Term of the Day: HEALTHCARELESS

A very dear friend of mine died today.

I am both saddened and angered.  The grief and anger I feel at this loss run neck and neck for first place in my mind.

It is no secret that health care in the United States is a mess.  (That is being generous.)  Not only are things such as out-of-reach pricing of medications and the amount of red tape one has to sift through contributing to this epidemic -- use of the word "epidemic" here is not simply for irony -- but actual hands-on, person-to-person health care is shameful.  Lest anyone thinks my broad brush is standing at the ready, allow me to say that there are many health care professionals who do, indeed, function professionally.  An unfortunate side effect is those individuals tend to get overlooked.  It is not surprising, given the multitude of horror stories, but there are fine men and women who do understand that health care is not simply the banner under which their job lies.  Those professionals should be lifted up as exemplars.

As you have guessed, my focus today is on those whose jobs fall under the banner of health care, but their performance is clearly health careless ... even health couldn't-care-less.

My focus will be on one person, my friend who died.  His name is Ed, and he and his husband Bud have been dear friends of mine for twelve years.  Ed was a good man.  Those who would dismiss him as anything but, simply because he was gay, are missing the point.  He worked as an elementary school teacher for several years, and he was beloved.  People who he had taught decades earlier when they were children still had high praise for Ed all these years later.  He was heavily involved in local theatre for many years, working in front of the footlights and behind the scenes.  (He and I met that way.  He was working stage crew for a show I was in, and would direct me in a show the following year.)  He did everything most people do ... get dressed and go to work, pay bills, and argued and had wonderful times with his spouse, etc.  He and Bud had been together for nearly forty years.  They had a civil union several years ago and later got married when it was made legal here in New Jersey.  Ed died just three days shy of his and Bud's fifth wedding anniversary.  He was not evil or mean-spirited and was one of the kindest persons I have ever known. 

Ed's health had taken a huge turn for the worse in the past four months, but his problems began nine years ago.  How bad has his condition become?  It started with: you do have cancer, you don't have cancer, you do have cancer, you don't have cancer.  And that was the start of all this!  Add to that whether or not his prostate should be removed during all that back-and-forth.  (It was removed.)  Go from that to his primary care physician telling him, when he said he was experiencing chills quite frequently, to have a cup of tea.  Then, try a kidney infection that kept returning over the past nine years and has never, to my knowledge, been treated properly with medication (i.e. too low of a dosage, wrong kind of antibiotic).  And the different kinds of chemotherapy have been a real rollercoaster for Ed.  (More on that later.)

All of that has been the bulk of the past nine years.  Now, let us move on to the past four months.  I visited with Ed and Bud on a Thursday.  The next day, Ed was in the hospital.  We had gone to lunch at a very nice Chinese restaurant near them, so we joked about not eating Chinese food again.  It turned out it was a kidney infection yet again!  Then, they thought he had sepsis, which can be caused by a kidney infection, and were treating that.  Ed had become weak and needed to go to a rehab facility, since their home has (aside from the stairs to go upstairs) one or two steps between each room on the first floor.  The first facility Ed went to was terrible.  Ed was neglected by a staff mostly comprised of health couldn't-care-less individuals, including one example of an attendant coming in to take his dinner tray away.  Only, he had never been given one in the first place.

Let me stop and inject here that Ed had had lap gastric banding surgery (rubberband around the stomach) a few years ago because he was very overweight.  He would eat far, far less than he did prior.  He would be hungry, sometimes snacking between meals, but he could not eat the amount of food he could before the surgery.  He had lost a lot of weight, to where I would joke Hey, who's this guy?, and looked really good prior to all of this happening.  Sadly, and unexpectedly, that initial weight loss might have factored into the past few months.

Ed's second visit to the hospital turned up nothing of major consequence, but the staff was not giving him oxygen during physical therapy (which his paperwork stated he needed) and simply giving up when Ed said he was out of breath and getting lightheaded, which was not long after he stood up.  Since one of the side effects of chemotherapy is making the patient weak, Ed was taken off of his treatments in order to give his body a rest from it and the chance to have more energy to work on building up his strength.  (In fact, the last chemo treatment Ed was on was an "old version" of treatments that is very harsh ... and likely not used anymore due to its harshness.)  My fear, which I never told Ed or Bud, was, if Ed took too long to get his strength back and thus ended up being off the chemo for too long, it could allow the cancer to rear its ugly head again and cause even more problems.

Ed's second rehab facility, which he entered before his second hospital stay, appeared better for only a short while.  A tube in Ed for his urine bag had come out -- Ed said he never felt it and didn't know it had come out -- and the overnight nurse called Bud around 6:30 in the morning to ask him if he'd transport Ed from the facility to the hospital.  (Bud said her tone was very unpleasant when she had to resign herself to calling for a transport herself.)  That same nurse never notified a doctor to come in to see Ed at the facility for an evaluation.  Additionally, the social worker kept running things they would be doing by Bud, when Ed was fully alert and aware of everything going on around him.  Not that Bud should not have known, but sometimes she would tell Bud about things and not Ed.

A few more stays at the hospital revealed that Ed had contracted clostridium difficile colitis, or C. Diff, which can cause anything from diarrhea (which Ed had) to inflammation of the colon that can be life-threatening.  Ed was put on an antibiotic to treat it.

At his third rehab facility -- reminder: this is all in the span of just four months -- things improved only slightly, even with the facility being the best of the three as far as the level of care given.  If you remember, I mentioned about Ed's rubberband around the stomach surgery and his eating less.  All during the past three months, Ed's appetite had dropped off considerably.  He wavered among not being hungry to the "metallic" taste of food from the chemo to just not feeling like eating.  Clearly, depression was a huge factor most of this time.  As a result, he had withered down to just a shell of his healthier, thinner former self.

One mark against this third facility, however, was, at one point, saying they thought Ed might have pneumonia.  They put him on antibiotic for that ... while still taking the antibiotic for C. Diff.   Taking two antibiotics at the same time can be done, but it can be a tricky proposition, too.  They determined that he did not have pneumonia after all, without saying if it was a bad cold or the flu or whatever ... simply "not pneumonia".) 

On yet another trip to the hospital -- I'd lost track at this point, but I think it was his seventh visit -- they decided two antibiotics at once on an already weakened body was too much, so they took him off both.  By this time, they said that his C. Diff. had cleared up.  They also noticed a dark spot on his liver, which they thought was his cancer spreading.  I thought my fear of it coming back when the focus was on all of his other problems had come true.  Ed's primary care physician looked at the scans and said that his liver did not show cancer.  His physician was finally getting some major things in order, like he had said he would, and was arranging for Ed to be treated at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Maryland.  Ed went back to the rehab facility to await that next step in his treatment.

Two days later, I spoke with Bud on the phone who said he was told that Ed was too far gone to recover and he was coming home that day with hospice.  Add to this, a home nursing company, Bayada Nurses, had Bud running around to different pharmacies to get some oral morphine for Ed, including suggesting he go to a pharmacy thirty miles away.  During a heated discussion about this running around, Bud was told, "Well, you should have just let him die." 

Less than forty-eight hours after coming home, Ed was gone.

It is not just ridiculously long wait times at doctors' offices and hospital emergency rooms.  It is not just the greed from charging exorbitantly high prices for medications and procedures.  It is not just the unnecessary tug-of-war in Congress over healthcare in America.  All of those things are not footnotes, and they certainly contribute enormously to the sad state of healthcare in this country.  Not to mention for every time I have heard someone complain, I've also heard someone say, "Well, that's just the way it is."  A huge shift for the better is sorely overdue.

This, however, is where the toughest change needs to occur:  When you have a culture that views old(er) people as disposable, unimportant, and even a waste of time and resources, and from among those numbers, people enter into the healthcare profession -- not everyone, as I have stated, holds that view, but that is still the overall culture they're drawing from --  you are going to run into people who will act accordingly.  Where you come from affects where you are.  No one should ever be treated (or should I say "treated") in the manner Ed was.  I mentioned too many times to Ed and Bud and many of my friends that Ed needed at least a majority of people who were working to get him home healthy, at least healthier, but he did not have that majority on his side.  Ed did come home, but not the way he should have.

A very dear friend of mine died today.

He did not have to.

Terry

Phrase of the Day: YOU ARE SAFE NOW

Today, a young man who was killed simply for being gay was laid to rest today.  His name is known around the world ... Matthew Shepard.  He was murdered on October 12, 1998, in Colorado, left to die, tied to a fence. 

You may ask why it has been two decades since his murder that his remains are finally being laid to rest.  Quite simply, his parents, Dennis and Judy Shepard, were unable to find a final resting place that was safe enough or suitable enough. 

He was laid to rest today at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C.

Below, is a video of the entire interment service held earlier today.  The sermon is delivered by The Right Reverend Gene Robinson, who is the retired bishop of the state of New Hampshire.  He was also the first openly gay bishop in the U.S. Episcopal Church.



Terry

IN RESPONSE TO THE MAGABOMBER (10/24/18)

   

POT

 

PARTY OF TRUMP

 

PARTY OF TERRORISM

Phrase of the Day: FULLY HUMAN, FULLY DIVINE [REVISITING 'THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST' ON THE 30TH ANNIVERSARY OF ITS RELEASE]

Today, I am revisiting a major motion picture that was originally released thirty years ago today.  It is a film that was not only deeply moving to watch, but also was a profound religious experience.  It is also a film that had many critics, too.  The film is Martin Scorsese's masterpiece, The Last Temptation of Christ, based on the novel by Nikos Kazantzakis, which was first published in 1955 and later in English in 1960.

The film opens with Willem Dafoe, in the title character of Jesus, sleeping on the ground.  We hear him in a voice over:
        "The feeling begins.  Very tender.  Very loving.  Then the pain starts.  Claws slip
        underneath the skin and tear their way up.  Just before they reach my eyes, they
        dig in.  Then I remember." 

He gets up.  The scene shifts, with Jesus now involved in making something out of wood, and his voice over continues:
        "First I fasted for three nights.  I even whipped myself before I went to sleep.  At
        first it worked.  Then the pain came back.  And the voices  They call me by name.
        Jesus."

At first we do not know what this Jesus is making.  It is only when he places the piece of wood he was working on, horizontally on two pegs roughly chest level and leans up against it that we realize what it is ... the cross piece for a crucifixion cross.

Wait ... he's making what?!  He's making what?!

It is when Judas suddenly enters where Jesus is working and strongly criticizes what Jesus is doing that Jesus, pleadingly, says that he is struggling.  When Judas wants Jesus to join him to rise up against the Romans, Jesus tells him that is not the way the Messiah will come.  When Judas asks him how will he pay for his sins -- "a Jew killing Jews" -- Jesus simply answers, "With my life.  That's all I have."  And so, the stage is set.  Not exactly the stuff of the Gospels.

That is part of Kazantzakis' point.  As noted in the opening scroll in the film...

The struggle between spirit and flesh (or between mortal human and immortality) is a very real one, examined by many over millennia, and Kazantzakis employs the ultimate subject in his novel, Jesus.  What many did not get is that this was merely a fictional rendering of Jesus' passion story, and not one to replace the Gospels.  Kazantzakis teases this out further in the first sentence of the prologue of his book:
        "The dual substance of Christ -- the yearning, so human, so superhuman, of man
        to attain to God or, more exactly, to return to God and identify himself with him
        -- has always been a deep inscrutable mystery to me."

The other point is that Jesus' nature, in Christian teachings, was both fully human and fully divine.  Not fully human only.  Not fully divine only.  Not either nature with a majority.  Kazantzakis' novel and Scorsese's film simply give more emphasis -- not sole emphasis, simply more emphasis -- on Jesus' human nature.

Most depictions of Jesus in film do not give as much attention to Jesus' human nature.  Here, with more emphasis on Jesus' human side, we can see the struggle the man, the human being had with what he was being called to do.  At no point in the film does Dafoe's Jesus say God isn't real or God isn't his father.  Rather, it shows someone who believes in God -- even posing the question "You can't cast out God, can you?" -- being called to do something frightening and seemingly insurmountable.

If any of us were asked to do what Jesus did, would we all simply charge ahead, never questioning, never doubting ourselves (or even God)?  For those who theologically are not able to accept a Jesus who doubts and questions God, Jesus' exhortation on the cross -- "Father, why have you forsaken me?" -- shows, even at the end, his human nature remained intact.

There are points throughout the film that many religious individuals will be unable to accept.  My point, as one voice regarding the film, is not to criticize you and neither is it the point of the film or the novel.  While controversial, the film's idea is that the journey is just as important as the destination.  You may not want to "go there", but I would offer that religious teachings about Jesus aren't only about his crucifixion, either.

There are many things about which Christians have complained about in the film (and no doubt there will be more), so I will start right off looking at them.  Please keep in mind, this is not a complete list of what Christians have complained about in the film.

At one point, Jesus says -- and no, this is not in the Gospels -- "God loves me.  I know he does.  I want him to stop."  He says this because the physical pain he feels is too much for him, not because he is a non-believer or a prodigy of Satan.  He simply wants his pain to end.

A possible relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene is suggested early in the film.  When Jesus visits her at her place of business and speaks with her, Mary condemns both Jesus and God, saying, "He took you away from me."  Jesus tells her to blame him, not God.  Jesus having any kind of romantic involvement with anyone, let alone a prostitute, has been rejected countless times.  For me, Jesus having any romantic relationship is irrelevant, for what does his being in a relationship do to his message?  My answer remains to this day: nothing.

During his journey out into the desert, he tells a monk he has sins.  The monk replies everyone does.   Even though Jesus says he doesn't fight, steal, or kill, he does say that he is a liar and a hypocrite.  This is another huge sticking point because, in Christian teachings, Jesus was without sin.  How can this be so?  He says it with a straight face, but is he saying that to convince the monk or to convince himself?  And is it to convince or to deflect?

He further tells the monk that his God is fear.  This is insight into the man.  He won't do certain things out of fear of God.  Many people behave certain ways out of fear.  (And yes, we still do many things out of fear, not just of God, but of many things.  Fear remains a great motivator.)   

Lastly, he tells the monk that Lucifer is inside of him, telling him he's the son of God.  Here, Jesus shows his unwillingness to accept his destiny.  And yet, it is this monk who is the first person in the film to recognize that Jesus is chosen by God.

The film slowly unfolds the ministry of Jesus and just before it, going from rebelling to simple confusion to acceptance.  A visual parallel is a montage showing Jesus walking with his followers, with the number of people with him growing and growing.  That unfolding represents what any human being would go through to fulfill such a destiny. 

We see Jesus in the desert being tempted three times, and at the end of the third temptation, the devil says they will meet again, and they do ... and it's a whopper.

The final act begins when Jesus, nailed the cross, in great pain, cries out, "Father, why have you forsaken me?"  (A key point to remember here is that this is the exact moment, when Jesus feels that God has abandoned him, that the devil -- who Jesus does not recognize as the devil -- puts his grandest scheme into effect.)

Suddenly, there is no sound.  Jesus sees a young girl looking up at him.  She tells him she is an angel and that he is not the Messiah after all.  She takes him down from the cross and shows him a new path.  Jesus gets married to Mary Magdalene (further suggesting they were involved once).  Magdalene dies and the angel tells Jesus that God killed her.  The angel focuses Jesus' attention to Lazarus' sister, Mary, and they start a family together.    

In what might seem like a science fiction sequence about alternate or parallel timelines, we see an older Jesus walking home with his family when he hears someone preaching.  The one preaching is Paul (formerly Saul).  He preaches the story of Jesus as how it would be recorded in the Gospels.  Jesus confronts him and calls him a liar, saying he didn't die on the cross.  Paul reiterates that the Jesus about whom he is preaching did die on the cross. 

We then see Jesus, now much, much older.  He is startled by people screaming that Jerusalem is on fire, just as he predicted, and the Romans are killing everyone.  The scene switches to Jesus lying on his death bed.  He is visited by a few of his disciples, including Judas, who is extremely upset with him since he and the disciples did what they were supposed to do, but Jesus did not.  Once Jesus realizes what has happened, without hesitating, he crawls outside, looks up, begs for forgiveness from God.  However, time is of the essence, since dying as a mere man simply from old age would deny God's salvation.  He pleads with God and is returned to the cross. 

"It is accomplished."

Let me reiterate my belief that a married Jesus with a family takes nothing away from his message.  The key factor here is that, when offered a life without the struggle he had with God, Jesus accepted, but when shown that the life as merely a man has been a lie, he immediately embraces what was his destiny all along.  That is a powerful message.

Seeing a more human Jesus in this film, as opposed to other celluloid depictions of him, made him more real for me.  Instead of his humanity being portrayed as a coincidence -- no denial of his walking, talking, preaching, and dying intended -- his humanity being portrayed as equally important makes his death on the cross even sadder and more relatable.  If the Son of God lived as a man among us and felt things as we do, such as fear, anger, confusion -- none of which are sins, thus keeping his lived-without-sin existence intact -- then the depiction of Jesus in this film enriches the nature of Jesus as both fully human and fully divine.

There are those who will never see the film because of their religious beliefs.  Those who have, or will, see it may not like it either as a film or on religious grounds.  I respect both opinions and my goal is not to label you as "wrong".  My point is also not to have the film and/or the novel replace the Bible.  (I doubt that was the intention of Martin Scorsese or Nikos Kazantzakis, either.)  My point is that this film is, or perhaps can be, a deeply moving experience, and, although controversial, does not thumb its nose at the biblical texts.  It is, as Kazantzakis states, a "fictional exploration of the eternal spiritual conflict". 

I'm sure that any questions about whether or not I would recommend seeing it have been answered.  'The Last Temptation of Christ' is a film that you will not just remember, but one that will remain with you long after you see it ... maybe even thirty years afterward.

Terry

Phrase of the Day: HUGS OF SUPPORT

It is no secret that those in the LGBTQ community, even with the huge strides made here in the U.S., still take a lot of criticism, ridicule, and shaming.  Less than half of all U.S. states have laws on the books that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity.  (Some of those states provide these protections for public employees only or for sexual orientation only, with two states -- Arkansas and Tennessee -- that prohibit any such laws from being passed.)  Changing laws is, after all, far different than changing minds and hearts.

On an even more personal level, many times they face negativity from friends and family, often being ridiculed or shunned by those who are supposed to be closest to them.  There is a non-profit organization made up of a growing group of parents who are trying to bridge that gap and to provide healing and support to those who can be hurt the most through no fault of their own.  This group is made up of parents of who have LGBTQ children of their own and are sharing the love with other LGBTQ children   The organization is called Free Mom Hugs.

It was started by Sara Cunningham, whose son is gay, and whose eyes were opened up to the gay community through him.  She saw how religion can, at times, come between LGBTQ individuals and their parents.  After attending a pride parade in Oklahoma City four years ago with her son and husband, Cunningham started an online support group for mothers of gay children and wrote a book titled How We Sleep At Night: A Mother's Memoir.  She attended the same pride parade the following year, donning a button that read "Free Mom Hugs" ... and that's exactly what she offered to anyone who wanted one!  That experience led her to starting Free Mom Hugs.  (She is nicknamed "Mama Bear" and refers to herself as a "professional hugger".)

Free Mom Hugs goes around to different parts of the country, attending pride events and other events, giving ... you guessed it, free hugs.  It is a way of showing support in a motherly way to those in the LGBTQ community who, sadly, do not have that support from their own parents.  The group also offers education and information intended to bridge the gap between parent and child and between religion and families with LGBTQ children.  They also support information for parents, as well as businesses, schools, and hospitals.

The organization has been around for a few years, but Cunningham and her organization garnered a lot of attention after she posted the following on her Facebook page just a couple of weeks ago...

The caption underneath reads: "PSA.  If you need a mom to attend your same sex wedding because your biological mom won't.  Call me.  I'm there.  I'll be your biggest fan.  I'll even bring the bubbles."

Clearly, Sara Cunningham is a mom with an abundance of love to give, and who does so freely, as do all those involved in her organization.

Last year, the organization began its annual Free Mom Hugs Tour.  Last year's tour visited ten cities across six states, and this year's tour visited twelve cities across eight states.  (Both were in the month of May.)

Bridging the gap of misunderstanding is a good thing, a very good thing, and Sara Cunningham's organization is a very good one, doing wonderful work.  You can visit Free Mom Hugs' website to find out more or to donate to their work.  You can also check out their Facebook page, their Twitter page, or their Instagram page. 

Terry

Term of the Day: SUPPLEMENTAL VENDING

This blog is no stranger to positive, uplifting stories.  It has, however, been a while since I have written on something uplifting, so I decided today was the day to do so.

The focus of today's blog is an overseas charity that addresses a serious problem in many parts of the world, homelessness.  The charity is called Action Hunger and bills itself as "a charity with a new approach to combating homelessness".  Based in Nottingham, United Kingdom, its first project is a series of vending machines strictly for the homeless to provide necessities 24/7.



The idea is that homeless individuals must check in with a local homeless shelter once a week in order to qualify for a keycard to access the vending machine.  In other words, homeless shelters are not giving out the keycards willy-nilly.  My understanding is, if a homeless person does not continue to check in with a participating homeless shelter, his/her keycard will be deactivated, thus halting access to the vending machine's items.  This way, the vending machines, which are not intended to replace the work of shelters and other organizations, are merely a supplement to them.  The weekly check-in keeps those who are homeless with access to other programs and any available means to get back on their feet again via those shelters.  The use of the keycards also provides information on which items are needed more than others or less than others, which can help to refine the program.

The first Action Hunger vending machine was installed in Nottingham at the Broadmarsh shopping center last December.

It had its supporters and detractors.  The Nottingham city council was one of those entities that was not enthused with the machine, calling it "ill-informed" and "misguided" and an over-simplified addressing of the complex issue of homelessness which encouraged people to remain living on the streets.  Those involved with the installing and the stocking of the machine said it was not intended to address all aspects of the homelessness issue.  The Broadmarsh shopping center's general manager said they had agreed to a trial of the machine to get it off the ground, but not to having it as a permanent fixture there.  In April, the city council voted to have the Action Hunger vending machine removed, and it was.

Undaunted, Action Hunger has set its sights on installing its vending machines in other cities, including Manchester, Birmingham, and London, as well as throughout Europe ... and even here in the U.S., including New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle.

To this blogger, the work of Action Hunger is not, as some have suggested, a vanity project and not a means of replacing homeless shelters, food banks, church-run food pantries, and various other organizations that assist the homeless in both short-term and long-term ways.  It is good work.

If you are in the United Kingdom and want to donate food, contact the organization FareShare.  Here in the United States, food donations may be made by contacting the organization Rescuing Leftover Cuisine.  

If you would like to donate to Action Hunger and/or find out more about it, check out its website.

Terry

Word of the Day: TRAITOR

The President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, is a traitor.

He is now among the likes of the U.S. Revolutionary War's Benedict Arnold, World War II's Tokyo Rose, and the Cold War's Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and is the first president to do so.  He also joins the ranks of perhaps lesser known traitors, such as CIA operative Aldrich Ames, Navy communications officer, John Walker, Jr., and former FBI agent Robert Hanssen.

You may be surprised to know that, while a traitor president has never happened before, such behavior did reach up to the vice-presidency.  Thomas Jefferson's first vice-president, Aaron Burr -- the same Aaron Burr who killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel -- tried to militarily bring about the annexation of Spanish territories in Louisiana and Mexico, with the intent of forming a republic separate from the Union.  (He was not indicted at a first court appearance, but fled the country when asked to return for a second appearance.)

The legal definition of treason includes someone "owing allegiance" to this country who: a) levies war against this country [which Trump is allowing, but has not done himself]; b) "adhering to [our] enemies" [which Trump has clearly done time and time again], and/or c) providing our enemies with "aid or comfort" whether here in the U.S. or outside the U.S. [which Trump has also clearly done both here and abroad].  The list of punishments for treason in the legal code include a minimum prison sentence of five years, a fine of at least $10,000, being disqualified to hold any office in the United States ... and even the death penalty.  (The legal definition is narrow -- which is why Aaron Burr was not convicted -- and any punishments would, if pursued, likely be tangled up in the courts for a long time, and likely not put into effect if approved.) 

President Trump has displayed behavior that clearly shows his admiration of, and possible desire to emulate in his presidency, authoritarian and despotic regimes.  He has been showing U.S. allies indifference, dismissiveness, and disdain -- take last month's G7 summit and last week's NATO summit as examples -- while showing such dictators nothing but respect, praise, and comradery.

And in the case of Russian President Vladimir Putin at the recent disastrous "summit" in Helsinki, Finland, sharing who knows what.

To begin with, Trump has a private meeting with Putin, just the two men and their interpretors.  With no one from Trump's cabinet present, there is no one else with knowledge of what was said ... or what Trump gave away to Putin, as he did with halting military exercises with South Korea as a gift to North Korea's Kim Jung Un.  He has displayed this shifty behavior for some time now, including hosting Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in the Oval Office in May of last year with no American press allowed.  Even the U.S. National Intelligence Chief Dan Coats knew nothing about that meeting ... and he knew nothing about Trump asking National Security Advisor John Bolton to invite Vladimir Putin to the White House in the Fall, which was announced today.  

Trump claims he told Putin no more meddling during that one-on-one alone time, but who knows?  His level of trustworthiness outside of his base is anything but stellar.  At their joint press conference, the world watched to see if the U.S. president, whose country was cyber-attacked during the 2016 election, would publicly condemn the attacking country's leader, Vladimir Putin, standing directly to his left.  He did not.  Instead, he blamed the United States for its lousy relations with Russia and said he believed Putin's words of denial of interference over all of his own country's Intelligence agencies' findings to the contrary.  His reading of a prepared statement two days ago trying to say he really meant to condemn Russia -- he meant "why it wouldn't be Russia" instead of "why it would be Russia" -- was disingenuous and visibly forced, with his own unscripted rote addition of "it could be others, too" added in for further deflection.

I have been saying among my friends for several months that I think Putin has something on Trump, some sort of dirt on him, that is keeping Trump in line.  After Helsinki, political pundits are asking the same, including many of them and their guests saying Trump is acting like he is compromised by Russia in some way.  Even some national security experts are not saying that Trump is a spy for Russia, but that he is acting like a "controlled spy".  Putin denied any dirt on Trump at their joint press conference, but he did admit he wanted Trump to win over Hillary Clinton.

At a campaign speech just eight days before the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton made the case against Trump regarding his connections to Russia.  (Her comment about Trump being Putin's puppet at the third and final presidential debate has been played far more than the video below.)  Three days prior to this speech by her, then-FBI Director James Comey reopened the E-mail investigation into Clinton, so this speech was overshadowed in the news, since Trump received more television coverage than Clinton overall and Clinton's saying this after Comey's reopening of the E-mail case might have been seen as nothing more than a desperate move by her to counter bad press, anyway.

Turns out, she was right after all.

With just 8 days left, this can’t wait. RT if you agree Trump should immediately disclose all of his ties and connections to Russia. pic.twitter.com/IqmC2wIDq4

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 1, 2016

To their credit, many leaders in the POT (Party of Trump) and commentators on the POT-loving Fox News (and even some on the Fox Business Channel) have condemned Trump's behavior in Helsinki.  It is the most speaking out against the president they have done the entire time of Trump's presidency.  However, what actions will they take to counter Trump's obsession with turning the U.S. into a rogue state, beholden to Putin, just as he is.  One has to ask here: without knowing what was said in the private one-on-one session, what specifically would they be countering?  Just as you cannot fix what you do not know is broken, so, too, you cannot counter what you do not know has taken place.  Talking on the floors of the Senate and House of Representatives so that it goes into the Congressional record, and talking in front of cameras so that it spills into the homes of the American public, are just words.  Appropriate words, yes, but just words. 

Just two days ago, members of the House POT blocked a measure by Democrats to simply condemn Trump's comments in Helsinki.  If the POT will not even allow a condemnation, what more can they be expected to do to serve the country and uphold the Constitution?

The actions in government in general are also suspect.  The Treasury Department announced on Monday that non-profit organizations will no longer be required to disclose donations of any donors who contribute $5,000 or more.  Included among those affected by this ruling is the National Rifle Association, which is now embroiled in controversy with the arrest of Russian operative Mariia Butina.  (The NRA did recently admit to accepting monies from nearly two dozen donors with ties to Russia.) 

Mr. Trump has not only shown a bastardized view of the world and of the U.S. presidency, as well as an unfitness for the highest office in the land, but he has shown himself to truly be a puppet of Vladimir Putin after all, a worshiper of demogogues, and a traitor of the United States of America.

Terry