Josh Springer doesn’t have much free time these days. He starts his workdays at 5:00 a.m. and he usually doesn’t stop working until 11:00 p.m. Like ma…
Read more: Business News, Beer Dispenser, Josh Springer, Beer Industry, Beer Dispensing System, Bottomsup, Beer, Business News
, The Beer Industry's Mad Inventor: BottomsUp,
The following post first appeared on FactCheck.org.
In Donald Trump’s anticipated speech on illegal immigration, he said “the facts aren’t known because the media won’t report on them.” But the Republican presidential nominee was wrong about the facts in several instances:
Trump gave his speech in Phoenix on Aug. 31 after a short trip to Mexico earlier that day to meet with President Enrique Pena Nieto. Over the past week, Trump has sought to clarify his position on what to do with the estimated 11 million immigrants who are living in the United States illegally. And we found he had stretched the facts in doing so. His speech in Arizona was no different in that regard.
Early in his speech, Trump explained that he would “deliver a detailed policy address on one of the greatest challenges facing our country today, illegal immigration.” So some in his audience can be forgiven if they were left with the false impression that 2 million people have been convicted of a crime while living illegally in the U.S.
Trump: According to federal data, there are at least 2 million, 2 million, think of it, criminal aliens now inside of our country, 2 million people criminal aliens. We will begin moving them out day one. As soon as I take office.
A fiscal year 2013 Department of Homeland Security report says: “ICE estimates that 1.9 million removable criminal aliens are in the United States today.”
However, the term “criminal alien” refers to any noncitizen — whether in the U.S. legally or illegally — who has ever been convicted of a crime in the United States, as explained in a 2012 report by the Congressional Research Service.
ICE does not say how many of the 1.9 million were living in the U.S. illegally, but the Migration Policy Institute estimates in a July 2015 report that most of them are here legally. It says 820,000 of the 1.9 million are living in the U.S. illegally. Furthermore, about 690,000 of the 820,000 would be considered priorities for removal under policies adopted in 2014 — that is, the 690,000 have been convicted of a felony or serious misdemeanor. (See summary on page 25 of the report.)
Trump claimed that “illegal immigration costs our country more than $113 billion a year.” That’s a conservative group’s estimate that includes the cost of public education and health care for U.S.-born children of immigrants who came to the country illegally.
Other studies have estimated a net positive impact on the federal budget, and a modest one on state and local budgets.
Trump’s number comes from a 2010 study (updated in 2011) by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which “seeks to reduce overall immigration to a level that is more manageable.” The report actually said that the net cost of illegal immigration, taking into account federal and local tax collections from these immigrants, was $99 billion. The $113 billion was for costs only, not monetary benefits to government coffers.
FAIR, which bases its estimates on an undocumented population of 13 million, figures $29 billion in federal costs and $84 billion for states and localities. Most of the state and local costs — 59 percent — come from education, including the public school education costs for U.S.-born children, and therefore U.S. citizens, of those living in the country illegally. Costs for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program for those U.S. citizens are also included. But tax income from such children once they become adults isn’t factored in. FAIR uses an estimate of 4.7 million for the minor children of immigrants here illegally, with 72 percent of those children being born in the United States.
The figure also includes costs for immigration enforcement and prosecution, such as the Department of Homeland Security’s $2.5 billion budget for its Office of Detention and Removal.
As for other estimates, a 2007 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that while it is “difficult to obtain precise estimates,” the net impact on state and local budgets was “most likely modest.” A 1997 report by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences found most immigrants — both legal and illegal — would have a net positive effect on government budgets over the immigrants’ lifetimes, due to a “strongly positive” fiscal impact at the federal level. The state and local costs, however, would be “concentrated in the few states that receive most of the immigrants.”
The impact on federal budgets includes payroll taxes paid by immigrants in the country illegally, including Social Security taxes they can’t collect unless they obtain legal status. The chief actuary of the Social Security Administration said that for 2010, those working in the country illegally contributed a net $12 billion to Social Security.
As part of his argument that people living illegally in the U.S. are a drain on taxpayers, Trump cited a Center for Immigration Studies report on the use of welfare programs by immigrants who live in the U.S. both legally and illegally.
Trump: The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that 62 percent of households headed by illegal immigrants use some form of cash or non-cash welfare programs like food stamps or housing assistance. Tremendous costs, by the way, to our country. Tremendous costs. This directly violates the federal public charge law designed to protect the United States Treasury. Those who abuse our welfare system will be priorities for immediate removal.
We cannot vouch for the accuracy of the CIS report, but Trump did cite it accurately. The group, which advocates for “low immigration,” issued a September 2015 report that said, “Among households headed by an illegal immigrant, we estimate that 62 percent use one or more welfare programs.”
But Trump gets it wrong when he says, “This directly violates the federal public charge law designed to protect the United States Treasury.” As the report noted, U.S.-born citizens and adult green card holders living in “households headed by illegal immigrants” are legally entitled to food stamps, Medicaid and other welfare programs.
The report says that “illegal immigrant households primarily benefit from food programs and Medicaid through their U.S.-born children.” It also says that “pregnant women illegally in the country can sometimes be enrolled” legally in Medicaid, and “there is the Emergency Medicaid program that covers predominately illegal immigrants.”
“A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children,” the report said. “This is especially true of households headed by illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrant-headed households without children make much more modest use of welfare programs.”
Trump claimed that immigrants living in the country illegally “in many cases” are “treated better than our vets.” We realize how well one group is treated compared with another is a matter of opinion, but immigrants in the U.S. illegally are largely barred from receiving benefits or participating in government programs, with few exceptions.
They can’t get Social Security, or enroll in government health care programs such as Medicaid or Medicare. They don’t qualify for food stamps, government housing or unemployment benefits, and they can’t vote.
As the U.S. Code says, an immigrant in the country without legal authorization “is not eligible for any State or local public benefit,” with a few exceptions: They can get emergency medical care; “short-term, non-cash” disaster relief; limited immunizations and treatment of communicable diseases; in-kind community assistance such as soup kitchens, crisis counseling or short-term shelter that “are necessary for the protection of life or safety.”
And, of course, they can be deported, as more than 400,000 immigrants in the country illegally were in fiscal 2014.
Some noncitizen veterans, however, have been deported too, after committing a crime or because they were in the U.S. illegally.
Trump blamed Clinton for the release of 13,000 “criminal aliens” from federal custody back into the U.S. But their release wasn’t up to Clinton when she was secretary of state. It was mandated by a Supreme Court decision, and carried out by the Department of Homeland Security.
Trump: According to a report for the Boston Globe, from the year 2008 to 2014 nearly 13,000 criminal aliens were released back into U.S. communities because their home countries would not, under any circumstances, take them back. Hard to believe with the power we have. Hard to believe. … These 13,000 releases occurred on Hillary Clinton’s watch. She had the power and the duty to stop it cold, and she decided she would not do it.
It’s true that the Boston Globe reported that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement “freed 12,941 criminals nationwide from 2008 to early 2014.” But Clinton served as secretary of the State Department — not the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE — from January 2009 to February 2013. So, not all of those criminal immigrants were released “on her watch,” as Trump said, and none was released by her department.
Plus, the release of those nearly 13,000 individuals was not discretionary. Instead, their release was mandated by a 2001 Supreme Court ruling, according to the Globe article.
Boston Globe, June 4: But ICE has also released tens of thousands of criminals in the United States — and in far greater numbers than they have disclosed to the Globe.
ICE told the news organization that the agency freed 12,941 criminals nationwide from 2008 to early 2014.
But [Sarah] Saldaña, the ICE director, told the House committee that the agency freed 36,007 criminals in fiscal 2013 alone. They are among 86,288 criminals they released from 2013 to fiscal 2015.
ICE officials said in an e-mail that the agency only provided the Globe the names of criminals they were forced to release under the Supreme Court decision; the additional releases were for other reasons.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that, if another country refuses to accept them, the U.S. cannot hold convicted criminals (who have served their sentences) in detention without justification for longer than six months if their removal from the U.S. is not “reasonably foreseeable.”
Trump may have been alluding to a point made by others, that the State Department could do more, by not issuing visas, to pressure recalcitrant nations to take back their citizens convicted of crimes in the U.S. As Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley wrote in a letter in June, the U.S. has not imposed such sanctions, which are to be made after consultation between the secretaries of homeland security and state, on any nation since Guyana in 2001.
Trump said that the U.S. has admitted about 100,000 immigrants from Iraq and Afghanistan over the last five years. But about a quarter of those obtaining legal permanent resident status were Iraqis and Afghans working abroad for the U.S. government.
From 2010 to 2014, the U.S. granted green cards, or legal permanent resident status, to more than 108,000 people from Iraq (90,117) and Afghanistan (18,005), according to the most recent data from the Office of Immigration Statistics. But about one-fifth of those individuals came to the U.S. on special immigrant visas given mainly to employees of the U.S. government and their dependents.
From fiscal year 2010 to fiscal 2014, the U.S. awarded 22,595 special immigrant visas to Iraqis and Afghans who worked for the U.S. government. Of those, 8,859 visas were for the principal applicant and 13,736 visas were for their spouses and children.
Over that same time period, the U.S. awarded 697 additional visas to Iraqi and Afghan translators and interpreters. Those were split between 226 principal applicants and 471 dependents.
In all, according to a February 2016 report from the Congressional Research Service, from fiscal 2007 through the end of fiscal 2015, more than 37,000 individuals were granted special immigration status through the government’s programs for Iraqi and Afghan nationals.
Trump claimed that “President Obama and Hillary Clinton support sanctuary cities.” While it’s true that there has been no blanket crackdown on “sanctuary cities” by the Obama administration, there have been some efforts made to get cities to cooperate with federal authorities seeking deportation of undocumented immigrants who have committed serious crimes.
As for Clinton, she has expressed support for sanctuary cities, including those that overlook federal requests for detainers when immigrants in the U.S. illegally have committed minor offenses. But she said she has “no support” for communities that ignore federal requests to deport violent undocumented immigrants, such as the man who killed Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco.
Sanctuary cities are those that do not automatically turn over immigrants without legal status to federal immigration authorities. Although these policies — which vary by city — have been a contentious political issue for years, the sanctuary city issue took on new prominence in July 2015 after the murder of Steinle, who prosecutors allege was shot and killed in San Francisco by a Mexican national with a felony criminal record who had been deported several times.
The White House has publicly opposed Republican bills that sought to deny federal funding to so-called sanctuary cities. In part, the administration argued that such blanket policies would lead to mistrust between communities and local law enforcement.
Faye Hipsman, a policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, told us it is fair to say “there hasn’t been a crackdown” on sanctuary cities by the Obama administration.
But last year, she noted, the administration rolled out the Priority Enforcement Program, which seeks to get jurisdictions to voluntarily cooperate with federal immigration officials, with the understanding that federal officials would only target for deportation those immigrants who have been convicted of certain felonies, domestic or sexual abuse, drug dealing and drunk driving, as well as those involved in a gang or suspected terrorists. That would exclude undocumented immigrants who were jailed on routine driving offenses or other minor criminal offenses.
In opposing the Republican bills targeting sanctuary cities, the administration has argued that “Congress should give PEP a chance to work” because it “prioritizes the worst offenders.”
Jessica M. Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that describes itself as an advocate for “low immigration,” told us PEP itself is an indication of support for sanctuary cities because it “explicitly tolerates sanctuary policies and required ICE Field Offices to accommodate them.”
The Department of Justice — at the urging of Republicans in the House appropriations subcommittee — warned earlier this year that some sanctuary policies violated federal law and jeopardized certain grant funding.
Republican Rep. John Culberson, who has been pushing the issue, cited a recent report from the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General as evidence that some jurisdictions are not complying with the federal law. According to Culberson, under the new DOJ guidelines, jurisdictions that fail to cooperate with federal immigration officials “will now have to choose between receiving law enforcement grant money or protecting criminal illegal aliens. They can no longer do both.”
Hipsman, of the Migration Policy Institute, said that the policy shift may be an indication that the Obama administration is moving toward a harder line with regard to some sanctuary policies. But both she and Vaughan said they were not aware that any grant money has been denied to any jurisdiction yet.
As for Clinton, she made her position clear in the aftermath of Steinle’s murder. She said in aCNN interview on July 7, 2015, that San Francisco “made a mistake not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported” and that she has “absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on.” But she also expressed support for sanctuary policies as they relate to minor crimes.
Clinton on CNN, July 7, 2015: Well, what should be done is any city should listen to the Department of Homeland Security, which as I understand it, urged them to deport this man again after he got out of prison another time. Here’s a case where we’ve deported, we’ve deported, we’ve deported. He ends back up in our country and I think the city made a mistake. The city made a mistake, not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported.
So I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on.
However, there are – like if it were a first-time traffic citation, if it were something minor, a misdemeanor, that’s entirely different. This man had already been deported five times. And he should have been deported at the request of the federal government.
After that interview, the Clinton campaign released a statement clarifying Clinton’s position.
“Hillary Clinton believes that sanctuary cities can help further public safety, and she has defended those policies going back years,” said Xochitl Hinojosa, a campaign spokeswoman, in a July 2015 statement. “As she made clear, this particular individual should not have been on the streets. … She believes that we need a system where people like this don’t fall through the cracks and that is why she continues to fight for comprehensive immigration reform.”
Trump falsely claimed that Clinton has a “plan to bring in 620,000 new refugees from Syria and that region over a short period of time.” Clinton last year proposed accepting 65,000 Syrian refugees in fiscal 2016, which ends Sept. 30. She has not said how many she would accept in fiscal 2017 or beyond.
First of all, Trump got his own misleading talking point wrong. As we have written, the 620,000 figure refers to a flawed Senate Republican staff report that assumed Clinton in her first term would accept 155,000 refugees each year from all regions — not just “from Syria and that region,” as Trump said.
How did the Republican staff arrive at that number? Clinton last year said that she would have accepted up to 65,000 Syrian refugees in fiscal year 2016, which will end Sept. 30, instead of the 10,000 set by Obama. The GOP report assumes Clinton would accept 65,000 Syrian refugees and an additional 100,000 refugees from other countries for a total of 155,000 each year.
There’s one problem with that: Clinton has not said how many refugees she would seek to admit over four years.
The Clinton campaign told us that she still remains committed to accepting more than 10,000 Syrian refugees — provided that they can be properly screened. But she has not said how many more she would accept in the future or how many refugees in total she would admit.
Trump also said the Syrian refugees seeking admission to the U.S. have “no documentation” and “no paperwork.” That’s false. As we have written, Barbara Strack, chief of the refugee affairs division of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, told Congress last year that “we’ve found with Syrian refugees … in general they have many, many documents.” She also said documents are only one part of the vetting process that includes interviews by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and security checks by the National Counterterrorism Center, the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense.
Finally, Trump said that “we are going to stop the tens of thousands of people coming in from Syria.” That may be so in the future, but it is not the case right now.
The number of Syrian refugees admitted to the U.S. under Obama, from Jan. 20, 2009, through Aug. 31, totaled 12,670, according to the State Department’s Refugee Processing Center. That includes 10,066 this year, meeting the goal set by the administration for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. Obama has set a goal of accepting another 10,000 in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, although he leaves office in January.
Trump claimed the government has “no idea” how many immigrants are in the country illegally, and that the number could be anywhere from 3 million to 30 million. Actually, the government has a pretty good estimate: 11.4 million. It’s a figure that nearly mirrors estimates from independent immigration groups.
Trump, Aug. 31: The truth is, the central issue is not the needs of the 11 million illegal immigrants or however many there may be — and honestly we’ve been hearing that number for years. It’s always 11 million. Our government has no idea. It could be 3 million. It could be 30 million. They have no idea what the number is.
We looked into this when Trump offered the same speculation in an interview with Anderson Cooper on CNN on Aug. 25. As we wrote then, the most recent estimate from the Department of Homeland Security is that there were 11.4 million unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. in 2012. DHS used U.S. Census Bureau data on the foreign-born population, and then subtracted legal residents such as naturalized citizens, asylees and refugees. It then added in the estimated number of foreign-born individuals missed by the Census Bureau’s population survey.
Although that’s a four-year-old figure, it jibes with more recent estimates from independent immigration groups.
The Center for Migration Studies, a think tank that studies international migration, estimated that the illegal population was about 10.9 million as of 2014. Similarly, the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, based on preliminary figures, estimated that there were 11.3 million unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. that year.
Immigration experts allowed that there is some uncertainty in the estimates, but they told us it is likely only to be off by a million or so. Uniformly, experts told us it is not possible that there could be as many as 30 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., as Trump suggested. Nor, they said, could the number be as low as 3 million.
Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors fewer legal immigration admissions to the U.S., estimated the population of illegal immigrants to be 11.5 million in 2015 and 11.7 million in 2016. That’s in the range of 10 million to 12 million that “most people believe,” Camarota told us in an interview.
Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.
— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
, Fact-Checking Donald Trump's Immigration Speech,
The California judge facing a recall vote due to the unpopular sentence he imposed on a former Stanford University swimmer has launched his own campaign to stay in office.
With his career on the line over his handling of Brock Turner’s rape case, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky recently unveiled an anti-recall website and started fundraising. The Mercury News first reported the debut of Perksy’s website and fundraising efforts.
“I believe strongly in judicial independence. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution, not to appease politicians or ideologues,” a statement from Persky on his RetainJudgePersky.com site said. “When your own rights and property are at stake, you want the judge to make a fair and lawful decision, free from political influence.”
“As a judge, I have heard thousands of cases. I have a reputation for being fair to both sides,” Persky’s brief statement said.
Persky’s decision in June to sentence Turner, now 22, to six months in county jail for sexually assaulting an intoxicated woman provoked the recall campaign. Prosecutors had requested a six-year prison sentence for the ex-swimmer, but Persky disagreed, saying prison could have a “severe impact” on Turner.
Judge Persky is biased in favor of privileged athletes convicted of violence against women, today on @democracynow t.co/jbdysObqRZ
— Michele Dauber (@mldauber) August 30, 2016
Due to good behavior, Turner is scheduled for release from jail Friday, having served about three months.
So far, Persky has had meager fundraising results. Contributions from 12 attorneys brought in $3,600, compared to $147,000 in the bank for the opponents trying to dislodge him from the bench, the Mercury News reported.
The backlash against Perksy produced other consequences for him. He was reassigned from criminal cases to civil disputes in August. Potential jurors in June refused to participate in a case Persky was handling and said it would be a hardship to work with him, TV-station KPIX reported.
More than 1.3 million people have signed an online petition calling for his recall. To actually get the issue on the ballot, organizers must collect enough signatures from Santa Clara County residents.
The earliest that voters can decide Persky’s fate is the November 2017 election.
Before the outrage against Persky reached full pitch, he was elected in June to another six-year term.
“His victory will be short-lived,” one of his strongest critics, Stanford law professor Michele Dauber, said to USA Today. “I am 100% confident we will recall him. His decision hit every woman in the state of California in the gut.”
— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
, Judge In Brock Turner Rape Case Starts Campaign To Keep Job,
There are a lot of reasons why I despise the fact that Trump is visiting Mexico. There are the obvious ones, such as the guy’s complete disrespect to the country and its people, and then there’s those that aren’t quite so obvious and a lot more offending.
The main reason I hate the fact that Trump is meeting with President Enrique Peña Nieto is not exactly because I hate Trump and all that he represents (racism, stereotyping, hate and authoritarianism), but because my country’s president is such an idiot, corrupt human being that he may end up offering to build the wall and pay for it as long as there is something in it for him personally.
Peña Nieto has been involved in a number of scandals that reflect his corrupt, shady modus operandi, most recently the revelation that he plagiarized part of his law degree thesis. His popularity and ratings amongst the Mexican people have declined since the first day he took office. He has failed to show his face to explain horrible massacres and drug lord escapes. Hell, the guy barely knows the capitals of the states in Mexico.
You could say the Mexican President is a huge disappointment, but what Trump’s visit feels like hurts even more. It feels like treason.
Not only did Peña fail to timely address Trump’s comments on Mexican immigrants and the threats he’s been sending regarding the wall all throughout his campaign, now he invites the man into our country. I just hope that he was properly prepared to deal with Trump’s irrational ways. I hope he said to him privately everything he should have said publicly when Trump called Mexicans rapists. I hope he showed Trump that walls are already at the Mexico-US border and made him understand that they don’t work. I hope he emphasized on the fact that the United States and Mexico need to work in unison against drug trafficking and consumption, for as long as there’s demand in the US there’s going to be criminals crossing the border to supply such demand. The problem is our president is not smart enough. And worst of all, I don’t think there’s a genuine interest on Peña’s part to do this. I strongly believe that he will end up doing whatever is best for him and not for the country he is supposed to be serving.
The fact that Peña’s Administration did not announce Trump’s visit until after Trump’s campaign did speaks volumes as to what are the Mexican president’s priorities. Trump has planted seeds in the American people that we’ve been fighting against for decades. Why invite anyone with those kinds of beliefs into the country he has been using as an example to promote such hateful rhetoric?
I hate that Trump is in Mexico. As a Mexican who LEGALLY lived in the US for almost six years and as the mother of two American citizens, I hate the fact that Peña and Trump’s meeting feels like two evils joining against the interest of the people.
Mexico is a country with such potential that despite having an incompetent and corrupt president, its economy is growing faster than the US and Canada’s. I think it’d be in all of our interests to have Mexico continue to grow its partnership with the US so for everyone’s sake please, please, don’t allow Trump to become president.
— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
, Why I Hate Trump's Visit To Mexico,
Supporting small and independent craft brewers is essential to advancing beer — and I want to remind you as a beer lover that you are a vital player in this narrative, even if you don’t realize it. Allow me to explain.
Read more: Craft Beer, Beer, Beer Industry, Illusion of Choice, Taste News
, Julia Herz: Unveiling the Illusion of Choice Facing America's Craft Beer Lovers,
Production is increasing, new jobs are being created and the industry is having a positive effect on the U.S. economy. It seems as if there is still plenty of room for eager entrepreneurs and craft enthusiasts to take their own place in the industry.
Read more: Brewing, Beer Industry, Small Business, Craft Beers, Craft Beer Industry, Microbrews, Microbreweries, Business News
, Kayla Matthews: New Report Shows Craft Beer Industry Still Growing,
Some of America’s most famous beers have lost a tremendous amount of their national sales over the last five years. Mostly, they are full-calorie be…
Read more: Budweiser, Michelob, Bud Select, Milwaukee’s Best Light, Beer Sales, Old Milwaukee, Beer, Mgd, Michelob Light, Beer Industry, Milwaukee’s Best, Video, Business News
, The 8 Beers Americans No Longer Love,
Some argue that the taxonomy and vocabulary used in modern beer tasting is deeply in need of reform. If we see craft beer as the handcrafted wonder it is, we should have a meaningful manner by which we measure its quality.
Read more: Beer Culture, Beer Tasting, Beer Tasting Lingo, Beer, Beer Awards, Beer Lingo, Beer Industry, Craft Beer, Craft Beer Industry, Denver News
, Hanna Laney: How to Taste Your Beer,
If you don’t vote for Hillary on November 8th, you may never vote again.
As I recover from sleep deprivation from the week at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, thoughts have been swirling through my mind, and I feel the need to put them to paper. Some are priorities for us all over the next 100 days; others would be important under normal conditions, but these aren’t normal conditions. I’ll put them out there while they’re still fresh, for later referral when the future becomes clearer.
• November 8th is a potential Extinction-Level Event. Applying the Precautionary Principle, to preserve a constitutional republic, Americans must vote for Hillary Clinton.
• It matters not what one thinks of Hillary – love her or hate her, respect or disrespect her. Fundamentally it is not about Hillary. However much status quo the next four years might bring, the potential for change would remain. It is up to us to fight for the change in which we believe, and not just every four years from outside the party.
• In one of the more ironic twists of this election season, the Democrats have become the party of American exceptionalism. The Kahn family, which gave the most powerful presentation, in my mind, during the Convention, amidst the powerful speeches of the Clintons, Bloomberg, POTUS, FLOTUS and VPOTUS, represents the exceptional possibilities America represents to the world.
• In another ironic twist the Democrats now are the party of the American military, the arena resounding with chants of USA! USA! In support of our troops and military campaigns (to the consternation of many Sanders delegates).
• The Clinton campaign got a typical post-convention bounce; the Republicans got the first negative bounce in the history of such Gallup polling, and it was a huuuuge -15.
• All of these points need to be emphasized as we move forward, with clips from the speeches of former NY mayor Bloomberg, the Khan family, the First Lady referencing that slaves built the White House, etc. These need to be promoted as the party continues to reach out to disaffected Sanders supporters, many of whom have never voted before, some too young to have voted before.
• Bernie paid back the Democratic party with respect for allowing him to participate as a Democratic candidate. It may have taken too long, but he came around, spoke forcefully about the need for his supporters to vote for Hillary (there is no other alternative), and then exhorted them to get involved in state and local politics next year to make the remarkably progressive party platform a reality.
• For all of Bernie’s talk of “our revolution,” (at least he spoke in the plural), America is a non-revolutionary, non-ideological nation. The Clintons represent the best of that non-ideological, pragmatic bent towards public policy. As we approach the centenary of the Russian Revolution and Bolshevik coup, it behooves us to keep that in mind. We may be plodding, but much less blood gets spilled. We take to the streets when unarmed black men are gunned down, or four students at Kent State University are killed; in revolutionary states like Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany hundreds of millions are ultimately killed in the pursuit of unattainable utopian ideals.
• I was simultaneously impressed with the passion and commitment of the Sanders delegates, and the appalling way some acted to disrupt the Convention. I had many interesting discussions with younger delegates, whose progressive principles give me hope for my children’s future. I was disgusted that some groups of delegates deliberately refused to shower and change their clothes all week, and another group urinated in the public bathrooms of the Marriott in Center City as a protest within the California delegation. Cheri Honkala, the Green Party 2012 VP candidate, tried to organize a “fart-in” in the arena. In a year when childish tantrums are the tactics of the Republican nominee, we don’t need the same on our side.
• While I’m told the Convention was a success from the perspective of its role as a major television production (which is the main point), the view from inside the arena and the city wasn’t always as sanguine. Control over access to seats and to the arena in general was problematic, as usual, and needs to be improved. Security, understandably intense, was too much so, particularly given the sun and heat which made getting there are real struggle for many older guests. The subway was diverted on Monday without warning, making access even more difficult, and cabs often dropped people off two miles away and left them without any help in finding their way. The food ran out too early; the bathrooms were, remarkably, more than adequate (although conservative media seemed confused about how to evacuate in a gender-neutral bathroom).
• What was this fast food doing at a Democratic convention?
• The fear of left-wing disruption led to a limitation of information, with lists of events and parties being held close and disseminated late, if at all. This created an aura of elitism around the event, which impacted hotel accessibility as well as access inside the arena. Not the impression one wants to give to a younger, highly frustrated generation of activists already turned off by the corporate nature of the upper echelons of the party. Given that the cost of attending was way too high for many Democrats in general, greater effort needs to be made to become more welcoming.
• Being in the arena for four nights I saw that this party had truly become a mosaic. One didn’t need to compare it to the Republicans’ convention the week before. It was real; it felt natural and normal. As I mentioned last week, unlike 2012 when there were more rainbow flags in the hall than American flags, this year the LGBT events seemed no different than those of the other communities. The trans caucus event was an afterthought, unfortunately, and the Equality Forum events throughout the week were almost completely trans-free, but somehow it didn’t seem to matter. There was even a Human Rights Campaign-promoted trans speaker, a first for any party (while Caitlyn got to hang outside in Cleveland).
• Local politics continued as usual, with only a few attendees noting that there may not be state and local elections in 2018 should Hillary lose. In the Maryland delegation, there were multiple events put on by 2018 gubernatorial candidates, including the bussing up of a contingent of activists for “Maryland Day.” Walking the streets of Center City (I had attended med school in Philly so I was comfortable navigating) I noticed a host of other such events from around the country. There were multiple opportunities to meet, in very informal settings, Congresspersons and Senators I had lobbied over the years, governors and former elected who needed to eat and hydrate like the rest of us. I even had the opportunity to thank Dan Rather for fifty years of investigative journalism.
To me the takeaway remains – for the first time during my life, and arguably since 1860, the future of this nation built on the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is at risk. Khizr Khan has been making that point since Thursday night, not only on behalf of his son, Captain Khan, but of all those who have for generations come to America in the hope of living in freedom.
In spite of the convention bounce in the polls, and the odds of 65-70% in favor of a Democratic victory in November, we cannot let down our guard. We must work down ballot as well, “Don’t boo – Vote,” and while we need to laugh at the other side in order to stay sane, we need to remain committed to getting the job done. Captain Humayun Khan died to protect his men; we have to campaign to protect our Republic.
— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
, Feeling Like Dr. Zhivago Partying on the Eve of a Bloody Revolution,
We have a “winner,” Bachelor Nation.
After multiple makeouts, two overnight dates and lots (and lots) of Chad drama, JoJo Fletcher has handed out her final rose on “The Bachelorette.” Although it seemed she was torn between her look-alike finalists ― former pro quarterback Jordan Rodgers and former competitive swimmer Robby Hayes ― the 25-year old real estate developer from Dallas, Texas, chose Jordan, who subsequently proposed to her with a (shock!) Neil Lane diamond ring.
“Jordan, I love you so much. I have been waiting to tell you that I love you,” Jojo told Jordan during the finale, before he got down on one knee.
“I want to spend the rest of my life with you. Joelle Hannah Fletcher, will you marry me?”
She said yes, guys.
Jordan was a frontrunner since the beginning, as he won the coveted First Impression Rose. (Oddly enough, last year’s Bachelorette, Kaitlyn Bristowe, gave her now-fiancé, Shawn Booth, the First Impression Rose, too.) JoJo said many times that Jordan was a standout and even admitted that she loved him during a confessional in last week’s episode.
But, the finale showed some cracks in their relationship after Jordan did not initially ask JoJo’s parents for her hand in marriage.
Robby, on the other hand, was more a of safe bet. He told JoJo he loved her almost immediately, asked her parents for permission to propose, and never let her feel anything but loved. Still, it was never clear whether she truly felt the same way toward him. Well, now we know.
Congrats to JoJo and Jordan!
We can’t forget, though, that Jordan’s tumultuous relationship with his brother Aaron Rodgers ― yes, the Green Bay Packers quarterback ― got a lot of airtime this season. Here’s to one day finding out what Aaron really thinks about JoJo and Jordan, or if he cares at all.
— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
, JoJo Fletcher Hands Out Her Final Rose On The Season 12 Finale Of 'The Bachelorette',