A Response to My Father and His Claims About the Merits of the Trump Administration

Just so we can’t be accused of the same kind of irresponsible “alternative facts” that Fox News/Entertainment and the president love to lead with, let’s go ahead and provide sources and evidence for the lack of legitimacy to every single one of your claims in your comment, Dad.

“a great economy:” um… basically, nope. Not even before the pandemic, actually. Wealth inequality was worse than it was in France in 1790 (and we know how that turned out) and the 127 months of sustained economic growth was started, and overwhelmingly more successful during Obama’s administration. That’s 90 months of growth under Obama, and 37 under Trump, and despite the fact that once you adjust for the recovery from 2009-2010 and not counting the time since the beginning of the pandemic, so that similar economic conditions can be compared, Trump’s average growth rate is actually still less than Obama’s (2.31% to 2.17%). So, nope. Not even better than Obama, much less any other president.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-45827430
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2020/02/01/trumps-economic-growth-is-slower-than-obamas-last-3-years/?sh=57c89ab44fed
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth-monthly

“equity in our trading relationships:” um… again, nope. Even before the pandemic, Trump’s best trade deficit performance by month was still more than $36 billion, and that’s during a seriously ill-advised trade war. You know how you win a trade war? You don’t have one. In the history of the world, there isn’t a single example of a country “winning” a trade war without actual war being declared. Everyone loses a trade war. Conservatives are supposed to know that. For comparison, Obama had at least five months that registered trade deficits of less than $35 billion… and the trade deficit currently sits at roughly $67 billion… hmmm… doesn’t look like “equity” to me. On a related note, trade equity isn’t actually a virtue. Any economist worth their salt will tell you that trade specialization, reduced barriers to trade, and trade efficiency (or fair play) are economic virtues… but not equity. Different countries have different strengths, abilities, liabilities, and vulnerabilities, and demanding “equity” without any context is pretty, well, stupid. That being said, it’s still a bullshit claim.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade

“a reversal of 25 yrs of losing manufacturing jobs:” first of all, c’mon… this is a blatantly insane claim. First of all, manufacturing jobs in the United States over the past 25 years have been remarkably stable, with the exception of four major periods of losses, three under Republican presidents and one under Clinton (one quarter of losses that was recovered the very next quarter). Bush’s presidency had a ton of manufacturing job losses from 2001 to 2004 and again from 2007 to 2009. Obama didn't have a single period of significant manufacturing losses, and even the minor losses were always recovered shortly thereafter. But nobody, and it isn't even close, has lost more manufacturing jobs as Trump did earlier this year. Now, of course there have been extenuating circumstances, but that's literally always the case. It's not whether or not you get hit, it's how you take the hit and whether or not you get back up. Trump has chosen to swear on a stack of unread upside-down Bibles that he's never been hit but if he was it's definitely Obama's fault. Maybe the president should stop getting his news from an entertainment channel too.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/manufacturing-payrolls

“control of our borders:” of course this completely depends on how you measure such things, and since you weren't terribly specific (much like the president himself), I'm going to provide my own metrics; let's start with deportations and border wall construction, two major campaign promises of Trump's. Now, I'm not going to go into the economically-asinine aspects of this kind of immigration policy, or the kids in cages which by any reasonable measure should piss us all off. Just the president's priorities and campaign promises of deportations and a border wall. First of all, by virtually any measure, percentage of illegal immigrants removed, total removals, removals per year, really any stat at all, Barack Obama deported more people than any president ever, including Trump. Now, the border wall was originally supposed to be for all 2200 miles of the southern border, but by the 2018 State of the Union address, that had been adjusted to half the border, and by this year's State of the Union, it was 500 miles of new border wall. According to the US Customs and Border Protection, at the beginning of 2017, before Trump took office, there was 654 miles of barrier along the southern border. As of October 6^th, the CBP reported 669 miles of barrier on the southern border. Now, despite the fact that Mexico was supposed to pay for it, Trump has, at times illegally, taken almost $15 billion to fund the border wall ($5 billion from CBP, $6.3 billion from counter-drugs funding, and $3.6 billion from military funding). That's a billion dollars per mile of new barrier. What the? I mean.. what in the actual f&%$*? Okay, it's official. You can't call yourself a fiscal conservative and support this administration. I call bullshit.

https://www.cato.org/blog/deportation-rates-historical-perspective
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46824649

“sanctions against nations with death penalty’s for homosexuality:” This is a matter of context; first of all, the United States has had sanctions against many countries that criminalize homosexuality since the 80s, including Russia, Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Somalia, Algeria, Malaysia, and Indonesia. The sanctions have not always been tied to that issue, but they've existed long before Trump was a political entity. What's more, since announcing the campaign to get the 71 nations of the world where homosexuality is either illegal or de facto illegal, only one, Botswana, has overturned their laws to that effect (which was actually from a court decision that has been ongoing since well before Trump took office, much less the announcement of this initiative). So, the administration actually doesn't have anything at all to show for their efforts. This shouldn't be too surprising really, considering that the Vice President has advocated for many anti-gay pieces of legislation and this administration has rolled back employment, insurance, and even military rights for LGBTQ+ populations. Basically, the claim is bullshit.

https://www.humandignitytrust.org/lgbt-the-law/map-of-criminalisation/
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/acting-intelligence-head-richard-grenell-s-push-decriminalize-homosexuality-has-n1140131

“peace in the Middle East:” HA! Really! Is that what Fox News/Entertainment is actually reporting!?! Ha! Wow... good lord. Okay, let's break this down. Despite the claims of FN/E and the president, ISIS is still a thing, in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. We abandoned our Kurdish allies (many of whom were guarding the ISIS prisoners we'd managed to apprehend to the whims of the Turkish nationalist and strongman Erdogan). Syria is still in shambles, and we've managed to abandon any humanitarian or military efforts to help in favor of bowing to the interests of the Turks, Russians, and Saudis. The Saudis find it perfectly acceptable to assassinate journalists critical of their regime while committing an actual genocide in Yemen. We've abandoned any bargaining position we had with Iran who has now advanced their nuclear program more under three years of Trump than in the past two administrations combined. We've also lost one of our only reasonable bargaining chips with Israel to reign in their more bull-headed impulses when we moved our embassy without getting anything in return for it. And, to top it off, Jordan, Oman, the UAE, Bahrain, Syria, Lebanon, and Turkey now all have stronger ties to Russia and China than the US. If anybody honestly considers any of that a good thing, much less peace, you need to get your head checked.

“strengthened NATO:” This is the only claim that even comes close to being accurate... and it's still kind of bullshit. Trump likes to claim that we should pay less (despite the fact that direct funding is based on each nation's budget and we're the largest economy by an order of magnitude) and that he got the other countries in NATO to contribute an extra $130 billion, even though that pledge was made by NATO during the Obama administration and is an aspect of the indirect funding of NATO, which hasn't actually been realized yet (the pledge was to meet the 2% of GDP on defense spending by 2024). So yeah, NATO is stronger financially than it was when Trump took office, but by no means thanks to Trump. But, at the end of the day, NATO is a defense pact against originally the Warsaw Pact and now, mostly, Russia. And Trump's refusal to stand up to Russia, having to be forced by Congress to institute sanctions on Russia, standing next to Putin and publicly taking his word over that of every other major intelligence organization's findings about Russia's interference in US elections, refusing to even address substantiated reports of Russian bounties on American military men, and basically relinquishing large swaths of the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia to Russian influence and dominance. Yeah, NATO has not benefited in almost any measurable way from the Trump administration.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/10/trumps-nato-parade-false-facts-misstatements/

“policy making power back with elected representatives:” I don't even know what exactly this is in reference to. Is this a “drain the swamp” reference? You get that this is by virtually every measure the most corrupt, least accountable, least transparent, and most extra-judicially, extra-legislatively active administration in over a century, right? Or does Fox News/Entertainment not reported those realities? Well, I'd love to catch you up, but to quote The Princess Bride, “there is too much, let me sum up;” Trump has funneled hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars to his companies that he has refused to divest from, has taken pay-for-play money from multiple foreign governments and dozens of foreign and domestic businesses, and despite your fairly trite “no collusion” claim, that's not actually what the Mueller Report said (it actually showed more than ten actionable crimes that would have been indictable had it not been for the Justice Department's memo about indicting a sitting president). Here, just read these:

https://globalanticorruptionblog.com/2020/10/02/tracking-corruption-and-conflicts-of-interest-in-the-trump-administration-october-2020-update/
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/the-complete-listing-so-far-atrocities-1-954

“lower drug costs:” I love this talking point. Not only is it essentially utter bullshit, but the administration's only real attempt to help the situation was to tie the pricing of what Medicare (that oft-vilified American albeit limited version of universal healthcare, assuming you make it to 65) pays for prescription drugs to the equivalent to what a market sample of countries with actual single-payer systems (those evil socialized medicine hellholes like the UK, Germany, and Canada, lol) pay for said drugs. Not only did it not actually do anything, mostly because it didn't include generics or any safeguards for market variations, but it also seems to completely negate many of the arguments this administration has against a public option for healthcare. At some point the cognitive dissonance is just overwhelming. Not only has the national expenditure on prescription drugs gone up every year of this administration, but so has the national average, as well as the average cost per drug on 18 of the 20 most prescribed drugs in the US. Again, basically, it's a bullshit claim.

https://khn.org/news/state-of-the-union-on-drug-pricing-the-presidents-numbers-are-still-off/

And, last but not least, “the most aggressive public/private partnership to fight the pandemic in my lifetime.” First of all, what the heck does “to fight the pandemic in my lifetime” mean? You are 67 years young, and the pandemic has been around for eight months. What the hell are you talking about? Second of all, 230,000 Americans are dead, largely thanks to an utter lack of centralized coordination, appropriate or consistent messaging, and a dismantling of previously existent agencies, committees and protocols for dealing with epidemics and pandemics. Let me put it this way; when the pandemic started the United States was one of more than 80 countries that limited travel from China. Currently, 170 countries are limiting or completely refusing travel from the United States. Yeah, that's a real success story. And I haven't even gotten into the truly heinous parts, like the fact that we have the president on tape talking about how bad Covid-19 really is when he publicly down-played and outright lied about it for months afterwards, or that he sought to limit any reporting and accountability on the subject by rewarding a no-bid contract to a company his family has financial interests in to compile and limit proliferation of hospital data nationwide, or that he has repeatedly pushed insane treatments that public health officials had to spend precious resources denouncing and debunking, or that he has held dozens of super-spreader events, so much so that counties (including the one you live in) that have hosted Trump rallies have seen a massive spiking trend. Praising this administration's response to the pandemic is either willfully ignorant or a pretty blatant lie. I can't say for sure which is worse.

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-rallies-virus-surges-50e79fabd46472c51ecc1444184082de
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/trump-rallies-covid-spikes.html
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-10-31/super-spreading-trump-rallies-led-to-more-than-700-covid-19-deaths-study

Here's the thing that I can't get my head around; when I was a kid, never were you more pissed at me than when I whined, played the victim, refused to take responsibility for something, didn't see the merit in hard work, or when I lied. Now, you are not only willing to vote for a guy that embodies all of those vices to an extreme extent, but are willing to defend him publicly, ignore the divisive rhetoric, the extra-Constitutional executive actions, and the demolishing of American institutions that have safeguarded this fragile experiment. If these are the reasons that you support this president, fine; you're a victim of propaganda and misinformation. But if you actually know better, as I suspect you might, and you are supporting him anyway... I have no words.

Biden is far from my choice (heck I've been a Republican longer than Trump has), but if you can't see that life for all three of your children and their families would be better in Biden's America than in Trump's, I don't know what to tell you. I hope, at some point, you get it.

Lazy and Xenophobic

I've been heavily criticized for my most recent post (thus the extensive edits) and one such lasting criticism is my "portrayal" of Donald Trump as lazy and xenophobic. So, as is my prerogative, I am going to justify that characterization.

"Xenophobic" is significantly less subjective, so I am going to start with "lazy." How does one lend a bit of objectivity to the definition of laziness? Why not use both the definition of the word and the standards that Donald Trump himself has used in criticisms of others?

Let's start here:

lazy adjective 

1. averse or disinclined to work, activity, or exertion; indolent,
2. causing idleness or indolence,
3. slow-moving; sluggish

Now, to be fair, nobody becomes president by being what the normal person would consider to be lazy. The campaign schedule doesn't come anywhere near allowing such a thing. So, in an effort towards consistency, this is really a comparative study in reference to other modern presidents.

Along those lines, Trump himself has levied countless accusations of presidential laziness at his predecessor, Barack Obama, implying that he didn't work enough, spent too much time caring about sports, and specifically played way too much golf. Trump actually tweeted on 27 separate occasions about Obama's golfing habits between August of 2011 and August 2016. And Obama did play a lot of golf, at least compared to George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. But, not compared to Trump himself.

Obama spent 2922 days in office and played 306 rounds of golf. That's one round of golf every 9.54 days. As of the writing of this, Trump has been in office for 994 days and has played a confirmed 102 rounds of golf, with another 119 trips to golf courses during daylight hours that lasted more than 4 hours (the average time for a round of golf) during which no official work was done or scheduled, but due to the truly unique lack of documentation or accountability of this presidency, whether or not he actually played a round has not been confirmed. Now, one can reasonably argue about the merits of golfing versus just being at a golf course, but either way, the person doing so isn't working at being president. So, I don't think it's unreasonable to count all 221 golf outings considering the issue at hand is ultimately leisure time versus working time. That makes one golf outing every 4.49 days or more than twice as often as Obama. Now, that still wouldn't come anywhere near Woodrow Wilson's estimated 1200 rounds or even Dwight Eisenhower's estimated 800 rounds... but Donald Trump hasn't ever directly commented on either of their relative productivity.

There's also the issue of the cost of leisure time and traveling to the American taxpayer. Donald Trump and the wider right-wing media as a whole routinely misreported or exaggerated the cost of Obama's travels and leisure time. But, according to the conservative group Judicial Watch through documents obtained from the Secret Service, the Air Force, and the GAO (Government Accountability Office), during the eight years of his presidency, the total price tag on Obama's leisure time and traveling was just under $115 million dollars. By comparison, according to the GAO, just Trump's golf outings have already cost the American tax payers roughly $109 million... in less than three years. It's worth noting that much of this cost differential has to do with the types of golf clubs each president frequents. More than 60% of Obama's golf rounds were at military courses and averaged greens fees and cart rentals of roughly $45 per round, money that all goes back to the armed services. 100% of the courses President Trump has played on since taking office are privately owned, and all but two rounds were at his properties. The least expensive greens fees at a Trump golf course are more than $110 per round and the average rate is well over $250 per round, all money that goes back to the Trump Organization and ultimately Donald Trump himself. Now, it's doubtful that the president actually pays greens fees, and if he did they would almost exclusively go back into his own pocket... so it doesn't really matter. But, the federal government does pay for the Secret Service to be on the course, and the golf cart rentals, and the hotel stays of the federal employees. At Trump's Bedminster, New Jersey property alone, just since May 6th of this year, the government has spent more than $95,000 for cart rentals. Additionally, the local governments are responsible for local law enforcement costs associated with each stay; a number that Palm Beach, Florida (the location of Mar-a-Lago) puts at $60,000 per day and Bedminster, New Jersey (population 8,165) puts at $12,000 per day. Much, of this money is reimbursed by federal tax dollars, but not all of it.

So, that's twice the amount of time at golf courses (not including "working holidays" of which Trump has had more than 70 days worth already in office), at a lot more than twice the price... much of it paid back into his pocket from federal coffers.

Another aspect of what might be considered laziness could be productivity. The same person who inspired this post also made a comment about Trump supporters being results-oriented and appreciating his accomplishments.

I know, I laughed too.

But, in the name of thoroughness, let's try to figure out how to objectively judge this president's productivity. Legislatively, Congress really has a lot more to do with those results than a president does. But, a president does make a lot of campaign promises and often times, in order to achieve those promises, or some reasonable facsimile, they have to work with, not against, Congress. So, let's look at Trump's campaign promises:

• Take no salary. (True, but only if you don't consider the countless emoluments, promotions, funneling of government funds to Trump properties, etc... Trump's own heavily edited and incomplete filings have reported earnings upwards of $2.3 billion since announcing his candidacy, so $400,000 per year isn't much of a sacrifice, especially considering his unwillingness to divest himself from his previous holdings the way every other modern president has. So, true, but only in an especially craven way.)
• Enact term limits for Congress. (Nope. Not even any hint of it.)
• Impose the death penalty for cop killers. (Nope.)
• No cuts to Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. (Substantial cuts and shortened timelines for Medicaid funding, cuts to Medicare for those on disability, and higher penalties for alternative payment schedules for Social Security. So... nope.)
• Invest $550 billion in infrastructure. (Nope. Note even with party control of both houses for two years.)
• Hiring freeze for federal employees. (Nope. The State Department has had three periods of hiring freezes, leaving us at less than 13% staffed in our embassies world wide, but the government as a whole hasn't seen any sort of hiring freeze. On a humorous note, Trump has already had twice as many cabinet members - 38 confirmed and 14 more acting - than Obama did in his entire eight years in office.)
• Appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton. (Surprisingly, nope. Although I do find it mildly amusing and troublesome that a candidate would make such a promise, especially considering Secretary Clinton spent more days testifying in front of Congressional committees investigating her or her staff than all Trump administration members have since he took office, combined.)
• Eliminate Common Core. (Nope.)
• Two-for-one on federal regulations; for every new one, two get slashed. (Achieved. Actually, for every new regulation that Trump and his agencies have enacted, they've eliminated more than nine... but it should be noted that this kind of quantification is completely devoid of ethical or value determinations, just numbers.)
• Lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying for foreign governments. (Ha! So, technically, this has been achieved, and violated, and ignored, and probably litigated within a few years. This is another one where the American people got duped a bit by semantics; before he was even sworn in, he'd already hired at least four people who had previously lobbied on behalf of foreign governments, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, and Jeff Sessions. So, let's call this one a wash, unless we also want to get into how the president himself has been soliciting help from foreign governments.)
• Eliminate gun-free zones at schools and military bases. (Nope.)
• Defund Planned Parenthood. (Nope.)
• Achieve energy independence. (Nope. Not yet, despite substantial subsidies for the fossil fuel industries and attempts at hamstringing competition from green energy by eliminating many of those subsidies... still, not yet.)
• Expand mental health programs. (Not yet.)
• Expand national right to carry to all 50 states. (Nope.)
• Open up libel laws. (Nope.)
• Ensure funding for historically black colleges. (Not yet.)
• Cancel global warming payments to the UN and cancel the Paris Climate Agreement. (Sorta, but not really. While he did remove the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement, and has spoken twice now at the UN about the supposed sham of global warming, we are still making the payments because they are authorized by the House, not the president.)
• Renegotiate the Iran Deal. (Nope. He left the Iran Deal, but has not renegotiated anything. On his watch though, Iran has made more advances in nuclear armaments than during the previous two administrations combined, according to the CIA.)
• Build a safe zone for Syrian refugees. (Nope. And really nope considering he has now abandoned the Kurdish SDF to die at the hands of the Turkish military.)
• Close the parts of the internet where ISIS operates. (Nope... not that this is a thing that even can be done.)
• Bring back waterboarding. (Nope.)
• Develop a plan to defeat ISIS in 30 days. (Ha! Nope.)
• Establish a commission on radical Islam. (Nope.)
• Increase the size of the Army to 540,000 soldiers. (Not yet.)
• Rebuild the Marine Corps to 36 battalions. (Not yet.)
• Provide the Air Force with 1200 fighters. (Not yet.)
• Restore the Navy to 350 ships. (Not yet.)
• Reverse China's entry into the WTO. (Nope. In fact, by removing the United States from multiple trade agreements and isolating our trade relationship with China, we have even less influence on China's economy than we did three years ago.)
• Reverse Barack Obama's Cuba policy. (Sorta, but it would be a very big stretch to call it "reversed." Maybe, "abridged," but definitely not "reversed.")
• Guarantee 6-week paid leave. (Nope.)
• Repeal Obamacare. (Nope.)
• Change the vaccination schedule for children. (Thankfully, nope.)
• Allow health insurance across state lines and deduct premiums from taxes. (Nope, and nope.)
• Create HSAs. (Um... this was already a thing, and has been for more than fifteen years, so, technically, nope.)
• Require price transparency from health care providers. (Nope.)
• Administer Medicaid through block grants. (Nope.)
• Allow free access to the drug market. (Nope.)
• Increase veterans' healthcare. (Not yet.)
• Build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. (Ha! So, the president loves to talk about the wall actively being built, especially at rallies, but as usual, the facts are contrary to the rhetoric. Before Trump became president, there was 654 miles of barriers along our southern border. After securing $1.6 billion dollars last year for replacement fencing and taking money from more than 60 congress-appropriated projects, that number is now... 654 miles. Ha! And, after the president's pseudo-renegotiation of NAFTA, Mexico will actually be making more money from the United States than it previously did... just ask the UAW. So, they aren't paying for anything. In short, NOPE.)
• Remove all undocumented immigrants. (Not yet.)
• Ban Muslims from entering the United States. (Attempted, sorta, but nope. Especially not if you're from Saudi Arabia or the U.A.E. and have a lot of money.)
• Cancel all funding of sanctuary cities. (Nope.)
• End birthright citizenship. (Nope.)
• Remove existing Syrian refugees. (Nope.)
• Eliminate the federal debt in 8 years. (Ha! Nope. In fact, it has ballooned more under Trump than any other executive while presiding over a growth economy, ever.)
• Sue his accusers of sexual misconduct. (Nope. Although, that would be fun to watch.)
• Release his tax returns after an audit has been completed. (So, not only has he not done this, but now we know there doesn't appear to have been an audit to begin with, and even if there had been it wouldn't have prevented him from releasing them. And he's fought the release in nine different courts now. So... big NOPE.)
• Not take vacations. (Um... I think we've covered the big NOPE on this one, right?)

Okay, I think you get the point; a few minor Pyrrhic victories, but an overwhelming lack of follow through or results. There are more promises, but I also tried to weed out those that were based in a completely false narrative, or else the failure rate would be even higher. So, is this the result of laziness or incompetence or stupidity. Hmmm...

And, of course, there's the most literal manifestation of the word "lazy," Donald Trump's actual schedule. Axios managed to get their hands on more than three months of the president's real-life schedule, something that we would normally have access to in any other administration (it used to referred to as "the tick-tock," but this administration has refused to document time in any meaningful way, even though some of it is actually legally mandated), but is a rarity for the Trump presidency. On average, well over half of Trump's average day in the White House is occupied with "Executive Time," a term, apparently, that pre-dates his occupation of the White House. According to multiple White House sources, including now three books by former staff members, and former employees of the Trump Organization, "executive time" is when Donald Trump watches television and tweets. To me, that certainly qualifies as "averse or disinclined to work."

Now, to move onto "xenophobic," let's start with the definition:

xenophobic adjective

1. relating to or exhibiting fear or hatred of foreigners, people from different cultures, or strangers,

2. relating to or exhibiting fear or dislike of the customs, dress, etc. of people who are culturally different.

So, how exactly can somebody prove that the president is xenophobic? Well, to be completely honest, you kind of have to be actively ignoring his words and actions to have not already come to that conclusion on your own, but, here's the case anyway.

As I've written before, it turns out, you can prove when someone is xenophobic.

In response to multiple media sources pointing out that the administration's favorite line about immigrants - that they bring crime to the United States - didn't have any real facts to back it up, the Trump administration commissioned a report about refugees and immigration, illegal or otherwise, and the associated crime rates and costs to the country. The report did not read the way they wanted it to; in fact, because it was leaked to the New York Times, we now know that the administration learned that immigrants, and especially refugees have been a net positive to our economy over the past decade, at least as much as $63 billion. But the administration chose to ignore it. White House adviser Stephen Miller even reportedly told the Department of Health and Human Services (the department that issued the original report) that the next report should not include any benefits of immigration, only the costs.

This isn't necessarily proof of xenophobia or racism. It could be that this administration earnestly believes that immigration is bad for the United States, despite its own reports and dozens upon dozens of other studies to the contrary. It could be that this administration earnestly believes that we bear no responsibility for the refugees coming to our borders. The problem is that other actions have proven these generous assumptions inaccurate.

This administration is only concerned about central American immigrants and people coming from "shithole countries," but wants more "from Norway." The Canadian border is more than twice as long as the Mexican border, but the president has only proposed building a wall at our southern border, while actually ending the proposed increased funding to our northern border facilities. Simply put, this administration doesn't like black and brown people that speak different languages and have different customs, especially those coming from other countries.

Last year, the New York Times made a list of Trump's racist statements and actions, and while I don't think all of them are necessarily racist or xenophobic, the vast majority certainly are. Here are a few of my favorites:

• The federal government prosecuted Trump's real-estate company in the 1970s for racist rental practices; giving preferential treatment to whites and avoiding renting to any blacks or Hispanics. The Trumps settled with the Justice Department for an undisclosed amount.
• Trump began his 2016 presidential campaign with a speech that included calling Mexican immigrants criminals and "rapists."
• Before his campaign officially kicked off he proposed a complete ban on Muslims entering the US, including those legal citizens who are Muslim that were out of the country at the time.
• Trump falsely claimed that President Obama "issued a statement for Kwanzaa but failed to do so for Christmas."
• He has offered completely false crime statistics for some of the blackest cities in America, including Washington, DC, Philadelphia, Oakland, and Ferguson, MO.
• While meeting with Navajo World War II veterans, he publicly mocked Senator Elizabeth Warren calling her, "Pocahontas."
• He publicly called a Hispanic Miss Universe, "Miss Housekeeping."

And these are just words, for the most part. This same administration has separated families at the border to be used as political bargaining chips (by their own admission), refused to follow through with disaster relief funds in Puerto Rico (an American territory), and last year started making it possible for asylum seekers to be deported before they are even given a hearing, in direct contradiction of law.

Trump is the grandson, son, and husband of immigrants. But they were all white Europeans. His nativism isn't based on immigration reduction. It's based on blaming people who look different than you, act different than you, and speak different than you for all of your problems in life. It's the politics of xenophobia. Do you know who uses the politics of xenophobia? Someone who's xenophobic.

Donald Trump is lazy and xenophobic, and, at this point, I don't think it's merely a matter of opinion.

An Open Letter to Republicans

It has recently been made clear to me that many of you are worried or concerned or troubled by my many politically-oriented posts over the past few years. I have been told that I have changed. I have been called a liberal and a communist... by people that should know better.

So, let me say this; of course I've changed, we all have and continue to do so. But, I think you all have changed a lot more than I have. Your political preferences bear little to no resemblance to the values that have historically been a part of the Republican party. Let me justify that statement:

• It was a Republican president that created the EPA.
• It was a Republican president that granted the last large-scale immigrant amnesty.
• It was a Republican president that largely created and fostered the international order and understandings that we've lived under for the past 30 years.
• It was a Republican president that warned us against an unchecked executive and an unchecked military-industrial complex.
• It was a Republican president that chose to reach out to the Muslim world after 9/11 and make clear that the U.S. was not waging a religious war against Islam.
• It was a Republican president that championed cap-and-trade to combat pollution and global warming.
• It was a Republican president that guaranteed birth-right citizenship by signing the 14th Amendment.
• It was a Republican president who trusted and utilized the intelligence community in order to win the Cold War.
• It was Republicans in Congress that held a Republican president accountable for his crimes and misdeeds, twice.
• It was Republicans in Congress that passed the Civil Rights Act in cooperation with a Democratic president.
• It has been Republicans who, for most of the past century have championed the free market and open trade agreements.
• And, it was a Republican Senator who said, while working with a Democratic president, that "politics stops at the water's edge."

And yet, I have watched while most of you have chosen to support this administration that has actively worked to dismantle, circumvent, or negate every single one of these precedents, policies, or principles.

I don't understand it.

I'm told by the right-wing media and talking heads that to be a Republican in 2019 I have to be anti-Planned Parenthood if not completely pro-life. I have to subscribe to a single fiscal theory and only that fiscal theory despite a century's worth of evidence to the contrary. I have to fear Muslims, gay people, Mexicans, transgender people, minorities, women, and poor people and thus should support moves to limit their rights and their voices. I have to believe that America was somehow greater in the 1950s than it is today, and then I have to ignore almost everything I know about the 1950s. I have to believe that Antifa and Black Lives Matter are as dangerous or more so than actual Nazis and white nationalists. I have to feign a degree of ignorance of gun violence and always pledge my thoughts and prayers in the aftermath, but never, ever, anything more. I have to believe in grand left-wing, deep state, main stream media conspiracies that exist wholly outside of the realms of rational thought, while simultaneously ignoring the substantial and mounting evidence-based accusations of corruption and abuses. I have to choose to believe "alternative facts" rather than my own eyes and experiences. I have to excuse this president's average of 13 unique lies per day since taking office because the last president lied a few times too. I have to ignore victims, migrants, women, refugees and the brutality with which we deal with them.

Nope. That's not me. I'm not wired that way. I would still put money on the idea that you aren't either. But this administration and their enablers are wired that way. They prove it almost daily.

It's also not enough to erase what I thought I knew to be Republican principles.

Like most people, I was heavily influenced by the most important people in my life when I started figuring out what aspects of the political spectrum made the most sense to me. My parents made it clear that voting was important and a privilege, and in order to fulfill that privilege admirably a citizen needs to be well-informed and engaged in the world around us. CNN was rarely on the television, mostly because of a general disdain for Ted Turner, but the nightly news, especially the McNeil/Lehrer News Hour on PBS was an absolute staple. I can still hear the theme music. I watched as the Berlin wall came down, as election results were announced, as the first Gulf War was fought almost entirely on the television. I read everything put in front of me about the political history of the United States and democracy at large. I saw the innate flaws in political and economic systems that seemed to ignore basic human nature. I idolized (and often continue to do so) Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Goldwater, Buckley, and Reagan. I seem to remember actually trying to convince a friend as a sophomore in high school that they were a Republican too.

I still wish that our leaders and scholars wrote with the style, grace, substance, and grasp of Jefferson and Hamilton. I still idolize and hold dear many of the words of Buckley and Eisenhower. I'm still an advocate for free markets and free trade. I still consider government for government's sake to be antithetical to personal liberties. And, I still consider the Constitution to be the paramount authority in American political and legal life.

But now my principles and my party affiliation are clashing. What's more disturbing is that I'm experiencing quite a bit of cognitive dissonance watching the values that were instilled in me clash with more recent conservative political beliefs.

My siblings and I were taught to tell the truth, be good to your word, be tolerant and understanding as much as possible, stand up for those who may not be able to stand up for themselves, work hard, be educated and informed, and cooperate even with those with whom you disagree in order to achieve a greater good. We were taught to try to be self-sufficient, not wasteful, respectful of authority but assertive when appropriate. The adult world we were prepared for was to be no place for tantrums, bullshit, laziness, and demagoguery.

But, now none of those values seem to matter. I had more of an issue internalizing many of those values than my siblings did, and in my mid-30s I still struggle with it. But I continue to try, and I simply can't quite resolve that effort with the unwavering support I see for this administration that doesn't seem to hold any of the same values. I fear it is rooted in the last but most pervasive and erosive of the aspects of being a Republican in 2019 to which I am told I must adhere: I have to hate the Democrats.

Not just dislike them. Not just distrust them. Not just hold them in disdain or dismiss them. But viscerally, emotionally, irrationally, and intrinsically hate them. They are the enemy. More dangerous apparently than foreign threats that continue to attack us or domestic terrorism that threatens our children. More important apparently than any considerations of morality or even productivity. The Democrats are the enemy. Any idea they advance must be negated. Any value they try to promote must be ridiculed. Any rationale they use must be attacked.

That's just nuts.

History teaches us that every single solely opposition party without a guiding ethos beyond opposition for opposition's sake in every western democracy ever has failed. All of them. Every time.

It seems to me that the GOP became an opposition party while Barack Obama was in office. The problem is that that is all they became. If nothing else, the election and administration of Donald Trump is fairly obvious proof of a distinct and troubling lack of a guiding political ethos.

Republicans are supposed to be for conservative fiscal policies that reduce the debt and the burden on future generations. Apparently not anymore. The only president ever that added more debt than Trump during their first two years in office was Obama ($2.07 trillion vs. $3.46 trillion), but Obama's was at least incurred during the Great Recession, when most economists agree, federal spending should be increased. So, more than any president ever presiding over an already growing economy, Trump has significantly added not only to the national debt, but also sped up the accumulation rate, so the worst is yet to come. That's the kind of irresponsible spending the Democrats are supposed to be guilty of.

Republicans are supposed to be for free markets and free trade. Apparently not anymore. There hasn't been an American president that levied anywhere near the totality of tariffs that Trump has in the last 100 years. William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt were responsible for the largest of the trade wars in our history, but, Trump is a very close third. Economics, especially international trade is based on specialization and innovation and it is absolutely not a zero sum game. That inability to grasp globalized economics and the benefits of free trade are the kind of thing that Democrats are supposed to be guilty of.

Republicans are supposed to be for limited government and a weak executive. Apparently not anymore. The sheer number of executive actions, and executive abuses, from ten counts of obstruction of justice to the whistle blower complaint that this White House is currently extra-judicially refusing to release, as well as the now dozens of unanswered and unresolved subpoenas for records and appearances all add up to a dangerously lawless executive. He has taken the dangerous principles of the unitary executive and combined them with a lifelong dismissal of the rule of law. That's the kind of shortsightedness and power-centric actions that Democrats are supposed to be guilty of.

Republicans are supposed to be for personal liberties, civil discourse, and accountability. Apparently not anymore. Trump is all for his own personal liberties, but not so much those in the military, women, minority voting rights, or human rights in general. Civil discourse is a distant memory with this president. He's done everything from encourage rally-goers to violence to publicly call for a foreign nation to commit acts of cyber warfare against us. And we've already touched on the lack of accountability he's experienced. Those treasonous, amoral, unchecked, hypocritical actions are the kind of things that Democrats are supposed to be guilty of.

Republicans are supposed to be for a strong and consistent foreign policy that leads the free world; a shining light on the hill. Apparently not anymore. Trump is neither a strong negotiator (evidenced by almost every international deal he's made or walked away from; NAFTA 2.0 is barely a 1.1 and is pretty crap for dairy farmers, autoworkers, and any appeals process for settling disagreements; the Paris climate agreement was non-binding, and many of our business leaders are following it anyway, so...; the Iran nuclear deal at the very least prevented Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons... until Trump backed out of it; North Korea has now tested more missiles since Trump took office than during any previous presidency, including those that were eight years long; and cancelling the INF treaty with Russia eliminates any leverage the international community had against... Russia) nor a consistent one (thanks Twitter). He's publicly ridiculed around the world, mostly for his tantrums, ridiculous lies, and inability to comprehend basic truths. Shining we are no longer. He has single-handedly drowned out any international concept of American exceptionalism. That's the kind of thing Democrats are supposed to be guilty of.

Republicans are supposed to be concerned with the economic and fiscal consequences of social policies instead of social engineering through fiscal policies. Apparently not anymore. This White House's own studies have shown that there are net economic gains to be had from immigrants, green jobs, and reducing tariffs... and yet, this administration has actively gone the other direction, not for economic reasons, but for social engineering ones. That's the kind of thing Democrats are supposed to be guilty of.

I'm actually more terrified that I might be wrong. If I am wrong about this, than the new guiding ethos of the party is without integrity, without consistency, without principle, without understanding, without tolerance, and without mercy. I can't or won't imagine that is the case.

Now, there are more nuanced aspects of this too. I am of the belief that immigration reform that makes immigration in all its legal forms more accessible can and should be a conservative priority. I am of the belief that in a nation that spends exponentially more on medical services than any other developed nation that some form of reform of that industry can and should be a conservative priority. I am of the belief that the preservation and advancement of civil liberties can and should be a conservative priority. I am of the belief that accountability, Constitutionality, and the letter of the law can and should be conservative priorities.

So, here's my question; have I changed, or have I simply not abandoned those same principles that prompted me to tell a very well-meaning teacher in the 11th grade who was glorifying Kennedy's idealism that "idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive?" (Buckley)

Why shouldn't we tackle arguably the easiest identifiable industry to help reduce the national debt? That's healthcare. But to listen to Fox News for more than 30 seconds, you'd think there weren't any ideas out there floating around that didn't amount to a socialist takeover of hospitals nationwide. Whatever happened to the marketplace of ideas? Markets reward efficiency, innovation, and productivity. By shutting down the conversation by presenting straw man arguments not actually based in reality, you betray the marketplace and remove half the population from the discussion. Now nothing can get done.

Why shouldn't we encourage the growth of a demographic shown to be more entrepreneurial, more self-sufficient, and more economically-upward-mobile than any other population in our country? Isn't that the basis for the Republican boot-strap ethos? Well, that demographic is immigrants, and even more so, asylum seekers. Immigrants start businesses at a higher frequency than native-born citizens, use fewer federal resources than native-born citizens, their children receive more merit-based scholarships to universities than native-born citizens, and on average have fewer outstanding debts than native-born citizens. Asylum seekers are, economically-speaking, the gold mine of immigrants, they do all of the aforementioned things in even higher percentages. But, by fear-mongering and providing a scapegoat (a wholly-inaccurate one at that) to blue collar America, you can both remove the blame from the familiar and direct their ire towards the foreign... all while shooting ourselves in the foot economically.

Why shouldn't we encourage civil liberties? Isn't the Republican party based on the idea of limiting government? So why are we so focused on reducing people's personal and civil liberties through government; from drug legalization (which from a business and market standpoint should seriously be a Republican party platform item), to same-sex marriage equality, to abortion rights. Why must we make government so pervasive it finds itself in our lungs, uteri, and bedrooms? What's more, I think Jefferson, if he were a statesman of the 21st century, would probably include healthcare in his definition of civil liberties. He put it right in our founding document; "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." "Life," which could easily be construed to mean "health." And, while Jefferson obviously predates the Republican party, and even the Whigs, his ideal of an agrarian society of citizen-scholar-soldiers, each actively participating in the administration and preservation of the republic and in turn taking mortal responsibility for their neighbors while maintaining a stranglehold on the reins of governmental growth seems much more classically GOP than anything else.

Why shouldn't the letter of the law, Constitutionality, and accountability be encouraged? They sure used to be. When I was in high school, one of the primary strikes against the Democrats was their lack of accountability within their own caucus; if a member of leadership was indicted, they weren't even required to step back from the leadership, much less resign. But, the Republicans used to have a hard and fast rule where any wrong-doing, or even significant accusation thereof, was a grounds for removal from leadership positions at least, and usually from office completely. Since the Tom DeLay scandal, this rule has gone out the window, so much so that despite being the party that held Andrew Johnson (a Republican) and Richard Nixon (a Republican) accountable for their misdeeds, either by impeachment or the threat and process of impeachment, we now find ourselves with a Republican president having committed multiple crimes while in office (and seems to continue to do so) exactly one Republican out of more than 250 in Congress has endorsed the idea of impeachment. Apparently he was the only one to read the Mueller Report (and, because it is so often forgotten, Robert Mueller, like the majority of his staff, is a Republican). This president has acted against or spoken out against principles of more than twenty of the twenty-seven amendments to the Constitution, not to mention Articles I, II, III, IV, and VI. Apparently, he hasn't read them either.

I am baffled.

Can it possibly be that so many of my role models who obviously value hard work, integrity, culture, education, ingenuity, kinship, and respect support this president who's actions don't seem to support any of those ideals? I'm trying to think of anyone I've been told to emulate or respect and I can't think of a single one that would have the time of day for a reality tv star like Donald Trump.

So, I maintain, I am a fiscal conservative for the 21st century. I believe in and will promote free markets and free trade because nations don't really go to war with robust trading partners and that is the most reliable way to protect Americans both economically and security-wise. I believe in reducing the national debt so that we don't burden our children with our mistakes, and that the ripest fruit on that reduction tree are industries that bankrupt Americans while receiving tax payer monies and benefits, chief among them, the healthcare/insurance/pharmaceutical industries. I believe in a strong national defense, but that maintaining a standing military with an annual operating budget larger than 178 nations' GDPs might be ultimately counter-productive. I believe in a limited government that does not serve merely as a source of corporate-welfare, but instead as a manifestation of public will. I believe in a weak executive because our national welfare and foreign policy should never be at risk because of the whims of one person. And, I believe learning from our mistakes; a process that requires the acknowledge of the mistake in the first place (and it certainly isn't aided by doubling down and lying about the mistake to better suit one's concocted narrative).

My final question is, why don't you? This president is not a conservative, no matter how you try to dress him up. He's anti-intellectual, xenophobic, narcissistic, incredulous, inconsistent, and lazy... none of these are conservative values. And they certainly don't seem like values that have any place among the people I respect.

Maybe, in the 21st century, Buckley should be turned on his head a bit; maybe ideologies are fine, as long as it's not prohibitively costly that they eventually start to approach reality. The Trumpian ideology still has a long way to go before it gets anywhere near reality. Let's at least hope that the cost isn't our personal values and national morals. Basically, can we please be actual Republicans again?

Editor's Note: At the request of certain subjects of this article, specific details have been changed and/or deleted in the interest of harmony. 

The Special Relationship

Yesterday I found myself in a surreal Facebook exchange.

A friend of mine, someone I considered to be of above average intelligence, refused to accept the reality that Trump was being protested in London to the extent of tens of thousands of people. I gave him video evidence, and he maintained that it was shot and cut to make it look like a lot of people. I gave him legitimate sources such as Reuters and CBS News, and he maintained that the media would have called it huge even if only 20 people showed up. I gave him aerial photos and he simply disappeared.

First things first, Trump wouldn't be the first president to be protested in another country. He might be the first president to be protested in the foreign country of his mother's birth (Scotland), but almost every president since World War II has experienced less than cordial welcoming parties in a variety of countries around the world. So why debate reality on this?

Maybe because it is our closest ally on the planet. Maybe it is because we supposedly have a "special relationship" with the country we waged war upon in order to gain our independence. Maybe it was the sheer number of people in London, and later in Scotland, that protested. Maybe.

But I don't actually think that's it. I think what I am experiencing with many of my friends and family members is the Trumpian faith.

I have stopped using the term Trump-supporter for most of the people who voted for him and continue to espouse their devotion... I mean "support" for him. Any rational person, unless they are racist, misogynistic, nationalists, who love destructive protectionism, trade wars, strong men dictators the world over, and diplomacy not worthy of a second grader, would have ended their "support" of this president by now.

That sounds like hyperbole, but it isn't. Think about it. Here are the most common claims people have made directly to me for their support of this president:

- That he has put America first.

- That he fights for America.

- That he has lowered their taxes.

- That he is making other countries pay their "fair share."

- That he is bringing back jobs.

- That he is good for the economy.

- That a wall is a good idea (no, seriously, smart people have actually said that... I know).

How has he put America first? He has publicly insulted, undermined, delegitimized, or marginalized (in no particular order) African Americans, Mexican Americans, legal immigrants from Haiti or any African country, Chinese Americans, LGTBQ Americans, women, the military, veterans, Democrats, and Native Americans. If you do the math, and there's obviously some overlap there, that's about 93% of the country. If you are going to make the claim that he has put 7% of America first, you might be able to defend that, but not America at large.

How has he fought for America? Did he serve in the military? Has he had any prior experience with civil service? He was elected in an election that included an unprecedented level of foreign interference, and yet instead of working towards preserving our democracy, he has routinely called the investigation a witch hunt and that it is politically motivated (despite the fact that the special prosecutor is a Republican). He has refused to hold the foreign meddlers, in this case, Russia, responsible. He has taken more vacation time in the first eighteen months of his presidency than any president has ever taken for an entire term (at least as far back as we have data). That doesn't sound like "fighting."

Has he actually lowered taxes? Not really, and if so, unless you are a multi-millionaire, it's only temporary. NPR's break down of the non-partisan GAO scoring of the new tax bill states that all tax cuts will actually be tax hikes by 2027 unless you make more than $100k. If you make more than $1 million your tax cut remains relatively large. Any short-term benefits we've seen will be dramatically outweighed in the future. As Americans, we are naturally optimistic and we assume that by that point we'll all be making a lot more money, but history and economics tell us otherwise. Time to own up to it. We've been conned.

Why do we think other countries are taking advantage of us? This is an OLD sales technique; create the need and provide the solution. Politicians have been courting the xenophobic anti-globalization vote on both sides of the aisle for decades, and it's never been an accurate portrayal of the state of our world. Just this past week the president spoke of countries in NATO not holding up their end of the bargain because they weren't spending 2% of their budget on defense. First of all, that was a goal set for 2024, assuming NATO was still engaged in two war zones. Second of all, the 2% goal is a little wonky; Greece is spending more than the 2% goal, but we've never seen Greek forces in Iraq or Afghanistan (all the money is going to building defenses against Turkey, another NATO member), but Denmark is well below the 2% goal, but Danes have been at virtually every military engagement right alongside American troops. So what is the point of the 2% goal? Even the administration that came up with it can't give us a solid answer (that would be Obama, by the way). We are the largest marketplace in the world and as a natural result, there exists significant trade imbalances with many countries. This doesn't mean that countries are taking advantage of us. It means that we buy a lot of stuff. I don't know how to say it more simply than that. And of the countries that actually are dealing in bad faith, such as China and Russia, this president speaks in glowing terms of those leaders, while insulting the leaders of Canada, the UK, France, Germany, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Mexico, and many others, allies all. The global economy is not a zero-sum game, and treating it thus is ignorance run rampant.

How is he bringing back jobs? Has he passed a massive infrastructure bill? Has he brought any foreign investment into the country? Has he done anything to help educate out of work populations for future employment? Nope. He is absolutely laser-focused on coal jobs, and that's a bit absurd. In Kentucky, a state iconically linked to the coal industry, there currently exists more than three solar and wind energy jobs for every coal job this administration has proposed creating. That's not a typo; alternative clean energy sources employ more people in Kentucky than would be employed even if Trump was able to bring all the coal jobs he's proposed back, by a lot. So, why not join the twenty-first century, because his average voter remembers the good old days of coal dynasties, and they're much more easily convinced that it's minorities and Democrats to blame.

How is he good for the economy? Has he provided the stable and predictable investment environment that every economist under the sun agrees is best for our stock markets? Has he put investment back into our workforce, a proven strategy used in the past by both parties? Has he reduced the costs of living such as healthcare, interest rates, or groceries? Nope. In fact, thanks to his trade policies, life is getting a lot more expensive for most Americans. He's easily the least predictable person we've ever had as a president, despite his claims of being "a very stable genius."

And is the wall a good idea? Of course not. Don't be silly. Huge swaths of the border already have a wall or fence or barrier. Most of the rest isn't easily navigated or even passable. It's expensive, ineffective, and an unnecessary and willfully ignorant further militarization of a border we should never have militarized in the first place. And that's not even diving into the completely unreasonable logistics.

So, why do these people actually continue their devotion or support? They must not be rational. I say this because I refuse to believe so many people I know and love are racist, misogynistic, nationalists, that love destructive protectionism, trade wars, strong men dictators the world over, or diplomacy not worthy of a second grader. So, they must be irrational.

The best example of irrational thought for most of recorded history has been religion. Thus, these people must be part of the Trumpian faith.

You can't argue with them. You can't give them contradictory evidence about their savior. You can't try to reason with them. You can't provide proof of his unfitness. You can't... because you can't argue with faith. Trumpians have faith that Trump is here to help them. To be clear, these aren't fans or fanboys. These are devotees.

Even if you were to show them concrete evidence that Trump was using the separated families of refugees and asylum seekers as political bargaining chips, they'd figure out not only how to blame it on almost anyone else, but also how it's the right thing to do (which begs the question of why it must be blamed on someone else to begin with, but now I'm off topic).

The "special relationship" we're witnessing isn't between the United States and the United Kingdom, but instead it is between Trump and his Trumpians. It is irrational, indefensible, and mind-boggling.

Let's hope there's a cure.

Proven

The claim that someone or some institution is racist is usually pretty hard to prove.

How can we definitively prove what someone's motivations are if they are careful about their rhetoric? How can we know what is in someone's heart? Is it simply a matter of eliminating all other motivations? Is it something that we can only know after they stop being careful?

This administration is actually helping to answer these questions. Turns out, you can prove when someone is racist.

Last year, in response to multiple media sources pointing out that the administration's favorite line about immigrants, that they bring crime to the United States, didn't have any real facts to back it up, the Trump administration commissioned a report about immigration, illegal or otherwise, and the associated crime rates and costs to the country. The report did not read the way they wanted it to; in fact, because it was leaked to the New York Times, we now know that the administration learned that immigrants, and especially refugees have been a net positive to our economy over the past decade, at least as much as $63 billion. But the administration chose to ignore it. White House adviser Stephen Miller even reportedly told the Department of Health and Human Services (the department that issued the original report) that the next report should not include any benefits of immigration, only the costs.

This isn't necessarily proof of racism. It could be that this administration earnestly believes that immigration is bad for the United States, despite its own reports and dozens upon dozens of other studies to the contrary. It could be that this administration earnestly believes that we bear no responsibility for the refugees coming to our borders. The problem is that other actions have proven these generous assumptions inaccurate.

This administration is only concerned about central American immigrants and people coming from "shithole countries," but wants more from Norway. The Canadian border is more than 2000 miles longer than the Mexican border, but he's only proposed building a wall at our southern border, while actually ending the proposed increased funding to our northern border facilities. Simply put, this administration doesn't like black and brown people, especially those coming from other countries.

How much proof does a population need that this president and his administration is racist?

Earlier this year, the New York Times made a list of Trump's racist statements, and while I don't think all of them are necessarily racist, the vast majority certainly are. Here are a few of my favorites:

- The federal government successfully prosecuted Trump's real-estate company in the 1970s for racist rental practices; giving preferential treatment to whites and avoiding renting to any blacks or Hispanics.

- Trump began his 2016 presidential campaign with a speech that included calling Mexican immigrants as criminals and "rapists."

- Before his campaign officially kicked off he proposed a complete ban on Muslims entering the US, including those legal citizens who are Muslim that were out of the country at the time.

- Trump falsely claimed that President Obama "issued a statement for Kwanzaa but failed to do so for Christmas."

- He has offered completely false crime statistics for some of the blackest cities in America, including Washington, DC, Philadelphia, Oakland, and Ferguson, MO.

- While meeting with Navajo World War II veterans, he publicly mocked Senator Elizabeth Warren calling her, "Pocahontas."

- He publicly called a Hispanic Miss Universe, "Miss Housekeeping."

And these are just words, for the most part. This same administration has separated families at the border to be used as political bargaining chips, refused to follow through with disaster relief funds in Puerto Rico (an American territory), and just today issued a new policy making it possible for asylum seekers to be deported before they are given a hearing!

Trump is the grandson, son, and husband of immigrants. But they were all white Europeans. His nativism isn't based on immigration reduction. It's based on brown and black immigration reduction. The man is a racist.

Stop apologizing for him. Stop making his racism okay by lauding him for not being "politically correct." Stop calling his language "racially-charged," "racially insensitive, or "racially questionable." They are racist words from a racist president who has created a racist administration.

Just to put this in even starker terms, the last time a president's administration was so overwhelming staffed with white men (to the tune of 71%) was Reagan's first term. That was when I was born. So, in my conscious memory, there hasn't been a less diverse administration, Republican or Democrat.

Our president is a racist. Let's stop normalizing it.

Indecency Exposed

Yesterday my son turned seven months old. He can crawl, climb, cry, coo, scream, smile, sit-up, spit-up, poop, pee, play, and peek-a-boo. He's amazing and everything he does and every facial expression he makes I take pride and pleasure in. I love this little guy more than I thought I could love anything.

And I can't help imagining what I would do (or more appropriately, wouldn't do) if a government official took him from my wife and I.

A Class B Misdemeanor in Texas carries a penalty of up to a $2000 fine and 180 days in prison. This is a list of Class B Misdemeanors here in the Great State of Texas:

Criminal mischief
Criminal trespass
Certain types of terroristic threats
Certain types of assault
Indecent exposure
Prostitution
Graffiti
Theft of property worth more than $20, but less than $500
Possession of up to 4 ounces of marijuana, and
Public intoxication

Now, my parents (not to mention my in-laws) won't be thrilled to read this, but, depending on the definition of "terroristic threats," I've been guilty of all of these crimes, other than prostitution, at one point or another in my widely misspent youth. I have never been arrested for or convicted of any of them, thankfully, but that doesn't change my actual actions.

Another crime that carries similar penalties (the fine, under Title 18, maxes out at $5000 instead of $2000) is "improper entry."

"Improper entry" is defined by 8 U.S. Code § 1325 as: any alien who enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

I'm actually guilty of a similar crime as well, just not in this country. I wasn't arrested or convicted of that either.

Obviously I bring this up because of the atrocities that have been created at our southern border. I say "created" because that's exactly what has happened.

The Trump administration, under the leadership (if you can call it that) of President Donald John Trump, Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, and Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Michele Nielsen has manufactured a scenario through willful misinterpretation of the law and executive policy shifts where the United States of America is aggressively separating children, some still breast-feeding, from their parents at the border. I am using these officials' full names because that is how you address misbehaving children who don't seem to have the capacity to understand their wrongdoings.

Maybe that is being too generous. Maybe they completely understand what they have been doing. If so, they are evil, callous, inhuman monsters.

I'm going to choose to believe that the American people didn't elect monsters. (Whether or not we elected them is a rant for another day.)

This started last year when the Justice Department began to ramp up a "zero-tolerance" policy of criminally prosecuting anyone suspected of improper entry at our southern border. Under the new policy, according to the Attorney General, anyone who crosses "the Southwest border unlawfully, then the Department of Homeland Security will arrest you and the Department of Justice will prosecute you."

In combination of a complete misreading of a law that was a result of an extensive court case known as the Flores settlement, this more aggressive and comprehensive prosecution tactic has resulted in the separation of children from their parents. Here's how their logic works:

- Immigrants, including asylum seekers, are a bad influence on this country and we can't afford to allow them to stay here.
- All border crossings and asylum applications should be prosecuted as improper entries, because those who belong here have nothing to fear from due process and will be released.
- Because of the 1997 law (referenced above) it is illegal to detain juveniles in an immigration facility for more than three days.
- Therefore, while we detain their parents in immigration facilities awaiting their hearings, the children must be removed to facilities legally allowed to house them.
- The Democrats are to blame because the Flores law was signed by President Clinton and this president is only restoring the rule of law to an immigration system that President Obama allowed to violate these statutes.

The real motivation here has nothing to do with border security, lawlessness, or any of the other talking points this administration and its lackeys have promoted as a narrative for this action.

The real motivation is the emotional blackmail of crying children to be used to force Congress to authorize the construction of the president's border wall.

Here are the problems with their logic, just in case they weren't already painfully obvious:

- Immigrants, especially asylum seekers, are a long-term economic positive to this country. And even if they weren't, this country is supposedly founded on the ideal of pluralism and providing a haven for those willing to try to make a new life for themselves and their loved ones.
- Apparently, innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to brown people. I specifically call out the racism inherent here because nobody is attempting to separate families at our northern border.
- The 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement was the result of over a decade of litigation responding to the U.S. government’s detention policy of children. The agreement set national standards regarding the detention, release, and treatment of all children in immigration detention and underscores the principle of family unity. It requires that: 1) Juveniles be released from custody without unnecessary delay, and in order of preference to the following: a parent, legal guardian, adult relative, individual specifically designated by the parent, a child welfare licensed program, or, alternatively when family reunification is not possible, an adult seeking custody deemed appropriate by the responsible government agency; and, 2) Where they cannot be released because of significant public safety or flight risk concerns, juveniles must be held in the least restrictive setting appropriate to age and special needs, generally, in a nonsecure facility licensed by a child welfare entity and separated from unrelated adults and delinquent offenders.
- You can't take people into custody and they claim their children were unaccompanied because you've taken their parents into custody and then turn around with your hands in the air saying there's nothing to be done about it. At least not if you don't want to be shamed out of restaurants.
- You also can't blame your political rivals because YOU changed a policy in YOUR administration and YOUR executive enforcement goes beyond any previous measure and purposefully reads a law inaccurately. I mean, I guess you can, because that's what this administration is doing, but it's incredibly stupid. And the people defending it have imbibed a children's sugary drink embodied by a large anthropomorphized pitcher that enjoys the destruction of structural building elements.to a degree more ridiculous than this description.

The goal has always been the wall. This administration has called this policy a negotiating tool. They've defended it by misquoting the Bible. They've attempted to justify it by saying the children are "just fine." They've tried for a week to put all the blame on the party with virtually no political power in Washington today. And they've done it all to try to get a legislative bill that includes funding for the least responsible use of tax dollars imaginable.

I know this type of rant isn't going to change anyone's mind. But over the course of the past few days in discussions on Facebook, the phone and in person, I've been physically threatened (that doesn't really happen in person too often, as I am 6'2" and 390 lbs.), called a "libtard," called "ignorant" and told by loved ones that if I committed a crime, I wouldn't get to take my son to jail with me.

This country has tried improper entry violations in civil courts for most of the past forty years, and before that, we didn't really prosecute anyone at all for immigration violations. We have militarized the southern border to such an extent that we are barely jarred by the images of children in detention centers crying for their parents, who, as of yet, have been convicted of no crime (as much as people like to call them criminals for crossing an imaginary line in the desert). Children, some no older than my son.

If I committed a violent or serious crime and was imprisoned for it, I shouldn't have rights to my son during my imprisonment. But if I streaked down the street in the middle of the night after having too much to drink and trespassed onto the grounds of the private dorm only a few blocks from here and nakedly spray-painted a giant poop emoji on the wall (because who doesn't think poop is funny), I would have committed at least five Class B Misdemeanors... and nobody would even consider taking our son away from us. If they did, I'd probably make some "terroristic threats" and probably perform a few "types of assault" on the people who tried.

We need to be better than this.