Prez trumps Trump twice in a week

Two times in one week, Donald Trump was denied the personal satisfaction of seeing himself on national television firmly stating the two words now synonymous with his name:

“You’re fired.”

And it took the President himself to deny one of the most influential businessmen in the United States from fulfilling his weekly desire.

The first came when Obama publicly released his long-form birth certificate to appease the so-called birthers who still doubt whether the Commander in Chief is legitimately American enough to sit in the Oval Office.

Trump, whose name has been bounced around as a possible Republican contender for the presidency in 2012, has been arguably the most vocal of the birthers in his call to see the document. But despite the fact that he didn’t get to go on national TV, emphatically point his hand at the camera and tell the President, “You’re fired,” Mr. Trump jumped on the chance to lather praise on himself as thick as the foam on children in soap commercials designed to make taking a bath look like a heckuva lot of fun for a kid.

“I’ve accomplished something that nobody else has been able to accomplish,” Trump was quoted as saying. “I want to look at it, but I hope it’s true so we can get onto much more important matters, so the press can stop asking me questions.

“I am really honored frankly to have played such a big role in hopefully, hopefully, getting rid of this issue,” he added. “We have to look at it, we have to see is it real, is it proper, what’s on it, but I hope it checks out beautifully. I am really proud, I am really honored.”

But by day’s end, the birthers were back at it — this time sending out e-mail statements that the birth certificate was a fake doctored in the computer imaging program Photoshop Illustrator. Laughable at best, but at least Trump isn’t taking it that far.

So fast forward four days to Sunday — Trump’s big day on national TV. When his Celebrity Apprentice show airs in NBC’s 9 to 11 p.m. primetime slot.

I’m going to have to admit that although I’ve never really been an Apprentice fan, this season has sucked me in. The antics of actor Gary Busey, Star Jones’ “my way or the highway” attitude and Meat Loaf’s scattered-brained ideas have made a fan of me ... for this season.

So needless to say, I was rather peeved when, at 25 minutes until the show was over (I had recorded it on my DVR and was watching it about an hour late) a news flash came on saying the show would be interrupted for an unexpected announcement by the President.

I wondered what was so important that Obama felt it was necessary to interrupt my Sunday evening television lineup.

But after the ensuing commercial break ended, it was back to Trump, meeting the contestants in the board room to announce that the guys had won the contest about — of all things — hair care products. And of all statements, earlier in the show, Trump had the audacity to state that he thinks he has good hair.

So we make it through the first series of dramatic buildups to learn that the ladies would face The Don and another commercial break. Almost there, Mr. President, hold on just 10 more minutes.

Then boom, it cuts to the newscasters.

There would be no “You’re fired” for the millions of Apprentice fans this week.

But you know what really ticked me off about the whole thing? The newscasters came on and after some meaningless babble about this and that, one of the NBC talking heads blurted out that the Commander in Chief was going to announce that Osama bin Laden had been killed.

The news came as a huge surprise, but it wasn’t the President delivering the message. It was two talking heads. In fact, the final minutes of the prerecorded program ticked away and Obama still had not taken the podium. I turned bitterly to my smart phone and read a more detailed story on bin Laden before Googling Celebrity Apprentice to learn that Hope Dworaczyk had been fired.

Unfortunately, not Trump saying, “You’re fired!” Just like it wasn’t the President announcing bin Laden’s death.

Case in point: No matter how cool or important you think you are, someone’s always there to steal your thunder.

Reuben Mees is an Examiner staff writer, political junkie and a closet reality TV addict. He can be reached by e-mail at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..">This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..


Jordan’s message lacks consistency, substance

Congressman Jim Jordan, R-Urbana, delighted a packed crowd at the Winner Harvest Barn during the Logan County Republican spring rally Wednesday with a grab bag of small government rhetoric and Republican catch phrases.

“It’s important to keep things in context; we still live in the greatest country in the history of the world,” he told the crowd.

He even invoked the name of Ronald Reagan.

Unfortunately though, the congressman’s speech amounts to leftover birthday cake, sugary and sweet, but without any real substance.

The Republican Study Committee — a caucus of 176 of the most conservative members of Congress — proposed an alternative budget on the floor of Congress last week.

Calling for more Draconian spending cuts than even the mainstream Republican budget proposal, this alternative budget has zero chance of garnering widespread support. It is, however, a telling piece of work that speaks to the priorities of the RSC.

As RSC Chairman, Mr. Jordan championed the budget proposal during his speech Wednesday.

“The alternative budget we proposed would balance the budget in nine years,” said Mr. Jordan. “We protect defense, we keep the tax cuts in place and we make cuts because that’s what you have to do.”

That cake tastes good.

The reality, though, is that Mr. Jordan wants to achieve more than $9 trillion in government savings by focusing largely on 12 percent of the federal budget.

“We cut non-military, discretionary spending in half over the decade,” Mr. Jordan told me after his speech.

As far as I’m concerned, this RSC budget proposal defies the oft-used political comparison between the government’s budget and a family’s finances.

When my wife and I “tighten our belt” we do so by evaluating more than just 12 percent of what we spend. And while we’re here, I don’t think it’s a stretch to suggest that a cash-strapped middle class family also evaluates ways to increase the amount of money it takes in — something that Mr. Jordan and his peers have deemed a “non-starter.”

Mr. Jordan remains resistant to substantial cuts in military and defense spending.

Military spending in the next budget will approach $1 trillion, or more than six times the military budget of China. In 2010, the budget for the U.S. Department of Defense alone comprised 19 percent of the federal budget.

“I’m certainly open to finding savings in areas of waste or redundancy,” said Mr. Jordan. “But one of our country’s obligations is to protect its citizens and we have to provide our troops with all they need.

“I think that’s the proper conservative position to have.”

Just how safe can I feel for $1 trillion?

Mr. Jordan also advocates defunding Planned Parenthood — the federal government’s family planning program originally enacted in 1970 as Title X of the Public Health Service Act.

“Part of our spending crisis is that taxpayer money goes towards funding abortions,” said Mr. Jordan.

Never mind the fact that federal law prohibits the use of Title X funds in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.

I’m not accusing Mr. Jordan of lying, or even of intellectual dishonesty. He simply gives his constituents what they want — a Rockwellian portrait of small-town America and simpler times.

For the record, I like Mr. Jordan personally and for more reasons than just because the four-time Ohio state wrestling champion could put me in a fireman’s carry with one arm behind his back.

Charismatic and accessible, Mr. Jordan is always more than willing to humor this enterprising young journalist.

What lacks from his platform, however, is any real degree of consistency.

Mr. Jordan, and politicians like him, couple pleas for limited government with calls for broad, sweeping legislation to ban same-sex marriage and abortion while taking a hacksaw to any and all federal programs that would aid low-income or single-parent families with a baby on the way trying to make ends meet.

They insist on limited government spending and support a military budget in excess of $1 trillion.

And they demand balanced budgets after nearly a decade of red ink and then use only 12 percent of the federal budget to arrive at those desired ends.

The hip new phrase among politicians these days is “adult conversation.”

Everyone wants to have an adult conversation regarding our nation’s finances and the role of government.

I’m just trying to give them something deeper than “Go America!”

Nate Smith is an Examiner staff writer and generally independent voter. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

  • Written by NATE SMITH

Returning to normal in a small town

Reuben Mees

It’s cold as the April showers patter into pools on the asphalt of downtown Bellefontaine.

Albeit an unwelcome sight, it’s entirely normal. 

It’s a quiet week when tearing down emerald ash trees and the arrival of a new restaurant make front page headlines.

That’s not an entirely unwelcome normal day in newsprint.

And it’s been nearly a week since the last television news trucks left downtown Bellefontaine.

That’s an entirely welcome sign that a community torn by the tragedy of a triple homicide is starting to return to normal.

When I first heard that a woman went missing and was presumed dead, I wasn’t entirely shocked. It’s not completely out of the ordinary that our community and law enforcement officers respond to a homicide.

Certainly not a shiny spot on the surface of humanity, but there to be dealt with nonetheless.

It was only after news spread that the missing young woman was found brutally murdered and an elderly couple was also missing and presumed dead that the story began to take on a sinister tone that attracts the news trucks.

And that’s when the abnormal began.

Bellefontaine and Logan County were turned into a spectacle for national and regional news agencies to show the grim side of life in Middle America. The same newscasters that yawn at stories about life in small towns were salivating to feed the gruesome details to their audiences.

All at the expense of the people who live here.

The gem in all this is that within two months, authorities here and in West Virginia, where the suspect was located, were vigilant and quick to bring the case to resolution.

It’s been two months to the week that the manhunt was in full swing and already the case is closed.

The perpetrator is locked safely away in an Ohio prison, already having admitted to three counts of murder and sentenced to spend life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The death sentence was dropped in the process; so there won’t be a drawn out series of appeals as the convicted man waits for his turn on death row.

Now there only remains the difficult healing process for the two families. On one hand, there is the loss of a young mother whose two sons must still be provided for and, in the other case, mourners must come to terms with the cruel end to the golden years their beloved family members experienced.

However, the prosecutors who tried the case and the defense attorneys who represented the accused are to be commended for their speedy work in bringing this tragic case to a quick resolution.

In offering the plea, the two parties worked together to avoid a trial that would have been costly to the taxpayers of Logan County. What they and the families gave up in return was the opportunity to execute the defendant.

While his crimes certainly warrant that consideration, debate over the future of the death penalty in Ohio as well as the cost and stress the families must endure as they prepare for a lengthy jury trial is a just argument for offering the plea agreement.

I am thankful that despite the madness that drove the man to commit these crimes, he had the presence of mind to enter the guilty plea, go immediately into prison and put this sordid affair to rest.

In my opinion, the normalcy and closure we all get from this far outweigh both the potential costs and benefits of seeing the murderer executed.

I sincerely hope the families agree and find their own path to normalcy in these difficult times.

Reuben Mees is an Examiner staff writer, Bellefontaine native and general proponent of the death penalty. He can be reached by email at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..">This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

  • Written by REUBEN MEES

Adrift in a world of clouds

I've been floating in the clouds pretty much all year. It started with the final days of 2010, actually, as my plane descended through the clouds above Lima, Peru, to deposit me on the Pacific shores of South America. 

After a week acclimatizing to the southern weather and fending off my first bout of food poisoning, I found myself floating through the clouds again en route to Iquitos, Peru, one of the most isolated cities in the world.

The interesting thing is I was reading an article on cloud computing. Although I'm moderately computer savvy, I had never heard the term before, so naturally it piqued my interest.

I struggled through the Spanish text, only occasionally turning to the following two pages for the English translation, and although the words and sentences made sense, the idea was still as nebulous as — well — a cloud.

What I managed to figure out is that information, programs and a bunch of other electronic stuff are just out there ... floating around like clouds. Basically, anyone can hop on one, then bounce on over to another one without ever touching the ground.

Reading that story made my brain hurt so I flipped to a travel article as the pilot took us back through the cloud layer on our descent into the jungle.

I went about my merry way, hoping the clouds wouldn't unleash the worst the rainy season had to offer. Fortunately they did not and I floated — this time on the waters of the Amazon and Marañon rivers — back to civilization.

A few weeks later, I found myself literally standing on top of a layer of clouds looking down from the second highest peak on the Inca Trail, preparing to descend the following day into the cloud forest that lies outside the historic ruins of Machu Picchu.

Battling through a few more bouts with the stomach crud and witnessing some other amazing sights along the way, I made it back to Lima for a grueling four-leg bounce through the clouds that landed me back at Port Columbus.

I had forgotten all about the cloud computing thing until I went out cell phone shopping.

And despite my best efforts in recent years to avoid the whole smart phone thing, I broke down, bought an Android and signed up for the data package. What I didn't realize is that I also joined the cloud computing club. I didn't have to go through any ritual and I don't have to carry a card I can swipe for discounts, but yep, I joined the club.

I unwittingly bounced onto my first cloud when I pulled up the map and it showed me I was on U.S. Route 33 just east of Marysville. From there, I bounced on to my first free game — Stupid Zombies, a super sweet sniper game in which you get to blast the heads off the walking dead.

Now when I look at the sky on a cloudless night, I can pull up my Google Sky Map and identify which constellations I'm looking at.

And I started asking myself how can all this information fit onto this teeny-tiny computer I carry in my pocket. A few years ago, I heard Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour make a comment that a computer the size of the convention room he was speaking in that day couldn't do half what these handheld devices do at that time. He certainly hit that one into the clouds.

And thinking back on that statement and that article, it all came together. It's not here on the computer ... it's up there ... in the clouds.

It was the click of the final piece of the puzzle in my tile game app sliding into place. All these apps they're not even on the phone. They're in the clouds.

When I look back at the old Commodore 64 I used to play incredibly uncomplicated video games that were stored on cassette tapes, I get a laugh. I couldn't even begin to imagine how many tapes a game like Stupid Zombies or Angry Birds would require. But now, they require nothing — no tapes, no discs, no wire to the wall ... just a nebulous web of clouds floating somewhere out there in the electronic ether.

Reuben Mees is an Examiner staff writer, recent traveler of Peru and newly converted smart phone junkie. He can be reached by e-mail (goes straight to the smart phone) at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..">This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

  • Written by REUBEN MEES

Gillmor’s politicking on SB 5 a disservice to constituents

Senate Bill 5 received approval in the Ohio Senate March 2, by the narrowest of margins (17-16).

Despite a 13-seat majority in the Senate, six Republicans joined all 10 Senate Democrats in opposition of the bill, which aims to curb the collective bargaining rights of nearly 350,000 Ohio public workers.

Supporters deem it necessary if Ohio is to tackle a two-year deficit of $8 billion and the bill would unquestionably save the state money.

A recent Columbus Dispatch study concluded, that had the legislation been enacted in 2010, Ohio could have saved about $750 million.

State Sen. Karen Gillmor, R-Tiffin, sided with her own party and cast what amounted to be the deciding vote on the highly-divisive issue.

Afterward, she was so convicted about her role in saving the state what could amount to a billion dollars or more, she issued the following statement: “In this era of term limits, the process by which Senate Bill 5 ... proceeded through the Senate was a radical departure from the process by which previous pieces of employment law affecting citizens’ livelihoods, children, healthcare, retirement and work environments have progressed.”

The senator continues, “Members of the Ohio Senate Republican Caucus were given only one day to reflect upon the impact of a 99-page omnibus amendment to a 475-page bill. This is not government at its finest.”

Senate Bill 5 emerged from committee and onto the Senate floor only after Senate President Tom Niehaus, R-New Richmond, removed a pair of the bill’s opponents from two key committees.

Once on the floor, the bill was discussed for only a few hours before state Senators voted on the issue.

Mrs. Gillmor has a point.

So, if the Senator felt such opposition to the process by which Senate Bill 5 was brought onto the floor, why didn’t she do what nearly a quarter of her peers did and vote no on the issue?

I intended to pose that very question — a fair one, I think — to Mrs. Gillmor when I phoned her office more than 10 times in two weeks, without a single response.

I’m not about to take a public position on this issue. That’s a good way to alienate readership and I haven’t read the bill in its entirety.

Rep. Dave Burke, R-Marysville, said it best Monday while addressing Logan County Republicans, “There’s both good and bad in this bill.”

He’s probably right. The bill is neither a direct attack on public employees nor is it only about balancing the state’s budget.

If Mrs. Gillmor feels strongly enough to vote on a bill to unravel nearly three decades’ worth of collective bargaining in Ohio, then she should feel strongly enough about the issue to defend her vote in public.

What we’re left with, instead, is a clear rank-and-file Republican Senator intent to vote with her majority party, but careful not to upset potential voters that may disagree with her.

I’m sure her ‘Well, I voted yes, but wasn’t happy about it’ attitude has nothing to do with the fact she’s up for re-election in 2012.

A democracy isn’t always about getting everything one wants, rather it’s about getting what’s best for everyone. If Mrs. Gillmor believes Senate Bill 5, as presented, benefits all Ohioans, then she should defend it publicly.

Her unwillingness to do so, both in the statement she released not 12 hours after the bill passed the Senate and her continued disregard for this reporter’s phone calls, is a disservice to the voters in her district.

The process by which Senate Bill 5 emerged from the Ohio Senate may not have been government at its finest, but Mrs. Gillmor’s words and actions (or lack thereof) since the bill’s passage are indeed politicking at its finest.

And that’s unfortunate.

  • Written by NATE SMITH