Who is the Republican human trafficker names "Perla"?

Did individuals illegibly acting on DeSantis’ behalf trick migrants at a shelter into getting on the stunt flight to Martha's Vineyard, in Massachusetts? Did they not even understand the distinction between refugee and asylum-applicant status themselves? Unraveling that would require knowing who exactly did the recruiting? Little is currently known besides several migrants having said that a woman named “Perla” was involved. (Echo reported in Slate by Ben Mathis Lilly).

Venezuelan Refugees

Texas sheriff will investigate how the Florida governor flying Venezuelan migrants to Martha’s Vineyard is human trafficking.

Authorities in Texas opened a criminal investigation into Governor Ron DeSantis’ operation to fly roughly 50 Venezuelan migrants from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts last week.



Migrant Sonia, 30, wipes away tears in Eagle Pass, Texas, as she remembers how she left her child in Venezuela in hopes of providing a better life for them both.

Echo report published in the Miami Herald by Sarah Blaskey and Nicholas Nehemas.

Bexar County Texas Sheriff Javier Salazar announced at a news conference that his office is investigating whether the migrants were the victims of a crime, saying they were “lured under false pretenses.” Many migrants said they agreed to fly from San Antonio to the Massachusetts island after being promised jobs. But there was no work waiting. “I believe people need to be held accountable for it to the extent possible,” Salazar said.

“At this point, I’m not able to definitively say here’s the statute that they broke, either federal, state or local, but what I can tell you is it’s wrong. Just from a human rights perspective, what was done to these folks is wrong.”

DeSantis took responsibility for the two (tax payer paid) charter flights last week, saying they were part of a state program to relocate migrants from Florida, although the group of Venezuelans was in San Antonio. Salazar, a Democrat, called the flights “political theater.” He did not name DeSantis.

He also said his office was working with a private attorney for the migrants, as well as advocacy groups, and was preparing to cooperate with federal agencies “should the need arise.”

One potential lead: Salazar said he believed a Venezuelan migrant had been paid a “bird dog fee” to recruit other migrants in San Antonio for the flights.

In response to a request for comment, Jeremy Redfern, DeSantis’ deputy press secretary, did not answer with words. Instead, he emailed a screenshot of a news story with the headline: “Bexar County Sheriff Salazar says Biden admin’s handling of immigration ‘isn’t working.’ ”

On Monday night, DeSantis appeared on Sean Hannity’s #FakeFoxNews Fox News show and defended the flights.

DeSantis (wrongly!) said the program was “clearly ❗ 😧voluntary and all the other nonsense you are hearing is just not true.” But the migrants said they were recruited for the Martha’s Vineyard trip with falsehoods. Several said that a woman known as “Perla,” who is not believed to be a migrant, approached them outside a migrant resource center in San Antonio and (illegally!) offered them jobs and assistance if they flew to Massachusetts.

Illegal brochure distributed to the Venezuelan migrants.

Those claims of employment and other opportunities turned out to be false as officials on Martha’s Vineyard were unprepared for their arrival last Wednesday.

In addition, brochures provided to the migrants said they could receive cash assistance and employment services after landing. The brochures included the phone number and website of the Massachusetts Office for Refugees and Immigrants. The office said it did not print the brochures, which were shared with the Herald by Lawyers for Civil Rights, a Boston-based legal group representing some of the migrants.

While “Perla’s” full name and connections have not yet been publicly revealed — despite a handbill, distributed by the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), offering $5,000 for information on her identity — Salazar suggested the investigation could reach Florida.

“If somebody’s in Florida and they need to be brought here to be brought to justice, that’s just paperwork at that point,” the sheriff said. He said investigators had obtained the names of “persons of interest” but declined to release them yet.

Bexar County Texas Sheriff Javier Salazar announced at a news conference that his office is investigating whether the migrants were the victims of a crime

In fact, the migrants have legal status in the United States, having presented themselves to U.S. authorities after crossing the border in Texas and seeking asylum status. DeSantis has said the flights were financed with Florida taxpayer money meant to remove migrants from Florida. All the migrants boarded in San Antonio, which is in Bexar County, although the planes stopped in Florida’s Panhandle to refuel. Transporting migrants from Texas with Florida money appears to conflict with language included in the state budget that authorized the $12 million program. Passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature and supported by most Democrats, the budget instructed the Florida Department of Transportation to spend the funds “to facilitate the transport of unauthorized aliens from this state.”

DeSantis has suggested the flights were a way to intercept migrants before they reached Florida. On Sunday, the Herald interviewed migrants who had just crossed the border in Eagle Pass, Texas. None of them told journalists they wanted to go to Florida. Instead, most hoped to travel to New York. They spoke of a dangerous journey to the United States and an uncertain future now that they’re here. None had the money for a $50 bus ticket to San Antonio, the nearest city. Advocates say that makes them easy prey for scammers. 

Miami Herald staff writers Bianca Padró Ocasio and Ana Ceballos contributed to this report.

Journalism is unethical at Fox News- opinion from Las Vegas Sun

“Until they become conscious they will never rebel..."
George Orwell. So, when will Republicans wake up?

Las Vegas Sun editorial echo: h

ttps://lasvegassun.com/news/2018/nov/30/fox-news-sacrifices-journalistic-ethics-to-protect/

Fox News sacrifices journalistic ethics to protect the the Trump administration

(In other words, FoxNews is Trumpzi speak!)

The extent to which Fox News has become an arm of the Trump administration grows clearer all the time.

This week’s signal came when The Daily Beast revealed emails showing that former Environmental Protection Agency Director Scott Pruitt’s team picked topics for a Fox News interview with Pruitt, was fed all of the questions that he would face and OK’d part of the script.

So much for claims of independence and objectivity by the news channel. Although it’s common for TV news producers to discuss interview topics with subjects and even ask them some pre-interview questions, allowing subjects to call the shots is journalistic malpractice. That’s especially the case when the subject is someone as sleazy as Pruitt, who was up to his eyeballs in ethics scandals when he resigned just 18 months into his job.

And yet its says a lot about the news channel — none of it good — that the Pruitt emails aren’t surprising.

Fox News long ago forfeited any pretense that it was holding Donald Trump accountable. Rather, in promoting conspiracy theories, giving Trump a megaphone for his constant lies and helping him vilify immigrants and other groups, the news channel has become an active partner in the president’s tribal politics and assault on the truth.

In Trump’s attempt to turn Americans against each other, Fox News is one of the tools he relies on the most.

This goes beyond journalistic standards, or even becoming an American version of Pravda to help Trump spread propaganda.

As we’ve stated before, Fox News represents a threat to American democracy by helping Trump whip up his loyalists on the extreme right, gin up hatred and shake people’s confidence in our system of government. Vladimir Putin could hardly ask for more than what Fox News is doing.

The organization also provides Trump with a group of de facto advisers like Sean Hannity and Fox Business Network host Lou Dobbs, with whom Trump routinely consults.

And then there’s Rupert Murdoch. It’s been reported that Trump and the Fox executive chairman talk weekly, and at times daily, which is deeply disturbing considering that Murdoch’s recent track record includes fanning nationalist fervor to help spur the Brexit vote in his British newspaper, The Sun. Murdoch has long worked to erase the line between truth and propaganda in his news publications, where he’s also exhibited a disdain for journalistic ethics and standards.

The sum of all of these parts is that Fox News is doing much more than advocating a certain ideology or editorial position — it’s intentionally lying and trying to manipulate reality. It’s one thing to honestly express an opinion and try to argue the merits of it based on facts and real-world observations. It’s another to unleash a tsunami of lies, paranoia and baseless accusations, to foment violence against others and to foster race baiting and destruction of civic norms.

But so it goes. Trump and the channel have become so intertwined that Hannity and Fox News personality Jeanine Pirro (Ugh!- Trump in drag! Queen Trump!) were emboldened enough to appear onstage with Trump at a campaign rally this fall, where Hannity attacked “fake news” media and touted the president’s campaign slogan.

“The one thing that has made and defined your (failed) presidency more than anything else: promises made, promises kept,” Hannity said.

Fox News tut-tutted, issuing a statement saying it did not condone “any talent participating in campaign events.” But guess what? Hannity and Pirro (Ugh! Trump in drag. Queen Trump redux) haven’t gone anywhere.

The rebuke was less than a hand slap. It was so weak that even Fox News staffers expressed disgust at how the organization had wiped its feet on journalistic ethics.

For Americans who’ve quite understandably had enough, options include using a diverse variety of sources for news. Meanwhile, why would any responsible advertiser want to be associated with the hate-mongering that takes up so much of the network’s bandwidth?

Supporting Trump is one thing. But Fox News is going beyond simply being a cheerleader, and that’s troubling.

Time Magazine cover explains the evil policy

Geraldo Rivera to Hannity: 'When did we become the party of child abuse?'  "I do not condone child abuse," Rivera explained.

MaineWriter ~ even right wing media might be slowly waking up!

Fox News's Geraldo Rivera said late Tuesday that the Republican Party has become "the party of child abuse," referring to a Trump administration policy that has resulted in the separation of thousands of migrant children from their parents.

Sean Hannity is a Donald Trump ventriloquist puppet.

Hannity's voice said: 

"The Democrats have a deal, a DACA fix, and a fix on separation for kids. [Senate Minority Leader Charles] Schumer’s answer is no. Why? Because he wants it for politics. They’re playing politics. Fix the law and do your job. That’s it," Fox News host Sean Hannity, referring to an Obama-era program protecting young immigrants, said in introducing an interview with Rivera.

But, ventriloquist dummy Sean Hannity received this as a reply:

"This is cruelty as policy. This is an obscenity," Rivera responded after some cross-talk.

"This is the government of the United States and the (stupid) president that we both (Ooh Paleeeeze!) love advocating a system by which young children are torn from their mothers," Rivera added. "History will judge us, Sean. ... We must take a stand on something."

"I agree. Here’s where we draw the line. I want no separation. The president and you supported him, offered a DACA fix and a fix on this law, as horrible as it is, immediately he’ll sign it," Hannity, a staunch supporter of the president, replied.

"No matter what the president has done or will say, this is the only thing people are thinking about," Rivera said.

"It can be fixed tomorrow," Hannity insisted.

“Twenty-three hundred children have been torn from their parents forcibly,” an emotional Rivera shot back. “These are little babies, 18 months old. These are 10-year-olds with disabilities taken from their parents. This is impossible. We can’t condone this. The Republicans are the party of faith and family."

“When did we become the party of child abuse?” Rivera added in disbelief.

The exchange came as the topic of migrant family separations dominated cable news discussion for a second straight day, with many segments featuring emotional calls for an end to the policy.

Hannity asked Rivera later in the interview if he supported an "emergency session of Congress, take the DACA, take the separation fix, take the funding of the wall, and both houses do their job and the president signs it. It can happen tomorrow."

"I agree. But before tomorrow, tonight, the president should end this policy," Rivera said.

"You aren’t answering the question," Hannity pressed.

"I do not condone child abuse," Rivera explained.

"Don’t play politics. You can’t be that naive," the host retorted.

"There are 2,300 babies without their mother tonight," Rivera noted.

"Congress should do their job," Hannity replied.

Several polls show considerable opposition to the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" immigration policy, with Quinnipiac showing a 66 to 27 percent margin against it and CNN showing only 28 percent approval.

Majorities of (wrong minded) Republicans in both polls, however, support the policy.

Alabama takes a deep breath while the world hearkens to hope

Thank you Alabamians! A majority of the state's voters dared to support the Democrat Doug Jones to fill the vacant US Senate seat vacated by the now embattled Attorney General Jeff Sessions. In so doing, the voters expressed their willingness to change their state's political direction, at least for the time being. 

Alabama voters elected the Democrat Doug Jones. In so doing, they sent a hopeful message to the nation and to the world to show how racism, sexism, bigotry and sexual misconduct do matter, more than political ideology. 

Voters rejected the Roy Moore.

In my opinion, by electing Doug Jones, the Alabama voters were convinced that he was a man who they could trust. I doubt the US Senator Elect Doug Jones' election was an endorsement of his candidacy, but a vote of confidence in his good character, especially compared to that of his unlikable opponent.  

Although the thin margin of the Republican Roy Moore's defeat indicated he "shoulda' won", in fact, the special election caused Alabamians to do some political soul searching. 

What kind of a Senator did they want to represent them? In my opinion, the special election caused Alabamians to take a deep breath and to look at their political "selves".  Meanwhile, the world can finally hearken to the fact that the Democrat Doug Jones defeated the man who Donald Trump endorsed. 

Paul Gattis wrote a post election review opinion in AL.com

The easy, immediate and accurate analysis of Roy Moore's loss in Tuesday's election for the U.S. Senate is that the allegations made against him cost him the race.

That's absolutely true.

And that's absolutely not true.

Without those allegations of sexual misconduct, which Moore repeatedly denied, he certainly would have sailed to victory. 

It's obvious when you look at the narrow margin of victory - about 1.54 percent unofficially, according to the Alabama Secretary of State's website - that the Nov. 9 story in The Washington Post was Moore's political death knell.

And it's obvious when you look at the difference in votes between Moore and Jones - a mere 20,715 unofficially. And it's obvious when you look at the staggering high number of write-in votes - 22,780, one of which was cast by Alabama's senior senator, Richard Shelby.

Don't forget that the write-in questions were so prevalent in the weeks leading up to election day that Secretary of State John Merrill's office issued a press release explaining the process to voters.

But for all the reasons it's clear that the allegations swung enough votes away from Moore to cost him the election, the narrow loss leads to a wide field of speculation.

Could Moore have done more? Instead of being the absentee candidate who ran an absentee campaign, could Moore have overcome his eventual small margin of defeat by embracing voters rather than keeping himself at safe distances if not outright ignoring them?

Moore essentially campaigned on reputation alone. He sat back with the expectation that the support he's enjoyed in twice being elected to the Alabama Supreme Court would carry him past Jones - the energetic, workaholic candidate who would squeeze three events in three different cities in the same day.

Moore, meanwhile, always seemed like the reluctant candidate. That's not to say he didn't want to win and become senator, it's just that he seemed to have a distaste for the pursuit of votes.

Roy Moore's campaign went dark immediately for weeks after defeating Luther Strange on Sept. 25, in the GOP primary runoff. 

At a sort of kickoff to his general election campaign on Oct. 28 outside of Decatur, Moore spoke for just seven minutes at a farm equipment business, gave an abbreviated recitation of his conservative social views and his audience - bundled in blankets on the cool night awaiting a country music concert - appeared largely unmoved.

From there, it was a third trip to Washington since defeating Strange - an awkward exercise, Moore's campaign said, where Republican leaders visibly gave the Alabama candidate the cold shoulder.

Then the sexual misconduct allegations bombshell landed on the campaign and Moore never recovered. He made a handful of appearances -- often in strangely remote small towns (Henagar, Dora, Jackson) but always seemed more concerned with dodging the media than in embracing his constituency.

He would quietly slip into a venue, often with a diversionary car - because of concerns about the media. He would make a speech and take no questions from the audience - because of concerns about the media.

And ultimately, he disappeared from campaigning altogether. He made just one public appearance over the last week before the election - the bash outside of Dothan on Monday along with former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon.

What else could Moore have done differently? Address the allegations head on.

Moore adamantly, vehemently denied he did anything wrong.

Given that fervent position, Moore should have conferred with his advisers, developed the answers they wanted to put forward in response to questions about the allegations and prepared to give those answers.

Then, Moore should have called a press conference, answered questions from the media for which he had earnestly prepared, then hit the campaign trail with a vengeance and without fear of more questions from the media or voters.

"I've answered those questions," Moore could have responded. "We're moving forward with winning this race and advancing President Trump's agenda."

But that didn't happen and maybe there is a reason it didn't. 

In fact, the day after the allegations broke, Moore did what was intended as a damage-control interview with Fox News personality Sean Hannity. And, simply put, it did not go well at all - a reality acknowledged even within the Moore campaign.

In the interview, Hannity asked Moore if he remembered dating girls as young as 17 or 18 years old when he was 32.

"Not generally, no," Moore said. "If I did, you know, I'm not going to dispute anything. But I don't remember anything like that."

The interview went so poorly that, days later, even Hannity himself essentially said he did not believe Moore's defense and demanded better answers within 24 hours. Moore obediently tried to comply, though Hannity appeared so unmoved that - after the much-ballyhooed exchange - he simply said that it was up to the Alabama voters to decide.

And on Tuesday, December 12, 2017, they decided.

They decided that the allegations mattered. They decided that Moore's campaign was more about his vision of how the world should be rather than an effort to see the world through the eyes of his voters.

And just enough voters decided - even if just barely - they didn't want Roy Moore as their senator.