With all of Washington, D.C.'s political intrigue -- the commercialization of the White House, the administration's mysterious connections to Russia, and President Trump's ability to be both landlord and tenant on a government property -- why is U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz so curious about the planning and forethought that goes into a Twitter tweet?
No, the Utah Republican is not sifting through the president's Twitter feed. Rather, his attention was caught by a seemingly innocuous tweet from Bryce Canyon National Park in Utah, where the staff was thrilled on December 29 to welcome the country's two new national monuments, Gold Butte in Nevada and Bears Ears in Utah.
Was that tweet simply a spur-of-the-moment shout-out, as many tweets are, or did the park staff have advance notice of the designations by President Obama? And if they did, wonders Congressman Chaffetz, how much advance notice?
We're not talking state secrets here. But hey, none of the other national parks in Utah tweeted the news on December 29, although the Traveler did the day before, when the announcements were made. And while the writing was clearly on the wall regarding the new monuments, we didn't get advance word.
The issue with Rep. Chaffetz is that this tweet could be evidence that the Obama White House lied to Utah Gov. Gary Herbert when it wrote him to say that as of December 15 "no decision had been made about Bears Ears."
Could it be that the White House really was planning as of December 15 to designate those two monuments, as it did on December 28, and that Bryce Canyon officials were in the loop?
"When was a Bears Ears map slot created in the Bryce Canyon National Park's front desk national parks and monuments map area?" Rep. Chaffetz wrote to acting Bryce Canyon Superintendent Sue Fritzke on January 19 (attached below).
"Who made the decision to create a Bears Ears map slot in the Bryce Canyon National Park's front desk national parks and monuments map area," he added in a follow-up question.
Finally, the congressman wondered, "(W)hen did you become aware of the Bears Ears National Monument designation and from whom?"
Bryce Canyon's celebratory tweet, Rep. Chaffetz explained in his letter, "created the appearance that officials at Bryce Canyon coordinated with the White House prior to this most recent designation."
Beyond being curious about the map slot for the new monuments, the committee chairman asked the superintendent to "identify any employees of Bryce Canyon National Park consulted regarding the Bears Ears National Monument Designation. For each employee, identify the communications, that is, when did those conversations occur and with whom?"
Why is Rep. Chaffetz, who has issues of national security to investigate, so concerned about Bryce Canyon's tweeting habits? True, the designation of Bears Ears National Monument went against plans that the congressman and his fellow Utah Republican, Rob Bishop, had for the landscape involved.
But polling shows Utahns were in favor (47+ percent for and 32 percent against) the Bears Ears designation, and a strong majority (60 percent) have no interest in seeing monuments decommissioned. And Rep. Chaffetz made a quick reversal last month when legislation he drafted to transfer 3 million acres of federal lands to the states was soundly criticized by hunters and anglers.
At day's end, we'd like to think taxpayer dollars could be better spent than on investigating a harmless 24-word tweet.
Comments
Yes, something did happen. He saw a news report about the increased levels of crime. Did he articulate that well - no. We all know he tends to speak in broken and unfinished sentences. But he never said terrorist attack, he never said there was a specific incident "last night" yet that is what the media went with. It's no wonder the Swedish prime minister was confused.
Frankly, I wish he'd get over his terrorist issue and address gun control in the U.S.
I agree, they need to get rid of all the unconstitutional gun laws but I certainly wouldn't want to dismiss the terrorist issue. It is far more real than Trumps fascism or racism.
Not surprising. The story is out there but that isn't what the media wants to report. Instead, they report their made up stories about terrorist and incidents. That is what is picked up by the Yahoo and major network news feeds. That is what is repeated on the blogs you read. That is why you have heard the later and not the former.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-updates-everything-president-what...
Ah, the old "next day" spin...
OK, back to work on national park issues.
Here's what troubled me this week about the American "press." On Tuesday morning, President Trump visited the National Museum of African-American History and Culture, accompanied by Dr. Ben Carson and his wife. Even I was unaware, until the president disclosed it, that one of the featured exhibits honors Dr. Carson for his contributions to American medicine. Not only did the president offer a ringing endorsement of the museum, he called for confronting the problems of race in our inner cities, adding that anti-Semitism, again on the rise, was something the nation should never tolerate.
Later that day, the mainstream press utterly surprised me with how it "interpreted" the entire event. At CNN, the gist of the commentary was that the president had "waited too long" to speak up on race. Meanwhile the president should take his own advice, in that he, falsely claiming national security, wished to block immigration from only Muslim countries.
"Waited too long?" Trump's administration is barely four weeks old. A "false" affront to national security? How could the press possibly know what threatens the country, or from where those threats originate?
In any event, the day should have belonged to Dr. Carson. But no, the press wanted to talk about Donald Trump. Years ago, a dear friend of mine, himself African-American, reminded me how it "works." "If black, you have to get permission to succeed--and become a Democrat," he noted.
Last Tuesday, his comments struck home. Ever since President Trump nominated Ben Carson as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the press has used him to get to Trump. Carson's not qualified; he has no administrative experience. We don't care what the Smithsonian thinks.
It's not that Trump is wrong about the press; it is rather that he knows how to get around them. By taking Ben Carson to the Smithsonian, he reminded those stalling Carson's nomination of their hypocrisy.
That is what the president means by overcoming "fake news," nor did he fake his comments on Sweden, either. See the op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this morning: "Trump Is Right: Sweden's Embrace Of Refugees Isn't Working," by Jimmie Akesson and Mattias Karlsson. One sentence says it all. "Riots and social unrest have become a part of everyday life."
Years ago, that would have been enough for anyone. Two Swedish politicians commenting on their own country in a newspaper worthy of respect. But no, the president didn't get it EXACTLY right, so he is not entitled to be right at all. That's not just fake. That's sick. No one ever gets anything exactly right, although yes, by appointing Dr. Carson Mr. Trump got it right.
So, this Jewish reporter walks into a White House press conference...
http://www.jta.org/2017/02/15/default/president-trump-answered-a-questio...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/us/politics/trump-press-conference-ja...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/15/donald-trump-o...
So, this reporter walks into the White House, and effectively accuses the president of being a racist. Who cares what the reporter's religion is? He is still supposed to be a reporter.
Mr. President, since your election campaign and even after your victory, we've seen a sharp rise in anti-Semitic -- anti-Semitic incidents across the United States. And I wonder, what do you say to those among the Jewish community in the states and in Israel and maybe around the world who believe and feel that your administration is playing with xenophobia and maybe racist tones?
No, I would not have answered by discussing the Electoral College, but the minute I was accused of "playing with xenophobia and/or racisim," I would have shown that particular reporter the door.
Here is how the question should have been asked, that is, how I was taught to ask a question:
Mr. President, how will you confront anti-Semitism across the United States?
The rest of the question is an editorial itself side-stepping anti-Semitism. When I was in college, now Binghamton University, 70 percent of my undergraduate colleagues were Jewish. Whom did they accuse of anti-Semitism? The Middle East, led by Egypt at the time. During the Six-Day War of 1967, they turned the Student Center into a command post, raising $500,000 among a student body of 2,000 in just a single night. And those were 1967 dollars.
How this "reporter" could spin anti-Semitism into something uniquely Donald Trump's doing is a pathetic exercise in the ahistorical gibberish that now commands the American press. Question: How many Germans did we admit into this country between 1941 and 1945? Was that being anti-German, or simply common sense? When someone says he is your enemy, you take him at his word. That's being neither racist nor xenophobic. Again, it is simply common sense.
Ask the question, and sit down. The question about anti-Semitism is fair. The rest of it, phishing for an answer acceptable to the questioner, makes a mockery of our craft.
Actually, he didn't accuse him of being a racist.
Fair enough, Kurt, but the point remains. These reporters are not asking questions; they are rather delivering speeches. Do they ever stop to think how they sound? "Despite what some of my colleagues may have been reporting, I haven't seen anybody in my community accuse either yourself of anyone on your staff of being anti-Semitic."
Why not just say: "Mr. President, I know you are not anti-Semitic," and let it go at that?