Know Nothings — Part II

February 13, 2017

There was a time in our nation’s history when some politicians tried to restrict immigration based on the country of origin and religion. In fact, an entire political party was formed with that agenda. They were called the “Know Nothings” and their platform was eerily like that of Trump and his supporters today.

The Know Nothings attempted to restrict Roman Catholics from immigrating to the U.S. and they targeted predominantly Roman Catholic countries, such as Ireland, for immigration bans. Their argument was that “papists” were enemies of our country, seeking to destroy the government and replace it with a papal state. They cited false claims of violence and weapons smuggling (for the purpose of slaughtering innocent women and children) to arouse fear of immigrants. They claimed that Catholics could not be trusted to be loyal to country over their religion (a claim that persisted even to the campaign of President Kennedy). They claimed that Catholicism was incompatible with American ideals, and that people from Catholic countries were inherently violent and criminals.

Facts about the Know Nothings are easily accessible to anyone who can read a history book, but they appear to be lost on a large part of the present generation of Americans. I even wonder how many American Catholics realize how similar their own arguments against Muslims were used against their great grandparents?

Fear was exploited by the Know Nothings to generate hatred, just as fear is being used now to justify not only violating our principles and ideals, but also our laws. Will we remember the past mistakes and the suffering of our own relatives and reject the attempts to ban Muslims? Ultimately, it was the courts who rescued our national soul and ruled against laws attempting to ban immigration based on religion and country of origin. Let’s hope the courts will do the same today.


Know-Nothings Part I

February 10, 2017

The recent order to ban immigrants from seven Muslim countries has generated a lot of misinformation. With the hearing on the district court order staying the president’s order being argued today in the court of appeals, it would be nice to get a few facts straight on what is being argued by our own federal government.

Three other federal district court judges have concurred that the presidential order appears to be unconstitutional (one district judge disagrees) because it violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution and previous case law prohibiting restrictions on immigration based on religion and country of origin. The presidential order identifies seven countries — all majority Muslim countries — for the ban, which plaintiffs argue is a ban based on country of origin. Furthermore, it allows for exceptions based on religion — Christians and other “oppressed” minorities in the banned countries are allowed to immigrate while the majority Muslim population is not. Plaintiffs argue that this is, in effect, a Muslim ban since non-Muslims are excepted and even though minority Sunni Muslims are being slaughtered at a far greater rate than Christians who are permitted as an exception.

So, the facts are that it is a ban based on country of origin and based on religion, and an obvious violation of the constitution. Attorneys for the administration are arguing that there is an exception based on national security concerns, and there is precedent for this exception, except they are not really arguing within the limitations imposed on previous exceptions. Rather, they are arguing that the courts have no jurisdiction at all because the president has declared the basis of the ban as being one of national security. They argue that the judges should not make their determination based on “facts” or a “rational basis” for the ban, but rather on an expansion of presidential power that “trumps” any constitutional concerns.

The argument that facts and any rational basis to the ban should be ignored is a key for the administration to win since both the facts and rational basis for Mr. Trump’s order are lacking. There is no fact that immigrants from these countries have committed any acts of terrorism against the United States or present a danger to national security. Most of the immigrants are young children and their mothers, and they have been vetted and waiting an average of 1 to 2 years for a visa. Many of the immigrants from Iraq actually are targets for terrorism because they, or some other family member, has been assisting the American war effort. Most of the immigrants are relatives of U.S. citizens or sponsored by citizens. With the exception of 9/11 (committed by Saudis and UAE citizens) all terrorists acts since then have been committed by radicalized U.S. citizens.

There is no rational basis for the ban either, since virtually the entire national security establishment, including the departments of defense and homeland security, the FBI, the NSA and the CIA, and the joint chiefs all agree the ban itself compromises national security. So, the administration attorneys are forced to ask the judges to ignore facts and rational arguments related to national security as the basis for the ban and simply rule that if Mr. Trump orders it as a national security measure it should be done. They are essentially arguing that the judges should “know nothing” and rule in their favor. For you students of history the term “Know Nothing” is significant.

Something’s Going On…

February 9, 2017

Trump’s recent interview with the friendly Bill O’Reilly is yet another indication that something is going on with Trump and the Russians.  I am sure O’Reilly thought he was tossing a softball to Trump when he asked Trump to acknowledge that Putin was a killer, but the results were not as intended. Even with repeated attempts from “Papa Bear” to rescue Trump from his own words, Trump said something that may have been disturbing enough to even overcome the denial of some of his supporters. Trump stated that he believed there was moral equivalency between a man who has murdered political opponents and ordered a policy of mass murder in several countries to that of past U.S. presidents and troops. The statement is of course outrageous and no one with any sense of reality or of moral development would say the same. So why is the so-called President of the United States acting as apologist in chief for Putin? Something is going on.

Trump was infamous for casting suspicion on his political opponents with innuendo from unknown people he “knew” or “a lot of people are saying …” with the phrase “Something is going on folks. Something is there — believe me.” Well the continued defense of everything Putin by Trump and his refusal to release his tax returns makes it ever more suspicious that “something is going on.” Hopefully the Senate looking into the Russian espionage during the last election will provide some answers, one way or another. At least we all hope they will do their job. More likely is the possibility that Anonymous will follow up with their threat to release information not publicly available.

If a thorough inquiry reveals that Trump does have significant financial holding with Russians that accounts for his sanctioning Russian threats to our national security, then it would be a serious matter. In the alternative, if the release of his tax returns or investigations reveal no such blackmail material, would it be any less disturbing that Trump sees no difference between the behavior and policies of Russia and our country?

Politics of Contempt and Intimidation

February 8, 2017

No matter what one believes about the Trump’s order on immigration, a legal challenge was inevitable because it does strike at the heart of the Constitutional separation of powers as much as it does at the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Five Federal Courts have ruled on the order, four of them concurring that it appears to be unconstitutional. One Federal District Court Judge in Washington ordered a national stay, invoking a reaction from Trump that should create even more concern than the order itself.

The attorneys arguing for Trump to the Court of Appeals are stating the case that the President has virtually unlimited authority to issue orders when those orders have anything whatsoever to do with national security. The Trump argument, in effect, is saying that he has the right to violate the Constitution if the matter is one of national security. For anyone with knowledge of the Constitution and of precedent, this matter was settled by the courts long ago. This is a fragile and frightening argument that he is making, but it is the only real alternative to their transparently false initial arguments that this was not a religious or country specific ban, or ban at all.

As if the argument that national security “trumps” the Constitution were not frightening enough, Trump has continued to attack Judge Robart (a George W. Bush appointee) personally. If an attorney had done the same thing, then they would be in jail or face serious sanctions — and there are those who argue that Trump should be sanctioned — or at least have his contempt codified in formal charges. The fact is that the authoritarian nature of their current legal argument in support of his order matches the authoritarian nature of the man. He has always personally attacked any judge who rules against him (e.g. housing discrimination, fraud with “Trump University,” or fraud with his “charities”). However, now that he is President, the same contempt he has always shown to judges and the law creates a Constitutional conflict and threatens to undermine the rule of law.

There is a worry emerging among both Republicans and Democrats, that after only two weeks Trump’s authoritarian nature is making a Constitutional crisis inevitable by using his power to intimidate judges who resist his power grabs.

How to Know If You Are a Trumpansie

February 7, 2017

It is generally accepted by the majority of Americans who did not vote for Trump that the minority of Americans who did fall into one of three categories, two of which are redeemable (if not understandable) and one category, that for lack of a better description, are people who think and act sub-cortically. These categories are (1) People who hate the Clintons, (2) People who are so alienated from the political establishment they want to destroy it whatever the result, and (3) Trumpansies. If you are curious about a loved one or friend who supported Trump and want to know if they have devolved into a Trumpansie, take this brief test.

  • Did they think that Sara Palin was a brilliant woman who would have made a great President?
  • Do they feel that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, evolution is a lie from Satan and climate change is a Chinese fraud?
  • When confronted with obvious lies from Trump do they reflexively respond with “What about Clinton’s e-mails?”
  • Do they read every Trump Twitter, ignore the grammatical and factual errors and accept what he says uncritically?
  • In high school, did they stop reading the Constitution after the first paragraph because they couldn’t understand what it means?
  • Do they divide the world into good God-fearing American patriots and those who did not vote for Trump?
  • Do they accept the idea that alternative facts are just as valid as objective reality if it supports their emotional belief system?
  • Do they wake up feeling afraid? Are they afraid of immigrants, Muslims, joblessness, medical insurance, atheists, black people, other people with more guns than they have, women controlling their own bodies, or things in their closet?
  • Do they believe everyone is lying except Trump and Sean Hannity?
  • Do they make distressing noises and jump around hysterically when the media criticize Trump?

If you answered ‘yes’ to one or more of these questions, chances are your friend or loved one is indeed a Trumpansie. It remains to be seen if there is help for these people. Stay tuned.