I don’t like how conservatives are painted as meanies who want to break up families. That’s a set up. That’s like, “When did you stop beating your wife?” Conservatives didn’t force anyone over the border illegally or force anyone to overstay a visa. No one is thrilled at the idea of splitting up families, but that’s not the only criterion in play.
Every single person who is here illegally is here because either: 1) the person made the conscious choice to flout our laws; or 2) the person’s parents (or grandparents) made the conscious choice to flout our laws. Either way, this all started with a bad decision. As a parent, I get that parents will go to extreme lengths for their kids, like giving them a chance to be raised in the United States. As a parent, I also get that I’m accountable for my decisions, even if they end up hurting my kids. As a parent, I resent holding my children accountable to the rule of law when I can’t explain to them why certain other people aren’t held accountable.
If the cookie had crumbled a different way and we were under a Clinton administration, it might never have been an issue. But we’re under a Trump administration, which came to power in large measure because of Donald Trump’s tough stance on deporting illegal immigrants. It is what it is. Families that include people who have no legal right to be here have some choices to make. Only they know which choices are optimal in their situation. However. If they make another bad, i.e., unlawful, decision, they’re accountable for how it turns out.
Meanwhile 80 percent of Americans believe cities that arrest illegal immigrants for crimes should be required to turn them over to immigration authorities. Some of that 80 percent, including myself, are tired of hearing only about the pain of illegal immigrants’ families being split up by deportation. Only since President Trump took office have I heard anything (from the White House) about the pain American families feel when they are split up by an illegal immigrant’s criminal action. Continue reading “SANCTUARY CITIES: SPLITTING UP FAMILIES”→
My favorite part of the week is Ringside Politics Radio Show out of New Orleans on WGSO. They have me on every Friday morning in the last hour (8PST/9MST/11EST) as a Ringside All Star (starts 3:22:24).
Today we hit President Trump’s media takedown AKA press conference, the travel ban, Mike Flynn, fake news, Hillary Clinton as a poor unlikable soul, nudity as part of a New Orleans mayoral candidates’s plank, and Mardi Gras.
The regular callers are my favorites, and my tippy top favorite is David Bellinger AKA The Flaming Liberal. I don’t know if he does it on purpose, but he always calls me “Carol.” The first half-dozen times, the host corrected him, but it never took, so the host just lets it go. The Flaming Liberal is known for a lot of things, some unmentionable, but today, he referred to Donald Trump as “a few mudbugs short of a full sack of crawfish.”
Democrats thought they’d won. Really, really won. They thought they’d never lose again so they tied it all up in a pretty package for themselves, the presumed party in perpetual power. No more filibuster. More executive orders than you can shake a stick at. Obamacare enacted without a single Republican vote in either the House or the Senate.
Then they lost. Really, really lost. On November 8, the floor dropped out of their world, and they woke up to four years of President Donald J. Trump. Unless…
Unless it’s true what they tell themselves at Greenpeace rallies, and they’re convinced it is. They and they alone have the moral high ground. In their minds, they didn’t lose on November 8 because the moral high ground never loses. In their minds, they’re still morally superior and have a moral imperative to win a different way. Any way at all. If they bring down a president or a constitutional republic in the process, well, at least they can still get work in Hollywood.
I get so ANGRY, angry enough to write angry in all caps.
Vox and other similarly non-rigorous publications are claiming that “[s]ince 9/11, homegrown white supremacists and similar extremists have killed more Americans in the US than all Islamic, American or non-American, put together.” This is demonstrably false as I have written elsewhere.
More sophisticated outlets, like NPR, have shifted the criticism away from comparisons between radical Islamists and white supremacists. The latest approach is to concentrate on the total number of incidents and total number of deaths. “[M]ost groups cite fewer than 10 lethal attacks and fewer than 100 deaths.” As though the “numbers” haven’t hit a high enough threshold to trigger a response. How many more incidents and how many more dead Americans will be enough? It took only one incident to kill nearly 3,000 of us. Will another one like that be enough? Or will it still be reported as “fewer than 11 lethal attacks”? Continue reading “WHAT IF WE CALL IT A MIDDLE EAST MUSLIM CULTURE BAN?”→
I am so FRUSTRATED and MAD from my research today on Syrian refugees, Christian vs. Muslim; and killings in the U.S., white supremacist vs. jihadi.
I take it very seriously that real people are undergoing real suffering that we have an intense obligation to minimize. The only way to do that is to define problems correctly so they can be solved, and the only way to do that is to tell the truth.
Do you know why we admitted only 60 Christian Syrian refugees in 2016 while admitting 12,486 Muslim refugees? It isn’t because the Obama administration preferred Muslims to Christians. The real issue is that we take refugee referrals from the refugee camps in Jordan, and there are no Christians in those refugee camps.
Nina Shea, director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom, said:
“The Christians don’t reside in those camps because it is too dangerous. They are preyed upon by other residents from the Sunni community, and there is infiltration by ISIS and criminal gangs. They are raped, abducted into slavery and they are abducted for ransom. It is extremely dangerous; there is not a single Christian in the Jordanian camps for Syrian refugees.” Continue reading “IT’S PLAYING WITH FIRE TO MISLEAD ABOUT TERRORISM”→
Not really, obviously, but he might as well have. I can’t keep up with all the executive orders he’s signing, and I can’t believe I’m the only one. I have no idea if I’ll think the same thoughts in five minutes as I do right now, but so far, this is where I am in stream of consciousness order:
I would be lying if I said I wasn’t nervous.
I see everything he’s doing as a real time “Art of the Deal,” meaning he is maneuvering toward the deal he wants even if it looks bad on the surface. I think he knows exactly what he’s doing with the president of Mexico, walking away from the table and threatening to impose taxes on Mexican imports. I think he has no intention of imposing taxes but floated the idea to put pressure on Mexico. I also think that walking away from the table now is an effective reset. You know our two countries will have a relationship, it’s just a question of what it will look like.
It’s shocking to see how quickly and completely he is slashing and burning through everything he said he was going to slash and burn through. I’m half nauseous and half exhilarated.
I like the BOOM message his actions convey to our enemies throughout the world. Even if every single action he takes is undone or diluted, he’s made the point. I would bet Putin is revisiting whatever dastardly plans he has in mind for us.
I think he’s operating under the premise that it’s better to ask forgiveness than permission. The volume and pace are overwhelming to organized opposition. I think he’s banking on enough results seen as positive by enough Americans that they will be on his side when the opposition hits back.
It’s almost too good to be true that he’s saying American citizens get to be part of the equation now. When someone asked him about the impact of his immigration plans on illegal immigrant families, he refocused the concern to include American families who have been victims of illegal immigrants. It feels almost naughty that our needs are allowed to matter even at someone else’s expense.
If we’re not the world’s policeman, why are we the world’s guardian angel?
He’s criticized for not banning immigrants from the country all the 9/11 hijackers came from (Saudi Arabia), but it’s 16 years later. Al Qaeda turned its mayhem over to ISIS, and they’re not limited to any particular country.
I’ve heard him criticized because he didn’t ban immigrants from some of the countries he’s done business in. That’s a personal decision whether to view him as corrupt or acting in America’s best interests. I believe the latter, it doesn’t mean I’m right. Like some people can’t see him as anything but corrupt, I couldn’t have seen Hillary Clinton as anything but corrupt. I’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.
Of course there are upset people. There were upset people when President Obama came on board (even more when he was reelected), and there are upset people now. It’s just a different group of upset people. So upset people can’t be the arbiter of success or failure.
I hate to hear that American residents who are traveling back from banned countries are being kept from entering the country. I can’t imagine how awful that would be, and what a shock, like having a chair pulled out from underneath them. I feel especially awful for their children. If anyone worked with us in Iraq or elsewhere that we aren’t protecting, I will be livid.
Non-Trump supporters characterize “populism,” “nationalism,” and “America First” as disgusting, contemptible, and ignorant, which they think describes Trump supporters. This one should be a whole blog in itself. In brief, one of the reasons Donald Trump was elected is because he’s willing to place a value on America as a nation that has been missing for a looong time.
There is no half-stepping. He is as extreme as extreme can be in his actions, which to my mind are equal and opposite to the extreme actions taken by President Obama. It’s the battle to end all battles of competing ideologies. If nothing else, we’ll have some real answers soon.
The bottom line is I think the relationship of America to the rest of the world has changed. It used to be everybody else that was engaged in survival of the fittest. We could be more magnanimous. Now, we’re just as engaged in survival. I think Donald Trump is operating under the idea that if it’s us or them, we deserve to survive. That’s what I think he means by “nationalism.” It has nothing to do with a negative action toward anyone else. It’s a positive action toward us, which makes sense to anyone who believes in American Exceptionalism. If someone believes, like President Obama, that we’re exceptional to ourselves the way the Greeks are exceptional to themselves, nationalism if just more proof of how messed up we are as a country. These are probably the same people who think President Obama’s apology tour improved our standing in the world.
Nobody is all good or all bad. No group is all good or all bad. No anything is all good or all bad. Even the Taliban built schools, and Ted Bundy was reportedly very nice. If you find yourself in all-or-nothing thinking, it’s a sure bet you’re thinking emotionally. Keep your emotions, but regulate them with your intellect.
There’s really no way to tell how this is going to go. It could go well, or it could go really, really, REALLY badly. We might as well admit both possibilities.
I think the caliber of his cabinet picks and appointees is stellar. More than anything else, that gives me a lot of hope.
I have no problem with him expressing an opinion that goes contrary to one of his cabinet members, e.g., James Mattis does not believe in enhanced interrogation. President Trump has made it clear that he will back the decisions of the experts he has placed in charge. He shoots from the hip verbally, but as long as he backs the sober, experienced decisions of his people, I think it’s just a quirk/flaw/weakness in DT that we have to deal with.
His personal charisma is a plus. It bodes well for his relationships with other world leaders.
He is brilliant at two things.
One is getting better at getting better. Watch the press conference about the dossier where Jim Acosta from CNN literally accosted him over and over. He never lost his cool, didn’t call names, didn’t insult. I think that’s pretty presidential.
One is managing people.
Notice how quickly he called how many world leaders. He operates through relationships and seems to be very good at it to look at his family and the loyalty of his employees (personal and business).
He’s not a micromanager. He brings in the best people, makes sure they have the resources they need, and leaves them to do the job they were brought in to do.
How is he going to pay for all of this?
He meanders when he speaks.
I look at the stock market and the consumer confidence index and think he’s probably right about the influx of cash/repatriated taxes coming into our economy.
Will judges block everything he’s doing? Can they? What is his next move if they do? Do the courts have a follow-up move?
I wish he would let the voter fraud investigation go. It’s a terrible use of resources and his honeymoon goodwill, not to mention his political capital.
I love that he’s not afraid of anyone and not beholden to anyone. He was hired to shake things up and that’s exactly what he’s doing.
He proved everyone wrong who said he couldn’t win the nomination and couldn’t win the presidency. Maybe—and I fervently hope this is true—he will be adjudged in the end as having done great things for our country.
Populist – a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people.
It doesn’t sound like a curse word. Why is it used so dismissively, as though, “oh, never mind, it’s about ordinary people”? “Populism/populist” was the common denominator in every headline about Donald Trump’s inaugural speech from the LA Times to the Atlantic to the Daily Beast to the New York Times to the Daily Wire to Haaretz. It was reported that he rebuked the elites, accused the ruling class of raiding America for its own benefit, and made fiery, “populist” promises for a better future.
I’m still waiting for the problem.
I guess what sticks in some people’s craw is the notion of Donald Trump the billionaire defending the folks from others of his ilk. The same elites he dined with and golfed with are now Enemy #1, and Trump is called “hypocritical.” He may very well be, and he may be laughing all the way to re-election in 2020. But in the sneering dismissiveness of “populism” lies the answer to why Donald Trump won. The sneerers told ordinary people they didn’t matter. Donald Trump told them they did, and they put him into office.
I like Donald Trump better and better all the time, and I am not ashamed. I even think—brace yourselves—he’s acting presidential. What does “acting presidential” mean? Is it like pornography where we can’t define it, but we know it when we see it? I see a lot more of it coming from Trump than the people who claim the moral high ground on that one.
Did anyone see the presser where Jim Acosta of CNN shouted out and over the president-elect? Not just once, or twice, or three times, but over and over. Under what theory is that acceptable public behavior from a member of the media to the office (or office-to-be) of the president? Forget the man, what about the office? I’m not a fan of President Obama, to put it mildly. But because he is president of the United States, I never refer to him as anything but President or Mr. Obama, and I require my children to show the same respect. I can’t even wrap my mind around the people who think Trump was the problem in that exchange. Continue reading “WHO’S NOT ACTING PRESIDENTIAL?”→
Betsy DeVos is the classic Trump cabinet pick. Tapped to be secretary of education, DeVos has zero government experience, no personal or professional involvement with the public school system, and wealth beyond measure. Liberals hate her for liberal reasons, and conservatives love her for conservative reasons. (Don’t get your undies in a wad if I’ve overstated your emotion. I like hyperbole. Get used to it.)
Liberals and conservatives see the same problems, but we point to different causes and propose different solutions. We all agree that children who are raised without fathers face more challenges in life. Liberals point to the legacy of slavery, institutional racism, and wealth disparity as the predominant explanations. Conservatives blame “if it feels good, do it” and the cult of victimology. To boil it down, liberals blame the oppressor and accuse conservatives of blaming the victim. Conservatives blame individual choices and accuse liberals of excusing bad behavior. Continue reading “ALL HAIL BETSY DEVOS”→