Tag: Travel Ban

Posted on

Day 48: March 8, 2017

Crazy.

Today is International Women’s Day. Women everywhere are planning to stop working for a day, shop from women-owned businesses, support important issues, and generally work to bring attention to the importance of women in our society. Those who cannot take a day off from work have been asked to wear red in support.

Twitter hashtag: #BeBoldForChange

That’s not what’s crazy.

In the past week:

March 2nd: The Department of Justice claims that Attorney General Jeff Sessions met twice last year with the Russian Ambassador to the U.S. This is important, given the ongoing questions about the current president’s ties to Russia. (See previous mention of the resignation of Mike Flynn for not being transparent about his interactions with the Russian Ambassador.) Democrats are calling for an investigation into Donald Trump’s campaign team and their interactions with Russian diplomats. Republicans, unsurprisingly, are deflecting and downplaying the story. Why is Jeff Sessions’ meetings an issue? Because he was specifically asked, under oath, about meeting with Russian Diplomats, and claimed he did not. The suggestion is that Sessions has committed Perjury, which – considering he’s the Attorney General – is a serious offense. At best, Sessions has agreed to recuse himself from any investigations regarding Russia. At worse, there are many people calling for his resignation.

So… to deflect the story from Russia…

March 4th: The current sitting president accused the previous president of wiretapping his phones before the election. He made the accusation at 6:35 in the morning. He has submitted no evidence. It is suspected that he read an article suggesting that Obama might have done so, and then decided it was real, and made the accusation.

 

If that’s not enough crazy for you, the Republican Congress has called for an investigation. Now, my understanding is that wiretapping requires some pretty serious “probable cause,” and a federal warrant. Seems to me that the president could easily ask someone to locate that warrant. Unless he’s suggesting that Obama did so covertly and outside of the legal process. Which is, again, a pretty serious accusation. Now, if there IS a warrant, then it follows that there was some serious probable cause. In which case, the current president needs one of these:

Oh, but right in the middle of all of that, he had time to worry about his old show, The Apprentice. Turns out the new host is leaving. Here’s what was so important only an hour after accusing Obama of wiretapping:

And, while we’re busy freaking about about that

March 6th: The president released a new executive order to replace his previous “Travel Ban” (which we all know was a Muslim ban). The order changed changed from banning travelers from 7 countries to 6 countries. Apparently IRAQ was able to lobby their way off of the list by ‘splaining how they vet their visitors. The new EO details the reasoning behind the order, and even provides a brief history, including the court-ordered delay of the previous EO. It also specifically lists exceptions, which include lawful permanent residents of the United States. Apparently, holding a visa is not enough, so those here with visas should probably not leave without first obtaining a waiver – which might be dangerous, because it might get them deported. Hmmmm

Tired yet? No? Okay.

Also on March 6th, the Republicans — well, specifically Paul Ryan — released the American Health Care Act (you can download a copy of the bill here), the proposed solution to the republican promise to “Repeal and Replace Obamacare” (which was actually titled the “Affordable Care Act”). Twitter is calling it #republicare, to ensure that the entire Republican Congress receives credit.

I read it.

On page 3, they defund Planned Parenthood. In fact, the word “abortion” appears 32 times in the 123 page document. Basically, the goal is to ensure that not one red cent of federal dollars will fund an abortion that is not for a pregnancy as a result of rape or incest, or a threat to the woman’s health. If you want to have insurance pay for abortion services, you’ll have to get a separate policy for that (page 74). Same goes for small companies providing insurance – if the insurance covers abortion services, no tax breaks will be allowed (page 81). On page 100, they require married couples to file jointly, or receive no tax credit. Oh, and on page 10 they make sure that they include the ability to dis-enroll lottery winners from Medicaid – oh, and it ends the Medicaid expansion in 2020. And if you lose your job and therefore your health coverage, you’d better jump on board, because if you lack coverage for more than 63 days, insurance companies will charge you 130% of the standard premium to penalize you for having a gap in coverage. But, not everyone is required to buy coverage.

Anything good?

Okay — yes, kids can stay on their parents’ plans until they are 26. The bill allows us to put more money in our HSAs (this is a wealthy person benefit, since people who are poor can’t afford high deductible plans, much less contribute to an HSA). And insurance companies are still required to cover our pre-existing conditions.

Most of the analysis shows that the bill is great for people who are young and healthy, and very expensive for those who are old and/or sick.

When asked how much it would cost, and how many people they thought would be covered, Republicans were unable to answer the questions. Yet, they want to push it through as part of the budget so that Democrats can’t filibuster it. (Yes, this administration has been all about bullying and taking shortcuts.)

I call for some actual RESEARCH. Do the homework. Run the numbers. I’m not against a plan that works. I’m against a plan that discriminates against women, the elderly, and doesn’t solve the problems it proposes to solve.

My favorite meme of the week – Obama spying on 45:

 

 

Posted on

Day 22: February 10, 2017

More hope.

Last night, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the restraining order for Executive Order 13769 “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.” (The Government requested a decision to stay the restraining order.)

Full text is here.

The single statement I want to make today is that I feel so relieved to see our government system of checks and balance at work, successfully, as my one fear of this presidency is the power grab that has been so obviously attempted (and is ongoing) by the Republican Congress, led by Mitch McConnell, and by the frightening trinity in the White House (Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, Kellyanne Conway).

This is no way means that we should “give up the fight.” It means I’m feeling better about the integrity of the system. But I also believe that the fourth branch of government — the people — must continue to be vigilant. Because if we’re not, then nothing will go to the courts. So, stay the course, people, it’s working!

There were essentially two things that I, personally, focused on in this case.

  1. The President’s assertion that his decisions are “unreviewable.” Why? Because it sets him up with too much power to make sweeping decisions with the stroke of a pen, that impact human beings who have lives, loved ones, and property.
  2. Specifically, the impact to people who have already been granted visas, green cards, and permission to stay in the United States, and especially those who are situated here already with homes, jobs, families, friends, and “stuff” that simply belongs to them. Many of them were immediately prevented to returning to their homes and lives – what are they supposed to do? They’ve already been cleared. If there is a concern that they are a risk, bring them home, and continue your vetting.

So, after reading the decision, in its entirety, I offer this easy-to-follow (although admittedly with some personal bias likely) interpretation:

Government (aka, Trump): “You aren’t the boss of me! I’m the freaking President, and what I say goes! You don’t have the right to question anything I decide!”

9th Circuit Court: “um… yes we do.”

States (aka, the People): “Hey, you can’t just leave people stranded and take away their life, liberty, or property without Due Process!”

Government: “Of course we can! These people aren’t American citizens, therefore they have not rights, so we can treat them any way we want.”

9th Circuit Court: “um, no you can’t. They have Constitutional Rights.”

Government: “But, White House counsel already said the Executive Order won’t apply to lawful residents!”

9th Circuit Court: “Seriously? Who is this guy? He’s not the boss of you, and in fact, he’s not really the boss of any of the Executive Departments.”

States: “Religious discrimination! This is a Muslim ban. Trump said so.”

9th Circuit Court: “Good point. Looks like maybe. Let’s talk about this some more.”

Government: “Tell them to stop it and let me do what I want!”

9th Circuit Court: “Nope. DENIED!”

Posted on

Day 21: February 9, 2017

Interesting week, but mostly a week of observation and listening.

There has been live audio from the hearings regarding the Executive Order, also known as the ‘travel ban’ or ‘Muslim ban.’ The door has been opened to argue ‘intent,’ which means that they’ll be looking at things that Trump said during the Campaign, and outside of the exact wording of the Executive Order. The court may also have some leeway to reword the order so that it is clear and ‘legal.’

On Wednesday, Trump used his @POTUS Twitter account to retweet his own tweet (from his personal @realDonaldTrump account) accusing Nordstrom of treating his daughter, Ivanka, unfairly. Nordstrom had announced that they would no longer carry Ivanka’s products, as they were not selling well.

This earned Trump some air time, from discussions about whether or not it was appropriate to use the Office of the President to interact with Nordstrom and make such an accusation, to calling him a “helicopter parent” to his adult child.

My response:

The issue with a decline in sales is certainly likely to a voluntary boycott across the country. Many people feel that Ivanka was a big part of her father’s campaign, and has been involved in calls at the White House, and therefore deserves a level of censure, and have pointedly refused to buy her products.

My opinion – it’s much better to boycott specific products (e.g., Ivanka’s products) than to boycott the store that carries them. The store is a business, and stocks products from a variety of businesses. To boycott the entire store would harm other businesses in the process. By targeting the one set of products, Nordstrom, and businesses like them, can be left alone to make business decisions based on product response, without having to get involved in politics.

The Big Story

Real outrage was caused on Tuesday night when the hearings began for the confirmation of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. It has already been in the news for some time that Coretta Scott King wrote a letter back in 1986 that kept Sessions from becoming a federal judge. Senator Elizabeth Warren stood up to speak, and began reading the letter. Because Jeff Sessions is currently a Senator, Mitch McConnell (Majority Leader,  and he doesn’t want you to forget it) stopped her. He said she “has impugned the motives and conduct of our colleague from Alabama, as warned by the chair. I call the Senator to order under the provision of Rule 19.” Within minutes, she was told to “sit down,” and thereafter was not allowed to say anything on the floor of the Senate for the next 24 hours.

Mitch McConnell’s Twitter banner. I think he really wants us to know he’s the Senate Majority Leader…

Apparently, Rule 19 was created to keep Senators from damaging each other’s character. So, thoughts:

— If a letter stating factual information impugns the character of a Senator who is up for the position of Attorney General, we should probably listen.

— This is a hearing to see if he’s qualified, and the right choice for Attorney General. This isn’t a discussion about differing opinions about a bill. Sessions shouldn’t even be viewed as a Senator in this case. He’s a prospective AG.

Results:

Senator Warren immediately went outside of the Senate Chamber and read the full text of the letter, on video, which was streamed live on Facebook. The video immediately went viral. The video is the first thing I viewed when I woke up to on Wednesday morning.

Millions of people across America read, linked, tweeted, and retweeted Coretta Scott King’s Letter (you can read it here).

Other Democratic Senators stepped in opposition to Senator Warren’s censure. It was noted that there was a time when Leader McConnell was called a liar on the floor of the Senate, but Rule 19 was not invoked. Additional examples were given. Then, several (male) senators read the letter, and were allowed to do so without censure. This has further cast aspersions on McConnell’s actions, as a Southern White Man shutting up a woman speaking out.

A quote from Mitch McConnell became a new rallying cry for feminists and protesters across the country. He said, “She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted.”


Twitter went crazy.

#LetHerSpeak

#LetLizSpeak

#NeverthelessShePersisted

And some memes were inspired.