#undocumented immigrants are a part of the economy

[isawthismeme]

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Paul Blumenthal at HuffPost:

Former President Donald Trump’s most significant policy plank in his third presidential campaign is to implement a system of mass deportation to remove up to 20 million noncitizens from the United States, a plan that apparently aims to not only remove people living here illegally but also to chase away ― or accidentally round up ― U.S. citizens as well.

He is promising to deploy the military and deputize local police officers to round up millions of people, detain them in makeshift camps and then ship them off to other countries ― whether or not the destination is the person’s country of origin. This plan is billed as targeting only those who have come to the country or reside in it illegally, with a special emphasis on supposed migrant gang members. It offers a story of those who deserve to be here and those who don’t. Those who are part of the national community and those who exist outside its bounds and, perhaps, its laws. But 79% of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. have been living and participating in American communities for more than 15 years. They have married U.S. citizens, hold jobs that prop up their local and national economies and have children and grandchildren who are citizens. Ripping these people out of the country and away from their families will ripple through every community in the country.

“Communities are like a fabric ― the way that the threads are interwoven,” said Heidi Altman, federal advocacy director for the National Immigration Law Center’s Immigrant Justice Fund, an immigrant rights nonprofit. “If you snip at one, eventually the whole of the fabric comes loose.” This plan to tear communities apart will also ensnare U.S. citizens, green card holders and others here legally, either by accident or with intent. Trump and his advisers are already saying that’s what they’ll do. Tom Homan, Trump’s former acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, was asked in a “60 Minutes” interview that aired Sunday whether there is a way that Trump’s mass deportation plan could remove undocumented people without separating them from their families. “Of course there is,” Homan said. “Families can be deported together.” What Homan is saying, without saying it directly, is that mixed-status families, with some family members who are U.S. citizens and others who lack legal status, can choose to self-deport if they wish to remain together.

There are currently 4.7 million mixed-status households in the U.S., according to the Center for Migration Studies. Among those households are 5.5 million U.S.-born children living with one undocumented household member and 1.8 million U.S.-born children living with two undocumented adults. In total, there are 9.7 million Americans who live in households with at least one undocumented resident. Trump and Homan propose an impossible choice: your citizenship and your home or your family. Similar mass deportations and detentions in the country’s history have done the same. The incarceration of Japanese immigrants and Japanese-Americans during and after World War II ensnared citizens and noncitizens alike. So, too, did the imprisonment of Germans, Italians and people born under the Austro-Hungarian Empire during both world wars. Trump’s inspiration for his mass deportation program, President Dwight Eisenhower’s Operation Wetback, similarly resulted in the deportation of significant numbers of U.S. citizens to Mexico.

But none of those programs was of the scale or scope that Trump imagines. There are an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., according to the 2022 American Community Survey. Other surveys and estimates have found similar numbers. But Trump and his allies talk about deporting 20 million to 30 million people. There is no source for such a number. That would invariably mean targeting people with some kind of legal status, whether temporary or permanent. “They seem to be gleefully suggesting that they would include people here with some legal status in these roundups,” said Matthew Lisieki, a senior research and policy analyst at the Center for Migration Studies, a think tank that focuses on global migration. A deportation program that removes 11 million people or even more than 20 million would affect every single community in the country, invariably sweeping up even larger numbers of U.S. citizens and legal residents, taking them away from their families and putting them into jails, incarceration camps and, potentially, off to another country. As Homan’s answer on “60 Minutes” indicates, that’s a feature, not a bug. Trump has already proposed invoking laws that could be used to sweep up unnaturalized U.S. residents who have legal status.

The Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which Trump says he will use, allows the president to effectively suspend due process for anyone of a particular nationality or national origin when the U.S. is at war or is invaded by that nation. Invoking this law may prove challenging since the U.S. is not currently in a declared war, much less one against any of the Latin American countries that represent the point of origin for most undocumented immigrants in the U.S. And though Trump claims that the migration of people into the country amounts to an “invasion,” federal courts since the 1990s have largely rejected efforts by states claiming that the word “invasion” in the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted to include the voluntary migration of people across borders.

Still, it is possible that the courts today would take a different approach and declare that the president’s invocation of an invasion by immigrants is a “political question” that the judicial branch will not interfere with. That could give Trump a free hand to implement a brutal and sweeping deportation program. “There are no explicit limitations on what kinds of regulations the president can promulgate under the law,” said Katherine Yon Ebright, a counsel at the progressive Brennan Center for Justice and author of a paper on the Alien Enemies Act. The law has been invoked three times during conflicts with actual foreign nations: during the War of 1812 and both world wars. In each conflict, the president has not only directed deportations and detentions but also promulgated restrictions on noncitizens who had come from the foreign belligerents.

[...]

When Trump was in office, immigration officials ramped up the use of these inaccurate gang databases to identify and deport undocumented residents. Considering Trump has falsely claimed in his campaign speeches that “migrant gangs” have “conquered” entire cities, such an effort would likely be radically scaled up. This could lead to removal of people with legal status as well as those who don’t. Residents who have legal status under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program ― so-called Dreamers who were brought across the border by their parents as children ― have been incorrectly identified as gang members by local police and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That would be one way to strip them of their legal status.

Trump’s top immigration adviser, Stephen Miller, has promised to “turbocharge” efforts at denaturalizing U.S. citizens. When in office, Trump ramped up denaturalization efforts with one Homeland Security budget document proposing up to 700,000 investigations into naturalized U.S. citizens. Civil denaturalization can be done to people who obtained their legal status illegally or are the child of someone who did so, who deliberately lied about a fact in their application for citizenship, obtained citizenship through military service but was then dishonorably discharged or by becoming a member of a subversive group. This last reason could implicate U.S. citizens incorrectly placed on gang databases or otherwise identified as gang-affiliated by law enforcement. Databases can only be used to identify the legal status of residents who have had interactions with law enforcement or certain government agencies. If Trump intends to ramp up deportations to the level he claims, his efforts would need to target workplaces and neighborhoods. This would, invariably, involve racial profiling by placing checkpoints or performing sweeps in heavily Latino neighborhoods or worksites. Such sweeps would undoubtedly ensnare U.S. citizens and inflict fear in everyone ― citizens and noncitizens alike ― within these communities.

Donald Trump’s diabolically fascistic plan of mass deportations is eerily reminiscent of the interning of Japanese-Americans in World II: a moral and economic calamity that would undo America.

Read the full story at HuffPost.

[mariacallous]

The breadth of falsehoods circulating in the months and days prior to Election Day in the United States was breathtaking in both scale and creativity. It was, as the head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Jen Easterly said, an “unprecedented amount of disinformation.” Voters were treated to videos masquerading as FBI-generated or CBS reports that warned of security threats and voter fraud, while other videos falsely depicted mail-in ballots that favored Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump being destroyed, or an alleged Haitian immigrant voting in two counties. Fabrications about Democratic nominee and Vice President Kamala Harris drew from a seemingly bottomless well, ranging from false allegations that she was involved in a hit-and-run incident to her being allied with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. This was on top of saturation levels of preelection disinformation campaigns involving Haitian immigrants, hurricane relief efforts, and so much more.

Oiled and revved up in advance of the Nov. 5 election, though, the disinformation machine abruptly died that evening. Trump had urged voters to get him a win “too big to rig”—harkening back to his persistent lie that victory was stolen from him in the 2020 election—and voters delivered.

Now that there is a lull, we must ask some critical questions. First, does disinformation—while upsetting, annoying, or even amusing—matter in influencing outcomes? Second, with a second Trump term, what is the future of the disinformation machine? And if disinformation continues unabated and even flows across borders, what can be done about it on a national and transnational level?

Some researchers argue that disinformation has little effect in changing behavior. The argument often hinges on empirical studies demonstrating that such content typically gets relatively low exposure and is viewed and shared by a fringe already motivated to seek out such content.

There is, however, robust evidence to suggest that in the specific instance of the 2024 U.S. elections, disinformation did change behavior, in that an alternative reality took hold in voters’ minds and influenced their choices. Voters who demonstrated being misinformed about key issues, such as immigration, crime, and the economy preferred Trump. Consider the example of immigration and crime: Looking at 2018 felony crime offending rates in Texas, native-born U.S. citizens committed around 1,100 crimes per 100,000 people, compared to 800 by documented immigrants and 400 by undocumented immigrants. Analysis of similar data across all 50 states suggests no statistically significant correlation between the immigrant share of the population and the total crime rate in any state. This and numerous other sources of data consistently show that immigrants, both documented and undocumented, are less likely to commit crimes than native-born U.S. citizens across various crime categories and over extended periods. This contradicts a dominant narrative around a “migrant crime wave,” spread primarily by Trump and his surrogates. Approximately 45 percent of Trump supporters said immigration was one of their three biggest issues; most Americans, meanwhile, believed that illegal immigration was linked to higher crime rates.

With a second Trump term ahead, it is worthwhile to ask what we might expect from a disinformation machine that was so helpful in bringing such an administration to power. This was a machine designed to generate false narratives built to exploit fear and anxiety at scale, using fabrications that may build on a kernel of truth or resonant with some people’s beliefs or actual experiences. It identified malevolent actors to be defeated as part of the calls to action. In order to spread disinformation further and enhance its credibility, operations involved consistent repetition of narratives and their amplification in political rallies through social media and alignment with the financial and political incentives of other influential voices. Where does the Trump reelection disinformation machine go from here now that its primary job is done? Designed to increase confidence in the leader and the regime, disinformation systems have a distinguished tradition of flourishing under autocratic administrations, from Octavian’s Roman Empire to Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

There are five galvanizing issues to watch for in the next turn of the disinformation crank.

First, there will be a need to undermine the credibility of media outlets considered unfriendly to Trump. This objective will, of course, get plenty of support from “friendly” media like Fox News and the New York Post, but, most significantly, from Elon Musk—a close ally of the administration. Musk and his platform, X, are frightfully effective in creating and disseminating narratives.

Assuming the Musk-Trump alliance has a meaningful shelf life, consider the “Musk effect” itself. Analysis from the Center for Countering Digital Hate found that at least 87 of Musk’s posts on X in 2024 were false or misleading, and they had 2 billion views in total. None of those posts were accompanied by a Community Note, a user-generated fact-check. To add to his influence, Musk, who has said he’s a “free speech absolutist” and is selective about the content moderated on X to serve his own purposes, is now charged with minimizing government bureaucracy; he will likely work to ensure that regulations intended to moderate content—as long as they are not unfavorable to him—are held to a minimum. We should not expect to see any major legislative overhauls, such as a rollback of Section 230—originally part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996—that protects digital platforms from being held liable for content they host, as it would severely hamper the free-wheeling content environment at X that Musk has created. This would be a change of position for Trump, as he did push for such a rollback in his first term.

Second, putting Musk aside, a scan of the remaining names put forward for Trump’s cabinet reads like a who’s who in the annals of disinformation. Consider just three: first, Tulsi Gabbard, who is nominated to be director of national Intelligence. She has a track record of being partial to propaganda from the likes of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and has even declared a QAnon conspiracy theory about a U.S.-funded bioweapons lab in Ukraine to be an “undeniable fact.” Second, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., nominated to be the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. He has peddled ideas that are outright false—such as childhood immunizations causing autism—and questionable, like that excessive fluoride in drinking water can lower IQ. Pete Hegseth, nominated for secretary of defense, has already gone a step further by calling for the word “misinformation” itself to be stripped from the public lexicon as soon as possible. Each of these three substantive federal agencies will need their disinformation machines to be humming and ready to go, given the individuals who might be in charge.

This would lead us to their boss’s playbook of false narratives, repetition, amplification, and targeting opponents and critics as “enemies.” The Washington Post found that Trump made 30,573 false or misleading claims, or around 21 fabrications a day, during his first term. As noted earlier, repetition of falsehoods is a core operating principle for Trump, and it has been shown to work: There is a demonstrated correlation between the number of times Trump repeated falsehoods during his presidency and misperceptions among Republicans. Given this record, we ought to count on him escalating his reliance on these strategies—and especially on repetitive disinformation—as a strategy for governance.

Fourth, with several disinformation-centered narratives influential in getting Trump to the White House, their lives will have to be extended as the administration swings into action to follow-up on campaign promises—for example, as deportation procedures against undocumented immigrants are launched.

Finally, it is essential to consider the intentions of foreign governments, which may use the Trump model to manipulate their own citizens. Russia has been the most energetic in its disinformation campaigns during the United States’ 2024 election season, from the falsehood about Harris being involved in a hit-and-run incident, to hurricane-related falsehoods, to bomb threats on Election Day. But there are many others in the fray with elaborate disinformation machines—including networks of bogus social media accounts, websites to spread divisive content, third-party actors, and fringe groups—that are ready to go. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the three governments most active in creating and spreading disinformation in the United States are Russia, China, and Iran. All three steadily increased their disinformation campaigns in the months leading up to Election Day. One can expect the dynamic to follow that to be an arms race: If the U.S. government itself invests in disinformation, foreign governments will attempt to keep pace —and even view it as implicit permission to do so.

With this sobering outlook, it is natural to ask: What should be done? The regulatory and legislative establishment is likely to be compromised, so other actors will have to step up—these include major digital platforms, independent watchdogs, the media, civil society organizations, and regular citizens.

The most critical are the digital platforms as they have the greatest leverage; they must reverse their recent trend toward reducing content moderation teams and cutting resources for fact-checking, labeling, blocking, or demoting messages that run afoul of posted standards. The COVID-19 pandemic created a “infodemic” emergency and a sense of urgency for the platforms to be proactive and ramp up content moderation to stem the tide of misinformation. Even though many of the attempts were found wanting and flawed, most of the major platforms did take specific actions—defining policies, being transparent about their criteria, taking steps to remove or moderate violators, and nudging users to check out trusted sources. There is evidence to suggest that messaging from trusted sources had a positive effect on users’ quality of knowledge and how they behaved based on such information. A second Trump term needs to be viewed as an emergency of parallel proportions.

For their part, watchdog groups, the media, and civil society must amplify their voices when they see false narratives and counter them not just with boring statistics but engaging fact-based narratives to reeducate and inform. Local media, in particular, has a role to play in bringing credible fact-based news to ordinary citizens. Watchdog groups across different countries should collaborate with digital platforms to identify sources of false or malicious content and develop early warning signs of international interference by state and non-state actors and proxy groups. Once again, the lessons from the pandemic might come handy in considering the role of multilateral bodies—just as the World Health Organization (WHO) implemented strategies to combat COVID-19 misinformation, with mixed but generally positive results, similar bodies can be set up to coordinate across multiple actors and across geographies.

Finally, ordinary citizens will need to take the time to become responsible consumers of media—for their own good. And, as their lived realities diverge from false narratives in circulation, they might become more discerning and wary in seeking out information sources. As a recent study found, citizens do become more discerning consumers of digitally transmitted information when there are sustained mitigation and education efforts.

It will, no doubt, be a long road ahead. While we can expect a deluge of disinformation along the way, we cannot let it become the new normal.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

A slurry of lies in the wake of Helene and the path of Milton are making matters worse. [Benjamin Slyngstad]

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

October 11, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Oct 12, 2024

A report from the Labor Department yesterday showed that inflation has dropped again, falling back to 2.4%, the same rate as it was just before the coronavirus pandemic. Today the Dow Jones Industrial Average jumped 400 points to a record high, while the S&P 500 closed above 5,800 for the first time. 

Washington Post economics columnist Heather Long noted that “[b]y just about every measure, the U.S. economy is in good shape.” Inflation is back down, growth remains strong at 3%, unemployment is low at 4.1% with the U.S. having created almost 7 million more jobs than it had before the pandemic. The stock market is hitting all-time highs. Long adds that “many Americans are getting sizable pay raises, and middle-class wealth has surged to record levels.” The Federal Reserve has begun to cut interest rates, and foreign leaders are talking about the U.S. economy with envy. 

Democratic presidential nominee and sitting vice president Kamala Harris has promised to continue the economic policies of the Biden-Harris administration and focus on cutting costs for families. She has called for a federal law against price gouging on groceries during times of crisis, cutting taxes for families, and enabling Medicare to pay for home health aides. She has proposed $25,000 in down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers and promised to work with the private sector to build 3 million new housing units by the end of her first term. 

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which focuses on the direct effect of policies on the federal debt, estimated that Harris’s plans would add $3.5 trillion to the debt.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has promised to extend his 2017 tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations and to impose a 10% to 20% tariff across the board on imported goods and a 60% tariff on goods from China. Tariffs are taxes paid by American consumers, and economists predict such tariffs would cost an average family more than $2,600 a year. Overall, the effect of these policies would be to shift the weight of taxation even further toward middle-class and lower-class Americans and away from the wealthy. 

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that these plans would add $7.5 trillion to the debt.

But there is more: Trump has also made deporting undocumented immigrants central to his promises, and his running mate, J.D. Vance, has claimed the right to determine which government policies he considers legal, threatening to expand deportation to include legal migrants, as well. 

Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times noted on October 8 that in March, the Peterson Institute for International Economics pointed out that the immigrants Trump is targeting are vital to a number of U.S. businesses. Their loss will cause dramatic cutbacks in those sectors. Taken together, the study concluded, Trump’s deportations, tariffs, and vow to take control of the Federal Reserve could make the country’s gross domestic product as much as 9.7% lower than it would be without those policies, employment could fall by as much as 9%, and inflation would climb by as much as 7.4%. 

And yet, in a New York Times/Siena Poll of likely voters released on October 8, 75% of respondents said the economy was fair or poor. Further, although a study by The Guardian showed that Harris’s specific economic policies were more popular than Trump’s in a blind test, 54% of respondents to a Gallup poll released on October 9, thought that Trump would manage the economy better than Harris would. 

Part of Americans’ sour mood about the economy stems from the poor coverage all the good economic news has received. Part of it is that rising prices are more immediately obvious than the wage gains that have outpaced them. But a large part of it is the historic habit of thinking that Republicans manage the economy better than Democrats do. 

That myth began immediately after the Civil War when Democrats demanded the government renege on the generous terms under which it had floated bonds during the war. When the Treasury put those bonds on the market, they were a risky proposition, but with the United States secure after the war, calculations changed, and Democrats charged that investors had gotten too good a deal.

Republicans were horrified at the idea of changing the terms of a debt already incurred. They added to the Fourteenth Amendment the clause saying, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” When that amendment was added to the Constitution in 1868, the Democrats’ fiscal rebellion seemed to be quelled.

But as Republicans increasingly insisted that protecting big business with a high tariff wall was crucial to the American economy, Democrats called for lowering tariffs to give the consumers who paid them a break. In response, Republicans said that those suffering in industrial America were lazy or spendthrifts and warned that Democrats were socialists. When Democrats took control of both chambers of Congress and put Grover Cleveland in the White House in 1892 with a promise to lower tariffs, Republicans insisted that the economy would collapse. But, the Chicago Tribune wrote, “The working classes of the country need such a lesson…. The Republicans will be passive spectators… It will not be their funeral.” 

Their warnings of an impending collapse prompted investors to take their money home. On February 17, 1893, fifteen days before Cleveland would be sworn into office, the Reading Railroad Company went under, after which, as one reporter wrote, “the bottom seemed to be falling out of everything.” By the time Cleveland took office, a financial panic was in full swing. 

Republican lawmakers and newspapers blamed Democrats for the collapse because everyone knew they would destroy the economy. Republicans urged voters to put them back in charge of Congress, and in 1894, in a landslide, they did. “American manufacturers and merchants and business-men generally will draw a long breath of relief,” the Chicago Tribune commented just days after the Republican victory. Republicans had successfully associated their opponents with economic disaster. 

That association continued in the twentieth century. In 1913, for the first time since Cleveland’s second term, the Democrats captured both Congress and the White House. Immediately, President Woodrow Wilson called for lowered tariff rates and, to make up for lost revenue, an income tax. Massachusetts senator Henry Cabot Lodge called the tariff measure “very radical” and warned that it would destroy all the industries in Massachusetts. As for the income tax, big-business Republicans claimed it was socialism and that it discriminated against the wealthy. 

For the rest of the century, Republicans would center taxes, especially income taxes, as proof Democrats were bad for the economy. As soon as World War I ended, Republicans set out to get rid of the high progressive taxes that had paid for the war. Andrew Mellon, who served as treasury secretary under presidents Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover, took office in 1921 and set out to increase productivity by increasing investment in industry. To free up capital, he said, the government must slash its budget and cut taxes. From 1921 to 1929, Mellon returned $3.5 billion to wealthy Americans through refunds, credits, and tax abatements.

The booming economy of the 1920s made it seem that the Republicans had finally figured out how to create a perpetually prosperous economy. When he accepted the 1928 Republican nomination for president, Herbert Hoover said: “We in America are nearer to the final triumph over poverty than ever before in the history of any land. The poorhouse is vanishing from among us…. [G]iven a chance to go forward with the policies of the last eight years, we shall soon, with the help of God, be in sight of the day when poverty will be banished from this nation.”

The Great Depression, sparked by the stock market crash of October 1929, revealed the central weakness of an economic vision based in concentrating wealth. While worker productivity had increased by about 43% in the 1920s, wages did not rise. By 1929, 5% of the population received one third of the nation’s income. When the stock market crash wiped out the purchasing power of this group, the rest of the population did not have enough capital to fuel the economy. 

Mellon predicted that the crisis would “purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people.” The Hoover administration preached thrift, morality, and individualism and blamed the depression on a wasteful government that had overstaffed public offices. To restore business confidence, Republicans declared, the nation must slash government spending and lay off public workers. 

But most Americans had had enough of Republican economics, especially as the crash revealed deep corruption in the nation’s financial system. In 1932, voters overcame their deep suspicion of Democratic economic policies to embrace what Democratic presidential candidate Franklin Delano Roosevelt called a “New Deal” for the American people, combating the depression by regulating business, providing a basic social safety net, and investing in infrastructure. Hoover denounced Roosevelt’s plans as dangerous radicalism that would “enslave” taxpayers and destroy the United States. 

Voters elected FDR with about 58% of the vote. Over the next forty years, Americans of both parties embraced the government’s active approach to promoting economic growth and individual prosperity by protecting all Americans. 

But when President Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, he promised that returning to a system like that of the 1920s would make the country boom. He called his system “supply-side” economics, for it invested in the supply side—investors—rather than the consumers who made up the demand side. “The whole thing is premised on faith,” Reagan’s budget director David Stockman told a reporter. “On a belief about how the world works.” 

Under Reagan, deficit spending that tripled the national debt from $995 billion to $2.9 trillion—more federal debt than in the entire previous history of the country—along with lower interest rates and deregulated savings and loan banks, made the economy boom. Americans watching the economic growth such deficit spending produced believed supply-side economics worked. Tax cuts and spending cuts became the Holy Grail of American politics, and the Democrats who opposed them seemed unable to run an economy. 

But that belief was not based in reality. In April the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute found that since 1949 the nation’s annual real growth has been 1.2 percentage points higher under Democratic administrations than under Republican administrations (3.79% versus 2.60%), total job growth averages 2.5% annually under Democrats compared to barely over 1% under Republicans, business investment is more than double the pace under Democrats than under Republicans, average rates of inflation are slightly lower under Democrats, and families in the bottom 20% of the economy experience income growth 188% faster under Democrats than under Republicans. 

A recent analysis by former Goldman Sachs managing director H. John Gilbertson expands on those numbers, showing that Democratic administrations reduce the U.S. budget deficit and that stock market returns are 60% higher under Democrats than under Republicans.

Democratic President Joe Biden returned the country to the proven system that worked before 1981, and the economy has boomed. While Trump has vowed to return to the tax cuts and deregulation of supply-side economics, Vice President Harris has promised to retain and fine-tune Biden’s policies. 

But Harris has to overcome more than a century of American mythmaking. 

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[mysharona1987]

Conservatives saying the quiet part out loud: They know they need undocumented immigrants for the economy but still need them for fear mongering suburban white people into voting for them.

[plethoraworldatlas]

The American Muslim 2024 Election Task Force, a national coalition of American Muslim 501(c)4 political organizations, today called on President Biden to withdraw from the 2024 presidential race after losing the confidence of key voters due to widespread opposition to his support for the Gaza genocide and widespread concern about his ability to serve as president for another four years.

In a statement, task force members Americans for Justice in Palestine Action, CAIR Action, ICNA Council of Social Justice Action, Muslim American Society Action, Muslim Civic Coalition Activate and the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations Civil Action Network said, in part: "President Biden should now step aside so that the Democratic Party can identify and nominate a new, able, and qualified candidate who better reflects the values and views of most voters, including opposition to U.S. support for the Gaza genocide."

The task force also said that President Biden’s withdrawal is the best and perhaps only way to prevent Donald Trump from returning to the White House

FULL STATEMENT CALLING ON PRESIDENT BIDEN TO WITHDRAW FROM THE 2024 PRESIDENTIAL RACE

"As American Muslim political organizations that care deeply about the future of our country and justice for all people, we must today call on President Biden to withdraw from the 2024 presidential race.

"Even before his deeply concerning and disappointing debate performance, President Biden's financial support for the mass murder of Palestinians in Gaza, his failure to effectively address anti-Palestinian racism and Islamophobia here at home, and his dishonest response to the diverse and overwhelmingly peaceful anti-genocide protests on college campuses had already alienated and made it difficult for many American Muslims, young people, and other voters to consider supporting him in the fall.

"Now widespread and growing concerns about President Biden's ability to continue serving in office for another four years have made the political status quo untenable. If President Biden remains the Democratic nominee, he could lose Michigan, Georgia, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and other key swing states, thereby returning President Trump to power.

"Just as many American Muslims cannot bring themselves to vote for President Biden, many American Muslims also do not want to see Donald Trump return to office. Former President Trump has made it clear that he plans to round up undocumented immigrants in mass camps, reinstate the Muslim Ban, entrench racial inequities in our economy and criminal justice system, stack the federal civil service with political loyalists, and pursue a foreign policy just as or even more immoral than the Biden foreign policy. 

"During the CNN presidential debate, President Trump even said the Israeli government should be allowed to complete its genocide, ignored the question of whether he would support the recognition of a Palestinian state to achieve peace, and weaponized Palestinian identity as a racist insult. 

“Meanwhile, President Biden touted his transfer of deadly weapons to Israel and falsely claimed that Netanyahu's government wants the genocide to end. Their positions on Gaza were despicable and their performances were deeply disturbing.

"The American people should not have to choose between such fatally flawed candidates. The ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and this genocide should be a red line for any administration.

"President Biden should step aside so that the Democratic Party can identify and nominate a new, able, and qualified candidate who better reflects the values and views of most voters, including opposition to U.S. support for the Gaza genocide. In an ideal world, the Republican Party would also force President Trump--a failed president and convicted felon who sparked the Jan. 6th insurrection--to step aside.

"The American Muslim community is not a monolith. We are politically diverse. But our community is united in supporting basic principles of justice that all people should support. Human rights. Racial equality. Religious freedom. Free and fair elections. Economic opportunity. 

“American Muslim voters expect anyone who wants to lead our nation to support all of these basic principles. Opposing racism, occupation, and genocide are not big asks. They are basic asks. Both President Biden and President Trump have failed to clear this very low bar. American Muslims and the broader American people demand better options now.”

The American Muslim 2024 Election Taskforce is a coalition of American Muslim 501(c)4 political organizations formed to amplify the American Muslim community’s views on key policy issues, enhance its civic engagement, boost voter turnout, and, ultimately, issue a joint recommendation or endorsement in the run-up to the 2024 presidential election

[beardedmrbean]

With xenophobia rising in South Africa as its economic crisis deepens, Home Office Minister Aaron Motsoaledi has announced plans to toughen asylum and immigration laws in a move that will have far-reaching consequences for foreign nationals who seek political or economic refuge in the country.

His proposals are contained in a document, known as a White Paper, which has been released for public discussion as the first step towards adopting legislation that will mark a decisive break with the more embracing policy that the government - led by the African National Congress (ANC) - championed after it took power at the end of the racist system of apartheid in 1994.

In a sign of the extent to which he envisages changes, Dr Motsoaledi said the government had made a "serious mistake" about two years later when it signed up to international agreements - such as the UN's refugee convention - without seeking exemptions from certain clauses.

This was unlike many other countries, which opted out of clauses giving asylum-seekers and refugees the same rights as their citizens - including the right to employment and education for their children, he said.

Paddy Harper, a journalist with South Africa's Mail & Guardian newspaper, said Dr Motsoaledi's proposals were the latest sign that the government believed it went too far after white-minority rule ended.

"South Africa had been a pariah during apartheid, and as the ANC led its integration into the world it opened up the country to immigrants and asylum-seekers, with many coming from other parts of Africa and Asia," Harper told the BBC.

"The ANC government also did this in the interest of pan-African and international solidarity because of the support it received from other countries during the struggle against apartheid," he said.

"The political and economic dynamics have changed considerably since then, which explains the shift in government thinking."

Dr Motsoaledi is also pushing for people to seek asylum in the first safe country they enter, meaning they could be denied asylum if they came via other countries.

His proposal would mostly affect those from other African nations, as they form the bulk of refugees and asylum-seekers fleeing conflict and persecution.

According to the UN, about 250,000 refugees and asylum seekers live in South Africa. These are separate from documented or undocumented foreign nationals in the country for other reasons, including better economic opportunities.

In a paper published in 2021, South African academic Khangelani Moyo said that 25% of the refugees and asylum seekers came from Ethiopia, 23% from the Democratic of Republic of Congo, 11% from Somalia, 10% from Bangladesh and 6% from Zimbabwe.

Harper says the number of refugees and asylum-seekers may be small but it feds into deeper hostility towards foreigners whose population has increased over the last three decades, while South Africa's unemployment rate has soared to around 32%.

"Immigrants - especially Somalis and Bangladeshis - are seen to be controlling the economy of townships, and are accused of taking the jobs of locals. It has led to attacks on migrants, and the emergence of anti-migrant groups, like Operation Dudula," he said.

With this in mind, Harper says that Dr Motsoaledi was looking to next year's elections when he unveiled his proposals.

"Some of the opposition parties are likely to make migration a major campaign issue. The ANC fears losing support, and wants to be seen to be doing something about it, " he said, adding that the governing party's focus on migration also helps deflect attention from its own failures in improving the economy and public services.

In June, senior ANC official Fikile Mbalula described undocumented immigrants as a "ticking timebomb" for South Africa.

"Illegal immigrants put a heavy strain on the fiscus, with adverse effects on service delivery, the overstretched health sector, high unemployment and poverty," he said.

South Africa's latest census recorded more than 2.4 million migrants last year, with the highest percentage coming from neighbouring Zimbabwe at 45.5%, followed by Mozambique and Lesotho.

They make up only around 3% of the total population of 62 million - though officials acknowledge the difficulty in counting foreign nationals, especially those who are undocumented.

For Dr Mosoaledi, it is clear "no-one can account for all undocumented migrants" in South Africa and says the government was already trying to deal with them.

"Immigration Services deport between 15, 000 and 20,000 illegal foreigners every year at a huge cost. This number is on the increase," he said, pointing out that the government was setting up a new law enforcement agency - known as the Border Management Authority (BMA) - to "significantly reduce the risk of foreigners entering the country illegally".

"New legislation must be introduced to strengthen the powers of immigration officers and inspectorate, and make continuing training compulsory," Dr Motsoaledi added.

He also called for the establishment of immigration courts, saying "the current legislative framework was untenable and leads to long delays in finalising immigration matters, including deportation".

Dr Moyo told the BBC that it was difficult to clamp down on undocumented migrants, as most were from neighbouring states.

"If you arrest and deport them, they come back the following week," he said.

"You can't stop the movement of people. It's better to create a mechanism to allow people to be documented."

Yet, with an election looming, the government is unlikely to drop its plans, especially as some opinion polls suggest that the ANC risks losing its outright majority in parliament for the first time since 1994.

As Dr Moyo noted, those parties that called for tougher immigration policies, including tighter border controls, performed "very well" in the 2021 local elections in South Africa's economic heartland of Johannesburg and the capital, Tshwane.

[the-luckiest-guy-thanks-to-you]

Governments are massive hydras with tons of heads all over the place. Could and should Biden do more? Absolutely. Does that mean he hasn't done anything? No way. There have been a number of proposals for climate or disabled income that get blocked because it's not a total power system, but generally things are going in a better direction. That said, do not just default to Biden when it comes to wanting to elect people. It's still fair to not want him since not all get the same amount of action or that he isn't pushing for important policy that someone else might do more for overall. If there's another person like Bernie running, they should be prioritized. But if it comes down to the two worst, then yes, Biden would be far better and should get the vote than sitting it out or saying that it doesn't make a difference because it really does.

Under Biden there's also been pushes to build tech foundaries in multimillion dollar operations that might finally bring manufacturing jobs back to the US. Our economy has no floor due to the lack of tangible goods and is largely service based owing to how we push most production labor off to immigrants who have the most limited options, especially those who are undocumented. While the motivations are in part owed to xenophobia against Asian counties, there is such massive benefit to getting manufacturing back.

There's a huge amount going to rebuilding railways and new fleets of cars for Amtrak.

There's finally real progress in investing in the climate.

We should want and do need much more, but as far as policy goes, there's no debating it's better him than Republicans even if he isn't great and often acts hypocritically as a person.

In economics we divide the population into income quintiles -- top 20%, bottom 20%, etc

The Biden Economy has been very, very good to the bottom 20% -- I know because I am in that quintile and under the Biden Presidency I have seen multiple SNAP increases, the best COLA adjustments for Social Security in four decades, Medicare now pays my utilities, and because I'm part of the Affordable Connectivity Program, they can now never turn off my internet even if I can't afford to pay the bill.

The problem with the poorest people being the one who benefits the most? Is that it doesn't resonate as a media story. The media is not catering to that bottom quintile -- we don't have the expendable income their advertisers are seeking.

But if you want to elect a POTUS who is honestly helping the people who need it the most, you should be an enthusiastic Biden supporter. It won't make splashy news headlines, you're not even going to find MSNBC going GUESS WHAT THE POORS ARE DOING BETTER all the time because it's really not a sexy story. But it's a real story. A true story.

I'm just really sick of the pseudo-leftist takes that characterize Biden and the Democrats as 'conservative' or assertions that they don't have policy platforms except 'we're not the Republicans.' Such commentary sounds intelligent but only in the way Libertarian commentary sounds intelligent: you have to not think critically at all to some to such absurd conclusions. Democrats are working within a broken system and doing the best they can. You wanna fix the system? Great, I'm onboard, but smearing the only people trying to help is not going to get you anywhere.

[atlantagaimmigrationlawyer]

Immigration Reform in Atlanta, GA: A Critical Issue for the City’s Future

Atlanta, Georgia, a vibrant and growing metropolitan hub, has long been a destination for immigrants seeking new opportunities in the United States. As one of the largest cities in the southeastern U.S., it boasts a diverse population that includes individuals from various cultural backgrounds. However, as immigration continues to shape the city's demographics, calls for comprehensive immigration reform have gained momentum, particularly in light of economic, social, and political challenges. This article explores the importance of immigration reform in Atlanta, focusing on its impact on the local economy, community, and the broader implications for Georgia.

Economic Impact of Immigration in Atlanta

Immigrants play a vital role in Atlanta’s economy. According to the American Immigration Council, immigrants make up a significant portion of the workforce in Georgia, particularly in sectors such as construction, agriculture, hospitality, and healthcare. In Atlanta itself, immigrants contribute not only as workers but also as entrepreneurs, with many opening small businesses that help drive economic growth and create jobs. In fact, immigrants are more likely to start their own businesses than native-born citizens, contributing to the city’s entrepreneurial spirit.

Despite this, Atlanta’s immigrant community faces numerous challenges due to the lack of comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level. Without a clear and fair path to legal status, many immigrants live in the shadows, unable to fully contribute to society or access basic services like healthcare or education. This creates an environment of economic instability, with individuals fearing deportation or exploitation by unscrupulous employers. Reforming immigration policies would provide these workers with the security they need to continue contributing to the local economy.

Social and Cultural Contributions

Immigrants in Atlanta have enriched the city’s cultural landscape. The diversity of languages, foods, and traditions has transformed neighborhoods and businesses across the metro area, with many immigrants settling in historically underserved parts of the city. Areas like Buford Highway have become known for their vibrant international markets, restaurants, and cultural institutions, making Atlanta a more dynamic and attractive place to live and work.

However, despite these cultural contributions, immigrants in Atlanta often face discrimination and barriers to integration. Without immigration reform, many are denied opportunities for upward mobility, education, and full participation in society. Providing a pathway to citizenship would allow immigrants to fully engage in civic life, strengthening the social fabric of the city and fostering greater understanding and cooperation between different communities.

Political Landscape and Calls for Reform

Immigration reform has become a polarizing issue in Georgia’s political landscape. While the state has traditionally leaned conservative, there has been growing support for reform in urban areas like Atlanta, where the immigrant population is more prominent. Local leaders, community organizations, and immigrant advocates have called for changes that would provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented individuals, offer protections for immigrant workers, and ensure that families can remain together without the constant threat of deportation.

The failure of federal lawmakers to pass significant immigration reform has led many to question the status quo. With Georgia’s large Latino and immigrant populations, including communities from Latin America, Asia, and Africa, local leaders are increasingly pushing for reform at the state level. However, achieving meaningful change requires not only political will but also a broader shift in public opinion to view immigrants as an integral part of the community.

Conclusion

Immigration reform in Atlanta is not just a policy issue; it’s a question of justice, opportunity, and community. As the city continues to grow and diversify, it is essential that local, state, and federal governments take action to address the challenges faced by immigrants. Comprehensive immigration reform would not only benefit the economy but also strengthen the social fabric of Atlanta, allowing it to thrive as a city that welcomes people from all walks of life. With a growing consensus among local leaders and advocacy groups, the hope is that Atlanta’s future will be one where immigrants are recognized for their contributions and given the opportunity to fully realize their potential.

[theborderlessworld]

Donald Trump Has Promised a Closed Border and Mass Deportations. Those Affected Are Taking Action Now

Immigrants, their employers and groups that work with them are already taking action ahead of President-elect Donald Trump’s second term, in which he has promised to deport millions of people.

Some fear how the new administration could impact their families, while others are hopeful the plans — if they materialize — will make things better.

Trump allies are discussing deportation and detention options, with tackling the US-Mexico border seen as a priority from Day 1. And removing undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes is likely to be an early focus, a source familiar with the team’s preliminary plans told CNN.

But advocates fear deportation plans will soon reach deeper into American communities, targeting people who they say have a right to live here.

The League of United Latin American Citizens, the oldest Hispanic civil rights organization in the United States, is securing money and lawyers to fight what it is already calling potential “vicious, malevolent, cruel and ruthless” immigration policies.

“Make no mistake: Mass deportations will harm the millions targeted by Donald Trump, the families and communities they are part of — and every person in our country. They will rip parents from their children, destroy businesses and livelihoods, and devastate the fabric of our nation and our economy,” said Juan Proaño, CEO of LULAC.

A lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union says its planning for legal challenges is already well advanced.

“We have been preparing for a second Trump term for nearly a year, with a focus on the most draconian possible policies, including the threat to use the military for deportation, which is flatly illegal,” said Lee Gelernt, an ACLU attorney who argued many of the most high-profile cases during Trump’s first term.

The National Immigrant Justice Center said its lawyers were ready, too.

“We will continue our work of providing critical legal representation to immigrants and refugees, fighting to keep families together, defending access to asylum, and advocating for the end of arbitrary detention and unjust deportation,” Mary Meg McCarthy, the center’s executive director, said in a statement.

‘What happens now?’

Cesar Espinosa, a leader in Houston’s Hispanic community, said he’s had many calls and messages from worried people since Trump won reelection early Wednesday.

“We can feel the sense of uncertainty from a lot of people. A lot of people are asking, ‘What happens now? What do we do?’” he said.

Some are in so-called mixed status families made up of US citizens and undocumented immigrants. And the fear is that non citizens will be targeted immediately, said Espinosa, who is a legal permanent resident, or “green card” holder.

He says he tries to calm fears by saying that mass deportations, particularly of non-criminals, will take time. Meanwhile, he keeps count of the time when he can apply for US naturalization, still more than two years away.

Espinosa said machismo among Latino men may have contributed to support for Trump.

“Unfortunately, a lot of people in the Latino community have bought into the rhetoric of being anti-immigrant, even the immigrants themselves,” he said.

Jorge Rivas’ support for Trump is obvious. He features a MAGA burger on the menu at Sammy’s Mexican Grill, in Catalina, Arizona, north of Tucson, the restaurant he runs with his wife, Betty.

Rivas, born in El Salvador, was granted asylum at age 17, he says, and sees little connection between his life as an immigrant and those at the top of Trump’s potential deportation list.

“If they let in hundreds or thousands of people who already have criminal records, if deporting them creates a mass deportation, I’m all for it,” he said.

He does not think the action will extend to law-abiding workers.

“That wouldn’t be fair,” he said. “They need to make sure that they don’t throw away, they don’t kick out, they don’t deport people that are family oriented.”

Advocates mobilize

In California, where farmers are reliant on migrant labor, there is a renewed call for immigration reform to allow people into the US for temporary agricultural work. There are also calls for legal status for the current workforce.

“We must focus on easing the chronic employee shortages on California farms and ranches and reducing the barriers to employment,” California Farm Bureau President Shannon Douglass said in a statement to CNN.

In the urban heart of New York City, where thousands of migrants and asylum seekers have stretched local resources, some houses of worship are preparing to shift their missions.

“The faith community has been mobilized for more than two and a half years in kind of an emergency capacity,” said the Rev. Chloe Breyer, executive director of the Interfaith Center of New York, a religiously diverse non-profit agency. “The challenge was not specifically deportation, as it is now, the challenge was the feeding, the housing and the welcome of enormous numbers of people.”

She said there was a biweekly call of about 60 churches, mosques and synagogues involved in welcoming migrants that could be pivoted. “That’s the network that will be mobilized when it comes to fighting any sort of more extreme measures such as deportation.”

A day after the election, New York City officials said fear was premature when they addressed immigration and how they would work with the incoming Trump administration.

The city has sanctuary laws that prevent local authorities from contacting federal immigration officers if they come across a migrant without permission to be in the US. Some in Mayor Eric Adams’ administration have said they want the laws amended to not include those who commit violent crimes, but for now any city-federal cooperation is limited.

“We’re working with all of the agencies that interact with immigrant communities to make sure that they understand what our sanctuary laws are and what they are expected to follow,” said Manuel Castro, the mayor’s commissioner for immigrant affairs. While the laws are in place, he said, anxiety and fear for immigrant communities is rooted in misinformation and even hate crimes.

But Murad Awawdeh, president of the New York Immigration Coalition, warned that sanctuary laws won’t stop federal immigration agencies from doing what they want.

“Sanctuary laws don’t stop federal agencies. They just don’t allow the city and state to participate,” Awawdeh said. “They’ve never been a firewall.”

Federal enforcement

Officials in US Customs and Border Protection and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, two agencies under the Department of Homeland Security, are not commenting on any potential new policies or preparations. Both would be central to any deportation plan, but top leadership will not change until the second Trump administration begins its work on January 20.

At both the northern and southern borders, apprehensions of those who have crossed illegally continue to be low in 2024, with a seven-day average of 1,700 a day, according to a law enforcement source familiar with the government data. The busiest sector was San Diego, with 350 people detained on Tuesday.

At some points in December 2023, migrant apprehensions exceeded 10,000 per day on the US southern border.

The day after the election, Jim Desmond, a member of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, posted a picture of himself and Vice President-elect JD Vance at the border wall, saying he was looking forward to securing it. Earlier this year, Desmond testified before Congress that federal policies had meant “our Border Patrol has been reduced to processing agents, standing by, watching people break our laws.”

Kenia Zamarripa, of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, said many local businesses had ties across the border with companies, operations and workers and that an efficient and secure border should still facilitate trade and travel.

“It’s not just manufacturing, it’s not just tourism or retail, these are high-paying jobs and skilled workers that our businesses need to thrive,” she told CNN.

The tone was more defiant in Los Angeles, where the University of Southern California estimated last year there were more than 800,000 undocumented immigrants in LA county. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass told CNN: “The immigrant community is the heart of our city and in the face of threats and fear, Los Angeles will stand together. No one should live in fear due to their immigration status. We will continue to support local and state policies that protect immigrants and provide vital resources.”

She added: “My message is simple: No matter where you were born, how you came to this country, Los Angeles will stand with you and this will not change.”

The Los Angeles Unified School District — the second largest in the nation behind New York City — said it was bracing for a potential threat of legal action against students and their families that could lead to separation or deportation. It added that it would not enter into agreements with government agencies for the enforcement of federal immigration law unless required by law.

“Immigration enforcement activities around schools create hardships and barriers to health and educational attainment and cultivate a pervasive climate of fear, conflict, and stress that affects all students in our district, regardless of their background or immigration status,” a spokesperson for the district said in a statement sent to CNN.

Across the border from San Diego in Tijuana, Mexico, about 3,400 people are waiting in migrant shelters, according to Jose Luis Perez Canchola, the city’s migration affairs director.

Many are hoping to enter the US legally using the CBP ONE app run by DHS to get an immigration appointment, but there are fears that the app could be impacted, he said.

“In the event of a mass cancellation of appointments and closing CBP ONE, what may happen is that many will decide to illegally cross the border before January 2025,” Perez Canchola said.

There is also concern in Piedras Negras, the Mexican city across the Rio Grande from Eagle Pass, Texas. “There’s fear and trepidation,” said Sister Isabel Turcios, director of the Frontera Digna shelter, where migrants were also using CBP ONE to get an appointment with an immigration officer.

“I try to calm them because the anxiety they’re feeling is very great,” she said.

Source: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/11/11/us/closed-border-trump-immigration-deportation/index.html

[thatsactuallywrong]

I understand that your vote was motivated by strong convictions about the future of the country, but I think there are a few points here that deserve a closer look:

Trump as a Savior: You mention voting for Trump to 'save this great nation from the corrupt politicians who have governed us for decades,' yet Trump himself was part of the political establishment for years, including during his presidency. The idea of him as an outsider challenging the system is complicated by the fact that he had significant influence over key political and institutional decisions during his time in office. How does this square with the notion of him being an 'outsider'?

Trump’s Own Role in the Negative Narrative: While you argue that the media has 'framed a negative reality of Trump,' it’s important to acknowledge that Trump’s own words and actions have contributed to his image. He’s often used divisive rhetoric, which has fueled public distrust and division. It’s easy to blame the media, but his inflammatory language has been a significant factor in shaping how he’s viewed.

The 'Tried to Kill Him' Claim: The statement that Trump has been 'tried to be killed multiple times' is, to put it mildly, laughable. The first shooter was a registered Republican, and the second was someone unaffiliated with a party but who voted for Trump in 2016. This oversimplified narrative about political persecution fails to address the complexity of such incidents and risks distorting the actual motivations of the individuals involved.

Spending Billions on a Campaign of Hate and Division: The claim that 'they spent billions of dollars on a campaign based on hate and division' seems to ignore the fact that Trump himself has often employed rhetoric that divides the country. His words have at times been the source of the very division he critiques, whether through personal attacks, dismissive comments about entire groups of people, or fostering an 'us vs. them' mentality. It’s not just the media, but his own actions that have stoked these fires.

Media Bias and Free Speech: The desire for 'truth and nonpartisan news' is something many share, but Trump’s relationship with the media has been anything but neutral. He’s consistently elevated certain news outlets while attacking others, which undermines the idea of fostering objective journalism. His approach to media and information isn’t about creating a more balanced discourse—it’s about controlling the narrative that suits his agenda.

Immigration and National Security: While it’s important to have a secure border and prioritize lawful immigration, the rhetoric around 'hardworking Americans' versus 'illegal immigrants' can overlook the broader contributions immigrants, both documented and undocumented, make to the economy and society. We should balance national security with compassion and fairness in how we treat people.

Gender and Ideology: Gender issues are complex, but framing gender diversity as a 'mental health condition' rather than recognizing it as part of the natural diversity of human experience can be harmful and stigmatizing. Inclusivity and respect for all individuals, including those who don’t conform to traditional gender norms, can coexist with a recognition of biological sex.

Election Integrity and Censorship: The focus on 'election integrity' is important, but the 2020 election was thoroughly examined, and multiple audits confirmed its legitimacy. Similarly, while social media platforms need to balance free speech with the need to curb misinformation, it’s important to note that concerns about censorship often stem from attempts to suppress disinformation, which can endanger public trust and safety.

[ultrakeencollectionbreadfan]

Well, Trump won again. It's really not that surprising, considering inflation has driven out incumbents everywhere, not just in America. Still, every dark cloud has a silver lining, and this one has more than you might think. For one thing, it would be nigh-impossible for Trump to carry out his proposed mass deportation of undocumented migrants. For another, Trump really doesn't have anything much on his agenda besides the economy and immigration, and he also tends to agree with the last person he spoke to on many items. Also, Trump picked Susie Wiles as his chief of staff, and she's probably the best person who can control his impulses, and maybe even make him (so help me) as "presidential" as he can be. Plus, if Trump does manage to enact any part of his agenda, everyone who switched their vote to him this year will probably get buyers' remorse pretty quickly.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Greg Sargent at TNR:

There are still nearly two months to go before Donald Trump assumes the presidency again, but Republicans or GOP-adjacent industries have already begun to admit out loud that some of his most important policy promises could prove disastrous in their parts of the country. These folks don’t say this too directly, out of fear of offending the MAGA God King. Instead, they suggest gingerly that a slight rethink might be in order. But unpack what they’re saying, and you’ll see that they’re in effect acknowledging that some of Trump’s biggest campaign promises were basically scams.

In Georgia, for instance, some local Republicans are openly worried about Trump’s threat to roll back President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. The IRA is pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into incentives for the manufacture and purchase of green energy technologies, from electric vehicles to batteries to solar power. Trump endlessly derided this as the “green new scam” and pledged to repeal all uncommitted funds. But now The New York Times reports that Trump supporters like state Representative Beth Camp fear that repeal could destroy jobs related to new investments in green manufacturing plants in the state. Camp worries that this could leave factories in Georgia “sitting empty.” You heard that right: This Republican is declaring that Trump’s threatened actions could leave factories sitting empty. 

[...]

Something similar is also already happening with Trump’s threat to deport millions of undocumented immigrants. Reuters reports that agriculture interests, which are heavily concentrated in GOP areas, are urging the incoming Trump administration to refrain from removing untold numbers of migrants working throughout the food supply chain, including in farming, dairy, and meatpacking. 

Notably, GOP Representative John Duarte, who just lost his seat in the elections, explicitly tells Reuters that farming interests in his California district depend on undocumented immigrants—and that Trump should exempt many from removal. Duarte and industry representatives want more avenues created for migrants to work here legally—the precise opposite of what Trump promised. Now over to Texas. NPR reports that various industries there fear that mass deportations could cripple them, particularly in construction, where nearly 300,000 undocumented immigrants toiled as of 2022. Those workers enable the state to keep growing despite a native population that isn’t supplying a large enough workforce. Local analysts and executives want Trump to refrain from removing all these people or create new ways for them to work here legally. Even the Republican mayor of McKinney, Texas, is loudly sounding the alarm.

Meanwhile, back in Georgia, Trump’s threat of mass deportations is awakening new awareness that undocumented immigrants drive industries like construction, landscaping, and agriculture, reports The Wall Street Journal. In Dalton, a town that backed Trump, fear is spreading that removals could “upend its economy and workforce.” At this point, someone will argue that all this confirms Trump’s arguments—that these industries and their representatives merely fear losing cheap migrant labor that enables them to avoid paying Americans higher wages. When JD Vance and Trump pushed their lie about Haitians eating pets in Springfield, Ohio, Vance insisted that he opposed the Haitian influx into Midwestern towns because they’re undercutting U.S. workers. But all these disparate examples of Republicans and GOP areas lamenting coming mass deportations suggest an alternate story, one detailed well by the Times’ Lydia DePillis. In the MAGA worldview, a large reserve of untapped native-born Americans in prime working age are languishing in joblessness throughout Trump country—and will stream into all these industries once migrants are removed en masse, boosting wages.  

But DePillis documents that things like poor health and disability are more important drivers of unemployment among this subset of non-college working-age men. Besides, migrants living and working here don’t just perform labor that Americans will not. They also consume and boost demand, creating more jobs. As Paul Krugman puts it, in all these ways, migrant laborers are “complements” to U.S. workers. Importantly, that’s the argument that these Republicans and industries in GOP areas are really making when they lament mass deportations: Migrant labor isn’t displacing U.S. workers; it’s helping drive our post-Covid recovery and growth. This directly challenges Trump’s zero-sum worldview.

[...] Here’s another possibility: In the end, Trump’s deportation forces may selectively spare certain localities and industries from mass removals. Trump’s incoming “border czar,” Tom Homan, suggests this won’t happen. But a hallmark of MAGA is corruptly selective governance in the interests of MAGA nation and expressly against those who are designated MAGA’s enemies, U.S. citizens included. One can see mass deportations becoming a selective tool, in which blue localities are targeted for high-profile raids—even as Trump triumphantly rants that they are cesspools of “migrant crime” that he is pacifying with military-style force—while GOP-connected industries and Trump-allied Republicans tacitly secure some forbearance.

Donald Trump’s threats to green energy initiatives and resistance to his mass deportation proposals are facing headwinds against him, even from local Republicans who fear losses of jobs in their communities.

Even if Trump does get to implement his mass deportation policy, he’ll likely create several exemption carveouts (mainly for industries likely to favor him) and use selective enforcement (light touch for red states, heavy and punitive for blue states).

[bewitchingbooktours]

November 6, 2024 Heather Cox Richardson Nov 7

Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán, who overturned democracy in his own country, explained that the historical liberal democracy of the United States weakens a nation because the equality it champions means treating immigrants, LGBTQ+ individuals, and women as equal to men, thus ending traditionally patriarchal society.

In place of democracy, Orbán champions “illiberal democracy,” or “Christian democracy.” This form of government holds nominal elections, although their outcome is preordained because the government controls all the media and has silenced opposition. Orbán’s model of minority rule promises a return to a white-dominated, religiously based society, and he has pushed his vision by eliminating the independent press, cracking down on political opposition, getting rid of the rule of law, and dominating the economy with a group of crony oligarchs.

In order to strengthen democracy at home and abroad, Biden worked to show that it delivered for ordinary Americans. He and the Democrats passed groundbreaking legislation to invest in rebuilding roads and bridges and build new factories to usher in green energy. They defended unions and used the Federal Trade Commission to break up monopolies and return more economic power to consumers.

Their system worked. It created record low unemployment rates, lifted wages for the bottom 80% of Americans, and built the strongest economy in the world in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, setting multiple stock market records. But that success turned out not to be enough to protect democracy.

In contrast, Trump promised he would return to the ideology of the era before 2021, when leaders believed in relying on markets to order the economy with the idea that wealthy individuals would invest more efficiently than if the government regulated business or skewed markets with targeted investment (in green energy, for example). Trump vowed to cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations and to make up lost revenue through tariffs, which he incorrectly insists are paid by foreign countries; tariffs are paid by U.S. consumers.

For policies, Trump’s campaign embraced the Project 2025 agenda led by the right-wing Heritage Foundation, which has close ties to Orbán. That plan calls for getting rid of the nonpartisan civil service the U.S. has had since 1883 and for making both the Department of Justice and the military partisan instruments of a strong president, much as Orbán did in Hungary. It also calls for instituting religious rule, including an end to abortion rights, across the U.S. Part of the idea of “purifying” the country is the deportation of undocumented immigrants: Trump promised to deport 20 million people at an estimated cost of $88 billion to $315 billion a year.

That is what voters chose.

Pundits today have spent time dissecting the election results, many trying to find the one tweak that would have changed the outcome, and suggesting sweeping solutions to the Democrats’ obvious inability to attract voters. There is no doubt that a key factor in voters’ swing to Trump is that they associated the inflation of the post-pandemic months with Biden and turned the incumbents out, a phenomenon seen all over the world.

There is also no doubt that both racism and sexism played an important role in Harris’s defeat.

But my own conclusion is that both of those things were amplified by the flood of disinformation that has plagued the U.S. for years now. Russian political theorists called the construction of a virtual political reality through modern media “political technology.” They developed several techniques in this approach to politics, but the key was creating a false narrative in order to control public debate. These techniques perverted democracy, turning it from the concept of voters choosing their leaders into the concept of voters rubber-stamping the leaders they had been manipulated into backing.

In the U.S., pervasive right-wing media, from the Fox News Channel through right-wing podcasts and YouTube channels run by influencers, have permitted Trump and right-wing influencers to portray the booming economy as “failing” and to run away from the hugely unpopular Project 2025. They allowed MAGA Republicans to portray a dramatically falling crime rate as a crime wave and immigration as an invasion. They also shielded its audience from the many statements of Trump’s former staff that he is unfit for office, and even that his chief of staff General John Kelly considers him a fascist and noted that he admires German Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler.

As actor Walter Masterson posted: “I tried to educate people about tariffs, I tried to explain that undocumented immigrants pay billions in taxes and are the foundation of this country. I explained Project 2025, I interviewed to show that they supported it. I can not compete against the propaganda machines of Twitter, Fox News, [Joe Rogan Experience], and NY Post. These spaces will continue to create reality unless we create a more effective way of reaching people.”

X users noted a dramatic drop in their followers today, likely as bots, no longer necessary, disengaged.

Many voters who were using their vote to make an economic statement are likely going to be surprised to discover what they have actually voted for. In his victory speech, Trump said the American people had given him an “unprecedented and powerful mandate.”

White nationalist Nick Fuentes posted, “Your body, my choice. Forever,” and gloated that men will now legally control women’s bodies. His post got at least 22,000 “likes.” Right-wing influencer Benny Johnson, previously funded by Russia, posted: “It is my honor to inform you that Project 2025 was real the whole time.”

Today, Trump campaign press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump would launch the “largest mass deportation operation” of undocumented immigrants, and the stock in private prison companies GEO Group and CoreCivic jumped 41% and 29%, respectively. Those jumps were part of a bigger overall jump: the Dow Jones Industrial Average moved up 1,508 points in what Washington Post economic columnist Heather Long said was the largest post-election jump in more than 100 years.

As for the lower prices Trump voters wanted, Kate Gibson of CBS today noted that on Monday, the National Retail Federation said that Trump’s proposed tariffs will cost American consumers between $46 billion and $78 billion a year as clothing, toys, furniture, appliances, and footwear all become more expensive. A $50 pair of running shoes, Gibson said, would retail for $59 to $64 under the new tariffs.

U.S. retailers are already preparing to raise prices of items from foreign suppliers, passing to consumers the cost of any future tariffs.

Trump’s election will also mean he will no longer have to answer to the law for his federal indictments: special counsel Jack Smith is winding them down ahead of Trump’s inauguration. So he will not be tried for retaining classified documents or attempting to overthrow the U.S. government when he lost in 2020.

This evening, Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán posted on social media that he had just spoken with Trump, and said: “We have big plans for the future!”

[yourreddancer]

Heather Cox Richardson 10.11.24

A report from the Labor Department yesterday showed that inflation has dropped again, falling back to 2.4%, the same rate as it was just before the coronavirus pandemic. Today the Dow Jones Industrial Average jumped 400 points to a record high, while the S&P 500 closed above 5,800 for the first time. 

Washington Post economics columnist Heather Long noted that “[b]y just about every measure, the U.S. economy is in good shape.” Inflation is back down, growth remains strong at 3%, unemployment is low at 4.1% with the U.S. having created almost 7 million more jobs than it had before the pandemic. The stock market is hitting all-time highs. Long adds that “many Americans are getting sizable pay raises, and middle-class wealth has surged to record levels.” The Federal Reserve has begun to cut interest rates, and foreign leaders are talking about the U.S. economy with envy. 

Democratic presidential nominee and sitting vice president Kamala Harris has promised to continue the economic policies of the Biden-Harris administration and focus on cutting costs for families. She has called for a federal law against price gouging on groceries during times of crisis, cutting taxes for families, and enabling Medicare to pay for home health aides. She has proposed $25,000 in down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers and promised to work with the private sector to build 3 million new housing units by the end of her first term. 

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which focuses on the direct effect of policies on the federal debt, estimated that Harris’s plans would add $3.5 trillion to the debt.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has promised to extend his 2017 tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations and to impose a 10% to 20% tariff across the board on imported goods and a 60% tariff on goods from China. Tariffs are taxes paid by American consumers, and economists predict such tariffs would cost an average family more than $2,600 a year. Overall, the effect of these policies would be to shift the weight of taxation even further toward middle-class and lower-class Americans and away from the wealthy. 

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that these plans would add $7.5 trillion to the debt.

But there is more: Trump has also made deporting undocumented immigrants central to his promises, and his running mate, J.D. Vance, has claimed the right to determine which government policies he considers legal, threatening to expand deportation to include legal migrants, as well. 

Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times noted on October 8 that in March, the Peterson Institute for International Economics pointed out that the immigrants Trump is targeting are vital to a number of U.S. businesses. Their loss will cause dramatic cutbacks in those sectors. Taken together, the study concluded, Trump’s deportations, tariffs, and vow to take control of the Federal Reserve could make the country’s gross domestic product as much as 9.7% lower than it would be without those policies, employment could fall by as much as 9%, and inflation would climb by as much as 7.4%. 

And yet, in a New York Times/Siena Poll of likely voters released on October 8, 75% of respondents said the economy was fair or poor. Further, although a study by The Guardian showed that Harris’s specific economic policies were more popular than Trump’s in a blind test, 54% of respondents to a Gallup poll released on October 9, thought that Trump would manage the economy better than Harris would. 

Part of Americans’ sour mood about the economy stems from the poor coverage all the good economic news has received. Part of it is that rising prices are more immediately obvious than the wage gains that have outpaced them. But a large part of it is the historic habit of thinking that Republicans manage the economy better than Democrats do. 

That myth began immediately after the Civil War when Democrats demanded the government renege on the generous terms under which it had floated bonds during the war. When the Treasury put those bonds on the market, they were a risky proposition, but with the United States secure after the war, calculations changed, and Democrats charged that investors had gotten too good a deal.

Republicans were horrified at the idea of changing the terms of a debt already incurred. They added to the Fourteenth Amendment the clause saying, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” When that amendment was added to the Constitution in 1868, the Democrats’ fiscal rebellion seemed to be quelled.

But as Republicans increasingly insisted that protecting big business with a high tariff wall was crucial to the American economy, Democrats called for lowering tariffs to give the consumers who paid them a break. In response, Republicans said that those suffering in industrial America were lazy or spendthrifts and warned that Democrats were socialists. When Democrats took control of both chambers of Congress and put Grover Cleveland in the White House in 1892 with a promise to lower tariffs, Republicans insisted that the economy would collapse. But, the Chicago Tribune wrote, “The working classes of the country need such a lesson…. The Republicans will be passive spectators… It will not be their funeral.” 

Their warnings of an impending collapse prompted investors to take their money home. On February 17, 1893, fifteen days before Cleveland would be sworn into office, the Reading Railroad Company went under, after which, as one reporter wrote, “the bottom seemed to be falling out of everything.” By the time Cleveland took office, a financial panic was in full swing. 

Republican lawmakers and newspapers blamed Democrats for the collapse because everyone knew they would destroy the economy. Republicans urged voters to put them back in charge of Congress, and in 1894, in a landslide, they did. “American manufacturers and merchants and business-men generally will draw a long breath of relief,” the Chicago Tribune commented just days after the Republican victory. Republicans had successfully associated their opponents with economic disaster. 

That association continued in the twentieth century. In 1913, for the first time since Cleveland’s second term, the Democrats captured both Congress and the White House. Immediately, President Woodrow Wilson called for lowered tariff rates and, to make up for lost revenue, an income tax. Massachusetts senator Henry Cabot Lodge called the tariff measure “very radical” and warned that it would destroy all the industries in Massachusetts. As for the income tax, big-business Republicans claimed it was socialism and that it discriminated against the wealthy. 

For the rest of the century, Republicans would center taxes, especially income taxes, as proof Democrats were bad for the economy. As soon as World War I ended, Republicans set out to get rid of the high progressive taxes that had paid for the war. Andrew Mellon, who served as treasury secretary under presidents Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover, took office in 1921 and set out to increase productivity by increasing investment in industry. To free up capital, he said, the government must slash its budget and cut taxes. From 1921 to 1929, Mellon returned $3.5 billion to wealthy Americans through refunds, credits, and tax abatements.

The booming economy of the 1920s made it seem that the Republicans had finally figured out how to create a perpetually prosperous economy. When he accepted the 1928 Republican nomination for president, Herbert Hoover said: “We in America are nearer to the final triumph over poverty than ever before in the history of any land. The poorhouse is vanishing from among us…. [G]iven a chance to go forward with the policies of the last eight years, we shall soon, with the help of God, be in sight of the day when poverty will be banished from this nation.”

The Great Depression, sparked by the stock market crash of October 1929, revealed the central weakness of an economic vision based in concentrating wealth. While worker productivity had increased by about 43% in the 1920s, wages did not rise. By 1929, 5% of the population received one third of the nation’s income. When the stock market crash wiped out the purchasing power of this group, the rest of the population did not have enough capital to fuel the economy. 

Mellon predicted that the crisis would “purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people.” The Hoover administration preached thrift, morality, and individualism and blamed the depression on a wasteful government that had overstaffed public offices. To restore business confidence, Republicans declared, the nation must slash government spending and lay off public workers. 

But most Americans had had enough of Republican economics, especially as the crash revealed deep corruption in the nation’s financial system. In 1932, voters overcame their deep suspicion of Democratic economic policies to embrace what Democratic presidential candidate Franklin Delano Roosevelt called a “New Deal” for the American people, combating the depression by regulating business, providing a basic social safety net, and investing in infrastructure. Hoover denounced Roosevelt’s plans as dangerous radicalism that would “enslave” taxpayers and destroy the United States. 

Voters elected FDR with about 58% of the vote. Over the next forty years, Americans of both parties embraced the government’s active approach to promoting economic growth and individual prosperity by protecting all Americans. 

But when President Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, he promised that returning to a system like that of the 1920s would make the country boom. He called his system “supply-side” economics, for it invested in the supply side—investors—rather than the consumers who made up the demand side. “The whole thing is premised on faith,” Reagan’s budget director David Stockman told a reporter. “On a belief about how the world works.” 

Under Reagan, deficit spending that tripled the national debt from $995 billion to $2.9 trillion—more federal debt than in the entire previous history of the country—along with lower interest rates and deregulated savings and loan banks, made the economy boom. Americans watching the economic growth such deficit spending produced believed supply-side economics worked. Tax cuts and spending cuts became the Holy Grail of American politics, and the Democrats who opposed them seemed unable to run an economy. 

But that belief was not based in reality. In April the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute found that since 1949 the nation’s annual real growth has been 1.2 percentage points higher under Democratic administrations than under Republican administrations (3.79% versus 2.60%), total job growth averages 2.5% annually under Democrats compared to barely over 1% under Republicans, business investment is more than double the pace under Democrats than under Republicans, average rates of inflation are slightly lower under Democrats, and families in the bottom 20% of the economy experience income growth 188% faster under Democrats than under Republicans. 

A recent analysis by former Goldman Sachs managing director H. John Gilbertson expands on those numbers, showing that Democratic administrations reduce the U.S. budget deficit and that stock market returns are 60% higher under Democrats than under Republicans.

Democratic President Joe Biden returned the country to the proven system that worked before 1981, and the economy has boomed. While Trump has vowed to return to the tax cuts and deregulation of supply-side economics, Vice President Harris has promised to retain and fine-tune Biden’s policies. 

But Harris has to overcome more than a century of American mythmaking. 

[biblenewsprophecy]

Kamala Harris and Donald Trump debate, but . . .

COGwriter

Voice of America reported the following related to the debate last night between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris:

Harris, Trump spar from start of their presidential debate

Updated September 11, 2024

U.S. Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris and Republican former President Donald Trump had never met until their presidential debate Tuesday night, but immediately started sparring in a pivotal encounter leading up to the national election on November 5.

The two candidates shook hands at the outset, took their places behind lecterns on a stage at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia and then started assailing each other.

They feuded about the U.S. economy, abortion rights for American women, immigration at the U.S. border with Mexico, the Israeli war against Hamas militants in Gaza, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol as Congress certified that Trump had lost the 2020 election.

Referring to the 2020 election that Trump lost to President Joe Biden, Harris said, “Donald Trump was fired by 81 million people. He has a very difficult time processing that.”

Trump recently said he lost the election “by a whisker,” but on the debate stage Tuesday, he said it was a sarcastic remark and refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the 2020 outcome. …

the world’s top pop singer, Taylor Swift, endorsed the Democrat as the debate ended.

Standing a short distance away from each other, the two candidates shook their heads at each other’s comments, with Harris all but laughing out loud at some of Trump’s remarks. ABC News anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis gamely tried to control the flow of the encounter, failing at times. …

On Tuesday, Harris, a former local criminal prosecutor in San Francisco and attorney general in California accustomed to tough courtroom encounters with defense attorneys, repeatedly baited Trump with insults.

At one point, she told him that his staunchest supporters at his political rallies often left early because they were bored with his speeches.

He described her as a Marxist, saying she was taught well by her father, a leftist economist. “This is a radical left liberal,” Trump said of Harris. …

Trump assailed Biden and Harris’ handling of the U.S. economy, the world’s largest, saying the U.S. is becoming “Venezuela on steroids.” She said his plan for imposing up to 20% tariffs on imported foreign goods would prove to be a “Trump sales tax” for American consumers.

She blamed him for the end to a constitutional right to abortion with his appointment of three conservative justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. He said that with the 2022 ruling, voters in individual states could now decide the issue.

“The government and Trump should not be telling” women what to do with their bodies, Harris said.

Trump blamed Harris as part of the Biden administration’s failure to control the masses of migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. Trump has said he plans to deport 11 million or more undocumented migrants living in the U.S. but twice dodged Muir’s question of how he would arrest people and send them back to their home countries. …

Speaking to reporters after the debate, Republican Senator Tom Cotton questioned why Harris has not worked to implement her policy proposals during her time as vice president.

“Kamala Harris wouldn’t answer questions about what she’s going to do for the American people and kept trying to shift onto other topics. Understandably, Donald Trump defended himself, but what he did the best job of is explaining that things were good when he was president and they have not been good for the last four years.”

Democratic Senator Chris Murphy said it was Trump who failed to explain what he would bring to a new term in office.

“The real question is, what does Donald Trump stand for? You can have a conversation about how some of Kamala Harris’ positions have changed, as all of our positions have changed over the years based on new information, or we can ask ourselves did Donald Trump articulate a single plan tonight to help the American people? Besides his reiteration of his belief that we should build a wall with Mexico, I don’t think he talked about one single plan — no healthcare plan, no housing plan, no plan to increase wages.” https://www.voanews.com/a/harris-trump-set-for-tuesday-debate-/7778157.html

The candidates debated, but tended to avoid biblical solutions in their responses.

Furthermore, I saw both of the candidates lie, or at least use hyperbole, to say things that were not so.

After the debate, I saw people on CNN who were excited about Kamala Harris’ strident pro-abortion positions as a reason to vote for her. The idea of voting for a candidate because that candidate is more in favor of murdering unborn babies is a disturbing commentary on the state of the US. Regarding a recent Donald Trump policy statement, check out my post: Donald Trump calls for 100% tariffs against nations looking to drop the US dollar–a move of desperation that, at best, delays the inevitable–but at worst, could accelerate it. 

Whoever gets elected will take steps which will help result in the end of the US–which is coming per Isaiah 10:5-11; Daniel 11:39; and Habakkuk 2:6-9.

The so-called fact checkers at ABC during the debate were biased as they 1) mainly focused on statements from Donald Trump, 2) sometimes claimed some true facts from Donald Trump were false and 3) they failed to fact check most of Kamala Harris’ falsehoods.

One of the reason that I am careful about relying on the so-called “fact checkers” on the internet is because they have repeatedly been shown to be highly biased and frequently wrong, though sometimes they can be right.

Anyway, there was a lot of hypocrisy in the debate as well as in the media related to the debate.

The US does not have an unbiased news media focused on facts or truth, but mainly a bunch of political advocates, some of whom are much more hypocritical than others.

The Bible, KJV translation, predicts the end of “an hypocritical nation” (Isaiah 10:5-11).

Now as far as Taylor Swift goes, I have wondered when that promoter of immorality would endorse Kamala Harris publicly. I thought she might hold off until October, but she decided instead to do so after the debate last night:

Taylor Swift is entering her 2024 election era.

The mega pop star has thrown her support behind Vice President Harris, just under two months out from the election … in a post to her more than 280 million followers on Instagram. https://www.npr.org/2024/09/10/nx-s1-5107976/taylor-swift-instagram-endorse-kamala-harris

September 11, 2024

After last night’s Presidential debate, the pop star publicly endorsed Kamala Harris because “she is a steady-handed, gifted leader” who fights for “LGBTQ+ rights, IVF, and a woman’s right to her own body. . .”

I really try to keep an open mind and understand other people’s opinions. But I personally have an extremely difficult time comprehending how someone thinks abortion and LGBTQ rights are the most important problems facing the country right now.

This is a pivotal moment in history. The United States is in serious decline. Among other critical challenges, the national debt is $35 trillion and is set to grow by at least $22 trillion over the next decade (according to the government’s own forecasts).

The impact of this extreme debt level cannot be overstated. The US dollar will almost certainly lose its reserve status, inflation will soar, and the government will most likely default on key promises like Social Security. (Hickman J. Schiff Newsletter, September 11, 2024)

Promoting sin is not a biblical reason to endorse someone.

What about the two debaters?

As long time readers of this COGwriter Church of God News page are aware, as posted here many times before, I consider that Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are evil.

Without going into unique specifics, let’s consider how they are similar:

They do not live like a member of their professed faiths is supposed to try to live.

They support LGBTQ matters.

They have not called for national repentance.

They have not sought first the Kingdom of God.

One is an adulterer and the other an adulteress.

They have all been involved in Administrations that greatly increased USA debt.

They have all been involved in Administrations that have upset the Europeans.

They have all been accused of hypocrisy.

They both have made a lot of public lies–including in the debate last night.

None have the real solutions for what the USA needs.

Now, I am not trying to say that there are no differences. Yes, I know they have differing economic and climate policies as well as different views on abortion and racial matters.

Notice that simply approving the LGBT agenda is condemned by the Bible:

26 … For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. (Romans 1:26-32)

Yes, the USA election is a choice between evil ones. But do not place your hope in any human political leader.

Now, let’s look at some of what the scriptures teach are to be traits of godly leaders starting with something God had Moses write:

19 Listen now to my voice; I will give you counsel, and God will be with you: Stand before God for the people, so that you may bring the difficulties to God. 20 And you shall teach them the statutes and the laws, and show them the way in which they must walk and the work they must do. 21 Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. (Exodus 18:19-21)

Neither Kamala Harris nor Donald Trump are leaders who could be called “men of truth,” nor do they truly endorse God’s laws and statutes nor do they hate covetousness.

Notice something else from the Bible:

2 “The Spirit of the Lord spoke by me, And His word was on my tongue. 3 The God of Israel said, The Rock of Israel spoke to me: ‘He who rules over men must be just, Ruling in the fear of God. (2 Samuel 23:2-3)

Neither Kamala Harris nor Donald Trump are just nor do they intend to rule in the fear of the true God.

Hence, they are not people that Christians should endorse.

Voting for Kamala Harris or voting for Donald Trump will not save the US.

The Psalmist wrote:

3 Do not put your trust in princes, Nor in a son of man, in whom there is no help. (Psalm 146:3)

Furthermore, the Bible warns:

20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil (Isaiah 5:20).

2 You shall not follow a crowd to do evil (Exodus 23:2)

The “lesser of two evils” is still evil.

The Bible warns:

12 As for My people, children are their oppressors, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who lead you cause you to err, And destroy the way of your paths. (Isaiah 3:12)

16 For the leaders of this people cause them to err, And those who are led by them are destroyed (Isaiah 9:16).

And that second verse applies to both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.

Related to Trump or Harris, we put together the following video:

14:24

Trump vs Harris vs Scripture

Are Donald Trump and Kamala Harris qualified to be President of the United States according to its Constitution? Does the adulterer Donald Trump’s record as a businessman who declared bankruptcy multiple times and who was once President of the USA make him the best choice? Does Kamala Harris’ political positions, one or more were related to adultery, and then later being Vice-President make her the best choice? What about their positions on adultery and LGBTQ matters? Do either of them meet the biblical requirements to be leaders? Could they both be evil? Should Christians put their faith in leaders or in Jesus and His Kingdom? Dr. Thiel and Steve Dupuie go over these points.

Here is a link to our video: Trump vs Harris vs Scripture.

Put your faith in Jesus and the coming Kingdom of God, not in US elections.

We are to pray as Jesus said for God’s kingdom to come and God’s will to be done (Matthew 6).

God will decide who He wants in various offices:

17 ‘This decision is by the decree of the watchers, And the sentence by the word of the holy ones, In order that the living may know That the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, Gives it to whomever He will, And sets over it the lowest of men.’ (Daniel 4:17)

By voting, one could be voting against God’s will. God’s people do not want to be found fighting against God (Acts 5:39). Once, in the 1970s, I actually voted in an election. But for some reason, I decided not to vote for attorney general. If I would have voted for the office, I probably would have voted for the man that won–a man that later had a massive lawsuit against the Church of God I was part of in the late 1970s. Obviously, I would not have done that on purpose, but am glad that I did not accidentally assist in empowering one who was against the COG.

Notice also a disturbing comment from a secular source that generally supports democracy:

All political campaigns lie and mislead. We all know that, and that knowledge is “baked into the cake,” so to speak, when it comes to assessing candidates. (Bookman J. GM on Romney: ‘Campaign politics at its cynical worst.’ Atlanta Journal Constitution, October 31, 2012. http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/10/31/gm-on-romney-campaign-politics-at-its-cynical-worst/)

No candidate should lie or mislead. And while I am not agreeing with the statement that they all do, the reality is that it is not godly conduct to lie or mislead, and that not only reflects unfavourably on the candidates, but also the process of modern democracy.

Do NOT think that whoever may win the presidential election in 2024 will fix the problems in the US.

The US is doomed soon without national repentance, which is not expected (cf. Hosea 11:3a, 5b-7).

Yet, personal repentance is something all who are willing can do.

Related Items:

Might the U.S.A. Be Gone in 2028? Could the USA be gone by the end of 2028 or earlier? There is a tradition attributed to the Hebrew prophet Elijah that humanity had 6,000 years to live before being replaced by God’s Kingdom. There are scriptures, writings in the Talmud, early Christian teachings that support this. Also, even certain Hindu writings support it. Here is a link to a related video: Is the USA prophesied to be destroyed by 2028? In Spanish: Seran los Estados Unidos Destruidos en el 2028?

Is God Calling You? This booklet discusses topics including calling, election, and selection. If God is calling you, how will you respond? Here is are links to related sermons: Christian Election: Is God Calling YOU? and Predestination and Your Selection; here is a message in Spanish: Me Está Llamando Dios Hoy? A short animation is also available: Is God Calling You?

Christian Repentance Do you know what repentance is? Is it really necessary for salvation? Two related sermons about this are also available: Real Repentance and Real Christian Repentance.

About Baptism Should you be baptized? Could baptism be necessary for salvation? Who should baptize and how should it be done? Here is a link to a related sermon: Let’s Talk About Baptism and Baptism, Infants, Fire, & the Second Death.

When Will the Great Tribulation Begin? 2024, 2025, or 2026? Can the Great Tribulation begin today? What happens before the Great Tribulation in the “beginning of sorrows”? What happens in the Great Tribulation and the Day of the Lord? Is this the time of the Gentiles? When is the earliest that the Great Tribulation can begin? What is the Day of the Lord? Who are the 144,000? Here is a version of the article in the Spanish language: ¿Puede la Gran Tribulación comenzar en el 2020 o 2021? ¿Es el Tiempo de los Gentiles? A related video is: Great Tribulation: 2026 or 2027? A shorter video is: Tribulation in 2024? Here is a video in the Spanish language: Es El 2021 el año  de La Gran Tribulación o el Grande Reseteo Financiero .

USA in Prophecy: The Strongest Fortresses Can you point to scriptures, like Daniel 11:39, that point to the USA in the 21st century? This article does. Two related sermon are available: Identifying the USA and its Destruction in Prophecy and Do these 7 prophesies point to the end of the USA?

Who is the King of the West? Why is there no Final End-Time King of the West in Bible Prophecy? Is the United States the King of the West? Here is a version in the Spanish language: ¿Quién es el Rey del Occidente? ¿Por qué no hay un Rey del Occidente en la profecía del tiempo del fin? A related sermon is also available: The Bible, the USA, and the King of the West.

Is God Calling You? This booklet discusses topics including calling, election, and selection. If God is calling you, how will you respond? Here is are links to related sermons: Christian Election: Is God Calling YOU? and Predestination and Your Selection. A short animation is also available: Is God Calling You?

Spiritual Samaritans: Old and New Who were the Samaritans? Do the represent true Christianity or something else? Here is a link to a related sermon: USA in Prophecy: Samaria.

There is a Place of Safety for the Philadelphians. Why it May Be Near Petra This article discusses a biblical ‘place of safety,’ Zephaniah 2 to ‘gather together,’ and includes quotes from the Bible and Herbert W. Armstrong on fleeing to a place–thus, there is a biblically supported alternative to the rapture theory. Two sermon-length videos of related interest are available Physical Protection During the Great Tribulation and Might Petra be the Place of Safety?  Here are two related items in the Spanish language: Hay un lugar de seguridad para los Filadelfinos. ¿Puede ser Petra? and Existe un Lugar de Seguridad.

Lost Tribes and Prophecies: What will happen to Australia, the British Isles, Canada, Europe, New Zealand and the United States of America? Where did those people come from? Can you totally rely on DNA? Do you really know what will happen to Europe and the English-speaking peoples? What about the peoples of Africa, Asia, South America, and the islands? This free online book provides scriptural, scientific, historical references, and commentary to address those matters. Here are links to related sermons: Lost tribes, the Bible, and DNA; Lost tribes, prophecies, and identifications; 11 Tribes, 144,000, and Multitudes; Israel, Jeremiah, Tea Tephi, and British Royalty; Gentile European Beast; Royal Succession, Samaria, and Prophecies; Asia, Islands, Latin America, Africa, and Armageddon;  When Will the End of the Age Come?;  Rise of the Prophesied King of the North; Christian Persecution from the Beast; WWIII and the Coming New World Order; and Woes, WWIV, and the Good News of the Kingdom of God.

Donald Trump in Prophecy Prophecy, Donald Trump? Are there prophecies that Donald Trump may fulfill?  Are there any prophecies that he has already helped fulfill?  Is a Donald Trump presidency proving to be apocalyptic?  Two related videos are available: Donald: ‘Trump of God’ or Apocalyptic? and Donald Trump’s Prophetic Presidency.

Biden-Harris: Prophecies and Destruction Can the USA survive two full presidential terms? In what ways are Joe Biden and Kamala Harris apocalyptic? This book has hundreds of prophecies and scriptures to provide details.  A Kindle version is also available and you do not need an actual Kindle device to read it. Why? Amazon will allow you to download it to almost any device: Please click HERE to download one of Amazon s Free Reader Apps. After you go to your free Kindle reader app (or if you already have one or a Kindle),  you can go to: Biden-Harris: Prophecies and Destruction (Kindle) to get the book in seconds.

LATEST NEWS REPORTS

LATEST BIBLE PROPHECY INTERVIEWS