Trump's Claim About El Paso Is Just Another Of His Lies

That was Trump's claim on January 14th. He repeated the claim yesterday. He wants Americans to believe that the building of the 57 miles wall in 2008 significantly reduced violent crime in El Paso. There's only one problem with his statement. It is NOT true.

I made the chart above using data from city-dat.com. It compares the murder rate (per 100,000 people) in El Paso to two other American cities roughly the same size as El Paso -- Denver and Boston (neither of which are known as high crime cities).

Note that El Paso is indeed a very safe city, with a murder rate significantly below that of both Denver and Boston for the years 2002 through 2016.

But more important than that is the rate has not changed since the wall was built in 2008. It was low before the wall was built, and has remained low after the wall was finished. The wall did NOT make El Paso a safer city.

Trump has told lie after lie to try and convince Americans that a border wall is needed. His claim about El Paso is just another one of those lies.

You can go to FactCheck.org for a more in depth look at the El Paso issue.

Huge Turnout Against Hate Was A Welcome Sight

(Photo of Boston rally against hate is from the twitter feed of Newsweek.)

The following post is from the Facebook page of Dan Rather:

It was a welcomed sight seeing the tens of thousand of peaceful protesters gather in the streets of Boston yesterday to rally against hate. 

So much of the news of late has been about the deep and persistent divisions in our nation, divisions stoked by presidential rhetoric that has sought to exacerbate wounds rather than try to heal them. The voices emanating from one of America's most historic cities was a powerful response. Hate will not replace us, a great, inclusive, and diverse nation.

There is much anxiety about where our nation is heading, and for good reason. But we should not forget that the hatred, racism and antisemitism that has spilled so frighteningly into the open has been a constant force in our country. It is one that is no secret to many of our fellow citizens - likely many of you yourselves - who face it in words and actions every day. 

Why this moment seems so fraught is we are being forced to confront our past, and present. We are re-learning the story of the Civil War, and the periods of racial terror that followed when many of these statues were erected. We are reminded about the horrors of the Nazis as we see swastikas unfurled in our communities. 

America is realizing that it cannot sentimentalize its past, or excuse its bigotries, violence and hatreds. Nor can it ignore the challenges of the present. But the question lies in our future. Will this nation pick up the mantle of President Lincoln, President Roosevelt, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr and all the countless men and women over the course of our history who have pushed, prodded, exalted, shamed and willed this nation on a path of greater justice?

Suspects Caught & The Road To Justice Begins

The men pictured above are Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his younger brother Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. It took the combined police agencies of the federal, state, and local governments less than a week to identify them as the suspects in the Boston marathon bombings. Both have now been apprehended -- with Tamerlan being killed during his stand-off with the police, and Dzhokhar is in the hospital with serious injuries. This is a good thing, and I join the people of Boston and America in applauding the way the various police agencies worked together to catch the suspected culprits.

But I have to disagree with the spokesman for the state police who said that justice has been done. While the suspects are no longer at large, the road to true justice is just getting started. I hope Dzhokhar does survive his wounds, because there needs to be a trial -- so the victims of the disaster can get a bit of closure, and so it can be demonstrated to the world that the right men were apprehended and given a fair trial.

And a fair trial is required. It bothers me some that the president has invoked the "public safety" exemption to the Miranda warning -- giving policing agencies the right to question Dzhokhar without reading him the Miranda warning. There doesn't seem to be any real question of public safety here, since it is pretty obvious the two brothers acted alone -- and without financial or other help from outside sources (since they had to try to rob a convenience store and steal a car to try to escape, and their bombs were not sophisticated).

It seems to me that it is now far more important to rigidly adhere to the rule of law, to show the world that even terrorists are treated fairly in American courts -- by giving the Miranda warning, providing the suspect an attorney, and insuring that he gets a fair trial (with all the rights that anyone else in this country would get). It may feel good for many in this country to deny this suspect his basic constitutional rights, but that's not justice -- it's retribution or revenge.

Don't get me wrong. If Dzhokhar is guilty (and I believe he probably is), then I hope he is convicted and punished as severely as possible. But we must do it the right way. The rule of law is too important to every American to be tossed away because a suspect is hated by nearly everyone. That is just the kind of defendant the constitutional amendments were designed to protect from government malfeasance (the popular people will always get their rights respected and protected). And if any right can be withheld from this defendant, then it can also be withheld from anyone else in this country, anytime the government wants to do it.

The world is watching. Will we uphold the rule of law and give this defendant a fair trial, or will we embarrass ourselves (and jeopardize our own rights) -- the way we have treated the inmates at Guantanamo (who have been denied lawyers, charges, or fair trails)? Labeling someone as a terrorist should not make them any different from any other criminal suspect. The people of this country need to realize that rights are either for everyone or they are not for anyone. Those who wrote the Constitution knew that, and it is up to us to re-affirm it.

Has Sen. Collins Read The Constitution ?

Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) is usually thought of in the mainstream media as a "moderate" Republican. That's because every now and then (but not too often) she will part with her right-wing colleagues on senate votes. But don't let that fool you. The truth is that her heart rests with her right-wing party members -- those who are willing to disregard the Constitution when it prevents them from doing what they want to do (while loudly trumpeting their belief in that document when running for re-election).

Senator Collins felt the need to speak on the Boston bombing tragedy a couple of days ago -- and she had every right to do that. But her public statement shows she has a contempt for the Constitution (especially the Fifth Amendment) and the rule of law. Here is her rather shocking statement:

“It’s a very important question, whether it’s a plot that originated overseas or whether it’s a lone wolf. The question is: What do we do once we do capture the individual? How’s he treated? If he’s an American, obviously, then the constitutional protections pertain. If he is a foreign national, in my view, then he should be held by a military tribunal and he should not be read his Miranda rights as [the Christmas Day Bomber] was.”

Maybe I am wrong that she is showing contempt for the Constitution. Maybe it's been so long since she read that document that she has forgotten what is in it. Here is the text of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution (bold is mine):

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Note that the amendment does not say these rights apply only to citizens. Instead, it uses the word "person", which would include anyone in this country -- even foreigners (whether in this country legally or illegally). Anyone accused of a crime in the United States has the protections of the Fifth Amendment, and the rule of law (based on the Constitution).

We do not single out people because of the horror of the particular crime they are accused of committing, and deny them the rights afforded to all other persons in this country. Murderers, rapists, and even terrorists have been afforded these same rights in the past, and convicted only after receiving a fair trial based on those rights. Why should we change that now? It has worked for over 200 years, and there is no reason why it wouldn't continue to work for many more years.

These rights are to prevent the government from unjustly singling out any person for special and unfair treatment, simply because they don't like that person (because of race, ethnicity, country of origin or citizenship, political ideas, religion, etc.). We should not want to start down the road of denying rights now, because when constitutional rights can be denied to one person they can then be denied to anyone by the government. Rights must be absolute to have any value at all.

Don't get me wrong. I hope the perpetrator of the Boston bombings is caught, charged, convicted, and severely punished -- but only after upholding their rights, including the reading of Miranda rights, and the guarantee of a fair trial. Failing to do that would do more serious damage to this country than any terrorist (homegrown or foreign) could ever do.

Senator Collins should be ashamed of herself.

Random Thoughts On Boston

Just a couple of things I've been thinking:

* Patton Oswalt, in the comment above, is exactly right. There are far more good people in this world than evil people. This was illustrated by the wonderful people who immediately ran to help the bombing victims in Boston -- the first responders, the race volunteers, and the spectators (from Boston and other places).

* There are other evil people in the world -- people who are almost as disgusting as the bomber. I am referring, of course, to the creeps of the Westboro Baptist Church. Once again they are using a tragedy and the suffering of others to push their own agenda of hate -- and they have said they will be picketing the funerals of the innocent bombing victims. I would like to be able to stop these vile people, but I am not willing to give up our freedom of speech to do so.

* I am personally troubled by all the people who are so quick to find someone to blame for this tragedy -- usually a group they personally don't like. Some right-wingers have already decided that islamic fundamentalists are to blame, while some on the left are ready to blame right-wing militia types, and at least one nut is calling it a government conspiracy. The truth is that all of these people are just using this tragedy to further their own positions -- and it is wrong. We simply don't have enough evidence to put the blame in any direction, and we should put off the blaming until there is some evidence.

* The Boston Marathon is one of the world's great sporting events -- both for the athletes and for those ordinary people who are just trying to prove something to themselves, or those who are running to honor someone else or some charity or cause. One of the best posts I have read recently was written by a runner in Monday's marathon named Dave Munger. I urge you to read what he has written. You'll be very glad you did.

It IS A Terrorist Act

By now, you have to know about the tragedy that was perpetrated by some evil person (or persons) in Boston. As the annual Boston Marathon was winding down, two bombs were set off among the crowds near the finish line. As I write this, at least three people are dead and well over a hundred more injured -- with at least 17 of those critically injured (meaning the death toll could still rise even higher). So far, it is not known who made and placed those bombs.

President Obama made a short speech to the nation, and made two important statements in that speech -- "On days like this there are no Republicans or Democrats, we are Americans united in concern for our fellow citizens" and "Any responsible individuals, any responsible groups will feel the full weight of justice". I could not agree more with both statements, and I sincerely hope the person (or persons) who did this are soon apprehended and severely punished.

But what I really wanted to discuss was a question from a journalist(?) at the first news briefing Boston officials held. That person asked, "Is this a terrorist act?" I think what she was trying to ask was did foreign (perhaps islamic) people do this as a political act, but even that is a silly question. It doesn't matter at all whether the criminal(s) who did this was from the islamic fundamentalists, from home-grown right-wingers, or some other individual or group. It was a terrorist act!

Anyone who places one or more bombs to go off among a group of innocent and unsuspecting citizens is committing a terrorist act, and the reason for doing it doesn't really matter at all. It should be investigated as a terrorist act, charged as a terrorist act, and convicted as a terrorist act -- and those who would excuse it because it might come from someone of a similar political persuasion are as depraved as the perpetrator(s).

----------------------------------------

I have no idea who did this terrible thing, but it looks like some of the far-right-wing are afraid it might have come from home-grown terrorists. Ultra-right-wing radio host Alex Jones has already accused the FBI of planning and carrying out the bombings, so they can blame it on the teabaggers. It's a ludicrous and rather insane idea, but it shows he is already trying to provide some cover just in case it was done by his fellow right-wingers.

Palin And Teabaggers Bomb In Boston

If one were to read my own hometown newspaper, the Amarillo Globe News, one might think Sarah Palin's appearance in Boston with the Tea Party Express was a rousing success. According to the AGN:

"A festive mood filled the air. A band played patriotic music, and hawkers sold yellow Gadsden flags emblazoned with the words 'Don't Tread on Me' and the image of a rattlesnake."

But then the AGN is not a real newspaper with an unbiased view of the news in America. For years now, it has been little more than a propaganda vehicle for right-wingers and Republicans. Instead of a rousing appearance in the home of the real historical "tea party", the Boston round of appearances for Palin and the teabaggers has to be a disappointment. The less-than-rousing event had been scheduled to last at least three hours, but it sort of fizzled out after less than half that time.

A little clearer picture of the event can be found at Truthout, where William Rivers Pitt attended the event and wrote about it. Pitt arrived at the event at it's 10:00am starting time, and was struck by the incongruity between the signs and the spoken views. He said:

"All these people are carrying pro-Constitution signs, but I keep hearing anti-Census and anti-Federal government comments. It begs the question: since the Census is clearly delineated in the Constitution, and since the Constitution itself established federal governance to begin with, what document are these people actually reading?"

Palin herself took the stage at about 11:00am for a short speech marred by a microphone that keep cutting off and on. There were about 2,000 teabagger sympathizers there, but a good protion were out-of-staters who came with the Tea Party Express. There were at least three times that number of anti-teabagger protesters. By 11:15am, many teabaggers gave up and began to wander off. Pitt says:

"The rhetorical blue balls felt by the crowd is palpable. Everyone came to hear Palin, but unless you were standing next to her, she was utterly inaudible. The crowd is dispersing in every direction, but there's still a guy on stage screeching about protesting on YouTube. This thing was supposed to last until 1pm, but it appears the show is over."

By 11:25am, the event was over with an especially ridiculous faux pas. Here's how Pitt describes the end:

"OK, this is Boston, right? You'd assume someone told the 'Bagger organizers where they were, right? Wrong. They just closed the show with someone singing "New York, New York" by Sinatra, but with anti-Obama lyrics...except that's the song the Yankees play at the end of every home game, and the crowd of Red Sox fans here knows that full well. People reacted to the song like scalded cats, and in seconds, the singer had the Common almost completely to himself."

But perhaps the most embarrassing thing for Palin and the teabaggers was the complete lack of any Massachusetts Republican elected officials. They avoided the gathering as if Palin and the teabaggers had a combination of swine flu, ebola and the black plague. And that might not be far from the truth in that liberal state. Those officials have to run for re-election, and they simply cannot afford to be perceived as being aligned with the teabaggers (who are viewed unfavorably by 75% of the population).

Even Senator Scott Brown, whom the teabaggers like to claim they were responsible for putting into office, made sure he had something else to do far away from the Boston gathering. He has to run for re-election in 2012, and knows he will lose if he doesn't position himself much closer to the middle as a moderate.

The right-wing and their propaganda organs can try as they will to put a good face on this event, but the truth is it was a big flop.