One of my more well-informed Facebook friends has written that Trump’s comments (whether he used that particular crudity or not) came after the discussion was on having merit-based immigration rather than by lottery. IOW, if that is correct, Trump was railing against people from those countries, even if they merited the opportunity to immigrate.
If that is true, then his comments certainly seem to, at the very least, have a racist element to them. This was written by a man who has refrained from believing that Trump is racist, even as others made the accusation.
Was his assertion of when the comments were made (in reference to merit-based immigration) accurate?
I’m sure I’ll probably get conflicting replies to this, as there is conflicting reportage on anything Trump does or says. But I’m still willing to ask the question, then get out of the way. 😉
My understanding of merit based immigration is bringing in people who are already the best and brightest in their fields, whose educational and vocational attainments are stellar, and who have the ability to self-support without using government assistance or resources. I suspect that Trump’s assumption is that ‘*%&!hole countries’ produce fewer of these highly desirable individuals—probably because they lack the political stability or the infrastructure and do not invest in their people. By that assessment, if we continue as we have done, I’m afraid we will eventually be on the ‘*%&!hole countries’ list ourselves.
HRW is correct in his assessment that LBJ would have been amused at Trump’s words – in The Merchants of Death, which is one of several books documenting the U.S’s infamous aid for population control foreign policy of the Cold War, recounts LBJ ranting to one of his aids who had suggested that giving aid would help increase international support for the U.S. side in the Cold War. LBJ stormed that he wasn’t going to “piss away foreign aid in nations where they refuse to deal with their own population problems.” Thanks to his policy, two million men were rounded up from the slums of Indian cities and forcibly sterilized. There is nothing new under the sun. From a Christian perspective, despising others for their poverty is beyond the pale, see also James 2:1-9, 3:9-10. But the secular leaders of the world do as they have ever done, and play god with the lives of others less powerful than themselves. The book I just recounted the LBJ quote from goes on to relate how LBJ put his words into actions, tying famine aid to India with a demand that President Ghandi’s government come up with a population control plan that involved mandatory sterilization quotas. USAID demanded higher and higher quotas, reaching 3 million – that is right, at the instigation of U.S. foreign policy, 3 million people a year had to be sterilized in India. Which is the worse kind of country, the poor and desperate ones who take help where they can get it, or the rich ones who uses their wealth to dehumanize and try to depopulate the poor ones?
LBJ (and Nixon’s after him) efforts with countries like India, and Vietnam, and many others were as successful as Pharaoh was with the children of Israel – creating havoc, destroying lives, but the populations kept growing. Nevertheless, the plagues of Egypt were in some measure payment for the blood of the Israelite children. There is reason to see some connection between the high migration from certain parts of the world and the population control measures of the Cold War era – ultrasounds were introduced as a method of allowing women in those countries which the West considered overpopulated to sex-select their children so that they would have fewer by aborting those of the unwanted sex. The results of that are well known, as not only China, but also India, Pakistan, Vietnam, and a number of other countries have an imbalance in their population, with more males than females. The book Unnatural Selection, on the population imbalance, observed that populations with higher male than female ratios were more restless and unstable. Remember the complaints of all the young men who were migrating from Central Asia? As the Proverb says, “He that roles a stone, it will return upon him.” God is not mocked, both individuals and nations of people reap what they sow – and walls and borders don’t keep out the justice of God.
True enough, Roscuro. And that’s another reason for each country to mind their Ps and Qs at home, and leave other nations to do the same. God calls missionaries to go abroad and evangelize often at great personal cost; but governments have no mandate to meddle in the internal affairs of other nations.
Michelle, I don’t think Roscuro is advocating for the U.S. to mind its own business.
Roscuro, I’m no fan of LBJ’s, nor of American foreign policy, generally, but which of the situations you recount was forced upon other countries by the U.S.?
Debra, the U.S. meddled for its own profit during the Cold War – population control was to Kissinger and Nixon, a way of preventing countries becoming communist, since they perceived poor countries with large populations as more at risk, just as the U.S. delved into the Middle East for its own profit at the same time. Now that there is little profit to be had from its former Cold War activities, there is talk of isolationism and non-interventionism again, but that can’t undo the past or the consequences of the past. It is like the small child who only stops hitting his sister when he sees his parent going to get the switch, and then pleads that he shouldn’t be spanked because he stopped doing it. Besides, there has never been a time that the U.S. has not interfered with other nations when it thought it would to its profit. From campaigning under Jefferson, a non-interventionist, against the Barbary pirates, who were interfering with American shipping lines, to annexing Hawaii for its Pacific trading interest despite the official policy of the Monroe Doctrine, to the Roosevelt Corollary and the Panama Canal, to the present day President, who mitigated against both Islamic extremism and globalization, negotiating arms deal with Saudi Arabia (although everyone knows that the Saudi’s are feeding the conflict in Yemen – a conflagration the humanitarian cost of which makes Syria look manageable – with their arms), the U.S’s origin as a nation founded by international trade merchants and producers of exports who wanted a better share of the profits than they thought Britain was allowing them is always apparent. Britain and Canada also have arms deals with Saudi Arabia, incidentally – I say this not because the U.S. is the worst country ever, but to point out that isolationism and non-interventionism have not ever been practiced in reality because merchantile interests are the reason the country exists (the European explorers weren’t looking for a New World out of mere idle curiosity), and such policies would be too little, too late. The fuses have already been lit, the cat’s out of the bag, and the fat is in the fire.
Solarpancake, for more information read Fatal Misconception, The Merchants of Despair, and Unnatural Selection. All are well documented, with extensive references. Here is a selection from The Merchants of Despair, which first came to my attention when World magazine gave it a favourable review: https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-population-control-holocaust
Roscuro, I’m entirely ready to acknowledge nefarious motives in U.S. foreign policy, but in which of the cases you mention does the U.S. force a foreign country to implement a certain policy? Contingent foreign aid doesn’t fall into that category.
“In honor of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s efforts to bring black and white America together, the New York Times has chosen to stoke arguments over race by amassing a collection of allegedly racist quotes by Donald Trump. The piece is titled: Donald Trump’s Racism:The Definitive List. In many places, the alleged examples of racism are dishonest and absurd. Time and time again, truthful statements by Trump are deemed to be “racist.” It’s shoddy work, and the Times ought to be deeply ashamed.
Let’s pick apart some specific examples, so you can see just how shameless this list is. I’m going to start by debunking one of the allegations at some length, because the claim of racism makes me so angry that I want you to see, in detail, why it’s so dishonest and outrageous. The Times claims:
He uses the gang MS-13 to disparage all immigrants. Among many other statements, he has suggested that Obama’s protection of the Dreamers — otherwise law-abiding immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children — contributed to the spread of MS-13.
This is not “racist.” It’s 100% true. In June 2014, there was a crisis at the border, particularly at the Texas border, because of Barack Obama’s DACA policy. A Washington Times story reported that immigrants were surging across the border, including large numbers of children, because of immigration policy. TV stations in Guatemala were broadcasting the message: “Go to America with your child, you won’t be turned away.” The Obama administration’s reaction to this, according to Border Patrol memos at the time, was to allow members of MS-13 into the country:
Border Patrol officials struggling to keep up with the increasing number of minors illegally crossing the Mexican border are not turning away persons with known gang affiliations. Chris Cabrera, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council Local 3307 in the Rio Grande Valley, explained that a Border Patrol agent he represents helped reunite a teenage gang member with his family in the United States. Cabrera notes the young member of Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), a transnational criminal gang, had no criminal record in the U.S., but asks, “If he’s a confirmed gang member in his own country, why are we letting him in here?”
“I’ve heard people come in and say, ‘You’re going to let me go, just like you let my mother go, just like you let my sister go. You’re going to let me go as well, and the government’s going to take care of us,’” Cabrera says. “Until we start mandatory detentions, mandatory removals, I don’t think anything is going to change. As a matter of fact, I think it’s going to get worse.”
Art Del Cueto, president of the National Border Patrol Council Local 2544 in Tucson, says agents who recognize the gang-affiliated tattoos of minors crossing the border must treat them the same as anybody else. He says these people are afforded the same rights provided to anyone crossing the border.
The U.S. government at the time told a Texas federal judge that the cartels control the human smuggling process. So in fact, the cartels were using Obama’s policies to deliver young foot soldiers into the country. Many young males who came over the border after Obama announced the DACA policy admitted to being MS-13 members, and to having committed murders and other violent acts for the cartels.”
“Last Friday news of a potential hate crime quickly spread in Canada and on social media. The victim in this case was an 11-year-old girl who claimed a stranger had approached her as she was walking to school and attempted to cut off her hijab with a pair of scissors. Here’s how the story was reported by CBC last week:
An 11-year-old Toronto girl says a man attempted twice to cut off her hijab as she walked to school on Friday morning, and police are now characterizing the attack as a hate crime.
“I felt really scared and confused,” Khawlah Noman, a student at Pauline Johnson Junior Public School in Scarborough, Ont., said at a news conference Friday afternoon.
Khawlah said she felt the man behind her while she was walking to school with her younger brother, Mohammad Zakariyya, and turned around and saw him holding scissors. She says she screamed and he ran away, but returned a few minutes later.
The girl gave an on-camera interview describing the attack in detail. Her mother also made a tearful appearance at the press conference saying, “I don’t know why he did that, but it’s just not Canada.” Toronto police announced they were investigating the incident as a hate crime.
Government representatives at all levels released statements condemning the attack. The Mayor of Toronto was “appalled.” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spoke about the incident saying, “My heart goes out to the young girl who was attacked, seemingly for her religion. I can’t imagine how afraid she must have been.” Trudeau added, “I want her and her family and her friends and community to know that that is not what Canada is.”
The Prime Minister was more right than he knew. It’s not “what Canada is” because the incident never happened. Today the CBC reports police are saying the assault never happened:
“After a detailed investigation, police have determined that the events described in the original news release did not happen,” police said in a release.
“The investigation is concluded.”…
“These allegations were extremely serious and not surprisingly, they received national and international attention,” police spokesperson Mark Pugash said in an interview.
“Investigators worked extremely hard since the allegations on Friday. They gathered evidence from a variety of sources,” before concluding the story was untrue, Pugash said, adding that the girl who reported the incident will not face any legal consequences.”
———————–
Yeah, but what about the adults who put her up to it?
“The debate on whether to reauthorize Section 702 of FISA moves to the Senate this week. The bill will more than likely pass, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is doing all he can to make sure #FISA702 sails through without any changes. Two sources told me McConnell is “filling the tree,” meaning no amendments will be allowed before the Senate votes. It does increase the likelihood of a filibuster from Senators Rand Paul and/or Ron Wyden, which is a great way to raise a point about the need for amendments and the problem with FISA reauthorization to begin with, but will unlikely result in any actual changes.
People in and around Capitol Hill are still hoping McConnell will change his mind, and allow amendments. Utah Senator Mike Lee spokesperson Conn Carroll told me, “Lee is working with his Senate colleagues to ensure there is an open and honest amendment process on FISA reauthorization.”
——————
“It’s also pretty hard to discuss FISA in a simple sentence. Describing it as, “NSA spying,” only covers part of the issue, and the problem, and not everyone is interested in a five minutes long treatise on why the government’s seizure of metadata by giving a warrant to telecom agencies, not individuals, violates the Fourth Amendment. The same goes with discussing the governmental process, and why amendments should be offered on bills. It’s so much easier to quibble over who is coming into this country, even if that debate is much more complicated than anyone wants to admit because of the history of immigration law in the U.S., and whether it’s actually constitutional for the government to limit immigration. That’s the kind of argument only political geeks really enjoy having, and FISA tends to be limited to tech advocates, civil libertarians, and real defense hawks.
The fact is this: reauthorizing FISA is a big deal, and the fact McConnell isn’t allowing amendments on the 702 legislation is disgusting. This legislation affects everyone in ways they don’t see because they don’t get served with a warrant when the government requests data. It goes to the telecom companies, as mentioned above. There’s also this notion FISA is essential to national security, which is debatable. This is the argument which should be going on publicly, in Congress, and in the media. It’s more important to our lives as Americans, and what the government may or may not be doing to our lives and our personal security.
But, sh**hole countries, man. That’s soooooooo much more important. To quote John Stossel, “Give me a break.””
————————–
“Forget the “racism accusations”… President Trump has done more for Haiti than the Clintons.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., defended the president on the Sunday edition of NBC’s “Meet the Press.” The lawmaker dismissed charges of racism and revealed that Trump financed a medical mission in which Paul performed surgeries on 200 Haitians.
Paul, an ophthalmologist, told NBC’s Chuck Todd the president provided funding for the mission trip before taking office.
The Kentucky senator said:
“It is unfair to draw conclusions from a remark that I think wasn’t constructive is the least we can say and I think it is unfair to all of a sudden, paint him, well, he’s a racist, when I know for a fact he cares very deeply about the people in Haiti because he helped to finance a trip, we were able to give vision back for 200 people in Haiti.”
———————-
Wandering Views 
Some good news:
LikeLiked by 2 people
FOX ALERT
Breaking news!
Stop the presses!
“The media is criticizing Trump for his immigration remarks.”
Same as before, if my memory is correct.
But they have 24 hours and they have to say something.
LikeLiked by 2 people
One of my more well-informed Facebook friends has written that Trump’s comments (whether he used that particular crudity or not) came after the discussion was on having merit-based immigration rather than by lottery. IOW, if that is correct, Trump was railing against people from those countries, even if they merited the opportunity to immigrate.
If that is true, then his comments certainly seem to, at the very least, have a racist element to them. This was written by a man who has refrained from believing that Trump is racist, even as others made the accusation.
Was his assertion of when the comments were made (in reference to merit-based immigration) accurate?
I’m sure I’ll probably get conflicting replies to this, as there is conflicting reportage on anything Trump does or says. But I’m still willing to ask the question, then get out of the way. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
My understanding of merit based immigration is bringing in people who are already the best and brightest in their fields, whose educational and vocational attainments are stellar, and who have the ability to self-support without using government assistance or resources. I suspect that Trump’s assumption is that ‘*%&!hole countries’ produce fewer of these highly desirable individuals—probably because they lack the political stability or the infrastructure and do not invest in their people. By that assessment, if we continue as we have done, I’m afraid we will eventually be on the ‘*%&!hole countries’ list ourselves.
LikeLike
HRW is correct in his assessment that LBJ would have been amused at Trump’s words – in The Merchants of Death, which is one of several books documenting the U.S’s infamous aid for population control foreign policy of the Cold War, recounts LBJ ranting to one of his aids who had suggested that giving aid would help increase international support for the U.S. side in the Cold War. LBJ stormed that he wasn’t going to “piss away foreign aid in nations where they refuse to deal with their own population problems.” Thanks to his policy, two million men were rounded up from the slums of Indian cities and forcibly sterilized. There is nothing new under the sun. From a Christian perspective, despising others for their poverty is beyond the pale, see also James 2:1-9, 3:9-10. But the secular leaders of the world do as they have ever done, and play god with the lives of others less powerful than themselves. The book I just recounted the LBJ quote from goes on to relate how LBJ put his words into actions, tying famine aid to India with a demand that President Ghandi’s government come up with a population control plan that involved mandatory sterilization quotas. USAID demanded higher and higher quotas, reaching 3 million – that is right, at the instigation of U.S. foreign policy, 3 million people a year had to be sterilized in India. Which is the worse kind of country, the poor and desperate ones who take help where they can get it, or the rich ones who uses their wealth to dehumanize and try to depopulate the poor ones?
LBJ (and Nixon’s after him) efforts with countries like India, and Vietnam, and many others were as successful as Pharaoh was with the children of Israel – creating havoc, destroying lives, but the populations kept growing. Nevertheless, the plagues of Egypt were in some measure payment for the blood of the Israelite children. There is reason to see some connection between the high migration from certain parts of the world and the population control measures of the Cold War era – ultrasounds were introduced as a method of allowing women in those countries which the West considered overpopulated to sex-select their children so that they would have fewer by aborting those of the unwanted sex. The results of that are well known, as not only China, but also India, Pakistan, Vietnam, and a number of other countries have an imbalance in their population, with more males than females. The book Unnatural Selection, on the population imbalance, observed that populations with higher male than female ratios were more restless and unstable. Remember the complaints of all the young men who were migrating from Central Asia? As the Proverb says, “He that roles a stone, it will return upon him.” God is not mocked, both individuals and nations of people reap what they sow – and walls and borders don’t keep out the justice of God.
LikeLiked by 3 people
True enough, Roscuro. And that’s another reason for each country to mind their Ps and Qs at home, and leave other nations to do the same. God calls missionaries to go abroad and evangelize often at great personal cost; but governments have no mandate to meddle in the internal affairs of other nations.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yep. Unnatural Selection was a horrifying read.
Unfortunately, the author still couldn’t bring herself to condemn abortion.
I agree with Roscuro. Why don’t we try minding our own business for a while?
LikeLike
Michelle, I don’t think Roscuro is advocating for the U.S. to mind its own business.
Roscuro, I’m no fan of LBJ’s, nor of American foreign policy, generally, but which of the situations you recount was forced upon other countries by the U.S.?
LikeLike
Debra, the U.S. meddled for its own profit during the Cold War – population control was to Kissinger and Nixon, a way of preventing countries becoming communist, since they perceived poor countries with large populations as more at risk, just as the U.S. delved into the Middle East for its own profit at the same time. Now that there is little profit to be had from its former Cold War activities, there is talk of isolationism and non-interventionism again, but that can’t undo the past or the consequences of the past. It is like the small child who only stops hitting his sister when he sees his parent going to get the switch, and then pleads that he shouldn’t be spanked because he stopped doing it. Besides, there has never been a time that the U.S. has not interfered with other nations when it thought it would to its profit. From campaigning under Jefferson, a non-interventionist, against the Barbary pirates, who were interfering with American shipping lines, to annexing Hawaii for its Pacific trading interest despite the official policy of the Monroe Doctrine, to the Roosevelt Corollary and the Panama Canal, to the present day President, who mitigated against both Islamic extremism and globalization, negotiating arms deal with Saudi Arabia (although everyone knows that the Saudi’s are feeding the conflict in Yemen – a conflagration the humanitarian cost of which makes Syria look manageable – with their arms), the U.S’s origin as a nation founded by international trade merchants and producers of exports who wanted a better share of the profits than they thought Britain was allowing them is always apparent. Britain and Canada also have arms deals with Saudi Arabia, incidentally – I say this not because the U.S. is the worst country ever, but to point out that isolationism and non-interventionism have not ever been practiced in reality because merchantile interests are the reason the country exists (the European explorers weren’t looking for a New World out of mere idle curiosity), and such policies would be too little, too late. The fuses have already been lit, the cat’s out of the bag, and the fat is in the fire.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Solarpancake, for more information read Fatal Misconception, The Merchants of Despair, and Unnatural Selection. All are well documented, with extensive references. Here is a selection from The Merchants of Despair, which first came to my attention when World magazine gave it a favourable review: https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-population-control-holocaust
LikeLike
Roscuro, I’m entirely ready to acknowledge nefarious motives in U.S. foreign policy, but in which of the cases you mention does the U.S. force a foreign country to implement a certain policy? Contingent foreign aid doesn’t fall into that category.
LikeLike
Roscuro, now is always the time to do the right thing. We don’t get to chose the outcomes, but we can choose that. :–/
LikeLike
Of course it is. It came from the NYT.
https://www.redstate.com/patterico/2018/01/15/new-york-times-list-donald-trumps-racist-quotes-garbage/
“In honor of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s efforts to bring black and white America together, the New York Times has chosen to stoke arguments over race by amassing a collection of allegedly racist quotes by Donald Trump. The piece is titled: Donald Trump’s Racism:The Definitive List. In many places, the alleged examples of racism are dishonest and absurd. Time and time again, truthful statements by Trump are deemed to be “racist.” It’s shoddy work, and the Times ought to be deeply ashamed.
Let’s pick apart some specific examples, so you can see just how shameless this list is. I’m going to start by debunking one of the allegations at some length, because the claim of racism makes me so angry that I want you to see, in detail, why it’s so dishonest and outrageous. The Times claims:
He uses the gang MS-13 to disparage all immigrants. Among many other statements, he has suggested that Obama’s protection of the Dreamers — otherwise law-abiding immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children — contributed to the spread of MS-13.
This is not “racist.” It’s 100% true. In June 2014, there was a crisis at the border, particularly at the Texas border, because of Barack Obama’s DACA policy. A Washington Times story reported that immigrants were surging across the border, including large numbers of children, because of immigration policy. TV stations in Guatemala were broadcasting the message: “Go to America with your child, you won’t be turned away.” The Obama administration’s reaction to this, according to Border Patrol memos at the time, was to allow members of MS-13 into the country:
Border Patrol officials struggling to keep up with the increasing number of minors illegally crossing the Mexican border are not turning away persons with known gang affiliations. Chris Cabrera, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council Local 3307 in the Rio Grande Valley, explained that a Border Patrol agent he represents helped reunite a teenage gang member with his family in the United States. Cabrera notes the young member of Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), a transnational criminal gang, had no criminal record in the U.S., but asks, “If he’s a confirmed gang member in his own country, why are we letting him in here?”
“I’ve heard people come in and say, ‘You’re going to let me go, just like you let my mother go, just like you let my sister go. You’re going to let me go as well, and the government’s going to take care of us,’” Cabrera says. “Until we start mandatory detentions, mandatory removals, I don’t think anything is going to change. As a matter of fact, I think it’s going to get worse.”
Art Del Cueto, president of the National Border Patrol Council Local 2544 in Tucson, says agents who recognize the gang-affiliated tattoos of minors crossing the border must treat them the same as anybody else. He says these people are afforded the same rights provided to anyone crossing the border.
The U.S. government at the time told a Texas federal judge that the cartels control the human smuggling process. So in fact, the cartels were using Obama’s policies to deliver young foot soldiers into the country. Many young males who came over the border after Obama announced the DACA policy admitted to being MS-13 members, and to having committed murders and other violent acts for the cartels.”
LikeLike
Once again duped, because they so want to beleive.
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/01/15/fake-anti-muslim-hate-crime-canada/
“Last Friday news of a potential hate crime quickly spread in Canada and on social media. The victim in this case was an 11-year-old girl who claimed a stranger had approached her as she was walking to school and attempted to cut off her hijab with a pair of scissors. Here’s how the story was reported by CBC last week:
An 11-year-old Toronto girl says a man attempted twice to cut off her hijab as she walked to school on Friday morning, and police are now characterizing the attack as a hate crime.
“I felt really scared and confused,” Khawlah Noman, a student at Pauline Johnson Junior Public School in Scarborough, Ont., said at a news conference Friday afternoon.
Khawlah said she felt the man behind her while she was walking to school with her younger brother, Mohammad Zakariyya, and turned around and saw him holding scissors. She says she screamed and he ran away, but returned a few minutes later.
The girl gave an on-camera interview describing the attack in detail. Her mother also made a tearful appearance at the press conference saying, “I don’t know why he did that, but it’s just not Canada.” Toronto police announced they were investigating the incident as a hate crime.
Government representatives at all levels released statements condemning the attack. The Mayor of Toronto was “appalled.” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spoke about the incident saying, “My heart goes out to the young girl who was attacked, seemingly for her religion. I can’t imagine how afraid she must have been.” Trudeau added, “I want her and her family and her friends and community to know that that is not what Canada is.”
The Prime Minister was more right than he knew. It’s not “what Canada is” because the incident never happened. Today the CBC reports police are saying the assault never happened:
“After a detailed investigation, police have determined that the events described in the original news release did not happen,” police said in a release.
“The investigation is concluded.”…
“These allegations were extremely serious and not surprisingly, they received national and international attention,” police spokesperson Mark Pugash said in an interview.
“Investigators worked extremely hard since the allegations on Friday. They gathered evidence from a variety of sources,” before concluding the story was untrue, Pugash said, adding that the girl who reported the incident will not face any legal consequences.”
———————–
Yeah, but what about the adults who put her up to it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course he won’t. So there’s only one thing to do. Veto it. After all, this scam is what they’ve used to go after Trump.
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/01/14/sources-mcconnell-wont-allow-amendments-fisa-vote/
“The debate on whether to reauthorize Section 702 of FISA moves to the Senate this week. The bill will more than likely pass, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is doing all he can to make sure #FISA702 sails through without any changes. Two sources told me McConnell is “filling the tree,” meaning no amendments will be allowed before the Senate votes. It does increase the likelihood of a filibuster from Senators Rand Paul and/or Ron Wyden, which is a great way to raise a point about the need for amendments and the problem with FISA reauthorization to begin with, but will unlikely result in any actual changes.
People in and around Capitol Hill are still hoping McConnell will change his mind, and allow amendments. Utah Senator Mike Lee spokesperson Conn Carroll told me, “Lee is working with his Senate colleagues to ensure there is an open and honest amendment process on FISA reauthorization.”
——————
“It’s also pretty hard to discuss FISA in a simple sentence. Describing it as, “NSA spying,” only covers part of the issue, and the problem, and not everyone is interested in a five minutes long treatise on why the government’s seizure of metadata by giving a warrant to telecom agencies, not individuals, violates the Fourth Amendment. The same goes with discussing the governmental process, and why amendments should be offered on bills. It’s so much easier to quibble over who is coming into this country, even if that debate is much more complicated than anyone wants to admit because of the history of immigration law in the U.S., and whether it’s actually constitutional for the government to limit immigration. That’s the kind of argument only political geeks really enjoy having, and FISA tends to be limited to tech advocates, civil libertarians, and real defense hawks.
The fact is this: reauthorizing FISA is a big deal, and the fact McConnell isn’t allowing amendments on the 702 legislation is disgusting. This legislation affects everyone in ways they don’t see because they don’t get served with a warrant when the government requests data. It goes to the telecom companies, as mentioned above. There’s also this notion FISA is essential to national security, which is debatable. This is the argument which should be going on publicly, in Congress, and in the media. It’s more important to our lives as Americans, and what the government may or may not be doing to our lives and our personal security.
But, sh**hole countries, man. That’s soooooooo much more important. To quote John Stossel, “Give me a break.””
————————–
LikeLiked by 2 people
How racist is this?
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/01/15/facepalm-trump-accusers-rand-paul-reveals-potus-haiti-588754
“Forget the “racism accusations”… President Trump has done more for Haiti than the Clintons.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., defended the president on the Sunday edition of NBC’s “Meet the Press.” The lawmaker dismissed charges of racism and revealed that Trump financed a medical mission in which Paul performed surgeries on 200 Haitians.
Paul, an ophthalmologist, told NBC’s Chuck Todd the president provided funding for the mission trip before taking office.
The Kentucky senator said:
“It is unfair to draw conclusions from a remark that I think wasn’t constructive is the least we can say and I think it is unfair to all of a sudden, paint him, well, he’s a racist, when I know for a fact he cares very deeply about the people in Haiti because he helped to finance a trip, we were able to give vision back for 200 people in Haiti.”
———————-
Not at all.
LikeLiked by 3 people