Showing posts with label Trump Anti Poor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trump Anti Poor. Show all posts

March 16, 2019

The NZ Attacks are Not Enough For TRUMP to Stop His Punt on White Supremacy




Related image
 These are the invaders, the white, young killers. Do You have mass killers on race of any other color? But Trump keeps saying are poor Mexican and brown people.
                          



Once again, President Donald Trump is having a tough time calling out far right-wing white nationalism.
His response to the carnage in New Zealand, where 49 people died in an attack on two mosques, is also raising fresh questions about his attitude toward Islam following a long history of anti-Muslim rhetoric -- and about the extent to which the President has a responsibility to moderate his language given the rise in white supremacy movements across the world.
On Twitter and in remarks in the Oval Office, Trump was clear in condemning the killings. But he did not deliver a message of empathy and support to American Muslims, who may feel scared as security is stepped up at US mosques.
"I spoke with Prime Minister Ardern of New Zealand to express the sorrow of our entire nation following the monstrous terror attacks at two mosques," Trump said in the Oval Office on Friday afternoon after first condemning the attack as "a horrible massacre in the Mosques" on Twitter.
    "These sacred places of worship were turned into scenes of evil killing," the President said. "We've all seen what went on. It's a horrible, horrible thing."
    But asked whether he saw a worrying rise in white supremacy movements around the world, Trump said he did not, blaming a small group of people "with very, very serious problems." He also told reporters that he had not seen the manifesto linked to by a social media account that's believed to belong to one of the attackers, which mentioned Trump by name and saw him as a symbol of renewed white identity.
    While the President did not reach out to Muslims around the world, his daughter offered the kind of language that might have been expected from a more conventional commander in chief.
    "We join New Zealand and Muslim communities around the world in condemnation of this evil as we pray for the families of each victim and grieve together," Ivanka Trump tweeted on Friday morning.
    New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern was asked in a news conference early Saturday what she had told Trump in their telephone call.
    "He asked what offer of support the United States could provide. My message was sympathy and love for all Muslim communities," Ardern said.
    White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders called the Christchurch killings a "vicious attack of hate," though she did not specifically mention that the attack was against Muslims.
    Trump's failure to do more to point out that the worshipers who died in Christchurch were Muslim represents a double standard, given that he has been much clearer in ascribing a religious motivation to other killings.
    Last year, after an attack on a Jewish temple in Pittsburgh, Trump spoke of an "anti-Semitic" motive in the attack, which itself sparked a debate over whether his inflammatory rhetoric was to blame for a rise in hate crimes.
    When 28 Coptic Christians died in suicide bombings in Egypt in May 2017, the President decried the "merciless slaughter of Christians" and warned that the "bloodletting of Christians must end."
    As a candidate, Trump called for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims" entering the United States, and as President, he eventually succeeded in using executive power to ban travel to the US by citizens of seven nations, five of them mainly Muslim.
    Trump has often been quick to wade in when a Muslim extremist has been a perpetrator of an attack and Muslims are not the victims, or to use such attacks to further his political arguments.
    "Incompetent Hillary, despite the horrible attack in Brussels today, wants borders to be weak and open and let the Muslims flow in. No way!" Trump, for instance, tweeted in March 2016.
    And when he was running for office, he excoriated Democrats as dishonest about the motivation of Muslim extremists who conducted terror attacks.
    "These are radical Islamic terrorists, and she won't even mention the word, and nor will President Obama," Trump said at a presidential debate, referring to Hillary Clinton. "Now, to solve a problem, you have to be able to state what the problem is, or at least say the name."

    Equivocation on white nationalism

    Trump has many times been accused of using rhetoric that emboldens extremists and dehumanizes his targets. He has used vulgar language to criticize NFL stars who took a knee during the National Anthem. In announcing his campaign, he said Mexico was sending "rapists" across the border into the US. On Friday, at the same event in which he bemoaned the attack in New Zealand, he warned of "invasions" of undocumented migrants coming across the southern border.
    And Friday was not the first time that Trump has sought to downplay the threat of white nationalism.
    The question of whether the President's rhetoric has emboldened white supremacists erupted into a multi-day controversy in 2017, when he said there were some "very fine people on both sides" after white nationalist marchers were met by counterprotests in Charlottesville, Virginia.
    Trump's moral leadership also came into question when he initially equivocated after he was endorsed by white supremacist David Duke during the 2016 campaign.
    The President's comment Friday that white nationalism is not a growing problem contrasted with the vehemence with which other world leaders reacted, and their clear condemnations of white supremacist rhetoric and ideology.
    Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May said there was no place in society for "the vile ideology that drives and incites hatred and fear."
    Australia's Prime Minister Scott Morrison condemned a "violent, extremist, right-wing terrorist attack."
    Ardern said the alleged perpetrator of the attack had "extremist views that have absolutely no place in New Zealand and in fact, have no place in the world."
    In a tweet that posted before Trump's comments in the Oval Office, Democratic former Vice President Joe Biden -- a possible White House candidate in 2020 -- appeared to have Trump on his mind.
    "Whether it is antisemitism in Pittsburgh, racism in Charlottesville, or the xenophobia and Islamophobia today in Christchurch, violent hate is on the march at home and abroad. We cannot stand by as mosques are turned into murder scenes," Biden tweeted. 
    "Silence is complicity," he added. "Our children are listening. The time to speak out is now."
    Democratic Rep. Joaquin Castro of Texas condemned Trump for what he styled as extremist rhetoric.
    "There is a cost to that. And the cost is part of what we saw today. There are people out there who are unstable that will be inspired by that and take action," Castro told Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room."
    White House director of strategic communications Mercedes Schlapp told reporters Friday that it was "outrageous to even make that connection between this deranged individual that committed this evil crime to the President, who has repeatedly condemned bigotry, racism."
    Trump's dismissal of the idea that white nationalism is on the rise contradicted warnings of his own government, and it was a characteristic example of how he ignores statistics that do not suit his political arguments.
    In a May 2017 intelligence bulletin obtained by Foreign Policy magazine, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security warned of "lethal violence" from white supremacist extremist groups.
      Trump's view also does not take into account the rise of white nationalist groups in politics in Europe, which has seen large marches in some cities.
      According to the Anti-Defamation League, 71% of the deaths linked to extremism in the United States between 2008 and 2017 were committed by far-right attackers.

      June 22, 2018

      Welcome to America Nasty Little Girl







       

      The image of a crying toddler that has become a symbol of immigrant families was used in TIME Magazine's new cover, which is edited to show President Donald Trump looming over the girl.

      The cover says simply, "Welcome to America." 
      In the cover story, TIME examines the president's rhetoric and the ideals associated with it.

      "For the first 240 years of U.S. history, at least, our most revered chief executives reliably articulated a set of high-minded, humanist values that bound together a diverse nation by naming what we aspired to: democracy, humanity, equality," TIME's Karl Vick wrote in the cover story that goes along with the photo.

      "With each passing month [Trump] is testing anew just how far from our founding humanism his "America first" policies can take us. And over the past two months on our southern border, we have seen the result," he wrote.

      The photo of the little girl was taken by John Moore, a Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer for Getty Images. He took it during a ride-along with a Customs and Border Patrol agent on June 12. The girl was among a group of women and children gathered on a dirt road that the agents stopped near McAllen, Texas.

      An agent asked the mother to put the child down, and the little girl immediately started crying. That's when Moore snapped the now-famous photo.

      TIME's editors said they chose the image because it was so powerful.

      "This one was tough for me. As soon as it was over, they were put into a van. I had to stop and take deep breaths," Moore told TIME. "All I wanted to do was pick her up. But I couldn't."

      Moore said he was able to speak to the mother briefly and learned that the little girl was a 2-year-old from Honduras.

      Moore, who as a photojournalist has been covering the U.S.-Mexico border for a decade, said he did not see the pair separated but that policy at the time would indicate their separation.

      "All that happens behind closed doors... We'll never see that," he told ABC News.

      On Wednesday President Trump signed an executive order that he said would end the separation of children from their parents when families cross illegally.

      "Trump may have backed down on the specific practice of family separation, but the larger question remains," Vick wrote in the cover story. "In the balance between the integrity of the U.S. border with Mexico and a parent's love for a child, where will we come down?"

      [ABC news]

      June 9, 2018

      A Large Part of Senior LGBT's Are On Food Stamps If Trump Bill Passes They Will Go Hungry




      Editor’s note: What will the future hold for LGBTQ rights and representation? With this year’s Beyond Pride series, Mic looks forward to see how the radical changes in recent years will continue to transform our culture in the worlds of politics, business, entertainment and more. You can receive all these stories in your inbox by signing up here.
      LGBT people are disproportionately food insecure — meaning a larger percentage of this group doesn’t have enough money to feed their family or themselves, relative to the general population. Research from a 2016 report by the Williams Institute found that 27% of LGBT adults — or 2.2 million people — went through a period of food insecurity that year, while a much smaller 17% of non-LGBT adults experienced the same. 
      The report also revealed that more than one in four LGB adults participated in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which is still colloquially known as “food stamps.” The program is often misrepresented as giving handouts to freeloaders, and it’s one that President Donald Trump has alluded to as being rife with fraud and laziness. In the Trump administration’s 2018 Farm Bill proposal, which has yet to successfully pass, LGBT people are even further disadvantaged. 

      How Trump’s farm bill hurts LGBT people

      In regards to SNAP, the new bill would require tighter work requirements for those who receive assistance from the program. More specifically, “it would institute a policy that would require able-bodied adults under the age of 60 without young children to prove monthly that they are working or participating in a work program for 20 total hours each week in order to qualify for assistance, with a month’s buffer between losing a job and sanctions,” the Atlantic reported. 
      “People at odds are going to do what they need to do to feed themselves — eating is a part of survival.” — Tyrone Hanley, NCLR 
      Expanding work requirements under SNAP doesn’t adequately help people seek jobs, nor does it address the systemic reasons why LGBTQ people have trouble getting work in the first place, Tyrone Hanley, policy counsel at the National Center for Lesbian Rights said in a phone interview. “Employment discrimination is a significant factor that directly contributes to LGBTQ poverty and unemployment rates,” a group of 56 queer and allied organizations, including NCLR, wrote in a letter to Congress opposing the Farm Bill. “Over half of the U.S. population lives in a state without explicit nondiscrimination laws prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.” 
      Supporters listen as Rep. Donald McEachin, D-Va., holds a news conference with faith leaders to “urge lawmakers to reject proposed cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in the Farm Bill” on Monday, May 7.
      Supporters listen as Rep. Donald McEachin, D-Va., holds a news conference with faith leaders to “urge lawmakers to reject proposed cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in the Farm Bill” on Monday, May 7.  Sarah Silbiger/CQ Roll Call/Getty Images
      These work requirements would increase the likelihood that more LGBT people will be food insecure, Hanley said. Even more, “there’s no question that by limiting the number of people that can access food assistance, more people are going to seek money through the underground economy,” Hanley said, explaining that criminalized work in either the drug trade and the sex trade is more likely to be sought out.  
      “People at odds are going to do what they need to do to feed themselves — eating is a part of survival,” he continued. In interviews conducted in New York City with LGBTQ youth, the Urban Institute found that “almost all of those who engaged in survival sex did so in order to make ends meet,” according to a report published by the Social Justice Sexuality Project.  
      “SNAP, for a lot of people, is the difference between literally starving and not starving,” Meghan Maury, policy director at The National LGBTQ Task Force, said over the phone. “Putting work requirements [onto SNAP] is shameful to me. I can’t say it another way — I know what it’s like to be hungry. Everyone should have access to the food they need to function.” 
      LGBT people are, of course, not the only ones who will be hurt by the proposed bill. Virtually any marginalized group that is disproportionately affected by poverty will be put at a greater disadvantage with the work requirements. LGBT poverty and hunger issues are not often discussed in mainstream media, however, because of “positive stereotypes” that lead people to assume LGBT communities are well off, despite the data that shows otherwise, Hanley said.  “Media portrayals like ‘Will and Grace’ lead the public to believe that all gay people are white, wealthy and doing just fine.” — Meghan Maury 
      In reality, LGBT people, particularly women and people of color, face poverty at significantly higher degrees than their non-LGBT counterparts. “I think there’s a myth of gay affluence which still persists,” Maury said. “Media portrayals like Will and Grace lead the public to believe that all gay people are white, wealthy and doing just fine, and what we’re fighting for is cake at our wedding and not basic human rights and human dignity.”
      Kate Bratskeir


      May 7, 2018

      Trump Wants to Return $15Billion in Cuts to Your mother or and The Poor












      Trump Wants to Return $15Billion in Cuts to Your mother
       or maybe you if you are over 62 or poor
      President Trump is sending a plan to Congress that calls for stripping back more than $15 billion in previously approved spending, with the hope that it will temper conservative angst over ballooning budget deficits.
      Almost half of the proposed cuts would come from two accounts within the Children’s Health Insurance Program that White House officials said either expired last year or aren’t expected to be drawn upon. Another $800 million in cuts would come from money created by the Affordable Care Act in 2010 to test innovative payment and service delivery models.
      Those are just a handful of the more than 30 programs the White House is proposing to Congress for “rescission,” a process of culling back money that was previously authorized. Once the White House sends the request to Congress, lawmakers have 45 days to vote on the plan or a scaled-back version of it through a simple majority vote.

      February 12, 2018

      Trump Wants to Tell What SNAP Recipients Get, After All He is A Genius






      The Trump administration is proposing a major shake-up in one of the country's most important "safety net" programs, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps. Under the proposal, most SNAP recipients would lose much of their ability to choose the food they buy with their SNAP benefits.
      The proposal is included in the Trump administration budget request for the fiscal year 2019. It would require approval from Congress.
      Under the proposal, which was announced Monday, low-income Americans who receive at least $90 a month — just over 80 percent of all SNAP recipients — would get about half of their benefits in the form of a "USDA Foods package." The package was described in the budget as consisting of "shelf-stable milk, ready to eat cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans and canned fruit and vegetables." The boxes would not include fresh fruits or vegetables.


       Currently, SNAP beneficiaries get money loaded onto an EBT card they can use to buy what they want as long as it falls under the guidelines. The administration says the move is a "cost-effective approach" with "no loss in food benefits to participants."
      The USDA believes that state governments will be able to deliver this food at much less cost than SNAP recipients currently pay for food at retail stores — thus reducing the overall cost of the SNAP program by $129 billion over the next 10 years.
      This and other changes in the SNAP program, according to the Trump administration, will reduce the SNAP budget by $213 billion over those years — cutting the program by almost 30 percent. Joel Berg, CEO of Hunger Free America, a hunger advocacy group that also helps clients access food-assistance services, said the administration's plan left him baffled. "They have managed to propose nearly the impossible, taking over $200 billion worth of food from low-income Americans while increasing bureaucracy and reducing choices," Berg says.
      He says SNAP is efficient because it is a "free market model" that lets recipients shop at stores for their benefits. The Trump administration's proposal, he said, "is a far more intrusive, Big Government answer. They think a bureaucrat in D.C. is better at picking out what your family needs than you are?" 
      Douglas Greenaway, president of the National WIC Association, echoed that sentiment. "Removing choice from SNAP flies in the face of encouraging personal responsibility," he said. He says "the budget seems to assume that participating in SNAP is a character flaw."
      It isn't clear how billions of dollars' worth of food each year would be distributed to millions of SNAP recipients who live all over the country, including dense urban areas and sparsely populated rural regions. The budget says states will have "substantial flexibility in designing the food box delivery system through existing infrastructure, partnerships or commercial/retail delivery services."
      Critics of the proposal said distributing that much food presents a logistical nightmare. "Among the problems, it's going to be costly and take money out of the [SNAP] program from the administrative side. It's going to stigmatize people when they have to go to certain places to pick up benefits," says Jim Weill, president of the nonprofit Food Research and Action Center.
      Stacy Dean, vice president for food assistance policy at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, called the proposal "radical and risky." The idea that the government could save money by distributing food itself, she said, is "ill-informed at best."
      It isn't clear whether the boxes will come with directions on how to cook the foods inside. "It could be something that [SNAP recipients] don't even know how to make," notes Miguelina Diaz, whose team at Hunger Free America works directly with families to help them access food aid. "We deal with different people of different backgrounds. Limiting them by providing them a staple box would limit the choices of food they can prepare for their families."
      According to Dean, from CBPP, the Trump administration wants to trim an additional $80 billion from the SNAP program by cutting off about 4 million people who currently receive food assistance. Most of them live in states that have decided to loosen the program's eligibility requirements slightly. Under the administration's proposal, states would no longer be able to do so.
      Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said in early December that he wanted states to have more flexibility in doling out SNAP, announcing the agency wanted to hear about programs from states that don't increase the cost of the program and will combat what he said is fraud and waste. At the National Grocers Association conference over the weekend, Perdue said the budget has "common-sense reforms that call for greater consistency across nutritional programs."
      Nutrition programs, including SNAP, made up about 80 percent of the USDA's budget in the most recent farm bill, making it the largest portion of agency spending. About 44 million people participated in SNAP each month in 2016, at an annual cost of $70.9 billion. Nearly two-thirds were under 18, over 60 or disabled, according to the USDA.
      Congress largely ignored Trump's proposed budget for SNAP last year, when he wanted to cut the funding by a quarter. This time, it's a farm bill year, meaning many budgetary decisions will be made among the House and Senate agriculture committees.
      Several critics, we spoke with expressed skepticism that the proposed SNAP changes would pass in Congress. Even so, Weill says, "Whenever you see proposals like this that attack [SNAP] ... it harms the program even if it doesn't pass, in the long term reducing support for the program and stigmatizing people who use it."

      NPR  

      February 1, 2018

      Many Lawmakers Urged FEMA to Reconsider to stop Food Aid for Puerto Rico






      Politicians from both political parties reacted angrily to news of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's plan to end the shipment of emergency food and water supplies to storm-battered Puerto Rico. On Tuesday, several lawmakers called on the agency to reverse its decision.

      Details of FEMA's plan – which the agency said would take effect Jan. 31 — were first reported by NPR. In addition to ending new shipments to the island, the agency said it would turn the food and water that remained over to the Puerto Rican government, which would distribute them until stocks ran out.

      Speaking on the Senate floor, Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson said he was "absolutely shocked" by FEMA's decision. "I urge the administration to reverse this disastrous decision immediately and to continue providing the people of Puerto Rico with the help that they need as they are trying to recover from two disastrous hurricanes."

      His concerns were echoed by Democrats and Republicans alike, including Democratic Rep. Nydia Velazquez of New York and Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida.

      "There are still a lot of people that wonder why we are giving foreign aid to Puerto Rico," Rubio told USA Today. "You have to remind them, Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory and its residents are U.S. citizens."

      But perhaps the most surprising reaction came from the government of Puerto Rico itself. In a statement, the island's public security secretary, Hector Pesquera, said that while he was aware that FEMA would eventually transfer responsibility for distributing food and water supplies over to the island's government, "this has not happened yet and we were not informed that supplies would stop arriving."

      His statement contradicted information that FEMA sent NPR in an email last week. An agency spokeswoman wrote that "FEMA will continue to provide commodities to the State [Puerto Rico] until January 31st." She also wrote that the agency's food and water mission would "officially shut off" on that date.

      But as public concerns mounted over FEMA's plans following NPR's report, the agency released a new statement. While reiterating its belief that emergency food and water supplies were no longer needed on the island, it said that FEMA would "continue to support the Government of Puerto Rico to meet the needs they identify."

      In a follow-up interview, a second FEMA spokesperson, William Booher, said that the agency still had no plans to resume shipments of new food and water to Puerto Rico. But until further notice, he said, local officials will be able to access the supplies already on the island the way they always have – by going to one of nine warehouses where FEMA stores them.

      He said the agency is confident it has enough of a stockpile to meet the need that remains. If supplies run out, he said FEMA would reconsider purchasing more. He did not say when the agency would finalize its plan to hand the remaining supplies over to the Puerto Rican government.


      January 29, 2018

      How is Your Refrigerator?? You Are Buying Trump's For AF1 $24 Millions



      The Model below is not cheap but it wont approch nearly $500. Trump is in the market but that cheap model wont do. After all He is not paying for it. He needs a specialized one for his guests and to keep his KFC chilled until time for the new micro to make it hot and crispy again! But no idea how mcuh that would cost. However The KFC after delivery is only a couple of bills ($100.). Go ahead breathe, after all he is saving the tax payer money by reducing the staff of the Centers for Disease Control. He says American's are a healthy bunch of Nordic people.  adamfoxie






      A Department of Defense contract for $23,657,671 awards Boeing, the maker of the highly customized 747-200B models that compose the two Air Force One planes, to replace refrigerators and "chillers." 
      The complex "bespoke equipment requirements" of the plane's interior design and electrical system are said to be the reason behind the massive price tag -- and not just price gouging on behalf of Boeing, Defense One first reported. The two jets are labeled "Air Force One" depending on whether or not President Trump is onboard, and both have been in service since 1990. The seemingly petty requirements for refrigeration -- such as the need to have enough food onboard to last all crew and passengers several weeks -- also adds to the hefty cooling bill. 
      Great afternoon in Ohio & a great evening in Pennsylvania - departing now. See you tomorrow Virginia!
       
      Although Trump has shown his knack for eating fast food while flying, Air Force One requirements show that at least 3,000 meals must be on the planes at all times. The meals are kept in massive cooling units below the passenger cabin, as Travel & Leisure reports. 
      "Although serviced on a regular basis, reliability has decreased with failures increasing, especially in hot/humid environments," Air Force spokesman Ann Stefanek told Defense One. 
      The current refrigerators on the plane are nearly 27 years old. The new chillers are set to be installed by engineers with high-level security clearance by October 2019. In December 2016, Trump claimed he would cancel the creation of Boeing's new 747-8 models because "costs are out of control." At the time, President-elect Trump claimed the Boeing deal for the new planes was "more than $4 billion," but Boeing said it was closer to $170 million. 
      "We are currently under contract for $170 million to help determine the capabilities of these complex military aircraft that serves the unique requirements of the President of the United States," Boeing responded to Trump in a statement.
      Boeing is building a brand new 747 Air Force One for future presidents, but costs are out of control, more than $4 billion. Cancel order!
      But for now, Trump's Diet Coke and KFC are set to cool on the taxpayer dime.

      Featured Posts

      A Mob of 10 Men Attacks a Gay Man in Arizona

      Police are investigating, though they aren't calling the attack as a hate crime. BY  MATHEW RODRIGUEZ Ou...