Republican dysfunction is a "no-excuse" mentality: MAGA extremism is dangerous

Echo opinion by Pat Ryan and Chris Deluzio published in the New Jersey Herald:

On our very first day at both West Point and Annapolis, we learned there are only three acceptable answers to any question asking if you accomplished your mission: Yes, no, and no excuse. 😲😳That "no-excuses" mentality, the ethos of mission first, is what carried us through our deployments in Iraq. 

Also, it is what animated our desire to serve our communities in Congress.

Knowing full well the fragile state of our democracy, we came in optimistic that patriots from both parties would also recognize the gravity of the moment. That they would be willing to undertake the hard work necessary to find common purpose and common ground; that together, we could navigate this perilous period and come out the other side better, stronger, and more united.

What we’ve encountered instead, though, is even more chaos, division and dysfunction than we anticipated ― fueled in large part by the growing spread of MAGA extremism. No shortage of ink has been spilled on what got us here, and we will not dip further into the bitter partisanship that led to this moment. All that matters is where we are now, and the facts are clear.

Israel, our most critical ally in the Middle East, is fighting an existential war for its survival, and suffering in the region is mounting. Ukraine is courageously fighting to defeat Russian aggression in the largest conflict in Europe since World War II. Our government is less than 40 days away from a devastating shutdown that would close Social Security offices, stop paying our troops, and take food away from hungry kids. Our adversaries, from China to Russia, are watching with glee.

And yet, because the GOP is locked in a bitter civil war, the office of Speaker of the House remains vacant, paralyzing the legislative branch at the very moment action is needed most.

As we talk with constituents across our districts (both of which are considered “swing districts” by political pundits), folks are disgusted, disappointed and, most of all, worried. Worried that the country they love won’t be there for their children. Worried that Washington is so broken that politicians would let the foundations of our democracy crumble rather than work together to deliver for the people.

The last nine months of chaos have only served to weaken Americans’ already dismal faith in our government. And they don’t want to hear any more excuses. They want to see results, to see us get out of this political quagmire and finally get our country moving in the right direction again. The American people are asking their elected officials to put country ahead of party, and officials will have to answer: yes, no, or no excuse.

When we say that in Washington, especially to those who have been around the block more, people dismiss it ― attributing it to some sort of unfounded optimism or naivete. We reject that cynical premise. The failed, partisan approach that got us here is simply not an option. This is the very moment where we need leaders who don’t just talk about putting country before party, we need those who take action.

That is why we are calling on our colleagues, from both parties, to rise above the partisanship. To stop behaving like politicians, and start acting like Patriots. To craft a true bipartisan path forward.

While a path forward may feel impossible, we’ve been in this situation before. And we know that in times of contention when leaders exemplify our collective duty as Americans to “summon our better angels,” we can find common ground to stand upon together.

This of course begs the natural question: What would this bipartisan path forward look like? Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries eloquently laid out this argument just a week ago. Whether it be a consensus candidate for Speaker coming forward that could earn support across the aisle, developing a unity government similar to what our Israeli allies just did, or getting five brave Republicans to cross the aisle to vote with Democrats for Jeffries — there’s no shortage of procedural pathways. What is lacking is political courage.

Right now, the country cannot afford cowardice or partisan hacks putting their interests before the common good. Americans have long come together when patriotism demanded it, and we are ready to do our part to meet this moment.

If our brave troops in harm’s way can band together to accomplish a mission, then our elected political leaders ought to do the same.

Rep. Pat Ryan, D-New York-18, and Rep. Chris Deluzio, D-Pennsylvnia-17, are Iraq War veterans and freshmen Members of the House of Representatives. Both are Democrats.

September 11 twenty year anniversary but still no Saudi accountability

9/11 mystery: What was Atta doing on 9/10?
Atta flew Flight 11 into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. But Atta's night before 9-11 – which he spent in Portland, Main -- is a mystery that has puzzled terrorism experts.

September 11, 2001, those who somehow funneled resources that organized the attacks on New York, and targeted other strategic places, are still not revealed.  Maine Writer- I live in Maine.  Mohammed Atta and Abdul-Azzia Al-Omari were two terrorists who crashed the airplane into the World Trade Center. 

Their deadly terrorism journey began when they boarded a flight from Portland Maine, to Boston, on the morning of September 11, 2001. In spite of what we were told was intense investigation, the motive for the terrorists to be in Portland, Maine in September, 2001, has never been revealed. Why were they here and precisely what did they do while they were in the Maine?  Some FBI analysts say they came to Maine because they wanted to be sure that their travels were not being monitored.  Hmmmm?  But, they had already purchased their airline tickets. Too many undisclosed details, in my opinion.

  

This echo opinion was published in the New Jersey Herald, by a family member who lost her husband in the World Trade Center attack:

President Joe Biden promised openness and transparency if the American people put him in the White House. In fact, just hours after taking office, the White House expressed the president’s commitment “to bring transparency and truth back to government – to share the truth, even when it’s hard to hear.”

It appears there is an exception, however, regarding the role the kingdom of Saudi Arabia played in giving substantial support for the murderous Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000 innocent men, women and children. The victims were overwhelmingly American, but more than 90 countries lost citizens in the attacks. 

Yet, to date, just like the past three administrations, the Biden administration continues to shield Riyadh from accountability for the actions of Saudi government agents within the United States to support the terrorist hijackers.

Past presidents failed 9/11 survivors

It is reprehensible that nearly 20 years after the brutal attack on our country, our federal government continues to prioritize its relationship with the kingdom over justice for Americans. The FBI and CIA agree that al-Qaida had "infiltrated and exploited" the Saudi government before 9/11. Federal investigators reported more than a decade ago, in a heavily redacted report, that Saudi officials directed assistance to at least two of the hijackers (15 of whom were Saudi nationals) upon their arrival in the United States.

September 11 Memorial in New York City

They assisted these terrorists in obtaining accommodations and with transportation, opening and funding bank accounts, acquiring identification, blending into the community and enrolling in flight lessons.

The FBI and the Justice Department have admitted in federal court that they are in possession of highly relevant documents on the role Saudi officials played in aiding the terrorists. 

Nevertheless, they remain locked away and hidden from public view thanks to former Attorney General William Barr, who invoked the "state secrets privilege" to further thwart transparency and justice. Thus far, the Biden administration has shown no interest in reviewing that misguided decision.

In the 9/11 community’s years-long lawsuit in federal court against the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, legal counsel for the plaintiffs issued a subpoena for the investigative reports three years ago regarding Saudi complicity. 

But, the Justice Department and the FBI have repeatedly denied access and pulled every trick from their playbook to avoid compliance.

Our government knows that these relevant and revealing documents exist, and that the 9/11 community has repeatedly requested our right to see them released to the greatest extent possible. 

Remarkably, the FBI’s callous response to the court is that it would be too burdensome to look for its own files, which actually reference by name the Saudi agents involved in supporting the attacks.

President Biden can finally right this wrong, send the message to leaders around the world that the United States is unafraid to hold foreign powers accountable, and accomplish what his predecessors chose not to do as it relates to 9/11: Prioritize American interests and justice over Saudi coddling.

Many thought the Trump administration’s stonewalling was due to the special relationship the former president and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, had with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. However, on this matter, President Biden has thus far been no better. It is reasonable to wonder whether the United States is even the dominant partner in this bilateral international relationship.
Biden can hold Saudis accountable

Congress has taken note, but as a governing body it has been unwilling, so far, to compel President Biden to take action. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., questioned Attorney General Merrick Garland in his confirmation hearing on this very issue and continues to press him for answers in letters that have gone unanswered. 

In an April Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., asked FBI Director Christopher Wray why even she had been denied access to the underlying documents.

Reps. Ted Deutch, D-Fla., and Thomas Massie, R-Ky., similarly pressed Wray in June – asking why the FBI was standing with the Saudis rather than the 9/11 community. But here we are, with our government still refusing to cooperate and Congress failing to mandate a declassification review process of all relevant documents.

For nearly 20 years, the 9/11 community has been fighting not only the Saudi government for accountability and justice but also our own government, which has prioritized short-term diplomacy over transparency to its citizens. Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump stonewalled us and the American people. Now President Biden has the opportunity to right this wrong and ensure transparency and justice. Will he do so?

Sens. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., John Cornyn, R-Texas, Blumenthal, D-Conn., and others introduced the September 11th Transparency Act, to mandate a full declassification review of the 9/11 files. 

Moreover, President Biden took a modest but positive step in announcing another review of a limited number of documents that have already been produced. While welcomed, this piecemeal approach is no substitute for the complete review that the proposed legislation demands. We want President Biden to call for passage of the Menendez bill and to promptly sign it!

The 20th anniversary of 9/11, the most catastrophic terrorist attack the world has witnessed, is approaching. As we look to that day, we are not seeking compassion or words of condolence from our commander in chief. We are looking for him to lead – now – and recognize that 9/11, is more than a date to honor, but a wound that deepens for us with every slight and each passing year.

We need to heal. We need the truth and we deserve justice. 

Twenty years is too long to wait.

Terry Strada (@TerrySStrada) is a volunteer for 9/11 Families United. Her husband, Tom, died in the World Trade Center’s North Tower in the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

Former Guy inciting insurrection and sedition

Trump and the Capitol Insurrection: What could a trial look like? |By Rob Miraldi, echo opinion published in the New Jersey Herald.

Ladies and gentlemen, we’ve seen a riot at the U.S. Capitol and the failed impeachment of the 45th former president of the United States. But today we begin the trial of Donald John Trump for inciting a mob of thousands of insurrectionists to overrun, ransack the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. 

Former Guy incited a mob of thousands of insurrectionists!

This hypothetical trial begins in federal court in Washington, D.C.

Federal trials are not televised but our broadcast team is able to give you a virtual account of what is taking place as the former president goes on trial. With a jury now in place, the government’s lead prosecutor will present his opening statement. Wait, he is about to begin. Let’s go listen.

* * *
Good morning members of the jury. The people of Washington, D.C., indeed the citizens of America, thank you for serving here on this momentous but sad day. The people of the United States have been forced to confront and charge our 45th president with inciting thousands of citizens to storm the Capitol on Jan. 6.

It was the first time since 1814, that the revered U.S. Capitol was invaded. And it was certainly the first time such invaders were inspired, nay, asked (!) by the President to resort to violence to get their political way which, in short, was to stop the U.S. Congress from certifying that the defendant, Donald Trump, had lost the election of 2020, a fact he simply could not concede.

I’m sorry to say: the result of his exhortation caused the death of four people that day. I am sorry to say that two capitol police officers, who faced the brunt of the violence, committed suicide and that 140 people were injured, some seriously. And I’m sorry to say that $30 million in damage was done to the historic Capitol.

As much as anything, I’m sorry to say that because of Donald Trump’s inciting language — on January 6 and for many weeks before — democracy was left in tatters, the American people shocked and angered, and the world repulsed. Today we begin to lay out the case against the former president — and seek justice, as the law not only permits, but urges.

18 U.S. Code 373: Solicitation to commit a crime of violence. We will show Trump violated that law. You cannot “solicit, command, induce, or persuade” other persons to “use or threaten use of physical force against property or other persons.” It is the law.

We will show that the former president had one goal: to stop Congress from doing its solemn duty of certifying the election of Joseph R. Biden Jr. as the 46th president. Remember, Jan. 6 was the day the certification was to take place. In fact, the president moved up the date of his “rally” to coincide with the certification.

His first hope was that Vice President Mike Pence, even though it wasn’t in his power, would deny certification. When Pence refused, he called out his supporters, imploring them to storm the building and “fight like hell.” “Trial by combat,” his attorney Rudolph Giuliani called it. Once in the hallowed halls, the rioters could halt the certification. It was a coup attempt, fueled by a call to violence by the former president. A clear violation of federal law.

And we might as well get to the ex-president’s defense. He will invoke the 45 words of the Constitution’s First Amendment. He will say he’s free to attack the election as a fraud and a massive steal. And he is correct. That is his right.

But what he doesn’t have the right to do is cross over from protected speech to illegal conduct. To move from speech to action that led directly to the attack on the capitol. Free speech does not mean you can incite people to commit violence, a principle long established in law.

The defense will repeatedly cite the name Brandenburg because that’s the 1969 Supreme Court case when the court tersely ruled on incitement to violence. Incitement is not criminal, the court said, unless the government can prove the speaker intended to cause violence; that there was a likelihood that such violence would occur; and that the violence was imminent.

We will offer witnesses, documents and videos that prove all three of those elements.  The President’s track record is nothing to be proud of. When he speaks in a city, violence often follows. Leading up the Jan. 6 conflagration, he said it would be a “wild” day and told aides the night before that 10,000 troops might not be enough to stop a melee. He knew what was coming. He was giddy the day of the riot, shocking even his closest aides as he sat by for hours doing nothing to help the capitol police.

We understand an incitement to violence prosecution will fail if the violence advocated is for some distant date. But the President spoke at noon, and the violence began an hour later. Oh yes, violence was imminent. And when he finally did address the rioters at 4:17 p.m., he ended saying, “We love you.” 

As for likelihood that it would occur: we must look at the relationship between a speaker and those he exhorts to violence.  These people — many of whom have been arrested— consistently say the president called them to Washington from all over the U.S.  To say they were “chummed up,” like fish being fed bait, is an understatement. They will testify.

Remember, this is a charismatic person who has a special relationship with the followers he calls “the base.” His claimed Mexicans crossing the border were “rapists” and that white nationalists at Charlottesville, Virginia, were “good people.” Those claims endeared him to that base. They were ready to follow him anywhere. This is the president who had said for months, despite legal loss after legal loss, that the election was stolen. The former president lit the fuse to use the base to block a legal election.

The First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution is a beautiful thing, my fellow citizens; most of all it’s meant to protect important as well as trivial political speech. 

But it was never meant to allow any person to stand at the gates of the Capitol and urge people to injure police officers and hunt down elected officials as we sadly saw on January 6.

Remember, this is a man who said publicly he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue in New York city and get away with it. We need to make sure he does not get away with inciting and causing the death of four people on January 6.

* * *
We are back in the broadcast booth now. That was a powerful opening statement; the prosecutor held back little. 

We are here with Clay Calvert, an esteemed First Amendment scholar at the University of Florida. Professor, your thoughts?

“In my mind, there’s little doubt from a lay person’s point of view that Donald Trump stirred the pot and is the cause of the Jan. 6 insurrection and riot. But that is more impeachable than it is criminal. I am trying to assess here if his words meet the test of Brandenburg.

“Trump knew his audience and their state of mind. He knew trouble could ensue. But he dances around by never explicitly using words such as assault, harm or injure. But he doesn’t need the explicit terminology. The more the audience is riled, the less need to use explicit terms of violence.

It is a worthy case to make. Let’s hope that fear of prosecution will guard against future unlawful conduct.”

Rob Miraldi’s writings on the First Amendment have won numerous state and national awards. He teaches journalism at SUNY Paltz. 

https://www.njherald.com/story/opinion/columnists/2021/03/12/trump-and-capitol-riot-what-could-trial-look-like-opinion/6944952002/

Donald Trump talks about winning but he is loosing!

Echo opinion letter published in the New Jersey Herald newspaper
Editor:

The Problematic Theology about ‘Thoughts & Prayers’

Trump said we’d get tired of winning, but we’re not winning. While Trump isn’t winning by not getting his (stupid and expensive) wall built to protect us from the (non!) invasion of outsiders on the southern border, we are losing from Trump not protecting us from the assault of the internal invasion of angry whites inspired to kill innocent Americans with assault weapons.
(Indeed, Trumpzi's racist supporters never bother to acknowledge this terrible demographic!)

There are those who fluff off these serial events of mass murder like in this last one in Odessa, Texas ,  blindly believe that if it doesn’t affect them personally, they don’t care. That’s someone else’s loss. We’ll just send “Thoughts and prayers” and place that sticker on the headstones. That will make it all OK.

Those who wish to keep their weapons designed to kill people quickly and efficiently should be comforted to know that Trump, Republicans and the NRA won’t do anything to stop this carnage, so you can cradle your gun along with your teddy bear and sleep easy. They aren’t going to do anything to take away your guns and stop these tragedies. Just hope someone you know and love doesn’t become collateral damage from someone with weapons to kill and does kill.

In the meantime I’m going to write a form letter where all I have to do is to change the location and date of the tragedy along with the number killed and wounded for each of these shootings.

I wish “Thoughts and prayers” would bring the dead back to life. Hopefully someday we can come to grips with this problem and stop the killing.

Pieter W. Uptegrove, Stillwater New Jersey

Leadership kudos to The Boston Globe

Stands up for newspapers
Echo opinion letter published in the New Jersey Herald

Including a commentary response from a reader

To The Editor from Bill Weightman:

I've written for many newspapers, including this one and The New York Times. I'm writing this piece after 300 newspapers printed editorials at the request of the Boston Globe. Yes, I wrote for that one, too. Locally, in this county and several others, I know the editors -- all are excellent. I've worked for papers, as a 12-year-old, done national research studies on two occupations for the federal government, and I've written op-eds, and letters with many in this state and others.

I agree with the masthead of the Washington Post that notes "Democracy dies in Darkness!" I agree with that idea, and I love that the Senate unanimously passed a resolution affirming that "the press is not the enemy of the people!" I know of no fake news other than one network, and other holdings of that firm. I'm glad that Facebook and other social media are standing for truth, and not hyperbole.

We know here that Newspapers in Education (NIE) attached to many local newspapers is a vital tool for our democracy, and the education of students on world and local events. This paves the way for those students to learn the news of the day, and to predict tomorrow. Why are newspapers joining together on editorial content and news?

It's clear President Trump finds any news he doesn't like to be untrue. It seems his core supporters love attacks on newspapers, and it's also apparent that despots use his news rants to condemn real news for their own ends. There's no doubt that the news media makes mistakes, but the margin of mistakes is low compared to the real facts that make our life better and more informed. I stand with the 300 newspapers and you must make your own stand.

Bill Weightman, Hardyston Township, New Jersey

Comment posted by Pieter Uptigrove:

The framers of the Constitution in their great wisdom knew that it was important to have a free and independent press to inform the public and expose any wrong doings by public officials. In the last few decades we have had the atrocities in Viet Nam, "Pentagon Papers", "Watergate", "Whitewater", Iraq War atrocities and more. The "Press" has brought to light many dark dealings done by both the Republicans and Democrats. Contrary to Trump, the Press is the friend of the people...not the enemy. Some may not like the news...but don't shoot the messenger.

Tax cuts for the rich will stigmatize the poor

OPINION- Several words came to mind when I considered the budget that Trump and Republicans passed. One of them was "sanctimony."

Opinion by John R. Crisp published in the New Jersey Herald.

Sanctimony used to be synonymous with holiness, but in modern usage, it refers to "affected or hypocritical holiness." So sanctimony is to holiness as self-righteousness is to righteousness, that is, the hypocritical version of a desirable attribute.

Thus, in the Trump's *tax cuts for the rich* budget, the generous act of helping other people get enough to eat provides an opportunity to criticize and patronize the poor for their bad food choices and to congratulate ourselves for making better choices than they do.

Under their plan, citizens who get food support from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) would receive half of their benefits in the form of a "Harvest Box," which would contain foods selected on the basis of their supposed nutritional value, as well as on their economic benefit to American farmers.

According to the New York Times, the "Harvest Box" was conceived by Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue as part of a program to cut food assistance by $214 billion over the next decade. Perdue described it as "a bold, innovative approach to providing nutritious food to people who need assistance feeding themselves and their families -- and all of it is grown by American farmers and producers."

Budget director Mick Mulvaney was enthusiastic about the idea, comparing it to the Blue Apron grocery delivery service.

In practical terms, "Harvest Box" has a close-to-zero chance of approval. The idea was immediately dismissed by the Republican chairs of the agriculture committees in the House and Senate, and it was never seriously discussed in hearings. No one even bothered to calculate the logistical challenges and costs of putting boxes of food into the hands of the 46 million Americans who used SNAP last year.

No, instead of a serious policy proposal, "Harvest Box" feels more like a mean-spirited opportunity to stick a finger in the eye of people who are short on resources. It supports the myth of the "lazy poor," whose poverty serves as testimony to their innate irresponsibility and untrustworthiness.

"Harvest Box" is an impractical version of other efforts -- such as imposing work requirements and drug testing on recipients of public assistance -- to generate more responsibility and better behavior in the poor. Accountability is a worthy goal, but efforts such as these serve to stigmatize and demean the poor while shifting blame for their plight in their direction rather than toward public policy that works to their disadvantage.

And such efforts always ignore data. For example, according to Forbes magazine, 77 percent of SNAP recipients are children, elderly or disabled non-elderly. And non-disabled adults between 18 and 49 who are living in a childless home can receive only three months of benefits during any three-year period, unless they are already working 20-plus hours per week.

In short, SNAP serves people who are having a hard time getting enough to eat in the richest country in the world. Sanctimonious restrictions on such programs may make us feel better about our responsibilities and obligations, but they also make it easier for candidate Mitt Romney to categorize 47 percent of Americans as "takers." That simply isn't true.

Here's the point: 

As long as the increasingly small segment of our society that holds an increasingly large share of the money and power can keep the middle class's anger and blame directed downward toward the poor rather than upward at rich, and as long as they can (wrongly) keep the rest of us convinced that the poor, rather than the rich, are draining our culture of its resources ~ 

Republicans don't need Russian agents working among us to sow hatred, discord and social fragmentation.

Tragically, we're quite capable of doing that, ourselves.