Trump: immigrants bringing ‘bad genes’ into US

AFP

Trump: immigrants bringing ‘bad genes’ into US

Frankie Taggart – October 7, 2024

Donald Trump -- pictured at the US-Mexico border on August 22, 2024 south of Sierra Vista, Arizona -- has a history of divisive racial rhetoric (Rebecca Noble)
Donald Trump — pictured at the US-Mexico border on August 22, 2024 south of Sierra Vista, Arizona — has a history of divisive racial rhetoric (Rebecca Noble)Rebecca Noble/GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA/Getty Images via AFPMore

Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what’s in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.Generate Key Takeaways

Republican White House hopeful Donald Trump said Monday that illegal immigrants were bringing “bad genes” into the United States, doubling down on previous inflammatory rhetoric about migrants poisoning the blood of the country.

Trump was criticizing his Democratic presidential rival Vice President Kamala Harris in a radio interview when he brought up government figures showing there were thousands of immigrants in the United States who were not in federal immigration detention, despite homicide convictions.

“You know now, a murderer — I believe this — it’s in their genes. We’ve got a lot of bad genes in our country right now,” former president Trump told conservative host Hugh Hewitt.

The White House swiftly condemned Trump’s comments as “vile.”

“That type of language is hateful, it’s disgusting, it’s inappropriate, and has no place in our country,” Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters.

“This comes from the same vile statements that we’ve heard about (how) migrants poison the blood, that’s disgusting.”

Jean-Pierre added: “We’re going to continue to forcefully reject this kind of vile, disturbing, hateful, hateful speech.”

Trump was misconstruing data released in September by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency.

The figures cover a period spanning decades, including when Trump was president, and also don’t include people incarcerated in places other than ICE facilities — in state, local or other federal facilities, for example.

– Election issue –

Illegal immigration into the United States, especially over the southern border with Mexico, is a major issue in the November 5 US presidential election.

Polls show it remains a major vulnerability for Harris, with border crossings having risen to record highs at the end of 2023 under President Joe Biden, whom she replaced as the Democratic standard-bearer in July.

But US media reported Monday that migrant apprehensions at the US-Mexico border fell 75 percent year-on-year in September — to the lowest level since the Trump administration — citing Department of Homeland Security statistics.

Trump, who is neck-and-neck with Harris in nationwide and swing-state polling ahead, has spent much of his campaign demonizing both undocumented immigrants and those in the United States legally.

During a rally last month, the 78-year-old former reality TV star said Harris should be prosecuted over Biden’s border policies and called illegal immigrants “animals,” out to “rape, pillage, thieve, plunder and kill.”

“They will walk into your kitchen, they’ll cut your throat,” he said.

And he repeatedly threatened legal Haitian residents in Ohio with deportation, falsely accusing them of eating locals’ pets.

Trump — the oldest major-party White House candidate in history and the first convicted felon to run — accused immigrants of “poisoning the blood of our country” in December in a phrase that earned him comparisons to Adolf Hitler.

Donald Trump wants to reinstate a spoils system in federal government by hiring political loyalists regardless of competence

The Conversation

Donald Trump wants to reinstate a spoils system in federal government by hiring political loyalists regardless of competence

Sidney Shapiro, Wake Forest University and Joseph P. Tomain, University of Cincinnati – October 5, 2024

Then-President Donald Trump standing underneath a portrait of Andrew Jackson in November 2017. <a href=
Then-President Donald Trump standing underneath a portrait of Andrew Jackson in November 2017. Oliver Contreras – Pool / Getty Images

If elected to serve a second term, Donald Trump says he supports a plan that would give him the authority to fire as many as 50,000 civil servants and replace them with members of his political party loyal to him. Under this plan, if he eventually deemed those new employees disloyal, he claims he could fire them too.

The United States has tried such a plan before.

As we write in our book “How Government Built America,” newly elected President Andrew Jackson, after he took office in 1828, fired about half the country’s civil servants and replaced them with loyal members of his political party.

The result was not only an utterly incompetent administration, but widespread corruption.

Swearing allegiance

Jackson’s actions that rewarded political loyalists and punished enemies were a dramatic departure from what the founders had envisioned by establishing an independent civil service whose members were literally pledged to uphold the country’s laws.

In passage of its very first law, on June 1, 1789, Congress required newly appointed federal officials to take the oath of office to uphold the laws of the country and faithfully carry out their duties.

Congress also passed conflict-of-interest legislation at that time to prevent employees from making decisions based on personal financial considerations.

While oaths may have less significance today, they were regarded as significant personal commitments in the 18th and 19th centuries. The U.S. Constitution, for example, contains an oath of office for the president, and it specifies that members of Congress and other federal officials “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution.”

When President George Washington – and the next five U.S. presidents – hired a new employee, reputations mattered. Each of the presidents looked at how an appointee’s neighbors regarded him and whether he had been elected to local office, an indication that the man – and they were all men – was competent and an honest employee.

That’s not what Jackson, the nation’s seventh president, and his system aimed to do; he wanted loyalists in government jobs.

The spoils system

While the first presidents were concerned with the competence and honesty of civil service employees, Jackson quickly set aside those concerns.

Instead of hiring those who wanted to work for the public interest and the good of the nation, Jackson employed members of his political party who pledged to march in lockstep with him and his policies. This became known as the “spoils system.”

Like Trump, Jackson also had a version of the “deep state” that he opposed. He claimed that the appointment process was aristocratic and blocked the appointment of the ordinary people he represented. He also insisted that experience and competence were unnecessary.

A cartoon depicts a statue of a man riding a pig with the words 'To the Victors goes the Spoils'
A cartoon of President Andrew Jackson atop a pig depicts his spoils system, which rewarded party members with government jobs. Bettmann / GettyImages

Jackson was quite wrong about some of his political appointments.

One of his worst was Samuel Swartwout, a longtime Army friend and political sycophant. Jackson named him to two consecutive terms as collector of customs at New York, where he served from 1829 through 1837.

Considered a plum assignment, the job at the time was the highest paid in federal government and involved collecting taxes and fees on imported goods that arrived in the nation’s busiest port.

But a congressional investigation showed that Swartwout had stolen a little more than US$1.2 million during his tenure, or about $40 million in today’s dollars.

Swartwout had fled to London, but he returned to the U.S. after he was assured that he would not face criminal charges.

Jackson also learned that his power to influence federal agencies with high-level appointments was limited. Such was the case with the U.S. Postal Service.

As a slaveholder, Jackson was disturbed by the mailing of antislavery flyers in 1835 by the American Anti-Slavery Society. Fearing the flyers would lead to a Black insurrection, Jackson instructed his postmaster general, Amos Kendall, an enslaver himself, to fix their problem by limiting the mailings and asking Congress to prohibit the U.S. Postal Service from mailing all abolitionist material.

Congress refused, citing freedom of speech and expansion of presidential authority as the main reasons.

Long after Jackson had left the White House, Congress, between 1864 and 1883, debated making “merit” a key condition of hiring new employees, but nothing happened until after a disgruntled office seeker assassinated President James Garfield.

Congress then passed the Pendleton Act in 1883, which established the merit appointment system still used today. It also put a virtual end to a system that allowed whichever party that won the White House to reward its supporters with tens of thousands of jobs.

A limited exception

Currently, most of the nearly 3 million federal employees are appointed using merit-based hiring that relies on competitive exams. They cannot be fired except for a limited set of reasons, such as poor performance or misconduct.

But the law exempts about 4,000 federal employees whose appointment requires the Senate’s advice and consent and who have been determined by the president to hold a “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making or policy-advocating character.”

The idea is to give a new president the capacity to influence his policymaking by hiring top-level federal officials.

An old picture shows a crowd of people in front of the White House in 1829.
People seeking government jobs crashed the White House on the day of Andrew Jackson’s inauguration. Library of Congress

The plan that Trump supported would extend the president’s authority under the previous exemption to hire and fire tens of thousands of civil servants without regard to merit.

In short, he intends to reestablish the spoils system.

This is no idle threat.

Near the end of his administration, then-President Trump signed an executive order establishing a new job classification within the government’s career civil service called Schedule F for “employees in confidential, policy-determining, policy-making or policy-advocating positions.”

Under that designation, employees would lose virtually all of their civil service protections and could be fired without cause. It’s unclear how much effect Trump’s order had on the federal government because it was enacted two weeks before the 2020 election and was in effect for only a few months.

Shortly after taking office, President Joe Biden reversed Trump’s order.

A thankless task

In our view, if political loyalty replaces merit as the basis of key federal appointments, Americans can expect government to be less competent – as Andrew Jackson learned during his administration.

While this might not matter to those who regard government as unimportant to the country – or worse, the enemy of the country – our book “How Government Built America” tells a much different story about the thousands of federal employees who provide everything from health services to protection from natural disasters.

Not every civil servant is a great employee, nor is every employee of private industry.

But there is ample proof that government works because of the many people behind the scenes in Washington and across the country who serve the American people – and uphold their oaths of office.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Sidney ShapiroWake Forest University and Joseph P. TomainUniversity of Cincinnati

Read more:

Sidney Shapiro is affiliated with the Center for Progressive Reform. .

Joseph P. Tomain does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Your left-leaning ‘protest vote’ is much worse than useless. It will reelect Trump

Miami Herald – Opinion

Your left-leaning ‘protest vote’ is much worse than useless. It will reelect Trump | Opinion

Jeremy Fryberger – October 4, 2024

Imagn Images file photos

In recent months, the 2024 presidential election campaign has included more twists than a Chubby Checker tribute tour. Yet, at least one thing remains constant: When it comes to third-party candidates, older voters — and plenty of younger ones — have seen this story play out before.

In 2016, for example, an extraordinary number of centrists and left-leaners who normally would have supported the Democratic Party‘s presidential nominee — but who had been influenced by decades of disinformation against Hillary Clinton — instead chose Jill Stein or Gary Johnson (or simply didn’t vote). Some even championed the Republican candidate. Thus, many such third-party supporters, “protest votes” and no-shows not only wasted their ballots, but very much assisted putting Donald Trump and his cohort into the White House.

In 2000, Americans similar to those noted above backed not Democratic Party nominee Al Gore, but third-party option Ralph Nader — or just stayed home. And, in light of that election’s incredibly narrow outcome, these specific voters undeniably helped kick-start the eight-year George W. Bush administration — which included the 9/11 terror attacks, the commencement of two foreign wars and the Great Recession, which lasted from December 2007 to June 2009.

Were Bush or Trump even the second choices of these particular third-party or no-show voters? For almost all, it seems the answer is a resounding no — another reminder that elections are not games.

Meanwhile, aside from the relatively rare occurrence of a third-party presidential candidate joining a major party president’s Cabinet, it remains true in our country that the sole period during which third-party candidates (and their supporters) can influence Democratic or Republican policy positions is only before the general election. Yet, once November arrives — or whenever one casts a general election ballot — a third-party vote does nothing but distort the general election race.

As such, citizens who don’t live in one of the few places with ranked-choice voting and choose a third-party presidential option in November (or who don’t participate) will once again not only squander the moment — many of these voters will also inadvertently help their least-preferred candidate become president. And this time, that winning candidate could be a pathological lying, nonstop grifting, constantly crime-ing, twice impeached, quadruple indicted (so far), justice obstructing, society defrauding, court corrupting, national security compromising, alliance crushing, U.S. military disparaging, authoritarian loving, democracy dismantling, fascism-adjacent, anti-woman, sexual abusing, serial philandering, rabidly racist, white supremacist and nationalist, religiously bigoted and intolerant (but nonreligious), anti-science, environment destroying, always whining, vengeance seeking malignant narcissist and convicted felon (which, by the way, says nothing — or perhaps everything — about his 40-year-old running mate who would take charge if a certain 78-year-old couldn’t finish his term).

While none but men have led our nation throughout the U.S. presidency’s 235-year history — 45 of them white, and one African-American — citizens this year have the opportunity to elect not just our first woman president. And Kamala Harris would not be just our first Asian-African-American president, but a spectacularly qualified and prepared Asian-African-American woman president. Don’t miss this chance to be part of it.

Regardless, while tens of millions of Americans recognize the third party trap for what it is, every voter should trust history and avoid wasting their vote on any candidate who won’t possibly win — or even influence policy — yet could clear a path for another candidate and presidency that these very same voters want least of all.

Jeremy Fryberger is an architect living in Ketchum, Idaho, with his wife, their two children and dog.

Opinion – Trump is at 48 percent. How could this be possible but for widespread racism?

The Hill – Opinion

Trump is at 48 percent. How could this be possible but for widespread racism?

Juan Williams, Opinion Contributor – September 23, 2024

Opinion – Trump is at 48 percent. How could this be possible but for widespread racism?

At this point, the racism is obvious. How else does it make sense that 48 percent of registered voters in last week’s Fox News poll say they have no problem putting Donald Trump back in the White House?

Who are these people who look the other way when their candidate tells a bold lie about Black immigrants eating a mostly white Ohio town’s cats and dogs?

How can it be that not a soul among the 48 percent cares that Trump’s vice-presidential pick, JD Vance, says it is okay to “create” racist lies about immigrants eating pets “so the American media actually pays attention”?

How can 48 percent of voters back a candidate who says immigrants coming from “infested” places are “poisoning the blood of our country?”

Is it just snowflakes who notice when one of Trump’s close allies says, “The White House will smell like curry” if Vice President Kamala Harris, the daughter of an Indian immigrant, wins the presidency?

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R- Ga.), no snowflake, condemned the comment as “appalling,” “racist” and “hateful.”

Do these voters also prefer to sail past Trump once calling a Black woman and former aide a “dog”? And he called Alvin Bragg, the Black Manhattan district attorney who successfully prosecuted him for business fraud, an “animal.”

Maybe Trump’s 48 percent don’t excuse his racism so much as get the message. They are inside a Republican Party that is 82 percent white. Most of those white Republicans are in small towns and rural areas.

“Beginning in the early 2010s — and accelerating during the presidency of Donald J. Trump…” The New York Times noted earlier this year, “white voters without a degree, increasingly moved toward the Republican Party. Nearly two-thirds of all white, non-college voters identify as Republicans or lean toward the Republican Party.”

This is the heart of Trump supporters who told YouGov pollsters they believe Trump is telling the truth about Haitian immigrants “abducting and eating pet dogs and cats.”

The YouGov polls also found that 80 percent of Trump supporters also buy his lie that Venezuela is “deliberately sending people from prisons and mental institutions” into the U.S. I wrote a 2018 book about Trump’s history of racism. Vice President Harris echoed the book’s research in talking last week of Trump’s racist past. She pointed back to his participation in the “birther” lie, the incendiary claim that the first Black president, President Obama, had not been born in the U.S.

Harris said Trump can’t be trusted to serve as president after “engaging in…hateful rhetoric that, as usual, is designed to divide us as a country…to have people pointing fingers at each other.”

In this year’s campaign, one of Trump’s regular dog-whistles at his rallies is his false claim that big cities, full of racial minorities and immigrants, are scary places full of crime and failure. Last week he flatly lied at a rally when he said a parent who leaves a child alone on the New York subway has “about a 75 percent chance that [they’ll] never see [their] child again. What the hell has happened here?”

Trump’s use of racism to stir up his white supporters was called out by writer Fran Lebowitz back in 2018. Trump, she wrote, has “allowed people to express their racism and bigotry in a way that they haven’t been able to in quite a while and they really love him for that…It’s a shocking thing to realize people love their hatred more than they care about their own actual lives.”

There are real consequences to all these racist lies. Last week, a Trump-supporting sheriff in Ohio encouraged people to report their neighbors who displayed Harris-Walz lawn signs. This incident called to mind parallels with police in Nazi Germany.

Widening the racial and political divide leads to alarm over possible violence. USA Today recently reported that more than one-third of Republicans who have a favorable view of Trump “say political violence is acceptable.”

According to a new Deseret News-HarrisX poll, 77 percent of U.S. voters say they are “very” or “somewhat” concerned about political violence before Election Day, including 80 percent of Republicans and 82 percent of Democrats.

“We are seeing an unprecedented and extremely disturbing level of threats of violence and violence against public officials,” Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco said last week in a speech.

The 48 percent backing Trump try to move away from his racism by talking about the need for a better economy. But Trump’s main economic plan is to impose tariffs that will drive up prices. He has no plan to improve health care or provide more affordable housing.

It was less than 30 years ago when Bob Dole, the 1996 Republican presidential nominee, stared down racism in the GOP. “If there’s anyone who has mistakenly attached themselves to our party in the belief that we are not open to citizens of every race and religion…,” Dole said at the 1996 convention, “the exits, which are clearly marked, are for you to walk out of as I stand this ground without compromise.”

Where are those Republicans now?

Juan Williams is an author and a political analyst for Fox News Channel.

‘They’re eating pets’ – another example of US politicians smearing Haiti and Haitian immigrants

Ohio Capitol Journal

‘They’re eating pets’ – another example of US politicians smearing Haiti and Haitian immigrants

Nathan Dize – September 19, 2024

Ohio Republican U.S. Sen. JD Vance. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images.)

Republican vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance continues to defend the false claim that migrants in Springfield, Ohio, have been abducting and eating area cats and dogs.

That outlandish idea has been thoroughly debunked since former President Donald Trump repeatedly raised it as an anti-immigrant talking point in the Sept. 12, 2024, presidential debate. Trump never mentioned where the migrants allegedly “eating the pets” came from, but many viewers understood it as a reference to Haitians, a population that Trump has previously degraded.

As debate moderator David Muir stated in his real-time fact check, there is no evidence that any pets in Springfield have been taken or consumedNPR and other media outlets have also declared the rumor, which began with local right-wing advocates and officials in Springfield decrying the city’s disorganized response to an influx of Haitian migrants in recent years, to be false.

The Republican ticket’s untrue rumors about Haitians in Springfield reflects a long history of prejudice toward Haitians in the United States. As a scholar of Haitian history and literature, I have identified three anti-Haitian ideas prevalent in the United States that will help put the Springfield story into context.

The unfitness of Haitians ‘to govern themselves’

In July 1915, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson invaded Haiti under the guise of restoring order and economic stability following the assassination of Haitian President Vilbrun Guillaume Sam.

Five years into what would become a 19-year military occupation, the American diplomat and civil rights leader James Weldon Johnson was sent by the NAACP to investigate the supposed benefits of the occupation. His resounding takeaway: “The United States has failed Haiti.”

In related pieces for The Nation and The Crisis, Johnson chronicled abuses ranging from extra-judicial killings of Haitian citizens – U.S forces killed 15,000 Haitians between 1915 and 1934 – to the harassment and rape of Haitian women. Johnson said the U.S. occupation amounted to nothing more than a belief in the “unfitness of the Haitian people to govern themselves.”

By undermining Haitian sovereignty, Wilson’s administration had successfully created a justification for seizing control of Haitian banks, rewriting its constitution and importing American Jim Crow-style segregation into the capital city of Port-au-Prince. This was a clearly racist presidential administration that hosted White House screenings of D.W. Griffiths’ anti-Black film “Birth of a Nation,” as historian Yveline Alexis demonstrates in her book “Haiti Fights Back: The Life and Legacy of Charlemagne Péralte.”

“Racism,” Alexis writes, “was at the core of the seizure of Haiti and all interactions with Haitians.”

The ‘4H disease’

In June 2017, Trump reportedly “stormed into a meeting” on immigration from Haiti and repeated a slanderous anti-Haitian claim: “They all have AIDS,” he said.

The account, from author Jake Johnston, a senior research associate at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, shows the then-president repeating a falsehood that has circulated since HIV erupted in the 1980s.

Ever since a number of Haitians fell ill while at a Florida immigrant detention center in June 1982, Haitians became part of what the late public health expert Paul Farmer called the “geography of blame” that linked this highly communicable disease to certain places and people.

The federal government turned a small disease cluster into a migration policy designed to keep Haitians out of the U.S.

Betweeen 1981 and 1991, more than 27,000 Haitian asylum-seekers fleeing Jean-Claude Duvalier’s dictatorship were intercepted off the coast of Florida and detained. The vast majority were repatriated, in part because of a deportation agreement with Duvalier and in part because stopping Haitians at sea was a “screening strategy” to prevent HIV/AIDS from spreading in the U.S.

The Reagan administration called the virus the “4H disease,” referring to Haitians, hemophiliacs, homosexuals and heroin users. This designation spread harmful lies about four groups, but Haitians were the only nationality singled out as an “at-risk” population for contracting HIV/AIDS.

By the time the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention removed Haitians from its list of highest-risk groups in 1985, the damage had been done. Haitians in the U.S. were effectively vilified as vectors of a deadly virus.

As a young Haitian man in Port-au-Prince remarked to writer Martha Cooley in 1983, “This 4H thing is just one more way to keep us out.”

Haiti’s problems are homegrown

Haiti’s occupation by foreign forces has continued on and off in different forms since the U.S. invasion of 1915.

United Nations troops were stationed there for nearly two decades following the the 2004 ouster of President Jean Bertrand Aristide. After the devastating 2010 earthquake, they were joined by the Red Cross and Oxfam. As all three organizations have since acknowledged, their humanitarian interventions left numerous crises in their wake, including cholera, chronic corruption in rebuilding projects and a market for sexually exploiting young girls.

Still, Haiti has long faced the accusation that its instability is homegrown. It is widely portrayed in the U.S. as a basket-case nation incapable of managing its own affairs. Trump, as president, once dismissed the entire country as a “shithole.”

At present, Haitians are coping with overlapping crises that have U.S. fingerprints.

After President Jovenel Moïse was assassinated in July 2021, the Biden administration hand-picked Haiti’s interim prime minister, Ariel Henry, as its new leader. This undemocratic decision was such a resounding failure that in March 2024, Haitian gangs revolted against Henry’s administration, unleashing a wave of gruesome violence that ultimately forced Henry out of office.

So many catastrophes in Haiti over the past four decades have created an overwhelming sense of insecurity among its people. Many hundreds of thousands have fled the country for the U.S., Dominican Republic, Brazil and beyond.

In July 2024, the Biden administration granted temporary protected status to 500,000 Haitian migrants in the U.S., allowing them to stay in the country, in recognition of the life-threatening conditions back home.

The people Trump insists are “illegal aliens” are in fact authorized U.S. residents from a country buffeted by American meddling in its politics.

A very old pattern

In barking about cats and dogs in Springfield, Trump, Vance and their right-wing supporters are spreading the same kind of anti-Haitian rhetoric that has sown a harmful distrust of Haitian migrants for over a century.

“This is not the first time that we [Haitians] have been the victims of ‘yon kanpay manti,’” said the Ministry of Haitians Living Abroad in a press release following the debate, using the Haitian Creole phrase for “a campaign of lies.”

The result of such misinformation, it added, is “mistreatment, hatred, and misunderstanding in the interest of politics.”

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

America is a land of immigrants. Stop weaponizing false language about them.

The Oklahoman – Opinion

America is a land of immigrants. Stop weaponizing false language about them.

Alex Seojoon Kim – September 19, 2024

In the recent presidential debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, both sides traded jabs without much regard for the opposition. It made sense, as pulling punches now could spell disaster for the presidential hopefuls. With election day less than two months away, the national stage in Pennsylvania was the perfect opportunity to sway middle ground voters that often determine the result of an election. Yet, in the heat of lax factual statements, one claim made by Trump sparked immense outrage in a large community.

Trump claimed that Haitian immigrants were eating people’s pets, cats and dogs, in Springfield, Ohio. Not only are these comments harmful, but they are insensitive and dangerous. Assuming these stereotypes about immigrants, specifically those of Haitian descent, can be immensely damaging in the face of the plight and challenges these people face.

Springfield, Ohio, is reported to have “approximately 12,000 to 15,000 immigrants” from Haiti in their county. They are “legally [there] as part of a parole program” in the hopes that they can bring family members from Haiti into the United States. And yet Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, have both been targeting this minority community with a lack of reasonable decency behind their claims.

Several reputable leaders from the city, including Springfield’s mayor, police chief and even the state’s governor, have said that these claims are far from true. Troubled by bomb threats at schools since the Trump-Vance pet-eating allegations, at least one with anti-Haitian sentiment, Springfield continues to battle this antilogic.

A cat sits on the porch on a tree-lined street in Springfield, Ohio, Sunday, Sept. 15, 2024. The area has attracted national scrutiny after conservative figures, including former President Donald Trump and his running mate Sen. JD Vance, spread debunked claims that Haitians in the community were stealing and eating people’s pets.
A cat sits on the porch on a tree-lined street in Springfield, Ohio, Sunday, Sept. 15, 2024. The area has attracted national scrutiny after conservative figures, including former President Donald Trump and his running mate Sen. JD Vance, spread debunked claims that Haitians in the community were stealing and eating people’s pets.More

“We do not have any evidence that [this incident] has happened, and I’ve made it known in multiple interviews that this is absolutely not true,” Springfield Mayor Bob Rue said on BBC Newshour, wanting to make clear that “the weight of [politicians’] words … can negatively affect communities.”

Harsh rhetoric is not new in American politics. Immigrants have been falsely accused of bringing a multitude of undesirable ideas and practices into the United States for a long time ― from disease to overpopulation. For centuries, millions flocked from Europe at first, and later Asia, to the United States to escape harsh living conditions and in pursuit of a fair chance of achieving the “American Dream.” Yet nativist ideology spread rapidly through the states time and time again, leading to limitations such as the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the Immigration Act of 1924. Demoralizing language and actions were key in spurring these laws.

Now, both Trump’s and Vance’s incendiary comments about Haitian immigrants seem to be nothing more than a weaponization of rumors for political gain. Similar tactics have been used by politicians in scapegoating other marginalized groups, such as Asians and Hispanics, as well. When prominent figures use their elevated platforms for statements viciously attacking minority groups, it only adds fuel to the fire by instigating hate crimes. Not only are the Haitians in Springfield at risk, but physical and verbal threats can harm all residents in the area.

More: JD Vance repeats baseless claims that Haitians in Ohio are eating pets: What we know

It’s important to remember that immigrants make up an important sector of this country’s workforce and contribute to their local communities. According to news reports, before Haitian immigrants arrived on the scene, Springfield had lost a quarter of its population over the past few decades, a startling decline for a once-booming agricultural economy. Now, Haitians are essential to the workforce, especially at Springfield’s Dole Fresh Vegetables, where they’re “hired to clean and package produce” and to work at automotive machining plants. Their businesses, cultural foods and identities have merged into the Ohio city, transforming it into a bustling place of diversity. And this is the main reason Trump’s and Vance’s threats of deporting these civilians is so detrimental.

A nation founded, in part, on the backs of immigrants should not use improper, falsified accusations as political leverage. This is not only offensive to Haitians but to all immigrants in the United States. The speeches talking about eating pets in Ohio are not just wrong but a sad distraction from more authentic issues at hand, such as the reformation of immigration laws. Empathy must come first to create a nation that includes and values its citizens and residents, regardless of their origin.

Alex Seojoon Kim is a high school student in Stillwater
Alex Seojoon Kim is a high school student in Stillwater

Alex Seojoon Kim is a high school student in Stillwater.

Fact check: 12 completely fictional stories Trump has told in the last month

CNN

Fact check: 12 completely fictional stories Trump has told in the last month

Daniel Dale, CNN – September 19, 2024

Watch Daniel Dale fact-check Trump’s false debate claimsYahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what’s in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.

Former President Donald Trump is littering his public remarks with fictional stories.

This isn’t run-of-the-mill political spin, the kind of statistic-twisting and accomplishment-exaggerating that political candidates of all stripes engage in. Rather, the Republican presidential nominee is telling colorful lies that are completely untethered to reality.

Trump’s inflammatory assertion about immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, whom he baselessly accused at the September presidential debate of eating people’s dogs and cats, has received the most attention. But Trump’s lower-profile recent public appearances, like rallies and interviews, have also featured wholly imaginary tales.

Here are 11 additional examples from the past month alone.

Harris and the military draft

At a rally in Las Vegas last week, Trump claimed his Democratic opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, is talking about forcing Americans to serve in the military: “She’s already talking about bringing back the draft. She wants to bring back the draft, and draft your child, and put them in a war that should never have happened.”

That’s absolute bunk. Harris is not talking at all about bringing back the draft.

Harris’ CNN interview

Trump claimed during a Fox News event in Pennsylvania in early September that Harris “had notes” to assist her during the television interview she did with CNN in late August. He even performed an impression in which he portrayed Harris supposedly looking down at these notes.

She didn’t actually have any notes.

Transgender children and schools

At an event held by a conservative group in late August, Trump claimed that schools are sending children for gender-affirming surgeries without their parents’ knowledge. He said, “The transgender thing is incredible. Think of it. Your kid goes to school and comes home a few days later with an operation. The school decides what’s going to happen with your child.”

Trump’s campaign subsequently made clear to CNN that it could not find a single example of such a thing having happened anywhere in the United States. Parental consent is required for gender-affirming operations; schools have not performed or approved these surgeries for minors behind their parents’ backs.

Even after Trump’s campaign demonstrated that it couldn’t substantiate the story, he repeated it days later at a Wisconsin rally in early September.

Harris and the Russian invasion of Ukraine

Trump told a vivid story on Fox News in late August about how President Joe Biden supposedly sent Harris to negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2022 in an effort to prevent an invasion of Ukraine. Trump claimed Harris was sent “to see Putin in Russia three days before the attack. She went. She said – she gave her case. He attacked three days later. He attacked three days later. He laughed at her. He thought she was a joke.” Trump also told a version of the story at the September debate.

But this story, too, is wholly false.

Biden never sent Harris to negotiate with Putin – in fact, the Kremlin said in July that Harris and Putin have never spoken – and Harris did not travel to Russia just prior to the invasion. Rather, Harris traveled to a conference in Germany to meet with US allies, including Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky.

Harris’ identity

Trump claimed at a convention of Black journalists in late July that Harris used to “only” promote her Indian heritage, then “all of a sudden” made a “turn” and “became a Black person.” Defending the claim, Trump reiterated at the September debate that Harris had “put out” at some point that “she was not Black.”

None of that is true.

Harris – who was raised in a Black community and graduated from a historically Black university – has embraced her Black identity since her youth. While she has also fondly discussed her South Asian heritage, she never “put out” that she wasn’t Black.

Harris’ 2020 primary performance

Trump has repeatedly claimed during the last month that Harris was so unpopular when she previously ran for the presidency, in 2019, that she was the very first candidate to drop out of the crowded Democratic primary. “She was one of 22 people that ran. She was the first one to quit,” he said at a Pennsylvania rally in late August.

Not even close.

In fact, 13 other Democratic candidates dropped out of the race before Harris did – including the sitting or former governors of WashingtonMontana and Colorado; the sitting mayor of New York Cityand sitting or former members of the House of Representatives and Senate.

Opinions of Roe v. Wade

Facing heavy criticism from Harris and others for appointing three of the Supreme Court justices who overturned the Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision in 2022, Trump concocted a tale that this unpopular decision fulfilled the wishes of “everybody” – including “every Democrat.”

“Every Democrat, every Republican, everybody wanted Roe v. Wade terminated and brought back to the states,” Trump said on Fox News in late August.

This is not even remotely accurate.

Roe was consistently supported by a majority of the American public, and it was overwhelmingly popular among Democrats – with 80% support or better among Democrats in many polls.

Elections in California

At a September press conference in California, Trump claimed that “if I ran with an honest vote counter in California I would win California, but the votes are not counted honestly.” He had delivered an even more colorful version of the claim in an interview in late August, saying, “If Jesus came down and was the vote counter, I would win California, okay?”

More rubbish.

The votes are counted honestly in California, as they are in every other state; Trump loses California because it is an overwhelmingly Democratic state that has not chosen a Republican presidential candidate since 1988. He lost the state in 2020, fair and square, by more five million votes and more than 29 percentage points.

A ‘Man of the Year’ award in Michigan

Since 2016, Trump has told a lie that he was named “Man of the Year” in Michigan before he entered politics. Media outlets including CNN have repeatedly noted that Trump never got such an award and that the award doesn’t even appear to exist. But Trump claimed at a Michigan event on Tuesday that he has now been vindicated.

“The press said, ‘Oh, it never happened.’ Well, then it did happen. They found out where it was,” Trump said. “But it was like 15 years ago, a beautiful area, but nobody remembered it; nobody remembered it all. All of a sudden, like through a miracle, they found out it did exist.”

That’s a lie on top of a lie. The media has not discovered proof that Trump got a Michigan Man of the Year award.

His campaign didn’t respond Wednesday to a request to explain what he was talking about.

Migrants, prisons and ‘the Congo’

For months, Trump has told a story about how “the Congo” has deliberately emptied prisons to somehow get its criminals to come to the United States as migrants. “Many prisoners let go from the Congo in Africa, rough prisoners,” he said at an August event in Arizona. At an August rally in Pennsylvania the week after, he said, “In the Congo, in Africa: 22 people deposited into our country. ‘Where do you come from?’ ‘The Congo.’ ‘Where in the Congo?’ ‘Jail.’”

But Trump has presented zero evidence that “the Congo” has actually emptied any prisons for migration purposes. Representatives for the governments of both the Democratic Republic of Congo and the neighboring Republic of Congo have told CNN on the record that the claim is fiction, experts on the two countries say they have seen no evidence it is true, and Trump’s campaign has ignored requests to offer any substantiation.

The jobs revision

After the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics announced in August that its annual revision of jobs data found that the economy added about 818,000 fewer jobs than initially reported for the 12 months ending in March, Trump told a story about how the government had been planning to announce this downward revision “after November 5th,” Election Day, but was forced to do so before the election because of “a whistleblower” – “a patriot leaker.”

Another fabrication. The Bureau of Labor Statistics regularly releases the preliminary revised data in August, and it had disclosed the precise date of this particular data release – August 21 – weeks in advance.

William Beach, a conservative economist who was appointed by Trump to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics, wrote on social media: “For those who think the big revision to the BLS jobs numbers ‘leaked’ and was meant to come out after the election, remember that BLS always announces its draft revisions in August and announced this year’s date, August 21, many months ago. It is important to check your facts.”

What to know about the two waves of deadly explosions that hit Lebanon and Syria

Associated Press

What to know about the two waves of deadly explosions that hit Lebanon and Syria

Wyatte Grantham-Philips, Michael Biesecker, Sarah El Deeb and Sarah Parvini – September 18, 2024

White House tight-lipped about exploding devices in Lebanon

NEW YORK (AP) — Just one day after pagers used by hundreds of members of the militant group Hezbollah exploded, more electronic devices detonated in Lebanon Wednesday in what appeared to be a second wave of sophisticated, deadly attacks that targeted an extraordinary number of people.

Both attacks, which are widely believed to be carried out by Israel, have hiked fears that the two sides’ simmering conflict could escalate into all-out war. This week’s explosions have also deepened concerns about the scope of potentially-compromised devices, particularly after such bombings have killed or injured so many civilians.

Here’s what we know so far.

What happened across these two waves of attacks?

On Tuesday, pagers used by hundreds of Hezbollah members exploded almost simultaneously in parts of Lebanon as well as Syria. The attack killed at least 12 people — including two young children — and wounded thousands more.

An American official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Israel briefed the U.S. on the operation — where small amounts of explosives hidden in the pagers were detonated. The Lebanese government and Iran-backed Hezbollah also blamed Israel for the deadly explosions. The Israeli military, which has a long history of sophisticated operations behind enemy lines, declined to comment.

A day after these deadly explosions, more detonations triggered in Beirut and parts of Lebanon Wednesday — including several blasts heard at a funeral in Beirut for three Hezbollah members and a child killed by Tuesday’s explosions, according to Associated Press journalists at the scene.

At least 20 people were killed and another 450 were wounded, the Health Ministry said, in this apparent second attack.

When speaking to troops on Wednesday, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant made no mention of the explosions of electronic devices, but praised the work of Israel’s army and security agencies and said “we are at the start of a new phase in the war.”

What kinds of devices were used?

A Hezbollah official told the AP that walkie-talkies used by the group exploded on Wednesday. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media. Lebanon’s official news agency also reported that solar energy systems exploded in homes in several areas of Beirut and in southern Lebanon, wounding at least one girl.

While details are still emerging from Wednesday’s attack, the second wave of explosions targeted a country that is still reeling from Tuesday’s pager bombings. That attack appeared to be a complex Israeli operation targeting Hezbollah, but an enormous amount of civilian casualties were also reported, as the detonations occurred wherever members’ pagers happened to be — including homes, cars, grocery stores and cafes.

Hezbollah has used pagers as a way to communicate for years. And more recently, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah warned the group’s members not to carry cellphones, saying they could be used by Israel to track the group’s movements.

Pagers also run on a different wireless network than mobile phones, which usually makes them more resilient in times of emergency. And for a group like Hezbollah, the pagers provided a means to sidestep what’s believed to be intensive Israeli electronic surveillance on mobile phone networks in Lebanon — as pagers’ tech is simpler and carries lower risks for intercepted communications.

Elijah J. Magnier, a Brussels-based veteran and a senior political risk analyst who says he has had conversations with members of Hezbollah and survivors of the attack, said that the newer brand of pagers used in Tuesday’s explosions were procured more than six months ago. How they arrived in Lebanon remains unclear.

Taiwanese company Gold Apollo said Wednesday it had authorized use of its brand on the AR-924 pager model — but that a Budapest, Hungary-based company called BAC Consulting KFT produced and sold the pagers.

Taiwan’s Ministry of Economic Affairs said that it had no records of direct exports of Gold Apollo pagers to Lebanon. And Hungarian government spokesman later added that the pager devices had never been in Hungary, either, noting that BAC had merely acted as an intermediary.

Speculation around the origins of the devices that exploded Wednesday has also emerged. A sales executive at the U.S. subsidiary of Japanese walkie-talkie maker Icom told The Associated Press that the exploded radio devices in Lebanon appear to be a knock-off product and not made by Icom.

“I can guarantee you they were not our products,” said Ray Novak, a senior sales manager for Icom’s amateur radio division, in an interview Wednesday at a trade show in Providence, Rhode Island.

Novak said Icom introduced the V-82 model more than two decades ago and it has long since been discontinued. It was designed for amateur radio operators and for use in social or emergency communications, including by people tracking tornadoes or hurricanes, he said.

What kind of sabotage would cause these devices to explode?

Tuesday’s explosions were most likely the result of supply-chain interference, several experts told The Associated Press — noting that very small explosive devices may have been built into the pagers prior to their delivery to Hezbollah, and then all remotely triggered simultaneously, possibly with a radio signal. That corroborates information shared from the U.S. official.

A former British Army bomb disposal officer explained that an explosive device has five main components: A container, a battery, a triggering device, a detonator and an explosive charge.

“A pager has three of those already,” said the ex-officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he now works as a consultant with clients on the Middle East. “You would only need to add the detonator and the charge.”

This signals involvement of a state actor, said Sean Moorhouse, a former British Army officer and explosive ordinance disposal expert. He added that Israel’s foreign intelligence agency, the Mossad, was the most obvious suspect to have the resources to carry out such an attack. Israel has a long history of carrying out similar operations in the past.

The specifics of Wednesday’s explosions are still uncertain. But reports of more electronic devices exploding may suggest even greater infiltration of boobytrap-like interference in Lebanon’s supply chain. It also deepens concerns around the lack of certainty of who may be holding rigged devices.

How long was this operation ?

It would take a long time to plan an attack of this scale. The exact specifics are still unknown, but experts who spoke with the AP about Tuesday’s explosions shared estimates ranging anywhere between several months to two years.

The sophistication of the attack suggests that the culprit has been collecting intelligence for a long time, explained Nicholas Reese, adjunct instructor at the Center for Global Affairs in New York University’s School of Professional Studies. An attack of this caliber requires building the relationships needed to gain physical access to the pagers before they were sold; developing the technology that would be embedded in the devices; and developing sources who can confirm that the targets were carrying the pagers.

Citing conversations with Hezbollah contacts, Magnier said the group is currently investigating what type of explosives were used in the device, suspecting RDX or PETN, highly explosive materials that can cause significant damage with as little as 3-5 grams. They are also questioning whether the device had a GPS system allowing Israel to track movement of the group members.

N.R. Jenzen-Jones, an expert in military arms who is director of the Australian-based Armament Research Services, added that “such a large-scale operation also raises questions of targeting” — stressing the number of causalities and enormous impact reported so far.

“How can the party initiating the explosive be sure that a target’s child, for example, is not playing with the pager at the time it functions?” he said.

___

Associated Press journalists Johnson Lai in Taipei, Bassem Mroue in Beirut and Matt O’Brien in Providence, Rhode Island contributed to this report.

Scientific American makes presidential endorsement for only the second time in its 179-year history

Independent

Scientific American makes presidential endorsement for only the second time in its 179-year history

Myriam Page – September 18, 2024

Trump v Harris: Watch the highlightsScroll back up to restore default view.Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what’s in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.Generate Key Takeaways

A top science magazine has waded into the political sphere after making a presidential endorsement, only the second in its 179-year history.

“Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment,” read the headline in Scientific American on Monday, announcing the publication’s official support for the Democratic presidential candidate.

Harris is Scientific American’s second presidential endorsement in its history, after the magazine backed President Joe Biden during the 2020 election.

“The US faces two futures,” the editors wrote, pushing one candidate who “offers the country better prospects, relying on science, solid evidence and the willingness to learn from experience.”

They continued: “In the other future, the new president endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence, preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy fantasies.”

Scientific American, which has a global readership of six million, cited Harris’s record as vice president, senator and presidential candidate as reasons for endorsing her.

They acknowledged that Trump, “also has a record – a disastrous one,” during his time in the White House.

The magazine firstly focused on the candidates’ healthcare policies and proposals, in particular, health insurance in its comparison.

Praising the Biden-Harris administration for bolstering the Affordable Care Act (ACA) – which expanded the number of adults eligible for health insurance – the editors noted that while Harris has said she would expand the program, Trump has pledged to repeal it but failed to clarify what he would replace it with.

“I have concepts of a plan,” he said while facing off against Harris during the September 10 presidential debate.

Kamala Harris shakes hands with Donald Trump before the debate on September 10 in Philadelphia (AFP via Getty Images)
Kamala Harris shakes hands with Donald Trump before the debate on September 10 in Philadelphia (AFP via Getty Images)

The article refers to the debate multiple times, seemingly agreeing with many across the political spectrum (including some of Trump’s closest allies) that Harris won.

The article highlights Trump’s baseless claim during the debate that some states allow a person to obtain an abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy, and calling it “execution after birth.”

“No state allows this,” Scientific American clarified. The magazine also emphasized that Trump refused to answer whether he would veto a national abortion ban.

Meanwhile, Harris was hailed as a “staunch supporter of reproductive rights” for vowing to improve access to abortion care and for co-sponsoring a package of bills to reduce rising maternal mortality rates when she was a senator.

Turning to technology, the editors highlighted the CHIPS and Science Act, signed into law by Biden in 2022, which brought more funding to the chip-making industry to boost homegrown production and research.

They said the legislation “invigorates the chipmaking industry and semiconductor research while growing the workforce.”

The magazine claimed that a second Trump administration would “quickly” undo this progress under a conservative framework, Project 2025, that has been set out to guide his potential second term.

“Under the devious and divisive Project 2025 framework, technology safeguards on AI would be overturned,” the editors wrote. “AI influences our criminal justice, labor and health-care systems.

“As is the rightful complaint now, there would be no knowing how these programs are developed, how they are tested or whether they even work.”

The article concludes: “One of two futures will materialize according to our choices in this election.”

The editors closed by underlining their point. “We urge you to vote for Kamala Harris.”

Scientific American is not the only endorsement Harris has won following the debate, with Taylor Swift posting her endorsement on Instagram almost immediately after the showdown.

Debtor Organizing Can Transform Our Individual Financial Struggles Into a Source of Collective Strength

In These Times – Departments

Debtor Organizing Can Transform Our Individual Financial Struggles Into a Source of Collective Strength

Alone, our debt is a liability. Together, it’s our leverage.

J. Patrick Patterson – September 16, 2024

ILLUSTRATION BY KAZIMIR ISKANDER
debt•or pow•er

noun

  1. leverage that springs from an organized association of debtors, often in debt to shared creditors, to negotiate the terms and conditions of debt contracts, including the abolition of unjust debts
  2. the transformation of individual financial struggles into a source of collective strength by waging strategic campaigns of economic disobedience and debt refusal
  3. a tool to build reparative public goods using debt as leverage

Debtor organizing has the potential to bring millions of people who may never have the option of joining a traditional labor union into the struggle for economic justice. —Debt Collective, Can’t Pay, Won’t Pay: The Case for Economic Disobedience and Debt Abolition

Is this a new idea?

Collective debt resistance — if not debtors’ unions — has happened for centuries! Ancient Roman plebeians used strikes, demonstrations and periodic exoduses to win a range of concessions from the aristocratic class, including substantial political rights and the elimination of debt slavery. Today, just as organized renters have leverage over their landlords because they owe the same person, collectively withholding payments (or threatening to!) builds collective power to make demands.

But where does the power come from?

A debtors’ union is a newer concept that is still emerging. Debt Collective is in the throes of this experiment, but the provocation is simple: Just as workers have potential collective power over capital in the form of their employer, and tenants in the form of their landlord, debtors can also wield this kind of collective power when they organize against their creditors.

How can we use it once we build it?

Although debtors’ unions are a new, emerging front in the fight against racial capitalism, their potential holds across many types of debt. 

The millions of people being crushed by medical debt could organize locally to demand hospitals cancel their bills. Or they could start a national medical debt strike to advance the cause of universal healthcare. 

Credit card debtors could rally against usurious lending practices and advocate for a socially productive — as opposed to predatory — system of credit and debt. Student debtors could transform not only the predatory lending that has become synonymous with higher education, but also the landscape of who has access to that higher education in the first place. 

And people with debts in the criminal punishment system could organize to challenge fines, fees and other costs associated with incarceration, demanding the abolition of a system that extracts on so many levels. The possibilities for debt resistance campaigns are practically endless.

This is part of ​“The Big Idea,” a monthly series offering brief introductions to progressive theories, policies, tools and strategies that can help us envision a world beyond capitalism. For recent In These Times coverage of debtor power in action, see, ​“When transit riders refuse to just sit back,” ​“LGBT Workers Need Unions, Not Rainbow Capitalism and ​“What #MeToo Can Teach the Labor Movement.”

J. PATRICK PATTERSON is the Associate Editor at In These Times. He has previously worked as a politics editor, copy editor, fact-checker and reporter. His writing on economic policies and electoral politics has been published in numerous outlets.