Republican Party

The Abuses Of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) And Border Patrol Agents Is Outrageous!

It is now clear that there are a multitude of agents who work for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and for the Border Patrol, who are abusing migrant women and children in Texas and Florida and elsewhere, including verbal, emotional, and physical abuse, including the deaths of at least six children.

There is racism, misogyny, and sexual abuse going on, and these agents do not speak foreign languages, and ignore the sufferings of children who will be scarred for life by their horrible experiences.

Most of these people have tried to escape from bloodshed, persecution, violence, and abuse in their Central Americans nations, and yet are being denied the right to apply for asylum, and are now living through a literal nightmare often worse than what they escaped.

This is an outrage, against the Bill of Rights and condemns Donald Trump as the worst abuser of civil rights and liberties of any President of the United States.

The racism, nativism, misogyny, white supremacy, and purely disgusting human behavior being seen and reported is a scar on the American nation, and there is a dire need for a quick firing of at least a large portion of ICE and the Border Patrol, and a rapid reorganization of those agencies, which are presently perceived as Nazi and Fascist in their image and actions.

On July 4, Independence Day, this horrific situation is a stain on the American celebration of its 243rd birthday!

Ronald Reagan, in his last speech as President a day before he retired from the Presidency in 1989, glowed about the virtues of immigration, which he said had made us a greater and stronger nation, and he spoke of the glory of the Statue of Liberty, representing open arms for the refugees from all nations, escaping bloodshed, persecution, and oppression, and starting a new life in the haven on earth known as America!

It is a certainty that Ronald Reagan, the paragon of conservatism, would be appalled at what Donald Trump has done on immigration, and the fact that the Republican Party officeholders have nothing to say, condemns all of them to the garbage heap of history, as having stood by and ignored the massive violation of human rights, and actual war crimes being committed by ICE and the Border Patrol, by criminal elements that have bragged about and ridiculed the sufferings of innocent men, women and children on Facebook.

One can be sure that Karma will visit these evil forces, and eventually, many will be held accountable as among the worst elements ever to exist in American government in modern times!

The Second Debate Mix: What To Expect

The second Democratic Presidential debate will take place on Thursday, June 27 from 9-11 pm on NBC and MSNBC.

It includes the following ten candidates:

Joe Biden

Bernie Sanders

Pete Buttigieg

Kamala Harris

Kirsten Gillibrand

Michael Bennet

Marianne Williamson

Eric Swalwell

John Hickenlooper

Andrew Yang

The group includes the former Vice President and US Senator; four other US Senators; a member of the House of Representatives; a Mayor; a former Governor; and two independent, out of government candidates.

This debate has more of the so called “heavyweights”—Biden, Sanders, Buttigieg, Harris—with the other six candidates seen as much weaker in likelihood of long term survival.

Joe Biden must defend himself as the clear front runner, and avoid any more gaffes, after some controversial statements about his past ability to cross the aisle and work with past racial segregationists, as well as his continued habit of touching and hugging women and children, violating their personal space. He could be harmed by a poor performance, but one must remember how good he was in debates in 2008, and against Sarah Palin and Paul Ryan in Vice Presidential debates in 2008 and 2012.

Bernie Sanders will come across strongly, but has many concerned that he cannot carry the nation in the upcoming Presidential election, with the fact that he embraces the word “Socialist”, which can be abused by Trump and the Republicans against him. He will be engaged in major combat with Biden for sure, as Sanders attempts to overtake him in future polls and fundraising.

Pete Buttigieg has been involved in a major crisis as South Bend, Indiana Mayor, with the recent murder of a black man by city police, and he is under attack for the racial troubles involving the law enforcement community. He should do well in the debate, but can he overcome the massive lead of Biden and Sanders over the rest of the contenders, is the question.

Kamala Harris should come on strong as well, but will need to clarify her stand on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which she compared months ago to the Ku Klux Klan. The assumption is that she will continue to flourish and possibly grow in support.

Some people think Marianne Williamson and Andrew Yang, outsiders who clearly have great ideas and intellect, might shine, but somehow, this author and blogger does not see it succeeding.

Of the remaining four, it seems to this author and blogger that Eric Swalwell has the best shot of survival, just a gut feeling, but that Kirsten Gillibrand, Michael Bennet, and John Hickenlooper have little chance of lasting much beyond the first couple of months of the debate season.

My gut feeling is that out of this group that Biden, Sanders, Buttigieg, Harris, Swalwell, and possibly Williamson and Yang will survive to go on for another day.

This would make the 20 candidates diminish to 12—-and one can say only possibly Steve Bullock, Montana Governor, who was not allowed in the first set of debates, might still have a shot of those few who are not in this debate, leaving Seth Moulton, Congressman from Massachusetts, and the new announced candidate, former Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Sestak, out in the cold.

So expect out of 23 candidates, 13 will make it to the future debates.

The Misunderstanding Of The Terms “Liberal” And “Progressive”

A new debate is emerging over the use of the terms “Liberal” and “Progressive”.

There are those who think there is a real difference between these two political terms, but this blogger and author wishes to make clear that he sees no difference in reality.

The term “Progressive” became popular with the rise of President Theodore Roosevelt, and Senators Robert La Follette Sr of Wisconsin and George Norris of Nebraska in the early 20th century. This term became notable due to these Republican officeholders and others.

But in the 1930s, Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal ushered in a different term, that the reforms of the 1930s were “Liberal”, and for the next half century, “Liberal” was the preferred term, promoted by President John F. Kennedy, and Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota and others in the Democratic Party, and by Republicans including Governor Nelson Rockefeller and Senator Jacob Javits of New York and others.

With the rise of Ronald Reagan to the Presidency, with the attacks on “liberalism” by conservatives, the term “Progressive” returned to favor, and this author chose that term for the title of his blog, when he began it in 2008.

But I consider the terms “Liberal” and “Progressive” to be interchangeable, as both represent the promotion of the virtues of government; the need for economic regulation; the promotion of social reform; and concern for human rights and environmental protection. Additionally, the importance of international alliances and agreements is paramount, and the avoidance of unnecessary wars and military intervention except if truly a threat to national security, is essential.

So for instance, World War II, the Korean War, and the Persian Gulf War were justifiable, while the wars in Vietnam and Iraq were not justifiable, and support of military dictatorships around the world suppressing freedom has always been unethical and immoral.

So as I stated on my Personal Profile page since August 2008, I am proud to call myself a “Liberal” AND a “Progressive”!

Average Age Of Presidents Is 55: Should Democrats Choose A Younger Nominee?

The Democratic Party faces a quandary: Should they choose a younger nominee as more likely to attract younger voters?

Three times in the past half century, the Democrats picked a much younger nominee than the Republicans:

1976 Jimmy Carter 11 years younger than Gerald Ford

1992 Bill Clinton 22 years younger than George H. W. Bush

2008 Barack Obama 25 years younger than John McCain

All three of those Republicans were far less provocative and controversial than is Donald Trump.

Is nominating someone (Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden) who is older than Donald Trump a wise choice?

Is nominating someone only a few years younger (Elizabeth Warren, Jay Inslee, John Hickenlooper) a wise choice?

Or would it be far better to nominate someone much younger than Trump to attract younger voters, particularly millennials, someone in their 50s or 40s as a multitude of potential nominees are (ranging from Amy Klobuchar at age 60 down to Pete Buttigieg at age 39)–and including women, minorities, and a gay man to move the nation forward in the 21st century, with a greater guarantee that they will live out their one or two terms in the White House?

This is what Democrats in upcoming caucuses and primaries next year have to come to grips with, with no easy answer as to what should occur!

Nancy Pelosi, The Most Powerful Woman In American History, And Dealing With The Worst Tyrant In American History!

Face it, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is the most powerful woman in American history, and dealing with the worst tyrant in American history, Donald Trump.

Pelosi is two heartbeats away from the Presidency, the highest position any woman has ever attained, as being Secretary of State (making Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton four heartbeats away from the Presidency in the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama respectively), was the next highest position which has ever been attained by a woman.

Pelosi is already the third longest serving woman in the history of the House of Representatives, with 32.5 years of service since 1987.

She is a very strong leader, the most significant Speaker since Thomas “Tip” O’Neill was Speaker from 1977-1987, and is likely to be put in his league of significance, along with Speaker Sam Rayburn, who served 16 out of 20 years from 1941-1961.

She managed to overcome her rivals in the Democratic Party, including House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and House Majority Whip James Clyburn, and to control the new young membership of women who have come to the House in 2019.

She was able to hold her own with Republican Speakers John Boehner and Paul Ryan, and Donald Trump is truly terrified by her, and until just now, avoided calling her names, although now calling her “Crazy Nancy”, as she has made clear that “intervention” is needed, as Trump has displayed not just narcissistic behavior, but also signs of serious mental illness that threatens the nation’s national security.

If Trump thinks he can overcome this woman, he will clearly have a recognition over the next year and a half that Pelosi will triumph over him, and will bring him to the taking of responsibility and accountability for his illegal, unconstitutional behavior.

Anyone who underestimates Nancy Pelosi will learn the hard lesson, as many have, that she is a survivor who will not take abuse and turn her cheek, but will in her own unique manner, come out on top, as a savior of our American constitutional system.

The Federal Court System Is Going Back To 19th Century Mentality With Mediocre Trump Appointees Unwilling To Accept “Stare Decisis” On Major Issues Supposedly Settled, And Undermining American Democracy

America is in danger of seeing the federal court system being hijacked by President Donald Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and the Republican Party, and putting us back in the late 19th century “Gilded Age”, where unregulated capitalism prevailed; segregation reigned; labor was victimized; the environment was being destroyed by industrial waste; and women had no basic legal rights.

Many Trump appointees to the lower federal courts are totally incompetent, and only placed in their lifetime positions to undermine all of the progress brought about under many different Presidents and Congresses in the past century to advance human rights.

Trump appointees seem ready to defy “stare decisis”, the concept of past precedent having a major impact on many areas of the law, when cases comes to the Supreme Court and other federal courts.

So we may be seeing the end of abortion rights for women; denial of equality of racial and religious minorities; refusal to promote a more fair justice system; treating gays, lesbians and transgender in a discriminatory manner; and the reassertion of unregulated corporate power.

The Battle In The Democratic Party Over Impeachment Vs. Democratic Goal Of Accomplishment Of Party Agenda

The battle is in full swing now to move the House of Representatives toward impeachment hearings against Donald Trump.

But Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is still reluctant to move ahead, and it is causing a split within the Democratic caucus.

Donald Trump is refusing to cooperate in any fashion, including stonewalling any testimony by anyone connected to Trump, including by subpoena, and going to court to block any investigation of Trump tax returns.

Many Democrats are saying that the main emphasis of the Democratic Party should be to promote their agenda for the upcoming election, including dealing with Health Care, Global Warming, Environmental Protection, Education, the Minimum Wage, Civil Rights, and so much more.

The argument is that Donald Trump, even if impeached, will not be convicted by the Republican controlled US Senate, but the argument for doing what can be done is that it is needed to set a standard for future Presidents, so that never again, hopefully, will we have a lawless President on the level of a Donald Trump.

Despite Democratic desires to accomplish their legislative goals, the reality is that little actual legislation is possible as long as there is a divided Congress, where both parties control one chamber.

America is now, in many ways, in a greater crisis than we have had over the future of our Constitution and Bill of Rights since World War II, already seen as far greater than the Presidency of Richard Nixon. Then, many Republicans cooperated in doing what was essential to do, to get Nixon out of office, but sadly that is not the agenda now for a party which can only find one person, Congressman Justin Amash of Michigan, committed to impeachment and punishment for President Trump.

Michigan Congressman Justin Amash The Only Elected Republican Willing To Stand Up To Donald Trump On Obstruction Of Justice

Michigan Republican Congressman Justin Amash is not someone who progressives would admire, but on the issue of Donald Trump and impeachment, he is the only Congressional Republican willing to stick his neck out, and call for the impeachment of the President for Obstruction of Justice.

Amash is a right wing Republican who has served since 2011, and is one of the most conservative members of Congress, with libertarian beliefs, and a founding member of the House Freedom Caucus and a founder and Chair of the Liberty Caucus in that legislative body. He was an original Tea Party activist in 2009-2010 after Barack Obama became President.

His parents are Palestinian and Syrian Christians, so he is of Arab descent, and he represents western Michigan, including Grand Rapids, the area of Michigan represented by Gerald Ford for 25 years before he became Vice President and President.

He has been a critic of Trump from the beginning, and refused to endorse him, and now House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy has repudiated him, claiming he votes with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi more than with his party, which is purely a lie.

Amash has voted against funding for the border wall; has been critical of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement); voted against the Muslim Ban from seven nations promoted by Donald Trump in 2017; opposed renewal of the Patriot Act in 2011 and and is a critic of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; has served on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; and believes in Congress having the final say in the commitment of troops to combat overseas.

It seems as if he is a man without a party now, and it is rumored that he might run for the Libertarian Party Presidential nomination in 2020, which if he does, he could help affect the election and help to cause the defeat of Donald Trump, which would be true justice!

Clinton Case And Trump Case For Impeachment Totally Different, Including Clinton Popularity Remained High, And Trump Has Never Had A Majority Popularity Rating!

As the debate begins over whether Donald Trump should face impeachment by the House of Representatives, even if the US Senate will not convict, it is instructive to examine the Bill Clinton Impeachment and compare it to the proposed Donald Trump Impeachment.

Bill Clinton remained popular through the whole impeachment crisis and after, and yet the majority of the American people did not support his impeachment, based on the Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky scandals. But the Republican Party played politics, and insisted on impeaching him and bringing him to trial in the Senate, knowing full well that Clinton would NOT be removed from office, and knowing that if he was removed, Al Gore would have become President and had an edge as a sitting President for the 2000 Presidential election.

Donald Trump, on the other hand has never been popular with more than 42-43 percent of the American people, and the support for his impeachment has grown as time has passed, although a majority in polls do not yet support action to be taken, despite the clear cut abuses of power and obstruction of justice being utilized by Trump, including refusal to hand over documents and have people testify before Congressional committees. And the fact that he has earned hundreds of millions of dollars from his properties, violating the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, is yet another reason for his impeachment, no matter what happens in the Senate.

Democrats know that if Donald Trump were to be removed, Mike Pence would replace him, a horrifying thought, but for the record of history, it is clear that Donald Trump is more abusive of power, and violating the separation of powers and checks and balances, endangering the nation in international affairs, and in retaining the great reforms of Democratic and Republican Presidents since Theodore Roosevelt and through Barack Obama.

There is no acceptable excuse for moving ahead on impeachment, and it is time for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to stop worrying about the impact of impeachment, and do the right thing, make Donald Trump accountable under the Constitution for his violation of his Presidential oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States!

Four Presidential Candidates Who Should Run For Senate Instead

It is clear, with the announcement today officially that Montana Governor Steve Bullock is running for President, making for a total of 22 candidates, that there are simply too many, and that some of them need to give up the fight, and run instead for the US Senate, to bolster the chances of a Democratic take over in 2020.

Without the Senate, any Democratic President will face the impossibility of accomplishing his or her goals for the nation, both domestically and in foreign affairs.

So some friendly advice as follows:

Steve Bullock of Montana, run for the US Senate, and since you have been a popular Governor for two terms, spend your time on helping the Democrats gain the Senate majority and defeat Senator Steve Daines.

John Hickenlooper of Colorado, the same advice for you, run to defeat Cory Gardner, one of the most endangered Republicans.

Beto O’Rourke of Texas, you could really help make the Lone Star State turn “Blue” after your close race against Ted Cruz in 2018. Run to retire John Cornyn.

And Stacey Abrams, who is rumored to be thinking of announcing for President, instead you should run for Senator in Georgia, and defeat David Perdue.