Saturday, February 11, 2017

Why did people vote Trump 2016?

No one can erase or redo history. No one can give a personal mea culpa for something that happened before they were born. To be anti-racist is not to attempt those things that are impossible on principle. It is simply to care about people today, to acknowledge history as needed, and to try to move forward together, making the most of the resources we have.

I moved my original post here: Some Voted for Trump 2016 Saying It Was the Best Economic Choice

I've also found other relevant stuff.

Karoline Leavitt’s ‘Incredibly Dangerous’ Rant About Democrats Draws Instant Backlash: The Trump White House press secretary's remark was condemned as "grossly dark” and “f**king dangerous." Lee Moran, HuffPost, Oct 17, 2025

An update: Here's one explanation of why the Republican Party promoted Trump.

Angie Maxwell wrote in the Washington Post on July 26, 2019 that, during the last four decades of the 20th century, "Republicans fine-tuned their pitch and won the allegiance of Southern whites (and their sympathizers nationwide) by remaking their party in the Southern white image." However, after Bill Clinton's two-term presidency,

...the GOP recognized that it needed a new appeal, one that portrayed Democrats as a threat to the brand of Christian values Republicans had been championing for two decades. This time the party worked to reframe its positions on a host of domestic issues, ranging from health care to foreign policy, into matters of religious belief. By making the full spectrum of political debates about fundamental values, Republicans forged an unbreakable bond with Southern white evangelical voters, who went from social conservatives to all-out Republicans by the 2000s.

* * *

Understanding the full range of the GOP’s efforts in the South since Nixon clears up any confusion as to how Trump, a man whose personal life seems to violate every moral precept avowed by most Southern white conservatives, secured their unyielding allegiance. Trump has wielded the GOP’s Southern playbook with precision: defending Confederate monuments, eulogizing Schlafly at her funeral and even hiring Reagan’s Southern campaign manager, Paul Manafort. Trump, in many ways, is no anomaly. He is the very culmination of the GOP’s long Southern strategy."

It wasn't just because they were worried about being poor (and merely happened to be white). This, from Issac J. Bailey, Why Didn't We Riot?: A Black Man in Trumpland (New York: Other Press, 2020):

Imagine that black people were the main reason Farrakhan had become president of the United States. Now imagine how the (mostly white) mainstream would have explained such a result. They would not have made excuses for black voters. They would not have said it was reasonable for black voters to have put an anti-Semite in charge of laws that would affect Jewish Americans because of the “economic angst” black people have felt forever in this country. They would not have told Jews to empathize more with the black voters who elevated open, brazen anti-Semitism into the most powerful office in the world. ... I cannot imagine voting for a man like Farrakhan, then demanding that my Jewish friends and neighbors understand my choice. I’d be embarrassed. I’d feel like a fraud...

He also wrote:

In one instance, even when a politician literally spoke fondly of the term white supremacy, some journalists had a hard time labeling the comments as white supremacist. That was particularly odd, given Representative [Steve] King’s disturbing racial history, making it less likely it was just a slip of the tongue. In another, journalists could not bring themselves to grapple with the reality of white supremacy even as a large number of white people tried to make one of the most well-known white supremacists in U.S. history a senator three and a half decades after the Civil Rights Act became law. No wonder the journalistic default was “economic angst” even as Trump rose to national political prominence primarily because of his advocacy for a bigoted birtherism conspiracy theory.

Look here:

"One of the first things Donald Trump did after arriving at the White House in 2017 was make it easier for employers to get away with wage theft.

Congressional Republicans had just passed a bill repealing a federal rule that barred firms from getting government contracts if they had an egregious history of stealing workers’ wages. Trump signed the legislation despite having run a presidential campaign all about lifting up the working class.

It was the first of many Trump actions that benefitted employers at the expense of everyday workers, including those at the very bottom of the economy.

Over his four years in the White House, Trump tried to make it easier for companies to hide workers’ injuries, to avoid paying low-wage employees for their overtime, to take a slice of their tips, to misclassify them as “independent contractors,” and to prevent them from unionizing and bargaining collectively. He nominated a fast-food executive to be the nation’s top workplace regulator, in charge of making sure workers come home safe and get paid what they’re owed.

It was a record anyone could reasonably expect from a hotel mogul who refused to divest his business holdings when he assumed office."

— Trump Said He Would Fight For Workers. He Fought For Business Lobbies Instead.: As president, the hotel mogul took the reins off employers at the expense of everyday workers. Now he wants another crack at it. Dave Jamieson, HuffPost, Dec 29, 2023

Hmm:

"There was some other reason to vote for him, that allowed you to overlook these facts?

Save it, please. The reason really doesn't matter. It was a bad reason. We've seen this before. History has a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because tehy hated Jews, but out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed. That word is 'Nazi.' Historians study and learn from their motives, but there is a broad understanding: their motives aren't exonerative. They joined what they joined. They lent their support and their moral approval. And, in so doing, they bound themselves to what came after. Who cares any more what particular knot they used in the binding."

— A.R. Moxon, "Sky," December 2016, reprinted in Very Fine People, 2024

"If you lied about us [Appalachians], you could lie about him [Trump]. If you can lie about him, then there’s no reason to listen to a goddamn thing you say. ... These people [Appalachians] believe the left is doing to him [Trump] what they perceive to have been done to themselves. Now, if you throw in the fact that Trump (and those like him) have repeatedly promised to bring coal jobs back to these people of Appalachia (particularly Kentucky), and thus preserve what they perceive as their way of life, and you get a recipe for a political power that cannot be dislodged by way of simply telling the truth."
— Coyote Wallace, Hungry Like Me: The False Prophets Of Poverty, Medium, Jul 29, 2024

Can you think of any right-wing policy that has improved anyone's life? Prison Culture, Bluesky, 2026

Thursday, February 9, 2017

A new presidential directive to 'go shopping'

Today one might feel sentimental about the speeches given by then-President George W. Bush in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. On Sept. 20, he addressed the nation:

"Americans are asking: What is expected of us? I ask you to live your lives, and hug your children. I know many citizens have fears tonight, and I ask you to be calm and resolute, even in the face of a continuing threat...I ask your continued participation and confidence in the American economy. Terrorists attacked a symbol of American prosperity. They did not touch its source. America is successful because of the hard work, and creativity, and enterprise of our people. These were the true strengths of our economy before September 11th, and they are our strengths today."

Again, on Sept. 27:

"When they struck, they wanted to create an atmosphere of fear. And one of the great goals of this nation's war is to restore public confidence in the airline industry. It's to tell the traveling public: Get on board. Do your business around the country. Fly and enjoy America's great destination spots. Get down to Disney World in Florida. Take your families and enjoy life, the way we want it to be enjoyed."

In such a moment of crisis and confusion, many people craved greater moral leadership or more explicit instructions on what they could do to help others, and thus Bush was roundly mocked for having told the nation to "go shopping," as his words were commonly paraphrased.

But probably no president has ever told the nation to go shopping the way Donald Trump has just done.

Donald Trump with his daughter Ivanka at a campaign rally in New Hampshire, ahead of the February 2016 New Hampshire primaries. Creative Commons 2.0. Wikimedia Commons.

In early February 2017, Ivanka Trump's clothing line was dropped by Nordstrom while other stores like TJX Companies and Belk have said they will scale back their promotions of the line. Ivanka's father tweeted on Feb. 8: "My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom." This was retweeted by @POTUS, the Twitter account of the office of the President. The next morning, the president's counselor Kellyanne Conway spoke from the White House to the Fox & Friends television show: “Go buy Ivanka’s stuff, is what I would tell you. I hate shopping, but I am going to go get some myself today. This is just — it’s a wonderful line, I own some of it, I’m just gonna give a free commercial here, go buy it today, you can buy it online.”

Laurel Raymond explained that Conway's comments "appear to violate federal ethics law, which prohibits the endorsement of products by federal officials." Jill Disis quoted Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) in his letter to the House Oversight Committee chair: "This appears to be a textbook violation of government ethics laws and regulations enacted to prevent the abuse of an employee's government position."

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said the use of @POTUS was appropriate:

"This is less about his family's business, and an attack on his daughter. He ran for president, he won, he's leading this country. I think for people to take out their concern for his actions or executive orders on members of his family, he has every right to stand up for his family and applaud their business activities, their success. When it comes to his family, I think he's been very clear about what they've accomplished. And for someone to take out their concern for his policies on a family member of his is just not acceptable, and the president has every right as a father to stand up for them."

As for Conway's comments, Spicer said she was "counseled on that subject, and that's it."

Disis quoted the opinion of Larry Noble, general counsel of the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center: "He [the president] should not be promoting his daughter's line, he should not be attacking a company that has business dealings with his daughter, and it just shows the massive amount of problems we have with his business holdings and his family's business holdings."

If there were a crisis, what would we be asked to buy then?

Updates

In November 2018, Ivanka Trump was pursuing trademarks for voting machines in China.

In March 2019, it was revealed that then-chief of staff John Kelly and White House counsel Don McGahn had originally balked at granting security clearance to Ivanka, but Donald Trump had insisted upon it. Staff had separate concerns about Ivanka and Jared as individuals; furthermore, as they are married, "concerns that surfaced during one person's security clearance investigation could stall or block both of them from receiving a full clearance." They were both granted clearances.

In June 2019, the White House released information showing that Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner earned, in 2018, "between $28.8 million and $135.1 million in outside income while working as unpaid senior advisers to her father." This is despite the fact that income from Ivanka's clothing and jewelry line dropped from $5 million in 2017 to $1 million in 2018.

Anne Applebaum wrote in an opinion for the Washington Post in June 2019 explaining that Kushner and his brother co-founded Cadre, a real estate investment vehicle. It recently received at least $90 million through a financial instrument called an “opaque offshore vehicle" through which secret money can be funneled to politicians.

"When he [Kushner] filled out his first disclosure form, he somehow forgot to list Cadre, though later, under pressure, he added the company’s name. ... The company is already the subject of a conflict of interest complaint because it benefits from 'Opportunity Zones,' part of a new tax law — a program that was specifically advocated by Ivanka Trump. ... It’s perfectly possible that Kushner, who has not commented on the Guardian report, himself has no idea who put this large sum of money in his company’s opaque offshore vehicle, which is what Goldman Sachs is claiming. But it’s also possible that, privately, he has a pretty good idea."

She added:

"There is nothing inevitable about this secret, offshore world. It is not a fact of nature: Our laws created tax havens, and our laws can also end them. ... There is no reason a completely secret, perfectly legal way to channel money to a government official, or anybody else, needs to exist at all. The fact that we have come to accept this as “normal” is one of the symptoms of a deeper democratic disease."

On November 12, 2019, Trump told the Economic Club of New York that Ivanka has created 14 million jobs during his administration so far. No one knows what he's talking about.

Gayle Leslie on Medium: "Trump met with Chinese leadership and that afternoon his Stepford daughter, Ivanka, gets a bunch of trademarks to sell her crappy shoes and clothes in China. Jared’s white elephant at 666 Fifth Avenue is going under, then oh so coincidentally, after a “diplomatic” trip to Saudi Arabia some Arab firm bails the building out with a ninety-nine year lease."

On July 15, 2020, Ivanka used her Twitter account to advertise the Goya food brand after the Goya CEO praised President Trump.

"According to an investigation by the Senate Finance Committee, Affinity Partners ultimately secured about $3 billion in investments." (Popular Information, Nov 13, 2024)

The media blackout of Jared Kushner’s historic, ongoing corruption scandal As Trump's son-in-law returns to Pakistan for more talks with Iran, major news outlets are largely ignoring an egregious conflict of interest. Judd Legum, Popular Information, Apr 20, 2026

Trump on Iran War: Reporter: What extent are Americans’ financial situation motivating you to make a deal? Trump: Not even a little bit. I don't think about Americans’ financial situation

[image or embed]

— Acyn (@acyn.bsky.social) May 12, 2026 at 1:08 PM

‘We Can Tell’: Trump Confesses He Doesn’t ‘Think About Americans’ Financial Situation’ When It Comes to Iran War: “And they still want you to believe he’s fighting for you,” said one Democratic lawmaker. Jon Queally, Common Dreams, May 12, 2026

Sara Boboltz, Trump Says He Does Not Read Entire Peace Proposals From Iran, HuffPost, May 15, 2026

Trump on saying he doesn't think about Americans' financial situation: "It's a perfect statement. I'll make it again. Everybody agrees."

[image or embed]

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) May 15, 2026 at 5:24 PM

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

False claims by the Trump administration

Fake protests, journalists suppressing info about terrorism, a rising murder rate...and other things that aren't happening.

..........

Americans paid to protest?

Jen Hayden wrote:

"Republican Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner casually mentioned he believed the people turning up at his office and Colorado-area protests were 'paid protesters.' So did a Tennessee state senator, who provided evidence that was easily debunked and became an internet joke.

Now the White House itself is latching on to the laughable and insulting notion that these massive protests are the result of 'professional paid protesters.' This must be the largest top secret jobs program in the history of the world."

"Totally detached from reality, White House spokesman says protesters are 'paid professionals'," Jen Hayden, Daily Kos, Feb. 6, 2017.

..........

Terrorist attacks 'not even being reported'?

The president told military leaders at U.S. Central Command on Feb. 6: "All over Europe, it’s happening. It’s gotten to a point where it’s not even being reported. And in many cases the very, very dishonest press doesn’t want to report it. They have their reasons, and you understand that.” Press secretary Sean Spicer said, “We’ll provide a list later" and then produced a typo-ridden list of 78 incidents 'executed or inspired' by IS over the previous two years.

The BBC had this response:

"Before the list was published, press secretary Sean Spicer said there were 'several instances' of attacks that had not gained sufficient media coverage (without specifying which fell into that category).

We have reproduced the list below, explaining in each case what happened and whether we reported on it.

Just because the BBC covered an attack does not mean that incident was not under-reported, although it is unclear whether Mr Trump was referring to US or global news organisations.

Some terrorist incidents do get more coverage than others, a point hotly debated on social media."

Of the large number of attacks worldwide, Philip Bump wrote in the Washington Post: "Not every one of those attacks made your local nightly newscast. But filtering what to cover is very different than suppressing information."

"White House struggles to defend Trump’s allegations of a cover-up," Steve Benen, MSNBC, Feb. 7, 2017.

"Trump says terror attacks 'under-reported': Is that true?" BBC, Feb. 7, 2017.

"President Trump is now speculating that the media is covering up terrorist attacks," Philip Bump, Washington Post, Feb. 6, 2017.

..........

Such as the Bowling Green Massacre?

On Jan. 29, Kellyanne Conway mentioned “the Bowling Green attack on our brave soldiers” to TMZ and “the Bowling Green massacre” to Cosmopolitan. Ben Mathis-Lilley explained that "what Conway was (sort of) referring to was the 2011 arrest in Bowling Green, Kentucky, of two Iraqi men who were caught in an FBI sting operation trying to send money and weapons to al-Qaida in Iraq, the group that became ISIS. Both men admitted to having used IEDs against U.S. troops in Iraq before they were admitted to the U.S. as refugees. They were both sentenced to long prison terms." On Feb. 2, she mentioned 'the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre' to MSNBC and was widely mocked for it. Philip Bump said that the laughter was "an undue amount, given the likelihood that her comments were a mistake rather than an intentional lie. Trump’s comments [about the media suppressing information about terrorist attacks] are of an entirely different order and magnitude."

"Conway Had Mentioned Imaginary Bowling Green Attack Twice Before She 'Misspoke' About It on MSNBC," Ben Mathis-Lilley, Slate, Feb. 6, 2017.

"President Trump is now speculating that the media is covering up terrorist attacks," Philip Bump, Washington Post, Feb. 6, 2017.

..........

Murder rate higher than ever?

On Feb. 7, the president told sheriffs from the National Sheriffs Association that “the murder rate in our country is the highest it’s been in 47 years” and said that reporters weren't covering this problem. Tom Jackman pointed out that the opposite is actually true; the rate is "almost at its lowest point" for that time period, according to FBI data, which shows that the murder rate is "less than half the murder rate of 1980."

On Feb. 8, Sen. Rick Santorum told CNN host Poppy Harlow that he agreed with the president's general concern about urban violence, despite not having facts to support it. "I’m not going to defend Donald Trump’s recitation of the facts," Santorum said. "I think Trump speaks more from emotional and how he’s feeling than he does necessarily being bound by all the facts. That’s one of his characteristics. It’s not a strong one, it’s not one that helps him in the debate."

"Trump makes false statement about U.S. murder rate to sheriffs’ group," Tom Jackman, Washington Post, Feb. 7, 2017.

..........

Sam Waterston wrote for the Washington Post on Jan. 31:

"The great issue of today is lying — constant lying in public. Lying is the ally of faction [i.e. partisanship] and, since President Donald Trump's rise to power, it is the greater danger. Yes, the word is lying — not negotiation, salesmanship, bluster, attention-getting, delusion, deception, braggadocio, exaggeration, bullying, alternative facts or any other euphemism. Once, President John F. Kennedy could say that our national problems were no longer ideological but technical. Lying on a grand scale has reversed that.

* * *

By the frequency of his lying, Trump has revealed a truth we have avoided confronting: Like partisanship, regular and habitual lying is an existential threat to us, to our institutions, our memories, our understanding of now and of the future, to the great American democratic experiment, and to the planet. It blurs the truth, subverts trust, interferes with thought, and destroys clarity. It drives us to distraction."

Fascists Can't Make The Machines Lie ... For Now: America.gov is telling the truth for some reason, Denny Carter, Bad Faith Times, 02 Oct 2026:

"Remember the absurdist term “alternative facts” from the first Trump regime? That was an admission, a slip-up unmasking how the enemies of the United States planned on poisoning the information environment, neutering all meaningful journalistic endeavors, and defending their lawless whims on the land’s highest court. Without “alternative facts” – and lots of them – fed into the machines that dictate our reality, there is no place for the fascist politics that have possessed the western world via the algorithm."

Thursday, February 2, 2017

So-called 'religious freedom' order would allow discrimination based on sexuality and gender

On Jan. 30, 2017, LGBTQ Nation claimed several anonymous sources were reporting a proposed executive order by the Trump administration that "will allow for discrimination in a number of areas, including employment, social services, business, and adoption." White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, asked that same day by a reporter if an executive order to curtail LGBT rights would be forthcoming, said only, “I’m not getting ahead of the executive orders that we may or may not issue...we have nothing on that front now.” Deputy Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham reiterated his position, writing that "we don’t want to get ahead of the EO/As [executive orders and actions] that are coming, but that isn’t the plan at this time."

It wasn't true. There was indeed a plan in the works. Two days later, a draft of just such an executive order was leaked to the press. It is four pages long, anonymously written, and titled “Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom.” The misnomer "religious freedom" here means that people who claim certain religious beliefs, beliefs that just so happen to be common tamong conservative Christians, would be legally free to express their disapproval of others' sexuality by discriminating against them. According to the proposed executive order, the following "religious" beliefs would be protected when they are expressed in words, actions, or refusals: “that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, sexual relations are properly reserved for such a marriage, male and female and their equivalents refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy, physiology, or genetics at or before birth, and that human life begins at conception and merits protection at all stages of life.” Individuals and organizations employed by the federal government would have such beliefs "reasonably accomodate[d]" within the scope of their federal employment assignment, and federal agencies could not subject them to any "adverse action" in response to such beliefs expressed outside of the scope of their assignment. Additionally, the status of religious organizations — here defined to include "closely held for-profit corporations, operated for a religious purpose, even if its purpose is not exclusively religious" — must not be in any way "disadvantage[d]" in response to such beliefs.

“We do not have plans to sign anything at this time," White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders told ABC News on Feb. 1. This is, of course, the same White House that had just denied that the proposal existed at all. A White House official acknowledged on Feb. 2 that hundreds of potential executive orders have been drafted and that this is indeed one of them.

Sarah Posner wrote for The Nation: "The breadth of the draft order, which legal experts described as 'sweeping' and 'staggering,' may exceed the authority of the executive branch if enacted. It also, by extending some of its protections to one particular set of religious beliefs, would risk violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution."

Sources

“Sources: Trump executive order allowing anti-LGBTQ discrimination is coming soon,” Jeff Taylor, Jan. 30, 2017.

" White House says anti-LGBTQ executive order ‘not the plan at this time’," Jeff Taylor, LGBTQ Nation, Jan. 30, 2017.

"Leaked Draft of Trump’s Religious Freedom Order Reveals Sweeping Plans to Legalize Discrimination." Sarah Posner. The Nation. Feb. 1, 2017.

"Proposed Trump Executive Order Could Curtail LGBT Rights," Rick Klein, ABC News, Feb. 1, 2017.

" Draft Of Trump ‘Religious Freedom’ Executive Order Signals Major Win For Conservative Christians," Antonia Blumberg, Huffington Post, Feb. 2, 2017.

Saturday, January 28, 2017

Under Trump 2017, 'We the People' White House petition website is broken (see data)

The U.S. White House website contains a petitions section that allows anyone to create a petition and gather signatures with the goal of obtaining a response from the White House. Suddenly, since the inauguration of Donald Trump, these petitions aren't working. Bug or feature?

2025 note: The site was https://petitions.whitehouse.gov. As it no longer exists, I've removed some of the clickable links.

The rules under the Obama administration, which created the petition functionality: Once a petition is created, its creator must reach two milestones within 30 days. First, the creator is responsible for circulating it to gather the first 150 signatures, as the creator is the only one who initially has the URL of the petition. Second, after the petition has 150 signatures, it will be published to the White House petitions webpage so that anyone can find it, and, if it reaches 100,000 signatures, the White House will respond to it. All petitions expire after 30 days, meaning they will no longer be available on the White House petitions webpage and will no longer be signable even if you know the direct URL.

The site promises: “Petitions will only be removed under the Moderation Policy — no petition will be removed because of the viewpoint it expresses.” This assurance was still available as of Jan. 27, 2017, one week after Donald Trump was inaugurated as President. Nonetheless, a number of people noticed that certain petitions did not seem to be working.

For example, a petition called "Preserve the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities" was created on Jan. 21, 2017. Two days later, the Independent reported that this petition

"received hundreds of tweets from proud signees but the official count (at the time of writing) reads: '27 signed'." Jillian Steinhauer wrote for Hyperallergic on Jan. 25 that it "shows only 44 signatures, despite hundreds of people having tweeted that they signed it. Many have noticed the discrepancy, with one tweeter claiming that the petition had nearly 100,000 signatures yesterday [Jan. 24]; another says the number was originally in the tens of thousands. The other petition shows 734 signatures, a small climb from the 724 listed earlier today, but does not seem to be accurately counting those who’ve signed based on the sharing rate suggested by social media. It also appears to have been set up only after a previous petition vanished."
Update: On Jan. 28, the count was at 176 and it was visible on the White House petitions webpage. An attempt to sign it was successful, incrementing the count to 177.

Not all petitions were working as of Jan. 28, however. For example, a petition titled "End the media blackout on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)" created on Jan. 25 still displayed only 1 signer as of Jan. 28, despite repeated attempts by several people to sign it. Accordingly, it showed the counter: "Needs 99,999 signatures by February 24, 2017 to get a response from the White House." Similarly, "To explain to the American people why President Donald J. Trump is such a needy little bitch," created Jan. 23, only had 1 signature five days after its creation, despite having a link distributed in a BuzzFeed article. That, to be fair, runs afoul of the site's 'Terms of Participation' banning "Defamatory or fraudulent statements" and "Terms commonly understood to constitute profanity or abusive or degrading slurs or epithets," but that does not fully explain why the petition still exists and is simply apparently not working.

Blake Montgomery wrote for BuzzFeed: "President Obama’s administration created We The People in 2011...whether the Trump administration will respond to petitions is unconfirmed. On the day of his inauguration, Trump’s administration archived all existing petitions on the platform." In other words, the Trump administration is not accepting new signatures on any petition created during the final days of the Obama administration, and one may speculate that they may not intend to respond to any of those petitions that may have reached the 100,000-signature goal. In that article, a White House spokesperson was quoted as attributing the malfunction to a technical bug: “It’s a question of high volume at the end of the day, but the signatures are being captured. Because of high volume they’re having to change how they’re being captured.”

Under this administration, technical difficulties — or, depending on your interpretation, diminished accountability to public comment — are not limited to the petition website. "Since at least the end of the Obama administration," Tyler Pager wrote for the Boston Globe on Jan. 26, "the White House’s phone line for comments has not been taking calls. It is unclear exactly when the line was closed, and it is equally unclear when it will be back." A recorded message directs callers "to send us a comment online...or send us a message through Facebook messenger.'"

As quoted in an LA Times article about the closing of the telephone comment line on Mon. Jan. 23, the first business day after the inauguration, press assistant Giovanna Coia said, “We’re still learning how to work our computers."

Update: People were calling the Capitol about their political concerns even though they couldn't call the White House. U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) tweeted at the end of the day on Feb. 2: "The last three days have been the BUSIEST IN CAPITOL SWITCHBOARD HISTORY. By almost double."

The following table shows all available petitions on the White House website as of Friday night, Jan. 27 and continuing through Sat. morning, Jan. 28. During this brief time period (about 15 hours, overnight), only one petition newly reached the 150-signature threshhold to be published to the site. This was the "Preserve the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities" petition referenced above, suggesting that it may be necessary for the White House website to receive negative press from an internationally recognized newspaper like The Independent before any specific petition will be published. Also during this time, no petitions newly crossed the 100,000 signature threshhold. Only two had over 100,000 signatures, and both of them had been created on Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, suggesting that the new administration had not yet begun to change the way the petition site worked.

The domain WHPetitions.info, purchased in 2013, contains simple content that appears to confirm the above. It says: "Helping the White House keep its promise" and as of Jan. 28, 2017 it indicates that "0 White House petitions have met their signature thresholds". It appears that some values are supposed to auto-calculate, as suggested by what appears to be bogus output as a result of calculating with 0. "The White House has responded to 0 of them (-9223372036854775808%) with an average response time of -106752 days". The site credits Eli Dourado, whose active Twitter account identifies him as an "economist working on accelerating the pace of technological change."

[By the way, an update: The Biden administration did not resurrect this website.]

Petitions on the W.H. website in late Jan. 2017
Column 1 has the petition name, Column 2 has the number of signatures as of a certain date, and Column 3 has the incremented number of signatures as of the next day
Petition title Signatures as of Fri 1/27, 8 pm ET Signatures as of Sat 1/28, 11 am ET
Immediately release Donald Trump's full tax returns, with all information needed to verify emoluments clause compliance. 391,917 404,078
Divest or put in a blind trust all of the President's business and financial assets. 121,885 126,395
Donald Trump: Resign as President of the United States in Violation of the Emoluments Clause. Release Your Tax Returns 23,163 24,417
Let American Farmers Grow Hemp Once Again to Create Jobs and Rebuild the Rural Economy 20,690 21,389
Demand Trump administration add LGBT rights, climate change, and civil rights back to list of issues on wh.gov site 4,959 6,422
Repeal the 1986 Hughes amendment 3,466 3,588
Repeal the NFA 2,876 3,143
Investigate Hillary Clinton for crimes committed against the People and Government of the United States. 1,688 1,811
Do not defund the NEA or NEH 1,027 1,128
Demand justice for international students affected by ACICS' loss of accreditation power 916 945
Arrest and detainment of singer Madonna. 605 625
Charge Madonna with Terrorist Threats against the president of the United States of America. 568 599
Issue an International Arrest Warrant for George Soros 507 545
Boost the American Economy through Climate Action 440 452
Immediately abolish the Net Worth Sweep of Fannie Mae(FNMA) and Freddie Mac(FMCC). 327 335
Restore Education as a Constitutional Right & Protect Medical Freedom 296 307
Change the law putting a financial strain on many disabled veterans 294 298
Improved Medicare for All 285 308
Pledge to continue funding the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities 252 339
Restore and maintain accurate, science-based information on climate change to the White House website. 285 306
We the decent Venezuelan people ask President Donald Trump to help recoup Venezuela's sovereignty, liberty and democracy 281 286
Call on the The Republic of Cameroon government to stop the killing and marginalization of Anglophone Cameroonians. 217 223
Reinstate Lt. Col. Terry Lakin into the U.S. Army with full rank, pay, benefits and pension immediately. 171 200
Total signatures across these 23 petitions
(Total change overnight: +21,024 signatures, or an average of 914 signatures per petition)
577,115 598,139

 

One newly published petition on the W.H. website in late Jan. 2017
Column one has the petition name, column two would represent the number of signatures as of Friday night and this column is deliberately empty because the number is not known because the petition was not yet published, and column three has the number of signatures as of the next day
Petition title Signatures as of Fri 1/27, 8 pm ET Signatures as of Sat 1/28, 11 am ET
Preserve the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities Unknown 176

2018 and 2019 updates

No petitions were given responses in 2017, although some had crossed the threshold number for earning a response. Around the end of the year, the following message appeared on the homepage:

To improve this site's performance, the platform is currently down for maintenance and will return in late January [2018].

All existing petitions and associated signatures have been preserved and will be available when the site is relaunched. Following the site's relaunch, petitions that have reached the required number of signatures will begin receiving responses.

When visited Feb. 27, the petition site was back online. Seven petitions had received responses from the White House.

By May 4, no additional petitions had received responses. There were 44 active petitions, 13 of which had long since reached their signature threshhold and were due for White House responses, and the remainder of which were still in their 30-day period to reach the threshhold.

By February 22, 2019, no additional petitions had received responses. There were 71 active petitions, 27 of which had reached their signature threshold and were due for White House responses.

Sunday, December 25, 2016

U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334 concerning Israeli settlement activity

On Dec. 23, 2016, the UN Security Council voted 14-0 on its Resolution 2334 concerning Israeli settlement activity. The vote was in favor of demanding that Israeli cease building settlements in disputed areas. The reason for condemning these settlements is that they are being built on disputed land that will likely have to be given to the future State of Palestine as part of any realistic peace agreement. The United States abstained from the vote but did not use its veto power to stop the resolution, as some had hoped.

After the vote, the Obama administration gave a 40-minute, on-the-record press call. On the call, Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications, explained that President Obama had had "several rounds of discussions with Ambassador Rice, Ambassador Power, Secretary Kerry, and members of his national security team" before deciding not to veto the resolution. There is concern that accelerated settlement construction in disputed areas is an obstacle to a future peace agreement. Rhodes explained that "we cannot simply have a two-state solution be a slogan while the trend lines on the ground are such that a two-state solution is becoming less and less viable."

Separately, Ambassador Samantha Power said, "We would not have let this resolution pass had it not also addressed counterproductive actions by the Palestinians such as terrorism and incitement to violence, which we’ve repeatedly condemned and repeatedly raised with the Palestinian leadership, and which, of course, must be stopped."

The Obama administration continues to demonstrate its support for reaching an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. Three years previously, Secretary of State John Kerry spent nine months attempting to broker a deal (more information below).

2013: VP Joe Biden expresses his commitment to a two-state solution

illustration of people on an Ark

The article below was originally posted to Helium Network on Oct. 1, 2013.

"This very moment may offer the best opportunity for peace," U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said of the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations currently under way in Washington. For the first time in years, he said, "both sides are talking directly, and both sides have taken some risk to get where they are today."

Biden addressed the J Street conference in Washington, D.C. on Sept. 30, 2013. Over 2,800 people were gathered in Washington for the conference. J Street is a political advocacy and education organization for American Jews who support a "two-state solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, meaning the creation of a Palestinian state through negotiations with Israel.

"Like you, the president and I are absolutely devoted to the survival of the Jewish state of Israel," Biden said. That survival "requires a just and lasting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians."

He described Obama's commitment as "unrelenting." "That's why Obama chose Israel for his first visit in his second term," he explained. "That's why Secretary of State John Kerry has been there six times in the last six months."

He said that the United States shares practical security interests with Israel, as well as having a moral commitment to it. "If there were not an Israel, we would have to invent one," he quipped. More seriously, he added, "The leaders on both sides need to know, if they take risks for peace, their people will be behind them, and so will we."

Biden spoke on the last day of the federal government's fiscal year, as politicians were working overtime to determine whether the government would temporarily shut down beginning at midnight after failing to pass a budget for the coming year. For this reason, Sen. Tim Kaine, a Democrat from Virginia, had to cancel his appearance before the same crowd; he had been scheduled to speak to the J Street audience just before Biden.

Biden had also been busy, spending an earlier part of the day meeting with President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The J Street crowd enthusiastically received the vice president after waiting over two hours.

Of his meeting with Obama and Netanyahu, Biden said only that they had been "talking about issues that are of mutual concern" and that Netanyahu had publicly thanked Obama. Secretary of State John Kerry is the only one "authorized to comment publicly on the talks," as Kerry previously stated at the beginning of the nine-month negotiation process. The negotiations intend to arrive at a "final status agreement" that solves the conflict.

Biden reminded the audience that the United States is simultaneously addressing other security concerns in the Middle Eastern region. Obama has been focused on Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons. Syria killed about a thousand of its own citizens with sarin gas on Aug. 21, an incident that was close to the Israeli border and that occurred in the context of Syria's larger violent ethnic conflict.

Iran may be on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon, and Obama also spoke with the new Iranian president Hassan Rouhani on Sept. 27, the first such US-Iran diplomatic outreach in over 30 years. Furthermore, Egypt must continue building its democracy and maintain its peace treaty with Israel, Biden said.

"We approach these problems with a great deal of humility," he remarked, regarding efforts to resolve strategic problems that affect the entire world. "We cannot impose a solution."

"We cannot want peace in their country more than they do," he added.

He was introduced by Ambassador Lou Susman, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Kingdom. Susman said that Biden "understands that a two-state solution is the only solution" and commended him for having the "guts" to speak his mind to Israel and to other parties in the region. "I think we can all agree," Susman said, "that is the measure of a true friend: to tell others the truth."


Please also take a look at my articles on Medium.

Ark painting by Dorin Coltofeanu. Wikimedia Commons.

Wednesday, December 21, 2016

Rick Perry's support for outlawing gay sex

This article was written for Helium Network in 2011. It was updated in 2014 and had minor updates in 2016.

Regarding the looming threat of openly gay Boy Scout leaders in his 2008 book On My Honor, longtime Texas Gov. Rick Perry claims that the Boy Scouts as an organization tolerate gay people but don't want a leader "whose personal agenda is to make an open issue of his sexual orientation." Within the book, he claims that he supports an individual's right to be gay — just not within the Boy Scouts! — but his record does not show that he has actually supported even that much.

Why Perry's approach to the topic is severely flawed

First, in focusing the argument in "On My Honor" only on those who are openly gay, Perry neglects to address the entire Scouting policy that excluded "known or avowed homosexuals" — that is, people who are merely discovered to be gay as well as those who openly acknowledge it.

Second, in trying to demonstrate how commonsense his position is, he begins with this disingenuous premise: "The defining characteristic of homosexuality and heterosexuality is sex. Scouting is not intended to advance a discussion about sexual activity, whether of the heterosexual form or the homosexual form." Notably, however, the Boy Scout policy excluded only "homosexuals" and not "heterosexuals." One can easily agree with Perry that a man should refrain from sharing his "dating patterns" with the children he mentors, but if a straight man may casually reveal his marital status should the question arise, why can't a gay man do the same?

Elsewhere in the book, Perry is more honest about his prejudices. An openly gay person, he says, turns his sexuality into an "issue" or a "public matter" that will inevitably trigger "debate" or become an object lesson in "sex education." The presence of gay leaders would cause the Boy Scouts to be "an experiment in social engineering." He conflates being "openly gay" with being "openly [sexually] active" and says that gay people make gay activism "central" to their lives and cannot refrain from talking about it around children. He provides not a single statistic or anecdote to bolster his assumptions, nor is there any indication that he attempted to speak to an actual gay person for research purposes.

Can an organization practice exclusion and still teach tolerance?

 

Perry denies that the exclusion of openly gay Scout leaders, as well as the exclusion of open atheists, teaches intolerance. He says it is just a way of avoiding debate on sexual matters and atheist ideology that are not part of the organization's mission.

Later in the book, however, he makes an unrelated observation that unwittingly challenges his own argument. He complains that some parents and teachers have asked for intelligent design theory (a form of creationism) to be removed from science classes and debated in religion classes instead. Instead of acknowledging that these people are simply trying to find a better forum for that debate according to their understanding of science and religion, Perry complains that "the left advocates tolerance while crushing dissenting views." In the case of science classes, then, he believes that the deliberate exclusion of dissenting views is an example of intolerance.

Might it be plausible, then, that gay would-be Scout leaders might perceive their exclusion from the organization as a way of crushing their dissenting viewpoints rather than as a benign relocation of their speech? And if Perry is correct in his analysis of the redirection of discussion about intelligent design, why wouldn't gay people also be correct about the redirection of their very persons to which they would be subject regardless of what they choose to discuss?

Does Perry support a person's right to be gay — anywhere?

Finally, Perry claims that "I respect their [gays'] right to engage in the individual behavior of their choosing," which the record shows to be flatly false. Texas had a longstanding "Homosexual Sodomy Law" which classified gay sex as a misdemeanor. Former President George W. Bush, while campaigning in 1994 to become governor of Texas, referred to sodomy laws as "a symbolic gesture of traditional values." In 2002, threatened by the possibility that the Supreme Court might declare this particular law to be unconstitutional (it did, the next year), Gov. Perry likewise championed the law as "appropriate."

Even in 2010, when the law had been unenforceable for seven years, the Texas Republican Party platform stated: "We oppose the legalization of sodomy." Perry ran his re-election campaign in association with this platform. Two subsequent attempts to remove the obsolete law — HB 2156 and HB 604 in the 2011 legislative session — did not make it out of committee. (The mention of support for anti-sodomy laws was finally removed in the 2012 Texas Republican Party platform, and a different bill to repeal the anti-sodomy law, SB 538, made some progress in 2013 before fizzling out.)

Richard Goldstein in his book Homocons proposed that few people relish the actual penalties that are inflicted on gay people as a result of sodomy laws; rather, the real reason straight people support sodomy laws is that they maintain a social hierarchy that privileges heterosexuality. This would explain why Bush praised the law's main impact as "symbolic" and why he made a vague appeal to "traditional values." In this context, the values in question are little more than one group having power over another group.

However, to pretend that the law has mainly a symbolic impact and not a material impact as well is demonstrably false, which is why such pretenses must be blown through. The criminalization of gay sex impacts people's lives by threatening their careers or their custody of their children. It is particularly egregious for Perry to say on the one hand throughout his political career that he supports the criminalization of gay sex and then to publish that he acknowledges people's "right to engage in the individual behavior of their choosing." He cannot mean the first in a purely symbolic way while meaning the latter in a material way. It is one law: he either supports it or opposes it.

Although people can no longer be prosecuted or penalized for same-sex liaisons in Texas because of the Supreme Court having declared such laws unconstitutional, the Texas Republican Party has frustrated all attempts to remove the law from the books and it remained there under Perry's governorship. If Perry genuinely believes in an adult's legal right to consensual sex with another adult of the same sex, there is one clear action he could take to demonstrate it: lead a bipartisan campaign to strike the obsolete sodomy law from the books. That he has not even made a statement suggesting he would be willing to do so — an inquiry with the gay rights organization Equality Texas in 2011 did not turn up any leads — suggests that he does not really support an individual's right to private sexual activity and only said so where it was convenient (albeit totally false) in his book.

The only way in which Perry supports an individual's right in this area is through his expressed support of their right to leave Texas and move to another U.S. state with more permissive laws, which he advocated in his 2010 book, Fed Up!.

What Texans want

Perry's position is out of step with the majority of Texans on issues pertaining to gay people. An opinion poll of Texas voters commissioned by Equality Texas in 2010 revealed that 78 percent knew someone who was gay; 60 percent thought that gay people were seeking "equal rights," not "special rights"; 69 percent thought that gay people should have the same parental rights as straight people; 63 percent supported recognizing same-sex relationships with a "civil union"; 62 percent supported "domestic partnership" benefits for government workers; and 43 percent thought Texas should perform same-sex marriages, a number that increased to 48 percent when the question was whether Texas should recognize such marriages if they had been performed elsewhere.

Perry is particularly out of step with the younger generation on these issues, given that people under 30 were more likely to express support for gay rights than were people over 65 on every issue proposed in that poll.

Another opinion poll conducted in 2012 by the University of Texas/Texas Tribune found that 69 percent supported recognizing same-sex relationships with either civil unions or full marriage. Only 25 percent wanted to maintain the status quo in that regard, and one imagines that a rather smaller number would have supported criminalizing sex between consenting adults in private, had they been asked.

Perry's presidential bids

Perry ran for the Republican Party nomination in the 2012 presidential election. That nomination finally went to Mitt Romney, who ultimately lost to Barack Obama, who was elected for a second term.

With regard to the nation as a whole, which is more liberal on these issues than Texas, several polls in 2011 found that a majority of Americans supported same-sex marriage and military service by openly gay people, the latter already having become military policy anyway. This was something with which Perry had to contend in his presidential campaign.

On Dec. 29, 2011, a questioner at a coffeehouse appearance asked him to discuss his view of limited government in light of Lawrence v. Texas. This was the Supreme Court case in 2003 surrounding two men who had been arrested for having consensual sex in their home in Texas, resulting in the ruling that anti-sodomy laws were unconstitutional in any state. Perry admitted that he was not familiar with the case, deriding the inquiry as an attempted "'I gotcha' question" and pleading, "I'm not a lawyer." When a reporter later asked him to clarify, he said the same thing: "I'm not taking the bar exam." His unfamiliarity with the case may explain why, as governor of Texas, he continued to support anti-sodomy laws for years after they were ruled unconstitutional. He dropped out of the presidential race on Jan. 19, 2012.

He campaigned again for the 2016 presidential election but dropped out on Sept. 11, 2015. When Donald Trump was elected president in 2016, he nominated Rick Perry to be Secretary of Energy. On Jan. 19, 2017, Perry told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that he regretted his own presidential campaign pledge in 2011 to eliminate the department: "My past statements made over five years ago about abolishing the Department of Energy do not reflect my current thinking. In fact, after being briefed on some of the vital functions of the Department of Energy, I regret recommending its elimination."

The Boy Scouts, and the US, move forward

In May 2013, the Boy Scouts of America decided to allow openly gay youths — although not openly gay adult leaders — to participate in the organization. A clear majority of the 1,400-member national council voted for the change at an annual meeting in Texas. The resolution took effect in January 2014. In July 2015, the policy was changed again to allow gay leaders.

As 2014 opened, one-third of Americans lived in a state where same-sex marriage is recognized, and the federal "Defense of Marriage Act" that prevented recognition of such marriages for nearly two decades was finally ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. There is no movement to reintroduce anti-sodomy laws (save an abortive attempt by Virginia's Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli in 2013, the promotional website for which was disabled within a few months). Montana repealed theirs, as it had, of course, been unenforceable ever since Lawrence v. Texas. In 2016, Pew Research Center polling found that 55 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage rights and only 28 percent believe that homosexuality should be discouraged.

Rick Perry may wish to criminalize gay sex. However, it's hard to find other people who do, and there is neither political will nor constitutional room for it in the United States. In this area, Americans clearly prefer their limited government and their individual freedoms.


Read: "He Said, “Over my dead body.” I’m the Gay Boy Scout Who Finally Went Back. I’m James Dale, of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, a landmark Supreme Court case." Prism & Pen, May 28, 2026

In case you missed it

You Can’t Pull a Lever to Write Your Book (and 69 Other Lessons)

Everything I know about writing a complicated and difficult book On November 4, the Book Bazaar on Twitch aired my 52-minute recorded v...