Wondering on Wednesday (v174)

Here we go again - it's Wednesday!

Many people are wondering why the president doesn't have a tailor, or at least a 'dresser' to help him get ready for things like appearances at church on 'Pray for Donald Trump' Day, or at a state dinner with that great, great woman, HRH the Queen.  Me? I"m wondering if Melania lets him go places dressed like he does on purpose? You know,  exceptional fashion model and her badly dressed husband?

The visit to the church was a weird thing in and of itself. He was not invited, the pastor tells us. Rather, the pastor was looking forward to a few minutes of quiet contemplation, and then this happened:

But I was immediately called backstage and told that the president of the United States was on his way to the church, would be there in a matter of minutes, and would like us to pray for him.

That seems not quite the same reason for his stop that the White House gave, though:

president Donald J. Trump is visiting McLean Bible Church in Vienna, VA to visit with the Pastor and pray for the victims and community of Virginia Beach.

I'm don't think I'm the only one wondering whether there's some #fakenews here? As Trump said nothing - not a thing - during his visit to the stage, and the pastor never mentioned Virginia Beach either, I can only assume the president didn't read his schedule carefully enough, or he was being his usual intrusive self and the White House was forced to cover for him.

Again.

What else is going on this week?

Republicans in the Senate are cautioning the president that his plan for tariffs on Mexico to make them control their southern border because we can't get our act together to control ours won't sit well with them.  Here's Texas Senator Ted Cruz:

I will yield to nobody in passion and seriousness and commitment to securing the border but there's no reason for Texas farmers and ranchers and manufacturers and small businesses to pay the price of massive new taxes. 

For his part, the president responded with his usual careful deliberation,noting that if they do resist him on this, it "would be foolish."

Two things I'm wondering: where has this threatened new-found spine been for the past many months?  And how long will that spine remain ramrod straight in the face of Trump's almost certain, deeply personal bullying, which will almost certainly be joined by the Trump News Network?

I also have to wonder about two recent moves by the Trump administration that appear to conflict with their pro-life stance, which many describe as a pro-birth stance. That may be the case. Here's what we learned today:

• The Office of Refugee Resettlement has been discontinuing the funding stream for activities for that have been deemed "not directly necessary for the protection of life and safety, including educational services, legal services, and recreation" for unaccompanied minors in our custody. This change is retroactive to May 22nd. 
• The administration is cancelling funding for National Institutes of Health research into HIV-related cures that use fetal tissue. Research done by non-NIH scientists can continue, at least for now, as can privately funded research. 

So. On the unaccompanied minors, I think nothing says we're pro-life than requiring children to stay in their rooms, or their cages as the case may be, with no physical or mental stimulation for as long as it takes them to be transferred to a sponsor -- which recently has taken, on average, 48 days. What part of that is pro-life? 

And on the second, I must remind you that the president said, in his 2019 State of the Union address,

No force in history to advance the human condition than American freedom. In recent years, we have made remarkable progress in the fight against HIV and AIDS. Scientific breakthroughs have brought a once-distant dream within reach. My budget will ask Democrats and Republicans to make the needed commitment to eliminate the HIV epidemic in the United States within 10 years. We have made incredible strides. Incredible. 

So, I have to wonder why he would cancel one of the very programs that will help him achieve that goal? And I wonder why he would ignore the research opportunities not only for HIV/AIDS but fora whole hose of other things, including birth defects, including those that can lead to stillbirths and spontaneous abortions, by killing this funding? Where's the pro-life aspect here? 

Anyone who can help me understand either of these two, I'm all ears.