Trump's position denounced by both Dick Cheney and the Obama White House

Donald Trump repeated his call to shut our doors to ALL Muslims, "until our representatives can figure out what's going on."   Donald Trump may not know what's going on, but President Obama told us clearly on Sunday evening what's is going on.   Further, he put it in the perspective that we should accept.

We do know.    The truth is that it is a function of our freedom and democracy that we are not going to close our doors -- especially to our own citizens -- because of their religious faith.  The other fact to remember is that the attacks of mass shootings that have occurred in this country in the past several years are overwhelmingly NOT done by Muslims, by one counting just three out of over 200.

So . . . take a deep breath.   San Bernadino is a frightening development, because it clearly indicates how the Islamic State is now fostering "lone wolf" terrorism that does not require central planning or help -- or even contact -- from them.   Motivate loyalists to their cause to do their own violent thing wherever they are.   And, to the extent we know at this point, there is practically no way this could have been predicted of these particular people.  They gave no outward sign that anyone picked up that they had these intentions.   Yes, in retrospect, some things begin to coalesce;   but nothing set off any alarms beforehand.

When both Dick Cheney and the Obama White House denounce Trump's position as incompatible with what we stand for -- that's a pretty broad base.

Cheney said that it "goes against everything we stand for and believe in."  Josh Ernest spoke for the White House when he said that Trump's position disqualifies him from becoming president of the United States and that other GOP candidates, who have pledged to support whoever their nominee is, should disavow Trump "right now."   As of this writing, neither the RNC nor any of the Republican candidates have done that.

Add to those who denunced Trump's statements:   Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (next in line to be president after Vice President Joe Biden), as well as the chairs of the Republican Party in both New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Ralph

Donald Trump as a national security threat ?

Donald Trump in now promising that as president he would order a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States," and that it would apply to everybody, including tourists.  I wonder if he would allow diplomats from Turkey, Egypt, Indonesia, and Pakistan to attend the U.N. sessions?

This plays into people's fears and takes the bait that the Islamic State leaders want us to do.   Trump is being trumped -- and doesn't seem to know it.   Or maybe he just doesn't care, as long as it pushes his poll numbers up.

Frankly, I'm not there yet, but I'm finding myself thinking:  "Isn't there any way to shut him up?"    Couldn't he be declared a national security threat?    Collaborating with the enemy?  I'm not the only one to think this.    The Atlantic correspondent Jeffrey Goldberg tweeted:  "Donald Trump is now an actual threat to national security. He's providing jihadists ammunition for their campaign to demonize the US."

Well, of course, censoring Trump is not the answer, any more than his fear-mongering.   We have to do a better job on educating the public.   President Obama made a start Sunday night, but it can't stop there.   

Ralph

Later:   Some of his Republican opponents were quick to respond:
Jeb Bush:   "Donald Trump is unhinged."
Lindsey Graham:   "Trump has gone from making absurd comments to being downright dangerous with his bombastic rhetoric."
Chris Christie:   "This is the kind of thing people say when they have no experience and no idea what they're talking about."

Updating on "Religion and violence"

This is an important understanding from Josh Marshall (TalkingPointsMemo chief) about how the Muslim communities in the U.S. differ from those in Europe.   It was published on Dec. 5, 2015, three days after the San Bernadino massacre.   Marshall is on the same page as President Obama in his speech Sunday night about what we should NOT do.

". . . . The kinds of surveillance and scrutiny which inevitably fall on suspect populations . . . are exactly the kinds of strictures which over time are likely to create the kind of social isolation and alienation which seems, from the evidence we have from Europe, to create a breeding ground for radicalization. So getting the balance right is very difficult. . . .  

". . . we've had abundant evidence that Muslims in Europe, and particularly Muslims whose ancestry is in Muslim majority countries . . . appear to be substantially more prone to radicalization and participation is mass casualty terror attacks than immigrants and descendants of immigrants from those countries now living in the United States.  We have lots of evidence for this both in journalistic and academic studies. And we have lots of evidence in a volume of terrorist attacks. . . .

"Virtually everyone who has studied the matter concludes that it is this social isolation that is at the root of the greater propensity toward radicalization and willingness, albeit for a tiny subsection of the population, to commit acts of violence.

". . . .  One key issue is that Western European countries simply have much less historical experience with mass immigration or the mix of ethnic diversity and assimilation that it brings with it and requires. Another too little discussed issue is that the great majority of these immigrants in France and the United Kingdom are immigrants from or descendants of immigrants from countries which France and the UK once ruled as colonies.   In the case of France . . .  Algeria was for decades not a colony . . .  but an integral part of the French Republic . . .  but with the vast majority of Muslims lacking full civil and political rights. . . .  [I]t must play some role in the way . . .  immigrants in France . . . remain a people apart in a way that seems profoundly different from in the U.S . . . .

"It means that one of our key strategic defenses . . . is and has been the relatively high level of integration of American Muslims. . . .  [It would be a mistake for us] to turn American Muslims into a suspect population, walled off from the mainstream of American life by fear, bigotry and even well-intentioned broad and aggressive surveillance.

"I don't say this as just some big pluralism Kumbaya. . . .  My point is that . . . even if we collectively said, 'okay enough, it's too dangerous not to finally crack down' and do all the stuff the Islamophobes want, we'd likely be sowing more trouble. We'd end up like France. . . ."

*     *     *

This is an important understanding that Marshall is offering.   Our experience is different, because immigrants to the U.S. are more likely to have become integrated into our society, have felt welcomed and valued -- at least by some of us.    If we change that by giving in to Islamophobia and loud-mouthed fear-mongerers, like Donald Trump, we will only make things worse for ourselves -- and we will certainly make life worse for our American brothers and sisters of the Muslim faith.

Now, having said this, we certainly have to maintain and, if possible even increase, our scrutiny of those who attempt to come into our country with intent to do us harm -- as well as those already here who become radicalized through internet propaganda and/or travel abroad to meet with radical recruiters.

But let's target what works -- like closing the loophole that allows people with European Union passports to come in without visas.   Let's not turn a billion peaceful Muslims into suspect terrorists or tarnish those intensely scrutinized refugees who have already suffered enough.

Ralph

Obama's Oval Office address on terrorism

President Obama gave his third only address from the Oval Office setting last night, signalling that he considered this a major speech.   And it was.

It was a calm, measured call for restraint along with our smart and determined resolve to defeat those who would destroy us.   He called us to the mature response of not giving in to fear or to those who would stir up fear and demand that we come out shooting.

It's clear that our president and his advisers understand this complex situation far better than those Republican candidates who want him to invade Syria and Iraq with hundreds of thousands of ground troops, or to bomb the s--t out of them.   It is rather pathetic to see Donald Trump boasting even more broadly (if that's possible) about how tough he would be, yet revealing that he has no plans and really wouldn't know what to do.  But he would do something tough, "so tough you don't want to hear about it !!!

Please, God, save us from letting such people get control of the White House and the nuclear bomb trigger.

Of course, Obama's speech was not satisfying to those who are itching (for someone else) to fight.    But the president is correct:   that would be taking the bait that the Islamic State is trying to goad us into taking.   Nothing increases their influence and the recruiting strength like us attacking.    But it's hard to meld the mentality of such cool rationalism and the hot heads that are calling him "such a pussy" . . . and worse.

Ralph

Missouri Dem says: make buying a gun as difficult as getting an abortion

From an article by Gloriasb on DailyKos:

Missouri State Rep. Stacy Newman has a proposed bill that would:  “require anyone buying a gun to follow the restrictions required of women seeking abortions, including a 72-hour waiting period.”    Despite being regularly insulted and subjected to jeers by her legislative colleagues, she has long-championed common sense gun laws and pro-choice measures.   Her bill would require this before permission to buy a gun: 

1.  "Meet with a licensed physician to discuss the risks of gun ownership at least 72 hours before attempting to buy a gun and obtain a written notice approval.
  
2.  "Buy the gun from a licensed gun dealer located at least 120 miles from the purchaser’s legal residence.

3.  "Review the medical risks associated with firearms, including photographs of fatal firearm injuries, and the alternatives to purchasing a firearm, including “materials about peaceful and nonviolent conflict resolution,” with the gun dealer orally and in writing.

4.  "Watch a 30-minute video about fatal firearm injuries. . . .

5.  "Tour an emergency trauma center at the nearest qualified urban hospital on a weekend between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., when gun violence victims are present, and get written verification from a doctor.

6.  "Meet with at least two families who have been victims of gun violence and two local faith leaders who have officiated, within the last year, a funeral for a victim of gun violence who was under the age of 18."

Because the bill so closely mirrors the requirements for getting an abortion in Missouri, this proposal is a challenge to the pro-life advocates.   Of course, it won't get any serious consideration -- but, damn, doesn't it feel good to make them squirm?

Ralph

Chris Hayes on "two things we tend to forget" in the wake of an atrocity

On Friday, Chris Hayes of MSNBC's "All In" reminded us of this:
In the wake of  TV news coverage of an atrocity, there are two things we tend to lose sight of:

First that "we are dealing with fellow human beings, with inner lives and loves and hopes and dreams. . . and that there is a space for grace and dignity."

The second thing to remember, in watching all this TV coverage, is that "we don't report on the planes that land."  That means that "what happened in Paris and San Bernadino is blessedly rare."

Bernie Sanders leads each GOP candidate in match-up polls

In the latest Quinnipiac University individual match-up polling, Bernie Sanders leads each of the top four Republican candidates.   So does Hillary Clinton, although in each case her lead is a little smaller than is Sanders'.

49%   Sanders                         47%   Clinton
41%   Trump                            41%   Trump

44%   Sanders                         45%   Clinton
43%   Rubio                             44%   Rubio

49%   Sanders                         47%   Clinton
39%   Cruz                                 42%   Cruz

47%   Sanders                         46%   Clinton
41%   Carson                            43%   Carson   

In the same poll, however, Clinton leads Sanders by a widening margin of 60% to 30%, with O'Malley trailing at 2% and 6% undecided.

Another interesting feature of this poll is the favorability/unfavorability ratings.

      44/51   (  -  7%  net)      Clinton
        44/31   (+ 12%  net)     Sanders

        35/57   (  -22%  net)   Trump
        40/33   (  + 7%  net)    Carson
        37/28    (  + 9% net)    Rubio
        33/33    (  even  )         Carson

Interesting !!    Sanders has the highest favorability rating of all at +12%, followed by Rubio at +9% and Carson at +7%.    Here's a twist:   the front runners in each party are the only ones who have a greater than 50% unfavorability score and a negative overall net:  Clinton -7% and Trump -22%. 

What does it all means eleven months before the election?     Who knows?    If this trend continues, does it suggest that Sanders could really win?   He also has the best ratings on "honesty and trustworthy" at 59% to 28%.  Maybe we should stop saying "we like him but don't think he can win"?

Ralph 

Added note:    These polls were taken before the San Bernadino massacre.   Donald Trump is said to be having a surge since then, presumable related to his (empty) tough talk about being "so tough you don't want to hear about it."