Republicans Remain Bigoted Toward Women, Blacks, Immigrants, Muslims

 

The charts above are from the Pew Research Center. They conducted a survey between July 27th and August 2nd of 11,001 adults, with a 1.5 point margin of error. They then compared that to an identical poll done in 2016.

Note that all adults (including Democrats) have moved to have a more liberal and inclusive view toward immigrants and muslims, and for equal rights for women and Blacks. The only group that has not is members of the Republican Party.

Republicans remain mired in their bigoted beliefs toward immigrants and muslims, and oppose equal rights for women and Blacks. They are out-of-step with other Americans.

Does Iran Pose A Terrorist Threat To The United States

Donald Trump, Mike Pompeo, and John Bolton are beating the drums of war against Iran. They call Iran a "bad actor" and a supporter of terrorism. They would have you believe that the danger posed to the United States from terrorism is due to Iranian influence and support. Is that true?

Let's look at all the times Iranian or Iranian-backed terrorists have attacked the United States. Consider this from The New Republic:

For the past twenty years or so, the annual reports of the National Counterterrorism Center have attributed the vast majority of the Islamic terrorist attacks around the world since 2001 to “Sunni extremists”—jihadists inspired by the anti-imperialist Salafist theology of Saudi Arabia. ISIS and other fundamentalist militias fall under this category of Sunni extremism, often funded by wealthy Persian Gulf Arabs. They hate the heretical—as they see them—Shia Muslims of Iran almost as much as they hate the “Crusaders and Jews” of Washington and Tel Aviv. The fanatics behind the attacks of 9/11, Madrid, London, Paris, and San Bernardino were all Sunni extremists. None of the terrorists involved in those bloody attacks was Iranian. . . .

The idea that Tehran was Terror Central originated in 1979 when Iranians held 52 American diplomats hostage for some 400 days. When Iran then used covert operatives and proxy forces to wage war on Western targets after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, the Reagan administration depicted Iran as the biggest state sponsor of terrorism. The charge stuck, even as Iran’s revolutionary fervor cooled and factions within the government pursued better relations with Washington.

Since 9/11, however, Iran’s attacks on Western targets have dwindled while the violence of non-state anti-Iranian terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS has gone global. Read the NCTC reports of the last 20 years, and you will see Iranian/Shiite terrorism is not even a category in U.S. counterterrorism reporting. By any objective measure, it is a much smaller threat to Americans and the world than either Sunni terrorism or white nationalist terrorism.

Looking for specifics, I emailed a couple of experts and asked for their take on the State Department claim. Which Americans were killed by Iran? When?

Bruce Riedel, a former CIA station chief, replied by email, “The best case is in Iraq after 2003 when IRGC supported Iraqis [who] killed US troops.” Bruce Hoffman, counterterrorism expert at Georgetown University, told me via email that the State Department was probably referring “to the intense fighting in Sadr City in Baghdad in 2008 between IRGC and U.S. military forces.”

If so, however, that wouldn’t exactly qualify as terrorism. In Sadr City, the IRGC forces attacked uniformed U.S. military forces that had invaded Iraq on a false pretense—hardly the same as blowing up a civilian airliner or shooting up a rock concert.

Hoffman also emphasized that the IRGC was involved in terror attacks against Americans in the 20th century, which is both indisputably true and a long time ago.

“The IRGC had a role in training Hezbollah and providing logistical assistance for the US embassy bombings in Beirut in 1983 and 1984 and the US Marine barracks at Beirut International Airport also in 1983,” Hoffman wrote. “They were also likely involved in the kidnappings, torture and deaths of CIA Station Chief William Buckley in 1985, of USMC Col William Higgins in 1989.”. . .

The last terror attack on Americans, plausibly linked to Iran or its proxies, was theKhobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 U.S. Air Force personnel. That happened 22 years ago.

Does this add tup to a substantial terror threat from Iran? Note that no attack on U.S. citizens by Iranian-backed terrorists has occurred anywhere for the last 22 years. And no Iranian-backed terrorist attack has ever happened on U.S. soil (except for the 1979 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Tehran 40 years ago). Iranian-backed terrorists have never attacked the Continental United States.

Iranians are Shiite muslims. All attacks in the U.S. by muslims have been by Sunni muslims. Iran has fought against the Sunni muslim terrorist groups (like ISIS in Iraq and al-Queda in Yemen).

Don't let Trump and his henchmen convince you that the terrorist attacks in the U.S. have anything to do with Iran. They do not! Using terrorism as an excuse to go to war with Iran is nothing more than an outrageous lie!

Atheists Respond To The Muslim Murders In New Zealand

As regular readers of this blog will know, I am an atheist. And as an atheist, I am horrified at the murder of dozens of muslims in New Zealand as they met to worship. While I do not agree with their religious beliefs, I believe all humans have the right to worship as they please -- and that human life is sacred.

I was proud of the statement released on the tragedy by my fellow atheists at American Atheists:

There are no words to articulate the pain, loss, and sadness felt today by Muslims in Christchurch, the broader faith community, and all people of New Zealand in the aftermath of this massacre.

This was an act of terrorism. A religious community came together for peaceful worship and instead had their lives shattered. It is yet another example of the global rise of intolerance, and offering our condolences is no longer enough.

Each of us who values equality must take concrete action against the expanding influence of white nationalism, xenophobic bigotry, and anti-Muslim hatred. This starts with examining our own words and actions to ensure that we are not contributing to a climate where these attacks are even conceivable.

Because atheists believe that there is no life after this one, we have a profound moral responsibility to make our world a place where all humans can thrive. This includes confronting racism, xenophobia, and all forms of bigotry—wherever they exist.

We will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with every Muslim who feels less welcome, less safe, and less free because of this attack, and we have a renewed commitment to shaping a world where religious equality and the freedom of conscience for all is sacrosanct.

It's NOT Anti-Semitism To Criticize Israel Or Lobby Groups

The person pictured here is Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota). A few days ago, she made remarks criticizing the government of Israel and some lobbying groups that support it (particularly AIPAC).

Some members of Congress got upset at her remarks. They said it was anti-semitism, and they wanted the House to vote to censure her. And sadly, some House Democratic leaders went along with them.

It didn't seem to matter that Rep. Omar never said anything derogatory about Jewish people. And it didn't matter that she has also been very critical of the government of Saudi Arabia (also peopled by semites).

It's just a sad fact that, in this country, too many people (including politicians) consider any criticism of Israel to be anti-semitism. It is NOT. When the government of Israel (and some of the lobbying groups supporting it) do bad things, they deserve to be called out on it. In fact, they should be called out -- especially by our elected representatives (even a muslim woman).

Fortunately, there were some reasonable people in Congress. Many progressives and the Black Caucus, sprang to Rep. Omar's defense. They made it clear they saw no anti-semitism in her remarks and would not support any resolution condemning her. In the end, House leadership backed down. Instead, they put a resolution on the floor that condemned all forms of bigotry (anti-semitism, islamaphobia, racism, etc.) without singling out Rep. Omar.

The bill, passed 407 to 23, accomplishes nothing. It was just a face-saving measure by House Democratic leadership. I hope they have learned their lesson. Israel is not a special case. They should be open to criticism, just like any other country.

To their credit, at least 3 of the candidates running for the Democratic presidential nomination also backed Rep. Omar's right to speak freely about Israel -- or anything else. Here is what they had to say:

Sen, Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts)

We have a moral duty to combat hateful ideologies in our own country and around the world―and that includes both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.  In a democracy, we can and should have an open, respectful debate about the Middle East that focuses on policy.  Branding criticism of Israel as automatically anti-Semitic has a chilling effect on our public discourse and makes it harder to achieve a peaceful solution between Israelis and Palestinians. Threats of violence ― like those made against Rep. Omar ― are never acceptable.

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-California)

We all have a responsibility to speak out against anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, racism, and all forms of hatred and bigotry, especially as we see a spike in hate crimes in America. But like some of my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, I am concerned that the spotlight being put on Congresswoman Omar may put her at risk.”

We should be having a sound, respectful discussion about policy. You can both support Israel and be loyal to our country. I also believe there is a difference between criticism of policy or political leaders, and anti-Semitism. At the end of the day, we need a two-state solution and a commitment to peace, human rights, and democracy by all leaders in the region ― and a commitment by our country to help achieve that.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont)

Anti-Semitism is a hateful and dangerous ideology which must be vigorously opposed in the United States and around the world. We must not, however, equate anti-Semitism with legitimate criticism of the right-wing, Netanyahu government in Israel. Rather, we must develop an even-handed Middle East policy which brings Israelis and Palestinians together for a lasting peace.

What I fear is going on in the House now is an effort to target Congresswoman Omar as a way of stifling that debate. That’s wrong.

Terrorism In New York City (Don't Let Trump Lie About It)

(Photo of New York City terrorist is from CNN.)

Sadly, New York City has been the site of a new terrorist attack. A man (evidently a muslim fundamentalist) rented a pickup and drove down a bike path -- killing 8 people and wounding another 15.

As expected, Trump is already trying to make some political hay out of the tragedy. He tweeted that these terrorists cannot be allowed to come to this country. I assume he was talking about his effort to ban muslims from certain countries from entering the United States. The problem is that his silly (and bigoted) ban would not have prevented anyone entering from this terrorists country of origin. He was from Uzbekistan -- which is NOT on any list that Trump has submitted.

It wouldn't surprise me if Trump also, in the next few days, tried to use this attack as an excuse to get sanctions applied against Iran. He has repeatedly said that Iran is the biggest supporter of terrorism (inferring that they support the terrorists attacking Western countries). That is simply not true.

Iran is a shiite nation. They do support some groups (like Hezbollah, which acts in the Middle East). But they don't support the main terrorist groups attacking Western countries. Those groups are ISIS and al-Queda, and both are sunni fundamentalist groups. Members of either ISIS or al-Queda would not last long in Iran -- and in fact, Iran has troops helping Iraq (another shiite government) fight against ISIS.

Iran is not a friend of the United States (which is understandable since the U.S. overthrew their legal democratic government decades ago and installed a dictator - the Shah). But they are NOT the supporters of terrorism in the West. Most of that support comes from sunni countries -- like Saudi Arabia (which is supposed to be our friend).

Don't let Trump demagogue the issue and lie to you -- about his muslim ban, or about Iran.

Some Facts About Muslims In The United States

There is a movement in this country to demonize muslims, led by the Republican in the White House (and many in his political party). That is clearly an un-American movement. Our Founding Fathers made it clear that they were trying to establish a secular democracy -- one that would allow all religions to flourish (and allow citizens to choose to have no religion at all). They thought this was so important that they included it in the First Amendment to our Constitution.

There are currently about 3.35 million muslims in the United States, and that figure is only going to grow in the future. They are good citizens, and love this country as much as any non-muslims. Just as racism, misogyny, and homophobic are evils that this country must get rid of, so is the bigotry against muslims (and other non-christians).

I found the charts above from the Pew Research Center interesting, and thought you might also.

A Second Appeals Court Blocks Trump Travel Ban

(Cartoon image about Trump travel ban is by John Darkow in the Columbia Daily Tribune.)

A couple of weeks ago, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to lift the blockage of Trump's travel ban by a lower court. They ruled that Trump's travel ban violated the Constitution's First Amendment by targeting a religious groups (muslims).

Now a second appeals court has done the same thing -- upheld the blockage of Trump's travel ban by a lower court. What's interesting is that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found a different reason to continue blocking the travel ban. They ruled that Trump had exceeded his authority, because his travel ban violated the provisions of the immigration act passed by Congress.

Immigrations law says the president cannot suspend the immigration rules without first justifying the need to do that -- that he must first prove that the people in the nations banned provide a substantial risk to the people of the United States before unilaterally changing the immigration rules. The Court ruled that Trump had not proved that, and therefore could not change the law with an executive order.

The Trump administration will probably appeal this decision to the Supreme Court -- as they did the decision of the Fourth Circuit Court. But because this decision was based on immigration law, and not a First Amendment violation, it will need to be considered separately. A Supreme Court decision overturning one of these decisions would not apply to the other.

This makes it a little harder for the Trump administration to get their bigoted and silly travel ban.

Trump Is Misleading Americans About Islamic Terrorism

This week, terrorists struck two locations in Tehran, Iran. Donald Trump said he was sympathetic to the victims of the attack, and then turned around and accused Iran of having complicity in the attacks on their own country. He said:

"We underscore that states that sponsor terrorism risk falling victim to the evil they promote."

Understandably, the Iranians were upset with Trump. His statement infers that Iran supports the group that attacked Tehran (ISIS). It's just a continuation of his claims that Iran supports the terrorists that are attacking Western nations. None of that is true.

Iran does offer support to a couple of groups defined as terrorists -- the Houthi in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon (and Palestine). Those are shiite muslim groups, and Iran is a shiite muslim state. But those are not the groups that attacked Iran, and they are not the groups responsible for attacks in Europe and the United States.

The groups mainly responsible for attacking Europe and the United States are sunni muslim groups -- ISIS and al-Queda. They get no support from Iran. Their support comes mainly from a country that Trump calls a "friend" -- Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is a hotbed of wahhabism (the extreme fundamentalist sect of sunni muslim thought that gave rise to the sunni terrorists like al-Queda and ISIS), and Saudi money has gone to both these terrorist groups.

Trump seems to want to lump all islamic fundamentalists into a single group of terrorists that hate the West. That is far too simple. It shows he is either lying and misleading Americans, or he doesn't understand the truth -- that the trouble in the Middle East is basically a religious civil war being fought between shiite and sunni muslims. He seems to have sided with the sunnis without understanding that they are where ISIS and al-Queda have originated. He also seems not to understand that ISIS was created when an American president (Bush) overthrew the secular government in Iraq and installed a shiite muslim government in its place (which caused sunnis to rebel against that government and the shiite government in Syria by creating ISIS).

Blaming Iran for terrorism in the West is ignoring the reality of what is happening. It would make more sense to blame Saudi Arabia. But Trump doesn't want to do that, because they have too much oil that we want and have plenty of money to spend on U.S. weapons. In effect, Trump has taken the side of the sunnis in the religious civil war -- the same side that is attacking the Western nations.

Our Tweeter-In-Chief Tried To Demagogue The London Attack

There was a new attack by terrorists in Great Britain -- this time in London. At least seven people were killed and dozens more wounded. Most responsible world leaders sent their sympathy to the victims and assured Great Britain that they would stand beside them. Our "leader" took a different tack. He tried to demagogue the attack -- use it to scare people into supporting his own xenophobic and bigoted policy. He used the tragedy to tweet that the courts should approve his travel ban.

Trump wants Americans to believe that his silly and unconstitutional travel ban would protect the U.S. from terrorist attacks -- and that those attacks will surely come without that travel ban. It's time to look at some facts that Trump and his bigoted right-wing friends like to ignore.

* Deaths from terrorist attacks are rare in the United States, and our law enforcement agencies are doing a very good job of preventing them. In fact, you have a much better chance of being hit by lightening (or shot by a toddler) than dying in a terrorist attack.

* Of the few terrorist deaths in the United States, more have been from attacks by right-wing home-grown terrorists than by islamic terrorists.

* Refugees from the six countries in Trump's travel ban (Libya, Sudan, Syria, Iran, Yemen, and Somalia) have never engineered a terrorist attack in the United States. The 9/11 attack was carried out by 15 from Saudi Arabia, 2 from the United Arab Emirates, 1 from Egypt, and 1 from Lebanon -- all countries that Trump considers to be our friends. The San Bernardino attack was done by an American-born person and a person from Pakistan (who had lived most of her life in Saudi Arabia). The Orlando shooter was born and raised in the United States. I repeat -- none of these attackers (or any others) were from any of the countries on Trumps's travel ban list.

* The travel ban violates the First Amendment of the Constitution by targeting a religious group (thus violating the religious freedom provision).

The truth is that there is no proof at all that the refugees from the countries on Trump's list pose any more danger to Americans than people from any other country -- and those allowed to emigrate to the U.S. have gone through a rigorous vetting process (that can take up to two years).

Trump is simply playing politics, and he doesn't mind using victims of terrorism in other countries to further his own political agenda -- an agenda aimed at nothing more than making himself look good. He should be ashamed of himself, but unfortunately, the part of his brain where shame should reside has been filled with an overflowing narcissism.

Making matters even worse is the fact that Trump is more dangerous to many living in the United States than terrorists ever will be. If Trumpcare is enacted, then thousands of people will die because they can no longer afford health insurance (and no longer are able to get preventative care). About 17,000 people a year die because of a lack of health insurance and preventative care (thanks to many GOP states refusing to expand Medicaid). Trumpcare, by taking insurance away from 23 million people, would double or triple the number of deaths.

Then we have his cuts to the EPA (of 25% to 30%), which will undoubtably make our air dirtier -- and endanger the lives of those with asthma and other respiratory diseases (especially children). And his refusal to stay in the Paris Accord and fight global climate change, which will surely increase the number and severity of storms, droughts, floods, and other natural disasters -- costing many lives unnecessarily. And that's before we even talk about his mean-spirited budget that cuts food stamps and other things that help people to survive.

The number of deaths that Trump's policies will cause make the terrorists look like amateurs. But he might get away with it by making people fear terrorism -- taking their eyes and minds off his policies. He needs to cut the things that help ordinary Americans to live and survive, because it's the only way he can give massive tax cuts that only help him and his rich friends. If you are worried about terrorism, he hopes you won't see the deaths he is causing to reward the rich.

I'm not saying terrorism shouldn't be dealt with. It should be, and our law enforcement and intelligence agencies are doing that. Just remember there is a far greater danger to Americans lives than terrorists -- and his name is Donald Trump.

Appeals Court Upholds Block Of Trump's Travel Ban

Donald Trump has lost another round in the courts over his executive order banning muslims from certain countries from entering the United States.

After his first executive order travel ban was tossed by the courts, he made some small revisions and issued a second executive order travel ban. That was almost immediately blocked by U.S. District Judges in Maryland and Hawaii.

The Trump administration appealed the rulings of those courts to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals -- asking that appeals court to overturn the lower court rulings and allow the ban to be instituted.

On Thursday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling (a 205 page ruling which you can read here). They refused to unblock Trump's ban on travel to this country by a vote of 10 to 3.

And they were unequivocal in their distaste for Trump's attempt to subvert the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom, saying the travel ban "drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination".

It should be no surprise that Trump's bigoted toady in the Attorney General's office didn't like the ruling of the appeals court. Sessions, who has shown in the past that he thinks discrimination against groups is just fine, now extends that feeling toward religious groups. He says he will appeal the ruling to the United States Supreme Court.

What will the Supreme Court do? Will they uphold the First Amendment of the Constitution and rule that the Trump administration cannot discriminate against any religious group, or will they trash the First Amendment and decide that religious freedom is no longer protected? Sadly, with the current court, it could go either way.

The Projected Growth Of Religion (2015 To 2060)

I thought the chart above, from the Pew Research Center, was interesting -- and thought it was fitting to post it on this religious weekend. Currently, christians make up about 31% of the world's population, while muslims make up about 24%. But by 2060, with muslims growing at a significantly faster rate. they will make up roughly equal percentages of the world population -- with christians being about 32% and muslims being about 31%.

I think that is probably true, since the estimates are figured on birth and death rates -- and those religions (like all religions) depend mainly on people being born into the religion for their growth.

The one area that I disagree with is the projected growth of the non-religious. They project the percentage of non-religious will fall from 16% to 13%. If you look at only the birth and death rates, that would be true. But the growth of the non-religious has never depended on both and death rates.

The non-religious are those who accept science -- including contraception to plan their families. While the growth of the non-religious has been larger with each generation in the United States (and the world), that is not because they are having more babies than the religious -- in fact, they are probably having less. Their growth is because when children mature into adults they think more deeply about religious beliefs -- and a growing percentage discard those beliefs.

This has been true of a growing percentage in each of the last several generations, and there's no reason to believe the percentage of the non-religious won't continue to grow in future generations.

Some Numbers (For Those Fearing Muslim Immigrants)

From CNN:

International terrorism is a serious global issue, one that most leaders and citizens agree needs to be taken seriously. However, when the risk is boiled down to a matter of immigrants, refugees, and American citizens, the threat becomes infinitesimally small. According to a review by the CATO Institute, the chancesof an American dying in a terrorist attack committed by a foreigner in the US stands at about one in 3.6 million. The breakdown includes attacks over a 41-year period and includes the 9/11 attack, in which 3,000 people died. Once you narrow it to refugees and and illegal immigrants, the threat is even smaller.

Even so, the statistics above don't tell the whole story. For instance, in 2016, the number of Americans killed in terrorists attacks in the US was unusually high because of the Orlando nightclub shooting, which claimed 49 lives and is considered an act of terrorism carried out by a Muslim extremist. However, it's important to remember that attack was also the deadliest terrorist attack -- and the deadliest mass shooting -- in the US since 9/11. 

On the other hand, the gun violence statistics do not include suicides by firearm, which usually hover around or above 20,000 per year.

An Unintended Consequence Of Trump's Travel Ban

(Cartoon image is by David Fitzsimmons in the Arizona Daily Star.)

Donald Trump was surprised at the negative reaction to his executive orders banning muslims from entering this country. Poll after poll showed that a majority of Americans opposed the ban, and a federal judge stopped the ban. Trump is now trying to revise those executive orders to meet constitutional requirements -- but he should consider just dropping this terribly bigoted move.

It isn't just the political and legal ramifications that should make him stop (although that should be enough). There is another unintended consequence that was caused by the ban. Travel to the United States by foreigners has dropped significantly -- and it's not just travel from muslim countries. Travel is down from all countries.

On the web, searches for flights to the U.S. have dropped by 17%. And Travel Weekly magazine says foreign tourism is down already by about 6.8%. The Global Business Travel Association says that in just one week since the ban business travel had declined by $185 million.

The travel industry is calling this drop the "Trump slump", and they are not happy about it. If Trump persists in this bigoted attempt to ban muslims, this country could lose billions of dollars in businesses that depend on travel -- and that could mean the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Actions have consequences, and actions by the White House have consequences that affect the entire country. It's time Trump realized that, and reined in his bigotry for the good of the country. He had claimed he wanted to be a jobs president, but so far his actions seem destined to cost jobs.

Americans Are Warmer To All Religious Groups But One

The charts above are from a survey by the Pew Research Center between January 9th and 23rd. They questioned 4,248 adults, and the survey has a margin of error of 2.5 points.

It shows the view of religious groups by the public in the United States. A "warm" feeling (favorable) would be shown by a larger number and be toward the top of the chart, whereas a "cold" (unfavorable) rating would be represented by a lower number and be toward the bottom of the chart.

I found it interesting that every single religious group, except one, had increased in favorability with the public -- and that was true of both Democrats and Republicans. That group was not muslims -- it was evangelical christians. The evangelical christians didn't lose any favorability, but didn't gain any either.

Three years ago, evangelical christians had a 61 rating from the public, and it still does. The rating from Democrats (53) and from Republicans (71) also remained steady.

Groups that are normally considered unpopular in this country did grow in favorability. Among the general population atheists grew from 41 to 50, and muslims grew from 40 to 48 -- both significant growth figures. Among Democrats the atheists grew from 46 to 57, and the muslims grew from 47 to 56. The same was true among Republicans, where atheists grew from 34 to 43 and muslims grew from 33 to 39.

Why did the evangelical christians not grow in favorability? Could it be because they are trying hard to force their religious views on all Americans, while other religious groups simply want to be free to worship (or not worship) as they please? I think so. Their effort to turn their religious views into law is not winning them any new friends.

Opposing Donald Trump's Immigration Ban

The picture above and the statement below are from the Facebook page of Renee Wetzel (whose family has been victimized by terrorists).

This has been heavy on my heart the last few days and I have felt the need to say something. 
As the widow of someone who was murdered by terrorists, I can understand that sometimes it is easy to give into your fears and to want to blame someone or something for what is happening. However, regardless of your political leanings, Trump closing our borders to certain countries is a basic human rights issue. Banning entire groups of people whose only crime is where they were born is not the right answer. This is against everything our country stands for. Not all Muslims are terrorists and we, as a country, should not be lumping them together like they are. #ChooseLove
Matthew 25:31-46

Trump Still Plans To Ban Muslims From Entering The U.S.

(This caricature of Donald Trump is by DonkeyHotey.)

The following is from a new Think Progress article by Aaron Rupar:

During a brief press availability Wednesday afternoon, President-elect Donald Trump reaffirmed his commitment to a shutdown of Muslims entering the United States and was noncommittal about whether he still supports a Muslim registry.

A reporter asked Trump about his Muslim ban in the context of the attack on a Christmas market in Berlin that left 12 dead. The suspected perpetrator is Anis Amri, a Tunisian who German authorities say was known to be in touch with radical Islamist groups.

“Has [the attack] caused you to rethink or reevaluate your plans to create a Muslim registry or ban Muslim immigration in the United States?” the reporter asked.

“Hey, you’ve known my plans all along and it’s, they’ve proven to be right. 100 percent correct. What’s happening is disgraceful,” he replied.

Indeed, the December 2015 statement in which Trump called “for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on” is still on Trump’s website.

Residents Of Western Nations Overestimate % Of Muslims

Donald Trump, and his bigoted right-wing friends, would like for Americans to believe that the country is being overrun by a horde of muslims. And the United States is not the only country where this bigoted anti-muslim view is being preached. Right-wingers in other Western nations are preaching the same kind of bigotry.

Sadly, it looks like a lot of people in all of the Western countries are buying into that argument -- even though is it far from true.

The Ipsos / Mori Poll questioned between 800 and 1000 people in each of the countries charted above. The survey was done between September 22nd and November 6th. Results are on the charts above.

The top chart asked people what the percentage of muslims was currently in their country. The green line represented the average guess of the people in each country. The black line represents the actual percentage of muslims.

The bottom chart shows what the people in each country thinks will be the percentage of muslims in 2020. The orange line is the average guess and the black line the actual projected percentage.

Note that every one of the Western nations vastly overestimated the percentage of muslims living in their country, and the percentage who will be living there is 2020. In the United States, the average guess was 17% now and 23% in 2020. The real percentages are 1% and 1.1%.

Presidential Preference Among U.S. Religious Groups

A few days ago, I brought you the results of a religious breakdown among christian groups in this country from the Public Religion Research Institute. Now the Gallup Poll has released a similar survey (done between July 1st and August 28th), and their survey includes other religions.

It shows Trump has an advantage among White protestants (+28), White catholics (+10), and mormons (+17). Clinton has the advantage among Black protestants (+66), Hispanic catholics (+55), jews (+29), muslims (+55), other non-christian religions (+30), and the non-religious (+25).

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar Speaks Out On Presidential Race

Many people have spoken out about Donald Trump's anti-muslim bias, and his attacks of a Gold Star family who are  muslims. But one of the best responses I've read was written for Time magazine by former NBA star Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (Photo by Andrew H. Walker/Getty Images for Yahoo News).

Here is what he had to say:

Khizr Khan’s impassioned speech last week at the Democratic National Convention about the heroics of his Muslim-American son didn’t just shame Donald Trump’s crude lack of American values—it reminded us of a quaint concept that we haven’t paid too much attention to lately: sacrifice. Since John F. Kennedy in his 1961 inaugural speech encouraged Americans to “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,” we haven’t really had much of a national discussion about the role sacrifice plays in maintaining a free society.

Mr. Khan reminded us of that noble ideal when he talked about his son, Army Capt. Humayun S.M. Khan, a Muslim-American who sacrificed his own life in Iraq in 2004 to save other soldiers. Mr. Khan, of Pakistani heritage, had moved to the U.S. in the 1970s for “freedom and opportunity,” the two ideals that Americans feel proudest of providing. Mr. Khan told us that had it been up to Trump, his son never would have been permitted into the country.

“Have you ever been to Arlington cemetery?” he said directly to Trump.“Go look at the graves of brave patriots who died defending the United States of America. You will see all faiths, genders and ethnicities. You have sacrificed nothing and no one.” Mr. Khan’s passion for justice was contagious, but his story of sacrifice was as inspiring as JFK’s call to action. Days after Mr. Khan brandished his pocket edition of the U.S. Constitution, that same edition became the number two bestseller on Amazon (behind the new Harry Potter book), 80,000 copies were downloaded through the American Civil Liberties Union and views of the National Constitution Center’s Interactive Constitution increased by 16 percent. Mr. Khan had made the U.S. Constitution hip again.

The Khan family’s national presence couldn’t have come at a better time for America—and for me personally.

Although I have been politically active for most of my life, especially in civil rights, this year’s Democratic National Convention was my first. I was excited to contribute, but a part of me had been disheartened in the months leading up to the convention. I had begun to feel like America was trapped in a nightmarish Alien sequel, with Donald Trump starring as the toothy creature who feeds on America’s insides until bloated with our vital organs, ultimately destroying the host.

Much of my dystopian despair was the result of watching the Republican National Convention. I observed with shock and embarrassment mobs of people rally behind a man who gazes out at America with eyes, as Yeats put it, “as blank and pitiless as the sun.” My anguish wasn’t a left wing-right wing thing or blind loyalty to a particular party. It was a patriotic thing. I liked to believe that these conventions were about groups coming together to create a platform that reflected us striving to be our best selves—our most humane, most “American” selves. We would discuss how we could go forth in the coming four years applying the principles of the U.S. Constitution by choosing a person to champion those principles. Instead, I was standing by watching in HD clarity while reasoned loyalty was being set ablaze by combustive rhetoric, as if it were a witch being burned at the stake.

So when I arrived at the DNC, I worried that this going to be just another exercise in preaching to the choir. The lines had been drawn, the sides already chosen. However, I met so many enthusiastic and hopeful people who were dedicated to bringing about their vision of a diverse and inclusive American society that I couldn’t help but get caught up in their enthusiasm. No one was talking about who we hate, who we should blame, who we should exclude, who we should punish. They were talking about justice, freedom, and opportunity. All of that was well and good, but I couldn’t shake the knowledge that a whole lot of Americans supported the man who contradicted a whole lot of American values.

But all that apprehension fell away as soon as I heard Khizr Khan speak.

Whatever doubts, depression, or disgust I felt before were washed away by Mr. Khan. I realized that Capt. Khan’s sacrifice—as well as the sacrifices made by so many others to protect our Constitution—demanded that we don’t indulge in lazy melancholy or hipster cynicism, but work twice as hard to make sure those sacrifices are not in vain. The day after Mr. Khan’s speech, Trump responded in the typical non-sequitur fashion: “I think I’ve made a lot of sacrifices… I’ve created thousands and thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs, built great structures. I’ve done, I’ve had tremendous success.”

So, my first time attending the DNC changed me. But the Khan family and other courageous people have rejuvenated and invigorated me for the fight ahead. Because it’s a fight that must be won. No matter the sacrifice.

The Most Powerful Speech At The Democratic Convention

There were many great speeches given at the Democratic National Convention. President Obama, Michelle Obama, Vice-President Biden, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Michael Bloomberg, and many other politicians gave memorable speeches.

But for me, the most powerful speech of the convention was given by a non-politician, and was also one of the shortest speeches. It was given by a muslim immigrant from Pakistan -- Khizr Khan, who lives in Charlottesville, Virginia, and works as a legal advisor. He and his wife (pictured here in a photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images, and found at romper.com) immigrated to the United States in the 1970's.

Khan's son was a U.S. Army Captain, who lost his life saving his fellow soldiers in Iraq (and was awarded the Bronze Star and a Purple Heart). He was an American hero, and one of many muslims who died protecting this country.

Mr. Khan said:

Tonight, we are honored to stand here as the parents of Capt. Humayun Khan, and as patriotic American Muslims with undivided loyalty to our country.

Like many immigrants, we came to this country empty-handed. We believed in American democracy — that with hard work and the goodness of this country, we could share in and contribute to its blessings.

We were blessed to raise our three sons in a nation where they were free to be themselves and follow their dreams.

Our son, Humayun, had dreams of being a military lawyer. But he put those dreams aside the day he sacrificed his life to save his fellow soldiers.

Hillary Clinton was right when she called my son "the best of America."

If it was up to Donald Trump, he never would have been in America.

Donald Trump consistently smears the character of Muslims. He disrespects other minorities, women, judges, even his own party leadership. He vows to build walls and ban us from this country.

Donald Trump, you are asking Americans to trust you with our future. Let me ask you: Have you even read the U.S. Constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy. In this document, look for the words "liberty" and "equal protection of law."

Have you ever been to Arlington Cemetery? Go look at the graves of the brave patriots who died defending America — you will see all faiths, genders, and ethnicities.

You have sacrificed nothing and no one.

We can't solve our problems by building walls and sowing division.

We are Stronger Together.

And we will keep getting stronger when Hillary Clinton becomes our next President.

(NOTE -- Mr. Khan had no prepared speech. He just spoke from his heart.)