Major Political Explosion In Chicago!

Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) has a great voting record-- pretty much as good as it comes. ProgressivePunch rates her record a strong "A" and she's one of only 6 members of Congress this cycle with 100% scores (along with people like Barbara Lee, Jim McGovern and Jamie Raskin). When it comes to politics, though... she's on a different path, more often than not backing crappy DCCC/EMILY's List candidates who aren't nearly as good as she is on issues. One of the best grassroots activists in Illinois described her to me like this yesterday: "Schakowsky is a progressive on policy and establishment politically" and when I asked him why, he said "She is part of the good ol boy network... Pork for the district, her legislation moves forward, etc. All of these clowns are there for their own survival." Example: in IL-14, Randy Hultgren's Chicagoland seat primarily in McHenry, Kane and Lake counties she-- along with New Dem Bill Foster-- endorsed Matt Browley, a Republican pretending to be a Democrat. He's the establishment pick running against the grassroots progressive in the race, Jim Walz.

But how about an opposite example-- one that shows Schakowsky as the most amazing progressive fighter in Congress? This week, she and Luis Gutiérrez (who is retiring) did something no one ever does in Congress-- they endorsed a challenger and reformer against one of their own colleagues in a primary. No one does that. Pelosi and Hoyer come down on anyone who even thinks of doing that like 2 tons of bricks. But Schakowsky and Gutiérrez both announced they are backing progressive reformer Marie Newman in her tight primary race against reactionary and bigoted Chicagoland Blue Dog Dan Lipinski.

In Marie's own words: "It’s hard to overstate how big a deal this is. These two leaders know Dan Lipinski better than anyone, and they’re tired of seeing one of their fellow Democrats vote with President Trump and against the values of the Third District’s voters. They’re saying Marie Newman can do better. And they’re saying she can win.

Just look at the fight playing out on Capitol Hill right now. The vast majority of Democrats are banding together to stand with Dreamers, innocent young people who were brought to this country as children—many of whom know no other home.

This fall, President Trump announced he would end DACA, which President Obama put in place to protect Dreamers from deportation. Just this weekend, he rejected a bipartisan deal that writes these protections into the law.

We can’t count on Dan Lipinski to do what's right for Dreamers. After all, he voted against the DREAM Act and holds positions on immigration that look a lot like Trump’s.

This is why Reps. Schakowsky and Gutiérrez are eager for a new voice-- someone who will stand up for Dreamers and fight discrimination of all kinds.

Voters in IL-03 want change, not more status quo politics. In the presidential primary they backed Bernie who beat Hillary." Chicago's most credible political journalist, Lynn Sweet, wrote in Wednesday's Sun-Times that the move by Schakowsky and Gutiérrez "a rare break from the usual tradition of House incumbents either backing each other or staying neutral in a primary." Gutiérrez pointed out that "It’s not easy to endorse a challenger over a colleague in the House of Representatives, especially when that colleague is a member of your party... “Primaries are about definition of a party. I want to define myself with Marie Newman, and I hope the Democratic Party does too."

Schakowsky made it clear the move wasn't personal but about issues. Lipinski has been wrong on almost everything important to Democrats and has been especially egregious on Choice, health care, immigration and LGBT issues, where he virtually always votes with the Republicans.

The DCCC and its corrupt conservative allies, like the Blue Dogs, New Dems, EMILY's List and the corrupt segments of the labor movement, will move with speed to counter Schakowsky and Gutiérrez and do what they can to prevent any kind of groundswell to develop for Newman. If you'd like to help Marie replace one of the absolute worst fake-Democrats in Congress, please consider clicking on the Blue America Primary A Blue Dog thermometer on the right and contributing what you can. When Blue America endorsed Marie 7 months ago, she explained in a guest post why she's running and what her priorities will be in Congress.

First, we must fight to protect and extend health care for all Americans. I believe the best way to do that is through phased-in approach to include some of the key proposals out there currently such as the Medicare for All initiative, introduced by Congressman Conyers and Senator Sanders. Until we have a President and Congress that will pass such a measure, we must fight to protect the Affordable Care Act from repeal. This includes retaining the elements of that law focused on women’s healthcare and reproductive rights, protecting Planned Parenthood and the millions of women it serves, and requiring insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions.

Not only is my opponent the only Democrat from Illinois to vote against establishing the Affordable Care Act; he has voted repeatedly with the Republican majority to defund Planned Parenthood. This is an unacceptable assault on the rights and health needs of millions of women across our country.

Second, we need to put the needs and concerns of small businesses ahead of the big corporations who use their campaign money and lobbyists to turn the tax code to their advantage. It is our small businesses that create most of the new jobs in our country and that make up the majority of the businesses in the 3rd Congressional District.

In any restructuring of our tax code, we need to close the loopholes and special privileges that enable the wealthiest corporations to avoid their fair share of the tax burden and use some of those resources to help small businesses and entrepreneurs. We must also reverse the Citizens United decision, which has given a handful of right-wing billionaires a hugely disproportionate role in our elections and government. I believe every person’s voice and vote should matter the same.

My opponent takes three-quarters of his campaign money from Washington PACs and lobbyists, which is why he’s ignored the needs of small businesses without that kind of political clout. As a Member of Congress, I’ll reverse those misguided priorities and focus on promoting small business growth.

Third, too many students in our country are leaving college with huge debt but without employable skills. We should encourage the development of high school and college curriculums that actually lead to real jobs. For example, creating more cost-effective entry to community colleges and to create one and two year certifications with designated paths to well-paying jobs that will promote both job and community growth. This should apply to federally supported job retraining and career redirection programs, as well-- many of which could be administered through our community college system.

Last night, Natasha Korecki did some further reporting on this for Politico. Other than her refrying to the right-wing conservative Lipinski as "a centrist," there's some worthwhile info in her report, especially about how Lipinski is trying to defend himself.

Gutierrez framed the public shunning as a necessary response in the Donald Trump era: Democrats needed to unite against the president, and Lipinski couldn't be counted on to vote reliably with Democrats.

And yet there’s more to it than that. The act of throwing Lipinski under the bus was an exercise in bare-knuckled Chicago politics, and it was also a tale of a party that is an increasingly awkward fit for centrists like Lipinski.

"There’s an effort that is very detrimental to the Democratic Party, in that there’s the Tea Party of the Left that some people said they wanted to create. That’s bad for the party. That’s not going to be helpful in growing our numbers,” said Lipinski, who noted that the Tea Party movement was responsible for Trump’s ascendance. “I think we have to acknowledge that the way to get back into the majority into the Congress and pick up seats is to make sure we are a big-tent party and reaching out to people are moderate and not just push to the left."

Asked if he felt betrayed by his colleagues, Lipinski said he wasn’t surprised at all.

“Jan has worked against me in the past. She’s never come out formally against me. Her husband has been straight about working against me,” Lipinski told Politico. “It certainly does not surprise me. Even though I have supported her when she ran for vice chair of the caucus … I’ve been back and forth with Luis. He’s been with me, he’s not been with me. I’m not sure what his future is.”

To progressive groups angling to oust Lipinski, the seven-term Democrat is finally getting his comeuppance after years of votes against their interests. He was the only Illinois Democrat to vote against the Affordable Care Act, and the only Democrat in the House not to sign onto the Equality Act, which expands protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. He also voted against the Dream Act, angering Chicago-area Hispanics.

Then there is Lipinski’s position on abortion, a sticking point in a party that has few remaining opponents of abortion rights.

Gutierrez and Schakowsky both cited Lipinski’s opposition to abortion as out of step with his district.

“I assure you that this district is overwhelmingly pro-choice,” said Schakowsky.

By endorsing Marie Newman, a businesswoman and former marketing consultant, Schakowsky and Gutierrez joined powerful national groups that have already coalesced behind the challenger, including NARAL, MoveOn.org, Democracy for America, Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Human Rights Campaign. Those groups expect a surge in progressive votes in the primary, providing the opportunity to oust one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress.

Still, Newman will need all the help-- and money-- she can get against Lipinski, whose family has held a seat in the district for decades.

"I am hoping it will encourage some donors to decide that they would support Marie,” Schakowsky said of her endorsement.

Privately, some Democrats question whether Gutierrez was settling a score with the powerful state party chairman Mike Madigan, a longtime ally of the Lipinski family. Gutierrez, who plans to retire at the end of this term, brought up in the news conference that during the last round of redistricting his district was redrawn to include a portion of Lipinski’s constituents.

“He jettisoned, 50-60,000 voters ... all of a sudden I have the zoo. Brookfield Zoo … Just think about it. Pilsen, Little Village, Humboldt Park, Back of the Yards,” he said, referring to Chicago neighborhoods heavily populated by Latino residents. He then added the punchline: “And I got Brookfield Zoo, thanks to [Dan] Lipinski. But he didn’t do it so I have the zoo in my congressional district. He did it because he was running away from progressive Democrats.”

Gutierrez later told Politico his remarks had "nothing to do" with Madigan or the redistricting process the state Democratic party controls. Rather, he said, they were a commentary that Lipinski had exported a part of his district, around a trademark Chicago-area zoo, that was growing more liberal.

Gutierrez said moving a portion of Lipinski's district into his own was a sign Lipinski and his clout-heavy Democratic backers knew he'd grown too conservative for his district. Lipinski insists he remains in line with his district, which includes Chicago and nearby suburbs, pointing to the endorsements of 30 mayors and village presidents just this week.

Wednesday’s move by Schakowsky and Gutierrez put them at odds with a more pragmatic [better word would be corrupt] faction of Chicago Democrats-- old guard Democrats who remain loyal to Lipinski’s father, former Congressman Bill Lipinski, and would prefer to leave his son be.

Sure, they argue, Lipinski takes some conservative votes and may even be out of step with his district, but “he has a hell of a name,” said one Democratic operative.

In other words: why is the party spending precious resources to oust an incumbent from a safe Democratic seat? Especially when Democrats are busy trying to oust a Republican governor from office and nearby GOP congressmen from their seats?

The party, unfortunately, isn't "spending precious resources to oust " Lipinski. Instead, they will spend precious resources to hold a Republican-supprting reactionary in a safe Democratic seat. Just Wednesday, for example, the Republicans passed a resolution top move forward on one of their crackpot anti-choice bills, HR 4712, and every Democrat opposed it except two, one of those two being Lipinski, of course.

Primary Season Is Far More Important Than The DCCC Wants You To Think It Is

Chuy Garcia and Carlos Rosa, 2 of Chicago's best

ProgressivePunch rates Jan Schakowsky's voting record an "A." This year she scores 100. And career-long she gets a 96.43, the 13th best score in Congress. The only other Illinois member with an "A" is Danny Davis. Robin Kelly has a strong progressive voting record as well. And Luis Gutierrez's isn't bad. His "B" rating is strong and this session his 95.16 score is the 37th strongest in the House. His lifetime record is 89.47. the 54th best in the House-- nothing to sneer at, and more important is Gutierrez's leadership on the issues that have meant the most to him, primarily immigration policy. He'll be missed. Yesterday he announced he's not running for reelection and endorsed Chuy Garcia, a very progressive Cook County commissioner who had forced Rahm Emanuel and all his millions of sleazy dollars into a runoff for mayor 2 years ago.

Gutierrez's district, is one of the most progressive in the country. Bernie handily beat Hillary in the primary and Hillary absolutely crushed Trumpanzee in the general-- 82.1% to 13.2%. The PVI is D+33, second only to Danny Davis' IL-07 at D+38. That's the kind of district where Democrats should be looking for cutting edge leadership, for men and women to be not just be sitting and voting well, but to be bringing forth ideas that might not be generally accepted for another decade. Gutierrez's endorsement of Chuy Garcia will go a long way towards helping him win the primary (tantamount to winning the seat)-- and Chuy is likely to be an even more progressive member than Gutierrez. But there's another candidate in the race that shouldn't be overlooked, Chicago Alderman Carlos Ramirez-Rosa, a Democratic Socialist and former aide to Gutierrez, who also threw his hat into the ring. Rosa, openly gay and the youngest Chicago alderman, was a Bernie delegate to the Convention.

Although the DCCC is working very hard to prevent it, the next Congress could see a far more dynamic, ethical, progressive and independent-minded Democratic Party than the current one. Around the country, there are actual top notch candidates running, not just the usual array of pathetic hacks and self-funding conservatives the DCCC strongly prefers. And this goes beyond just extraordinary progressives fighting to replace corrupt conservatives already in office-- like Tim Canova vs Wasserman Schultz in South Florida and Marie Newman vs Dan Lipinski in Chicago. Open seats and shaky Republican seats could bless Congress with men and women like Kaniela Ing in Hawaii-- that state's most progressive legislator replacing hawkish corrupt conservative Colleen Hanabusa-- Sam Jammal replacing bigot Ed Royce in Orange County, Derrick Crowe replacing corrupt science denier Lamar Smith in Austin/San Antonio, Jared Golden-- another cutting edge state legislative leader, replacing Wall Street hack Bruce Poliquin in Maine-- Lillian Salerno (TX), Austin Frerick (IA), Jenny Marshall (NC), Randy Bryce (IL), Dan Canon (IN), David Gill (OK)... and everyone else you find on the page you find by tapping the thermometer above.

There are only 3 freshmen with 100% ProgressivePunch voting scores-- Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD) and Ro Khanna (D-CA). It's important to remember that there are other measurements of effectiveness and leadership. We have an opportunity now-- during primary season-- to guarantee that the Congress elected in 2018 and seated in January 2019 will be among the best in contemporary American history. We have that chance-- or we can just give in and let the Blue Dogs, New Dems and DCCC fill the seats with piles of garbage, which they are working diligently-- even furiously-- to do. It's up to you and me and all of us. This is a time we can pick between dynamic change or a turgid status quo we all hate. Don't be fooled again.

Trumpanzee And His GOP Enablers Would Rather Deport Latinos Than Get Serious About MS-13

Nancy Ohanian looks at Trumpanzee

Eliminating MS-13 and other violent criminal gangs should be a priority for law enforcement that all Americans should support. But that isn't what Barbara Comstock's Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act (H.R. 3697) is actually about. Her bill passed last week 233-175. Only one Republican, libertarian Justin Amash (MI), voted against it. 11 fake-Democrats took the bait and crossed the aisle to vote with the Republicans. Now Ryan is running around claiming the bill passed with "bipartisan support."

The 11 Democrats who voted for it are the worst of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, primarily Blue Dogs and New Dems who consistently support the Republican Party policy agenda. Only one-- Ruben Kihuen-- hasn't earned an "F" from ProgressivePunch (and he has a "C"). These are the Democrats who gave Ryan and McCarthy the right to call the bill "bipartisan."

• Salud Carbajal (CA)
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)
• Ruben Kihuen (New Dem-NV)
• Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)
• Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ)
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Jacky Rosen (NV)
• Raul Ruiz (CA)
• Kirsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ)

The bill is not a crime-fighting bill or even an anti-gang bill. It's just a bill meant to label immigrants the GOP doesn't like as criminals. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), a senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee said the bill could be easily used to target groups of people who aren't gangs-- religious organistions particularly. "This may seem reasonable until you look at the offenses listed," she said. "These offenses could sweep in many people that no reasonable person would think of as a gang member. That means that under this bill, a religious organization that aids undocumented immigrants could be a criminal gang." It was no surprise that Chicago patriot Luis Gutiérrez would be one of the leaders among Democrats in exposing the legislation for what it really is-- and isn't:

While the President is playing deal or no deal with the lives of DREAMers, Speaker Ryan is allowing House Republicans to vote on a bill that labels as many immigrant youth as possible as gang members and makes it easier to deport them. He could be moving the bipartisan DREAM Act forward, but instead, he wants to make it very clear that Republicans see Latinos and immigrants as a threat to the U.S., not an asset. Hundreds of thousands of doctors, teachers, nurses and soldiers are going to be yanked from the American economy if Speaker Ryan does not allow the DREAM Act to go forward in the next few weeks, but his priority is feeding red meat to the anti-immigration wing of his party and satisfying them with a big helping of ‘let’s label Latino youth as machete-wielding menaces.’” This is not a bill to curtail violence or make the country safer, it is a political bill to allow Republicans in the House to make speeches about urging Americans to fear young immigrants.

It is clear that Democrats and Republicans would prefer to be talking about the DREAM Act and showing the country that we can act in a bipartisan manner to resolve the status of DACA recipients and other immigrants who were raised in the U.S. I am committed to not exchanging the safety of DREAMers for more deportations or further restricting legal immigration so that there are no available legal avenues for immigrants who help feed us, build our communities and serve our country. But the priorities of House Republicans seem inconsistent with what the American people, the majority of House Members and their own voters want them to do.

Juan Vargas, a California New Dem, tried talking his New Dem colleagues out of voting for the bill-- and mostly succeeded. His point was that the "bill would result in the targeting of persons of faith, religious leaders, and faith-based organizations, who are compelled by their beliefs to open their doors to vulnerable migrants seeking safety and respite. For many in the faith community, this action is deeply rooted in religious expression and goes directly to the core of our American values as protected by First Amendment expression. The broad provisions of this bill, which purportedly targets gang members, would lead to attempts to criminalize religious groups across the country as gang members simply because they answered the call of their faith. As people of faith, we are called to love our neighbor and welcome the stranger. This bill would functionally criminalize individuals who aid undocumented immigrants as gang members under an expanded harboring statute.  The Catholic community has raised alarms over this statute in the past and is concerned that this bill could result in groups of nuns being classified as 'gangs.' There is no humanitarian exception provided in the bill and the federal government has a record of penalizing individuals who provide humanitarian relief to migrants."

He continued in a very personal way: "As a person of faith, my Catholic upbringing and time in the Jesuit order has impressed upon me the duty to speak for those less fortunate among us…for the oppressed, for the poor and for the voiceless. As leaders of this great nation, we must act in a way that reflects the best of our national values and that reflects the best of who we are as Americans. We should not contribute to a climate of fear by criminalizing humanitarian aid to undocumented immigrants. Matthew 25 gibes me, and others that believe as I do, clear direction on how we are to treat the least among us."

Trump, of course, loves the bill and it is going to the Senate now. Stephen Lendman of Global Research labeled it "a police state measure" which define "a criminal gang as a "group, club, organization, or association of 5 or more persons that has as one of its primary purposes the commission of 1 or more of the following criminal offenses and the members of which engage, or have engaged within the past 5 years, in a continuing series of such offenses, or that has been designated as a criminal gang by the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, as meeting these criteria. The offenses described, whether in violation of Federal or State law or foreign law and regardless of whether the offenses occurred before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, are the following:”

▪ felony drug offenses;
▪ aiding unwanted immigrants;
violent offenses;
▪ obstructing justice;
▪ and other alleged violations of US laws, shifting responsibility to prove innocence on targeted individuals, not authorities as mandated under international and constitutional law.

And the bill is even worse than it appears at first glance.

Any immigrant suspected or alleged to be a gang member can be deported. US prisons are filled with wrongfully convicted men, women, youths, and children, mostly people of color.

HR 3697 is a vehicle for the manufacture of human and civil rights abuses, disgraceful legislation, its provisions no just society would tolerate.

It creates a sweeping new definition of “gang member,” giving authorities broad latitude to target social and political groups, clubs, even churches or other religious organizations.

It expands the use of mandatory, no-bond arbitrary detentions, a flagrant violation of international law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibits arbitrarily detaining anyone.

Refugees and asylum seekers will be deterred from seeking refuge in America.

It’ll subject law-abiding immigrants to flagrant abuses of power, including Fifth Amendment equal protection rights.

It’ll permit sweeping roundups of immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers of color, mainly Latinos. Living in the wrong neighborhood would risk deportation.

So could wearing the wrong colored clothing or being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sweeping Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) roundups are notoriously indiscriminate, many individuals guilty of nothing abusively detained under deplorable conditions and deported.

HR 3697 authorizes deportations if there’s “reason to believe” so-called gang affiliation or association, no credible proof required.

Expansive language permits sweeping up law-abiding people indiscriminately, children as vulnerable as adults.

DHS can target anyone based on secret evidence, classified evidence, no evidence or any pretext cited-- without due process, constitutional protections denied.

Humanitarian relief can be denied individuals fleeing persecution from designated countries.

No one was surprised when a Gutiérrez neighbor, Chicago's far right Blue Dog Dan Lipinski, stuck with Ryan and Trump and voted against the Democratic position-- and against the interests of his own IL-03 constituents. His progressive primary opponent, Marie Newman, told us that once again Lipinski showed "that he's perfectly aligned with President Trump and the Republicans on the issue of immigration. By voting for H.R. 3697, Lipinski voted to increase racial profiling and the arrest of people of color on the mere suspicion that they're involved in criminal activity. Democrats in Congress ought to be focused on protecting Dreamers and keeping families together, not satiating President Trump's absurd views on Latinos." If you agree with Marie on this, please help her repeal and replace Dan Lipinski here. Hers is one of the few races in the country where a credible progressive is challenging a fake Democrat in a race that's going to go down to the wire.

There are only two Republican-held Senate seats that Schumer's DSCC thinks it can probably win in 2018: Flake's seat in Arizona and Heller's seat in Nevada. Both of his very conservative, hand-picked recruits, Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) and Jacky Rosen (NV) were among the 11 rogue Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party who supported this dreadful and deceptive legislation. Neither of these exceptionally bad candidates has any chance of winning without heavy Latino turnout. Neither is Latino in increasingly Latino-dominated states and in states where Latinos are becoming very cognizant of who their community's friends really are when push comes to shove. But these are the kinds of establishment GOP-lite candidates Schumer has always gravitated to for his entire career. Not just Arizona and Nevada, but all of America will suffer because of his inability to learn from his mistakes.

Two Dozen Democrats Join The House Republican Xenophobia Caucus

Yesterday, Bob Goodlatte's racist, xenophobic, Trumpist Kate's Law (H.R. 3004) passed the House. It should have been called O'Reilly's Law, since it was all his idea. In fact, the House passed two Trumpist garbage bills yesterday-- Kate's Law and Goodlatte's No Sanctuary for Criminals Act (H.R. 3003).

The House passed two bills Thursday to boost President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.

The bills-- "Kate’s Law" and the "No Sanctuary for Criminals Act"-- would up the penalties on undocumented immigrants who attempt to reenter the country illegally after being deported for crimes and slash funds from cities that protect them.

Kate's Law passed 257-167, largely along party lines, in the GOP-controlled House. Trump, who made immigration a key focus during the campaign and in his administration, celebrated its passage.

Well, not entirely. 24 Democrats-- mostly from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- voted with the GOP. Hoyer granted them dispensation to "vote their consciences." In theory, the Democrats whipped against the bill, but Hoyer made it clear he didn't really care if they crossed the aisle or not. He explained that "the public’s perception of allowing people to come back in, commit crimes and not have a more serious sentence [could harm vulnerable Democrats]. You talk to the families who have been adversely affected by that, it is a wrenching experience. Members believe that that’s pretty serious business, [and] I agree with that."

Among the Democrats voting no were a dozen of the most conservative, Republican-oriented members of the caucus, all of whom have "F" ratings from ProgressivePunch:

• Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN)
• Charlie Crist (Blue Dog-FL)
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Val Demings (New Dem-FL)
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)
• Ron Kind (New Dem-WI)
• Anne Kuster (New Dem-NH)
• Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)
• Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ)
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ)

Republicans tried passing the bill in 2016 and it was killed in the Senate, something that will probably happen again this year.

Many Democrats panned the legislation, calling it anti-immigrant and saying it would stoke fear.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), called the measure "callous and irrational."

Others said it could target legal immigrants.

Just two of the Democrats who crossed the aisle to vote with the GOP on this have serious primary challenges this cycle, Kyrsten Sinema and Chicagoland Blue Dog Dan Lipinski. Marie Newman, the progressive opposing Lipinski, was disappointed, but not really surprised by Lipinski's vote. "This is another clear indication Congressman Lipinski is in lockstep with President Trump on immigration and his xenophobic views," she told us after the vote. "I am beyond disappointed with Mr. Lipinski’s anti-immigrant views. Mr. Lipinski views are wrong and are not consistent with progressive Democratic values. This legislation is very simply a way to demonize immigrants. Mr. Lipinski is deeply wrong and I will fight this type of stereotyping and discrimination tirelessly if I am elected. This is not just unacceptable, it is anti-American." If you agree with her, please consider contributing to her campaign here.

Katie Hill is running for Congress in Southern California against a Republican incumbent who has never-- in his entire legislative career (in the state Assembly, state Senate and now the House-- seen an anti-immigrant bill that he didn't embrace. In a district with a strong and vibrant Hispanic community, Steve Knight has dedicated his career in politics to making their lives as difficult as possible. Katie pointed out that "elected officials chose to vote for this bill not because they believe it is good policy, but because they care more about getting re-elected than the lives that will be impacted. It is further proof of how broken our system is when 'vote your conscience' actually means 'vote to get re-elected.' The discussion we need to have around immigration is hard, and we're dealing with so much fear mongering that it's easy to see how someone from a more moderate or swing district might be scared into voting for this. But we need to bring that discussion back to values, and the bottom line is that most people understand what it means to help their neighbors. It's up to us as progressives to protect and champion our values as a country and a community, no matter what kind of district you live in. Truly embracing those values and enacting them every day is the only way we overcome hatred or fear or divisiveness and start moving forward again."

It won't surprise you to know that the xenophobes and extremists at the so-called "Freedom Caucus" are big proponents of these kinds of policies and that their leader, Mark Meadows, doesn't just vote for this kind of counterproductive legislation, but does all he can to make bills like this as harsh and punitive as possible. His opponent in 2018 is progressive activist/farmer/Berniecrat Matt Coffay. Matt, would have voted NO. He told us this morning that "These bills are a disaster, and do nothing to address actual immigration issues in this country. Here in the U.S., we have millions of undocumented workers-- many of whom pay taxes-- who work hard, and deserve a path to citizenship. In my district here in Western North Carolina, farmers are already feeling the effects of Trump's immigration policies: many undocumented workers are afraid to show up for seasonal harvests for fear of an ICE raid, and family farmers are hurting as a result. The bottom line is that we need comprehensive immigration reform that will provide hardworking immigrants with a path to citizenship."

Ro Khanna (D-CA) told us that "Kate's law furthers the stereotype that anyone undocumented is criminal. The law is a pillar of Trump's anti-immigrant agenda. It criminalizes immigrants entering the United States legally if they have a past technical violation, and it goes after even those who come to escape persecution. There is a reason the Hispanic Caucus in Congress strongly opposed this bill."

Although Anne Kuster voted for it in a much bluer district, Carol Shea Porter, in a district Trump won, took a more courageous and principled stand in opposition:

“Today, I voted against H.R.3004, or ‘Kate’s Law,’ which is opposed by dozens of religious groups, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic Charities USA, the Church World Service, the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Refugee and Immigrant Center Alliance, the New Hampshire Conference United Church of Christ Immigration Working Group, the American Friends Service Committee, T’ruah: the Rabbinic Call for Human Rights, and the Unitarian Universalist Association.

“Let me be clear: the killing of Kate Steinle was a horrible and inexcusable crime, and my heart goes out to her family and loved ones. This should never have happened. We must investigate the breakdown in policy that led to Kate’s tragic death. This bill would, however, have serious negative consequences by increasing the likelihood that innocent asylum seekers, trafficking victims, and other non-criminal immigrants will be imprisoned. These victims would be in trouble if they presented themselves at ports of entry to seek help.

“I also voted against H.R.3003, which the US Conference of Mayors strongly opposed and the Fraternal Order of Police said would unjustly ‘penalize law enforcement and the citizens they serve because Congress disagrees with their enforcement priorities with respect to our immigration laws.’ We must stand up for proper funding for law enforcement. It is unjust to jeopardize our local police agencies, which are already underfunded and understaffed. The policies this bill seeks to end are designed to improve trust in law enforcement and help our police officers do their jobs effectively. We should not take away local communities’ and law enforcement agencies’ ability to decide how to do their jobs.”

Luis Gutiérrez (D-IL) led the opposition and he reminded his colleagues that "ever since Donald Trump descended the golden escalator at Trump Tower to announce his candidacy by saying Mexican immigrants are rapists and murderers and drug dealers, the Republican Party has had Mexican fever. And they have been working feverishly to paint immigrants as criminals. And when something goes bad, they go back to their old favorite. When Trump’s Muslim Ban was blocked in the Courts, out came the Attorney General to say they were doing more roundups and that no immigrant was safe. Is the Russia investigation not going so good for the Dear Leader? Hey, let’s whip out that Mexican thing, as Vice President Pence said. Maybe it will keep our voters happy and distracted. And now that the Republican health care bill is on the ropes and suffering from a 17 percent approval rating, here we are back on bashing immigrants. It is about feeding a steady diet of scapegoating to voters – even the President’s base voters-- who are starting to realize that things are not going so well. Almost 8 out of 10 Latinos are citizens of the United States and 1 out of 10 are legal permanent residents. That leaves about 1 in 10 who are undocumented, but this policy is about going after all of them. These bills are nothing new and they are not really about immigration or fighting crime. They are about racial profiling and putting Latinos, quote/unquote-- 'in our place.' Latinos, African-Americans, people of color, Muslims, and many others know what being in the cross hairs looks like. 99 percent of the votes for this bill today will come from people who do not have to worry about racial profiling for themselves or their children. And they represent Districts where most of their constituents don’t have to worry about racial profiling. But let’s be clear, Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona is the poster-child for the kinds of policies the Republicans want to impose on every city and county in the country and we know the result:"

Arpaio embodies racial profiling and rounding up people because they are brown and-- oh, we’ll sort out their papers later-- whether they are citizens or legal permanent residents or whatever. I have talked to US citizens who were detained by Arpaio because they didn’t carry with them their birth certificate or passport at all times-- in their own country.

And Arpaio has been sued successfully to stop his racial profiling and he has been charged criminally for his racial profiling tactics and still, the Republicans in the House want that to be the law everywhere.

Sometimes Democrats have to stand up for justice and against racial profiling when it is the right thing to do and the chips are down. Well, the chips are down and every Latino family and every immigrant is going to remember who stood up for them when they needed Democrats to fight to keep their families together.

Trump's First Hundred Years

This morning-- Day 99 of the Trump Regime-- the Commerce Department released a sour look at what's happened to the economy since Mr. "I thought it would be easier" was installed in the Oval Office. According to the NY Times, "the economy barely grew, expanding at an annual rate of only 0.7 percent. The growth was a sharp decline from the 2.1 percent annual rate recorded in the final quarter of last year. It was the weakest quarterly showing in three years. Consumption, the component reflecting individual spending, rose by only 0.3 percent, well below the 3.5 percent rate in the previous quarter. The first-quarter performance upset expectations for a Trump bump at the start of 2017.

Trump says he thought it would be easier. What a shock! Some 70 year old who inherited a fortune and lied and cheated his way through a corrupt business world watched Fox News and thought being president was just... well, being like Fox News.

He misses driving, feels as if he is in a cocoon, and is surprised how hard his new job is.

President Donald Trump on Thursday reflected on his first 100 days in office with a wistful look at his life before the White House.

"I loved my previous life. I had so many things going," Trump told Reuters in an interview. "This is more work than in my previous life. I thought it would be easier."

As we mentioned the other day, while it looks like everything Trump tries to do fails, from his ban of Muslim immigrants and his Great Wall of Trumpiness to his promise to repeal healthcare for millions of American families, he's succeeding to do a lot of damage on many levels. This morning Matthew Yglesias pointed out how Trump has been winning, winning, winning in the on area that means the most to him: self enrichment.

Donald Trump attracted a reputation over the years as a ruthless and unscrupulous businessman. He said on the campaign trail that having been “greedy all my life,” he now wanted to be greedy on behalf of the American people-- but nobody [nobody?] seriously believed him. Marco Rubio warned that Trump was a “con artist,” and Ted Cruz labeled him “completely amoral.” Liberals, needless to say, were not kinder in their judgments.

From the day Trump announced his candidacy until the day he took the Oval Office, the smart take on him was that he was running on a lark, as a publicity stunt, or to lay the groundwork for some business endeavor.

Yet since his ascension to the White House, conventional wisdom has developed an odd tendency to describe his inability to make major legislative changes as an indication that his presidency is failing. It's certainly true that Paul Ryan’s speakership of the House is failing, arguable that Mitch McConnell’s tenure as majority leader of the Senate is failing, and indisputably true that the Koch brothers’ drive to infuse hardcore libertarian ideological zeal into the GOP is failing.

But Trump isn’t failing. He and his family appear to be making money hand over fist. It's a spectacle the likes of which we've never seen in the United States, and while it may end in disaster for the Trumps someday, for now it shows no real sign of failure.

...Trump... funnels money directly into his own pockets. Like many previous presidents, he golfs. And like all presidents who golf, when he hits the green, he is accompanied by Secret Service agents. The agents use golf carts to get around the courses. And to get their hands on the golf carts, they need to rent them from the golf courses at which the president plays. All of this is fundamentally normal-- except for the fact that Trump golfs at courses he owns. So when the Secret Service spends $35,000 on Mar-a-Lago golf cart rentals, it’s not just a normal security expense-- Trump is personally profiting from his own protection.

The Secret Service has, similarly, paid $64,000 for “elevator services” in Trump Tower. This is a fairly normal kind of expense for the agency, paying a building money to defray the inconvenience of taking elevators offline so they can be inspected for security purposes. But, again, there is nothing normal about the president personally profiting from the security procedure.

When Trump’s sons fly around the world doing business deals, they too are protected by Secret Service agents whose bills the federal government covers-- even if they are staying at Trump properties.

There is something grating about this, especially from a president who is making a big show of donating his salary to charity. Trump is directly pocketing what could easily amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in direct payments from the Treasury, while simultaneously claiming to be serving for free. What’s more troubling, however, is indirect financial entanglements into which we have little real visibility.

Ivanka Trump, for example, was granted five trademarks by the Chinese government on the very same day she had dinner with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Also on that day, Ivanka’s father decided to break his campaign pledge to officially designate China as a currency manipulator. That decision, by all accounts, reflected the growing clout inside the White House of National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn and his key ally Jared Kushner, who happens to be Ivanka’s husband and in a position to directly gain or lose from China’s decisions regarding his wife’s trademark applications.

There’s of course no way to demonstrate a quid pro quo there, but the basic dynamics are clear.

Kushner emerged as a “shadow diplomat” smoothing over US-Mexico relations, according to a February 10 Washington Post article, and by April 10, the same journalists were reporting that he has “the freedom to act as a shadow secretary of state, setting up his own channels of communication with world leaders.”

Back in February, Bloomberg reported that “[a]s countries around the world figure out how to influence the new U.S. administration, China is going straight to the top: Trump’s immediate family.” Kushner and Ivanka Trump were guests of honor at a Chinese New Year celebration organized by the Chinese Embassy in Washington, and the trademark applications are just part of the overall package. China is on good terms with Trump’s family, and Trump’s family has helped keep China on good terms with the United States.

Similarly, Ivanka was closing business deals in Japan while simultaneously joining her father in meeting with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

This same trend can easily point in darker directions. The Trump family has business interests in the Persian Gulf, and Trump’s foreign policy is moving the United States into much closer alignment with the Gulf monarchies, including deeper involvement in a disastrous war in Yemen and abandonment of any pretense of caring about human rights in Egypt.

Further from the center of media attention, an eye-opening report by Allan Nairn for the Intercept says that “[a]ssociates of Donald Trump in Indonesia have joined army officers and a vigilante street movement linked to ISIS in a campaign that ultimately aims to oust the country’s president.” The movement includes current and former army officers looking to evade accountability for past crimes during Indonesia’s period as a military dictatorship, but also “Hary Tanoe, Trump’s primary Indonesian business partner, who is building two Trump resorts, one in Bali and one outside Jakarta.”

In a normal administration, it would go without saying that American attitudes toward civil strife in Indonesia-- no matter how misguided-- were driven primarily by policy considerations and not by the president’s personal financial interests. With Trump, we have no such assurance.

And his executive orders-- even with lots of terrible ones-- are mostly theater. Funny how for the last 8 years every Republican from the Atlantic to the Pacific was moaning and wailing and rending his or her clothes about the brutal tyranny of Obama signing executive orders. Now Trump is bragging that he's signed more executive orders than any president in history-- and not a peep from the choir.



So tomorrow is the 100th Day of Trump's reign. Is it any surprise that farmers-- many of whom voted for Trump-- can't find workers to harvest their crops this year? Watch Van Jones try to understand why by talking with farmers in California's Central Valley in the video above.

Luis Gutiérrez (D-IL) was the first member of Congress to start the boycott of the Trumpanzee Inauguration. This morning he issued a statement with his thoughts on the first 100 days:

Trump has flip-flopped on NATO and he has backed down from labeling China a currency manipulator because he is now best friends with China’s President, but there is one thing he has been 100% consistent on from day 1 of his campaign to day 100 of his Presidency: demonizing and attacking Latinos.

Almost the first words out of his mouth when he descended the golden escalator to announce his candidacy were to call Mexicans rapists and murderers. Now he is tweeting about Puerto Rico and that health care for the Puerto Rican people is not important with regard to budget negotiations. Last week Trump sent out Jeff Sessions to call Latino immigrants “filth” and “cartel henchmen.” Trump returns to bashing Latinos every time he has a setback on some other issue.

We knew that a team of misogynist, climate-change denying, anti-immigration, billionaire civil rights opponents would be bad, but I fear that we have not seen the worst yet.

One of the most important observations on Trump’s 100 Days is that on immigration, on women, on LGBTQ issues, on Muslims, on the environment, on Black Lives Matter and on corporate greed, the American people are more united in their opposition to Trump and the Republican Party than ever. This is a deeply unpopular President. When he attacks something or someone, their support grows, and when he embraces something or someone, their support plummets. He has the reverse Midas touch in politics as in his business career. Unlike Obama, Reagan, Carter or any President I can remember, he has been the biggest liability to his own success and he has done more to make his priorities toxic to the American people in the first 100 days than anyone I can remember.

Trump Doesn't Understand The American System Of Government And Bannon Is Encouraging Him Towards Tyranny

I'm hearing anecdotal evidence from all over the country that people are tense and disturbed and attributing their change in mood to Trump. I know it sounds unbelievable-- and maybes' just people I know-- but everyone sounds on edge. People are seeing psychiatrists and self-medicating and getting off the wagon and everyone seems nervous and depressed... Have you seen any of that too? I don't mean the freaks on the right descrating Jewish cemeteries or burning mosques or starting fights (or even Mika Brzezinski); I'm talking about normal regular people-- neighbors, friends, relatives, random folks who aren't even that involved with politics.

I'm proud to say I serve on the board of People For the American Way with Khizer Khan, an American citizen for over 3 decades who takes the Constitution super-seriously. According to multiple reports he was told his "freedom to travel abroad" is "under review" and had to cancel appearances in Toronto this week. Silver lining: maybe Trump will be impeached even sooner than anyone expected. You remember him right? He's the Muslim American Gold Star father who aroused Trump’s ire and the Democratic National Convention when he spoke about his son, U.S. Army Capt. Humayun S.M. Khan, being killed in combat in Iraq. According to Rosa Hwang, a senior producer at CTV National News, Khan cancelled a speech he was scheduled to give in Toronto after being informed that his travel privileges are "under review."

"This turn of events is not just concerning to me, but to all my fellow Americans who cherish our freedom to travel abroad. I have not been given any reason as to why." None of us have but this comes just as so-called-president Trumpf signed his second attempt at a Muslim Ban Monday morning behind closed doors.

Farhana Khera president of a civil rights legal organization, Muslim Advocates, and Jonathan Swift, the organization's legal director, penned an OpEd for the NY Times that ran a few hours ago, pointing out the new ban's fatal flaw: "it constitutes unlawful religious discrimination."

Let’s be clear: This revised order is a Muslim ban. All the countries he has excluded are more than 90 percent Muslim. Three of them-- Iran, Somalia and Yemen-- are more than 99 percent Muslim. Even though Mr. Trump tailored his order to survive legal challenges, as his former adviser Rudolph Giuliani conceded on national television, his objective is clearly to exclude Muslims.

The Trump administration argues that the ban protects the country. Yet by excluding Iraq from the order, Mr. Trump has cleared travel from one of the two countries from which Islamic State terrorists operates. Moreover, the Department of Homeland Security concluded last month that “country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity.” Former national security officials from Democratic and Republican administrations have made clear that the January order does not make our country safer. Instead, the bigotry that Mr. Trump spews at news conferences and on Twitter have been a boon for terrorists’ recruitment efforts.

The twisted worldview does not match reality. Muslims have been part of America for centuries, since the first slave ships arrived in the 17th century. Today, Muslims represent 1 percent of the United States population: They are our teachers, doctors, neighbors and co-workers.

American Muslims will suffer a particular harm from this executive order: Those who have ties to the banned countries won’t be able to see their family members and close friends. American Muslims will also be deprived of the instruction from the leading Islamic scholars who are from those countries.

Thousands of Muslim men and women serve in the armed forces; many have given their lives defending our nation and our ideals. They contribute to the diversity that has always been our nation’s pride and strength. President George W. Bush paid tribute to this in the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks when he said, “There are thousands of Muslims who proudly call themselves Americans, and they know what I know-- that the Muslim faith is based upon peace and love and compassion.”

President Trump and his top advisers would be wise to listen to President Bush. The Muslim ban and President Trump’s relentless attacks on Islam are not just an assault on thousands of patriotic, innocent Americans-- they violate our Constitution and our most fundamental American values and beliefs.

Joan Walsh, writing for The Nation asserts, correctly, that the real goal of the travel ban is to make America white again. Bannon, she wrote, insists Muslims don't have the right DNA for democracy.

Lindsey Graham must have enjoyed being booed in Clemson Saturday, because it sounds like he wants more of the same, announcing that he backs Trump's unconstitutional travel ban and congratulating him for exempting people with visas, green card holders and people from Iraq. I'm sure there are other Republicans in the same unconstitutional camp as ole Lindsey. But that's very different from what I'm hearing from Members of Congress who actually take the Constitution seriously. Ted Lieu (D-CA) was the first Member I saw putting out a statement after word leaked out that Trump had signed the ban this morning.

25 days after his first unconstitutional immigration ban was rejected by the courts, Donald Trump has signed a new executive order that is-- once again-- as harmful as it is incompetent. This monumental waste of federal resources is wrong on all levels-- strategically, morally, and from a national security perspective.

Trump’s Muslim Ban 2.0 is nothing short of a strategic failure. A leaked DHS report from his own cabinet called citizenship from the banned countries an unreliable indicator of threat. If the banned countries in question are such a threat, then why does this second ban arbitrarily drop the nation of Iraq? And why does the ban go into effect on March 16th?  Where’s the urgency in that?  This second executive order just makes zero sense.

As studied by the CATO Institute, the chances of being killed by a refugee committing a terrorist act is 1 in 3.6 billion. For perspective, the chances of being struck by lightning twice is 1 in 9 million. That’s why members of Trump’s own administration recognize that banning women and children fleeing from terrorist groups isn’t just morally bankrupt-- it’s bad for national security. It hands our real enemies like ISIL and al-Qaeda a powerful recruiting tool and undermines our relationships with partners abroad.

Trump is quick to tweet about who is American and who is un-American. As an immigrant, veteran, and member of Congress, I can tell you there is nothing more un-American than undermining our fundamental value of accepting those who are fleeing tyranny, those who want to start a better life in the United States. This order is based on bigotry and must-- once again-- be opposed.

Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) rfeel the same way. "Barring people based on their nation of origin or the religion they practice isn’t just a policy change-- it’s a tacit admission by our new president that he is incompetent to lead in ways his predecessors were not," he said in a statement for his constituents. "And to be clear, the only difference between this Muslim ban and the last one-- which was found unconstitutional by four federal judges-- is the time Trump and his cronies spent scheming up a plan to get it past our legal system. Regardless of how successful they are at side-stepping the judicial branch’s rightful check on executive power, they cannot implement this ban without Congressional Republicans providing funding. It remains to be seen if the GOP will stand by our Constitution, our separation of church and state, and the international order that hinges on American leadership, or if they will vote to rubberstamp this president’s hateful agenda and wrecking ball diplomacy. I will fight this Muslim ban and every other corrosive policy Trump pursues that betrays who we are as a people and leaves our nation fundamentally less safe."

Mark Pocan (D-WI), who represents the Madison area, tried to clam the people in his district impacted by this. "Although Steve Bannon didn’t write this new Muslim ban in the dead of night," he said, "it does not mean the ban is any less harmful to America and our image around the world. Rehashing this hateful and divisive travel ban not only sends the wrong message to immigrants and refugees, it also makes our country less safe. The President should be focused on helping working families struggling to make ends meet, not waging an unconstitutional war on our core American value of freedom from persecution and discrimination. I will stand alongside the people of my district and fight with my colleagues in Congress against this prejudice and division. My office will continue to work to support residents and visitors experiencing difficulties as a result of the travel ban while the courts ultimately decide the fate of this unconstitutional ban."

Luis Gutiérrez (D-IL), the congressman who came up with the idea to boycott the Trumpanzee inauguration, issued a statement an hour after Trump made his move:

This is just the same stuff on a different day. If you called xenophobia a rose, would it not smell just as foul? Our President, who clearly has a hard time distinguishing facts from fiction, is continuing to take us down the wrong road, the road away from security, morality, and prosperity.

 As I said in January, the President should have faith in the strength of our own country and the vitality of her citizens and culture. A nation of 300 million people that has blazed a trail for the world for more than 240 years can withstand 50,000 or 100,000 moms, dads and children fleeing for their lives. We always have and we always should.   The poem on the Statue of Liberty says “I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” not “We are scared of you, come back later when we feel better.”

One last congressional reaction-- Pramila Jayapal from Seattle, who's been fighting this kind of ugly, divisive bigotry all her life:

The president has been forced to recognize-- through the clear signal sent from several courts and in our streets-- that his original travel ban was both unconstitutional and ineptly executed. The new order recognizes that we must honor the visas of those who already have been given clearance to come to the United States, as well as expressly excludes legal permanent residents and dual citizens from the ban. It also excludes Iraq from the list of countries, another clear sign that such a ban would hurt our coalition efforts for peace in the Middle East. It should not have taken the courts and nationwide protests to stop such an order from taking effect in the first place. The president was irresponsible in throwing the country into chaos and putting fear in the hearts of millions of families across our country and world.

  Unfortunately, however, the president’s Muslim Ban 2.0 is driven by the same xenophobic priorities that wreaked havoc at airports around the nation and led to the shameful detentions of innocent men, women and children. It continues to single out Muslim majority countries only, drastically limits and suspends refugee resettlement, and deeply affects our relationships with countries around the world. It continues to do nothing to make our country safer, alienates our allies and gives extremists propaganda for recruitment.

President Trump is once again attempting to shut America’s door to immigrants and vulnerable refugees who are fleeing war-ravaged countries. This ‘do-over’ order still has consequences that stretch far and wide and hurt our national security. It is still extremely ill-conceived and paints wide swathes of people and countries with negative stereotypes that have little to do with a logical plan for peace and security in our country. We will continue to work in the courts and in the streets to stop this administration-- as we have done before.

The thermometer just above and to the right... that leads to the ActBlue page we've put up for the most outspoken and effective leaders of The Resistance inside Congress. These are the most crucial voices in Congress... because this Know Nothing fanatic isn't on the side of America:

Trump Speaks!

by Skip Kaltenheuser

Occasionally scribble on politics and sooner or later public relations enterprises will find you. The moment President Trump finished up, emails came knocking on my inbox.

I’d like to highlight a few of the more welcome ones. Two came from Patriotic Millionaires. The couple hundred or so well-heeled members push political equality, sustaining wages and the quaint notion that wealthy people and corporations should shoulder a larger share of the tax burden. They disapprove of Trump’s push to repeal the Affordable Care Act and its funding from taxes.

According to Morris Pearl, former managing director at BlackRock and chair of Patriotic Millionaires, "The ACA taxes-- capital gains, dividends, and interest-- target the wealthiest amongst us. The tax code already taxes their income at much lower rates than wages; gutting the ACA funding would only further add to our already egregious levels of economic inequality. Wealthy Americans do not need yet another tax cut, we need a funded government to sustain a growing economy. That’s what will truly benefit all Americans.”

The second message from this group focused on Trump’s proposed tax cuts. Says Pearl, “In an economy that is 70% consumer driven, the last thing we need to do to grow and sustain our economy is give millionaires yet another tax cut. The exhausted policies of 'trickle-down economics' have failed spectacularly. President Trump needs to rethink his goals-- rather than offer these faulty tax cuts to our nation’s wealthiest, he should instead commit to a $15 minimum wage. Business owners and investors need consumers with more disposable income. President Trump should work to improve the lives and wallets of the lower and middle class because that is how we all prosper.”

The group’s issues can be explored here.

Another email came from afar, from Mexico Presidential Candidate Margarita Zavala. I don’t know anything about her except she’s a former first lady of Mexico and a former law professor, but I thought her words were well-chosen. "Tonight, we saw a speech by President Trump that continues to put Mexico as a problem for the U.S., and continues to nourish hate speech that divides, polarizes and engenders enmity and mistrust. President Trump does not value how important it is for America to have a constructive and beneficial relationship with our country. He puts the relationship with Mexico as a 'zero sum game' in which the profits of one are the losses of the other and that is patently false... Pres. Trump’s call for a wall is offensive and useless, it is a solution to a problem that does not exist. The United States is more prosperous, safer and more competitive thanks to the alliance with our country…” Saying that her country was not adversarial to America but was complimentary, she noted that "Mexico is the second destination of US exports and the first of exports from California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. We buy more products from USA than Japan, Germany and UK together and Mexican tourists spend more than 18 billion dollars a year in the US.”

One email was from a group called Define American?, which had a press conference at the National Press Club Wednesday morning. The group aims to educate the public on the contributions of undocumented immigrants. One of the offerings at its site is #factsmatter, offering a statistical perspective to mitigate inflammatory distortions of immigrants’ interactions with America. Speakers include folks who were interpreters for American forces in the Middle East, a risky task.

I won’t attempt to parse ideal immigration policies, other than they ought to be less ham-handed and bone-headed than what we’ve been treated to lately.

The recent shooting in Olathe, Kansas by some crazy targeting two engineers from India because he thought them Iranian, as well as a brave local who ignored the peril to intervene, was startling to me. Growing up in Prairie Village, a suburb of Kansas City, I knew old Olathe well. My late dad rented a pasture there to board a few horses. Before Olathe became part of suburban sprawl, when my traveling salesman father was home on weekends we rode all over much of that area that is now covered with homes. I can’t imagine anyone was more shocked by the tragedy than the people living there. Nice people. And various enterprises are giving them a lot more international exposure than I had growing up.

The other night in Washington, DC I was driving home from an event at the French Embassy for the Island of Martinique, feeling like I’d just been abroad. In record-breaking February warmth, the top was down on the ’66 Corvair, which was purring until it wasn’t, when smoke was wafting out of the engine that started sounding like a banshee. Broken fan belt. Midnight in DC is still pretty active. Cars were stacking up on a narrow street behind me as I struggled to push my car out of the way. Suddenly a half dozen guys appeared from nowhere, not from the cars behind me, just from the street, and helped shove my car into an alley. Central American accents. After the car cooled, I waived down a driver who was from Guatemala. He cheerfully pulled into the alley and got out his cables and got the Corvair going again, long enough to get home. The next day my Vietnamese mechanic and his home country crew put everything right. Half the time I take a problem to him, it’s a quick fix and he waives off the charge. I’ve never questioned the fairness of a billing.

I felt lucky to have these people from the far flung here, just as helpful in a pinch as people in Kansas would have been.

UPDATE: Howie Was Collecting Reactions Too

Let's start with Elizabeth Warren, who should have been the one to give the rebuttal in my opinion. "There’s nothing," she wrote right after the speech, "about Donald Trump’s vision for America that will make America great."

• Racism, sexism, bigotry and hatred have no place in our country.
• Tearing apart immigrant families and banning Muslims is against everything this country stands for.
• Ripping health care out of the hands of millions of Americans is irresponsible and cruel.
• And gutting the rules, firing the cops, and handing over the keys to our economy to the billionaires and giant corporations won’t level the playing field for working families.

But I’ll give him credit: Donald Trump did say something true in his big speech tonight. The earth did shift beneath our feet in 2016. Quiet voices did become a loud chorus. An earthquake did unite us.
 
Just not the way President Trump thinks it did.
 
The American people are ready to fight back against Trump’s hateful and dangerous agenda. They’ve shown it at marches and protests and all across the country. They’ve shown it through petitions and phone calls and social media.
 
Millions of Americans in Massachusetts and across this country are ready to fight back for basic human dignity and respect for every human being. And they’re ready to fight back for economic opportunity-- not for billionaires like Donald Trump, but for everyone.

Another champion of the congressional resistance, Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), wrote with laser focused precision that Trump's "rhetoric did not match reality. He said things that sounded good, but they were the opposite of his actions and rhetoric of the past. He repeated falsehoods about immigrants to justify the logic behind his inhumane and barbaric executive orders that have thrown our immigration system into complete and utter chaos. Instead of offering specifics and a plan to expand health care for all, President Trump, once again, called for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act leaving millions without health insurance. He talked about tax relief for the middle class, but the Trump tax plan is nothing more than a big tax break for the rich. He mentioned reducing poverty, but in fact his budget blueprint would decimate the very social safety net programs that help people climb out of poverty. It was surreal to listen to President Trump talk about 'draining the swamp' after he’s appointed billionaires, lobbyists and Washington-insiders to top posts in his cabinet. I firmly believe that we’re all better off when we’re all better off. We need to shift our focus from fear mongering to creating jobs, expanding health care for all, protecting our planet for our children. Tonight, we got few specifics for any real plans and a slightly softer version of the divisive Trump agenda."

It was Pramila's first State of the Union. Raul Grijalva had been to many. This one, he said was "was a well-scripted, well-rehearsed presentation. But it was also exactly what we know to expect from Donald Trump: the bluster never stops, and the facts never matter. Tonight’s speech was no different. Trump used the stature of our nation’s most prestigious venue to continue vilifying immigrants and generalizing America’s needs without offering content. If anything, Americans hoping for details from their new president were left with more questions than answers. Blatant omissions defined tonight’s speech far more than the few details it offered. What is Trump’s plan for future of public education now that the Department is run by someone who dedicated her career to ending its existence? The same should be asked about the Environmental Protection Agency now that it’s run by an oil industry hack. And where are the details on replacing the Affordable Care Act? Or even some simple accounting in an actual budget? Americans got no answers to these questions tonight. Here is what we do know: Trump can’t pass his own legislation-- he needs Congressional Republicans to carry out his policies. They will be responsible for any reckless policies they rubberstamp, and in many cases, equally culpable in their creation. The American people have a safeguard against the worst intentions of this administration: it is to hold their Congressional leaders accountable."

Luis Gutiérrez, the Chicago congressman who came up with the idea of boycotting the inauguration, went to the speech last night-- and was dismayed, but probably not surprised, by Trump’s call for greatly reduced legal immigration and a "merit-based" admissions system to reduce the legal immigration of low-skilled immigrants and his restatement of the lie that immigrants are a source of higher crime in the U.S. and that a wall will be an effective immigration or border security measure. 

The President is lying when he says he supports immigration reform in any meaningful sense. He spent most of his speech denigrating immigrants, tarring our community as criminals, drug-dealers, and killers and we cannot stand for it. He is dressing his mass deportation plans up in nicer language, but hearing every Republican applaud the President’s hateful words is very disheartening.

The President sees Latinos and immigrants as threats, as criminals, and as killers. He highlights the crimes that some immigrants have committed in an effort to turn the American people against immigration. He envisions an immigration system where quotas for PhD’s are set in Washington and the multitude of immigrants who built this country and who keep it flourishing would not be welcome. The Latino community won’t forget and won’t let that happen. And the millions of allies we have who support immigration as a fundamental and integral aspect of America’s greatness will not forget either.

The President’s speech was ripped from the pages of Breitbart and you could imagine Steve Bannon’s lips moving with every sentence. Bannon and Trump’s vision of an isolated and vengeful America, with a less diverse population and greater walls and motes is an ugly and fear-based vision.

I also found his characterization of Chicago as a murderous hellscape unfair, especially because I do not believe for an instant that Trump wants to do anything meaningful for the residents of our great city, anything to invest in jobs or in safer streets. It was a gratuitous jab at our city and I resent it.

The President has taken America around a sharp bend, veering towards a nation that is looking backwards and fearful of the future.

Mark Pocan, the congressman from the Madison, Wisconsin area reminded his constituents that we've all "heard the President stand in front of a teleprompter and deliver a speech full of empty promises and self-serving boasts before. At the end of the day, what matters to hard-working people in this country struggling to make ends meet are actions. So far, this President has done little to improve economic conditions and provide real help for working families. We have heard a lot of words from the President, but seen precious few policies from the White House that would create economic stability in our country. Instead, we have seen an Administration focused on spreading fear and hatred, while putting Wall Street banks and CEOs ahead of working people... This is a President who would like claim he is on the side of working people, but his own actions as a ‘businessman’ hurt workers and small businesses. His cabinet is full of Wall Street Bankers, multi-millionaires and billionaires who took advantage of an economy rigged against working families. It’s also no surprise his tax plan will be full of tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations. These are not the actions of a President who wants to see working Americans succeed. There are still a lot of question marks surrounding this President on everything from his tax returns to his conflicts of interest to his potential ties to Russia and their interference in our election. I hope that the American people hear what the President said tonight and hold him to a higher standard when it comes to his actions and policies."