Trump will need to change the US constitution if he intends to end birthright citizenship

Echo report published in the Los Angeles Times by Andrea Costillo:


WASHINGTON — Donald Trump promised to end the right to citizenship for babies born in the U.S. to undocumented parents shortly after he takes office next month.

In an interview earlier this month with NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Trump said he would attempt to do so through executive action. (But the Meet the Press moderator Kristen Welker did not push back on Trump's misunderstanding about this issue and did not call out the Trumpian lie about the US being the only place where birthright citizenship is legal.)

“Yes, we’re going to end that, because it’s ridiculous,” Trump said.

But getting rid of birthright citizenship, a principle that can be traced in the U.S. to the end of slavery and the 14th Amendment of 1868, is highly unlikely. Here’s why:

What is birthright citizenship? There are two types of citizenship recognized by the U.S. government: one based on descent, and another based on birthplace.

The first type grants U.S. citizenship to children born abroad to at least one U.S. citizen parent. The other guarantees that right to anyone born on U.S. soil, except the children of foreign diplomats.

The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. It states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

Thirty years after its ratification, the Supreme Court ruled that birthright citizenship applied to those born in the U.S. to immigrant parents. It has been interpreted to apply regardless of a parent’s legal status.

The case centered on Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco in 1873, to Chinese parents who were lawful permanent residents. He left the U.S. temporarily at age 21 to visit his parents, who had by then moved back to China. But upon his return, he was denied entry under the Chinese Exclusion Act, on the ground that he was not a citizen. The nation’s highest court ruled that the 14th Amendment made Wong a citizen.

How does the U.S. compare to the rest of the world? 
During the NBC interview, Trump erroneously said the U.S. is “the only country that has it.” In fact❗more than 30 countries recognize birthright citizenship, most of them in the Western Hemisphere. Most countries around the world recognize citizenship by descent. (Moderator Kristen Welker did not push back on this lie.)

Birthright Citizenship is legal under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution

Sam Erman, a law professor at the University of Michigan who studies citizenship, said that the U.S. modeling birthright citizenship is part of the reason more countries have it now.

“If you have it based on descent, then you can end up with people who spend their whole lives in your country and don’t get to be members — and their children, and their children’s children,” Erman said.

Birthright citizenship, he said, “works as a way to ensure that the people being governed in a place are actually part of the place.”
Could Trump end it?

In a post last year on his campaign website, Trump wrote that he would issue an executive order his first day as president, directing federal agencies to “require that at least one parent be a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident for their future children to become automatic U.S. citizens.”

He said the order would clarify that children of undocumented immigrants “should not be issued passports, Social Security numbers, or be eligible for certain taxpayer funded welfare benefits.”

On NBC, Trump said he would end birthright citizenship “if we can” through executive action.

Legal scholars broadly agree it is not within the president’s executive power to end birthright citizenship, leaving the courts or a constitutional amendment as the only ways to achieve a change.

Amending the Constitution is a rigorous process, with a high bar that would require the approval of two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of each state legislature or state convention.

Targeting “anchor babies” and “birth tourism,” Trump planned to sign an executive order that would end birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants during his first term. But, he skirted the issue by instead issuing a rule to deny pregnant women visas if they appeared to be coming to the U.S. primarily to give birth.

Republicans have also introduced bills in Congress to end birthright citizenship, though none have passed. In September, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) introduced the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2024, which would end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and tourists.

After Trump’s recent comments, Graham said he is also working on a constitutional amendment to end the practice, which he has vocally opposed for decades.

“One of the most valuable commodities in the world is American citizenship,” Graham said during a news conference introducing his bill. “I can understand why almost everybody in the world would want to come to America and be a citizen. But we’ve got to have an orderly process when it comes to granting American citizenship. We have to have a process that is not exploited.”

Graham has said the Supreme Court probably would take up the case, noting that there has never been a ruling by the high court involving cases of birthright citizenship in which the parents are undocumented or are on temporary visas.

But Erman, the Michigan law professor, said it’s unlikely that even the conservative-leaning court would move to end birthright citizenship.

“Wong Kim Ark was decided by a court that was quite anti-minority and quite conservative, and even there the text and the history is just really clear,” he said. “If Wong Kim Ark could win in 1898, it feels like the precedent should be able to hold in 2024.”
POLITICS Trump said he would revoke birthright citizenship. It hasn’t worked in the past

Donald Trump promised to end the right to citizenship for babies born in the U.S. to parents who are undocumented. (Brandon Bell / Associated Press) By Andrea Castillo Staff Writer Dec. 16, 2024

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump has promised to end the right to citizenship for babies born in the U.S. to undocumented parents shortly after he takes office next month.

In an interview earlier this month with NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Trump said he would attempt to do so through executive action.

“Yes, we’re going to end that, because it’s ridiculous,” Trump said.

But getting rid of birthright citizenship, a principle that can be traced in the U.S. to the end of slavery and the 14th Amendment of 1868, is highly unlikely. Here’s why:

What is birthright citizenship?There are two types of citizenship recognized by the U.S. government: one based on descent, and another based on birthplace.

The first type grants U.S. citizenship to children born abroad to at least one U.S. citizen parent. The other guarantees that right to anyone born on U.S. soil, except the children of foreign diplomats.

The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. It states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

Thirty years after its ratification, the Supreme Court ruled that birthright citizenship applied to those born in the U.S. to immigrant parents. It has been interpreted to apply regardless of a parent’s legal status.

The case centered on Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese parents who were lawful permanent residents. He left the U.S. temporarily at age 21 to visit his parents, who had by then moved back to China. But upon his return, he was denied entry under the Chinese Exclusion Act on the ground that he was not a citizen. The nation’s highest court ruled that the 14th Amendment made Wong a citizen.

POLITICS Trump confirms deportation strategy will include national emergency declaration and military. Nov. 18, 2024

How does the U.S. compare to the rest of the world?

During the NBC interview, Trump erroneously said the U.S. is “the only country that has it.” In fact, more than 30 countries recognize birthright citizenship, most of them in the Western Hemisphere. Most countries around the world recognize citizenship by descent.

Sam Erman, a law professor at the University of Michigan who studies citizenship, said that the U.S. modeling birthright citizenship is part of the reason more countries have it now.

“If you have it based on descent, then you can end up with people who spend their whole lives in your country and don’t get to be members — and their children, and their children’s children,” Erman said.

Birthright citizenship, he said, “works as a way to ensure that the people being governed in a place are actually part of the place.”
Could Trump end it?

In a post last year on his campaign website, Trump wrote that he would issue an executive order his first day as president, directing federal agencies to “require that at least one parent be a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident for their future children to become automatic U.S. citizens.”

He said the order would clarify that children of undocumented immigrants “should not be issued passports, Social Security numbers, or be eligible for certain taxpayer funded welfare benefits.”

On NBC, Trump said he would end birthright citizenship “if we can” through executive action.

Legal scholars broadly agree it is not within the president’s executive power to end birthright citizenship, leaving the courts or a constitutional amendment as the only ways to achieve a change.

Amending the Constitution is a rigorous process with a high bar that would require the approval of two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of each state legislature or state convention.

Targeting “anchor babies” and “birth tourism,” Trump planned to sign an executive order that would end birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants during his first term. But he skirted the issue by instead issuing a rule to deny pregnant women visas if they appeared to be coming to the U.S. primarily to give birth.

POLITICS California Sen. Alex Padilla urges Biden administration to protect immigrants before Trump takes office Dec. 11, 2024

Republicans have also introduced bills in Congress to end birthright citizenship, though none have passed. In September, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) introduced the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2024, which would end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and tourists.

After Trump’s recent comments, Graham said he is also working on a constitutional amendment to end the practice, which he has vocally opposed for decades.

“One of the most valuable commodities in the world is American citizenship,” Graham said during a news conference introducing his bill. “I can understand why almost everybody in the world would want to come to America and be a citizen. But we’ve got to have an orderly process when it comes to granting American citizenship. We have to have a process that is not exploited.”

Graham has said the Supreme Court probably would take up the case, noting that there has never been a ruling by the high court involving cases of birthright citizenship in which the parents are undocumented or are on temporary visas.

But Erman, the Michigan law professor, said it’s unlikely that even the conservative-leaning court would move to end birthright citizenship.

“Wong Kim Ark was decided by a court that was quite anti-minority and quite conservative, and even there the text and the history is just really clear,” he said. “If Wong Kim Ark could win in 1898, it feels like the precedent should be able to hold in 2024.”

What opposition would Trump face?Any move to end birthright citizenship is sure to face legal challenges.

“Citizenship is both a bundle of rights and a form of belonging. Saying these people who are citizens are not really Americans I think does a lot of damage,” Erman said.

Migration experts have warned that repealing birthright citizenship would cause the number of people in the U.S. illegally to skyrocket. Democratic lawmakers have voiced their opposition after Trump’s recent comments.

“That concept of birthright citizenship is sort of like the backbone of America. It is very much a part of the history of our nation and it should continue as such,” Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.) said on CNN.

Even some Republicans have disagreed with Trump. Then-House Speaker Paul Ryan broke with Trump in 2018 when he said the president could not end birthright citizenship by executive order.

“As a conservative, I’m a believer in following the plain text of the Constitution, and I think in this case the 14th Amendment is pretty clear, and that would involve a very, very lengthy constitutional process,” he said. “But where we obviously totally agree with the president is getting at the root issue here, which is unchecked illegal immigration.”

Was Dr. Birx "threatened" by Former Guy to remain silent about risks of COVID deaths?

Hundreds of thousands of COVID deaths could have been prevented!

Trump had downplayed the outbreak in its early stages.

Dr. Deborah Leah Birx is an American physician and diplomat who served as the White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator under #FormerGuy Donald Trump from 2020 to 2021.

Dr. Birx said that, while the initial surge in March last year (2020) caught health officials off guard, better messaging and coordination from the government could have reduced the number of #TrumpVirus deaths later.

Dr. Deborah Birx recalls 'very difficult' call with Trump, says hundreds of thousands of COVID deaths were preventable.

"I look at it this way: The first time, we have an excuse," Birx said about the initial surge of deaths. "All of the rest of them, in my mind, could have been mitigated or decreased substantially."

400,000 preventable deaths.  By Allan Smith NBC News

Dr. Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus response coordinator in the Trump administration, described an "uncomfortable" call with #FormerGuy Donald Trump after an interview with CNN, in August in which she discussed the threat posed by Covid-19.

"Well, I think you've heard other conversations that people have posted with the former president," Birx said as part of a CNN documentary, "Covid War: The Pandemic Doctors Speak Out," which is airing in full on Sunday evening. "I would say it was even more direct than what people have heard. It was very uncomfortable, very direct and very difficult to hear."

In the segment, which CNN released Sunday, Birx was asked whether she was threatened in the call?

"I would say it was a very uncomfortable conversation," she said.

Was Dr. Birx threatened by Trump to keep silent about the high risks of coronavirus deaths? She reported an "uncomfortable conversation" with Trump.

Within weeks of Covid-19 shutdown measures' being put in place, Trump, who would later contract the virus and be hospitalized, began pushing for cities and states to reopen. He also pitched unproven treatments for the virus and questioned the need to wear face coverings.

Birx, who has spoken out about her experience on Trump's coronavirus task force repeatedly in recent months, has taken heat for not having been more critical. 

Last March, she praised Trump for being "so attentive to the scientific literature and the details and the data" about the outbreak.

Such past commentary led to backlash over her latest remarks.

"The malicious incompetence that resulted in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths starts at the top, with the former president and his enablers," Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., tweeted. "And who was one of his enablers? Dr. Birx, who was afraid to challenge his unscientific rhetoric and wrongfully praised him."

She was also criticized last year for traveling during the Thanksgiving holiday weekend after having warned Americans to avoid travel and gatherings with people outside their immediate households

In the segment, which CNN released, Birx was asked whether she was threatened in the call.

"I would say it was a very uncomfortable conversation," she said.

In a clip, released earlier by CNN, Birx said the Trump administration could have prevented hundreds of thousands of Covid-19 deaths had it acted more forcefully to mitigate the pandemic.

"I look at it this way: The first time, we have an excuse. There were about 100,000 deaths that came from that original surge," Birx said. "All of the rest of them, in my mind, could have been mitigated or decreased substantially."

The virus has killed more than 551,000 people in the U.S., according to NBC News' tracker. The initial spring wave was followed by surges over the summer and the winter, which proved to be the deadliest stretch.

Within weeks of Covid-19 shutdown measures' being put in place, Trump, who would later contract the virus and be hospitalized, began pushing for cities and states to reopen. He also pitched unproven treatments for the virus (snake oil, bleach and hydroxychloroquine!) and questioned the need to wear face coverings.

Birx, who has spoken out about her experience on Trump's coronavirus task force repeatedly in recent months, has taken heat for not having been more critical. Last March, she praised Trump for being "so attentive to the scientific literature and the details and the data" about the outbreak.

Such past commentary led to backlash over her latest remarks.

"The malicious incompetence that resulted in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths starts at the top, with the former president and his enablers," Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., tweeted. "And who was one of his enablers? Dr. Birx, who was afraid to challenge his unscientific rhetoric and wrongfully praised him."

Dr. Birx was also criticized last year for traveling during the Thanksgiving holiday weekend after having warned Americans to avoid travel and gatherings with people outside their immediate households.

Untruths and pressure: Dr. Birx was one of several former Trump officials to detail dysfunction, infighting, and an aversion to the truth they said hindered the government and public response to the coronavirus pandemic.

Do not worry, Dad. "I will be fine for telling the truth", Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman

Transcribed in Axios:  news, coverage, and insight

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman's opening statement in the Donald Trump impeachment hearing:

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified on Tuesday November 19, in the House's impeachment inquiry.

Why it matters: Vindman is one of the first witnesses to testify publicly who directly listened in to President Trump's July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, which he will tell the House Intelligence Committee he found "improper."

Opening Statement of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander S. Vindman

Before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

November 19, 2019

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, thank you for the opportunity to address the

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence with respect to the activities relating to Ukraine and my role in the events under investigation.

Background - I have dedicated my entire professional life to the United States of America.

For more than two decades, it has been my honor to serve as an officer in the United

States Army. As an infantry officer, I served multiple overseas tours, including South Korea and Germany, and I was deployed to Iraq for combat operations. Since 2008, I have been a Foreign Area Officer specializing in European and Eurasian politico-military affairs. I served in the United States embassies in Kiev, Ukraine and Moscow, Russia.

In Washington, D.C., I was a politico-military affairs officer for Russia for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff where I drafted the Armed Forces’ global campaign plan to counter Russian aggression and Russian malign influence. In July 2018, I was asked to serve at the White House’s National Security Council (NSC).

At the NSC, I am the principal advisor to the National Security Advisor and the President on Ukraine and the other countries in my portfolio. My role at the NSC is to develop, coordinate, and implement plans and policies to manage the full range of diplomatic, informational, military, and economic national security issues for the countries in my portfolio. My core function is to coordinate policy with departments and agencies partners.

The Committee has heard from many of my colleagues about the strategic importance of Ukraine as a bulwark against Russian aggression. It is important to note that our country’s policy of supporting Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, promoting Ukrainian prosperity, and strengthening a free and democratic Ukraine, as a counter to Russian aggression, has been a consistent, bi-partisan foreign policy objective and strategy across various administrations, both Democrat and Republican, and that President Zelenskyy’s election, in April 2019, created an unprecedented opportunity to realize our strategic objectives.

Relevant Events - and Donald Trump

In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of two disruptive actors–-primarily Ukraine’s then-Prosecutor General Yuri Lutsenko and former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, President Trump’s personal attorney— promoting false information that undermined the United States’ Ukraine policy. The NSC and its inter-agency partners, including the State Department, grew increasingly concerned about the impact that such information was having on our country’s ability to achieve our national security objectives.

April 21, 2019: President Trump Calls Ukraine President Zelenskyy

On April 21, 2019, Volodymyr Zelenskyy was elected President of Ukraine in a landslide victory on a unity, reform, and anti-corruption platform. President Trump called President Zelenskyy on April 21, 2019, to congratulate him for his victory. I was the staff officer who produced the call materials and was one of the staff officers who listened to the call. The call was positive and President Trump expressed his desire to work with President Zelenskyy and extended an invitation to visit the White House.

May 2019: Inauguration Delegation Goes to Ukraine

In May, I attended the inauguration of President Zelenskyy as part of the Presidential delegation led by Secretary Perry. Following the visit, the members of the delegation provided President Trump a debriefing offering a positive assessment of President Zelenskyy and his team. After this debriefing, President Trump signed a
congratulatory letter to President Zelenskyy and extended an invitation to visit the White House.

July 10, 2019: Danylyuk Visit

On July 10, 2019, Oleksandr Danylyuk, then Ukraine’s National Security Advisor, visited Washington, D.C. for a meeting with National Security Advisor Bolton.

Ambassadors Volker and Sondland and Secretary Rick Perry also attended the meeting. I attended the meeting with Dr. Hill.

We fully anticipated the Ukrainians would raise the issue of a meeting between the two presidents. Ambassador Bolton cut the meeting short when Ambassador Sondland started to speak about the requirement that Ukraine deliver specific investigations in order to secure the meeting with President Trump.

Following this meeting, there was a short debriefing during which Ambassador. Sondland emphasized the importance of Ukraine delivering the investigations into the 2016, election, the Bidens, and Burisma. I stated to Ambassador Sondland that this was inappropriate and had nothing to do with national security. 

Lt Col Alexander Vindman is a United States Army officer who serves as the Director for European Affairs for the United States National Security Council (NSC). Vindman came to national attention in October/November 2019, when he testified before the United States Congress regarding the Trump–Ukraine scandal.
Commissioned in 1999 as an infantry officer, Vindman received a Purple Heart medal for wounds he received from an IED attack in the Iraq War in 2004. Vindman became a foreign area officer specializing in Eurasia in 2008, and assumed his current position as Director for European Affairs with the NSC in 2018.

(Testimony transcript continues)

Dr. Hill also asserted that his comments were improper.

Following the meeting, Dr. Hill and I had agreed to report the incident to the NSC’s lead counsel, Mr. John Eisenberg.

July 25, 2019: Parliamentary Election Call

On July 21, 2019, President Zelenskyy’s party won parliamentary elections in another landslide victory. The NSC proposed that President Trump call President Zelenskyy to congratulate him.

On July 25, 2019, the call occurred. I listened in on the call in the Situation Room with White House colleagues.

I was concerned by the call, what I heard was improper, and I reported my concerns to Mr. Eisenberg. It is improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen and political opponent. It was also
clear that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the 2016, election, the Bidens, and Burisma, it would be interpreted as a partisan play. This would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing bipartisan support, undermine U.S. national security, and advance
Russia’s strategic objectives in the region.
I want to emphasize to the Committee, that when I reported my concerns -- on July 10, relating to Ambassador Sondland, and on July 25, relating to the President -- I did so out of a sense of duty. I privately reported my concerns, in official channels, to the proper authorities in the chain of command. My intent was to raise these
concerns because they had significant national security implications for our country.

I never thought I would be sitting here testifying in front of this committee and the American public, about my actions. When I reported my concerns, my only thought was to act properly and to carry out duty. Following each of my reports to Mr. Eisenberg, I immediately returned to work to advance the President’s and our country’s foreign policy objectives. I focused on what I have done throughout my career, promoting America’s national security interests.

Conclusion

I want to take a moment to recognize the courage of my colleagues who have appeared and are scheduled to appear before this Committee. I want to state that the vile character attacks on these distinguished and honorable public servants is reprehensible. It is natural to disagree and engage in spirited debate, this has been
our custom since the time of our Founding Fathers, but we are better than callow and cowardly attacks.

The uniform I wear today is that of the United States Army. The members of our all volunteer force are made up of a patchwork of people from all ethnicities, religions, and socio-economic backgrounds who come together under a common oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. We do not serve any particular political party, we serve the nation. I am humbled to come before you today as one of many who serve in the most distinguished and able military in the world. The Army is the only profession I have ever known. As a young man I decided that I wanted to spend my life serving the nation that gave my family refuge from authoritarian oppression, and for the last twenty years it has been an honor to represent and protect this great country.

Next month will mark 40 years since my family arrived in the United States as refugees. When my father was 47 years old he left behind his entire life and the only home he had ever known to start over in the United States so that his three sons could have better, safer lives. His courageous decision inspired a deep sense of gratitude in my brothers and myself and instilled in us a sense of duty and service. All three of us have served or are currently serving in the military. Our collective military service is a special part of our family’s story in America.

I also recognize that my simple act of appearing here today, just like the courage of my colleagues who have also truthfully testified before this Committee, would not be tolerated in many places around the world. In Russia, my act of expressing my concerns to the chain of command in an official and private channel would have severe personal and professional repercussions and offering public testimony involving the President would surely cost me my life.

I am grateful for my father’s brave act of hope 40 years ago and for the privilege of being an American citizen and public servant, where I can live free of fear for mine and my family’s safety.

Dad, my sitting here today, in the US Capitol, talking to our elected officials is proof that you made the right decision forty years ago to leave the Soviet Union and come here to United State of America in search of a better life for our family. Do not worry, I will be fine for telling the truth.* 

Thank you again for your consideration, and I would be happy to answer your questions.

*PostScript- published in NBC.com by Lily Burana: "When later asked if his father had expressed concerns about his testimony, Lt. Col. Vindman replied that his father was, indeed, 'deeply worried' about him testifying about the conduct of the president, seeing it 'as the ultimate risk'. But Vindman said he was persevering regardless, as 'this is America ... and here, right matters'."

Coal Miners are not hearing from the "realDonaldTrump" who they largely voted for - Black Lung is choking them without help from Donald Trump

Although I am not a psychic, I believe years of past Maine Writer blogs have predicted this sad outcome....a classic example of how coal miners were sold a political "pig in a poke" when, in 2016, they supported Donald Trump.

“Somebody needs to do something.” By Heidi Przybyla NBCNews

Coal workers fight for benefits as industry struggles under Trump

Coal workers have been among Donald Trump's strongest supporters, but their pensions remain at risk as industry barons thrive.

Coal workers fight for benefits as industry struggles under Trump
Coal workers have been among the president's strongest supporters, but their pensions remain at risk as industry barons thrive.

WASHINGTON, DC — Dozens of retired miners, some in wheelchairs and using oxygen tanks to manage black lung disease, recently visited Washington DC, seeking federal help for their failing pension plans.

A day later, Donald Trump traveled to the miners’ home state, West Virginia, to raise an estimated $2.5 million for his re-election campaign at an event hosted by Robert Murray, who owns America’s largest underground coal company.

As an insurgent candidate in 2016, Trump promised miners he would restore the industry — and their jobs — after years of steady decline.

But as the president gears up his 2020 re-election campaign, coal magnates like Murray, whose company has a history of labor violations, have been among the biggest beneficiaries of his agenda.

The rank-and-file miners Trump showered with attention as a candidate have been less fortunate as their job prospects dwindle and their communities languish.

The year 2018, was second only to 2015, for coal plant retirements this decade, as the industry contends with strong competition from natural gas and renewable energy. At the same time, safety protections for miners, enacted after deadly mine collapses, have been weakened. Waves of retired and retiring miners concerned about failing pension plans have become a fixture on Capitol Hill, often holding vigils to gain attention.

At issue is the Miners Pension Protection Act, legislation that would transfer public funding into the miners’ troubled pension fund in order to guarantee their pensions and health care. Estimates suggest Congress would need to increase its appropriation by $260 million annually to keep the fund solvent.

Every day for the last seven months, Sen. Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat, has tweeted at Trump asking him to help protect the retired coal miners living in fear of losing everything.

Trump hasn’t publicly responded, while Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, whose state of Kentucky employs over 6,000 miners, has blocked a separate measure that would shore up miner pensions.

“The President is committed to all Americans, including our great hardworking coal miners," White House spokesperson Judd Deere told NBC News. "It is because of President Trump’s economic policies of tax cuts, deregulation— including rolling back the previous administration’s harmful and unlawful so-called Clean Power Plan — and energy independence that coal miners are winning.”

Mine owners are Trump’s fifth biggest source of individual/family contributors, directing at least $6.1 million toward joint fundraising committees, his inauguration and related super PACs, according to an NBC News review. And they’ve won plenty of regulatory breaks in return, most notably a rollback of the Clean Power Plan, which President Barack Obama enacted in 2014 to help curb carbon emissions.

The Trump administration has also loosened rules governing coal ash disposal and mercury pollution from power plants. A former coal lobbyist, Andrew Wheeler, now leads a shrinking Environmental Protection Agency.

Manchin’s office says Trump has been privately supportive of the miners, yet the president has said nothing publicly to pressure McConnell to act. While McConnell has sought a broader fix to shore up the federally chartered Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., the miners have said they don’t have time to wait for it.

That pension program covering union workers in transportation, mining, construction and hospitality is facing insolvency as several individual plans struggle to stay afloat.

“We’ve worked years in the coal mines. It was promised to us,” said Tom Phillips, a miner who voted for Trump in 2016. Phillips, who has numerous disabilities, said he believed Trump’s promise of a coal revival.

“I’m kind of up in the air” on Trump now, Phillips told NBC. “I don’t know what to do anymore.”

Tom Gibson, who worked as a miner for 33 years, has been walking the halls of Congress.

“I don’t like doing this, but we have no choice,” Gibson said. “Somebody needs to do something.”

David Popp, a McConnell spokesman, said the majority leader met with miners this year but believes the looming pension insolvency “is best addressed through a broader bipartisan and bicameral pension reform effort” that includes other industries.

Meanwhile, under Trump, coal executives thrive.

Among those beneficiaries are Joe and Kelly Knight Craft of Alliance Resource Partners, the largest coal donors to Trump. The Crafts, who are worth from $1 billion to $1.2 billion, according to a public disclosure form from 2017, contributed over $2 million to Trump’s joint fundraising committees, his inauguration and related super PACs. Alliance Resource Partners, of which Joe Craft is president, did not respond to requests for comment.

Trump named Kelly Craft the U.S. ambassador to Canada, where she served for 20 months. This month she was confirmed as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Other mining executives have reaped millions in retention bonuses as their companies undergo the bankruptcy and restructuring process.

“Many of the coal miners recognize there is a distinction between them and their bosses,” said Art Sullivan, a mining consultant and former miner.

Murray, who hosted the Trump fundraiser in late July, has donated $1.4 million to Trump and related super PACs. Since his company is privately held, he discloses little about his wealth.

A Murray spokesperson said the premise that coal executives are faring better than miners is “false.”

“Coal miners make up the coal industry. Coal miners, and the coal mining industry, have been, and are continuing to be helped by the Trump administration,” the spokesperson said.
“Draining the Swamp”

The state of coal country illustrates how Trump’s 2016 mantra of “draining the swamp” in Washington has, in many cases, yielded the opposite — windfalls for donors and lobbyists.

“I will never put the special interests before the national interest. I will never put a donor before a voter, or a lobbyist before a citizen,” he said at a campaign event in Charlotte, North Carolina, in 2016. “I am the change candidate. Hillary Clinton is for the failed status quo to protect her special interests, her donors, her lobbyists and others.”

Three years later, hedge fund companies continue to gobble up bankrupt mines and miners lose their jobs while their bosses get lucrative “retention” bonuses during bankruptcy proceedings. 

Coal mine closures are forecast to continue, particularly in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic regions, according to BloombergNEF, a research service covering energy.

In early July, two coal mines in Wyoming’s Powder River Basin, which has provided most of the nation’s thermal coal in recent decades, shuttered and abruptly put 700 individuals out of work. That was months after Westmoreland Coal Co., another large coal company in the state, filed for bankruptcy and agreed to sell its Kemmerer mine to investor Tom Clarke, who’s purchased several iron and coal mines out of bankruptcies.

Much like other mine bankruptcies, Clarke was able to stop paying retiree’s health and pension benefits.While Congress in 2017 acted on a permanent fix for health care coverage for miners, it has not acted on pensions.

Meantime the miners interviewed by NBC said their communities, many hard hit by the opioid crisis, are reeling, and include “grandmas and grandpas” raising grandchildren on as little as $300 per month.

“I’m not just saying this," Gibson said. "That’s just the way it is."

Donald Trump Culture of Charlottesvile - white supremacy extends hate crimes coast to coast

Hate Crimes - evil in Charlottesville, Pittsburgh and now in.....

SAN DIEGO, CA- Who Is John T. Earnest? Suspect in Poway Synagogue Shooting? He is a chillingly evil white supremacist who has admitted to previously committing hate crimes.

By Tom Jones

San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore confirmed that the suspect in the Poway synagogue shooting is 19-year-old (white male) John T. Earnest, from San Diego.

According to a manifesto, published online shortly after 10 a.m. PST on Saturday, Earnest also takes responsibility for an Escondido Mosque arson, a month prior. 

During that incident, Earnest spray-painted messages referencing the New Zealand mosque shooting.

The synagogue shooting and the mosque arson were less than 9 miles apart.

Filled with racist rants and quotes from the Bible, Earnest praises the suspects responsible for the New Zealand mosque and Pittsburgh synagogue shootings and adds they were his inspiration for the planned shooting in Poway.

Donald Trump legacy is chaos

Reading Donald Trump's nonsensical Tweets, many written from the top of his head, often without editing and missing real time data, it's easy to see the historical legacy this emotionally labile* leader will leave with history. In other words, it won't be pretty. Although there're calls for an assessment of Trump's mental health by professional psychiatrists and psychologists, the fact of the matter is, we can only observe Donald Trump's behavior. That's the easy part. His behavior is "chaotic" and voters are finally "getting it". Nevertheless, "chaos" isn't a diagnosis, but it is the label that stamp's Donald Trump's legacy. A majority of American voters can't understand how a man like Donald Trump could ever be elected to lead America, but by a process of disinformation and Russian election hacking, his presence desecrates the Oval Office. Apparently, voters are seeing the chaos that most of us knew was forthcoming.

Focus group from Emory University led by Peter Hart

North Carolina voters deliver harsh assessments on Trump’s ‘chaotic’ first year- NBCNews by Andrew Rafferty

WILMINGTON, N.C. — The twelve months since Donald Trump’s election have been “chaotic,” “corrupt,” “dangerous” and “embarrassing,” a group of Republican and Democratic voters said Wednesday night.
A 12-person focus group conducted by veteran pollster Peter Hart on behalf of Emory University delivered blistering reviews of Trump’s performance so far. 

Those voters, seven who supported Clinton and five who voted for Trump, expressed deep frustrations with the president’s conduct in office and what they perceive as a lack of accomplishments since Inauguration Day.

“Nightmare,” “divisive,” “mayhem,” “antagonistic,” “failure,” “reality television,” “rude,” “instigating” and “vacant” were among the words used to describe Trump over the past year.
Some of the most stinging reviews came from those who cast ballots for Trump in the key battleground state he won by four points.

“While I thought his ideas appealed to me, since he’s been in there, he’s embarrassed me by his behavior,” said Annie Anthony, a 56-year-old Trump voter who described herself as a “weak Republican.”

“When he’s away, he’s great being a president, you know he’s a showman. But at home — I can’t imagine how they let him build a country club let alone be in one,” she added.
“He comes out with these grandiose ideas and there is no follow through. It’s a lot of talk,” said Melissa Hight, a 62-year-old Republican who also voted for Trump. “I just had such hopes that maybe some things would be prepared, and the whole country would be better off with him as president. But he hasn’t acted presidential at all.”

The president’s social media habits were frequently cited by the group as a top concern. Just one member of the panel said she thought Trump’s use of Twitter was a positive for his presidency.
“President Trump has embarrassed even his own supporters, and his problems start and end with himself. 

All of his problems are self-inflicted,” Hart told NBC News.

Health care was ranked as the most important issue to the group.

* labile- characterized by emotions that are easily aroused or freely expressed, and that tend to alter quickly and spontaneously; emotionally unstable.

Donald Trump circles the drain with more lies

Trump’s Electoral College Win Was Not the Biggest Since Reagan- by PETER ALEXANDER and CARRIE DANN

NBC journalist Peter Alexander

Although Donald Trump exhibited bizarre behavior at his 77 minute marathon Feb 16, news conference, the one undeniable moment he'll never erase as "fake news" came from journalist Peter Alexander.  What was most telling about this presser exchange was how Donald Trump immediately blamed somebody else for his unfactual "false" information. I suspect if there's one moment Donald Trump could erase from the video, it would be his exchange with Peter Alexander. Too late!

Trump’s Electoral College Victory
Ranks 46th in 58 Elections
By JUGAL K. PATEL and WILSON ANDREWS DEC. 18, 2016

Donald J. Trump claimed he won the electoral vote in a “landslide,” but he ranks below most presidents in the electoral vote and popular vote margins.

NBC’s Peter Alexander gives Trump in-person fact check
By MATTHEW NUSSBAUM 02/16/17 

President Donald Trump, after lambasting the media as “dishonest people,” received an in-person fact check from NBC’s Peter Alexander at a White House news conference Thursday on a false statement the president had made moments earlier, leaving Trump blaming staff for giving him the wrong information.

Trump had claimed in his opening remarks that he had won the biggest Electoral College victory since Ronald Reagan, which is demonstrably false. 

Alexander asked in the Press Conference: “You said today that you had the biggest electoral margin since Ronald Reagan,” Alexander said, sitting feet from the president. He then began to list recent electoral victories bigger than Trump’s, which include both of Barack Obama’s victories, both of Bill Clinton’s victories and George H.W. Bush’s 1988 victory, all since Reagan. “Well, I was talking about Republicans,” Trump said. George H.W. Bush, who was also a Republican, received 426 electoral votes, well above Trump’s 304. “Why should Americans trust you?” Alexander asked. Trump said he had just been given the information, seeming to imply he had been given incorrect information.

“It was a substantial victory, you do agree with that?” Trump asked.

“You’re the president,” Alexander responded.

Well, in my opinion, Alexander missed his golden opportunity to disagree with Trump; but likely chose to end his bold query on a professional note.  Kudos to Peter Alexander. 

Americans can't take more of these bizarre Trumponian disasters especially when the the lies are now owned by Donald Trump himself. He can't blame his misinformation on others when he's the creator of his own fake news!  In fact, the next time Peter Alexander asks a White House press conference question, he should demand for Donald Trump to produce a mental health assessment by a qualified psychiatrist, instead of a piece of paper signed by Gastroenterology physician Dr. Harold N. Bornstein of Lenox Hill Hospital in Manhattan.

Get out the plungers!

Donald Trump went swirling down the political drain at the bizarre February 16, 2017 White House News Conference.  He won't bounce back from this debacle because his cult followers can't save him from swirling disasters of his own making.

Journalists must report truth and sift out lies in real time as they happen

Journalists must report facts, truth and sift out lies in real time. It goes without saying but, nevertheless, bears repeating! In the 21st century nano-second media market, a lie can't wait to be fact checked, especially when it's bold faced already proven false in the public domain. Like Donald Trump calling Mexicans "rapists" or when Lisa Machado says Donald Trump called her "Miss Piggy and Miss Housekeeping" or when Donald Trump complimented Vladimir Putin while dengegrating our own American President Barack Obama. 

 Media who seem to "get" this include the astute Hallie Jackson, reporting for NBCNews following the Trump campaign. Thankfully, Ms. Jackson thinks on her feet, she doesn't try to "be" a story but, rather, she focuses on reporting her story while, at the same time, she calls out lies as they happen.

I admire Hallie Jackson for her ability to think on her feet and call out lies as she reports the facts as they happen.

Pope Francis is calling on all journalists to report in ethical and responsible coverage. I would extend his example to Hallie Jackson.

During this month of October, Pope Francis asks us to pray, "that journalists, in carrying out their work, may always be motivated by respect for truth and a strong sense of ethics."

This prayer intention is more relevant than ever in an age when information is accessed constantly over the Internet and shared with friends through social media. With very little accountability, news is presented to the masses without knowing if it is the truth or not.

In speaking to National Council of the Order of Journalists on September 22, Pope Francis urged journalists to "love the truth, live with professionalism, and respect human dignity."

In particular, Pope Francis challenged journalists to not only "affirm [the truth] but to live it, to witness it with one’s work — to live and work, therefore, with coherence in regard to the words that one uses for a newspaper article or a television service." This means that a journalist should strive for honesty in his/her work, reflecting that same drive for the truth that is already present in his/her day-to-day life. One must first live the truth in order to report it.

Pope Francis further added, "This is the work, we can also say the mission – at the same time difficult and necessary – of the journalist: to come as close as possible to the truth of the facts and never say or write something that one knows, in conscience, is not true."

How needed are these words in today's world!

When searching for the news on the Internet, it is hard to know who is getting the facts right and who is trying to promote a specific agenda. This is why we need to pray for journalists!

Pope Francis concluded the meeting by saying:

"I hope that increasingly and everywhere journalism is an instrument of construction, a factor of common good, an accelerator of processes of reconciliation, which is able to reject the temptation to foment clashes, with a language that blows on the fire of divisions, and, instead, that it foster the culture of encounter. You journalists can remind all every day that there is no conflict that cannot be resolved by women and men of good will."

Let us pray for journalists this month, especially as we conclude another election season. May all journalists strive to report on the truth and retain a strong sense of ethics.

+Amen

When "unqualified" means totally unqualified - why don't Republicans understand?

Obviously, from his stupid answers to Matt Lauer, it's clear that Donald Trump does not know more than the US Military Generals and Admirals about anything. It's time to fire Donald Trump.
(By the way, what was this Mike Pence "nonsense" about wasting his time in California, stumping at the Reagan Library? See story below.)

How do Trump supporters brains function? What is it about unqualified that they just don't "get"?

Donald Trump has dangerously wacky ideas.  In fact, Putin and his new Best Friend (BFF) Trump can't "fix" the Middle East or Syria.

President Barack Obama says:
"The most important thing for the public and the press is to just listen to what he says and follow up and ask questions on what he says, which appear to be either contradictory or uninformed or outright wacky ideas."

Trump supporters are supposed to understand the cerebral functions associated with making judgements. They're most likely literate and aware about the job requirements needed for successful political leadership. So, what is it that Donald Trump supporters don't understand about the obvious? Donald Trump is clearly unqualified to be the leader of the free world. Here are at least 9 reasons why he must be canned as a GOP presidential (I gag at writing this word) nominee, as he demonstrated in the Commander in Chief forum on September 7th broadcast by NBC, from the USS Intrepid in New York City.  From "First Read":

In 24 minutes, Trump made nine controversial statements

In last night's NBC/MSNBC Commander-in-Chief Forum, which served as a kind of scrimmage before the presidential debates, Hillary Clinton struggled. She immediately found herself on the defensive -- once again -- over her emails. 

Moreover, she promised she wouldn't have U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria (even though we already do have some forces there). Yet, those struggles paled in comparison to what we count were nine controversial statements Donald Trump made in his 24 minutes on the stage.

Unbelievable, Trump sat on the deck of the USS Intrepid and criticized U.S. military generals, while trying to explain why he knows more about ISIS than they do. Incredible.

"I think under the leadership Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the generals have been reduced to rubble. They have been reduced to a point where it's embarrassing for our country."
Suggested that he'd fire current generals if he becomes president

"Well, they'll probably be different generals" -- in response to a question about how he accepts their advice after saying they've been "reduced to rubble."
Praised Vladimir Putin

"Well, he does have an 82% approval rating, according to the different pollsters, who by the way, some of whom are based right here." (FYI: In the May NBC/WSJ poll, just 8% of American voters said they had a favorable view of Putin, versus 59% with an unfavorable one.) WATCH
Said Putin is a stronger leader than President Obama

"I mean, the man has very strong control over a country. And that's a very different system and I don't happen to like the system. But certainly in that system he's been a leader, far more than our president has been a leader."
Said that, by reading the body language of the intelligence officials who gave him his intelligence briefing, he could tell these people aren't happy with President Obama

"I'm pretty good with the body language. I could tell they were not happy." (OMG- National Security professionals do not "do" body language.)

Said his trip to Mexico was a success because official who was responsible for it resigned

"I think if you saw what happened in Mexico the other day, where I went there. I had great relationships, everything else... And if you look at what happened, look at the aftermath today where the people that arranged the trip in Mexico has been forced out of government."
Defended his tweet suggesting that sexual assault in the military is due to men and women serving together in military

"Well, it is-- it is-- it is a correct tweet. There are many people that think that that's absolutely correct. And we need to have a strength." (Trump's tweet from May 2013: "26,000 unreported sexual assults in the military-only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?")WATCH
Repeated his claim that the United States should have taken Iraq's and Libya's oil: "If we would've taken the oil, you wouldn't have ISIS. Because ISIS formed with the power and the wealth of that oil." WATCH
And explained that you take the oil by "leaving a certain group behind"

"We would leave a certain group behind and you would take various sections where they have the oil: "They have-- I-- people don't know this about Iraq. But they have among the largest oil reserves in the world-- in the entire world... You know, it used to be the victor belong the spoils."

Clinton: "We are not putting ground troops into Iraq ever again"

As for Hillary Clinton's statement about group troops in Iraq/Syria, here is exactly what she said: "We have to defeat ISIS. That is my highest counter-terrorism goal. And we've gotta do it with airpower. We've gotta do it with much more support from the Arabs and the Kurds who will fight on the ground against ISIS… We're going to work to make sure that they have the support. They have special forces, as you know. They have enablers. They have-- surveillance, intelligence, reconnaissance help. They are not gonna get ground troops. We are not putting ground troops into Iraq ever again. And we're not putting ground troops into Syria. We're to defeat ISIS without committing American ground troops." To parse that statement, Clinton was admitting that you might have U.S. special forces and intelligence operatives in Iraq and Syria, but you won't have a substantial land army there. Still, that's quite a promise if she ultimately becomes president. What if her military commanders need additional troops to help the Kurdish and Arab allies in the region? 

Obama on Trump: "I don't think the guy is qualified to be president of the United States and every time he speaks that opinion is confirmed"

Meanwhile, speaking to reporters in Laos (in Southeast Asia), President Obama reacted to Trump's comments at last night's forum. "I don't think the guy is qualified to be president of the United States and every time he speaks that opinion is confirmed," he said. "The most important thing for the public and the press is to just listen to what he says and follow up and ask questions on what he says, which appear to be either contradictory or uninformed or outright wacky ideas."

Yes, indeed, Colin Powell instructed Clinton how to avoid email scrutiny
The Wall Street Journal: "Former Secretary of State Colin Powell told Hillary Clinton at the start of her tenure at the State Department that he used a personal computer to conduct government business and took steps to ensure his digital correspondence wasn't 'going through the State Department servers.' An email exchange released by House Democrats on Wednesday night reveals new details of Mr. Powell's candid advice to his successor for avoiding State Department computer systems and the scrutiny they bring due to federal records preservation and disclosure laws."

On the trail Hillary Clinton held a rally in Charlotte, NC, at noon ET, and later delivered a speech to the National Baptist Convention in Kansas City, MO at 6:00 pm ET… Donald Trump gave an education speech in Cleveland, OH at 2:00 pm ET… Mike Pence delivered a national-security speech at the Reagan Library in California (OMG this was a wonderful use of Trump campaign money, no new votes will come out of this California "Pence nonsense"!) at 1:00 pm ET… And Chelsea Clinton stumped in Scranton, PA.

Frankly, anybody with the cerebral function of a responsible 12 year old would be able to make an informed judgement about who won the NBC "CIC" forum on the USS Intrepid.

It was the candidate who was the most knowledgeable, intelligent, expert on the issues and articulate. Secretary Hillary Clinton is qualified to lead and worthy to be elected the US Commander in Chief.

Countdown to first presidential debate: 18 days

Countdown to VP debate: 26 days

Countdown to second presidential debate: 31 days

Countdown to third presidential debate: 41 days

Countdown to Election Day: 61 days