The Great Potato Famine

This isn’t the first time poverty, starvation, and violence have caused people to flee their country.

The Great Potato Famine forced 2M Irish to come here.

The British believed that the natural course of free markets would solve the crisis.  The head of relief said, “Great Britain cannot continue to throw her hard-won millions into the bottomless pit of Celtic pauperism” and “The judgement of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson, that calamity must not be too much mitigated”.

1M Irish died.

The Irish fled on cheap converted freighters.  Conditions were deplorable.  They were called “coffin ships” because half didn’t survive the voyage.

Americans complained that the British were not sending their best people.  These Irish were poor, unskilled, and Catholic.  Conspiracy theories raged.  Priests raped nuns and killed babies.  The pope was moving to Cincinnati where cannon law would be imposed.

The Irish were portrayed as drunken disease-ridden hideous criminal apes.

The Know-Nothing Party promised to restore “Temperance, Liberty, and Protestantism” by supporting native-born Protestant candidates.  Massachusetts required 21 years of residency before naturalized citizens could vote.

In 1855, Lincoln despaired of the whole situation.  “When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty—to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”

We are mostly a nation of immigrants.  Each new wave of immigration also creates politicians who use xenophobia and racism to gain power.

Those of us with immigrant ancestry owe them a debt.  Opposing legal asylum seekers ignores the sacrifices others made for us.

Jesus said welcoming the stranger is an immigration requirement for heaven (Matt 35:31-40).  Christians who oppose the legal rights of asylum seekers are building their own wall between political beliefs and their own salvation.

Those who claim to be pro-life, but then oppose the rights of some children born in this country to become citizens, are hypocrites indeed.

Those who claim all immigrants are lawbreakers are ignoring the fact that asylum seekers are OBEYING our laws.  The government breaks the law when turning asylum seekers away, purposely under staffing the courts, and callously ignoring the humanitarian crisis they created.  They’re using threats of imprisonment, sickness, child abuse, and death as deterrents.  It’s shameful.

In my case, several of my ancestors came to this country at different times from England.  The first bunch came on the ship that resupplied the Mayflower.  They were Puritans fleeing religious persecution.

The next bunch came here during the potato famine.  The potato crops failed in England too.   Two brothers made their way to Buffalo.  One headed for the Canadian side of the border.  The other walked to Lake Geneva Wisconsin where he started a dairy farm.  Some distant cousins are still milking cows there 170 years later.  From Wisconsin some of my relatives helped open up the Oregon Trail and Texas territories.  I think I can say with certainty, that they all believed in the American Dream and many took risks and made great sacrifices in the hope of a better life.

Today’s immigrants, relatives of past immigrants, and most current citizens all share the same simple desire for a better life for our children.  That is the promise and blessing of this country.  It was how our country was settled.  It is an experience that is renewed with each new wave of immigrants that come to our country.  Now is not the time to turn our backs on those who want the same chance today that our ancestors were seeking when they took their own long and dangerous journey to a new land.

19 Responses to “The Great Potato Famine”

  1. Keith says:

    2020 Democrats Agree: They’re Very, Very Sorry – The New York Times

    This is an article in today’s NYT’s

    Sorry for posting it here but was scrolling to far down on the last post. Lol

    I’m reading more and more things lie this. So much apologizing. Are they really sorry, has their mature positions really not who they are. Why can’t the Gov or Virgina be forgiven of all these can be?

  2. Jeff Beamsley says:

    2020 Democrats Agree: They’re Very, Very Sorry – The New York Times

    This is an article in today’s NYT’s

    Sorry for posting it here but was scrolling to far down on the last post. Lol

    I’m reading more and more things lie this. So much apologizing. Are they really sorry, has their mature positions really not who they are. Why can’t the Gov or Virgina be forgiven of all these can be?

    Common, you know the answer to the question because the right created this issue with “whataboutism”.

    If Democrats accepted the apology of the Virginia Gov, they would not be able to hold Trump accountable for his racist dog whistle politics. That’s the same reason why Franken had to resign.

    In other words, there is clear double standard between what Democrats feel is objectionable and what Republicans have already accepted as far as Trump is concerned.

    All of the Democrats running for the party’s presidential nomination are also working to get out in front of any issues that might come up because of past stances that they may have taken. We’ll see if apologizing BEFORE you get called out about it, and at a time when it isn’t clear who is the front runner, will be an effective strategy.

  3. Keith says:

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/us-academic-sparks-mary-poppins-blackface-row-a4056126.html

    How far will it go?

    Remember I’m accusing nobody of anything. I’m not right or left on race. I’m for all standing on their own merit.

    Wait until you see the one on sexuality. It’s latterly mind numbing.

  4. Jeff Beamsley says:

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/us-academic-sparks-mary-poppins-blackface-row-a4056126.html

    How far will it go?

    Remember I’m accusing nobody of anything. I’m not right or left on race. I’m for all standing on their own merit.

    Wait until you see the one on sexuality. It’s latterly mind numbing.

    Did you read the article?

    The issue wasn’t the movie, it was the fact that the movie white washed a clearly racist scene from the book. The book was clearly from another era. But the hope of the author of the study was to alert Disney to the fact that the original stories may be overtly racist and perhaps it would be best to edit scenes which reference parts of the original book which were overtly racist.

    Author Mr Pollack-Pelzner posted online after his article was published: “The chief reason I wrote this article was the hope that a Disney exec would read it, take another look at the forthcoming Dumbo remake, and ask if there was anything just a little bit racist they might want to rethink before it hits the big screen.

    Slavery was not only legal, but largely accepted in Biblical times. This country outlawed slavery only 160 years ago. The civil rights acts were signed a little over 50 years ago. A significant number of people in this country will not vote for an African American.

    So we have a lot of history.

    IMHO, it is NOT OK to say that was then and this is now.

    THEN was NOT OK.

    The way you HEAL “then”, is to continue to call it out as NOT OK until it is considered as impolite to talk about “blackface” for example, as using the N word is in public discourse today.

    The WAY you do that is to publicly shame those who may have appeared in blackface during a time when they should have known better.

    Just like the way you hold misogynists accountable for attacks against women when THEY were in high school. It wasn’t right THEN and it certainly ISN’T right now. The ONLY difference is that THEN it was very difficult to get law enforcement to prosecute those assaults. So the recourse is to make a history of past sexual assault as damaging to a public figure TODAY as it if they had committed the same act TODAY.

    The danger is that this could turn into a vigilante purge. As long as this is reserved for those who seek public office, I’m fine. They are surrendering their rights to privacy in service of the public’s right to know before voting. I also don’t have a problem with victims outing their alleged assailants, as long as there is some due process to protect people from false accusation. Mario Batali, for example, has been cleared from criminal prosecution in NY, but will still have some work to do to rebuild his reputation.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/dining/mario-batali-sexual-assault-no-charges-nypd.html

  5. Keith says:

    Let’s take the gov of the great state of Virgina. Everyone says he’s a stand up guy. No one has every claimed he’s racist or even anything like that. In fact quite the opposite. Nothing in his record or those who’ve known him suggests otherwise. So a picture pops up from 1984, 35 years ago. Big deal right? Doesn’t matter the last 35 years only that single incident!

    Let’s never for get our faith in Christ is based on grace and mercy. Photo from 35 years ago is is the out weighing item? Shouldn’t be. That would be judging a person at his worst. What of all the years at his best? Do they matter or is the a single event that is unpardonable? Judge the man Jeff not the moment. It seems too many unpardonable moments are popping up simply because someone is offended. Here’s a couple verses.

    “and be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving each other, even as God also in Christ forgave you.”
    ‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭4:32

    “with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;”
    ‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭4:2‬ ‭

    Also for the record I am against Trump if he chooses to declare a national emergency and build a wall. If he’s able to do that the next dem president can declare a national emergency and do whatever he likes with climate change. Not a good s path to head down.

  6. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Let’s take the gov of the great state of Virgina. Everyone says he’s a stand up guy. No one has every claimed he’s racist or even anything like that. In fact quite the opposite. Nothing in his record or those who’ve known him suggests otherwise. So a picture pops up from 1984, 35 years ago. Big deal right? Doesn’t matter the last 35 years only that single incident!

    If it were you or me and we weren’t running for public office and hadn’t just won that office based on a significant number of votes from the African American community, then sure – no big deal as long as there is an apology. But that’s not what happened.

    Instead what happened is that a young man demonstrated racial insensitivity at a time when we were sufficiently enlightened as a society to appreciate that appearing in blackface was offensive to African Americans.

    If he had made an apology at some point prior to his run for governor and said that there were incidents in his past that he regrets where he let social pressure from a peer group force him to do some things that he knew at the time were hurtful. If he had said that he recognized even then that this was a test of character that he failed, but that he made a resolution to dedicate the rest of his life to not only living a better life, but standing up to those forces that promote racism, bigotry, and discrimination.

    If he had made a speech like that BEFORE he asked for the vote of the African American community, then the outcome of the election would indicate that he had been forgiven his youthful indiscretion.

    Unfortunately he didn’t.

    What’s worse, his first response was that he didn’t remember the incident. That’s even worse when asking for the trust of a community where EVERY MEMBER of that community has personally experienced racism and remembers every incident.

    Now he’s saying that it wasn’t him in the picture. That’s even worse too, because it suggests that there MAY have been incidents in the past where he did racially insensitive things. It just wasn’t this incident.

    I’ve already indicated why Democrats are going to hold elected officials to a higher standard than Republicans. Your comments simply reinforce that point.

    I know that I’ve done things in the past that I’m not proud of. I never made a public apology for those things because I’ve never been interested in running for elected office. But even though I’m at peace because I’ve prayed about forgiveness, practiced forgiving others, and committed myself to live a better life; that doesn’t relieve me of the responsibility of sharing my shortcomings publicly were I to be in a position to ask people to trust me with their vote.

    Also for the record I am against Trump if he chooses to declare a national emergency and build a wall. If he’s able to do that the next dem president can declare a national emergency and do whatever he likes with climate change. Not a good s path to head down.

    I agree that misuse of the vast emergency powers that we bestow on a President is a serious abuse of those powers. So what are you going to do if Trump DOES declare a national emergency?

    A President who will use emergency powers to accomplish something that he was unable to do through Congress could also use those same powers to muzzle the press, prevent the release of the Mueller report, take over industries, and imprison those who oppose him.

    A President who would even threaten to use emergency powers to accomplish a political goal, IMHO, has already stepped over the line.

    What do you think we should do?

  7. Keith says:

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/02/poll-stunner-76-percent-of-viewers-approve-president-trumps-state-of-the-union-speech-72-percent-approve-his-immigration-ideas/

    And yet everywhere I turned afterwards his speak was ridiculed.

    As to your question about what would I do. I don’t know. I’m not for it. Ee’ll Have to wait and see is he actually does.
    I thought his comments on immigration and illegal immigration were dead nuts one.

  8. Keith says:

    Trump asks for unity, but presses hard line on immigration – The New York Times

    Jeff how does this headline from the NUT’s square with reality? It doesn’t, it’s a narrative. He was not extreme. It was not a hard line. He said we want immigrants at the highest levels possible. He said let’s build a wall where boarder security agents say it’s needed.

    The New York Times is discribing a speak I didn’t hear. You?

    And 70 some odd percent in the CBS & CNN piles agree with him!!!

  9. Jeff Beamsley says:

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/02/poll-stunner-76-percent-of-viewers-approve-president-trumps-state-of-the-union-speech-72-percent-approve-his-immigration-ideas/

    And yet everywhere I turned afterwards his speak was ridiculed.

    Hmm. So let’s parse this. Gateway Pundit, an unrealiable right wing source, suggests that a poll taken shortly after the speech showed that the country is WAY more supportive of the President’s positions AND speech than the media might suggest.

    If this were true and it was indeed news, I submit that all of the ethical news sources would be running this story too. That’s because this would suggest that a big shift just occurred in public attitudes toward the president and his policies. But there were no stories like that.

    The reason is that right wing news sources MISREPRESENTED the poll data. Here’s link to the whole article from CNN.

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/politics/state-of-the-union-poll/index.html

    Here’s the important paragraph that seems to have been left out of the right wing stories.

    But the audience had the largest partisan tilt measured in any CNN instant poll following a presidential address to Congress dating back to 2001 — viewers were roughly 17 points more likely than the general public to identify as Republicans, and were largely fans of the President. In pre-speech surveys, 61% of speech-watchers said they approved of the job he was doing as President, compared with 40% in CNN’s latest representative survey of all American adults.
    And the glowing reviews came largely from the Republicans (87% very positive) and independents (57% very positive) who tuned in. Democratic speech-watchers largely had negative responses (64% very or somewhat negative).

    So the REAL story is that most of the people who watched the speech were people who ALREADY supported Trump. The post speech poll, as a result reflected their views. In other words, it was NOT a representative sample of the country. It certainly did not represent any significant shift in opinion regarding the President OR his performance.

    As to your question about what would I do. I don’t know. I’m not for it. Ee’ll Have to wait and see is he actually does.
    I thought his comments on immigration and illegal immigration were dead nuts one.

    I hope it is cozy in your right wing bubble.:) At some point, it is going to pop and you will be required to confront reality. When I get some time over the weekend, I’ll post something on the speech. My favorite quote so far from Conservative Post Columnist Jennifer Rubin was “shapeless and flabby”.

  10. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Trump asks for unity, but presses hard line on immigration – The New York Times

    Jeff how does this headline from the NUT’s square with reality? It doesn’t, it’s a narrative. He was not extreme. It was not a hard line. He said we want immigrants at the highest levels possible. He said let’s build a wall where boarder security agents say it’s needed.

    The New York Times is discribing a speak I didn’t hear. You?

    As I mentioned in the previous comment, I’ll post a more detailed response. Your comment, however, indicated that your reality distortion field is still firmly in place. He said he wants legal immigration, but he has taken actions to dramatically reduce existing legal immigration limits. He ignored the fact that asylum seekers ARE legal. They don’t sneak across the border. They present themselves at border crossings and state to the first official they can find that they are seeking asylum. There is no crisis at the border. The only crisis is the humanitarian one that Trump created by slow walking the processing of legal requests for asylum. Illegal immigration is at its lowest point in decades. The vast majority of illegal immigrants in this country CAME HERE LEGALLY on temporary visa’s. They just didn’t leave when those visa’s expired. MOST all of the drugs AND human trafficking comes through legal points of entry hidden in shipping containers and trucks. His claim about El Paso IS A LIE. El Paso didn’t just build a wall. They have had one there forever. it was expanded during the BUSH II administration. Here are the details from the El Paso Times.

    “Looking broadly at the last 30 years, the rate of violent crime reached its peak in 1993, when more than 6,500 violent crimes were recorded. Between 1993 and 2006, the number of violent crimes fell by more than 34 percent and less than 2,700 violent crimes were reported. The border fence was authorized by [president George W.] Bush in 2006, but construction did not start until 2008. From 2006 to 2011 — two years before the fence was built to two years after — the violent crime rate in El Paso increased by 17 percent.”

    The city had the third lowest violent crime rate among 35 U.S. cities with a population over 500,000 in 2005, 2006 and 2007 – before construction of a 57-mile-long fence started in mid-2008.

    I haven’t seen anything published by ANY reliable source which suggests that either experts or those actually employed to defend the border say that a physician barrier is the most important thing they need. If you can find something like that, please post it. Otherwise, this is just another Trump lie.

    And 70 some odd percent in the CBS & CNN piles agree with him!!!

    See previous comment. Most of those who chose to watch the speech were Trump supporters. That’s why the numbers were so high.

    I understand that you picked those parts of the speech that you agreed with and chose to extrapolate that to the rest of the speech. But what about this claim?

    “An economic miracle is taking place in the United States — and the only thing that can stop it are foolish wars, politics, or ridiculous partisan investigations,” he said. “If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation. It just doesn’t work that way!”

    Even the Republicans in the chamber were unwilling to clap for that one. What about you?

    Here’s the response from the chair of House Oversight and Reform Committee

    Rep. Elijah Cummings, the Maryland Democrat who chairs the House Oversight and Reform Committee, said Tuesday night that Trump is mixed up about Congress’ role.

    “The president seems to believe that because Congress must legislate, we should not investigate,” Cummings said in a statement. “Of course, the Constitution requires us to do both. That is exactly how it works.”

    As I have previously posted, Democrats AND Republicans both agree that there should be more investment in improving border security. The ONLY thing preventing that sort of bill from passing is DJT INSISTING that ANY bipartisan solution include funding for a wall. Why is that?

    The obvious answer is that it is politics. Trump was unable to get wall funding passed by his own party when they controlled all three branches of government and could pass a spending bill on just a majority vote. The Dems gained control of the House and have effective veto power in the Senate on any new spending bills because of rules that Republicans put in place. The reason that Dems gained control is because a majority of voters rejected Trumps call for a wall. So those Dems are representing the interests of those who sent them to Washington. According to Gallup based on a Feb 4th report, 60% of the country opposes any significant new construction on a border wall.

    Trump and Republicans have failed to make their case with the american people. They don’t believe that there is a crisis at the border. They also don’t believe that a wall would be the best use of money spent to improve border security.

    This is how democracy is supposed to work. We had an election. Trump and Republicans lost. Elections SHOULD have consequences.

    Please tell me why it should work any different and why the Democrats are the bad guys in this situation.

  11. Jeff Beamsley says:

    The New York Times is discribing a speak I didn’t hear. You?

    Ann Coulter

    “Golden beaches of California”? This was the lamest, sappiest, most intentionally tear-jerking SOTU ever. Please fire your speechwriter,

    45 minutes in, we got 30 seconds on the wall. He better be breaking ground tomorrow.

    Rick Santorum

    “This was probably the worst delivered speech I’ve heard Donald Trump give,” Santorum said. “He ran over his lines…he didn’t deliver his punchlines, he would deliver a line and go to the next issue and I don’t think he even realized he was moving onto the next issue.”

    Bill Mitchell

    President Trump wasn’t as aggressive with Democrats tonight as I’d have liked. This was a speech for everyone. He brought peace, not the sword, appearing reasonable as Democrats appear extreme. I’d have brought more hammer myself, but we’ll see how this plays – strategic.

    Megan McCain

    “For me, when he’s talking about, ‘We must reject the politics of revenge, resistance, and retribution,’ you [weren’t] being bipartisan mere hours earlier obsessing over people you consider your enemies,” she told The View‘s panel. McCain went on to describe Trump’s calls for political unity “a kabuki theater, a virtue signal.” She continued, “Please don’t sit here and tell me you’re grasping for bipartisanship at this moment when Chuck Schumer is ‘a son of a bitch,’ and my father’s book quote ‘bombed,’ and Joe Biden is quote ‘dumb.’”

    Which speech did they see?

  12. Jeff Beamsley says:

    BTW, Here’s an article on congressional testimony by border official meeting with the Senate and House committee tasked with working out a compromise on the border.

    “What they said over again was technology,” Durbin said. “They don’t rule out barriers, they don’t rule out fences. But that isn’t the first priority.”

    Other members backed up Durbin’s assessment of the border officials’ position.

    “Technology” refers to devices such as huge scanners that can look inside trucks and cars, sensors, drones and other high-tech tools that could be quickly dispatched.

  13. Keith says:

    https://nypost.com/2019/02/09/impartial-fact-checkers-are-revealing-their-partisanship-against-trump/

    I will start with this as my response to your reposes above. It is my sincere hope you understand all I’m about to say to you. Hopeful I will finish in the next couple of days.

  14. Keith says:

    So here’s what you did.
    You posted this in response to what speech I heard. And asked what speech they heard.

    Rick Santorum

    “This was probably the worst delivered speech I’ve heard Donald Trump give,” Santorum said. “He ran over his lines…he didn’t deliver his punchlines, he would deliver a line and go to the next issue and I don’t think he even realized he was moving onto the next issue.”

    I heard this words live from Rick on CNN. Spefically in response to the point you were making to me and to why you posted this. First – read the words. Rick says and you by posting it, NOTHING about the content of Trumps speech. Zero. He is talking about Trumps delivery. I agree!!! Trumps delivery is mostly terrible every time he’s on a TelePrompter. This is no different then if Rick were to have said, “I didnt like Trumps suit.” You’ve used “trump was wearing a bad suit” in response to my comment about liking what Trump actually said! I was referring to content and you answered by saying you didn’t like to color of his suit.

    I fact Rick was responding to Van Jones,who surprise, found the speech hurtful,horrible, and highly partisan, y saying Trump delivered it terribly, you post, but that there was actually very little in there highly partisan.

    I can respond to the other three but I will not. My point is you were critical of me for posting the 76% CNN pole and choosing a right wing rag who didn’t spell out the full trueth of the findings. That being it was bias toward republicans by 17 polls nets as more recently unlicensed watched the speech then Dems. Well I know that. So Jeff let me help you a bit here my dear friend. Let’s take the 76% and subtract the 17%. That gives us 59% if my Monroe Public school education is correct. Do I need to say more?

    In summary you respond to my posting using a deceitful right wing article, which I didn’t, by doing exactly what you accused me of doing. Think about that. Use Ricks words as the example.

    You called gateway and unreliable source. From my previous respond are you ready to call the publishers of the fact checks unreliable sources from their deciptive fact checking?

  15. Keith says:

    E – Warren in Iowa
    “Every day, there is a racist tweet, a hateful tweet, something really dark and ugly,” Warren said. “And what are we as candidates, as activists, as the press, going to do about that? Are we going to chase after those every day? Are we going to let him use those to divide us?”

    Jeff care to fact check that. Is she a liar. I don’t read where any of this is a lie in the “credible media”

    Let’s just do this first one “every day there is a racist tweet” take every syllable literally Jeff.

  16. Jeff Beamsley says:

    https://nypost.com/2019/02/09/impartial-fact-checkers-are-revealing-their-partisanship-against-trump/

    I will start with this as my response to your reposes above. It is my sincere hope you understand all I’m about to say to you. Hopeful I will finish in the next couple of days.

    First of all, not a particular fan of the NYPost. It is a sensationalist paper that rarely delivers substance. If you read this carefully, it is an OPINION piece. It is NOT a fact check piece.

    The fact that the author happens to share your point of view is the only reason why it appeals to you.

    As far as his complaints, they are largely about tone rather than substance.

    1. He calls the fact check claim that 31% is not 33% is a nit pick. But the Politico fact-check that I saw simply commented on the speech. In some cases, the comments listed facts which contradicted Trump’s statement. In this case, it simply expanded on the comment to provide the source of the data. It did not characterize whether this was true or not. Here’s the whole section.

    One in three women is sexually assaulted on the long journey north. Smugglers use migrant children as human pawns to exploit our laws and gain access to our country.

    IMMIGRATION
    A 2017 report by Doctors Without Borders found 31 percent of female migrants and 17 percent of male migrants said they had been sexually abused while traveling through Mexico. For the report, the medical organization randomly surveyed 467 migrants in shelters that it supports in Mexico — what it called “a snapshot in time” based on the population available in the selected facilities.

    Ted Hesson
    Immigration Reporter

    His complaint about the NYT was that they were fact checking what is a subjective statement – specifically “an urgent national crisis”. What he omits in this discussion is that our laws DO define what an urgent national crisis is and the sorts of powers that we entrust to a President when one occurs. According to Wikipedia:

    The President may declare a state of emergency only when “the life of the nation is threatened by war, invasion, general insurrection, disorder, natural disaster or other public emergency” and if the ordinary laws and government powers are not sufficient to restore peace and order.

    As far as the NPR fact check on women in congress, here’s the link to their “in context” fact check.

    And exactly one century after Congress passed the Constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote, we also have more women serving in Congress than at any time before. (Applause.) (U-S-A chants.)

    That’s great. Very great. And congratulations. That’s great.

    There are more women in Congress than ever before, but that is almost entirely because of Democrats, not Trump’s party. The number of Republican women in the House has, in fact, fallen from 23 in the last Congress to 13 in this one.

    Altogether, there are 127 women in Congress, up from 110 in 2018. But even with that large jump, women remain hugely underrepresented on Capitol Hill — less than 1 in 4 members of Congress is a woman. (Meanwhile, women are the majority of voters.)

    Danielle Kurtzleben
    NPR Politics Reporter

    Again, NPR was not suggesting what Trump said was true or false. They were simply expanding his statement with additional facts. Those facts are that women are still under represented on Congress and that that there are very few female elected representatives in the Republican Party. The author also failed to include the second half of that post.

    The author excuses as “rhetorical flourish”, Trump’s completely inappropriate descriptions of children being ripped from their mother’s womb. Here’s a link to the Washington Post fact check.

    The legislation in New York would not have “allowed a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth.” It states that a health-care practitioner “may perform an abortion when, according to the practitioner’s reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient’s case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.”

    Here’s a more detailed description from another NYT in depth article.

    The new state law says a health provider may perform an abortion in the state before 24 weeks — and later if the fetus is not considered viable or if the procedure is considered necessary to protect the woman’s life or health. Those are all similar to stipulations made by the Supreme Court.

    In an opinion piece in The New York Times on Wednesday, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, sharply disputed Mr. Trump’s characterization of the law. “Contrary to what its detractors claim, the Reproductive Health Act does not allow abortions minutes before birth, nor does it allow third-trimester abortions ‘for any reason,’” Mr. Cuomo wrote.

    This alone should give you some sense of how reliable the “fact check” NY Post opinion piece was.

  17. Jeff Beamsley says:

    You called gateway and unreliable source. From my previous respond are you ready to call the publishers of the fact checks unreliable sources from their deciptive fact checking?

    Nope

  18. Jeff Beamsley says:

    E – Warren in Iowa
    “Every day, there is a racist tweet, a hateful tweet, something really dark and ugly,” Warren said. “And what are we as candidates, as activists, as the press, going to do about that? Are we going to chase after those every day? Are we going to let him use those to divide us?”

    Jeff care to fact check that. Is she a liar. I don’t read where any of this is a lie in the “credible media”

    Let’s just do this first one “every day there is a racist tweet” take every syllable literally Jeff.

    I agree that there really hasn’t been much coverage of this in the press. The only credible source I could find was Slate.

    Here’s what they said.

    “Here’s what bothers me,” Warren said during a campaign event in eastern Iowa. “By the time we get to 2020, Donald Trump may not even be president. In fact, he may not even be a free person.”

    Warren made the comment as she tried to argue why the campaign for president shouldn’t be dominated by the commander in chief’s attacks and what he writes on Twitter. “Every day there is a racist tweet, a hateful tweet — something really dark and ugly,” she said. “What are we as candidates, as activists, as the press, going to do about it? We’re going to chase after those every day?”

    Whether the statement about the contents and frequency of Trump’s tweets is accurate, what she was saying is that she would like to ignore them because the campaign should be about more important things. To emphasize that point even more, she speculated the Trump may not even be running in 2020.

    As far as the statement that concerns you, if you want to parse it, you should take the whole thing – “Every day there is a racist tweet, a hateful tweet — something really dark and ugly”. That’s clearly not true. That’s because there are days when Trump doesn’t tweet at all.

    We’ll see if someone ends up fact checking this because right now, no one is paying attention to it. Unfortunately for her, no one is paying attention to it because she isn’t considered a viable candidate. There are a lot of vile things tweeted every day by a lot of people who are largely unknown outside the very small twitter universe. None of those things get fact checked either for exactly the same reason. If Warren chose to say this in the floor of the Senate, it might get more attention. But right now on the campaign trail, no one is really taking notice. That is not the result of some liberal bias. It is a much crueler bias suggesting that she doesn’t have a chance and as a result isn’t news.

  19. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Just one more comment about Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric regarding abortion. Trump was describing a situation that doesn’t occur. The SCOTUS guidelines are that “elective” abortions can only occur up to the point where the fetus is able to survive outside the womb. The LATEST acceptable date for that is 24 weeks from conception. The NY law which passed and the Virginia law which didn’t pass DID NOT CHANGE this date. Any abortions which occur after that date must meet a series of criteria regarding the viability of the fetus and the health of the mother. These are NO LONGER abortions of “choice”. These are procedures where not only the mother, but her medical staff, must agree that THERE IS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE.

    Fortunately, the vast majority of pregnancies progress uneventfully. Also in most cases, where the fetus fails to develop normally, the woman’s body rejects the fetus through a natural miscarriage. In about 1% of the cases, the fetus fails to develop late in the pregnancy or in some other way is damaged. There are plenty of techniques available to obstetricians to both detect and confirm cases where fetal development has gone awry. In some cases the brain fails to develop normally. In some cases the fetal heart stops beating. In some cases, the woman develops a medical condition which requires treatment and that treatment (e.g. cancer) damages the fetus. Or the woman suffers an injury which also adversely affects the fetus.
    When the fetus is determined to be no longer viable AND there no spontaneous miscarriage, an abortion procedure terminates a pregnancy that was NEVER going to result in the birth of a healthy baby.

    The circumstance described by Trump NEVER occurs because if it is possible to deliver a health baby that doesn’t put the well being of the woman at risk, EXISTING SCOTUS standards REQUIRE that the pregnancy cannot be terminated.

    The argument that it was a fair characterization of what “could” occur is a lie. A procedure like the one Trump described would be ILLEGAL. If he had EVIDENCE that something like this DID occur, it would be an enforcement problem. But there is NO evidence that something like this has EVER happened, so in fact the CURRENT laws appear to be working just fine at preventing the horrific scene that Trump painted. Instead, like with many things that Trump does, he created a divisive emotional strawman and then claimed that he is committed to prevent these barbaric procedures from every occurring.

    He could have described what might happen to the world if the sun stopped shining. It would be an ugly slow collapse of civilization where children would be the first to die either from exposure to the cold or starvation. He then would have claimed that the only reason the sun comes up every morning is because he is president.

    Both claims are bald faced lies. The only reason that he was able to get away with the first lie is because he is able to manipulate those who oppose abortion to experience outrage for a situation which is no more likely than the sun failing to shine.

Leave a Reply