Tag Archives: Trump

Could we get a little perspective here? Immigrants, Numbers, and Trumpian Fearmongering

Oh mercy me! Merciful mercies…there are 5000 migrants “storming” our southern border, waileth the Trumpian fearmongers, intent as they are on creating a curtain of dread veiling the eyes of those who are susceptible to such manipulation.  Let’s take what’s probably an inflated number (5,000) of people seeking to apply for asylum along our southern border and compare that to some other examples of people “storming” in lines we see every day.

For example.  The Clark County Department of Aviation compiles statistics on the number of people who “storm” McCarran International Airport.  (pdf)  Wow, thus far in 2018 we’ve been “stormed” by 25,013,841 people!  But wait, we like these people. They come, some spend money at the airport, some get off the planes in Terminal 1 and go spend more money in our special Nevada play zones; playing with cards, and machines, and things with bells and whistles designed to help separate our tourists from their dollars.   Now, get out the old plastic brains and punch in 5,000 and divide that by 25,013,841.  Hint: You are going to get a small number with an exponent “e-4” on the tail end of it.  We can play with these numbers a bit more.

Try this.  Compare the 5,000 “storming” the southern border with the McCarran traffic for one month.  Let’s take a happy month for us — July — with many happy people who land in Nevada’s sunny climes to part with their paychecks; 2,991,599 of them in the month of July.  There are 31 days in July, so divide the number above by 31.  No exponent this time.  There’s an average of 96,503 passengers using terminal 1 each day in July.  Now, divide 5,000 by 96,503 and you’ll get 0.0518, turn that into a percentage and it’s 5.2%.  In other words the “storm” at the US southern border is a measly 5.2% of the number of passengers using McCarran International Airport Terminal 1 on a SINGLE DAY  in the month of July.

We can play with some other numbers from the northern part of the state, for example, RTC ridership in Washoe County.  The RTC published a report of YOY comparisons for April 2016 (pdf)  reporting 105.082 rides on the RAPID system, coming in at about 43.8 rides per service hour.  Handy calculator time again please.  Our word problem solution for this one is that 5,000 “stormers” are about 4.8% of the rides on the Washoe RTC RAPID system.  Not so much of a storm huh?

But wait, cry the fearmongers, these stormers will clog up our social services and get welfare… uh, not so much, non-citizens in Nevada aren’t eligible for social service benefits.  But but but — they’ll pack our schools!  There are 492,496 youngsters enrolled in Nevada public schools (exc downld) and again our calculator hops into action.  If every single one of the 5,000 Stormers from the “Great? Caravan” were a school aged youngster and they all enrolled in a Nevada public school they’d constitute a — wait for it — a 1.01% increase in public school population.  Hardly the stuff of alarmist proportions.  Realistically, they aren’t all school aged, they aren’t all coming here, and they aren’t anything remotely like a “storm” of invaders upon our southern flank. Please take two deep breaths and call a friend for consolation prior to any more anxiety attacks based on “swamping” our schools blathering.

So, why all the televised emphasis on the “caravan?”  It’s good “optics” for the racists.  Get a nice tight crowd shot of “illegals storming” the border and the fear factor kicks in — much more so than if we emphasize the FACT that most visa over-stays are people who fly in.

DHS has determined that there were 52,656,022 in-scope nonimmigrant admissions to the United States through air or sea POEs with expected departures occurring in FY 2017; the in-scope admissions represent the vast majority of all air and sea nonimmigrant admissions. Of this number, DHS calculated a total overstay rate of 1.33 percent, or 701,900 overstay events.”

Excuse me, but I’m having a problem here envisioning a “storm” of unlawful entries into this country when we have most visa overstays dribbling in through POEs by air and sea, and there’s a 1.33% overstay rate.  What I’m not having a problem seeing is that people like the current POTUS, and his sidekick the virulently racist Stephen Miller, are driving a PR campaign to convince people that Brown is Bad, and that “hordes” of “those (read ‘brown’) people” are “storming” our southern border.  I’m not buying it, and frankly speaking I don’t think anyone else should be buying into their malarkey either.

Comments Off on Could we get a little perspective here? Immigrants, Numbers, and Trumpian Fearmongering

Filed under Immigration, Politics

Make America Good Again: Trump plays the race deck

MAGA blue good again

I’d rather not hear anyone from the right side of the political aisle make accusatory noises about “playing the race card.”  The Oval Office oaf is playing the whole deck, including during his performance in Las Vegas.  The GOP motto of the moment appears to be “Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid.”   There’s a …. caravan coming.  This isn’t a dog whistle to the white nationalists among us, it’s a bull horn announcement for all to hear.

The image: Thousands of brown skinned people approaching our southern border; brown people who are likely rapists, drug dealers, gang members, and now “middle eastern” potential terrorists.   “Patriots” grab your Second Amendment Solutions, protect your women and children; face down this onslaught of brown peril!  He who is President hasn’t yet used the term “brown peril,” but it can’t be too long before he does. He has already let us know he’s a “nationalist.”  All he has to do now is add “white” to make the statement completely true.

Demonize these migrants often enough and perhaps people will forget he put children in cages, separated from their parents at the southern border, and some 136 of them have yet to be reunited with parents his administration admits it cannot locate. Demonize them stridently enough and perhaps people will come to the conclusion that whatever might happen to them in detention camps is warranted?  Demonize them vitriolically enough and his “base” will applaud indefinite detention of families and children in an increasingly cruel and uncivilized application of immigration policy?

Demonize them, and by extension demonize those immigrants who came before, and those who have long since become U.S. citizens, and castigate the Democrats as the party of “others.”  “Others” who are not like “real Americans” and therefore must be unintelligent, obsequious, corrupt and capable of being corrupted, illegal and thus easily tempted to do illegal acts (like voting); “Others” who must be eliminated from our body politic before despoiling the white purity of our republic.

This kind of rhetoric from the White House isn’t discriminatory, it’s eliminationist.  Democrats are an “angry mob.”  While the anger of the Proud Boys spills out from the Republican Club in NYC and protesters are beaten; while the anger of the White Nationalists surges in Charlottesville bearing tiki torches and driving a vehicle into a crowd, killing one person and injuring several others; while these incidents are publicized for all to see, Trump and his minions project their own anger, their own frustration, their own bigotry onto the others.  It isn’t too far from the mentality of the mobs which gathered to watch, and to applaud, the lynching of African American men, or who took part in the lynching of  Michael Donald in 1981.

If Trump can’t find any examples of terrorists in the crowd of migrant refugees, he can use two of his favorite tricks.  Trick OneReverse the burden of proof.  When asked about whether there were gang members and middle eastern terrorists in the crowds, Trump replied that the news organizations should be the ones to investigate the matter. He is telling us that he believes this mythology (or finds it useful) and that it is up to everyone else to fact check him. He conveniently places the burden of proof on the media to debunk his lies, while he keeps lying.

Trick Two: Never admit a mistake.  If an independent investigation demonstrates no connection between immigrants and Democrats, then it must be that the news media didn’t look hard enough, didn’t look in the right places, didn’t debunk all the possible permutations of his preferred conspiracy theory of the day.  There’s a variation on this theme:  Move the goal posts.  It’s not enough to release a birth certificate, it has to be the long form.  It’s not enough to release the long form, the long form has to be verified by original sources. And so it goes. If this doesn’t work there’s always the dismissive “it’s not important anymore” comment.  We’ve seen this before.  He simple doesn’t want to talk about those instances when he has been emphatically, demonstrably, totally, dead wrong. So, he doesn’t.  He moves on to his next lie.

Flood the zone:  More lies, more often, and more work for the fact checkers.  This past week has been instructive if we’re looking for big lies, little lies, and a preponderance of lies.  We’re going to have a 10% tax cut for the middle class!  Not while Congress isn’t in session.  Well, maybe when Congress meets after the mid-terms…. maybe never because his first round of tax cuts has blown up the deficit.

He’d rather say anything than admit his Senate Majority Leaders has let the cat out of the burlap bag when McConnell openly stated programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security would have to be cut to pay for Trump’s tax bonus to the top 1%.

Mexico is never paying for his wall.  But, we have to have a wall. We have to have a wall. There’s a caravan, so there has to be a wall.  That there is precious little public land in Texas on which to put this wall and buying up private land (and using the dreaded eminent domain) will be prohibitively expensive, doesn’t matter.  It’s the symbolism of the wall, the idea of a physical barrier between the hordes of women and children and the border which is important to the imagery.

Perhaps we should listen to the “survivors” of the “Bowling Green Massacre?”  There are “riots in California.”  Interesting.  I haven’t seen any sign of this on my television set, and I live in an area in which California news is quite common.  There are more lies about how many jobs are related to arms deals with Saudi Arabia — and more about the size of the deals themselves. [VanFair]

His White House will not respond to inquiries about those “terrorists” in the caravan of migrants, nor does he answer too many questions about specifics of the Saudi arms deals; he will, however, change his tune concerning the murder of Jamal Khashoggi to fit the Saudi attempt at explication of the moment. [BBC]

There are two weeks until the U.S. mid-term elections.  Two weeks.  This is the checkpoint.  This is the place where the road forks and the lies, the demonization, and the obfuscation continue or it can take the other route and the guard rails gradually move back into place.  No one else can do this for us. We have to do it for ourselves. Vote.

Comments Off on Make America Good Again: Trump plays the race deck

Filed under Heller, Nevada, Nevada politics, Politics

And Now Back To Our Regular Program: Post Kavanaugh Infrastructure Week

Senatorial candidate/incumbent Dean Heller (R-NV) was pleased to tweet Justice Kavanaugh was confirmed.  Not that the confirmation was a major surprise.  The Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans didn’t want to investigate his background, the White House didn’t want to investigate his background, the Chief Justice sat on complaints arising from his background [WaPo] and the pundit class was ever so pleased to have a “dramatic” confirmation to cover.  There were other elements which should have come as no surprise either.

The newspapers and broadcast media played along with the “controversy.”  Was it “he said, she said?”  What were women thinking? What were Trump-Women thinking?  Was he going to be the swing vote on challenges to Roe v. Wade?  Not too much ink and precious few pixels were expended describing his position on workers’ rights, on environmental regulations, on human rights, on much of anything other than the abortion issue.  Yawn.  Those more complex issues require deeper reporting and far more depth in explication and they don’t sell advertising.   Once more we’re reminded that the general public is not the first audience for television and print media business operations — it’s the advertisers.

Therefore, why would anyone be surprised the media aired and printed GOP bombast about “paid protesters,” and “mobs” of angry people?  There has always been a double standard at work in this realm.  The Status Quo is male, business ownership oriented, quaffs its scotch and water or sipping whiskey beside polished bars and inside elegant doors, and buys advertising — or knows someone who does.  The cameras will follow the freest spirit clad in the most outrageous costuming for a protest occasion, while those dressed more conservatively aren’t often in the frame because they don’t “tell the story.”  Or, at least not the story the advertisers want to tell.

Women have known since the era of the suffragettes that men are “passionate,” while women are “hysterical and emotional.”  If a person isn’t sure about this take another look at Serena Williams’ protest of an official’s call which may very well have cost her a championship match.  Women have known all along theirs is not the story the Status Quo wants in the headlines above the fold, or leading the broadcast.  The numbers of women who remember a time when all the ‘shelter’ magazines advised them to give up their jobs so returning soldiers could be assured of employment and a comfortable ‘nest’ at home are dwindling, but the memory is still within a life span.

Viewers watch marching neo-nazis with tiki torches, chanting “Blood and Soil,” while sporting their tidy white polo shirts and khaki trousers.  Gee, they don’t give the general impression of an “angry mob.”  It’s only when the cameras move closer to the faces that the hate is visible.  Compare the visual to the preferred camera target in a contemporary protest.  Once the march leaders are shown the cameras seek out the most eye-catching characters.  They usually don’t have that white-washed polo shirt look.  They are often students who don’t own more than one suit, if that, and certainly don’t want to risk getting really good clothing messed up during the inevitable police action which could ensue.  So, it’s jeans and T-shirts/jackets compared on screen to polo shirts and khakis.  No matter the jeans and T’s are defending 1st Amendment rights by exercising them, as the khaki klan seeks to impose white supremacy on a diverse country.  But, what about “the men?”

Once more the media allows the big players to frame the game.  If the #MeToo movement has gathered support and seems to be adding adherents and allies, then what might the Status Quo do to counter?  This week was a classic.  Elite, rich, elderly white males stood before us crying (and whining) about men being the victims of modernity.  However, this whine has been boiling for a long time.  Consider the continuous complaints of the Rush Limbaugh’s of the airwaves with their moaning about ‘feminazis” and how a real American guy can’t swat Mary Jane’s fanny when she steps into the garage — how a real man can’t wolf whistle at all the Mary Jane’s who have to walk past a construction site — how real men can’t catch a break because of all the women in the workplace who stifle the man’s competitive spirit.  Of course, real men don’t feel the need to swat Mary Jane’s fanny in the garage; they don’t need to wolf whistle; and they control most of the management positions in corporate America.  This isn’t news.

When all else fails the right can be assured the old anti-Semitic ploys will work.  If all the canned ham look-a-likes (Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, etc)  don’t manage to put a major dent in the image of protesters who don’t care for sexism and misogyny, there’s always the “paid protester” line… in this case George Soros who makes a convenient stand-in for the old anti-Rothchild propaganda of an earlier era.  The old double standard works here as well.  The Tea Partiers were “Real America.”  The Occupy Wall Street protesters must have been paid.  The contemporary protesters, mostly women last week, must surely have been paid — according to the elite, rich, white, males who celebrated ignoring them.

Will this, the press asked, cause a closer horse race in the mid-terms?  There is absolutely nothing the press seems to like more than a horse race, a sporting event, anything which will allow the punditry to pontificate on sports cliches like “momentum.”  Spare me. All the press has to work with are general, national or statewide, polling.  It does not have access to internal, private, number crunching performed on behalf of the campaigns themselves.  Most individuals who have been “in politics” for more than a school committee race know the truth of the O’Neill Maxim: All politics is local. 

Besides the “big” stuff the cable channels like to cover, there are better questions which they can’t answer because they just flat out don’t have the resources to do so. For example, they don’t have much of a handle on “candidate fit,” or how the specific candidate fits the local electorate.  They don’t have access to local politically active organizations which do phone banks, walks, and other services for campaigns. Nor do they have a way to gauge the effectiveness of local politically related leadership in social and other organizations.  The “media” may have a 35K view of a national issue, but there’s plenty of cloud cover before it sees what is going on in Ward 4 of Congressional District 3’s race. Not that we should ignore the media reportage, but we do need to be cognizant of how limited it is.

There’s the post hoc ergo procter hoc problem.  Even after an election the media may proclaim that some national issue had “an effect,” while underneath that “effect” may very well be the fact that Candidate X launched a full throat-ed ad buy, along with a deluge of phone bankers, combined with a legion of precinct walkers in the last week.

Thus,  for those who have survived another Infrastructure Week of the divisive, deflective, dumpster disaster which is the Trump Era,  there are mid-term elections which will be determined by who votes for whom.

Who has the best get out the vote plan? Who executes that plan best?

Who has the better candidate who best fits the district or state? Who executes the campaign best?

Who just flat out works harder to get in office or stay that way?  Who didn’t let the Outrage du Jour distract them from campaigning on issues near and dear to their constituents hearts — regardless of the media tendencies, press proclivities, and advertisers demands.  Who kept their eyes on the prize when others were distracted by double standards and double vision?

When we vote we win. That’s all there is to it.

 

Comments Off on And Now Back To Our Regular Program: Post Kavanaugh Infrastructure Week

Filed under Heller, Judicial, media, media ownership, Nevada politics, Politics

Sheer Incompetence Plus Venality: Trump’s Landscape

Somewhere in the midst of my barely controlled anger over the treatment of Dr. Ford by the current administration and my propensity not to let go of a bone previously gnawed, I’m reaching the conclusion that the Oval Office is a dismal domain of sheer incompetence combined with utter venality, mixed with a pattern of responses to critical news.

A brief review — Dr. Ford offered credible testimony indicating Judge Kavanaugh engaged in reprehensible acts as a young man.  There is corroborating testimony, not necessarily to the actual event in question in all its detail, but to the character of the man, and to the likelihood that her allegations are possibly true, and importantly that Judge Kavanaugh has certainly been less than forthcoming about various aspects of his character.

Another brief review — Christopher Steele, British author and former MI6 agent, was so concerned about activities involving the Trump campaign and the Russians that he compiled his information into memos and relayed the information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in July and October of 2016.  His opposition research was originally contracted by a conservative organization in 2015, and later picked up by DNC/Clinton Campaign in the Spring of 2016.

Yet another brief review — The New York Times runs a compendious article about the Trump fortune which should demolish any mythology surrounding the 45th president concerning the origin of his putative fortune.  No, he didn’t get a small loan from his father; he got several large loans from his father many of which were forgiven.  No, he is not a successful tycoon, his father had to bail him out of not one but several financial disasters.

What do these have in common? First, they are both uncomfortable topics for the current administration. Secondly, there’s a pattern in the administration’s responses.  No sooner does the information begin to emerge than the response is to discredit the source.  Dr. Ford can’t remember all the details of her traumatic evening, therefore the description must not be completely reliable. If it is not totally reliable then the Judge must be innocent before proven guilty, as if a job interview for a judgeship is a matter for criminal prosecution.  Christopher Steel’s memos cannot all the verified, therefore all of his assertions and descriptions in his reporting must be suspect; none can be accepted until all can be demonstratively proven.  The information in the NY Times article is “old news, and a hit piece,”  except that there is ‘news’ in the account.

Once the seed is planted discrediting the source it’s time to play the verbiage game.  It’s time to spin the narrative wheel and see where the needle lands?   The administration is fond of prefacing any commentary related to the Steele memos as “debunked.”  They’ve hardly been debunked, in fact most of the allegations contained in the memos have been verified.  Only the Pee Tape mythology remains illusive.  However, here we see the pattern again — if something cannot be 100% nailed down and documented the entirety of the assertions and allegations must be dismissed out of hand.

The administration would tell us that Dr. Ford’s description of Judge Kavanaugh’s behavior cannot be verified, but its own haste to conduct a “supplemental” background check left out so many avenues of possible verification the “check” part of the sentence remains vague to the point of vacuity.

The Oval Office would have us believe the NY Times financial article, so lengthy it required more paper for the print edition, was a rehash of old accusations.  In actuality it’s a careful, meticulous rendition of the tax scams, shady dealing, and intra-familial self dealing which enabled the current resident of 1600 PA Avenue to claim — without a bit of substantiation — he is a self made billionaire.  Far from being the brilliant businessman, Trump is more likely the stumbling fool who paid too much for the New Jersey Generals, and managed to bankrupt a casino business.

Here’s what I believe we can reasonably expect:

(1) The pattern will continue, if only because the Administration is so spectacularly inept.  Little wonder things like the Kavanaugh nomination, the first Muslim Ban, the Immigration Zero Tolerance plan, and other action blow up in their faces.  The actions are ill considered, incompletely thought out, and incompetently implemented.  This is a recipe for a debacle in any forum.

(2) The pattern will continue as long as reporting plays along with the talking points game.  Adding “debunked” to the Steele memos doesn’t mean that most of them weren’t straight on point.  Adding “unsubstantiated” to Dr. Ford’s testimony doesn’t mean her story is any less generally credible.  Adding “old news hit piece” to the New York Times reporting doesn’t mean it doesn’t shed considerable light on the financial machinations of the Trump family, and Donald J Trump in particular.

Thus when we begin with sheer incompetence, ineptly implementing fundamentally flawed policy from the most venal perspective possible, it’s no accident we are in for a bombardment of reactions tailored to discredit the sources, over-generalize the message, and under-evaluate any underlying veracity.   Given the nature of sheer incompetence this is about all we can come to expect.

What is interesting is to watch politicians like Adam Laxalt and Dean Heller try to anchor their campaigns on the shifting shingle beaches of the Trump landscape littered with venality, incompetence, and bombast.

Comments Off on Sheer Incompetence Plus Venality: Trump’s Landscape

Filed under Heller, Nevada politics, Politics

Our Outrage Was Insufficient: Tent City Terrors

If we thought the outrage was sufficient to make the current administration reverse its inhumane immigration policies — we were wrong.  This from the New York Times two days ago:

In shelters from Kansas to New York, hundreds of migrant children have been roused in the middle of the night in recent weeks and loaded onto buses with backpacks and snacks for a cross-country journey to their new home: a barren tent city on a sprawling patch of desert in West Texas.

In their former residences the children had access to schools, and to legal assistance. In their new housing they are given workbooks (read: busy work) left ungraded or marked, and they have limited access to any legal assistance they might require.

How many children? 1,600 so far.  The capacity of the “tent city” to which the children were sent is now estimated at 3,800.  The Department of Health and Human Services says these transfers are being done to protect the children from trafficking and other abuses. Not. So. Fast.

“The roughly 100 shelters that have, until now, been the main location for housing detained migrant children are licensed and monitored by state child welfare authorities, who impose requirements on safety and education as well as staff hiring and training.

The tent city in Tornillo, on the other hand, is unregulated, except for guidelines created by the Department of Health and Human Services. For example, schooling is not required there, as it is in regular migrant children shelters.” [NYT]

This doesn’t quite square with DHHS FAQs on the subject of housing and services:

UAC shelters provide housing, nutrition, physical and mental healthcare, educational services, and recreational activities such as television and sports. They provide an environment on par with facilities in the child welfare system that house American children.

The facilities are operated by nonprofit grantees that are certified by state authorities responsible for regulating such facilities housing children.

The statement above tends to summarize the guidelines from the Department of Health and Human Services, (see below) but the situation in Texas certainly doesn’t sound like it comports with the requirements:

“Care providers must conduct an educational assessment within 72-hours of a UAC’s admission into the facility in order to determine the academic level of the child and any particular needs he or she may have. Care providers must provide educational services based on the individual academic development, literacy level, and linguistic ability of each unaccompanied alien child.

Each unaccompanied alien child must receive a minimum of six hours of structured education, Monday through Friday, throughout the entire year in basic academic areas (Science, Social Studies, Math, Reading, Writing, Physical Education, and English as a Second Language (ESL), if applicable). Care providers adapt or modify local educational standards to develop curricula and assessments, based on the average length of stay for UAC at the care provider facility, and provide remedial education and after school tutoring as needed. Learning materials must reflect cultural diversity and sensitivity. Any academic breaks must be approved in advance by the care provider’s Project Officer. In no event will any academic break be approved that is over two (2) weeks in duration.

Unaccompanied alien children may be separated into class groups according to their academic development, level of literacy, and linguistic ability rather than by chronological age. As needed, unaccompanied alien children must be provided an opportunity for learning advancement, such as independent study, special projects, pre-GED classes and college preparatory tutorials, among others. Academic reports and progress notes are included and updated in the unaccompanied alien child’s case file which is either sent to another care provider in the event of a transfer or released to the unaccompanied alien child upon discharge.

In short, if the children were left in “regular migrant shelters” then the guidance referenced above would be required, but it seems not to apply to the Tornillo facility, perhaps because the latter is considered “short term” or a transitory station for those who are to be released shortly?  This calls up the question: If the youngsters, presumably ages 13-17), are soon to be released then WHY move them at all?  And, the question about why move them at night is answered in the New York Times article: The authorities wanted to minimize the youngsters’ ability to run away.

Right now is as good a time as any to recall that:

(1) The Trump Administration hasn’t really done much to alter the inhumanity of its immigration policies, and certainly not in respect to our treatment of children.

(2) The Administration is increasing, not decreasing, its efforts to penalize, stigmatize, and traumatize people who approach our ports of entry seeking asylum. It is legal to seek asylum.  It is unconscionable to narrow the justification for seeking asylum such that almost no one becomes eligible.

(3) It is unconstitutional, immoral, indecent, and inhumane to separate children from their parents.  The Administration still has not fully complied with the court ordered reunification of parents and children.  The executive branch made a hash of the original plan, hoped no one would notice what a debacle the policy created, and then sought to have the ACLU become responsible for fixing the Administration’s mess.

(4) The Administration is currently seeking to hold some children indefinitely.  Indefinitely.

(5) The Administration is relying on the services of BCFS to provide the expertise and governance of the shelter.  BCFS advertises its world wide connections, but its government partnerships are mostly with Texas, along with Nevada, Washington, and Maine, and the City of Los Angeles.  It also lists various federal agencies among its partners.  There is certainly nothing intrinsically wrong with agencies farming out projects to non-profits, it’s done all the time in a variety of circumstances.  However, the old business adage always applies: “You can’t control what you don’t own.”

The bottom line appears to be that the administration is forging an immigration policy predicated on blatant racism (no Brownish Tinged People Need Apply) and founded on the concept that to make America great again America should be White.  How can we be great if we allow people to come from “Sh*thole Countries?”

It’s time to hear, very clearly, from our federal office seeking candidates — for example Senator Dean Heller (R-NV).  At what point do we stop advocating stop-gap partial fixes which “pronounce” the displeasure of Congress with the notion of separating children from their families, and take up REAL immigration policy reform?

When do we do the right thing?  Protect Dreamers?  Allow a path to citizenship for qualified productive members of our society? Protect naturalized citizens from petty prosecutions and pointless deportations?  Protect natural born citizens from ridiculously racist harassment? Cherish the children who come to us seeking our help and shelter?

“Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen.  But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an everflowing stream.” (Amos 5:23-24)

In other words, when do we cut the song and dance and do the right thing?

1 Comment

Filed under Human Rights, Immigration, Politics

A Question For Wes Duncan, Candidate for NV Attorney General

And a question for GOP candidates for the same office in other states… Do you agree with Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) in regard to his amicus brief in Gamble v. US?

“The Utah lawmaker Orrin Hatch, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, filed a 44-page amicus brief earlier this month in Gamble v. United States, a case that will consider whether the dual-sovereignty doctrine should be put to rest. The 150-year-old exception to the Fifth Amendment’s double-jeopardy clause allows state and federal courts to prosecute the same person for the same criminal offense. According to the brief he filed on September 11, Hatch believes the doctrine should be overturned. “The extensive federalization of criminal law has rendered ineffective the federalist underpinnings of the dual sovereignty doctrine,” his brief reads. “And its persistence impairs full realization of the Double Jeopardy Clause’s liberty protections.” [Atlantic]

So what on earth does an Alabama robbery conviction have to do with Trump, and the Mueller investigation?  Consider for just a moment the implications of overturning the dual sovereignty doctrine — essential to our federal system.

To adopt Hatch’s perspective is to (1) Allow the reach of Trump’s pardons to extend to the state level.  Are you listening New York prosecutors?  Are you listening any other state prosecutors who find evidence of conspiracy to defraud the voters in your state by foreign adversaries with the assistance of US citizens?  (2) Close the “escape hatch” by which if Trump were to disrupt, dismantle, or otherwise interrupt the Mueller investigation and prosecutions those could be handed off to state courts.

Thus, and here’s a hypothetical which isn’t too far out of line, what if it comes to pass that the state of Nevada determines our voter registration database has been breached and tampered with?  What if this breach may be rationally argued to have distorted the result of an election for a federal office?  What if the aforementioned breach and subsequent distortion can be reasonably argued to have been the result of a conspiracy between foreign actors and US citizens?   Then could (under the terms of Hatch’s argument) the Attorney General of the State (of Nevada) be precluded from prosecuting the case? (Should a person already have received a presidential pardon.)  Could the President issue a pardon extending to anyone convicted in a Nevada court for this criminal conspiracy?

First, read the amicus brief filed by Senator Hatch. (Word file) Secondly, read the full article in the Atlantic magazine.  Third, get ready to ask candidates Ford and Duncan how they see this matter. 

Comments Off on A Question For Wes Duncan, Candidate for NV Attorney General

Filed under Constitution, Nevada politics, Politics

Hanging Hats on Thin Reeds: Trump and his Nevada Allies

I have to wonder: Do Laxalt, Heller, and Duncan really want to hang their hats on the thin reeds comprising the current GOP position in regard to Trump and his appointees?  Really?  Does a candidate for any office, a governorship, a Senate seat, a position as State Attorney General, want to stand side by side with:

A party leader who had no compunction about railing against a Gold Star family? Please, save the dignity and worthiness of your military service and question whether it’s appropriate to fund raise with, or welcome the endorsement of, a person who disparages a Gold Star family.  Save your rhetoric about serving veterans, about supporting our troops, about believing in the strength and character of our military until such time as it’s possible to square the criticism of a Gold Star family with those words and phrases. Actions speak louder than words, but words do matter.  The words from the standard bearer of the GOP have not aligned with true support for the members of the military, their families, and our veterans.

A party leader who disparages women who voice objections to sexual assault as “inebriated” and “all messed up.”  That, sir, is exactly when it is not appropriate for any young man to take advantage.  Real men don’t press themselves upon an unwilling woman when she is vulnerable; a real man takes her home safely.  Infantile, self-centered, and belligerent men take advantage; real men take care and caution.

A party leader who never seems to have a plan in mind.  “We’ll see what happens,” is not a strategy.  For anything.  We’ll see what happens when we slap high tariffs on Chinese goods? Ask the soy bean farmers…the almond growers…the car manufacturers?  Ask the South Koreans who now look to China and Japan for guidance with their relations with North Korea rather than the United States?  We’ll see what happens when we take ourselves out of the Paris Climate Accords, which were drafted with US demands specifically in mind.  We’ll see what happens when we unilaterally try to disengage from diplomacy with Iran.  Enter the Russians, the Germans, the French, the British. When does the American Century end and we become irrelevant? Did it happen during the UN General Assembly speech when attendees laughed at a point in the address not intended to be a punch line?

A party leader who will not divulge his tax returns nor provide specific information about his business dealings.  A party leader whose airline went broke, who managed to bankrupt his casino business? Who has been through multiple bankruptcies, each shaving his creditors to the core?  Who borrowed money from highly questionable sources when legitimate banks and banking institutions wanted to see the back of him? Who is indebted to heaven knows who for heaven only knows what amounts, under heaven only knows what conditions?  Is this the standard bearer for the party of fiscal responsibility?

A party leader whose high level officials are almost routinely under investigation for misappropriating taxpayer funds for office adornments, upscale travel, personal benefit, and family expenses?  The revolving door in this administration is wafting taxpayer funds around like so much litter on a windswept city street.

A party leader whose thoughts on immigrants and immigration are racist.  Who else would even remotely consider separating children from their parents as an act of “deterrence” to prevent others from believing America to be the City on the Hill? Who else would think no one would care if babies and toddlers were kept in cages? Who else would think it was up to the ACLU to find ways to reunite parents and children? Who else would plunder funds from the Coast Guard, from Cancer Research, and from FEMA to build detention camps reminiscent of Manzanar? Who else would say there were some “very fine people on both sides,” when one side was composed of Neo-Nazis?

Who else would fly the banner suggesting that adolescent boys of color should be perceived and treated as it they were adults (and shot accordingly) while white adolescent boys are to be forgiven their trespasses (and sexual assaults) because boys will be boys?  Who else would find it easy to insult and defame African American women who dare criticize him?

Thus, it’s appropriate to ask Senator Heller, Adam Laxalt, and AG hopeful Duncan– WHY are you standing by, standing with, and standing in silence, as your party leader leads you into the morass of short term gains (his own) and long term losses (ours)?  Why?

Are your tax cuts really worth all that much to you?

Comments Off on Hanging Hats on Thin Reeds: Trump and his Nevada Allies

Filed under Nevada politics, Politics