Why Trump’s Bait-and-Switch Tweets Confuse Americans

By Gary Kimsey

In his use of Twitter, is President Trump performing a classic bait-and-switch scam to confuse Americans?

Well, yes, of course.

Gary Kimsey is a writer and retired marketing specialist. Learn more about him…

“Bait and switch” is a dishonest marketing tactic where consumers (we Americans in this case) are encouraged to believe something about a product (here, the product is Trump). The terrible truth is that the product is vastly different and of significantly less quality than what was promised. It’s often easy to identify a bait-and-switch maneuver. Thus, be wary when someone says, “Believe me”—a favored Trump expression.

I couldn’t help but think about bait-and-switch while watching the March 20 congressional hearing by the House Intelligence Committee. The hearing focused on hacking, Putin, cabinet members’ ties to Russia, and, of course, Trump’s crazy Twitter tweets claiming President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower. (I took the liberty of adding the word “crazy,” by the way, for his accusatory tweets were just that.

I found it interesting that Trump conducted a tweet storm as the hearing was underway. He used the official Twitter account of the President of the United States. More than 1.6 million Americans received the tweets.

These tweets contained partial truths, at best, as well as grossly misinterpreted accounts of what was said in the hearings. Predictably, this was the same fantasy pattern that many of his tweets have followed since the inauguration.

Click here for a fact-check on Trump’s tweets during the congressional hearing.

As a person who spent the last half of his 50-year professional career in marketing, I am well-aware that Trump—the quintessential marketer—fully operates on a certain assumption. Americans, especially those who voted for him, will unquestioningly believe information from such a traditionally respected source as a U.S. president.

Think back to your history and civics classes. Many of us were indoctrinated in high school and college classes to believe certain positions in America are above lying. The presidency is supposedly one of the sacred positions. For my generation of Baby Boomers, this myth of total truthfulness was shattered by Nixon.

Don’t forget to take the short survey at the end of this article.

The problem now is that many Americans don’t peer beyond tweets and eye-catching headlines. As a society, we are victims of 140 characters and information overload. Fake News is a stake aimed at our intellectual heart. We fear Fake News so much that many of us will believe, without questioning, a president who tweets “Fake News” whenever someone disagrees with him, whether it’s individuals, the media or intelligence agencies.

Trump knows our fears and plays upon them by telling us in his tweets—without presenting any evidence—that information from such reliable sources as the FBI is wrong. He also keeps the tweets coming as a way to divert the thoughts of Americans away from other issues—his denial of global warming, defunding Meals on Wheels and Planned Parenthood, appointing to his cabinet inept and incapable billionaire friends rather than experts, and the likely loss of health care for 24 million Americans, to name just a few issues. Rather than draining the swamp, Trump is filling it with moccasins and alligators.

The impacts of bait-and-switch in tweets? Many Americans have learned they are unable to trust the person sitting in the Oval Office. Strife is perpetuated in society and politics, continuing to divide the nation. The Office of the President of the United States—the world’s most powerful position—is belittled in the eyes of Americans, as well as people and governments around the world. Important issues are overshadowed. Democracy is undermined. Confusion reigns.

How do we avoid the bait-and-switch of Trump’s tweets? We must cast our vision beyond what we read in his tweets. Seek out at reliable sources. Fact-check information.

Here are reliable fact-checking sites:

Also look at The 10 Best Fact-checking Sites.

Click on the “Follow” button at the top of the right column to have Writers With No Borders posts delivered to your email in-box.

Click here to take the survey…

“I want to stab him in the testicles a million times”

By Mary Roberts 

“What do you think we are? Cattle?”

I’m caught in a tight scree of human flesh, all pretending we aren’t pressed up against each other’s bodies — fleshy, rib thin, and somewhere in-between. Boston’s old subway cars weren’t meant to hold this many people. The cattle remark is in my head. I can’t say it. I’m afraid I’ll stutter or people would laugh at me.

That’s when it happens.

Before the 2016 presidential election, Mary Roberts wrote about real estate, her Irish Catholic childhood in Boston and the 13 dogs that have defined the chapters of her life. Now, she writes to say, “Wake up, people!” Learn more about Mary.

Someone reaches from behind me and slides his hand down the front on my pants. Both of my hands are gripping the overhead strap and my legs are parted to steady myself from the stops and starts of the jolting train.

“Hey!” I let go of the strap with my left arm and squeeze it between two of my neighbors but the hand is gone before I can grab it. It is 1970. I am 19. I burn in shame.

I had returned home after one year of college in New York. Home was Needham, a small town 10 miles west of Boston. Long island, N.Y., was not where I wanted to be. I didn’t know where I wanted to be. I had no plan or ambition, except to star in Broadway musicals but I was afraid to speak and couldn’t sing. I had also broken my kneecap twice in high school. My one year as a drama major ended in disaster when I couldn’t manage the role as Marat Sade’s mother. And she was a stutterer.

Mom’s friend got me a job in Medical Records at Children’s Hospital and I went to night school at Boston College. From the hospital, I took the Green Line to the BC stop. Three hours later, I’d head home to the Newton Highlands stop where I would take a bus to Needham Square. I didn’t drive and we didn’t have a car anyway, so the MBTA was my constant companion, riding its street cars and buses four times a day.

“I won’t do this anymore.”

I hated the way men looked at me when I’d make my way through the construction sites that littered the streets and sidewalks along the way. I’d veer out to the road followed by the whistles and calls for blow jobs from the guys with hard hats. I wore glasses, no makeup and baggy turtlenecks with the mandatory skirts but it didn’t matter. I was young.

After the subway incident, I went in to the manager’s office and told her I was done. “I can’t do this anymore,” I told her, “I won’t do this anymore.”

Two weeks later, on New Year’s Eve, 1970, I was on an airplane with my sister who was headed back to Colorado State University after Christmas break. She and I were never the best friends we should have been, only 18 months apart, but it was better than spending the rest of my life terrified of crowds and the subway. I was already unable to drive after a traumatizing car accident. A good sturdy bike would get me where I needed to go in Colorado.

“A bloated, orange-tinted mass of pulpy flesh”

Forty plus years later and Donald Trump is caught saying ‘grab them by the pussy’ and I am outraged. More than outraged.

I am indignant, incensed, I am horrified. In my dreams, I want to stab him in the heart and testicles a million times then write my name — and the names of all women who have been assaulted, grabbed, diminished, denigrated — in his blood as it slowly leaves his body, leaving a bloated, orange-tinted mass off pulpy flesh and pockmarked bone. Again, fantasies in my dream land, not for advocating violence against a president or anyone.

Does such a dream make me a terrorist? Did I break the law by entertaining fantasies of hurting the president?

I don’t harbor those fantasies because I disagree with his policies (which I do) or think that he is a disgrace as a president and a human being (which I do). I harbor those fantasies because he is a predator and a sexual bully. Every woman knows what that is and the women who voted for him have neatly compartmentalized that fact somewhere in their emotional body where it will fester and eventually destroy them.

“Was I that fragile?”

At 65 years of age, I now understand that I left Boston because someone grabbed me by the pussy. I left behind the love of my life, the ocean, my mother, the home I was raised in and the New England I still yearn for—just because an asshole grabbed me and I felt powerless and ashamed and scared that it would happen again.

Was I that fragile? Was I that sorry-ass wimp of a girl? Without the backbone to give the construction guys the finger and yell ‘fuck you’ back at them? Without the courage to call out ‘help’ in the subway car? Yes, I was.

Years later, I hug my dogs tight when I hear the President’s voice over the radio. I’m already considering a replacement for the third dog I just lost to a painful disease. Two is good but three — three is impenetrable.

Click on “Follow” at the top of the right column to receive posts from Writers With No Borders by email.

“I want to stab him in the testicles a million times”

By Mary Roberts 

“What do you think we are? Cattle?”

I’m caught in a tight scree of human flesh, all pretending we aren’t pressed up against each other’s bodies — fleshy, rib thin, and somewhere in-between. Boston’s old subway cars weren’t meant to hold this many people. The cattle remark is in my head. I can’t say it. I’m afraid I’ll stutter or people would laugh at me.

That’s when it happens.

Before the 2016 presidential election, Mary Roberts wrote about real estate, her Irish Catholic childhood in Boston and the 13 dogs that have defined the chapters of her life. Now, she writes to say, “Wake up, people!” Learn more about Mary.

Someone reaches from behind me and slides his hand down the front on my pants. Both of my hands are gripping the overhead strap and my legs are parted to steady myself from the stops and starts of the jolting train.

“Hey!” I let go of the strap with my left arm and squeeze it between two of my neighbors but the hand is gone before I can grab it. It is 1970. I am 19. I burn in shame.

I had returned home after one year of college in New York. Home was Needham, a small town 10 miles west of Boston. Long island, N.Y., was not where I wanted to be. I didn’t know where I wanted to be. I had no plan or ambition, except to star in Broadway musicals but I was afraid to speak and couldn’t sing. I had also broken my kneecap twice in high school. My one year as a drama major ended in disaster when I couldn’t manage the role as Marat Sade’s mother. And she was a stutterer.

Mom’s friend got me a job in Medical Records at Children’s Hospital and I went to night school at Boston College. From the hospital, I took the Green Line to the BC stop. Three hours later, I’d head home to the Newton Highlands stop where I would take a bus to Needham Square. I didn’t drive and we didn’t have a car anyway, so the MBTA was my constant companion, riding its street cars and buses four times a day.

“I won’t do this anymore.”

I hated the way men looked at me when I’d make my way through the construction sites that littered the streets and sidewalks along the way. I’d veer out to the road followed by the whistles and calls for blow jobs from the guys with hard hats. I wore glasses, no makeup and baggy turtlenecks with the mandatory skirts but it didn’t matter. I was young.

After the subway incident, I went in to the manager’s office and told her I was done. “I can’t do this anymore,” I told her, “I won’t do this anymore.”

Two weeks later, on New Year’s Eve, 1970, I was on an airplane with my sister who was headed back to Colorado State University after Christmas break. She and I were never the best friends we should have been, only 18 months apart, but it was better than spending the rest of my life terrified of crowds and the subway. I was already unable to drive after a traumatizing car accident. A good sturdy bike would get me where I needed to go in Colorado.

“A bloated, orange-tinted mass of pulpy flesh”

Forty plus years later and Donald Trump is caught saying ‘grab them by the pussy’ and I am outraged. More than outraged.

I am indignant, incensed, I am horrified. In my dreams, I want to stab him in the heart and testicles a million times then write my name — and the names of all women who have been assaulted, grabbed, diminished, denigrated — in his blood as it slowly leaves his body, leaving a bloated, orange-tinted mass off pulpy flesh and pockmarked bone. Again, fantasies in my dream land, not for advocating violence against a president or anyone.

Does such a dream make me a terrorist? Did I break the law by entertaining fantasies of hurting the president?

I don’t harbor those fantasies because I disagree with his policies (which I do) or think that he is a disgrace as a president and a human being (which I do). I harbor those fantasies because he is a predator and a sexual bully. Every woman knows what that is and the women who voted for him have neatly compartmentalized that fact somewhere in their emotional body where it will fester and eventually destroy them.

“Was I that fragile?”

At 65 years of age, I now understand that I left Boston because someone grabbed me by the pussy. I left behind the love of my life, the ocean, my mother, the home I was raised in and the New England I still yearn for—just because an asshole grabbed me and I felt powerless and ashamed and scared that it would happen again.

Was I that fragile? Was I that sorry-ass wimp of a girl? Without the backbone to give the construction guys the finger and yell ‘fuck you’ back at them? Without the courage to call out ‘help’ in the subway car? Yes, I was.

Years later, I hug my dogs tight when I hear the President’s voice over the radio. I’m already considering a replacement for the third dog I just lost to a painful disease. Two is good but three — three is impenetrable.

Click on “Follow” at the top of the right column to receive posts from Writers With No Borders by email.

One Nation, Under God, Avoiding Bigly Crazy

By David Adamson

When I floated the idea of writing for this blog to my wife, she agreed it was a good idea. In her words, “It might be better than talking to the TV.” Normally, I don’t talk to televisions, but after Trump’s victory, I grew so agitated I cursed or babbled at the sight or sound of him.

I take some solace that I am not alone. Each day fellow Trump-crazed Americans express a non-stop howl of negative reactions—angst, anger, shock, desperation, paranoia, depression, fear, panic, insomnia, disorientation, alienation, resignation, despair and distraction. They forward, share, tweet, email every Trump scandal, gaffe, ugly photo, insulting cartoon, and inane remark.

David Adamson worked in high technology and health care. He’s the author of Walking the High Tech High Wire and The Wellness Club. He’s written hundreds of blogs on politics and fitness

David Adamson worked in high technology and health care. He’s the author of Walking the High Tech High Wire and The Wellness Club. He’s written hundreds of blogs on politics and fitness

However, beyond a certain point, much of this is unproductive, frenzied singing to the choir. We all know by now that Trump has dwarfed genitalia and why Melania looks so unhappy.

Repugnant politicians: During my decades of adulthood, there have been plenty of repugnant politicians, but there’s something different about Trump—the bombast, self-aggrandizement, bullying, belittling, incoherence, dishonesty, misogyny, faux-Christianity, hyperbole, racism, impulsiveness, self-contradictions, xenophobia and sexual predation. His dangerous alt-reality in which America’s allies are enemies and our enemies are allies, media invents the news, facts are fantasy, America needs rescue, science concocts global warming, a border wall will save us from bad dudes if it’s built bigly high, bigly high, believe me, believe me…Trump is crazy.

Trump is crazy.

The word “crazy” is used here in a clinical sense, not as a pejorative. He clearly has a severe personality disorder. Recently, a group of mental health professionals co-signed a formal letter to the NY Times expressing their concerns about his mental stability. A Duke psychologist went so far as to diagnose Trump as suffering from “malignant” narcissistic personality disorder (diagnostic code 301.81 in Diagnostic Statistical Manual-VI, if you care to Google it).

Don’t forget to take the short poll at the end of this post.

Others go crazy, too: I wondered as much. Hearing their expert opinions reminded me of the late R.D. Laing, a ground-breaking British psychiatrist, who made a couple of prescient, unsettling observations from his work with schizophrenics that are pertinent to helping us stall the destructive plans of the Trump/Republican regime:

#1 – If one family member goes crazy, other family members will go crazy, too. Worse, as the family members become crazy they make the already crazy person even crazier.

#2 – A person becomes crazy not just because of brain abnormalities, but also because serious dysfunction already exists in the family that precedes triggers it. There is a huge social component to losing touch with reality.

So what does this dead psychiatrist have to do with Trump and the U.S. early in his presidency?

Regarding #1, understand that the more we disparage and embarrass him, whether in satirical SNL skits or scientific Pew Research polls showing his unpopularity, he’ll get crazier. He’s shown no indication he’s able to modify his behavior; therefore we can expect more and more maniacal night tweets, conspiracy theories, and random outbursts and insults.

If we immerse ourselves in his craziness…We’ll remain stressed, spellbound and powerless.

Daily assaults: If we immerse ourselves in his craziness by spending all day sharing, reacting and refuting his latest crazy behavior, whether in social media, work or the coffee shop, we’ll squander valuable time and emotional resources. His daily assaults on political normalcy will logo_fina_150pixelsdivert us into ineffective, ridiculing, bitching and complaining. We’ll remain stressed, spellbound and powerless.

Regarding #2, Trump is a symptom, not the disease. His presence in the White House is the result of dysfunctions in our economic and political system that will take focused, creative efforts to fix:

  • An electorate more polarized than any historic period since the Civil War.
  • Gerrymandered congressional districts and an obsolete electoral college that tilts federal elections towards the Republican Party before a single vote is even cast.
  • A Democratic Party that lacks vision, is bureaucratic, and falls back on outmoded New Deal/Great Society approaches to solving the novel challenges of a diverse and rapidly changing population in urban and rural areas.
  • Extreme income inequality that is sustained by soulless corporations and the 1 percent who own and control them, along with our two major political parties.

These are why Trump and a minority of Americans were able to hijack the U.S. government. At some point, Trump may be impeached, but not because he’s crazy. Many prominent leaders were mentally ill (read the book A First-Rate Madness by Nassir Ghaemi, M.D.) Trump and his inner circle of zany ideologues and congressional enablers can only be excised through the mundane, grunt work of politics and elections. That’s where we need to expend our passions for revenge and justice.

Dr. Allen Frances, the psychiatrist who chaired the task force that identified narcissistic personality disorder for the DSM, wrote that the diagnosis does not apply to Trump because he does not exhibit enough “distress and impairment.” In fact, Frances concluded:

“His psychological motivations are too obvious to be interesting, and analyzing them will not halt his headlong power grab. The antidote to a dystopic Trumpean dark age is political, not psychological.”

What we can do:

Therefore, it’s time to limit our fixation with Trump’s antics, minimize his time in our psyches. Let’s substitute some of our hours squandered obsessing about him with small, simple daily actions.

You’ll find an arsenal of grassroots action ideas at Rogan’s List. Another really innovative organization is The Sisters Project, which bypasses the ineffectual and expensive Democratic Party apparatus in Washington D.C., and funnels resources directly into supporting candidates and developing voting constituencies in the places Trump and other alt-reality candidates usually win.

And don’t worry–you’ll still have plenty time to stick pins of anger and moral outrage in the pudgy voodoo doll with the blonde hair out in cyberspace.

 

More ideas on how to deal with Trump stress: First step to resistance: A peaceable daily routine by Bear Jack Gebhardt.

Assault on our environment rages like a tsunami

By Gary Kimsey

I wasn’t a big Nixon fan. But, as millions of other Americans did, I applauded when he and a bipartisan congress created the EPA in 1970 to respond to major environmental problems in communities, rivers and wilderness areas.

As Nixon said at the time, “We will reap the grim consequences of our failure to act on programs which are needed now if we are to prevent disaster later. Clean air, clean water, open spaces—these should once again be the birthright of every American.”

What do you think? Take a short poll at the end of this article.

Now, under Donald Trump and a one-party congress, we are witnessing the horrific dismantling of “the birthright of every American.” Events of the first month of his reign showed how easily Trump and congress can sweep aside progress:

logo_fina_150pixels

On Feb. 17, congress approved Scott Pruitt to lead the EPA. He represented the oil industry in lawsuits against the agency and will be Trump’s attack dog which tears apart the agency. Like Trump, Pruitt does not believe in science that shows we’re already feeling global warming.

On Feb. 21, Pruitt laid out a vision for the EPA which undercuts the agency’s mission to protect “human health and the environment—air, water, and land.” In his introductory talk to the EPA staff, he focused on protecting jobs, industry and the marketplace but gave little nod to environmental protection. The word “climate” was not included among his words, a sign that indicates such issues as climate change and global warming will plunge to the wayside in his administration.

On Feb. 16, Trump signed a bill that repealed a federal measure restricting mining companies from dumping waste into streams. The measure was a protection for 6,000 miles of streams and 52,000 acres of forests.

Trump said he repealed the measure as a way to jump-start a return to coal mining. He forgets to mention how outdated and environmentally dangerous the use of coal is. Coal miners, however, voted for Trump and their votes are more important to him than the environment.

How will the assault on the EPA impact states? Read this insightful article about impacts in Colorado.

On Feb. 14, Trump repealed a rule that required oil, natural gas, coal, and mineral companies to disclose royalties and other payments made to foreign governments. The rule was an effort to fight corruption. Now American energy companies can bribe their way into other countries.

On Feb. 3, four Republican House of Representative members introduced H.R. 861 which calls for an end to the Environmental Protection Agency on Dec. 31, 2018.

Supporters argue the EPA isn’t needed because states and cities can regulate their own pollution. However, their argument doesn’t take into account the realities that most communities and states do not have the wherewithal, or political bravery, to monitor and regulate pollution. Nor do polluted air and rivers respect city or state boundaries—a fact that necessitates the presence of a federal agency like the EPA.

What do Americans think? A national poll released Feb. 8 found voters believe 2-to-1 that Trump should not cut regulations which combat climate change; 59 percent think more should be done to address climate change.

On Jan. 24, 120 Republican representatives introduced H.R. 637 to curtail the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases. They believe the EPA does too much regulation of polluting companies.

Shortly after he was inaugurated, Trump ordered the EPA to freeze all grants and contracts. The move affects local efforts to improve air and water quality, curtails climate research projects, and halts environmental projects that help poor communities.

Almost before the glitter was swept up from the floors of the inaugural balls, a bill was introduced in congress to sell 3.3 million acres of public land. The legislation prompted a loud outcry from residents of states, particularly Montana, that would lose those lands to private developers. The bill was withdrawn in early February due to public opposition.

Meanwhile, the Republican-controlled congress has set its sights on opening part of Alaska’s fragile Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration. This is in a pristine wilderness where no roads, campgrounds or trails exist. It is a nursery for polar bears, musk oxen and Porcupine Caribou. Migratory birds from every U.S. state nest there.

As a nation, we now face danger to our water sources, air quality, renewable energy efforts, environmental research, water and wastewater management, superfund cleanups, regulation of vehicular emissions, and global warming.

Be ready for the rest of the tsunami. It’s coming. And it’s going to get worse, a lot worse.

I believe most Americans are wise enough to value a clean environment. The question is, what are we going to do about it?

Here are important steps to take:

Trump’s ban lets in a world of ironic coincidences

By Gary Kimsey

I love the bitter-sweet surprises of ironic coincidences. You never know what you’ll get. It can be so refreshing. And yet sometimes so terribly stinky.

Currently, we have the stinky side of an ironic coincidence: Donald Trump’s executive order banning immigrants and travelers from seven countries in the Mideast. The ironic coincidence is that he announced the ban in the same week as the 100th anniversary of the Immigration Act of 1917, the most shameful immigration tactic in our country’s history. Trump’s executive order creating the ban on immigration and travel is less broad in scope; yet, the intended results are similarly draconian in nature. This assessment, of course, depends on your view of all that has happened.logo_fina_150pixels

As you may already know, three 9th Circuit Court judges ruled Feb. 9 that Trump’s ban will remain on hold. Never a person to admit he’s wrong, Trump responded with a tweet—“SEE YOU IN COURT“—that indicated he will continue to fight in the judicial system. Hopefully, he won’t do any more name-calling directed at judges.

Read the 9th Circuit Court ruling.

The 1917 act banned immigrants who are “idiots, imbeciles, feeble-minded persons, epileptic, insane persons…persons of constitutional psychopathic inferiority (that’s the description back then for gays and lesbians)…alcoholics, paupers…”

Well, you get the idea, those considered dregs of 1917 society.

The 1917 law also aimed at keeping out The Yellow Peril: peoples of Southeast Asia, India, the Orient, and Mideastern countries. You know, folks who didn’t look Anglo-Saxon and followed “cult” religions like Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam. The Yellow Peril, by the way, was the official term used in those days.

Your views are welcomed. Answer the poll at the end of this post. Send in comments in the “Leave a reply” box.

Here are where similarities occur between the 1917 and 2017 bans:

Fear of people different than yourself. You can easily substitute “Muslim” for the “Yellow” in The Yellow Peril, thus creating The Muslim Peril of 2017 and giving a name to all the fears and discrimination proffered by Trump. Trump has promised that Christians will receive immigration preference over Muslims. The 9th Circuit judges validated criticism that Trump’s ban and his own words discriminate against a religion and Muslims.

Fear that immigrants will take over American jobs. Trump frequently plays upon this fear, just as the supporters of the 1917 law did. The truth is, America needs immigrants to stimulate innovation and economic growth.

Stink lingers. The 1917 ban remained on the books until 1952 when congress passed a law that abolished racial restrictions. Trump boasts on TV that, as president, he has carte blanche authority to decide who enters the U.S. The 9th Circuit judges ruled differently.

Trump’s ban will probably wind its way to the Supreme Court. If he wins, it wouldn’t be a surprise if parts of the ban that are now temporary become permanent. Trump could also ban Mexicans from legally entering the U.S.—until Mexico agrees to pay for Trump’s Southern Wall. There’s never a limit to what a bully thinks he can do.

Here is a four-word bit of advice for Elizabeth Warren, Melissa McCarthy, Meryl Streep, John McCain, Nordstrom employees, Alec Baldwin, the LGTBQ community, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell, CNN’s Jake Tapper, every New York Times and Washington Post reporter, Never Trumpers, the staff of Public Policy Polling that published a Feb. 10 poll showing almost half of Americans favor impeaching Trump, and—jeez, this list is getting longmillions of women who don’t want to be grabbed down there by Trump: Don’t leave the country. Trump doesn’t want you in his kingdom.

A far-flung fear on my part? Sure. But does anyone think Trump wouldn’t if he could ban anyone who speaks unkindly about him or Ivanka?

Fear that we’ll let in demons. The 1917 ban, coming at a time when the U.S. was entering World War I, included people who wanted to overthrow the government. Trump, too, fears letting in terrorists who seek America’s downfall. His fear makes sense.

However, we have yet to hear Trump or any of his minions provide a believable explanation for why vetting protocol can’t be beefed up without the Trump ban in place. His shtick, of course, is that terrorists are “pouring” into America. He provides absolutely no evidence, as the 9th Circuit Court judges pointed out.

If Trump is afraid of letting in terrorists, he should also ban people from the five Mideastern countries where many terrorists originate, including 9/11 terrorists.

Oh, wait, we can’t do that. Trump has personal business operations in those five countries. We have to ask: Is that why those countries are safe from Trump’s ban? Trump and his communicators have yet to adequately answer the question.

I wrote the above paragraph hoping that I am wrong about his intentions regarding those five countries. I believe in the Office of the President of the United States, but when a person sitting behind the Oval Desk stonewalls an important question, it’s tough to be supportive of him—or even to trust him.

The Trump ban, like the Immigration Act of 1917, is fraught with complexity, pitfalls, racism, idealism, veiled terrorism prevention, fear, religious overtones, and dangerous undertows. But, for me, it’s also the ironic coincidence of it all.

Here are positive steps that you can take:

Trump’s ban lets in a world of ironic coincidences

By Gary Kimsey

I love the bitter-sweet surprises of ironic coincidences. You never know what you’ll get. It can be so refreshing. And yet sometimes so terribly stinky.

Currently, we have the stinky side of an ironic coincidence: Donald Trump’s executive order banning immigrants and travelers from seven countries in the Mideast. The ironic coincidence is that he announced the ban in the same week as the 100th anniversary of the Immigration Act of 1917, the most shameful immigration tactic in our country’s history. Trump’s executive order creating the ban on immigration and travel is less broad in scope; yet, the intended results are similarly draconian in nature. This assessment, of course, depends on your view of all that has happened.logo_fina_150pixels

As you may already know, three 9th Circuit Court judges ruled Feb. 9 that Trump’s ban will remain on hold. Never a person to admit he’s wrong, Trump responded with a tweet—“SEE YOU IN COURT“—that indicated he will continue to fight in the judicial system. Hopefully, he won’t do any more name-calling directed at judges.

Read the 9th Circuit Court ruling.

The 1917 act banned immigrants who are “idiots, imbeciles, feeble-minded persons, epileptic, insane persons…persons of constitutional psychopathic inferiority (that’s the description back then for gays and lesbians)…alcoholics, paupers…”

Well, you get the idea, those considered dregs of 1917 society.

The 1917 law also aimed at keeping out The Yellow Peril: peoples of Southeast Asia, India, the Orient, and Mideastern countries. You know, folks who didn’t look Anglo-Saxon and followed “cult” religions like Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam. The Yellow Peril, by the way, was the official term used in those days.

Your views are welcomed. Answer the poll at the end of this post. Send in comments in the “Leave a reply” box.

Here are where similarities occur between the 1917 and 2017 bans:

Fear of people different than yourself. You can easily substitute “Muslim” for the “Yellow” in The Yellow Peril, thus creating The Muslim Peril of 2017 and giving a name to all the fears and discrimination proffered by Trump. Trump has promised that Christians will receive immigration preference over Muslims. The 9th Circuit judges validated criticism that Trump’s ban and his own words discriminate against a religion and Muslims.

Fear that immigrants will take over American jobs. Trump frequently plays upon this fear, just as the supporters of the 1917 law did. The truth is, America needs immigrants to stimulate innovation and economic growth.

Stink lingers. The 1917 ban remained on the books until 1952 when congress passed a law that abolished racial restrictions. Trump boasts on TV that, as president, he has carte blanche authority to decide who enters the U.S. The 9th Circuit judges ruled differently.

Trump’s ban will probably wind its way to the Supreme Court. If he wins, it wouldn’t be a surprise if parts of the ban that are now temporary become permanent. Trump could also ban Mexicans from legally entering the U.S.—until Mexico agrees to pay for Trump’s Southern Wall. There’s never a limit to what a bully thinks he can do.

Here is a four-word bit of advice for Elizabeth Warren, Melissa McCarthy, Meryl Streep, John McCain, Nordstrom employees, Alec Baldwin, the LGTBQ community, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell, CNN’s Jake Tapper, every New York Times and Washington Post reporter, Never Trumpers, the staff of Public Policy Polling that published a Feb. 10 poll showing almost half of Americans favor impeaching Trump, and—jeez, this list is getting longmillions of women who don’t want to be grabbed down there by Trump: Don’t leave the country. Trump doesn’t want you in his kingdom.

A far-flung fear on my part? Sure. But does anyone think Trump wouldn’t if he could ban anyone who speaks unkindly about him or Ivanka?

Fear that we’ll let in demons. The 1917 ban, coming at a time when the U.S. was entering World War I, included people who wanted to overthrow the government. Trump, too, fears letting in terrorists who seek America’s downfall. His fear makes sense.

However, we have yet to hear Trump or any of his minions provide a believable explanation for why vetting protocol can’t be beefed up without the Trump ban in place. His shtick, of course, is that terrorists are “pouring” into America. He provides absolutely no evidence, as the 9th Circuit Court judges pointed out.

If Trump is afraid of letting in terrorists, he should also ban people from the five Mideastern countries where many terrorists originate, including 9/11 terrorists.

Oh, wait, we can’t do that. Trump has personal business operations in those five countries. We have to ask: Is that why those countries are safe from Trump’s ban? Trump and his communicators have yet to adequately answer the question.

I wrote the above paragraph hoping that I am wrong about his intentions regarding those five countries. I believe in the Office of the President of the United States, but when a person sitting behind the Oval Desk stonewalls an important question, it’s tough to be supportive of him—or even to trust him.

The Trump ban, like the Immigration Act of 1917, is fraught with complexity, pitfalls, racism, idealism, veiled terrorism prevention, fear, religious overtones, and dangerous undertows. But, for me, it’s also the ironic coincidence of it all.

Here are positive steps that you can take: