search
top

Trump Administration Abuses Children

The latest tactic of the Trump administration to stop illegal crossings of their southern border is horrific. It is child abuse, pure and simple. As most of you probably already know, the US is now separating all parents and children when they SUSPECT the parents crossed the border illegally. Attorney General Jeff Sessions made the announcement with pride, apparently having no issues with his decision personally.

There is no legal requirement to do this. It is being done deliberately as a deterrent. In a typical conservative mindset that “getting tough” will sort out the problem, the idea is supposedly that if you take away their children, people will no longer attempt to cross the southern border illegally. General John Kelly, when he was head of Homeland Security, said as long ago as March 2017 that they were considering automatic removal of children from parents as a deterrent. Now that policy is is place.

On top of that, Donald Trump is blaming Democrats. He is using a law that came in under the George W Bush administration in 2008 that neither the Bush nor the Obama administration used except in extreme circumstances (such as when abuse of children was suspected). In addition, he is saying that the Democrats in Congress could change “their” law if they wanted to. For someone who is so fond of touting his own election victory, you’d think he would have noticed that his party has control of both the House and the Senate, and it’s up to the Republicans whether any laws get passed.

Cartoon: Trump on policy re children

 

After they take these children, the US government is “caring for” them in prison-like conditions. There are pictures of some of  them are sleeping on concrete floors in cages. (Fox News tries to say they aren’t cages – see ‘The Daily Show’ video below.) The children have no idea WHEN they will see their parents again. You can imagine that many wonder IF they will ever see their parents again. Likewise, their parents don’t know when they will see their children again.

This is simply unconscionable. These children have done nothing wrong. Many of their parents have likewise done nothing wrong. That makes no difference to the authorities. The separation of children from parents is now a matter of course.

Trump could change this any time with one phone call. The truth is the situation is like it is because he wants it that way.

 

Jeff Sessions, US Attorney General

Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III. The name itself inspires visions of the southern US in a time when slavery was legal and the brutal treatment of those slaves normal. Jeff Sessions tells anyone who’ll listen that he’s loving his job, and his latest thrill is to turn all border staff into child abusers. It’s like a modern day Inquisition.

As if to cement the image, Sessions is even quoting the Bible in support of his “zero tolerance” policy.

 

Cartoon: Session Bible Children

 

Senator Diane Feinstein said yesterday that so far almost 2,000 children were in this situation. About 1,000 of those are in an abandoned Wal-Mart.

Even worse, McClatchy DC Bureau reports:

The Trump administration is looking to build tent cities at military posts around Texas to shelter the increasing number of unaccompanied migrant children being held in detention.

The Department of Health and Human Services will visit Fort Bliss, a sprawling Army base near El Paso in the coming weeks to look at a parcel of land where the administration is considering building a tent city to hold between 1,000 and 5,000 children, according to U.S. officials and other sources familiar with the plans.

HHS officials confirmed that they’re looking at the Fort Bliss site along with Dyess Air Force Base in Abilene and Goodfellow AFB in San Angelo for potential use as temporary shelters.

“HHS will make the determination if any of the three sites assessed are suitable,” said an HHS official.

 

A Paediatrician Weighs In

Paediatrician Dr Julie Linton, Chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Immigrant Health Special Interest Group, spoke to Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC. She’s quite clear that these children are now at risk of both short-and long-term health problems, both physical and mental.

I also heard her on CNN‘s ‘AC360’ (18 June, US time). It doesn’t matter, Dr Linton said, how good the care of the children is. Just taking them away from their parents is enough to do “irreparable harm to children.” Short-term effects include changes in bodily functions, toileting problems, difficulty learning, behavioural problems, and more. She further said the long-term effects “absolutely” include, “diabetes, and heart disease, and depression.”

She said both she and a colleague saw the conditions the children were in. They do not consider them acceptable, and thought they were likely to be “profoundly traumatizing to a child.” The children are usually only in the ex-Wal-Mart about for 72 hours before going to relatives or foster parents. However, that’s a long time for a child.

Further, while HHS (US Department of Health and Human Services) may extol their ability in finding places for the children to go, the point is it’s still away from their parents.

Honduras

Photo-journalist Tomas Ayuso writes, among other things, about why parents leave Honduras with their young children and risk the journey to the US:

Migration is born as a result of different rights becoming elusive in 21st century Honduras: the right to housing, the right to a dignified source of income, and more recently, the right to grow old. …

This particular chapter deals with the increasing number of Hondurans caught in Mexican limbo. Between the United States’ increased border bluster and Mexico’s anti-migrant campaign, the transit country has turned into a long haul grind. Yet still the horrors that happened on the migrant route that spread through word of mouth, are a better alternative to staying in Honduras; a country its citizens consider a collapsed.

The phrase, “the right to grow old,” struck me. Hondurans feel they have lost that right, and that is why they are leaving. The story is similar in other Central American countries.

Cartoon: Why parents leave Central America

 

When the policy of separating children from parents first began, none of the migrants knew about it. However, knowing about it isn’t going to stop them from risking the trip. Yes, it is horrific, but at least their children will survive. That is becoming less and less likely if they stay in Honduras.

The way to stop people from leaving Honduras is not to take their children away, but to help Honduras to become a country that its citizens don’t want to leave.

 

The Catholic Church

Cardinal Timothy Dolan is everywhere on US TV condemning  the policy of separating parents and children. He began by criticizing Sessions’ use of the Bible to back up his announcement. As with everyone attacking Sessions on that point, he’s coming up with verses that say the opposite.

But Dolan went a step further on one show I saw on CNN. He tried to tell everyone that the verse Sessions was quoting didn’t mean we had to follow all laws, just good laws. He tried to prove as part of his argument that the Christian God and the Bible are the basis on morality. (I would love to have taken over the interview from Chris Cuomo at that point because of course Cuomo didn’t challenge the screwed up logic. However, I digress.)

Even the pope has taken to Twitter to comment:

As Trevor Noah of ‘The Daily Show’ says:

If even the Catholic Church is judging you for how you treat children, you damn fucked up!

Here’s the whole video (it’s really good as well as hilarious – take the time to watch it if you can – it’s only 7:32):

 

Supporters of Separation of Children from Parents Policy

A CNN survey released on 18 June (US time) reported that 28% of all USians approved of the policy to separate children from their parents and 67% opposed it.

However, the breakdown was demonstrative of the strong partisan divide in the US:

Republicans: 58% approve; 34% disapprove
Independents: 27% approve; 68% disapprove
Democrats: 5% approve; 92% disapprove

The supporters seem to mainly fall into three groups:

1. Those who support it because they were worked up by Trump’s pre- and post-election rhetoric of “Build the Wall,” and see this as a necessary part of opposing illegal immigration.
2. Those who think the only alternative to this is “catch and release,” (what Obama did) which failed to deal with the problem.
3. Those who genuinely believe that this will deter people from attempting to cross the border illegally.

None of these three groups appear to be taking into account the fact that vast numbers of the Central American migrants in particular are asylum seekers. When they arrive they present themselves to the border authorities in the proper manner and tell them they are seeking asylum, they are not crossing the border illegally

 

The Asylum Process

When some presents at the border and says they are seeking asylum, international law takes over. There must be a legal hearing to decide whether the person meets the requirements to be granted asylum. As I said above, these people have NOT broken the law; they are following the law. Some may not have even stepped over the border.

However, despite that, they are arrested, and their children are taken from them. The parents go to prison, and the children to detention centres. Many of the supporters of the Trump administration policy soothe their consciences by saying that these are not really asylum seekers. Instead, they had previous coaching on what to say by people smugglers.

This may be true in some cases, but how do they know that? It’s not for them to say. It’s up to a judge to decide. Under the Obama administration these people were released with the hope that they would turn up for their asylum hearing, which could be years in the future. Of course, if they weren’t genuine, that was often the last that was ever heard of them.

This is a problem looking for a solution, though there’s an obvious one. If there were enough lawyers, judges, and other necessary staff to hear cases in a reasonable time, asylum seekers and their children could be detained together until their cases were heard.

 

Republicans Speak Out

Democrat Diane Fienstien has a Bill that will enable families to be kept together. I have not read it, and I do not know what’s in it. However, the point is that it exists and it can go through a process of politicians doing what they are supposed to – compromising to find a solution they can both agree on. Republicans will not support it. Therefore, as usual, it’s Trump that’s lying. It’s not Democrats that are the ones doing, but Republicans.

However, to be fair, the are many Republican politicians speaking out against the zero-tolerance policy and this time, it’s not just ones that are retiring, though they are speaking out too. Time reports that Maine Senator Susan Collins, former Trump advisor Anthony Scaramucci, current Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway, and Jeb Bush all oppose the policy.

Since that article came out, Senator Ted Cruz and Congressman Will Hurd, both of Texas, have said they oppose it too. As the state with the longest southern border, that’s significant. In fact, it tends to be politicians in the border states, who know the situation best, that oppose the current zero-tolerance policy.

First lady Melania Trump has spoken against it too. Her office issued a statement saying:

We need to be a country that follows all laws, but also one that governs with heart.

On top of that all four living former first ladies are speaking up as well. Rosalynn Carter, Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, and Laura Bush. Mrs Bush even wrote an opinion piece in the Washington PostLaura Bush: Separating children from their parents at the border ‘breaks my heart’.

 

Solutions: Asylum Seekers

I understand why the Trump Administration feels the need to detain the people presenting at their border, even though I don’t agree with it. My suggestion would be that rather than put the adults in prison and the children in detention centres, the families are kept together in detention centres. This is what Australia does with the boat people that want to seek asylum in their country.

(However, the asylum centres in Australia are pretty horrific places. I would hope that the US can do a better job than Australia does.)

Then, they should increase the numbers of lawyers, judges, and other staff, so that the asylum process can be expedited. Of course, those who are genuinely crossing the border illegally should be immediately sent back to their own country.

 

Other Solutions

The US should also make a point of prosecuting employers who illegally employ people. That rarely or never seems to happen. Sessions’ Justice Department seems to take pleasure in focusing on the weakest people – the illegal immigrants. It must be noted though that the law makes things very difficult for employers who are unable to find staff locally. There is often a good reason that those employers use illegal labour. The law needs to be fixed.

Part of the problem with the extreme partisanship infecting the US is that immigration has become an all or nothing situation. Instead of biting off the bits that both sides can compromise on, it has become politically expedient for Republicans to block any kind of compromise in relation to immigration. You may remember this tweet from my last post:

 

Many Republicans are too scared to compromise on immigration policies in case it means losing the election. Retaining power is more important than doing the right thing. We can only hope that the suffering of these children is finally enough to make a difference.

It worked with bringing in sensible gun safety laws didn’t it? …


Update 20 June 2018 (19 June US time):

Vox, in cooperation with Propublica released this video, which includes audio of a small number of children just separated from their parents at the border. Now multiply this scene by several hundred; the number of children taken from their parents is now up to around 2,300.

 

And just as an aside: ‘President Trump Vows To Deport Puerto Ricans Back To Mexico‘. Yep. He seems to think that Puerto Ricans are Mexicans.


 

If you enjoyed reading this, please consider donating a dollar or two to help keep the site going. Thank you.




 


 

49 Responses to “Trump Administration Abuses Children”

  1. Linda Calhoun says:

    There is no intention of reuniting those kids with their parents.

    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/6/18/1772956/-Trump-administration-has-no-plan-to-reunite-stolen-children-with-their-parents

    So, what do they plan to do with them?

    L

  2. Linda Calhoun says:

    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/6/18/1772819/-What-are-they-hiding-in-the-girls-and-small-children-s-gulags

    All of this is speculative. But, the fact remains that the only facilities anyone has been allowed to visit are housing boys 10-17 years old.

    Why is that?

    L

    • Matt Cavanaugh says:

      A salacious bit of innuendo, completely devoid of supporting citations, on par with Pizzagate nonsense. IOW, typical Kos drivel.

      • Linda Calhoun says:

        The best way to avoid innuendo is to come clean. Tell us where they are, let inspectors in, let the press in.

        Or else, tell us why you won’t.

        L

    • nicky says:

      Well, with Mr Trump’s connections with the Russian mob, who are active in the field of human trafficking, one would not be surprised at anything .
      I noted that Mr Trump and his entourage are keen to accuse their adversaries of what they are guilty of themselves. It is nearly systematic. In this context I’m not so much -or rather only- thinking of Mr Trump accusing the Democrats for the policies of his administration, but about his entourage (eg. Mr Trump Jr) promoting the pizza-gate conspiracy. I’m probably a bit overly suspicious here (I’d hope so), but -as said-I will not be surprised at anything anymore.

    • I wondered about that myself. I decided to assume that since they don’t want them visiting anyone, this is the group that is most likely to appear to be coping (e.g. no tears) and the least likely for them to get accusations of abuse. The younger kids will be visibly distressed, and the older girls will be more likely to speak out to reporters. The older boys are safest. Just my guess.

  3. Mike says:

    Once again it shows Trumps distaste for “brown people” it’s Racism from a Fascist President, and if the US isn’t careful it will become the 4th Reich. They can’t say the warning signs aren’t there, his contempt for the Law, his overwhelming narcissicism , his praise of Kim Jung Bun “not a spelling mistake” a “nice Guy, whose people love him” the man who killed his enemies by feeding them to packs of Dogs. And his announcement of the formation of the Starship Trumpers, the man is insane by any measure.

    • I didn’t think Trump could do any more to shock me, but that’s two things that did. The military space force – not so much doing it but the way he expressed himself when he did. He was quite wild-eyed and irrational looking. The other was when he spoke about Kim’s people sitting to attention when he spoke and how he wanted his people to do that. He later said that was a joke, but it sure didn’t look like it at the time. Even if it was a joke, which I don’t believe (i think he accidentally spoke the truth), it’s an effing weird thing to joke about.

      If Trump wasn’t controlled by being in a democracy, there’s no telling what someone with his personality would get up to, and he has plenty of enablers who are happy to help.

  4. Very nice and informative post. This has to stop (the practice, not the posting!).

  5. Randall Schenck says:

    Of course it is racism. That is why I called it racism several days ago on a posting at WEIT. A few people there did not like my saying it but so what. The problem cannot entirely be fixed until you remove the racist, especially those in power. Have you ever seen it removed or fixed with the racist in power….anyone?

    • Matt Cavanaugh says:

      It was slander at WEIT, and it’s slander here.

      It is possible to support strict enforcement of immigration law while neither condoning trump and Sessions’ malicious intent, nor being racist oneself.

      • Randall Schenck says:

        Maybe but I would caution the company you keep. Sessions nor Trump earn their racist titles strictly on this even alone. In Sessions case he has many years behind him in the lovely state of Alabama to create his racism. Trump was doing it plenty in the real estate business in New York. Guilt by association may not be just but it happens. As they continue to strip these kids from their parents at the boarder and we wonder if they will ever meet up again you can look in the mirror.

        • Matt Cavanaugh says:

          Let’s be clear: are you saying that:

          a) trump and Sessions’ motivations are racist? (I’d say rather just sadistic)?

          and/or

          b) anyone who supports strict enforcement of our immigration laws (which inevitably will lead to separation of children from their parents) is motivated by racism?

    • I think you are right. It is racism. People seem to not like to admit it for some reason, but what is happening here goes way beyond just protecting the borders.

      Most NZers look at Trump and see a racist. To us his attitudes are out of the 1950s (at best) when it comes to race.

  6. Claudia Baker says:

    Thanks for this Heather. It’s all so outrageous, I don’t have words.

  7. Matt Cavanaugh says:

    “[T]he US is now separating all parents and children when they SUSPECT the parents crossed the border illegally….”

    No, they really, truly were crossing the border illegally. The only legal method is to present oneself at a designated port of entry.

    NB: economic hardship is not valid grounds for asylum.

    _

    “There is no legal requirement to do this. It is being done deliberately as a deterrent.”

    Nor is there any legal requirement not to. The Federal statute allows for 6 to 24 months imprisonment for the offense. Even when the sentence is merely time served while detained, something must be done with the minor children who were brought along. I agree that removing the children when other options exist is needlessly malicious. But what about when our temporary holding facilities (space for 3,000 total, far fewer at the border) are overburdened? What about when the perpetrator is held for sentencing & trial?

    _

    “On top of that, Donald Trump is blaming Democrats. He is using a law that came in under the George W Bush administration in 2008 that neither the Bush nor the Obama administration used except in extreme circumstances (such as when abuse of children was suspected).”

    Both trump and the Dems are lying about this.

    The 1997 Flores Consent Decree stipulates that unaccompanied children may be held no more than 20 days. A subsequent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court extended that to children accompanying their families. If the parents are held longer than 20 days — a near certainty if the crime is to be prosecuted — by law the children must be removed and placed in foster care.

    NB: both Bush and obama admins did on occasion increase prosecution of illegal immigrants, which did necessitate increased separation of families.

    _

    “This is simply unconscionable. These children have done nothing wrong. Many of their parents have likewise done nothing wrong. That makes no difference to the authorities. The separation of children from parents is now a matter of course.”

    The parents most definitely have done something wrong — commission of a Federal offense. It is very unfortunate for their children, but why should these offenders be treated differently from any others who also happen to have children?

    _

    “The US should also make a point of prosecuting employers who illegally employ people. ”

    Agreed.

    _

    “Part of the problem with the extreme partisanship infecting the US is that immigration has become an all or nothing situation.”

    Agreed. Both Dems and Gops are more interested in whipping up their bases into an emotional frenzy, than in arriving at a workable solution. Let us not fall for such demagoguery.

    • If you are seeking asylum, you have done nothing wrong. The correct, legal thing to do is to present yourself to border authorities. It does not matter that those authorities may suspect that they are not genuine asylum seekers. It is not for them to judge – that is up to the courts.

      They can talk to the authorities from the other side of the border. I assume CNN is telling the truth when they say that families are taken from one side of the border, into detention on the other side of the border. It would be a big mistake to lie about that. (Or I could have it wrong too of course.)

      Either way, if you’re crossing to seek asylum, and the first thing you do is contact authorities, you are not committing a crime.

      • Matt Cavanaugh says:

        There seems to be some confusion here. First, the only legal way to seek asylum is to present oneself at a designated port of entry. So even if the intention of these people crossing in the middle of AZ desert is to seek asylum, they have violated the law.

        Second, it is preposterous to think that before being apprehended, they had any intention of formally applying for asylum. They would’ve gone to ground, aided & abetted by the illegal community and the Catholic Church.

        The whole asylum thing is a desperate red herring.

        • The US has a rule about applying for asylum at designated ports of entry. That is not the international law that they signed up to. There are two main problems with the rule. 1. Some people can’t get to the designated ports of entry. 2. There are many people who have been waiting at the designated ports for a long time waiting to be seen. Some people can’t afford to do that, so they try getting into the country another way. That way they have people who will support them while they go through the process.

          Trump says that no one ever comes back for their asylum hearing if they get free via the catch and release process. It’s not true. In 2016 (latest year figures available) 75% came back. In areas where special programmes in place to get people back, the figure was 90%. Clearly, asylum is not a red herring.

    • Jenny Haniver says:

      I’m curious. Since you consider that you can uphold these policies and not be racist, could you support policies that enforce racial segregation of blacks (schols, housing, etc.) and not be a racist? Or discrimination against gays and not be a homophobe?

      • Matt Cavanaugh says:

        I’m sorry, but that’s an asinine comparison. We have laws against racial & other class discrimination. Any policies enforcing racial segregation would be unconstitutional. Our immigration laws are constitutional and race neutral as constructed.

    • nicky says:

      How much of a problem is the influx from Mexico and Central America anyway?
      – Under the previous administration the numbers already showed a downward trent.
      – The numbers were in the tens of thousands, not millions, to start with.
      – These ‘Central Americans’ integrate quite well into US society, especially after 2-3 generations.
      Compare that to Europe (I know it is whataboutism, but still, they’ve got a slightly more serious problem).
      That being said, I think there must be solutions that do not comprise the unconscionable ripping of children from their parents. It is a question of how laws are implemented -there are certainly laws that prohibit child abuse too-, and Mr Sessions is a scoundrel there. Is the law really meant to discourage by punishing and damaging the innocent?

      • They have been quite clear that this is meant to be a deterrent.

        Numbers of asylum seekers were down last year, and Trump supporters put this down to his tough reputation. This year, they’ve increased again and are apparently much higher, though I haven’t looked up the official numbers myself.

        I think this shows what I have always said. The Trump crowd (but not all Republicans) misunderstand the problem. Trump thinks everything revolves around money, and that’s the only reason people are going to the US. That’s the motive for some of course, but for most the primary motive is the safety of themselves and their kids.

        Because Trump is no longer assisting the Central American countries as much as Clinton, Bush, and Obama, they’re turning to custard. Further, because of Trump’s attitude, people have lost hope. That’s why there are more illegal immigrants. If Trump did more to help those countries improve, people would be less likely to leave. Also, their increased wealth would mean customers for US products.

        Investment in those countries would save money in the long term. There are other advantages too, but I’ll save them for another post.

  8. nicky says:

    Well, we know that Mr Trump is no stranger to child abuse, if the reports of him raping a 13 year old in Mr Epstein’s lair are true.
    What I find almost (almost) as despicable as the policy itself, is Mr Trump’s disingenuousness by blaming it on “the Democrats”, “their law” which he’s ‘incapable of changing’.
    Indeed, no words…

  9. Jenny Haniver says:

    By now, most people have surely read about his latest twitter tirade, in which he again accused Democrats of being responsible for the problem, and of wanting to bring “illegal immigrants” into the US to “infest our country.” True, he did give a half-assed qualifier by invoking MS-13, but that doesn’t mitigate in the least this loathsome remark, likening the foreign “Other” not simply of bringing disease and pestilence, but of BEING a disease in esse. This trope partakes of a hoary history of racism and anti-Semitism. Of course, he’s perfectly capable of saying something like this independently, but I’d bet that his emininence grise Stephen Miller is lurking somewhere behind the curtains.

    • Stephen Miller is one of the three people behind this latest move imo. The other two are, as mentioned in the post, Jeeff Sessions and John Kelly. The new DHS secretary is also part of it, but I’m not sure if she’s an instigator. She’s a John Kelly acolyte and may not have done this on her own – I don’t know enough about her to say. However, it seems that until fairly recently, she was well respected.

      • Jenny Haniver says:

        I’m sure that Stephen Miller had a hand in crafting the current policy along with the others you mention. I was thinking in more general terms about his influencing Trump vis-a-vis anti-immigration matters in that he has a long history of xenophobia and nativism, stretching back to his high school days. Prior to joining Trump’s team, he’d worked with Sessions to defeat an immigration reform bill.

        As for Kirstjen Nielsen, what I’ve learned is that she comes across as rigid, and some consider her a political opportunist. I don’t know which is worse, an ideologue like Miller or a political opportunist who’d say and do anything to keep and gain power. If nothing else, she’s sure tone deaf — lthe atest news is that today she went to a Mexican restaurant for lunch, was beset by protestors, and had to leave. But perhaps her choice of a restaurant was calculated to cause offense.

        • The analysis of Nielsen I’ve heard is that she was previously well respected, but that she’s become an opportunist in the Trump administration.

          In my last Tweets Post, there’s a short video about Stephen Miller’s career. It shows how he’s always been an a$$hole.

    • Linda Calhoun says:

      Accusing other people of being the source of your own bad outcomes is how the Personal Responsibility People do personal responsibility.

      L

    • nicky says:

      How much are gangs like MS 13 linked to illegal immigration? There is no evidence that even with a hermetic wall between the US and Mexico these gangs would not thrive.
      I also note that the majority of victims of these gangs are other ‘latinos’ (again, compare that to Europe).
      To use the activities of MS 13 (and their ilk) as an excuse for ripping children from their parents is not just profoundly disingenuous, but possibly counter-productive in the longer run. It is well established that ‘parentless’ children are more prone to criminal activity in general and are a fertile ground for recruitment by these gangs in particular.

  10. Randall Schenck says:

    Sessions even has the Methodist church after him. Apparently he is a card carrying member of the United Methodist and they are pretty mad. I don’t know if they can kick a person out or excommunicate them but they are giving him a verbal flogging.

  11. I’ve added a new video released today about the kids at the end of the post.

    • Randall Schenck says:

      I listened to that last night on MSNBC. Both Maddow and Lawrence had it. Another thing that has been verified by several at the boarder crossings is the people are not allowed to come across there, which is the only place that qualifies for declaring asylum. Instead they are forces to cross at illegal places where asylum is not allowed. All of the followers of Trump or sessions or whoever they are following need to get off of fox news just a little and get some of the real news on this. And ask them this — if everything is so lawful and above board, why do they keep all the news organizations away from the camps and not allow them to see, to photograph any of this….what the hell are they hiding.

  12. Randall Schenck says:

    About 8:15 PM here and I thought maybe some would like an update as things get much hotter. I believe this thing on the boarder and immigration is going to overcome the Trump party. Most networks have sent several people to the boarder, lots in south Texas. It started last night but now many state governors have stated their national guard will not be sent to the boarder and some that are there are being recalled. This is a big deal folks. So, unless Trump calls up the national guard and formally takes control of them, the states are not going to play this game. My old man was in the guard for many years so I know this is a big deal.

    • nicky says:

      Boarder? is that US e\English? Here we call it border. 🙂
      That being said, do I understand correctly there is a kind of rebellion by the States by refusing to send a (real) ‘well regulated militia’, the National Guard, to the border despite being ordered? That would appear to be a big deal indeed.

      • Randall Schenck says:

        You are correct, my spelling is really bad. By the way, as of 11 am. today it looks like Trump will fold and sign something to end this insanity. Only reason I can say is the heat is really on and it is too close to election time.

  13. Here’s Trevor Noah’s latest from last night:

  14. Randall Schenck says:

    Good Stuff. Does anyone else think Jeff Sessions looks like the guy on the Mad Magazine cover?

    • I’ve got a cartoon of that somewhere amongst the thousands!

      • Randall Schenck says:

        Alfred E. Neuman I could not think of the name.

        • nicky says:

          Mr Sessions as a jew? somehow I inexplicably feel some doubt there.
          One of the models of Alfred E. Neumann was a Nazi anti-jewish propaganda poster, according to Carl Djerassi (the father of the ‘pill’), who said he saw him in 1939 in Vienna with the subscript ‘Tod den Juden’ (Death to the Jews). Note, his image predates the Nazis, so maybe not, after all.

          • Randall Schenck says:

            My comparative was just the face, not religion or anything else. I believe the guy was fictional anyway.

          • nicky says:

            Yes, of course he’s fictional, but he has a venerable ancestral line, I think the oldest dates from 1894, “the new boy” saying “What’s the good of anything? — Nothing!”, he hadn’t acquired his AEN name yet.
            Some contend the lad was an anti-Irish caricature, Mickey Dugan (aka the ‘Yellow Kid’, after his yellow robe), but I doubt that was him, only a superficial resemblance.
            He also acquired some notoriety as stooge for Antikamnia tablets, coming from the dentist : “That didn’t hurt a bit!” in the early 1900’s (also on the Antikamnia calender of 1908).
            I could not find when his slogan “What? Me worry?” came in, but it is definitely -at least the “me worry?” part- from the 30’s or earlier. It is thought to be derived from Yiddish expression “Ishe Ga Bibble” or “Ish Kabibble”, meaning exactly that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

top