Closing Thought–26Feb20

How to counter fake news…..well Ethiopia has passed a new law to do just that…counter fake news…..

Ethiopia’s parliament, the House of Peoples’ Representatives (HoPR), has passed a law aimed at combating fake news and curbing hate speech.

The passage comes three months after the cabinet led by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, approved it and forwarded it to the house. It is known as the Hate Speech and Misinformation Law and was approved with a majority vote, 23 against and 2 abstentions.

Core planks of the new law include:

  • Prevent individuals from engaging in speech that incites violence, promote hatred and discrimination against a person or a group.
  • Promote tolerance, civil discourse and dialogue, mutual respect and understanding and strengthening democratic governance.
  • Control and suppress the dissemination and proliferation of hate speech, disinformation and other related false and misleading information.
  • Prohibits disseminating hate speech by means of broadcasting, print or social media using text, image, audio or video.

“It is deemed necessary to enact the law because the nation cannot address problems arising from hate speeches and fake news with existing laws,” a November 2019 statement issued from the council of ministers said.

Social media has been identified as one of the main avenues used to incite ethically tinged violence leading to deaths and displacements in East Africa’s most populous nation. The law also comes with months to keenly awaited elections.

The country is currently listed among global leaders in the area of internally displaced people. Ethiopia, as Africa’s second most populous nation, had a restrictive media space prior to April 2018 and the coming into office of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed.

Sticking by his reform promise, Abiy released hundreds of political prisoners, jailed press men and opened up the media landscape. Under his watch, media outlets previously banned were allowed to return and operate in the country.

Social media has however been a blessing and headache for Abiy. His office has effectively used Twitter and Facebook to project work being done by government.

But the platform has also been blamed for the rise in the spread of fake news and the peddling of hate speech. As expected the new law continues to receive backlash from journalists and human rights activists especially.

(africanews.com)

But then who decides what is true and what is fake?

That eternal question….and fodder for so many blog posts.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

2020 Dem Debate #10

This is the last chance voters will get to hear from these candidates before Super Tuesday, 3 March…..

But first here is a thought…..our forever wars has made little appearance thanks to the corporate control of these debates….so a few facts before I go to the analysis of this debate….

Donald Trump’s tax scam will cost $2.3 trillion over the next 10 years—with the lion’s share going to the top 1%.

George W. Bush’s tax cuts cost over $4 trillion over the same time frame.

And since 2001, our forever wars in the Middle East have cost nearly $6 trillion.

You wouldn’t know any of that from watching CNN or Meet the Press. And yet every time a presidential candidate supports Medicare for All or the Green New Deal, the corporate media want to know exactly how every red cent will be paid for.

Just a thought.

Now on to the night of debate…….

And the dumbest question of the night was the one about the filibuster rule change…..(more to come)…..

Now thoughts on the debate last night…..

Seven Democrats took part in a fiery debate in South Carolina Tuesday night—one more than in last week’s primary debate. Tom Steyer joined Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg, and Michael Bloomberg in the Charleston debate, co-hosted by CBS News and the Congressional Black Caucus Institute. Analysts expected Sanders, the frontunner, to be a target and in the opening minutes, the senator was attacked by Bloomberg over reports that Russia plans interference to help his candidacy, by Biden over his record on guns, by Buttigieg for being divisive, and by Warren for his team “trashing” her after she “put in the work” on reining in Wall Street, Politico reports. “I’m hearing my name mentioned a little bit tonight. I wonder why,” Sanders quipped. Some highlights:

  • After Bloomberg said Russia was supporting Sanders so he could lose to President Trump, Sanders directly addressed the Russian president. “Mr. Putin, if I’m President of the United States, trust me, you’re not going to interfere in any more American elections,” he said.
  • Biden was asked about polls that show his support among black voters is falling ahead of South Carolina’s Feb. 29 primary, the Guardian reports. “I’ve worked like the devil to earn the vote of the African-American community,” Biden said. Asked if he would continue his campaign if he loses the state, Biden said: “I will win South Carolina.”
  • When addressing Bloomberg’s “stop-and-frisk” policy as New York City mayor, Buttigieg admitted that his own record as mayor of South Bend had shortcomings and said: “I’m conscious of the fact that there are seven white people on this stage talking about racial justice.”
  • Bloomberg was visibly angry after Warren said he once told a pregnant employee to “kill it.” “I never said it. Period,” he said. Warren also slammed Bloomberg for donating to Republican candidates. “Who funded Lindsey Graham’s campaign for re-election last time? It was Mayor Bloomberg,” she said. “He is the riskiest candidate standing on this stage.”
  • Klobuchar and Steyer both attacked the cost of Sanders’ proposals, saying Democratic voters would not support massive spending increases, the Washington Post reports. “The math does not add up,” Klobuchar said.
  • Biden criticized Steyer for investing in private prisons. When the billionaire said he no longer supported them, Biden gave him a Trump-style nickname: “Tommy come lately.”
  • Asked about his record on gun control, Sanders was booed when he tried to start criticizing Biden’s record on trade deals, the Guardian reports. Sanders admitted there were some “bad votes” on his record but stressed that he only had a D-plus record from the NRA.
  • Biden vowed to take on the NRA. “If I’m elected, NRA, I’m coming for you, and gun manufacturers, I’m going to take you on and I’m going to beat you,” said Biden, who claimed, incorrectly, that gun violence has killed 150 million Americans since 2007.
  • Warren and Buttigieg both targeted Sanders for his opposition to changing Senate rules to stop legislation being filibuster, the New York Times reports. “How are we going to support a revolution, if you don’t even support a rule change?” Buttigieg asked.
  • Tom Steyer got some cheers when he said he was the only candidate onstage that supported reparations for slavery. The policy is one that he mentions “when he’s asked why he’s doing so well among black voters in South Carolina,” FiveThirtyEight notes.
  • As the debate became increasingly bad-tempered, with candidates desperate for speaking time talking over each other, Buttigieg was asked to “honor the rules of the debate.”
  • Bloomberg, seeming slightly more relaxed than he was in last week’s debate, cracked a joke when asked about New York’s anti-obesity tax on sugary drinks, CBS reports. “What’s right for New York City isn’t right for every other city, otherwise we’d have a naked cowboy in every city,” he said.
  • Bloomberg said he supported decriminalizing marijuana because the “cat is out of the bag,” but said legalization should go slowly because “until we know the science, it’s just nonsensical to push ahead.”
  • On the coronavirus outbreak—which Bloomberg was the first candidate to bring up, more than an hour in—Biden stressed that he had been part of the administration that dealt with the Ebola outbreak. Klobuchar advised worried viewers to check the CDC’s website.
  • When asked whether she would allow China to build parts of America’s infrastructure, Warren pivoted to attacking Bloomberg. “We know that Mayor Bloomberg has been doing business with China for a long time, and he is the only one on this stage who has not released his taxes,” she said.
  • Asked about his remarks on Fidel Castro’s education policy, Sanders said he rejected authoritarianism and he had merely been making the same point Barack Obama did, the Times reports. Biden said his former boss “did not in any way suggest that there was anything positive about the Cuban government.”
  • Sanders, who would be the first Jewish president, called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a “reactionary racist” and said he would consider moving America’s embassy back to Tel Aviv. US foreign policy should ensure the “independence and security of Israel, but you cannot ignore the suffering of the Palestinian people,” he said.
  • The final question was a two-parter: Candidates were asked what the biggest misconception about them was, and what their motto is. Klobuchar said the biggest misconception about her is that she is boring. Warren said one misconception “is that I don’t eat very much because I eat all the time.” Bloomberg joked about his height, while Biden promised to put a black woman on the Supreme Court.

All in all the game plan that the media had set about to create was followed to the letter by the candidates.

The night was a waste of time…..but the moderators did what they set out to do….have the candidates assassinate their opponents….the voter learned nothing new or for that matter anything at all.  I am still waiting for a substantial conversation n immigration…..a little in Nevada but now…..(sound of crickets)….

I did like Biden’s Reagan-esque attempt to look tough…..it failed.

But if you need a winner and losers then this should help……

  • Joe Biden. The former vice president was among the winners, analysts say. South Carolina is a must-win for him, and he “kept his hopes alive with one of his strongest debate performances,” writes Niall Stanage at the Hill. Biden—”sharper and more vigorous” than in previous debates—sought to portray himself as someone with the political and strategic chops to get things done rather than merely talk about aspirations,” Stanage writes.
  • Bernie Sanders. This was not the senator’s strongest debate performance, but facing a barrage of attacks from rivals, he held his own well enough to be considered a winner. “As the primary’s commanding frontrunner, Sanders’s chief objective Tuesday night was to exit with only mild bruising and limited blood loss. And he met that goal,” writes Eric Levitz at New York. “The sheer messiness of the proceedings … allowed the Vermont senator to escape without suffering any viral humiliation or headline-worthy blow,” he writes.
  • Elizabeth Warren. The senator made it into most lists of debate winners with a performance considered strong, but not the game-changer she needs. “She was dominant in last week’s debate “but she did not replicate that performance, and some strategists criticized her decision to once again focus on Mr. Bloomberg instead of the front-runner, Mr. Sanders,” writes Maggie Astor at the New York Times. “But she did have several strong moments, and commentators praised her ability to cut through the free-for-all onstage.”
  • Pete Buttigieg. The former South Bend mayor received mixed reviews, though Chris Cillizza at CNN ranks him among the winners. “He found several occasions to make direct contrasts with Bernie Sanders—most notably on the dangers for Democrats of nominating a democratic socialist and the differences in their health care plans—which is a win in and of itself,” Cillizza writes
  • Amy Klobuchar. Klobuchar had a reasonably good night, analysts say—but not on a par with her New Hampshire debate performance, and probably not good enough to keep her campaign alive for much longer. “Klobuchar had a good night,” Geoffrey Skelley writes at FiveThirtyEight. “She looked competent and knowledgeable about a host of issues. She also made some appeals to the African-American community, which were very important given her almost nonexistent support among that voting bloc.”
  • Michael Bloomberg. The former New York City mayor turned in a slightly better performance than last week—but it wasn’t enough to keep him out of the losers’ column. “Bloomberg did little to make an affirmative case for himself, even on the electability front,” writes Aaron Blake at the Washington Post. And he offered mealy-mouthed rebuttals to some of the attacks against him, including again downplaying the women who complained about their treatment at his companies.
  • Tom Steyer. “The commentariat didn’t have much bad to say about Mr. Steyer,” Astor notes at the Times. “But the hard truth was that they didn’t really have much to say about him at all.”

For me the biggest loser was Bloomberg…he still cannot grasp the idea of a debate.

The winner was Bernie….he took flak all over the stage and still did not lose his composure….the rest were just typical blah blah blah…….

Not to worry there is more to come.

A thought–the whole debate process should be reformed to the point of outlawing slogans and theatrics…..to a real debate not a regurgitation of talking points.

Saturday’s South Carolina vote and then next Tuesday is the Super Tuesday vote…..

Watch This Blog!

Learn Stuff!

VOTE!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Fake News And More Fake News

Let me start with a thought for my readers…..”Information is NOT Knowledge”…..

If you are smart enough to watch the events of the nation and world then you are bombarded constantly by fake news/disinformation and maybe you would like to learn more on how to separate fact from bullshit……then I can help….do not take my word for what is real or fake…..there is a process…..

Fake news has been around a long time….let me help with a short history lesson…..

“Sensationalism always sold well. By the early 19th century, modern newspapers came on the scene, touting scoops and exposés, but also fake stories to increase circulation. The New York Sun’s “Great Moon Hoax” of 1835 claimed that there was an alien civilization on the moon, and established the Sun as a leading, profitable newspaper.”

False and distorted news material isn’t exactly a new thing. It’s been a part of media history long before social media, since the invention of the printing press. It’s what sells tabloids. On the internet, headline forms called clickbait entice people to click to read more, by trying to shock and amaze us. What’s more outrageous to read about than fake things that didn’t actually happen?

https://www.cits.ucsb.edu/fake-news/brief-history

And then there were  some fake news that people believed without question….and I have 10 of the best…….

Today, people are worried about fake news, and its effect on politics and social issues. And with fake news sites getting better and better at looking legitimate, so it is a serious concern, especially with the rise of deepfakes making it harder to distinguish a fake person from the real deal. However, most fake news stories are actually just designed to get a rise out of people, or for a quick laugh and sophistication is rarely necessary. The truth is that people often believe things that confirm their own deeply held biases, without ever making sure the new “fact” is actually true, and we will go over ten examples of this phenomenon in today’s article. 

10. Kids Smoking Bed Bugs To “Get High”

https://www.toptenz.net/fake-news-stories-people-actually-fell-for.php

Awhile back I had a talk with my granddaughter after she asked me about fake news…..and I told her to keep in mind this graphic…..

How to Spot Fake News

If you would like this is the post about that talk we had…..https://gulfsouthfreepress.wordpress.com/2018/09/07/let-the-truth-be-known/

Social media has turned the lies of fake news into an art form…..and that is truly sad…..turning ignorance into usable tactic to influence.

More information……https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2020/01/14/the_evolution_of_disinformation_how_public_opinion_became_proxy_114974.html

“The freedom of press makes its influence felt not only upon political opinions but also on all men’s opinions. It modifies customs as well as laws.”
—Alexis de Tocqueville

Could that explain the popularity of disinformation?

Why are conspiracies so prevalent? Why are facts and truth so elusive to so many today? Why are people so susceptible to disinformation? Why is the current political climate so peculiar, turbulent, and divided? It is clear that there is a relationship between the disinformation that people ingest and the vitriol that some seem to spit out. These puzzling circumstances may be the result of a growing trend of postmodern thought in the United States and the world.[i] Unsurprisingly, recent reports indicate that Russia is currently interfering in the 2020 election. Though difficult to estimate, and since the country has done virtually nothing to combat it, the Russians consider their past interferences highly successful, if at nothing more than just sowing the seeds of discontent and chaos in US domestic politics.  That said, the questions still remains: why is disinformation so effective on the US population? The rise in effectiveness of Russian disinformation is directly related to the increase in postmodern thinkers amongst the US population, because postmodern thinkers are easy to manipulate. To be clear, Postmodernism is not some form of trendy, divergent thinking, but rather a serious intellectual, conceptual, cultural, psychological and philosophical engagement which challenges humanity’s engagement with itself and the world.[ii] Just as the enlightenment brought us modern thought, reason and science, postmodern thought attempts to obliterate it. It is in the national interest, for strategists to pay close attention because they will be responsible for developing strategies to survive in a postmodern strategic context. What follows is an attempted explanation of what may be the cause of many issues and phenomena in our political climate today.

https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/new-postmodern-condition-why-disinformation-has-become-so-effective

A closing thought–“Stupidity Is The Deliberate Cultivation of Ignorance”

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

It’s That Regime Change Thing Again

****A bit late with so much happening this draft was moved around until a more appropriate time was found.****

At the SOTU speech brought his butt buddy Guido (yes I know that is not his name) and made sure that he got his moment in the light for Venezuela will be the next attempt at regime change….or as I call it….a colossal waste of money and people….

We Americans seem to always think that we can build a better nation for other people….and most times it is always a failure…..

Forcible regime change, or using military force to overthrow a foreign government, can be enticing when a regime appears to be threatening U.S. security. The logic is that when a regime continues to work against U.S. interests, replacing the regime can be a quick and easy way to change this pattern rather than sustained military action or diplomatic negotiation.

The problem, however, is that a resounding amount of research has shown that regime change rarely succeeds. Regardless of the goal, regime change mostly fails to produce better economic conditions, build lasting democracy or promote more stable relations to advance U.S. interests. From Haiti and the Dominican Republic in the 1910s, to South Vietnam in the 1960s, to Iraq in the 2000s, the United States failed to achieve these goals over 110 years of regime-change missions.

And when regime change does not achieve these goals, it can provoke a civil war — as it did in Congo following the regime change mission in Léopoldville (now Kinshasa) in 1960 to oust Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba — degrade respect for human rights and create more instability. Worse, rather than being a quick and easy policy success, the instability created after a regime is deposed often leads to lengthy nation-building projects that policymakers never intended.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/regime-change-rarely-succeeds-when-will-us-learn

It is like a forced conversion….seldom has a lasting effect or belief…

By far the dumbest thing that Americans tend to believe is the successes of regime change……

By far the dumbest thing in all of US politics is the fact that Democrats tend to support regime change in Syria, while Republicans tend to support it more in Iran. I am not talking about the elected officials in those parties; I’m talking about the ordinary rank-and-file Joes and Janets who stand absolutely nothing to gain from toppling either Damascus or Tehran, but who have been brainwashed by lifelong media consumption into supporting one or the other anyway.

Whenever I write against the US government’s longstanding agenda to replace the leadership of Tehran with a compliant puppet regime, I know with absolute certainty that I’m going to spend the rest of my time online arguing with Trump supporters and lifelong Republicans. Whenever I write against the US government’s longstanding agenda to do the same in Syria, I know with absolute certainty that I’m going to be arguing predominantly with so-called centrist liberals.

At no time has this ever failed to occur.

View at Medium.com

The whole idea of regime change is just plain silly and at best a damn LIE.

The United States has, at various times in its history, used military force to promote regime change around the world in pursuit of its interests. In recent years, however, there has been a growing scholarly consensus that these foreign regime‐​change operations are often ineffective and produce deleterious side effects. Whether trying to achieve political, security, economic, or humanitarian goals, scholars have found that regime‐​change missions do not succeed as envisioned. Instead, they are likely to spark civil wars, lead to lower levels of democracy, increase repression, and in the end, draw the foreign intervener into lengthy nation‐​building projects.

https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/more-things-change-more-they-stay-same

But yet both parties champion one or the other…..and never half to pay for being a dismal failure.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Closing Thought–25Feb20

First let me say Happy Mardi Gras!

Debate Night!

There will be 7 or so Dem candidates on the stage for the debate tonight……and of those there only Bernie is flush with cash……(sorry about that I was ignoring the billionaires buying their way forward)….

At a time in the race when running a presidential campaign is getting more expensive, many of the Democrats remaining have less money. After being camped in Iowa for what seemed like ages, the candidates now have multiple, scattered primaries ahead. And on top of competing with Bernie Sanders’ fundraising surge, they now face a billionaire climbing in the polls who can spend as much as is needed. Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, and Elizabeth Warren are nearly out of cash, Politico reports. Financial disclosures filed Thursday night show Biden down to $7.1 million, Buttigieg with $6.6 million, Klobuchar at $2.9 million, and Warren having just $2.3 million. At the other end is Sanders, who has close to $17 million. For January, the candidates raised $58 million in total and spent nearly $357 million, per the Hill.

The struggling candidates are taking steps. Buttigieg, who raised $6.1 million in January but spent more than twice that, asked supporters this week to kick in another $13 million by Super Tuesday on March 3. “We are now also up against a billionaire who is throwing colossal sums of money on television instead of doing the work of campaigning,” he wrote, referring to Michael Bloomberg. Tom Steyer also is funding his own campaign. Warren has taken out a $3 million line of credit, though she had a strong month in January, collecting $10.2 million. The problem was that she spent twice what she took in. With the new need to buy ads in 14 states, super PACs are stepping in, as well. A new one, Persist PAC, lined up more than $1 million worth of ads this week for Warren.

Most of these candidates……are depending on South Carolina to give them a bump and some much needed cash infusions.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Who Was The 6th President Of The United States?

Time for your history lesson…..stuff your teacher did not teach you…..

What do you know about the 6th president? Save your anxiety…..John Quincy Adams.

The first President who was the son of a President, John Quincy Adams in many respects paralleled the career as well as the temperament and viewpoints of his illustrious father. Born in Braintree, Massachusetts, in 1767, he watched the Battle of Bunker Hill from the top of Penn’s Hill above the family farm. As secretary to his father in Europe, he became an accomplished linguist and assiduous diarist.

After graduating from Harvard College, he became a lawyer. At age 26 he was appointed Minister to the Netherlands, then promoted to the Berlin Legation. In 1802 he was elected to the United States Senate. Six years later President Madison appointed him Minister to Russia.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/john-quincy-adams/

That was general info that some will already know….then let’s look deeper…..

Why does it matter what Adams said and did 200 years ago? Because the common misunderstanding of his role contributes to a larger misunderstanding of what U.S. foreign policy has been in the past and should be in the future. Advocates of a sharply curtailed foreign policy often contend that they are simply calling for a reversion to the time-tested American tradition of non-intervention and limited engagement with the world. They argue that Adams is representative of a more realistic statecraft that has been lost amid America’s alleged obsession with projecting its influence and values beyond its borders.

Uncovering the actual legacy of John Quincy Adams might make one think differently.

Restraint and the ‘Actual Legacy’ of John Quincy Adams

To rehash the things that Adams did in his life…..

#1 He served as U.S. Ambassador to several nations

In his mid-twenties, John Quincy Adams wrote a series of articles supporting President George Washington’s policy of keeping U.S. out of the hostilities in Europe which resulted due the French Revolution. In 1793, at the age of 26, Adams was appointed the United States Ambassador to the Netherlands by Washington. Three years later, Washington appointed him Minister to Portugal, and in the year after that, he was appointed Minister to Prussia by President John Adams, his father. In 1809, President James Madison appointed him as the first ever U.S. Ambassador to Russia, and in 1815, he was appointed Minister to Great Britain.

10 Major Accomplishments of John Quincy Adams

Now you know all about a little studied president of the United States…..

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

Class Dismissed!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Can Amy Win In 2020?

College of Political Knowledge

#7 of series

One of the few women that remains in the 2020 Dem field is Amy Klobuchar….lots of back and forth can she win? Or can she?

In the last Dem debate Amy said that thanks to her the voter turn out in Minnesota was large…..was it?

In her opening shot at Wednesday’s Democratic primary debate, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) claimed credit for Minnesota’s high voter turnout, citing it as evidence of her ability to beat Donald Trump. “I am the one on this stage that had the highest voter turnout of any state in the country when I led the ticket,” she said.

It’s true that Minnesota topped the list for voter turnout nationally in 2018 when Klobuchar ran for re-election. But Minnesota voters also led the country in voter turnout in 2016, when Klobuchar wasn’t on the ticket. (That year, Minnesota regained its regular position on top of the chart from a blip in 2014, when it fell to sixth.)

No, Amy Klobuchar Is Not Responsible for Minnesota’s High Voter Turnout

Back to the original question…..can Amy win in 2020?  (This analysis is from Vox)…..

the best case for the leading Democratic candidates. This article is the the sixth in the series. Read them all here. Vox does not endorse individual candidates.

The case for Sen. Amy Klobuchar comes down to three words: the Electoral College.

Any Democrat up against President Donald Trump this fall won’t be able to count on winning the most votes to take the White House — the nominee will have to beat the convoluted map that heavily favors rural areas, and thus Republicans.

Hillary Clinton won nearly 3 million more votes than Trump in 2016, but her losses in Rust Belt states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania arguably cost her the Electoral College. Whoever runs against Trump will want to put these once-blue states back in the Democratic column, and they’ll have to win over rural voters to do it.

https://www.vox.com/2020/2/21/21133969/case-for-amy-klobuchar-electoral-college-democrats

That is the “word” on the street.

She will not get past Super Tuesday if she bombs in South Carolina and so far does not look good for her in that Southern state with a largely black electorate…..

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

VOTE!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

All Those Immigration Promises

I am sure that as the 2020 general kicks off then immigration will be more in the news than now…..so let’s look at the topic.

2016 election had Trump promising to end immigration and he had so many plans that he promised he would get on on day one (damn I hate that statement)…..

Does anyone remember all the promises? (Wait here for thought and an answer…..Hahahaha….like that will happen)

How many have been kept?

Yes I know he has started building a wall we do not need……but what abut the others?

Luckily you do not have to use your intellect or Google…..I have the answer ………

President Donald Trump has promised to make big changes on immigration since he was a candidate.

“The truth is our immigration system is worse than anybody ever realized,” the president said.

Among them, build a southern border wall, remove undocumented immigrants, cancel funding for sanctuary cities and other sanctuary jurisdictions, suspend immigration from certain countries, limit legal immigration, and end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

We’ll cover the border wall and DACA in separate stories, but here’s a closer look at some of these other promises.

“There are vast numbers of additional criminal illegal immigrants who have fled, but their days have run out in this country. The crime will stop. They’re going to be gone. It will be over,” the president said.

On the campaign trail, President Trump said he’d remove all undocumented immigrants from the U.S., especially those who had committed crimes. Pew Research estimated there were about 10.5 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. in 2017.

https://www.newsy.com/stories/trump-has-had-a-lot-of-immigration-plans-here-s-where-they-are/

In Trump’s defense….he is NOT the only president to promise and fail to deliver…..most times it was just a way to convince people to vote for them and they never had any intention of carrying the promises forward.

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Where Oh Where Did Foreign Policy Go?

No damn secret that I spend a lot of time read, researching and writing about our foreign policy mostly those policies that effect our direction in the Middle East.

I admit it…I have NO idea what the foreign policy of Pres. Trump is exactly……hard words for wars….hard words for foreign leaders…..the embrace of long time adversaries……and a general waffling on most policies.

I have become totally confused on his, Trump, intents around the world….what is this person doing to our foreign policy?

WHEN DONALD Trump delivered his first and only major foreign policy address of the 2016 campaign on April 27 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, he indicated that it was time for a fundamental change in America’s approach to both its allies and adversaries. Now that the 2020 presidential campaign has begun in earnest, it’s worth looking back at that speech to measure how far he has met the goals that he set. Has Trump profoundly altered the course of American foreign policy? Or has he been a study in inconsistency?

At the outset of his 2016 speech, he declared that it was time to “shake the rust off America’s foreign policy.” He proposed to remove it by pursuing a policy of America First that would usher in a shiny new nationalism. To be sure, Trump pointed to the Cold War as an era of American greatness. But he argued that the very triumphalism that had emerged after the fall of the Berlin Wall set the stage for the disasters that ensued in the Middle East, when the George W. Bush administration set out on a quixotic quest to transform the region overnight into a bastion of Western-style democracies. The problems were only compounded by President Barack Obama’s intervention in Libya. According to Trump, “each of these actions have helped to throw the region into chaos and gave isis the space it needs to grow and prosper. Very bad.” He also noted that these actions had created a vacuum that allowed Iran to expand its reach and influence.

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/has-trump-altered-course-american-foreign-policy-124101

Thanx to Trump we have a total disruption in our foreign policy and our national interests….but why?

Disagreement and conflict plague our foreign policy discussions in the same way confusion about the nature of justice makes it difficult to make ethically informed personal decisions. Foreign policy consensus is rare in America, just as moral consensus is the stuff of fairy tales. However, difficulty in reaching agreement is no excuse to succumb to relativism or blind fatalism. Government officials, military leaders, and diplomats must still make decisions and pursue foreign policy goals despite the lack of clear, unambiguous guidance. Indeed, many disagreements in the foreign policy community arise not from a lack of clear goals, but rather from their overabundance. Prioritizing them, deciding where to dedicate significant resources and which to abandon—these are the subjects of never-ending debate in public discourse.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2020/02/07/whose_national_interest_which_foreign_policy_115030.html

I am an old fart…..plus I am an aging antiwar activist and I see the only way out of this cycle of ignorance in our foreign policy can only be saved by the Millennial Generation……(if they are up to the task)…..

In mainstream media outlets, Millennials (a generation with shockingly little wealth) have spent the last decade on a multi-industry killing spree. Now Millennials, along with neighboring Gen X and Gen Z, are coming for your politics.

In both the 2016 and 2018 elections, Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z have combined to cast more votes than Boomers and older generations. In the 2018 midterm elections, Millennial turnout nearly doubled from the prior 2014 midterm election. Still, Millennials haven’t taken over: while 42 percent of eligible Millennials voted, that still lags behind the 64 percent of Boomers who trekked to the polls.

But as Millennials and younger generations of Americans claim a larger share of the electoral pie, the issues on which they differ from older Americans become more salient. And there are many. As Pew says in their 2018 report, “The Generation Gap in American Politics”:

Can Millennials save U.S. foreign policy?

To illustrate the direction that young would travel in foreign policy look no further than those young reps in Congress……

The plan calls for the U.S. to cease the “go-it-alone” strategy that has dominated the country’s foreign policy for decades and to instead seek rapprochement with other countries and to prioritize human rights and other areas of global cooperation.

Path to PEACE includes seven pieces of legislation calling for Congressional approval of sanctions, the end of arms sales to human rights violators, and instituting policies aimed at protecting and promoting rights of children, among other issues. 

“The United States can be an agent of peace and end the global refugee crisis if we elect members of Congress who will make this a priority,” tweeted Jetpac executive director Mohammed Missouri.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/02/12/ilhan-omar-unveils-bold-proposal-us-foreign-policy-deeply-rooted-justice

For those interested in her plan for our foreign policy…..https://omar.house.gov/sites/omar.house.gov/files/wysiwyg_uploaded/OMARMN_067_xml.pdf

This plan will get my support…that is until they corporate owned Reps start “tweaking” the plan….and then I will withdraw my support…..

One last thought on Trump foreign policy……from the Orange County paper…..

President Trump campaigned on ending America’s endless wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Three years into his presidency, we’re not only engaged in the same dubious entanglements, but now at greater risk of conflict with Iran following the president’s killing of Iran’s Qassem Soleimani.

On Jan. 3, an American drone strike killed Soleimani, a top Iranian general, and others. Purportedly, according to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the strike was necessary to prevent imminent Iranian attacks against the United States. While Trump administration officials have variously defined “imminent” as meaning attacks days or weeks away, some congressional Democrats, including Sen. Tom Udall, have cast doubt on the threat.

If Trump wants to end endless wars, he should stop stumbling into another one

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”