Home Grown Extremists Bigger Threat & Jan 6th Planned

 The charts above are from the new Quinnipiac University Poll -- done between June 17th and 20th of a nationwide sample of 1,524 adults, with a 2.5 point margin of error.

The GOP Is Weak On Terrorism (Because They Vote Republican)

 The Republican Party used to call themselves the party of "law and order". They're going to have to abandon that label, because they are very weak on controlling terrorism. The biggest terrorist threat for the last few years has been from right-wing groups -- especially racist and white supremacist groups. The Republicans have tried to hide that fact, and even after the insurrection by those groups at the Capitol, they don't want to clamp down on those groups. Why? Because those terrorist elements vote Republican, and the GOP doesn't want to alienate any part of their base.

The following is part of an op-ed by Jennifer Rubin in The Washington Post:

The Republican attitude about the attack on the Capitol is entirely at odds with the reality of the threat we face. As the danger of domestic terrorism rises, Senate Republicans are still foot-dragging on the confirmation of Alejandro Mayorkas to be homeland security secretary. . . .

This raises the question: Are Republicans comfortable with the moniker “weak on terror”? It seems so, at least when it is white supremacists who are the terrorists. Given the growing threat of domestic terrorists linked to the Jan. 6 action, Republicans’ indifference toward addressing domestic terrorism and punishing the former president for stoking a violent insurrection is as breathtaking as it is predictable. The Republican Party’s notion of “law and order” seems to have evaporated. . . .

Perhaps their excuse for acquitting the former president is not so much based on the argument that the Senate cannot convict a former president (a flimsy rationale easily rebutted by precedent and the text of the Constitution), but instead on their own aversion to tackling white supremacists. After courting the MAGA crowd, doing their bidding in seeking to overturn the election and taking offense at President Biden’s innocuous comments denouncing white supremacists who attacked the Capitol, perhaps Republicans are nervous that the impeachment trial hits a little too close to home. When Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) raises a fist in solidarity with the Confederate flag-waving, noose-carrying crowd, the problem goes well beyond the former president.

By averting their eyes from the former president who instigated an attempted violent coup, they are “putting themselves on the wrong side of the American people and also of history,” (Senator) Blumenthal says. Even if the Senate cannot convict the ex-president, “There is real virtue in a public trial regardless of the outcome.”

Indeed, one could make the case that it is not simply Trump who should be on trial. The Republican Party as a whole needs to be held responsible for feeding anti-immigrant sentiment, coddling armed white supremacists, perpetrating the Big Lie that the election was stolen and, yes, refusing to hold the instigator of a domestic terrorist attack responsible. They are not simply weak on domestic terrorism; their indifference makes us all less safe.

It's Time To Stop The Domestic Terrorism Of The Far Right

There were warning signs of a growing and dangerous domestic terrorism of the radical tight-wing. Sadly, it was ignored by our federal government. Republicans, knowing that most of those right-wing terrorists were Republican voters, blocked any effort to deal with the growing threat.

And it is a threat to this country -- it's citizens and its democracy. The insurrection by right-wing terrorist Trump supporters at the Capitol on January 6th made that very clear. 

But the insurrection at the Capitol was just the latest in a long line of terrorist activity from the radical right. In the last few years, violence and terrorist acts from home-grown right-wingers was the most significant threat to this country -- a far larger threat that that from foreign terrorists. It is time for the federal government to act to curb this growing threat!

Consider the following, which is part of an op-ed by Colin P. Clarke in The New York Times:

The turbulence of the next several years should not be underestimated. Record-setting firearms sales, looming economic calamity and the continued fraying of America’s social fabric — exacerbated by declining mental health, rising domestic violence and worsening substance abuse during the pandemic — make for a worrying combination. . . .

Domestic far-right extremism is poised to become a more diverse phenomenon in 2021, bringing together white supremacists marching in crowds alongside conspiracy theorists, militias and other extremists motivated by gun culture and a deep hatred of government. With Mr. Trump no longer in office, a portion of his supporters are vulnerable to recruitment into more extreme networks and, potentially, white-supremacist and neo-Nazi organizations. These groups are energized and confident in their ability to co-opt militant Trumpists.

As a result, a larger segment of the far right could come to engage in racially and ethnically motivated violence. After the inauguration on Jan. 20, QAnon followers were apoplectic, with one lamenting, “We all just got played.” Sensing the disillusionment, white supremacists pounced, reaching out to disaffected QAnon adherents and urging one another to “heighten their burning hatred of injustice” to build rapport and accelerate the grooming process.

The Biden administration on Friday announced an initiative aimed at overhauling the government’s approach to domestic terrorism. It ordered intelligence agencies to conduct a comprehensive threat assessment of domestic violent extremism, and develop the capability to counter extremism and disrupt extremist networks in coordination with federal departments overseeing evolving terrorism threats.

It’s a step in the right direction. The administration should look to pass a bill similar to the now pending Transnational White Supremacist Extremism Review Act that seeks to direct the intelligence community to develop and disseminate a threat assessment on violent white-supremacist groups operating overseas, some of which may have connections to U.S.-based extremists. . . .

Lawmakers should also make domestic terrorism a federal crime. There are valid concerns about a domestic terrorism statute, including issues of free speech and assembly, and also the potential for abuse — corrupt politicians could use domestic terrorism designations against perceived political enemies. Transparency and oversight must be essential components of any new legislation.

Designating domestic terrorism as a federal crime would provide federal departments and agencies with more tools and resources to combat the threat. It would make reporting requirements for bias-motivated and hate crimes mandatory, which would provide more comprehensive data about incidents that may upon closer examination be racially or ethnically motivated. Further, it would allow federal agencies to disrupt extremist networks by investigating ancillary crimes like providing material support.

The Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va., in August 2017 should have been the alarm for this country to understand the sense of urgency needed to address the threat from an emboldened far right. It wasn’t. Attacks in Pittsburgh in 2018 and El Paso in 2019, and the plot to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan last year were all missed opportunities to take the threat seriously.

The failure to do so were signposts leading to the siege of the Capitol, an event that could catalyze an age of domestic far-right extremism.

DHS Report - White Supremacists Worst Terrorist Threat

 

Who poses the greatest danger to the United States and its citizens? Donald Trump wants you to believe that it is muslim extremists and antifa (anti-fascists). He is wrong. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has just released a report -- and they name white supremacists as the "most persistent and lethal threat to the homeland".

I understand why Trump doesn't want Americans to know that. Those violent white supremacists are rabid supporters of Trump, and Trump is loathe to call out any of his voters -- no matter how dangerous they are to the nation. He called them good people after Charlottesville, and again refused to condemn them in the first presidential debate. And he tried to keep the Department of Homeland Security from issuing its report. Fortunately, the report was released anyway.

Here is how The New York Times is reporting the release of the DHS report:

The Department of Homeland Security warned on Tuesday that violent white supremacy was the “most persistent and lethal threat in the homeland” in an annual assessment that a former intelligence chief had accused the agency of withholding in deference to President Trump.

The intelligence chief-turned-whistle-blower last month accused the department of blocking the report and directing analysts to play down the threat of violent white racism as well as Russian election interference to align the agency’s message with the president’s. But the final report appeared to do no such thing.

The threat assessment highlighted white supremacists as the most deadly among domestic terrorists in recent years and Russia as the primary threat to spreading disinformation.

“I am particularly concerned about white supremacist violent extremists who have been exceptionally lethal in their abhorrent, targeted attacks in recent years,” Chad F. Wolf, the acting secretary of homeland security, wrote in the foreward to the assessment. The threat report also stated that “Russia is the likely primary covert influence actor and purveyor of disinformation and misinformation within the homeland.”

Does Iran Pose A Terrorist Threat To The United States

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

White House Is Lying About Terrorists Caught At Border

(This caricature of White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders is by DonkeyHotey.)

The government shutdown has entered its third week. It is because Donald Trump refuses to accept any budget that does not include at least $5 billion to start building a wall between the United States and Mexico.

Most Americans don't want the wall built -- especially because it will be paid for by American taxpayers (and not by Mexico, as Trump had repeatedly promised). This is compounded by most Americans blame Trump and the Republicans for the shutdown, which they don't think is necessary.

What is the response of the Trump administration? They have resorted to their favorite tactic -- lying. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, in an obvious effort to try to scare the public into agreeing with Trump, claims that about 4,000 terrorists have been caught at the Southern border. The problem with that is that it is simply not true. In fact, there is no evidence that even a single terrorist has been arrested trying to enter this country by crossing the border with Mexico.

Here is how Julia Ainsley at NBC News describes the reality:

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said Friday that Customs and Border Protection picked up nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists last year "that came across our southern border."

But in fact, the figure she seems to be citing is based on 2017 data, not 2018, and refers to stops made by Department of Homeland Security across the globe, mainly at airports.

In fiscal 2017, the latest year for which data is available, according to agency data and the White House's own briefing sheet, the Department of Homeland Security prevented nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists from "traveling to or entering the United States."

According to Justice Department public records and two former counterterrorism officials, no immigrant has been arrested at the southwest border on terrorism charges in recent years.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment about Sanders' statement.

Ahead of President Donald Trump's meeting Friday afternoon with Congressional leaders to negotiate the end of the government shutdown, the White House issued briefing materials that stated "3,775 known or suspected terrorists [were] prevented from traveling or entering the U.S. by DHS" in fiscal year 2017. Nowhere did the briefing materials state the known or suspected terrorists were stopped at the southern border.

Ned Price, who served on President Barack Obama's National Security Council, said many of those 3,775 were stopped simply because their name matches that of someone on a terrorist watch list, which have grown in recent years, and not because they pose a threat.

Bomber Arrested (& As Expected Was A Trump Supporter)

 (The photos in this post are from NBC News. The top image shows the decals on the bomber's van. At left is a prior booking photo of the bomber (56 year-old Cesar Sayoc, Jr.)

The MAGA-bomber has been arrested. It turns out to be Cesar Sayoc, Jr. of Florida. He has a prior criminal record, but that is not why he sent the bombs. He did that because he was a Trump supporter (note the decals on his van), and evidently, was trying to please his favorite demagogue -- Donald Trump. He is a registered Republican.

In the last couple of days, right-wingers have floated conspiracy theories saying the bombs were sent by Democrats (or leftists) to defame Trump. That has now been exposed as a ridiculous lie.

Trump himself spoke after the arrest. He said the bomber would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law (even though he has nothing to do with how the bomber will be charged or prosecuted). He also called for unity among U.S. citizens -- completely ignoring his own efforts to divide the nation.

I wish I could say this is over, and Trump's critics are now safe -- but that is probably not the case. As long as Trump continues to demonize his political opponents, they will be in danger. Too many right-wing terrorists exist in this country -- people like Sayoc, who may try to please Trump with violent acts. And the next one may be more competent that this bomber was.

Trump has poisoned the politics in this country, and he has made the country a much more dangerous place.

(This graphic is from CNN.)

NOTE -- A 13th package has been found in Sacramento -- addressed to Senator Kamala Harris.

Trump Is Misleading Americans About Islamic Terrorism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump Budget Will Kill More People Than All Terrorist Attacks

(Photo is by Jim Lo Scalzo at Getty Images.)

The following post is from Hunter at Daily Kos:

Meals on Wheels. How far do you have to get down the scale of ideological depravity before your pen lands on Meals on Wheels as the thing you need to get rid of to buy those last two more Tomahawk cruise missiles that will finally make America a super-duper-dominant world power again.

That's only one part of the Trump budget that directly targets the poorest Americans, of course. It also cuts home heating assistance, so those same seniors will have a chance to freeze to death before starving. It takes an axe to EPA efforts to clean up pollution, which will have a disproportionate effect on the air and water of those neighborhoods surrounding those worst polluters. While that will likely result in an uptick in everything from childhood asthma to cancer, the Trump budget also slashes medical research funding in an apparent effort to ensure nobody does too much about it. And anyone so bold as to rise out of the new Trump-enforced poverty will get preemptively kneecapped by Trump's nixing of job training efforts.

It is a budget that targets, with precision, poor, sick and elderly Americans and cuts help to them in ways seemingly designed to kill them more rapidly than the current budget allows. It comes precariously close to a eugenics-premised approach. And all of it is lumped onto a repeal of healthcare reform that will even by itself result in the deaths of nearly 17,000 Americans during the next midterm election year alone.

All added up, it's not even close. The Republican budget plans will kill more Americans per year than have been killed by Radical Islamic Terrorism from 9/11 onward. The plans are likely to kill more Americans per quarter than have died from al Qaeda or ISIS-inspired terrorist attacks in the last 20 years, in fact.

Are we vetting for this? Are there restrictions on where Paul Ryan can travel? We are refusing to allow refugees fleeing ISIS violence to come to our shores, despite no evidence of any substantive threat from those refugees whatsoever, but House Republicans remain free to come and go as they please.

It's a bit odd, is all I'm saying. The Trump and Ryan proposals will by themselves kill off thousands of Americans, because that's what stripping health insurance, environmental protections, medical research, heating, anti-poverty programs and food itself from poor Americans does—we can quarrel about how many thousands, but not whether there will be deaths—and there are no pundits on our television screens warning us of the dangers posed by radical Republican extremism.

Opposing Donald Trump's Immigration Ban

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

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

Clinton's Statement On The Istanbul Airport Bombings

(Photo of Istanbul Airport bombing is from cnn.com.)

This is the statement released by Hillary Clinton in reaction to the bombings in Istanbul:

House Democrats "Sit" To Stop Gun Deaths Of Americans

(This photo of House Democrats sitting on the House floor is from cnn.com.)

Like their GOP colleagues in the Senate, House Republicans have demonstrated that they care more for the profit of gun manufacturers than the lives of their fellow Americans. They continue to spit in the face of about 85% of the public, who want universal background checks on all gun purchases and who want those on the terrorist watch list and no-fly list to be banned from purchasing guns.

Those Republican congresspeople say they are protecting the Second Amendment and the right of citizens to own a gun. That is a LIE! neither universal background checks nor banning terrorists from buying a gun violates the Second Amendment -- and neither would bar law-abiding Americans from purchasing or owning a firearm. They would simply keep terrorists and criminals from legally buying a gun.

But the House Republican leadership have refused to even bring those bills to the House floor for a vote. They don't want to have to explain to their constituents why they voted to allow terrorists and criminals to continue buying guns legally.

House Democrats have had enough of this GOP refusal to take any action on gun violence. Led by civil rights activist and American hero Rep. John Lewis, House Democrats staged a sit-in on the floor of the House of Representatives -- and they have vowed to maintain that sit-in until the House leadership allows a vote on the gun bills.

Speaker Ryan was embarrassed by the sit-in, and did his best to quell the sit-in. He even ordered the microphones and cameras to be shut off in an effort to keep the American people from witnessing what was happening in the House through C-SPAN. His efforts failed. C-SPAN (to their credit) broadcast a feed of the sit-in from Rep. Scott Peters (using the Periscope app), and when they app starting to freeze due to so many people watching, they switched to a live feed from Facebook by Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas). C-SPAN is to be commended for bringing Americans this newsworthy event over the objections of the House GOP leadership.

And the House Democrats are to be commended for their actions to protect the lives and safety of their fellow Americans (and so are the Democratic senators who joined them in the sit-in). They all make me very proud to be a Democrat.

GOP Senators Vote To Let Terrorists/Criminals Buy Guns

(The cartoon image above is by Paul Fell at paulfellcartoons.com.)

After the filibuster by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut) last week, senate Republicans relented and allowed a vote yesterday on two Democratic amendments. Those amendments would have added those on the terrorist watch list and on the no-fly list to be added to those who could not pass a background check to buy a gun, and would have closed the huge loopholes in the background check law. But that did not mean those Republicans had changed their minds.

They voted down both of those amendments on a party-line vote. That means about 40% of all gun sales each year in this country will continue to be done without a background check. It also means that any terrorist or criminal can legally buy any kind of weapon they want (including assault weapons) with having to submit to a background check (simply by going to a gun show, buying from a private individual, or buying through the internet). It also means the mass shootings will continue, and over 30,000 Americans will continue to die each year from being shot with a gun.

Two Republican amendments were also voted on, but couldn't pass the 60 vote requirement. That's good, because those amendments would have actually weakened the background check law by requiring a court to issue a probable cause finding to deny a gun purchase.

The Republicans like to mouth their concern over the mass shootings, and their desire to prevent terrorists from buying guns -- but their votes yesterday show just the opposite. They voted to continue allowing anyone to legally buy a gun, and to ignore the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans. They still believe that the profits of gun manufacturers are more important than the lives of their fellow citizens.

Will The GOP Protect The Right Of Terrorists To Buy Guns ?

The photo above is of Senator Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut) as he pulled off a real filibuster in the Senate. He did it when it became obvious that the Republicans were going to do nothing in the wake of the Orlando shooting (other than offer pious words, prayers, and moments of silence). They were going to ignore the needed changes to our gun laws -- just like they did after Aurora, Newtown, San Bernardino, and other tragic mass shootings.

The GOP inaction was too much for Murphy to endure, so he held a surprise filibuster -- holding the floor and talking for about 15 hours (without sitting down or taking a bathroom break). He made it clear that he would do his best to block the Senate from doing anything until they addressed the gun issue. He did have a some help from most of his Democratic colleagues (and even a couple of Republicans in tight re-election races this year). They all asked extremely long-winded questions to give Murphy a break from having to talk. Murphy's biggest supporter in the filibuster was Senator Cory Booker (D-New Jersey), who also stood the entire time the filibuster was happening and stayed on the Senate floor.

While the filibuster was happening, Senator Cornyn (R-Texas) tried to work out a compromise with the Democrats -- a compromise that would outlaw those on a terrorist watch list from buying a gun, but would not plug the loopholes in the background check law. In other words, any terrorist (or criminal) could still buy a gun from an individual, a gun show, or on the internet without going through any kind of background check. That's not a solution -- it's just political posturing.

Murphy ended his filibuster about 2am Thursday morning, after being told the Senate would vote on his (and Senator Feinstein's) amendments -- the two amendments that would keep anyone on a terrorist watch list (or a "no fly" list) from buying a gun, and would close the loopholes in the background check law. That sounded like victory. The Republicans would be forced to hold a public vote on these issues -- with an election coming up.

But it now looks like the GOP has found a way to weasel out. They will be having votes on four amendments -- the two Democratic amendments, and two Republican amendments (which would probably sound like the Democratic amendments while ripping the heart out of them).

I doubt that any of the amendments will be passed, but if any are, it will be the worthless GOP amendments. The Republicans don't want anything to change. They, and their buddies at the NRA, like the idea that terrorists and criminals can legally buy any kind of gun they want -- and they will act to protect the profit margins of gun manufacturers, regardless of how many innocent Americans that kills.

President Obama Schools Trump On "Magic" Words

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has repeatedly said that one of the main reasons we aren't defeating ISIS is because President Obama won't use the phrase "radical islamic terrorists". It is a stupid idea to think there are some magic words that will defeat ISIS, but Trump crowds love the idea (proving they are not very bright).

President Obama addressed this stupidity on Tuesday afternoon. Here is the part of his speech on ISIS where he denounces Trump's insane idea:

For a while now, the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize this administration and me for not using the phrase “radical Islam.”  That’s the key, they tell us -- we can’t beat ISIL unless we call them “radical Islamists.”  What exactly would using this label accomplish?  What exactly would it change?  Would it make ISIL less committed to trying to kill Americans?  Would it bring in more allies?  Is there a military strategy that is served by this?  The answer is none of the above.  Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.  This is a political distraction.  Since before I was President, I’ve been clear about how extremist groups have perverted Islam to justify terrorism.  As President, I have repeatedly called on our Muslim friends and allies at home and around the world to work with us to reject this twisted interpretation of one of the world’s great religions.

There has not been a moment in my seven and a half years as President where we have not been able to pursue a strategy because we didn’t use the label "radical Islam."  Not once has an advisor of mine said, man, if we really use that phrase, we're going to turn this whole thing around.  Not once.  So if someone seriously thinks that we don’t know who we're fighting, if there's anyone out there who thinks we're confused about who our enemies are, that would come as a surprise to the thousands of terrorists who we've taken off the battlefield. 

If the implication is that those of us up here and the thousands of people around the country and around the world who are working to defeat ISIL aren't taking the fight seriously, that would come as a surprise to those who have spent these last seven and a half years dismantling al Qaeda in the FATA, for example -- including the men and women in uniform who put their lives at risk and the Special Forces that I ordered to get bin Laden and are now on the ground in Iraq and in Syria.  They know full well who the enemy is.  So do the intelligence and law enforcement officers who spend countless hours disrupting plots and protecting all Americans, including politicians who tweet and appear on cable news shows.  They know who the nature of the enemy is.

So there’s no magic to the phrase “radical Islam.”  It’s a political talking point; it's not a strategy.  And the reason I am careful about how I describe this threat has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with actually defeating extremism.  Groups like ISIL and al Qaeda want to make this war a war between Islam and America, or between Islam and the West.  They want to claim that they are the true leaders of over a billion Muslims around the world who reject their crazy notions.  They want us to validate them by implying that they speak for those billion-plus people; that they speak for Islam.  That’s their propaganda.  That's how they recruit.  And if we fall into the trap of painting all Muslims with a broad brush and imply that we are at war with an entire religion -- then we’re doing the terrorists' work for them.

Now, up until this point, this argument about labels has mostly just been partisan rhetoric.  And, sadly, we've all become accustomed to that kind of partisanship, even when it involves the fight against these extremist groups.  And that kind of yapping has not prevented folks across government from doing their jobs, from sacrificing and working really hard to protect the American people. 

But we are now seeing how dangerous this kind of mindset and this kind of thinking can be.  We're starting to see where this kind of rhetoric and loose talk and sloppiness about who exactly we're fighting, where this can lead us.  We now have proposals from the presumptive Republican nominee for President of the United States to bar all Muslims from emigrating to America.  We hear language that singles out immigrants and suggests that entire religious communities are complicit in violence.  Where does this stop?  The Orlando killer, one of the San Bernardino killers, the Fort Hood killer -- they were all U.S. citizens. 

Are we going to start treating all Muslim Americans differently?  Are we going to start subjecting them to special surveillance?  Are we going to start discriminating against them because of their faith?  We’ve heard these suggestions during the course of this campaign.  Do Republican officials actually agree with this?  Because that's not the America we want.  It doesn't reflect our democratic ideals.  It won’t make us more safe; it will make us less safe -- fueling ISIL’s notion that the West hates Muslims, making young Muslims in this country and around the world feel like no matter what they do, they're going to be under suspicion and under attack.  It makes Muslim Americans feel like they're government is betraying them.  It betrays the very values America stands for. 

We've gone through moments in our history before when we acted out of fear -- and we came to regret it.  We've seen our government mistreat our fellow citizens.  And it has been a shameful part of our history. 

This is a country founded on basic freedoms, including freedom of religion.  We don't have religious tests here.  Our Founders, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights are clear about that.  And if we ever abandon those values, we would not only make it a lot easier to radicalize people here and around the world, but we would have betrayed the very things we are trying to protect -- the pluralism and the openness, our rule of law, our civil liberties -- the very things that make this country great; the very things that make us exceptional.  And then the terrorists would have won.  And we cannot let that happen.  I will not let that happen.

The Two-Faced Attitude Of Republicans On Terrorists

(This image of a gun show is from WFTV.com.)

Since the terrorist attack on innocent citizens in Paris, the Republican officials have been beating the drums loudly on the danger of terrorism in the United States. They have even gone so far as to try and keep Syrian refugees out of this country -- even though those refugees are largely women and children, and would be thoroughly vetted in a two-year process by the FBI, the State Department, and the Department of Homeland Security. They want Americans to believe it would be dangerous to let those refugees in (even though the refugees are fleeing from the terrorists).

But the Republicans are just playing a political game. If they were serious about protecting Americans, they would take action to keep the terrorists already in this country (and those who will come here) from easily buying firearms (and all the ammunition they desire). But they haven't done that. In fact, they have actively stopped that from being done.

It is just a fact that 40% of all the guns bought each year in this country are bought without any kind of background check being done. That's because there are some huge loopholes in our background check law for gun buyers. Anyone in this country (including psychotics diagnosed as dangerous to others, violent criminals, and terrorists) can buy a gun using these loopholes -- and that purchase would be legal (if it was done at a gun show, through the mail or off the internet, or from an individual).

And that would include those on this country's terrorist watch list. Those on that watch list could not fly in a commercial airplane (even after being thoroughly searched), but they would have no problem at all purchasing any kind of firearm (and ammunition) that they desire -- including assault weapons.

It makes no sense to deny thoroughly-vetted refugees from entering this country because of a fear of terrorism, but then to allow terrorists to legally purchase their tools of terrorism in this country. But that's the position of Republican officials.

If they truly wanted to prevent terrorist deaths in this country, they would go along with the wishes of about 90% of the American public and close the huge loopholes in the background check law. Doing so would save the lives of many Americans each year -- both from terrorists and other violent miscreants.

They won't do that though. They are just playing a political game with the refugees, and are getting too much money from the NRA to do anything that would actually help save lives. They are hypocrites.

GOP Uses The Politics Of Fear (And Ignores The Facts)

(This image is from the flickr page of user EN2008.)

The Republican candidates for president, and their elected cohorts in Congress, have been quick to jump on the tragedy in Paris and try to turn it to their own benefit. This is nothing new. They know their domestic policies, especially their economic policy (trickle-down) has failed, so they are using the politics of fear to enhance their electoral chances. They believe if they can scare the American voters enough, and convince them that their party will provide a safer country, then they can win the next election -- in spite of the fact that their domestic policies have nearly destroyed our economy (and they have no intention of changing them, since they benefit their rich buddies).

Terrorism is a real issue, but not as the Republicans would have us believe. They want Americans to believe that the only terrorist threat we face is from radical muslims. This is not new either. For the last decade and a half, the GOP has gone out of their way to demonize muslims and paint their religion as violent. The problem is that ignores the facts about terrorism in the United States.

The truth is that a significant majority of terrorism in the U.S. is not carried out by muslims, but by right-wing extremists (most of which claim to be christian and patriotic). These groups (militia's, white supremacists, soveriegnists, etc.) pose a significantly greater threat to the safety of Americans. But the Republicans don't want you to know that -- and have gone so far as to have that threat removed from government reports. They don't want you to know it because those extremists are in their own base.

This shows their scare tactics are purely political. If they truly worried about terrorism in this country, then they would be talking about all of the terrorism -- including the threat posed by the ultra-right-wingers. But that would anger some in their own party's base, and they don't want that. Their tactic is to win votes through fear -- not expose the extremists in their own party.

Here are the real facts on terrorism in the United States (from a June 2015 article in the New York Times). I post here a part of that article:

If you keep up with the news, you know that a small but steady stream of American Muslims, radicalized by overseas extremists, are engaging in violence here in the United States.

But headlines can mislead. The main terrorist threat in the United States is not from violent Muslim extremists, but from right-wing extremists. Just ask the police.

In a survey we conducted with the Police Executive Research Forum last year of 382 law enforcement agencies, 74 percent reported anti-government extremism as one of the top three terrorist threats in their jurisdiction; 39 percent listed extremism connected with Al Qaeda or like-minded terrorist organizations. And only 3 percent identified the threat from Muslim extremists as severe, compared with 7 percent for anti-government and other forms of extremism. . . .

Despite public anxiety about extremists inspired by Al Qaeda and the Islamic State, the number of violent plots by such individuals has remained very low. Since 9/11, an average of nine American Muslims per year have been involved in an average of six terrorism-related plots against targets in the United States. Most were disrupted, but the 20 plots that were carried out accounted for 50 fatalities over the past 13 and a half years.

In contrast, right-wing extremists averaged 337 attacks per year in the decade after 9/11, causing a total of 254 fatalities, according to a study by Arie Perliger, a professor at the United States Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center. The toll has increased since the study was released in 2012.

Other data sets, using different definitions of political violence, tell comparable stories. The Global Terrorism Database maintained by the Start Center at the University of Maryland includes 65 attacks in the United States associated with right-wing ideologies and 24 by Muslim extremists since 9/11. The International Security Program at the New America Foundation identifies 39 fatalities from “non-jihadist” homegrown extremists and 26 fatalities from “jihadist” extremists.

Meanwhile, terrorism of all forms has accounted for a tiny proportion of violence in America. There have been more than 215,000 murders in the United States since 9/11. For every person killed by Muslim extremists, there have been 4,300 homicides from other threats.

Public debates on terrorism focus intensely on Muslims. But this focus does not square with the low number of plots in the United States by Muslims, and it does a disservice to a minority group that suffers from increasingly hostile public opinion. As state and local police agencies remind us, right-wing, anti-government extremism is the leading source of ideological violence in America.

Obama Breaks His Promise - Will Send Troops Into Iraq

(This cartoon image is by Matt Bors and was found at Daily Kos.)

A few days ago President Obama told Americans that he would not send American troops back into Iraq. It took him less than a week to break that promise. He is now saying that he will be sending up to 300 "special forces" type troops into Iraq to act as "advisors".

The president tells us this does not mean American combat troops will have "boots on the ground" in Iraq. That is a lie. These "advisors" are American troops, they will be armed to defend themselves, and they definitely have their "boots on the ground" in Iraq. And while the president says they won't be involved in combat, they will undoubtably be fired upon by the enemy and they will return fire to defend themselves -- and that is combat, whether our leaders want to admit it or not.

The president also said he will probably also be using bombing raids in Iraq. This sending of troops and bombing certain targets means we have picked sides in this conflict, even though neither side can by any stretch of imagination be considered an American ally. If ISIS wins, they will create an extremist Sunni muslim state. If Maliki wins, the extremist Shia state backed by Iran will continue. In fact, any bombing campaign will put the U.S. in the awkward position of using our military to support Iranian troops (who are already in Iraq).

War apologists have been appearing on the Tv news in recent days, and telling us that the situation in Iraq is "serious" and requires an American response. Why? Why must we respond to a conflict in which we have no friends? Some have said it is to prevent "terrorists" from having a safe haven. That's silly. There are already plenty of other safe havens for terrorists -- and anyway, terrorists have never really needed any safe haven to carry out their nefarious acts.

Many politicians, including the president, are telling us that it is in the interests of the American people to re-engage in the Iraqi conflict. But while it may benefit Halliburton and other giant corporations in the military-industrial complex, it certainly doesn't benefit the American people. It will just cost more lives of Americans and Iraqi civilians (creating new enemies), and it will cost the country billions more dollars -- dollars that could be used to fix our own economy, create new jobs, and help hurting Americans.

Sending "advisors" to Iraq (and bombing in that country) is a bad mistake. I'm old enough to remember when we sent a few "advisors to Vietnam, and wound up with many thousands of troops involved. Is that going to happen again? The president says it won't, but we were told the same thing about Vietnam. What's going to happen when those "advisors" are shot at and some of them killed? Will we send more to protect them, and thus start the "mission creep"?

Let me be blunt. Helping the Maliki government survive means Iraq will continue to have a corrupt government that is ruled by only one religious faction -- and it will insure that the conflict will continue in the future. The situation is serious in Iraq, but there is nothing the United States can (or should) do to solve it. It is a problem the Iraqis must solve themselves.

Republicans Uphold Right Of Terrorists To Buy Guns In The United States

(The image above is from newsjunkiepost.com.)

After the 9/11 tragedy, the United States government created a "no fly" list. The list is of people suspected to be terrorists, and thought to be too dangerous to be allowed to fly in and out of this country on commercial airliners. The list was created by a Republican administration and supported by congressional Republicans. As of 2012, that list had about 21,000 names on it.

But this list is not checked when a background check is made on gun purchases. That's because the Republicans in Congress think that while these people are too dangerous to fly on a commercial airplane, they should be able to buy guns in this country -- even military-style assault rifles. Back in 2011, the House Republicans killed a measure that would have prevented those on the terrorist "no fly" list, and this week they did it again.

Rep. Nita Lowey (D-New York) and Rep. David Price (D-North Carolina) don't think it makes sense to sell guns to people deemed to dangerous to fly commercially, so they introduced an amendment in the House Appropriations Committee to block those on the "no fly" list from purchasing guns (or explosives) in this country. But that was a step too far for Republicans.

The Republicans on that committee killed the amendment on a 19 to 29 vote. They evidently think a terrorist with an airplane ticket is more dangerous than a terrorist with a military-style assault rifle (or a box of explosives). I am at a loss to understand how there could be any justification for this vote. An assault rifle or some explosives can kill a lot of innocent people in a very short time (remember Aurora, Newtown, or Boston?).

It should bother all Americans that people considered to dangerous to fly on an airplane can still legally purchase any kind of gun in this country. It was bad enough that the Republicans killed the bill that would close the gaping loopholes in the background check law, but allowing people believed to be terrorists to legally purchase guns borders on insanity. It shows that the Republicans will not vote for any restriction on gun purchases -- no matter how much sense the proposal makes or how many American people support it.

This is just one more reason why the congressional Republicans must be voted out of office in 2014.

CIA Attacking Unknown Targets With Drones

I have posted before about how the United States is misusing drones to attack people in countries we are not at war with -- and how many of the victims of these attacks turn out to be innocent women and children. But the true picture may be even worse than that.

Starting in September of 2010, the United States (mainly the CIA) directed 114 drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan. These attacks, according to the government, are only supposed to be directed at either Taliban insurgents or al-Queda operatives. But in more than 25% of those drone attacks, the government now admits it really didn't know who they were attacking -- and simply called those attacked as "foreign fighters" or "other militants".

That means they have repeatedly attacked individuals and groups that they did not know for sure were terrorists. They just thought they might be terrorists because they were acting suspiciously or had been in contact with suspicious persons. These people might not have been terrorists at all, and show just how badly our drone program is being run. It should be unacceptable to attack anyone when we are not sure who they are -- and even if we are sure about a terrorist, they should not be attacked if surrounded by innocent civilians (especially women and children).

Innocent civilians are not "collateral damage", but human beings that have been murdered by our government. I don't have a problem with using drones to attack enemy soldiers in a war zone, but they should not be used to indiscriminately attack unknown people or in a situation where civilians are known to be. Doing this is not just wrong, but it creates more enemies for this country than it kills.

Why are we still in Afghanistan anyway? We are not accomplishing anything except to prop up one of the most corrupt governments in the world, and to run up the death toll of both Americans and Afghanis. It is time to end this nonsense and bring ALL our soldiers back home. And it is time to prohibit the use of drones outside of a war zone -- and then only if we can be sure no innocent civilians are there.