If you listen to President Trump talking about the "need for a wall" because of the "national security threat" at our southern border; if you listened to Secretary of Homeland Securitgy Kirstjen Nielsen at Trump's press briefing in the Rose Garden a few days ago claim there had been over 3,000 terrorists trying to enter; if you paid attention to what Vice President Mike Pence told the Washington Post last October (that we "apprehended more than 10 per day" of "terrorists or suspected terrorists at our southern border") -- you'd get the impression that we have a big problem that needs to be fixed right away -- Right?
It's all false. And Fox News host Chris Wallace called press secretary Sarah Sanders on it when she appeared on "Fox News Sunday" and tried repeating the same lies. What's more, Wallace used the administration's own data to challenge her claims -- the same claims being peddled by Trump, Nielsen, and Pence.
Wallace asked Sanders about Nielsen's claim in the Rose Garden, where she had said the Customs and Border Protection "has stopped over 3,000 what we call 'special-interest aliens' trying to come into the country in the southern border. Those are aliens who the intel community has identified are of concern."
I was watching the briefing live on TV; I heard her say it. And, although I had heard that the administration was making claims that had been refuted by others, I didn't know the true facts. And nobody -- most especially the president, standing there -- corrected her. In fact, she said what she said because he had called on her to explain the threat and why we must have The Wall that he insists we need.
OK. Now back to Sunday morning and Chris Wallace and Sarah Sanders. Quoting from the CBS News report:
"Wallace pointed out that special-interest aliens are those hailing from 'countries that have ever produced a terrorist. They're not terrorists themselves." Wallace cited a State Department report stating there is 'no credible evidence' of terrorists crossing the border with Mexico."
Mind you, this is taking place on Fox News, where Chris Wallace sometimes stands up and speaks the truth to power. Sanders came back with her once-removed claim: "We know that roughly, nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists come into our country illegally, and we know that our most vulnerable point of entry is at our southern border," she said.
First, let's be clear what Wallace revealed about this category "special-interest aliens." If, say, a single terrorist from Somalia has ever been caught trying to enter the U.S., then everybody from Somalia is put on this watch list and called a "special-interest alien." That's it. No other reason required. That's the source of the 4,000 people they're talking about -- anybody from a country that's produced one terrorist trying to enter our country.
Then Wallace said he had "studied up" on these statistics; and he asked Sanders. "Do you know where those 4,000 people come [from], where they're captured? Airports," he said.
Sanders then backed down. "I'm saying that they come by air, by land and by sea. I'm not disagreeing with you that they're coming through airports."
OK. If you admit that most of them come through airports, then why do we need to build a wall between us and Mexico?
OK. So here are the stats, quoted by Wallace, from the Departments of Justice and from Homeland Security: In fiscal year 2017, 2,554 people on the FBI's terrorist screening list were stopped trying to enter the country. The majority -- 2,170 -- attempted to come through airports; 49 attempted to enter by sea.
Of the 335 attempting to enter by land, the State Department said it had no indication that any terrorists had tried entering the U.S. through Mexico. There is also no credible evidence that international terrorists groups have bases in Mexico, or that they have worked with Mexican drug cartels, or that they have sent operatives through Mexico into the U.S. That's our own State Department's statement.
But President Trump tells this bizarre tale about terrorists just driving right up along the border wall where it's built in California and Arizona, then when they come to where the wall ends, they just "turn left" and drive right into our country.
He's lying. And Kirstjen Nielsen must know he's lying. And Vice President Pence must know he's lying, and so must Sarah Sanders -- and they just go along with him, repeating the lies to please him.
It's time someone called them out. And Wallace, a Fox News anchor, had the opportunity with Sanders (none of them come on MSNBC) -- and he called her on it.
Ralph
Monday, January 7, 2019
Sunday, January 6, 2019
Wall St. Journal's sharp rebuke of Trump's fake history comments on Afghanistan
The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, which is now owned by Trump ally Rupert Murdoch and which has been historically conservative in its own right, has ripped into the president for comments he made in that rambling press opportunity during a recent cabinet meeting.
The comments focused on by the Journal were about the Soviet Union's prolonged war in Afghanistan -- and the WSJ editors blasted Trump for his "reprehensible" version of the conflict and his "slander" of U.S. allies.
As reported by Politico, Trump's comments "belittled the role of U.S. allies in the Middle Ease, accusing them of sending minimal resources to back up U.S. troops in comparison with the American presence there."
The editorial continued: "This mockery is a slander against every ally that has supported the U.S. effort in Afghanistan with troops and often died." And "just as reprehensible . . . was Mr. Trump's utterly false narrative of the Soviet Union's involvement in Afghanistan."
Trump had made the "bizarre claim" that Russia was in Afghanistan in 1979 "because terrorists were going into Russia," and he seemed to blame the collapse of the Soviet Union on it's involvement in Afghanistan.
But the Journal editorial says that "this retelling of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan has been strongly disputed by historians, who say the invasion was an attempt to prop up the communist regime and compete with the U.S. in the region." Trump also disputed the long-held U.S. government view of the Soviet invasion by claiming that Russia was "right to be there."
The editorial board concluded its excoriation of Trump's comments with this:
The comments focused on by the Journal were about the Soviet Union's prolonged war in Afghanistan -- and the WSJ editors blasted Trump for his "reprehensible" version of the conflict and his "slander" of U.S. allies.
As reported by Politico, Trump's comments "belittled the role of U.S. allies in the Middle Ease, accusing them of sending minimal resources to back up U.S. troops in comparison with the American presence there."
The editorial continued: "This mockery is a slander against every ally that has supported the U.S. effort in Afghanistan with troops and often died." And "just as reprehensible . . . was Mr. Trump's utterly false narrative of the Soviet Union's involvement in Afghanistan."
Trump had made the "bizarre claim" that Russia was in Afghanistan in 1979 "because terrorists were going into Russia," and he seemed to blame the collapse of the Soviet Union on it's involvement in Afghanistan.
But the Journal editorial says that "this retelling of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan has been strongly disputed by historians, who say the invasion was an attempt to prop up the communist regime and compete with the U.S. in the region." Trump also disputed the long-held U.S. government view of the Soviet invasion by claiming that Russia was "right to be there."
The editorial board concluded its excoriation of Trump's comments with this:
"We cannot recall a more absurd misstatement of history by an American President."
* * *
When the conservative editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal criticize a conservative president with such scathing words, it's time for that president to be very worried -- and time for a round of consultations with his wise and experienced advisers toward re-examining his positions.
Which is exactly what Donald Trump is incapable of doing it, even if he had wise and experienced advisers. So the slow march toward impeachment takes another step.
This hasn't been proved yet, but Rachel Maddow raises the question of where Trump got this idea about terrorists coming into Russia as their reason for Russia's was with
Afghanistan back then. Rachel says that the only place in the world where this theory -- as well as three or four others floating around about geopolitical issues -- is being talked about is the Kremlin. And then Trump just throws them into his public prattlings. Is Putin feeding him these ideas? Is Trump naive in repeating them? Or is he a willing collaborator?
Ralph
This hasn't been proved yet, but Rachel Maddow raises the question of where Trump got this idea about terrorists coming into Russia as their reason for Russia's was with
Afghanistan back then. Rachel says that the only place in the world where this theory -- as well as three or four others floating around about geopolitical issues -- is being talked about is the Kremlin. And then Trump just throws them into his public prattlings. Is Putin feeding him these ideas? Is Trump naive in repeating them? Or is he a willing collaborator?
Ralph
Saturday, January 5, 2019
Another apparent false claim from the president, trying to sell his Wall.
Excerpts from a HuffPost article by Mary Papenfuss about President Trump's oft-repeated claim that the American people want the Wall.
"President Donald Trump insisted again Thursday that there’s 'so much support' for his border wall. But polls contradict him.
“The people of our country want it,' Trump declared at a surprise appearance in the White House briefing room Thursday to plead for the wall. . . . I have never had so much support as I have in the last week over my stance for border security ... or, frankly, the wall or the barrier. I have never had anything like it in terms of calls coming in, in terms of people writing in and tweeting. I’ve never had this much support,' he added.
"Trump was apparently referring to personal calls he has received. Neither the White House switchboard nor the call-in phone line to leave recorded comments is functioning because of the government shutdown. . . .
"But no poll has found that a majority of Americans support the wall or funding for the wall, or see it as a priority.
" Quinnipiac poll of 1,1447 voters reached on landlines or cell phones from Dec. 12-17 found that 54 percent of respondents opposed the wall and 43 percent supported it. A Harvard CAPS/Harris online survey of 1,407 registered voters conducted Dec. 24-26 found that 56 percent of those surveyed did not support a wall, while 44 percent did.
Just 35 percent of those surveyed supported including money for the wall in a federal spending bill, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll of 2,440 adults conducted online Dec. 21-25.
"More than two-thirds of Americans don’t think the wall should be a priority, according to a poll of 1,075 adults by NPR, PBS News Hour and Marist. That poll was conducted Nov. 28-Dec. 4 using live telephone interviews to reach both landlines and cell phones. . . . "
===============
“The people of our country want it,' Trump declared at a surprise appearance in the White House briefing room Thursday to plead for the wall. . . . I have never had so much support as I have in the last week over my stance for border security ... or, frankly, the wall or the barrier. I have never had anything like it in terms of calls coming in, in terms of people writing in and tweeting. I’ve never had this much support,' he added.
"Trump was apparently referring to personal calls he has received. Neither the White House switchboard nor the call-in phone line to leave recorded comments is functioning because of the government shutdown. . . .
"But no poll has found that a majority of Americans support the wall or funding for the wall, or see it as a priority.
" Quinnipiac poll of 1,1447 voters reached on landlines or cell phones from Dec. 12-17 found that 54 percent of respondents opposed the wall and 43 percent supported it. A Harvard CAPS/Harris online survey of 1,407 registered voters conducted Dec. 24-26 found that 56 percent of those surveyed did not support a wall, while 44 percent did.
Just 35 percent of those surveyed supported including money for the wall in a federal spending bill, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll of 2,440 adults conducted online Dec. 21-25.
"More than two-thirds of Americans don’t think the wall should be a priority, according to a poll of 1,075 adults by NPR, PBS News Hour and Marist. That poll was conducted Nov. 28-Dec. 4 using live telephone interviews to reach both landlines and cell phones. . . . "
===========
Now that is what we call data. But the president doesn't need data to reach his strongly held opinions -- he just consults his gut feelings.
There's another piece of indirect data: the 2018 midterm elections in which Democrats won control over the House by the largest margin since the post-Watergate era. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of Trump and his Wall approach to immigration reform.
And then there are the lies he has told in the past few days. His claim that some 4,000 terrorists have come across the border illegally -- his main current selling point for the Wall -- and those are the ones that have been caught. That's a gross distortion. The number 4,000 is the total number of terrorists or terror suspects that have been known to enter the U.S. -- throughout the country, not just the Southwestern border -- and most of them have flown in on airplanes. His claim that we have a national security crisis at the Southern border, when in fact there has been an overall reduction of illegal immigrants entering in recent years. The much ballyhooed "caravan" fizzled before it got to the border. And we could go on. But the short response is: we need border security, and it can be improved; but the non-partisan experts say that a physical wall is not what we need. We need more tech surveillance, drones, more agents and immigration judges to process incoming asylum seekers; we need more facilities. But a physical barrier is a Trump campaign promise that his base is now demanding. It is not a necessary part of good border security.
There's another piece of indirect data: the 2018 midterm elections in which Democrats won control over the House by the largest margin since the post-Watergate era. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of Trump and his Wall approach to immigration reform.
And then there are the lies he has told in the past few days. His claim that some 4,000 terrorists have come across the border illegally -- his main current selling point for the Wall -- and those are the ones that have been caught. That's a gross distortion. The number 4,000 is the total number of terrorists or terror suspects that have been known to enter the U.S. -- throughout the country, not just the Southwestern border -- and most of them have flown in on airplanes. His claim that we have a national security crisis at the Southern border, when in fact there has been an overall reduction of illegal immigrants entering in recent years. The much ballyhooed "caravan" fizzled before it got to the border. And we could go on. But the short response is: we need border security, and it can be improved; but the non-partisan experts say that a physical wall is not what we need. We need more tech surveillance, drones, more agents and immigration judges to process incoming asylum seekers; we need more facilities. But a physical barrier is a Trump campaign promise that his base is now demanding. It is not a necessary part of good border security.
Ralph
Friday, January 4, 2019
Trump vs Pelosi -- she wins
Trump is out of his league with Nancy Pelosi -- and doesn't know it; but he's soon going to find out that Nancy Pelosi is not the "little woman" that he can push around or out-smart. Here's some of what transpired between them yesterday, reported by the Associated Press.
"Pelosi told NBC's "Today" show that Democrats want the 'Trump shutdown' to end but she's unwilling to fund Trump's wall. 'There's no amount of persuasion he can use,' she said, to make her give in.
Explaining why it's difficult to negotiate with Trump, Pelosi said that "it is difficult because he 'resists science, evidence, data, truth. . . . It's hard to pin the president down on the facts.'"
Trump then criticized her for taking a trip to Hawaii over the holidays, while he canceled his planned visit to his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida because of the shutdown
(and then tweeted out a "poor me" lament over being all alone in the White House).
Pelosi responded to his criticism of her going to Hawaii by saying: "The president may not know this, but Hawaii is part of the United States of America." And, she says, she was available on 24 hours notice.
"Pelosi told NBC's "Today" show that Democrats want the 'Trump shutdown' to end but she's unwilling to fund Trump's wall. 'There's no amount of persuasion he can use,' she said, to make her give in.
Explaining why it's difficult to negotiate with Trump, Pelosi said that "it is difficult because he 'resists science, evidence, data, truth. . . . It's hard to pin the president down on the facts.'"
Trump then criticized her for taking a trip to Hawaii over the holidays, while he canceled his planned visit to his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida because of the shutdown
(and then tweeted out a "poor me" lament over being all alone in the White House).
Pelosi responded to his criticism of her going to Hawaii by saying: "The president may not know this, but Hawaii is part of the United States of America." And, she says, she was available on 24 hours notice.
Thursday, January 3, 2019
What a depressing afternoon
Another gray, rainy day in Atlanta.
And that was just the atmospheric backdrop to the political situation. First, I spent an interminable period of time Wednesday afternoon watching Donald Trump pontificate and lie to TV cameras in a photo-op in connection with a cabinet meeting.
The president was clearly playing to his base in the TV-land audience. I kept watching because I wanted to hear the commentary of the MSBNC discussants afterward, but it was really really hard to sit there and be insulted by a president who thinks we're all so ill-informed that we don't see through his lies and distortions.
For example, he lamented how long we've been fighting in Afghanistan and claimed he himself would have done better, that he would have been a good general. He claimed there are over 30 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., when experts put the number at no more than a third of that. Same about what the Iraq war has cost us.
In reference to Gen. Mattis leaving as Sec. of Defense, Trump said, complainingly: "What's he done for me?" Then said, "essentially, I fired him" -- disregarding the fact that his initial reaction to Mattis' resignation was to praise the man and thank him for his service; but that was before somebody told him that Mattis' letter of resignation (which he probably didn't read) was a thinly veiled criticism of him. So now he's dissing the man, saying he didn't do good job, didn't accomplish anything in Afghanistan; and that Obama had fired him (is he mixing him up with Flynn, whom Obama did fire and warned Trump not to hire?).
But here was the worst of all. Referring to the fact that the DACA plan was being reviewed by the courts as to the constitutionality of its creation by Obama's executive order, Trump said:
"If the court says that Obama had the right to do DACA unilaterally, then it means that I can do whatever I want on lots of other stuff. Can you imagine me having this power? Wouldn't that be scary?"
Yes, the president of the United States said that on live television. It was pretty terrifying.
And then I went to see the movie "Vice," about Dick Cheney's rise in power to become the most power-driven and powerful Vice President in the history of our country. It all leads up to his getting a legal opinion, from hand-picked legal minds in the Justice Department of Legal Counsel, that agreed with the concept of the "unitary executive." Meaning that the president has unlimited power and can do no wrong.
The film follows the facts as presented in the fact-based media, which I believe are the truth -- especially the exposure of how the raw intelligence data was misused by Cheney and Rumsfeld to "justify" their already-made decision to invade Iraq.
Which is more dangerous: Cheney or Trump? I think Trump. Cheney wanted power for the executive, but I don't believe he wanted to destroy our democracy. He sought legal approval -- even if he handpicked the authority to approve it -- but not willful disregard for the law.
I don't think Trump sees any problem in what he's doing that undermines our institutions and our democratic values -- or even the rule of law.
Ralph
And that was just the atmospheric backdrop to the political situation. First, I spent an interminable period of time Wednesday afternoon watching Donald Trump pontificate and lie to TV cameras in a photo-op in connection with a cabinet meeting.
The president was clearly playing to his base in the TV-land audience. I kept watching because I wanted to hear the commentary of the MSBNC discussants afterward, but it was really really hard to sit there and be insulted by a president who thinks we're all so ill-informed that we don't see through his lies and distortions.
For example, he lamented how long we've been fighting in Afghanistan and claimed he himself would have done better, that he would have been a good general. He claimed there are over 30 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., when experts put the number at no more than a third of that. Same about what the Iraq war has cost us.
In reference to Gen. Mattis leaving as Sec. of Defense, Trump said, complainingly: "What's he done for me?" Then said, "essentially, I fired him" -- disregarding the fact that his initial reaction to Mattis' resignation was to praise the man and thank him for his service; but that was before somebody told him that Mattis' letter of resignation (which he probably didn't read) was a thinly veiled criticism of him. So now he's dissing the man, saying he didn't do good job, didn't accomplish anything in Afghanistan; and that Obama had fired him (is he mixing him up with Flynn, whom Obama did fire and warned Trump not to hire?).
But here was the worst of all. Referring to the fact that the DACA plan was being reviewed by the courts as to the constitutionality of its creation by Obama's executive order, Trump said:
"If the court says that Obama had the right to do DACA unilaterally, then it means that I can do whatever I want on lots of other stuff. Can you imagine me having this power? Wouldn't that be scary?"
Yes, the president of the United States said that on live television. It was pretty terrifying.
And then I went to see the movie "Vice," about Dick Cheney's rise in power to become the most power-driven and powerful Vice President in the history of our country. It all leads up to his getting a legal opinion, from hand-picked legal minds in the Justice Department of Legal Counsel, that agreed with the concept of the "unitary executive." Meaning that the president has unlimited power and can do no wrong.
The film follows the facts as presented in the fact-based media, which I believe are the truth -- especially the exposure of how the raw intelligence data was misused by Cheney and Rumsfeld to "justify" their already-made decision to invade Iraq.
Which is more dangerous: Cheney or Trump? I think Trump. Cheney wanted power for the executive, but I don't believe he wanted to destroy our democracy. He sought legal approval -- even if he handpicked the authority to approve it -- but not willful disregard for the law.
I don't think Trump sees any problem in what he's doing that undermines our institutions and our democratic values -- or even the rule of law.
Ralph
Tuesday, January 1, 2019
January 1st -- Emancipation Day
A New York Times op-ed essay by the Rev. Jesse Jackson yesterday taught me something I did not know -- and indicted me and other white Southerners like me in all our white privilege ignorance.
I have lived for 86 years, mostly in the South, and I did not know the significance of January 1st for the descendants of slaves -- for all of us, really. According to Rev. Jackson (and Wikipedia agrees with him), President Abraham Lincoln announced on September 22, 1862 that slaves in states that were still in rebellion in 100 days would be freed.
Then on that 100th day, January 1, 1863, Lincoln issued the final Emancipation Proclamation that "all persons held as slaves . . . are, and henceforward shall be, free."
On December 31st, 1862, there were many black people who still had not been freed by their owners, and the anticipation and hope with which they waited for their freedom must have been almost unbearable. Could they really believe it would happen?
According to Rev. Jackson, the night before is still commemorated in black churches as a "Watch Night," where the congregants gather to pray and sing songs of freedom, as they originally did waiting to see if Mr. Lincoln would keep his promise. He did -- in the most significant presidential executive order ever, before or since.
Freed by presidential proclamation on January 1, 1863, it was subsequently ratified as the 13th amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1865.
Why is January 1st not then recognized and celebrated as Emancipation Day? We even have declared Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday a national holiday. Why were we white Southerners, especially, not taught this in history classes, if nowhere else?
The gross act of owning and enforcing the labor of another person ended long ago. But unequal rights and unequal privilege as citizens still remain throughout all strata of our society.
We're now in a phase of recognizing more and more the subtleties of white privilege, the insidious effects of unconscious prejudice, and the multiple ways in which our black citizens still do not have the same freedoms. It shows in job statistics, in red-lining real estate unequal treatment, in voting laws that disadvantage certain groups, in police racial profiling, and throughout our criminal justice system.
Something to think about in 2019. And not just think about -- work to change. Working to overturn all the voter-suppression tactics of the Republicans would be a good place to put those efforts.
Ralph
I have lived for 86 years, mostly in the South, and I did not know the significance of January 1st for the descendants of slaves -- for all of us, really. According to Rev. Jackson (and Wikipedia agrees with him), President Abraham Lincoln announced on September 22, 1862 that slaves in states that were still in rebellion in 100 days would be freed.
Then on that 100th day, January 1, 1863, Lincoln issued the final Emancipation Proclamation that "all persons held as slaves . . . are, and henceforward shall be, free."
On December 31st, 1862, there were many black people who still had not been freed by their owners, and the anticipation and hope with which they waited for their freedom must have been almost unbearable. Could they really believe it would happen?
According to Rev. Jackson, the night before is still commemorated in black churches as a "Watch Night," where the congregants gather to pray and sing songs of freedom, as they originally did waiting to see if Mr. Lincoln would keep his promise. He did -- in the most significant presidential executive order ever, before or since.
Freed by presidential proclamation on January 1, 1863, it was subsequently ratified as the 13th amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1865.
Why is January 1st not then recognized and celebrated as Emancipation Day? We even have declared Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday a national holiday. Why were we white Southerners, especially, not taught this in history classes, if nowhere else?
The gross act of owning and enforcing the labor of another person ended long ago. But unequal rights and unequal privilege as citizens still remain throughout all strata of our society.
We're now in a phase of recognizing more and more the subtleties of white privilege, the insidious effects of unconscious prejudice, and the multiple ways in which our black citizens still do not have the same freedoms. It shows in job statistics, in red-lining real estate unequal treatment, in voting laws that disadvantage certain groups, in police racial profiling, and throughout our criminal justice system.
Something to think about in 2019. And not just think about -- work to change. Working to overturn all the voter-suppression tactics of the Republicans would be a good place to put those efforts.
Ralph
Wednesday, December 26, 2018
holiday break
Sorry, folks. I had intended to write a holiday message before signing off for the rest of the year. But preparations for the family trip caught up with me before I got it done; and I have subsequently been out of town for a few days.
Back now, but I will take the rest of the year off. So Happy New Year. Fortify yourself for what will probably be a bruising 2019 in the world of politics and government.
Ralph
Back now, but I will take the rest of the year off. So Happy New Year. Fortify yourself for what will probably be a bruising 2019 in the world of politics and government.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
