Deep Politics Forum

Full Version: USA under presidency of a know-nothing, neo-fascist, racist, sexist, mobbed-up narcissist!!
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Magda Hassan Wrote:
Peter Lemkin Wrote:MIT University Scientists, Engineers state the Wall Trumpf has proposed will cost no less than 450 Billion USD - double that with only a few years of patrolling it; electronic detectors to detect persons going over/under, etc. ::face.palm::

Former Mexican Vicente Fox tweeted 'We will not pay for any fucking Wall!' @#nofuckingwall ::rofl::

Expect MIT will have their funding cut now.

I think most higher education centers will find their funding cut in direct proportion to how much their students and researchers/faculty differ with the ideas of the Administration. All public funding for elementary and middle-school education will be cut soon to zero - forcing the privatization of the public school system [his Education Secretary has been a life-long advocate of just this] - where teaching will mostly be religious, non-scientific and propaganda [even more than we currently find today in public education].

MIT was/is Chomsky's university; but lots of others will soon be in trouble too.....most of the climate science has come out of academia, to name just one area where there will be pressure to remove the professors and cut the funding. I also think the universities, as they were in the late 60s and early 70s will soon be centers of protest again.

The dumbed-down nation is about to get a whole lot dumber - and the Dunce-In-Chief is leading the way.....

Why Impeachment?

The nation is now witnessing a massive corruption of the presidency, far worse than Watergate. Indeed, Nixon White House Counsel John Dean has told reporters: "I don't think Richard Nixon even comes close to the level of corruption we already know about Trump."[1] Given the opportunity of ten full weeks between the election and the inauguration to divest his business interests, Mr. Trump chose instead to announce, just nine days before inauguration, a wholly inadequate plan to step away from operations, but not ownership or income streams, of the Trump Organization. Instead, he has chosen to profit from the presidency at public expense, in violation of the United States Constitution. The violations, the corruption, and the threat to our republic are here now.
[1] McKay Coppins, "He Is Going to Test Our Democracy as It Has Never Been Tested,"The Atlantic, Jan. 17, 2017,

Grounds For Impeachment

President Trump's personal and business holdings in the United States and abroad present unprecedented conflicts of interest. Indeed, President Trump has admitted he has conflicts of interest in some cases. For example, the Trump Organization has licensing deals with two Trump Towers in Istanbul, and has received up to $10 million from developers since 2014.[1] President Trump admitted recently that "I have a little conflict of interest, because I have a major, major building in Istanbul."[2]
Crucially, some of these business arrangements violate the U.S. Constitution's Foreign Emoluments Clause, which provides: "[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."[3] The purpose of this provision is to prevent foreign influence or corruption. "Emoluments" from foreign governments include "any conferral of a benefit or advantage, whether through money, objects, titles, offices, or economically valuable waivers or relaxations of otherwise applicable requirements," even including "ordinary, fair market value transactions that result in any economic profit or benefit to the federal officeholder."[4]
Many of the Trump Organization's extensive business dealings with foreign governments, businesses owned by foreign governments, and other foreign leaders violate this ban. A recent legal analysis by Prof. Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School, Ambassador (ret.) Norman Eisen (former chief ethics counsel to President Barack Obama), and Professor Richard Painter (former chief ethics counsel to President George W. Bush) concluded that Mr. Trump would be violating the foreign emoluments ban from the moment he took office, due to "a steady stream of monetary and other benefits from foreign powers and their agents" deriving from his existing business arrangements.[5] As a result, since he did not divest his business operations before inauguration, he has been violating the Foreign Emoluments Clause since the moment he took office.[6]
Examples of existing business arrangements that constitute violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause include:
  • Trump's business partner in Trump Tower Century City (Manila, Philippines) is Century Properties. (Trump is not the developer; he has a brand licensing contract.) The head of Century Properties is Jose Antonio, who was just named special envoy to the United States by the president of the Philippines.[7] Payments from a company owned by a foreign government official are foreign emoluments.
  • China's state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of China is the largest tenant in Trump Tower. It is also a major lender to Trump.[8] Both its regular rent payments, and its ongoing extension of credit, are foreign emoluments.
  • Foreign diplomats have already begun shifting their D.C. hotel and event reservations to Trump International Hotel, to curry favor or at least avoid insulting the president.[9] Indeed, the Embassy of Kuwait was reportedly pressured by the Trump Organization to change an existing reservation and reschedule the event at the Trump International.[10] Payments by foreign diplomats for lodging, meeting space, or food at the hotel are foreign emoluments.
Similarly, the Constitution's Domestic Emoluments Clause (also known as the Presidential Compensation Clause) provides: "The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them."[11] This provision, which is not waivable by Congress, is designed to prevent corruption, as Alexander Hamilton explained:
"Neither the Union, nor any of its members, will be at liberty to give, nor will he be at liberty to receive, any other emolument than that which may have been determined by the first act. He can, of course, have no pecuniary inducement to renounce or desert the independence intended for him by the Constitution."[12]
President Trump has chosen to continue owning businesses that receive government subsidies and tax breaks in violation of this provision. For example, since 1980, Mr. Trump and his businesses have "reaped at least $885 million in tax breaks, grants and other subsidies for luxury apartments, hotels and office buildings in New York."[13] As President, federal and state subsidies and tax breaks violate the Domestic Emoluments Clause.
Furthermore, as noted above, "emoluments" are not limited to monetary payments; they also include economically valuable favorable regulatory actions. President Trump's control over the vast modern powers of the executive branch means that regulatory action affecting his businesses favorably constitutes an "Emolument from the United States." For example, President Trump's ongoing lease of Washington, D.C.'s Old Post Office, in which the Trump International Hotel is located, violates an explicit clause in the General Services Administration lease contract providing: "No . . . elected official of the Government of the United States . . . shall be admitted to any share or part of this Lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom . .. ."[14] In late November, members of Congress wrote the GSA requesting information about the "imminent breach-of-lease and conflict of interest issues created by President-elect Donald Trump's lease with the U.S. Government for the Trump International Hotel building in Washington, D.C."[15] The GSA responded in mid-December that it could not make a determination "until the full circumstances surrounding the president-elect's business arrangements have been finalized and he has assumed office."[16] His business arrangements have been announced (not including any divestment of the hotel) and he has assumed office, but the GSA is not pursuing any legal action to enforce the provision. That favorable regulatory treatment provides President Trump a significant financial benefit from the federal government above and beyond his federal salary.
Finally, the Committee should also investigate whether President Trump is violating the the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012 (STOCK Act). The STOCK Act is one of the few federal ethics statutes that specifically includes the President. Among other provisions, it prohibits the President from (1) using nonpublic information for private profit, and from (2) intentionally influencing an employment decision or practice of a private entity solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation.[17]
[1] Drew Harwell & Anu Narayanswamy, A scramble to assess the dangers of President-elect Donald Trump's global business empire, Wash. Post, Nov. 20, 2016,
[2] Michael Keller et al., Tracking Trump's Web of Conflicts, Bloomberg, Dec. 13, 2016,
[3] U.S. Const., art. I, § 9, cl. 8. This ban is located within a clause addressing both titles of nobility and foreign payments, and is variously called the Titles of Nobility Clause, the Foreign Corruption Clause, or the Foreign Emoluments Clause.
[4] Norman L. Eisen, Richard Painter, & Laurence H. Tribe, Brookings Governance Studies, The Emoluments Clause: Its Text, Meaning, and Application to Donald J. Trump, (Dec. 16, 2016), at 2.
[5] Id.
[6] See Norman L. Eisen & Richard W. Painter, Trump Could Be in Violation of the Constitution His First Day in Office, The Atlantic, Dec. 7, 2016,; see also Richard W. Painter et al., Emoluments: Trump's Coming Ethics Trouble,The Atlantic, Jan. 18, 2017,
[7] Libby Nelson, All of Donald Trump's known conflicts of interest in one place, Vox, (last updated Jan. 3, 2017).
[8] Jonathan O'Connell & Mary Jordan, For foreign diplomats, Trump hotel is place to be, Wash. Post, Nov. 18, 2016, The motivation is obvious: "Why wouldn't I stay at his hotel blocks from the White House, so I can tell the new president, "I love your new hotel!" Isn't it rude to come to his city and say, "I am staying at your competitor?"' said one Asian diplomat." Id.
[9] See Judd Legum & Kira Lerner, Under political pressure, Kuwait cancels major event at Four Seasons, switches to Trump's D.C. hotel, Think Progress, Dec. 19, 2016,
[10] See Richard C. Paddock et al., Potential Conflicts Around the Globe for Trump, the Businessman President, N.Y. Times, Nov. 26, 2016,
[11] U.S. Const., art. II, § 1, cl. 7 (emphasis added).
[12] The Federalist No. 73 (Alexander Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961 (emphasis added).
[13] Charles V. Bagli, A Trump Empire Built on Inside Connections and $885 Million in Tax Breaks, N.Y. Times, Sept. 17, 2016,
[14] Steven L. Schooner & Daniel I. Gordon, GSA's Trump Hotel Lease Debacle, Gov't Executive, Nov. 28, 2016,
[15] Letter from Hon. Elijah E. Cummings et al. (Nov. 30, 2016), available at
[16] Allan Smith, Federal agency responds to letter from Democratic lawmakers claiming it said Trump must fully divest himself of his DC hotel, Business Insider, Dec. 14, 2016,
[17] See Pub. Law 112105 (2012), §§ 9(a), 18.

President Trump is calling for a major investigation of voter fraud, as he continues to stand by lies about the 2016 election despite the fact his claims have been widely debunked by experts. Trump falsely asserted he lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton because 3 to 5 million unauthorized votes were cast in the election. During the ABC interview on Wednesday night, David Muir questioned Trump about those claims.
DAVID MUIR: When you say, in your opinion, millions of illegal votes, that is something that is extremely fundamental to our functioning democracy, a fair and free election.
DAVID MUIR: You say you're going to launch an investigation into this.
DAVID MUIR: What you have presented so far has been debunked. It's been called false.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: No, it hasn't. Take a look at the Pew reports.
DAVID MUIR: I called the author of the Pew report last night. And he told me that they found no evidence of voter fraud.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Really? Then why did he write the report?
DAVID MUIR: He said no evidence of voter fraud.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Excuse me. Then why did he write the report?
DAVID MUIR: So, I guess I'm
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: According to Pew reportthen he'sthen he's groveling again. You know, I always talk about the reporters that grovel when they want to write something that you want to hear, but not necessarily millions of people want to hear or have to hear.
AMY GOODMAN: Donald Trump claims a 2008 study published by the Pew Research Foundation supports his belief of widespread voter fraud. However, according to Politico, there is no 2008 Pew study saying any such thing. There's another studypublished in 2014 and since widely debunkedthat mistakenly claimed 14 percent of noncitizens said they were registered to vote in 2008 and 2010. Brian Schaffner, one of the academics behind the study, told CNN Trump is misinterpreting the study, calling Trump's claims "absurd" and "not even plausible."
And while experts have found no evidence to support Trump's lies about widespread voter fraud, they have found at least five members of Trump's family or inner circle were registered to vote in multiple states this fallsomething that Trump has claimed is evidence of voter fraud. The Washington Post reports Trump's son-in-law, White House adviser Jared Kushner; Trump's daughter, Tiffany Trump; Trump's chief strategist, Steve Bannon; White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer; and treasury secretary nominee Steve Mnuchin were all registered to vote in at least two different states.
Well, for more, we're joined by Brian Schaffner, one of those academics who collected the raw data that the erroneous study was based on. Schaffner is a political science professor at University of Massachusetts Amherst, where he joins us from. He recently co-wrote a piece in The Washington Post titled "Trump wants to investigate purported mass voter fraud. We pre-debunked his evidence."
So, let's start with Professor Schaffner. Tell us how he got it wrong. He's citing your study.
BRIAN SCHAFFNER: Well, he's not citing our study; he's citing a study that uses our data. So, I work with a team that puts out a very large-scale survey of American adults. And one of the things we do is, of course, ask people a lot of questions, and then we also match the survey respondents to vote files. Now, these other researchers from Old Dominion University took our studyor, took our survey data, which we make publicly available to the scholarly community. They downloaded it and basically took a question that really wasn't designed to identify noncitizens, but they used it for that purpose. They identified a small number of what they thought were noncitizens, and found that among that small group there were about 14 percent of that group werebasically had a vote record in a recent election.
Now, the problem is that that question happens at the end of a very long survey. It's not really designed to identify noncitizens. And what we did, actually, was, two years later, we went back to those same survey respondents, re-asked the question, and found that a lot of people who had initially identified themselves as noncitizens in the next wave actually identify themselves as citizens. There were even some people who had identified themselves as citizens the first time and changed their answer to noncitizen, which is pretty much an impossible change, which just suggests that some people are just clicking the wrong button. So what we did was we took the people who said in response both times, both in 2010 and 2012, that they were noncitizens, and there was not any voters among that group. So that's the group that we can be more confident are actually noncitizens. And among that group, nobody had a vote record. And so, that, essentially, is the evidence we used to debunk their claim that there were noncitizen voters, that when youbasically, when you identify with more confidence who the noncitizens are, you don't find any voters among that group.
AMY GOODMAN: In New York, we're joined by Dale Ho, director of the Voting Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union. His op-ed in The New York times is headlined "Trump's Lies Pave the Way for an Assault on Voting Rights." How?
DALE HO: Well, Amy, throughout history, specious and unsubstantiated allegations about voter fraud have been used to justify measures that restrict voting rights. This was true a hundred years ago, when states in the South were passing things like poll taxes and literacy tests. They said, "We have to charge people money for their votes, because if we don't, then poor people will sell their votes. We have to make sure that voters can read, because if they can't, then someone is going to be telling them how they should vote," and on and on and on.
And when you look, you know, closer to the present and during the 1980s, what Senator Jeff Sessions, the president's nominee for attorney general, was most infamous for was for a failed voter fraud prosecution of three civil rights activists, one of whom was a close aide of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and it was one of the incidents that helped derail his nomination for a federal judgeship back then. And we see this again in more contemporaryin more recent times with things like restrictive voter identification requirements and new registration restrictions.
We don't have a really significant or systematic problem of voter fraud in this country. I think Americans should feel secure that our voting systems are of very high integrity. What we have a problem with in this country is a low participation rate. And we should be doing everything we can to encourage more people, not fewer, to participate.
AMY GOODMAN: You know, the whole issue of people voting illegally has morphed. It wasoriginally, Donald was talking about, you know, "illegal immigrants"not a word we use, don't think any person is illegalbut undocumented people who are not supposed to be able to vote. But then the examples he's using are all the people in his Cabinet and many people in his family, who are registered in more than one state. He keeps insisting that 3 to 5 million people voted illegally. And he says all of those peopleand he was very clear about this, not one of them voted for himvoted for, you know, Hillary Clinton.
DALE HO: I think that's because he senses he has something of a legitimacy problem. He lost the election, in terms of the popular vote, by almost 3 million votes, which is by far the largest negative margin for anyone who has ever ascended to the presidency, certainly in contemporary times. So he knows that there is a legitimacy issue here. The Electoral College is obviously the law the land. And we all recognize that. He is the president of the United States right now, legally. But most people don't think that that's the appropriate way of selecting our leaders, that the legitimacy of our government derives from the consent of the majority. And I think he senses that, and that's probably why he's trying to attack the fact that he lost the popular vote.
AMY GOODMAN: And yet, interestingly, when Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, challenged the elections, wanted a recount in places like Michigan and Wisconsin, it was Donald Trump's lawyers who said that the election was not fraudulent.
DALE HO: That's right. When he was president-elect, President Trump's legal team stated in court, in a filing, something to the effect of there is no evidenceor, all of the available evidence, rather, suggests that the 2016 election was untainted by fraud or mistake. If that was true a few months ago, it remains true today. Just because he's now the president of the United States and the most powerful person in the world, he doesn't have the power to warp reality and change what was true a few months ago.
AMY GOODMAN: So, The Guardian is reporting that Vice President Mike Pence has privately told lawmakers that the Trump administration will, quote, "initiate a full evaluation of voting rolls in the country and the overall integrity of our voting system in the wake of this past election." The significance of this, the idea that this will lead to massive voter suppression, which is already taking place around the country, Dale?
DALE HO: Well, that's a concern. There are a number of states, as you alluded to, that have passed laws in the last five years that make it harder for people to register to vote and cast a ballot. The Department of Justice, over the last few years, has been very active in pushing back against those laws and fighting for the right of every American to participate. There are significant concerns that the new Justice Department is not going to fully enforce the Voting Rights Act and constitutional protections for voting rights in this country, and that instead what we're going to see is a rerun of what we saw 15 years ago, when the Bush Justice Department applied political pressure to U.S. attorneys around the country to investigate and prosecute voter fraud. They engaged in a five-year project on this. They turned up very little evidence, only a few scattered instances of people voting when they weren't supposed to. U.S. attorneys around the country declined to devote a lot of resources to these investigations or to prosecute them, in some cases, and they were fired for political reasons. And it is one of the reasons that Alberto Gonzales was removed as attorney general. It was one of the largest scandals of the George W. Bush administration, because the investigation was politicized. It wasn't a normal investigation, free from political influence. And I think the concern is that we're going to see something along those lines yet again. One would hope that we would have learned from those mistakes in the past, but I guess time will tell.

President Trump Can Attack Agency Science, But Can't Delete Climate Change

Statement by Ken Kimmell, President, Union of Concerned Scientists

WASHINGTON (January 25, 2017)Reports that the Trump administration has ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to remove its web content on climate change, and that scientific work will need to be vetted by political staff before release, are the latest possible signs that the administration could target science and clamp down on public access to information. As of this morning, still up, but an administration spokesperson confirmed that EPA scientists must vet their research before sharing it publicly.
Sidelining or suppressing climate science is an abuse of power, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Below is a statement by Ken Kimmell, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
"This is not how a democracy should work.
"Demands to shut down informational websites and prevent the release of scientific findings are straight out of Orwell. We don't live in a world of alternative facts' you can't delete climate change and you can't overrule the laws of physics by preventing scientists from talking about them.
"Climate change is real. Its effects are visible today, and its causes are known. Trying to hide that information from the public doesn't change itit just makes it harder to work towards solutions, putting communities and generations to come at risk.
"It's simple: Public servants should be free to state simple scientific facts. Americans have the right to see and benefit from taxpayer-funded research, and scientists have the right to share their findings openly and honestly, without political pressure, manipulation or suppression. Political staff should never be in charge of deciding what scientific conclusions are acceptable for public consumption.
"The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will likely be voting next week on whether to confirm Scott Pruitt as EPA administrator. They need to get a clear answer whether Pruitt was aware of these actions and approved of themand whether he'll actually enforce the EPA's scientific integrity policy. If Pruitt won't commit to honestly presenting scientific information and defending the rights of government scientists to do their work unimpeded, that's all the more reason to vote no on his nomination.
"President Trump and his representatives in the EPA and other agencies are accountable to the public interest, and the scientific community will continue to expose and resist abuses like these."

This smells like an overreaction designed to precede the military action that will follow. Creating the threat that you then intend to attack.
[Image: trump-refugee-airport-protests.jpg]

By Bryan R. Smith/Getty Images/AFP
Update (9:00 P.M.): After a day of nationwide protests and legal challenges, a federal judge has halted some enforcement of President Donald Trump's executive order suspending refugee and select non-citizen entry. The emergency stay, granted in the Eastern District of New York, is national.
Importantly, the stay does not permanently ban implementation of the order, and is limited in effect to individuals who already arrived in the United States. It does not halt the Trump administration's orders on future entry. But it does mean that individuals previously granted visas or refugee status and detained Saturday in airports across the country must be released.
The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, on behalf of two Iraqi men detained at New York's John F. Kennedy Airport. The A.C.L.U. says it will produce additional legal actions, in the hopes of rolling back limits on new arrivals of refugees and individuals from the seven nations the Trump administration banned. For critics of the executive order, Saturday night's emergency stay as granted represents a glimmer of hopeand a call for continued resistance and action.
The Hive's original report on the events of this remarkable day follow below.
Less than 24 hours after President Donald Trump signed an executive order suspending entry of all refugees and barring entry from non-U.S. residents traveling from seven Muslim-majority nations, protesters, lawyers, and elected representatives converged on airports throughout the country.
The protesters wanted to send a message of solidarity to Muslim Americans and register their dissent against the White House's actions. The lawyers sought the release of dozens of detained refugees and immigrants who had the misfortune of being airborne when Trump signed the order. And the politicians lent their credibility to both causes.
In New York City, legal advocates and two members of Congress periodically updated protesters and press on the situation inside John F. Kennedy Airport. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey removed all protesters and media from the airport's international terminal.
"Mr. President, what you have done is shameful, and it's un-American," said Rep. Nydia Velázquez, a Democrat whose Congressional district includes parts of Brooklyn, Queens, and Lower Manhattan. "This executive order is arbitrary, and it is unjust. One by one, street by street, if we have to go to court: we will fight this, anywhere."
Customs and Border Patrol officers refused to identify the detained individuals, cutting them off from legal advocacy groups that wished to work on their behalf. According to individuals who interacted with C.B.P., the Trump administration had provided no guidance on how the order should be carried out, sowing confusion and putting individual officers in the position of deciding whether or not to allow some refugees traveling on special visas and so-called "green card" holders (permanent residents) into the country. There were reports of tense confrontations between customs agents and members of congress.
"There are hundreds of people who are going to be put into jail today because the Department of Homeland Security is choosing to interpret the policy to allow them to detain people who are attempting to lawfully enter this country after years and years of vetting, and we can not stand by while that happens," Becca Heller, the executive director of the International Refugee Assistance Project, said outside of Kennedy airport.
Additionally, Heller said there were reports that the Department of Homeland Security had instructed its officers to detain arriving individuals and "coerce them into being deported voluntarily, which is also illegal, if someone is afraid to return."
Rep. Jerry Nadler, a Democrat representing parts of Manhattan and Brooklyn, described the actions as "disgusting" and a violation of "every tradition in this country."
Protest organizers and immigration and refugee advocacy groups in New York said they expected the protest to continue throughout the remainder of the day and evening. A group of rabbis was scheduled to lead a solidarity vigil. (Trump signed the order blocking refugees on National Holocaust Remembrance Day, thereby inviting disturbing comparisons the U.S. decision to turn away refugees from Nazi Germany, many of whom returned home to be killed.)
Dozens of lawyers flocked to airports throughout the country, with some forming groups to comb crowds and look for families awaiting relatives affected by the executive order. At times, this work was done discreetly, to avoid drawing the attention of authorities looking to clear terminals of anyone not waiting to meet a specific traveler. It was not immediately clear how many families had been identified at Kennedy.
At Texas's Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, representatives from the Council on American Islamic Relations gathered and briefed relatives of refugees and other passengers.

"The mayor and the mayor's office are deeply disappointed by the executive order," said CommissionerNisha Agarwal, of the New York City Mayor's Office of Immigrant Affairs. "We will work very closely with all the lawyers and activist groups who are here today, because this has to be all hands on deck. It's really just a mess, and the impact on human lives is devastating."
Hameed Khalid Darweesh, an Iraqi man who worked as an interpreter for the United States, was released from Kennedy airport after an hours-long detention. Darweesh's release provided a burst of energy for the assembled protesters and advocates, who chanted "Welcome home!" as he exited the terminal.
"America is the greatest nation in the world," Darweesh said, when asked how it feels to be released. "The greatest people in the world."
During his detention, Darweesh said that someone told him, "Do not worry, this is Americawhen you arrive here, there is a Constitution, and there are laws."
The White House did not respond yet to a request for comment on the detained refugees, protests, and condemnations by members of Congress and human rights advocates.

[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=8921&stc=1] [Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=8922&stc=1]
Number of immigrants from now banned Syria that have engaged in terrorist actions in the USA = ZERO
Number [according to official mythology] from Saudi Arabia [not subject to ban] who have engaged in terrorist actions in USA = 15+
Number of 'Christian terrorists' that according to official mythology have committed terrorist acts in USA = hundreds, including McVeigh to name but one by the official mythology.
...and then there is State Terrorism and State-Sponsored Terrorism, of which the USA has committed more than any other nation I can think of.

Trumpf and his wrecking crew are simply using the old fascist trick of blaming the other to divert attention. They are also carrying out a radical right wing Christian agenda of racism, hate of other religions, and just hatred of the 'other'.
Pence has openly stated he believes the USA is and should be a 'Christian Nation', whatever that is...and that is certainly NOT what the Constitution says! If we want to be even-handed and get rid of all the immigrants, then everyone in the USA not a Native American must go!

Trumpf promised to 'Make America Hate Again'...and is doing so as much as he can.

[Image: image00-14-700x467.jpg]Ari Berman giving opening remarks at Nov. 16, 2016 Congressional Briefing on Voter Suppression. Photo credit:TYT Politics / YouTube
While Donald Trump wants taxpayers to foot the bill for an investigation into whether millions of illegal immigrants voted (there is no evidence that they did), Republican-controlled states keep coming up with new ways to restrict the voting rights of minorities under the guise of combating the phantom crime of in-person voter fraud. At the same time, the real problems of US electoral systems remain unaddressed.
This brief video not only demonstrates how this issue has been neglected by politicians and the corporate media alike, it also illustrates the chilling effect that Voter ID laws have had.

Peter Lemkin Wrote:Number of immigrants from now banned Syria that have engaged in terrorist actions in the USA = ZERO
Number [according to official mythology] from Saudi Arabia [not subject to ban] who have engaged in terrorist actions in USA = 15+
Number of 'Christian terrorists' that according to official mythology have committed terrorist acts in USA = hundreds, including McVeigh to name but one by the official mythology.
...and then there is State Terrorism and State-Sponsored Terrorism, of which the USA has committed more than any other nation I can think of.

Trumpf and his wrecking crew are simply using the old fascist trick of blaming the other to divert attention. They are also carrying out a radical right wing Christian agenda of racism, hate of other religions, and just hatred of the 'other'.
Pence has openly stated he believes the USA is and should be a 'Christian Nation', whatever that is...and that is certainly NOT what the Constitution says! If we want to be even-handed and get rid of all the immigrants, then everyone in the USA not a Native American must go!

Trumpf promised to 'Make America Hate Again'...and is doing so as much as he can.


January 28, 2017


Quote:I was outraged by the ban on refugees from war-torn countries in the Middle East. I've covered refugees fleeing war in Iraq and Syria over the last two years, meeting families on the road in Greece, Serbia and Macedonia, speaking to poor people in Turkey and Jordan and discussing the hopes and fears of people displaced in Iraq. If you want to ban "terrorists," these are the last people to hit with a refugee ban. Instead the government should be using the best intelligence possible to find people being radicalized, some of whom have lived in the US their whole lives or who come from countries not affected by the ban, such as Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

So I was outraged, and then I read the executive order. There are many full texts of the order online, such as at CNN, the NYT, the WSJ or Independent. According to most reports Trump was banning "nationals of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States for at least the next 90 days." This bars people from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. US Senator Elizabeth Warren said "Let's be clear: A Muslim ban by any other name is still a Muslim ban," and Senator Chris Murphy claimed "Trump has now handed ISIS a path to rebirth." Media, such as Vox and the Independent, compared the ban to banning Jews from entry during the Holocaust and bashed Trump for singing the order on Holocaust memorial day. World leaders are "condemning Trump's Muslim ban," according to headlines.

I had to see for myself, so I read the executive order. The order does seek "to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States." It says that it seeks "Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern." It also says "I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order." And it targets Syrians specifically. "I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest."

But, wait a sec. According to the reports "The order bars all people hailing from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen." Critics had attacked Trump for selecting these seven countries and not selecting other states "linked to his sprawling business empire." Bloomberg and Forbes bought into this.

But, wait a sec. I read the order and Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen are not mentioned in it.

Go back and read it again. Do a "ctrl-f" to find "Iraq". Where is "Iraq" in the order. It's not there. Only Syria is there. So where are the seven nations? Where is the "Muslim ban"? It turns out this was a form of fake news, or alternative facts. Trump didn't select seven "Muslim-majority" countries. US President Barack Obama's administration selected these seven Muslim-majority countries.

The Department of Homeland Security targeted these seven countries over the last years as countries of concern. In February 2016 "The Department of Homeland Security today announced that it is continuing its implementation of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 with the addition of Libya, Somalia, and Yemen as three countries of concern, limiting Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals who have traveled to these countries." It noted "the three additional countries designated today join Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria as countries subject to restrictions for Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals." It was the US policy under Obama to restrict and target people "who have been present in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, at any time on or after March 1, 2011 (with limited government/military exceptions)." This was text of the US Customs and Border Protection in 2015 relating to "the Visa Waiver Program and Terrorist Travel Protection Act of 2015". The link even includes the seven nation list in it: "Iraq, Syria, Iran, SUdan, Somalia or Yemen." And the media knew this back in May 2016 when some civil rights groups complained about it. "These restrictions have provoked an outcry from the Iranian-American community, as well as Arab-American and civil-liberties groups, who say the restrictions on dual nationals and certain travelers are discriminatory and could be imposed against American dual nationals."

It was signed into law on December 18, 2015, as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of FY2016.

The Congress and Homeland Security selected these countries in 2016 and before (Screenshot of visa waiver categories, US Customs and Border Protection)
What? So there was a Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 two years before Trump? There was a kind of "Muslim ban" before the Muslim ban? But almost no one critiqued it in 2015 because it was Obama's administration overseeing it.

So for more than a year it has been US policy to discriminate against, target and even begin to ban people from the seven countries that Trump is accused of banning immigrants and visitors from. CNN even hinted at this by noting "those countries were named in a 2016 law concerning immigration visas as countries of concern.'" But why didn't CNN note that the seven countries were not named and that in fact they are only on the list because of Obama's policy?

The "ban" didn't exclude countries linked to business interests, it targeted countries of "concern" drawn up last year by Obama's administration and Congress
Because mainstream media has been purposely lying, either due to ignorance or because of unwillingness to read the document and ask questions and because they are too ready to accept "facts" without investigating. They want to blame Trump for a "Muslim ban" because they were ready with that script since last year. And indeed Trump has enacted a harsh executive order cracking down on visitors from these countries (particularly Syrians), but his crackdown only includes those seven countries because of Obama's policy. Trump's decision to go beyond the policy and increase the Obama policy harms refugees, but it only increases an existing discriminatory policy, it doesn't invent it. Reading media reports you would never know that. Most disingenuous, truly bordering on fake news, are the reports that claimed the seven countries were connected to Trump business interests, as if Obama's DHS picked them because of Trump?

So why didn't anyone of the thousands of reporters covering this read the same document and ask the same question and do the same investigation of where the seven "countries of concern" came from? A simply Google search would have revealed the history. A bit of searching around US code would have explained it.

Were reports misleading on Trump "Muslim ban"?
The public should be suspicious of Trump's policies and the media should speak truth to power and demand answers from the administration. But the media should also be truthful with the public and instead of claiming Trump singled out seven countries, it should note that the US Congress and Obama's Department of Homeland Security had singled out these countries. It should have told us about theTerrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 rather than pretend this list was invented in 2017. Trump's executive order said "countries of concern," it didn't make a list. That list was already made, last year and years before.