Roy Cohn to the newly disgraced Michael Cohen over 45 years. The present situation may lead to the removal of Donald Trump from office, and even with potential pardons in the offing, Trump and Cohen and others, in regards to their business and love life dealings, may still be prosecuted in New York State, and would not be covered by the pardon power of the Presidency.

Stormy Daniels Scandal Not Going Away, And Neither Is Robert Mueller: Dual Threats To Trump Presidency

The Stormy Daniels Scandal is not going away, and it is causing Donald Trump to avoid commenting on Twitter or in public utterances, very unlike the behavior of the 45th President.

And Trump is having great trouble finding good attorneys to supplement his defense against the upcoming interview with Robert Mueller, which assuredly will not save him, his family, and his administration from a massive series of indictments and convictions, including the removal of the President sooner rather than later.

Trump is doomed, and he knows it, and his administration will go down, ultimately, as the most corrupt administration in all of American history, worse than Richard Nixon, Warren G. Harding, and Ulysses S. Grant, with the latter two not personally involved, as Nixon was, so Nixon and Trump will be in exclusive company with each other.

But Nixon will, by comparison, look like a choir boy in the extent and seriousness of scandals.

Trump will be seen as a traitor; as a person who obstructed justice; as a President who broke the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution; as a Chief Executive abusing power; as someone who openly colluded with Russia in fixing the Presidential Election of 2016; as a leader involved in illegal financial activities that could land him in prison in New York, outside of the Presidency itself, and also put his family members in prison as well.

Donald Trump will rue the day that he decided to seek the White House!

Nine Presidential Nominees Who Lost In Very Close Races To Their Opponents

It is not generally known that we have had several Presidential candidates who lost the Presidency in very close races, where one could note that a small switch of votes would have changed the result, with five such cases in American history. And some Presidential candidates have lost despite winning the national popular vote, with four such cases in American history. So therefore, nine elections saw these scenarios.

Andrew Jackson lost the Election of 1824 to John Quincy Adams despite winning the national popular vote by about 45,000.

Henry Clay lost the Election of 1844 to James K. Polk by losing New York State by about 5,000 votes.

Samuel Tilden lost the Election of 1876 to Rutherford B. Hayes despite winning the national popular vote by about 250,000.

James G. Blaine lost the Election of 1884 to Grover Cleveland by losing New York State by about 1,000 votes.

Grover Cleveland lost the Election of 1888 to Benjamin Harrison despite winning the national popular vote by about 100,000.

Charles Evans Hughes lost the Election of 1916 to Woodrow Wilson by losing California by about 3,800 votes.

Richard Nixon lost the Election of 1960 to John F. Kennedy by losing the state of Illinois by about 8,000 votes.

Gerald Ford lost the Election of 1976 to Jimmy Carter by losing the state of Ohio by 5,600 votes and the state of Hawaii by 3,700 votes.

Al Gore lost the Election of 2000 to George W. Bush despite winning the national popular vote by 540,000, and by losing the state of Florida by 537 votes.

Of course, Jackson, Cleveland, and Nixon went on to win the next national election in each case, and Ford, although never being elected, had the satisfaction of having been President for almost two and a half years.

Tilden and Gore were the most tragic cases, as they never ran again for President, and yet had won the national popular vote in each case.

Henry Clay and Charles Evans Hughes were exceptional public servants in so many ways, but would never be President.

Finally, James G. Blaine losing was probably good, as he was regarded as the most corrupt national candidate in American history!

One Of The Last True Liberals, Mario Cuomo, Passes From The Scene On New Year’s Day!

Former three term New York Governor Mario Cuomo, one of the last true liberals in American politics, passed from the scene yesterday, New Year’s Day, just as his son, Andrew Cuomo, was inaugurated for his own second term as Governor of New York.

Mario Cuomo was a dynamic, charismatic, inspiring political figure, who flirted with the idea of running for President in 1988 and 1992, but ended up not running. He also was the front runner for a Supreme Court nomination by President Bill Clinton in 1993, but turned it down, in favor of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and ran, instead, for a fourth term as Governor, but losing to George Pataki in 1994.

Cuomo was, without any question, the second greatest Italian American political figure in American history, only surpassed by New York City Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia (1934-1945), and he will be much missed, as he was a rarity in politics–a truly decent, principled politician who cared about the poor and the oppressed of all races, both in New York and nationwide!

The Decline Of The New York State Government And Governorship!

New York State, the “Empire State”, is a victim of government decline in so many ways.

This was the state that gave us Presidential candidates in Alfred E. Smith, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Thomas E. Dewey, and potential Presidential candidates in Averell Harriman, Nelson Rockefeller, Mario Cuomo, and George Pataki.

But now, we have had Eliot Spitzer, forced out of office by a sex scandal, and Andrew Cuomo, subject of an ethics investigation, who has displayed arrogance and entitlement about his control of who can investigate him, which has now blown up in his face.

Ironically, Cuomo seems an easy winner for his second term, but could be forced out of office during the next term, reminiscent of the circumstances of President Richard Nixon, who won easy reelection while under investigation, and then was forced to resign in disgrace.

This will end any hope that Cuomo could ever run for the Presidency, if for instance, Hillary Clinton chose not to run.

Having said that as reality, this author wishes to state that he has always had an uneasy feeling about Cuomo, over many years. It is something hard to pinpoint, but this blogger always liked Mario Cuomo, Andrew’s dad, but never felt comfortable with his son, even though he resembles him a lot in speaking manner and appearance!

Nations Breaking Up: Could It Happen Among American States?

We are living in a world where nation states have broken up, and where the potential for more such breakups is increasing.

Yugoslavia broke up into multiple nations in the 1990s, as did the old Soviet Union, and Czechoslovakia.

Sudan broke up into two nations in 2011, and Iraq seems on the road to a similar breakup, sadly through religious revolution, fanaticism and loss of life.

There has been the threat in the past of Quebec breaking away from Canada, although that seems less likely now.

Scotland will decide whether to split from the United Kingdom in a referendum this September.

There are threats of the breakup of Belgium and Spain, where strong nationality groups wish for independence.

At the same time, there has been secessionist talk by right wing groups in Texas, and even outgoing Governor Rick Perry talked up the idea a few years back, and then abandoned such talk.

But seriously, without violence, not like the Civil War in the 1860s, there are ideas floating out on the political wilderness of the possible future breakup of eight states, and the theoretical creation of an additional 16 states as a result, requiring an additional 32 US Senators, making the total possibly 132, instead of the present 100, in the upper chamber, while not changing the number of members of the House of Representatives.

These possibilities are as follows:

California–six states instead of one—Jefferson (rural Northern California); North California (centered about Sacramento, the state capital); Silicon Valley (San Francisco and San Jose); Central California (Bakersfield, Fresno and Stockton); West California (Los Angeles and Santa Barbara); and South California (San Diego and Orange Counties).

Texas–five states instead of one—New Texas (Austin, the present state capital and College Station); Trinity (Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington and Tyler); Gulfland (Houston, Corpus Christi, Galveston); Plainland (Lubbock, Amarillo, Waco, Abilene); and El Norte (San Antonio, El Paso, Brownsville).

New York–three states instead of one—Suburban counties of Southeast New York (Westchester, Rockland, Dutchess and Orange Counties) and Long Island (Nassau and Suffolk); New York City (Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, Bronx, Staten Island); and Upstate New York (including the rest of the state, including Rochester, Buffalo, Syracuse, Binghamton).

Florida—two states instead of one—South Florida (the Keys, Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach); and Northern Florida (the rest of the state).

Illinois–two states instead of one—Chicago and near suburbs; and the rest of the state.

Pennsylvania–two states instead of one—Philadelphia and near suburbs; and the rest of the state, including Pittsburgh and Harrisburg).

Virginia–two states instead of one—Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, DC; and the rest of the state.

Maryland–two states instead of one—Baltimore, Annapolis, and Washington DC suburban counties (including Montgomery and Prince George’s County) and three rural eastern shore counties; and Western Maryland.

Is any of this likely to happen? Probably not, but great food for thought. It would require revolutionary changes in the US Senate, and would create new issues of which party would benefit, the Democrats or the Republicans, since the major metropolitan areas would be separate from the more rural counties in these eight states, and it would create a new dynamic in American politics hard to predict long term!

Six Cities For Democrats and Four For Republicans Competing For 2016 National Conventions!

The bids are in for the two national conventions of the major political parties competing for the Presidency in 2016.

The Democrats have bids from Birmingham, Alabama; Cleveland, Ohio; Columbus, Ohio; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; New York City (Brooklyn); and Phoenix, Arizona.

The Republicans have bids from Cleveland, Ohio; Dallas, Texas: Denver, Colorado; and Kansas City, Missouri.

It would be interesting if both parties chose Cleveland, as the parties have, occasionally, chosen the same city for their conventions, but somehow, this author does not see either party actually choosing Cleveland.

What makes the most sense is to choose a city in a state that is competitive, or significant enough to be considered possibly a win for the political party involved.

Going on that assumption, it makes no sense for Birmingham, Alabama to be chosen by the Democrats.

New York City (Brooklyn) would be a popular favorite, but New York is guaranteed to the Democrat Presidential nominee in 2016.

Philadelphia would be a good choice, in a state which could be competitive, although the Democrats are a heavy favorite to win the state, so it seems unlikely as the choice that will be made.

So that leaves Columbus, Ohio and Phoenix, Arizona as the remaining choices, as both states are highly competitive, but with Ohio more likely to go Democratic, and being, in many ways, the key swing state.

So the prediction of this blogger is that Columbus will be the host for the Democratic National Convention, the capital city of the state, and a better choice, overall, than Cleveland would be.

As far as the Republicans are concerned, the best choice, in the opinion of the blogger, is Denver, Colorado, a true swing state, but Dallas would be the backup if the GOP wants to send the message just how important Texas is, as the danger of an eventual move toward becoming a “blue” state becomes more possible as the years go by.

So the emotional favorite for this author for the Democrats is his home of New York, which he left for Florida 25 years ago, but the likelihood that Columbus will be chosen, with a backup of Phoenix.

While the author has no emotional favorite for the Republicans, the likely emotional choice for them would be Dallas, but with the likelihood that Denver will be chosen, and doubtful for Kansas City and, particularly, for Cleveland!

We shall see how accurate the author is in his predictions of Columbus for the Democrats and Denver for the Republicans!

Rick Santorum Bashes New York City And Los Angeles, And By Implication, Boston! What It Says About Him!

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, challenging Mitt Romney for the Republican Presidential nomination, has now gone on the attack against New York City and Los Angeles, and by implication, Boston, since Massachusetts is the state in which Mitt Romney was governor,

This reminds us of Barry Goldwater in 1964, suggesting that the Atlantic Coast of North America be cut off and sent out to sea.

It also reminds us of Sarah Palin in 2008, who criticized the coastlines of America, and claimed the “real America” was in the heartland.

The problem is that one can attack those three cities, and the states that they are part of, but there is no way to claim that the heartland of the nation matches the significance and influence of New York City, Los Angeles, and Boston, in the present, or historically!

These are the cultural, financial, business, intellectual and educational centers of America.

These cities have among the best universities in the world, and their states easily have had a greater impact on America than all of the heartland states combined, both past and present.

People can have proud regional biases, but the reality is that these three cities and states are the center of American progress and accomplishments, and that will not change.

So to condemn these cities and states is pure stupidity and ignorance, and proves that Rick Santorum, like Sarah Palin and Barry Goldwater, is not qualified for the Presidency, since he does not recognize the reality of the influence and significance of these coastline cities and states! And to pit a portion of the nation against other areas is also demagogic and despicable to the core!

IntraState Discontent: Suggestions To Break Up States Growing, But Unlikely To Occur!

A movement to break up states, and therefore create more Senate seats and overcome the influence of urban areas on rural and suburban populations, is starting to grow.

The suggestion has been made to create a new state of Southern California, consisting of 13 million people and 13 counties, but not including Los Angeles.

California is not the only state which has experienced this kind of movement. It is actually very common, at least in people’s imaginations.

Florida has seen the debate over creating a separate Southern Florida state. Upstate New York and downstate Illinois have long wished for separation from New York City and Chicago.

Northern Virginia has thought of itself as separate from the rest of Virginia, with the influence of Washington, DC over the area. And western Pennsylvania has wished to be separate from Philadelphia influences over state affairs.

Northern Ohio with Cleveland has long seen itself as different from Southern Ohio and Cincinnati, and Michigan is often seen as Detroit and a separate western Michigan.

And of course, the giant state of Texas has often been seen as multiple states, with the rivalry of Houston vs. Dallas-Forth Worth; the influence of Austin and San Antonio as the most liberal part of the state; and the Panhandle of Lubbock and other communities as totally different from the others.

So in theory, if all the wishes expressed for separation were to occur, we would not have 50 states, but more likely, at least SIXTY-ONE states!

But is this going to happen at any point in the future? Don’t put betting money on it!

Gay Marriage And The Supreme Court: Anthony Kennedy The Crucial Vote!

In 1967, the US Supreme Court issued a decision in Loving V. Virginia, declaring interracial marriage constitutional. At the time, there was still widespread feeling among the American people, particularly whites, that interracial marriage should not be allowed, with three out of four in a 1968 poll so declaring. And nearly the same percentage, 73 percent, of all races felt the same way in 1968.

It is clear, also, that a majority of people, particularly whites, were not supportive of the Supreme Court decision in 1954, Brown V. Board of Education, which mandated the end of segregation of the races in public education.

Often, the Supreme Court is ahead of the country in formulating change, and of course, conservatives resent that. But without the Court intervening, progress would be slower or completely halted.

Therefore, with the decision of New York State to allow gay marriage, it is time for gay rights advocates to bring a case to the higher court!

But, of course, there is fear that the conservative Court would rule against it, but that is seen as highly unlikely.

No one can be sure how Justices would vote, but even if one considers that Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts might vote against, the odds are that Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, and Ruth Bader Ginsberg would vote in favor.

That leaves Justice Anthony Kennedy, the true centrist on the Court, who more often votes with the conservatives, but often sides with the liberals. And when one considers that Kennedy was the decisive vote in Lawrence V. Texas in 2003, granting privacy rights to gay couples, one has hope that he would continue to support gay rights, including marriage.

Kennedy also supported the rights of gays to stop being treated as a group deserving discrimination in the Colorado Constitution in Romer V. Evans in 1996, and also in a Circuit Court case in 1980, he showed concern about mistreatment of gays.

The timing is crucial, as Ruth Bader Ginsberg may leave the Court soon, and in the next term in office, if a Republican won the White House, both Ginsberg and Kennedy might be replaced, based on their ages, and the opportunity for a Supreme Court decision in favor of gay marriage might have passed!

And remember, unlike interracial marriage, a majority of Americans in a recent poll support the concept of gay marriage, a massive switch from just a few years ago!

So bring on a Supreme Court case and soon!