Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Monday 13 February 2017
Make no mistake - Trump is placing all national economies in jeopardy once more
In the midst of The Great Depression (a decade long severe global economic downturn triggered by the 1929 Wall Street stock market crash) the U.S. Government enacted the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act which tightened banking and financial sector regulations.
At the urging of the same financial and banking sector in 1999 a bipartisan agreement saw the introduction of the Financial Services Modernization Act which repealed large parts of the Glass-Stegall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act.
In the wake of another crisis generated by the American sub-prime mortgage melt-down, aptly titled The Global Financial Crisis, the U.S. Government in July 2010 enacted the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to reimpose stricter regulations.
Now we hear that Donald Trump is moving to roll back the Dodd-Frank reforms. In particular the Volker Rule against banks using depositor funds for speculative bets on their own account and from
acquiring or retaining ownership interests in, sponsoring, or having certain
relationships with a hedge fund or private equity fund - practices thought to have exacerbated The Global Financial Crisis.
The Sydney Morning Herald, 4 February 2017:
US President Donald Trump moved to chisel away at the Obama administration's legacy on financial reform, announcing a series of steps to revisit the rules enacted after the 2008 financial crisis and setting the stage for a showdown with Democrats over the future of Wall Street regulation.
After a White House meeting with the executives, Mr Trump signed a directive calling for his administration to identify potential changes to provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, crafted by the Obama administration and passed by Congress in response to the 2008 meltdown….
Trump states we expect to be cutting a lot from Dodd-Frank because I have so many people, friends of mine, that have nice businesses, and they can't borrow money. They can't get money from the banks — they just can't get any money because the banks won't let them borrow because of rules and regulations in Dodd-Frank despite evidence that the banking sector is making a considerable number of commercial and industrial loans.
Most Australian families have memories of The Great Depression which hit this country hard and all will be able to recall the ripple effects from The Global Financial Crisis, so it is not unreasonable to fear that what this erratic and ignorant American president does in relation to U.S. banking and financial sector legislation has the potential to send the world spinning into yet another American-generated global economic crisis.
Sunday 12 February 2017
The American Resistance has many faces - this is one of them (2)
Labels:
people power,
politics,
protest action,
society,
Trump Regime,
USA
Wednesday 8 February 2017
February 2017: can you hear the warning sirens?
Image via @SeanKing
|
De Spiegel, 5 February 2017:
There are times in life that really do count. Times when a person's character is revealed, when the important is separated from the unimportant. Soon decisions are taken that will determine the further path a person takes. With some, this can be tragic, and the moment comes too soon in their youth at a time when they aren't mature enough yet to foresee all the potential consequences. They make the decisions cheerfully and they lead to either luck or bad luck. But countries and governments are seldom as innocent when it comes to their decisions.
That's the kind of situation now approaching. The people who will soon have to decide are already grown up. They now have to start preparing, even if it will be painful.
Germany must stand up in opposition to the 45th president of the United States and his government. That's difficult enough already for two reasons: Because it is from the Americans that we obtained our liberal democracy in the first place; and because it is unclear how the brute and choleric man on the other side will react to diplomatic pressure. The fact that opposition to the American government can only succeed when mounted together with Asian and African partners -- and no doubt with our partners in Europe, with the EU -- doesn't make the situation any easier.
So far, Germany has viewed its leadership role -- at least the leadership understanding of Chancellor Angela Merkel and Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble -- as one that is by all means in opposition to the interests of other European countries. Whether Schäuble's austerity policies or Merkel's migration policies, it all happened without much co-coordination and with considerable force. It is thus somewhat ironical that it is Germany, the country that is politically and economically dominant in Europe, that will now have to fill in many of the gaps created by America's withdrawal from the old world order, the one referred to by former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer as "Pax Americana." At the same time, Germany must build an alliance against Donald Trump, because it otherwise won't take shape. It is, however, absolutely necessary.
It is literally painful to write this sentence, but the president of the United States is a pathological liar. The president of the U.S. is a racist (it also hurts to write this). He is attempting a coup from the top; he wants to establish an illiberal democracy, or worse; he wants to undermine the balance of power. He fired an acting attorney general who held a differing opinion from his own and accused her of "betrayal." This is the vocabulary used by Nero, the emperor and destroyer of Rome. It is the way tyrants think.
A Serious Threat
Donald Trump and his fire-starter Stephen Bannon discriminate against certain people by decree, but not against those from countries in which Trump does business. The contempt the president of the United States and his most important adviser have for science and education is so blatant that it's almost difficult to write. But their disdain for climate and environmental policies has to be stated, because four or eight years of it could become a serious threat.
Among the things that counted as true progress during the 20th century were multilateralism and free trade. The world has become so complex that no single country can solve the major problems on its own -- that was our recognition. Organizations like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, NATO and the EU were all created for this reason. None of these organizations is perfect, but they are what we launched -- and we do need them. Bannon now wants to wipe them away, and either Trump is executing Bannon's intentions or he shares them......
Klaus Brinkbäumer is the editor-in-chief of DER SPIEGEL.
The Australian, 8 February 2017:
In the weeks since Donald Trump’s inauguration as US President, it has become clear that he intends to roll back to the starting block the progressive egalitarian agenda that is commonly associated with political correctness — not just in the US, but globally.
Stephen Bannon, Trump’s White House Svengali and former CEO of the extreme-right Breitbart News, has long pursued this ideological project, and we now know that what he or Trump says must be taken both seriously and literally.
Trump’s transition was initially reassuring, because he nominated many undeniably serious (if also seriously well-heeled) people to his cabinet. But after the inauguration all hell broke loose as Trump and Bannon began to implement their project in earnest.
First, Trump appointed Bannon to the National Security Council’s highest body, the principals committee. Then he nominated Ted Malloch, an obscure business studies professor at the University of Reading, in England, as US ambassador to the EU. Malloch recently expressed a desire to “short the euro”, and predicted that the currency would not survive another 18 months. Trump has also increased the likelihood of a trade war with Mexico, and he has been willing to confront major US corporations over his executive order banning travellers from seven Muslim-majority countries.
The ideological project that Trump and Bannon will seek to carry out could have far-reaching geopolitical and economic implications that should worry not only progressives, but also dyed-in-the-wool conservatives like me. To understand how far they are willing to go, one must understand their ultimate aims.
Most disturbingly, Trump and Bannon’s agenda seems likely to entail policies to weaken, destabilise, or even ultimately dismantle the EU. No motive other than ideology can explain Trump’s open hostility to the bloc, his bizarre ambassadorial appointment, or his question to EU president Donald Tusk: “What country is next to leave?”
In conventional geostrategic terms, the EU is almost a costless extension of US political and military power. Owing to NATO’s significant military superiority, and the EU’s role as a barrier to Russian expansion, the US can avoid becoming entangled in a “hot war” with Russia. Meanwhile, the EU — together with Japan — is a dependable economic and military ally, whose friendship allows the US to speak for the “international community”.
There are no circumstances in which dismantling the Western international order is in America’s national interest — even when perceived through a nationalist lens. A truly “America first” administration would rightly expect its allies to pull their weight in NATO, and to defer to US foreign policies on non-European issues. But it would never gratuitously dismantle an essentially free multiplier of US power, as Trump’s foreign policy threatens to do.
If I am right about Trump and Bannon’s ideological agenda, we can expect them to find a way to support far-right National Front leader Marine Le Pen in the French presidential election this year, and to encourage a “hard Brexit” for Britain (only to leave it in the lurch afterwards). Trump is likely to lift the sanctions the US imposed on Russia after its 2014 annexation of Crimea. After all, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Bannon are ideological twins.
We should not put much stock in any security assurances Secretary of Defence James Mattis may have offered to South Korea and Japan last week. Such promises are worth as little as Trump’s pledge to Polish President Andrzej Duda that “Poland can count on America”.
Americans should be prepared to watch the administration dismiss officials who do not defend its agenda, and disregard court orders that inhibit its actions. We have already seen signs of this when complaints emerged that immigration agents in New York were ignoring a federal judge’s emergency stay on Trump’s travel ban.
The prospects for business are just as sobering. Sooner or later, Trump’s destabilising foreign policy will lead to global economic turbulence, uncertainty, and reduced investment — even barring trade wars. And domestically, his weakening of the rule of law will negate any economic benefits from tax cuts and deregulation.
Implementing this project is undoubtedly a dangerous strategy for Trump. By polarising the US public to such an extent, he and the Republicans could suffer defeat in the 2018 midterm elections or in the 2020 presidential election; and he could even expose himself to the risk of impeachment.
There are two possible explanations for why Trump would take these risks. The first is that divisiveness has worked for him. Politicians tend to stick with what works — until it fails.
The second explanation is that Bannon is calling the political shots, and is more interested in building a permanent populist “movement” than he is in getting Trump re-elected. If Bannon wants to transform the US political landscape, an impeached or defeated Trump could become an ideal martyr for his movement.
That may not bode well for Trump himself, but, in this scenario, Trump’s fate will not weigh heavily on Bannon, who has set his sights on achieving goals that will leave the US and the world very different from how he and his putative boss found them.
Jack Rostowski was Poland’s finance minister and deputy prime minister from 2007 to 2013.
Labels:
Donald Trump,
fascism,
international affairs,
US policy,
USA
Is the world watching the Fourth Reich being born?
Remembering the lessons of Germany.......
Remember when German bureaucrats and defence personnel decided to agree that their oath of allegiance was to Chancellor of Germany and Führer Adolf Hitler and not to their country or the Bundestag?
Is something similar happening in the U.S.A. today?
It wasn't until the sixth restraining order was imposed by a federal judge that the Trump Administration fully complied, as is evidenced by these reports.
It wasn't until the sixth restraining order was imposed by a federal judge that the Trump Administration fully complied, as is evidenced by these reports.
Release Date: January 29, 2017
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
Contact: 202-282-8010
Office of the Press Secretary
Contact: 202-282-8010
WASHINGTON - Upon issuance of the court orders yesterday, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) immediately began taking steps to comply with the orders. Concurrently, the Department of Homeland Security continues to work with our partners in the Departments of Justice and State to implement President Trump's executive order on protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States.
We are committed to ensuring that all individuals affected by the executive orders, including those affected by the court orders, are being provided all rights afforded under the law. We are also working closely with airline partners to prevent travelers who would not be granted entry under the executive orders from boarding international flights to the U.S. Therefore, we do not anticipate that further individuals traveling by air to the United States will be affected.
As Secretary Kelly previously stated, in applying the provisions of the president's executive order, the entry of lawful permanent residents is in the national interest. Accordingly, absent significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare, lawful permanent resident status will be a dispositive factor in our case-by-case determinations.
We are and will remain in compliance with judicial orders. We are and will continue to enforce President Trump's executive order humanely and with professionalism. DHS will continue to protect the homeland.
# # #
We have a constitutional crisis today. Four Members of Congress asked CBP officials to enforce a federal court order and were turned away.
This is stunning. The executive branch is straight up defying a court order right now.
Christopher Hayes added,
Damon Silvers @DamonSilvers
Attys at Dulles with a fed court order entitling them to see detainees told by CBP "it's not going to happen" Attys seeking contempt order
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division, AZIZ
et al v. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY (“DHS”); U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION (“CBP”); JOHN
KELLY, Secretary of DHS; KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, Acting Commissioner of CBP; WAYNE
BIONDI, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Port Director of the Area Port of
Washington Dulles, and EIGHT UNNAMED CBP AGENTS AT DULLES AIRPORT, 30
January 2017:
1. Pursuant to an
Executive Order signed by President Donald Trump on January 27, 2016, the U.S.
government banned entry into the United States by all non-citizens from seven
listed countries, subject to an undefined waiver process. This ban, when first promulgated,
included individuals on immigrant visas and returning lawful permanent
residents.
2. The Immigration and
Nationality Act provides no way to legally effectuate such a ban against this
category of immigrants. As a result, upon information and belief, Department of
Homeland Security officials have been effectuating the ban by bullying these
arriving immigrants into “voluntarily” relinquishing their claims to lawful
permanent residence into the United States.
3. On information and
belief, respondents (through their agents and employees) lied to immigrants
arriving after the Executive Order was signed, falsely telling them that if
they did not sign a relinquishment of their legal rights, they would be
formally ordered removed from the United States, which would bring legal
consequences including a five-year bar for reentry to the United States.
Because respondents knew that there was no valid, legal basis to remove these
individuals from the United States, these were material, false representations.
4. Throughout this time,
respondents denied arriving immigrants access to legal counsel.
5. On information and
belief, these acts occurred nationwide, including but not limited to
Washington-Dulles International Airport. During the first 24 to 48 hours that
the ban was in place, Customs & Border Protection reports that it denied
entry to at least 109 individuals. Many of these individuals were unlawfully
compelled to “voluntarily” renounce their U.S. immigration status.
Trump himself remains defiant in the face of the federal court order in State of Washington et al v Donald J Trump et al and continues to rail the U.S. judicial system:
Trump himself remains defiant in the face of the federal court order in State of Washington et al v Donald J Trump et al and continues to rail the U.S. judicial system:
One can almost see down the road to where this is leading.
At first the people who supported Donald Trump's election will enthusiastically and uncritically support his actions as U.S. President.
Although some will blindly remain fervent adherents of the Cult of Donald, many will become quietly concerned when these actions begin to impinge on their daily lives.
By the time he plunges America into a severe financial crisis or a war these same people will become alarmed and begin to look more closely at what state agencies and public institutions have become under the Trump regime – but by then they will be too afraid to speak out.
After I finished writing the paragraphs above I came across an article in Jurist which with more elegance and erudition canvasses the same subject, so I've included an excerpt here.
First they came for the Muslims.................
After I finished writing the paragraphs above I came across an article in Jurist which with more elegance and erudition canvasses the same subject, so I've included an excerpt here.
First they came for the Muslims.................
Professor David M. Crane writing in Jurist on 3 February 2017 - First It's the Muslims: An Evolution to Dictatorship:
The intellectual elite of Germany and much of the middle class at first stood back, amused, embarrassed, disbelieving that this proud nation of culture, of tolerance, of openness would elect this small little man who ranted and raved about a great German nation, a Reich that would last a thousand years. They could not believe that he would last long politically and stood aside in the early years thinking that the political system in place would cause his demise. By the time they realized the shift of almost complete power to one man had actually happened, it was too late. They had only one choice: swear allegiance or leave. Some left when they still could, but most stayed and accepted their national fate.
I have faced down dictators most of my professional life. To understand my adversary I have studied the twentieth century's dictators, how they came to power, their psyche, and their methods of destroying their own citizens. There are patterns, similarities, regarding despots, dictators, and thugs who rise to and hold power in their countries. Their track record is horrific with the destruction of over 95 million human beings at the hands of these dictators in the last century.
Understanding the similar conduct of largely ordinary men rising to absolute power can help us in many ways: from investigating and prosecuting them for violations of domestic and international crimes, identifying those politicians or political movements trending toward despotism, to prevention and counter measures to blunt their move to power. Liberal democracies today need to understand the past, the present trends, to protect our futures. The consideration of these traits are instructive today in the United States and elsewhere.
So what are those similarities among despots and dictators? First in a country where a dictator comes to power, there is an anger towards the establishment, a long term disappointment and lack of trust in their government. They use this loss of faith in the centralized government to start building a political base to gain power. Dictators want to "drain the swamp," to clean house, to start over.
Second, the rising dictator uses fear to shift that frustration away from their policies to what is called "a boogey man." Dictators for a century all used a "boogey man" to focus their citizenry away from their absolute power to a threat outside the country. The Three Pashas in Turkey blamed the Christian Armenians for the loss of the Ottoman Empire; Adolf Hitler blamed the Jews for weakening Germany; Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung focused on Western capitalism; and the Ayatollah of Iran blamed the Great Satan of America for their economic problems. Outsiders who were different, who had a different religion became an internal and external threat and were either accounted for and interned or deported. Those who sought admission to their country were banned for who or what they were.
Third, dictators view the press as their enemy and initially seek to limit press access to their regimes, then ban or control the press entirely. They consider the press an enemy of the state and take appropriate action. The liberal press is blamed for factual distortions. The dictator declares they are not using real facts and fashion their own truths, what you would call today "alternative facts." Joseph Goebbels stated that "if you lie to the people long enough, they will believe it as the truth." In a dictatorship the truth is the first casualty.
Fourth, a dictator surrounds himself (yes, they are all men) with only those people who tell him what he wants to hear, not what he needs to hear. The truth becomes dangerous to the government and to those who know it. The dictator does not want to know the truth, they fear the truth and those who work with and for the dictator fear knowing and telling them the truth. They could lose their influence, power, jobs, even their lives, as well as their family's lives if they are truthful. It's a downward paranoid spiral.
Fifth, the dictators of the twentieth century also suffered from some type of psychological disease or defect. From paranoia, schizophrenia, depression, and narcissism these men slipped farther and farther away from reality the longer they stayed in power. A perfect illustration is when Joseph Stalin fell dying on the floor in his bedroom and laid there for fourteen hours, the doctors and handlers were too afraid to declare him dead in fear of the repercussions of even saying, let alone knowing that he had died.
Sixth, dictators over time consider the law only as a guide, to be broken, modified, or ignored. The longer in power the more they feel they are above the law and take action according to their own whims. A political cult develops around them. They become above all men. Society is what the dictator says it is. The national identity becomes the dictator. Where once government workers or members of the armed forces swore allegiance to the law, they now must swear allegiance to the dictator himself without question. The refusal to do so is expulsion or death.
In the United States we now have a President who fits several of these traits and has acted accordingly — all within two short weeks as President. The surprising thing is how easily he has been able to do this without any institutional resistance. America is not used to someone of this caliber. We sit back stunned, cowed, or in quiet glee as this new President begins to "make America great again." Is he becoming America's first "dictator"? This remains to be seen.
Our only counter to this "new type" of President is the Constitution of the United States. The founders of this nation contemplated a Trump and put in the necessary checks and balances to ensure that America did not create a king or dictator. The power was reserved to the people, us; and all those elected answer to that people, not the other way around. The other two branches of government will be critical to our republic with this power grabbing new President. They must do their constitutional duty and pay heed to the law and to the people to counter his seeking absolute power.
David M. Crane is a Professor of Law at the Syracuse University College of Law. He is the former Chief Prosecutor, Special Court for Sierra Leone, 2002-2005. He is also the founder of Impunity Watch, the Syrian Accountability Project and the IamSyria Campaign.
Labels:
Donald Trump,
fascism,
right wing politics,
Trump Regime,
USA
Tuesday 7 February 2017
Doomsday Clock: three Democrats attempt to bell the cat
An attempt in the U.S. House of Representatives to limit President Tantrump’s access to nuclear weapons:
Introduced in House (09/27/2016)
Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2016
This bill prohibits the President from using the Armed Forces to conduct a first-use nuclear strike unless such strike is conducted pursuant to a congressional declaration of war expressly authorizing such strike.
"First-use nuclear strike" means a nuclear weapons attack against an enemy that is conducted without the President determining that the enemy has first launched a nuclear strike against the United States or a U.S. ally.
Sponsored by: Ted Lieu, District 33 California
Co-sponsored by: James McGovern, District 2 Massachusetts and Raul M. Grijalva, District 3 Arizona
TEXT
114th CONGRESS
2d Session |
H.R
6179
To prohibit the conduct of a first-use nuclear strike absent a declaration of war by Congress.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 27, 2016
Mr. Ted Lieu of California introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs
A BILL
To prohibit the conduct of a first-use nuclear strike absent a declaration of war by Congress.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2016”.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF POLICY.
(a) Findings.—Congress finds the following:
(1) The Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war.
(2) The framers of the Constitution understood that the monumental decision to go to war, which can result in massive death and the destruction of civilized society, must be made by the representatives of the people and not by a single person.
(3) As stated by section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93–148; 50 U.S.C. 1541), “the constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces”.
(4) Nuclear weapons are uniquely powerful weapons that have the capability to instantly kill millions of people, create long-term health and environmental consequences throughout the world, directly undermine global peace, and put the United States at existential risk from retaliatory nuclear strikes.
(5) By any definition of war, a first-use nuclear strike from the United States would constitute a major act of war.
(6) A first-use nuclear strike conducted absent a declaration of war by Congress would violate the Constitution.
(b) Declaration Of Policy.—It is the policy of the United States that no first-use nuclear strike should be conducted absent a declaration of war by Congress.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON CONDUCT OF FIRST-USE NUCLEAR STRIKES.
(a) Prohibition.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President may not use the Armed Forces of the United States to conduct a first-use nuclear strike unless such strike is conducted pursuant to a declaration of war by Congress that expressly authorizes such strike.
(b) First-Use Nuclear Strike Defined.—In this section, the term “first-use nuclear strike” means an attack using nuclear weapons against an enemy that is conducted without the President determining that the enemy has first launched a nuclear strike against the United States or an ally of the United States.
Labels:
Donald Trump,
nuclear weapons,
USA,
war
Monday 6 February 2017
Trump to build The Wall and start roundup and gaoling of undocumented immigrants in the face of strong resistance
The Guardian, 26 January 2017:
An executive order on “sanctuary cities” signed by Donald Trump on Wednesday has placed in the crosshairs over 400 cities and counties that offer some form of safe haven to America’s 11 million undocumented migrants.
These localities include some of the largest, most progressive metropolises in the United States, many of which have already begun preparations to fight one of Trump’s most aggressive campaign pledges– to force compliance with federal immigration agencies in a bid to ramp up deportations. The beginnings of that pledge have now been formalised by executive action within Trump’s first week in office.
The order issued on Wednesday claims these jurisdictions “willfully violate federal law” causing “immeasurable harm to the American people”, and instructs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the US Department of Justice (DoJ) to explore which cities could be in violation of federal law and ways of stripping sanctuary jurisdictions of federal grant money, which amounts to billions of dollars across many different federal departments.
The order also instructs the US attorney general to explore “appropriate enforcement action” against any local government agency it deems to be in violation of a broad federal law that encourages – but does not compel – communication between local authorities and the DHS.
Trump’s mandate also issues an extraordinary instruction to the DHS to publish a weekly list of so-called “criminal actions” committed by undocumented migrants and publicly announce which jurisdictions had previously “ignored or otherwise failed” to detain the accused individuals.
The City and County of San Francisco is suing President Trump, the Secretary of the Dept. of Homeland Security and the Acting Attorney General alleging that the Executive order of 25 January 2017 titled Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States violates the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and that In blatant disregard of the law, the President of the United States seeks to coerce local authorities into abandoning what are known as “Sanctuary City” laws and policies.
On 31 January 2017 the City Attorney Dennis Herrera stated:
The City and County of San Francisco is suing President Trump, the Secretary of the Dept. of Homeland Security and the Acting Attorney General alleging that the Executive order of 25 January 2017 titled Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States violates the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and that In blatant disregard of the law, the President of the United States seeks to coerce local authorities into abandoning what are known as “Sanctuary City” laws and policies.
On 31 January 2017 the City Attorney Dennis Herrera stated:
The president’s
executive order is not only unconstitutional, it’s un-American…. That is why we
must stand up and oppose it. We are a nation of immigrants and a land of laws.
We must be the ‘guardians of our democracy’ that President Obama urged us all
to be in his farewell address.....
This lawsuit is not a
step I take lightly…..But it is one that is necessary to defend the people of
this city, this state and this country from the wild overreach of a president
whose words and actions have thus far shown little respect for our Constitution
or the rule of law. This country was founded on the principle that the federal
government cannot force state and local governments to do its job for it, like
carrying out immigration policy. I am defending that bedrock American
principle today.....
The Trump administration
falsely believes that sanctuary cities harbor criminals and make communities
unsafe. To the contrary, any persons who is booked in San Francisco has
their fingerprints sent to the federal government. If the federal government
has a criminal warrant for that person, San Francisco complies with that.
Moreover, sanctuary cities have less crime, fewer people in poverty and lower
unemployment than other counties, according to a
recent study by Tom K. Wong, an associate professor of political
science at the University of California, San Diego. There are, on average, 35.5
fewer crimes committed per 10,000 people in sanctuary jurisdictions compared to
non-sanctuary counties, according to Wong’s findings in a report for the Center
for American Progress.
On 3 February 2017 The Globe and Mail reported:
Tom Cochran, the chief
executive of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, said he has never seen an
atmosphere like this in his four decades at the organization, not even in the
waning days of the Nixon administration. “It’s totally different from anything
we’ve ever seen,” he said.
Mr. Cochran said his
group is pushing back against Mr. Trump’s executive order on sanctuary cities,
both in public and in private. He has requested a meeting with the new
Secretary of Homeland Security, John Kelly, who has much of the responsibility
for implementing the sanctuary cities order. Mr. Cochran intends to bring city
police chiefs to the meeting to explain why they feel fostering trust between
immigrant communities and law enforcement is important for public safety.
Some cities are disputing that the Trump definition of a "sanctuary city" applies to them.
BACKGROUND
Labels:
Donald Trump,
human rights,
immigration,
law,
right wing politics,
right wing rat bags,
USA
Friday 3 February 2017
The Trump Regime is such a weird mix of Mein Kampf meets Hollywood
Bully boy Donald J. Trump's political manoeuvres since taking office are such a weird mixture of Hitler's 'How to create a New World Order' playbook and the satirical script of the 1997 movie "Wag The Dog" that it is beginning to feel that he is capable of even the unimaginable……
Labels:
Donald Trump,
fascism,
right wing rat bags,
USA
"A lie, is a lie, is a lie!"
America’s dilemma writ large on Facebook, 22 January 2017 :
Dan Rather 14 hrs
These are not normal times. These are extraordinary times. And extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.
When you have a spokesperson for the president of the United States wrap up a lie in the Orwellian phrase "alternative facts”…
When you have a press secretary in his first appearance before the White House reporters threaten, bully, lie, and then walk out of the briefing room without the cajones to answer a single question…
When you have a President stand before the stars of the fallen CIA agents and boast about the size of his crowds (lies) and how great his authoritarian inaugural speech was….
These are not normal times.
The press has never seen anything like this before. The public has never seen anything like this before. And the political leaders of both parties have never seen anything like this before.
What can we do? We can all step up and say simply and without equivocation. "A lie, is a lie, is a lie!" And if someone won't say it, those of us who know that there is such a thing as the truth must do whatever is in our power to diminish the liar's malignant reach into our society.
There is one group of people who can do a lot - very quickly. And that is Republicans in Congress. Without their support, Donald Trump's presidency will falter. So here is what I think everyone in the press must do. If you are interviewing a Paul Ryan, a Mitch McConnell, or any other GOP elected official, the first question must be "what will you do to combat the lying from the White House?" If they dodge and weave, keep with the follow ups. And if they refuse to give a satisfactory answer, end the interview.
Facts and the truth are not partisan. They are the bedrock of our democracy. And you are either with them, with us, with our Constitution, our history, and the future of our nation, or you are against it. Everyone must answer that question.
lie - a false statement made with intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood; something intended or serving to convey a false impression
dishonest - not honest; disposed to lie cheat or steal; proceeding from or exhibiting a lack of honesty; fraudulent
fraudulent - given to or using fraud, as a person; cheating; dishonest
misleading - to lead or guide wrongly; lead astray; to lead into error of conduct, thought, or judgement
[Paul Hamlyn Publishing Group, 1971, Encyclopedic World Dictionary, editors Hanks, P & Potter S]
Labels:
Donald Trump,
journalists,
lies ans lying,
media,
political probity,
USA
Monday 30 January 2017
Trump's assault on open and transparent democratic principals has begun.....
Boston Globe, 24 January 2017:
The Trump administration has instituted a media blackout at the Environmental Protection Agency and barred staff from awarding any new contracts or grants.
Emails sent to EPA staff since President Donald Trump’s inauguration on Friday and reviewed by The Associated Press detailed the specific prohibitions banning press releases, blog updates or posts to the agency’s social media accounts.
The Trump administration has also ordered a ‘‘temporary suspension’’ of all new business activities at the department, including issuing task orders or work assignments to EPA contractors. The orders are expected to have a significant and immediate impact on EPA activities nationwide.
The EPA did not respond to phone calls and emails requesting comment Monday or Tuesday.
The Huffington Post, 24 January 2017:
The Huffington Post also received a message that was reportedly sent to staff Monday that seems to cover the current agency guidance on talking to the press in general, not just about the directive on grants. The memo states that the agency is imposing tight controls on external communication, including press releases, blog posts, social media and content on the agency website.
(”Beach team” refers to staffers for the new administration working at the various agencies while new leadership is put in place; “OPA” most likely refers to the “Office of Public Affairs.”)
The
Guardian, 26
January 2017:
The Trump
administration is mandating that any studies or data from scientists at
the Environmental Protection Agency undergo review by political appointees
before they can be released to the public.
The communications
director for Donald Trump’s transition team at the EPA, Doug Ericksen, said on
Wednesday the review also extends to content on the federal agency’s website,
including details of scientific evidence showing that the Earth’s climate is
warming and manmade carbon emissions are to blame.
Former EPA staffers said
on Wednesday the restrictions imposed under Trump far exceed the practices of
past administrations…..
The EPA’s 14-page
scientific integrity document, enacted during the Obama administration,
describes how scientific studies were to be conducted and reviewed in the agency.
It said scientific studies should eventually be communicated to the public, the
media and Congress “uncompromised by political or other interference”.
The scientific integrity
document expressly “prohibits managers and other agency leadership from intimidating
or coercing scientists to alter scientific data, findings or professional
opinions or inappropriately influencing scientific advisory boards”. It
provides ways for employees who know the science to disagree with scientific
reports and policies and offers them some whistleblower protection.
Labels:
censorship,
Donald Trump,
fascism,
right wing politics,
USA
Sunday 29 January 2017
The American Resistance has many faces - this is just one of them
ACLU PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, 28 January 201... by clarencegirl on Scribd
One of the temporary restraining orders granted 28 January 2017:
The Economist, 29 January 2017:
In her brief and unequivocal ruling on the evening of January 28th, Ms Donnelly wrote that Mr Alshawi and Mr Darweesh “have a strong likelihood of success” in showing that their deportation would violate their rights to due process and equal protection. There is “imminent danger”, she wrote, that “there will be substantial and irreparable injury to refugees, visa-holders and other individuals from nations” targeted by Mr Trump’s executive order, should it be fully implemented. Ms Donnelly thus “enjoined and restrained” the government from deporting refugees or “any other individuals from Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen legally authorised to enter the United States”.
The ruling, along with similar non-removal orders from judges in Virginia and Seattle, means that nobody who was told they didn’t belong in America when they arrived on January 27th can be deported—for now—though there were reports from several cities on the night of January 28th that customs officials were disregarding the judges' orders and arranging for individuals to be sent home. It also bears reminding that these rulings are stays, not final determinations. Further judicial hearings in February will determine if the stays should be lifted. And the rulings do not come close to erasing Mr Trump’s executive order; the ban remains in effect for refugees and others who were planning to come to America in the coming days, weeks and months.
Wednesday 25 January 2017
America is leaderless in 2017
When during the Republican Party preselection process and then the long national presidential election campaign Trump kept telling the world how smart he was I’m sure there were those who secretly hoped this was so and, that the content of his stump speeches, his social media rants and very limited vocabulary were in combination simply a ploy aimed at the lowest denominator on the voter spectrum.
Unfortunately for those sanguine souls President Trump’s inauguration speech on 20 January 2017, his address to the Central Intelligence Agency the next day, as well as his inflating of swearing-in ceremony crowd size before sending his press secretary out to lie on his behalf, will have dashed theses hopes.
Donald Trump remains exactly as he always presented himself and now America has a predatory oaf as its 45th president.
One so intellectually lightweight, wilfully ignorant, boastful, bigoted, paranoid, vengeful, erratic and work-shy, that effectively the United States of America is a nation which is leaderless as it goes forward.
Who will fill the vacuum is anyone’s guess.
Will it be his immediate family framing policy and making decisions for him to strut before the cameras? Will it be his newly installed far-right captain’s picks in the White House administration running the country in spite of Trump’s inadequacies? Or will it be a combination of family members, captain's picks and Congress racing around putting out political fires as Trump uncontrollably rampages across the economic and social landscape?
The future is unknowable until it becomes the present and by then it may be too late for America.
* Netflix image found on Twitter
Labels:
beserker,
Donald Trump,
lies ans lying,
society,
US politics,
USA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)