November 23, 2015


News Clips For The Day


TERRORISM


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-do-americans-think-of-isis-syrian-refugees-terrorism/

Do Americans think President Obama has a clear plan for ISIS?
By Anthony Salvanto, Jennifer De Pinto, Sarah Dutton and Fred Backus
November 23, 2015


Just over a week after the terrorist attacks in Paris, only 23 percent of Americans think President Barack Obama has a clear plan for dealing with the militant group ISIS, the lowest number yet recorded in the CBS News Poll. Sixty-six percent do not think he has a clear plan - a new high.

Large majorities of Republicans and independents say the President doesn't have a clear plan, and almost half of Democrats (40 percent) agree. More Democrats (45 percent) say he doesn't have a plan than say he does.

In considering military options, 50 percent of Americans now favor sending in U.S. ground troops to fight ISIS militants in Iraq and Syria, up four points from August. Support for sending ground troops rose to 57 percent in February in the immediate aftermath of the death of aid worker Kayla Mueller, but then dropped below 50 percent until now.

The fight against ISIS

Former CIA official Mike Morell: Threat environment "frighteningly" similar to pre-9/11
Where the 2016 presidential candidates stand on Syrian refugees, after Paris attacks

Two-thirds of Republicans favor using U.S. ground troops to fight ISIS, while about half of Democrats oppose that. Still, support for using ground troops has inched up among Americans across the political spectrum.

Most Americans (63 percent) think ground troops will be necessary to remove the threat from ISIS militants; just one in five thinks the threat from ISIS can be removed using airstrikes alone. Majorities of Republicans (73 percent), Democrats (59 percent), and independents (60 percent) think ground troops will be necessary. Views have changed little over the past year.

Syrian Refugees

As large numbers of Syrians flee the violence in their country, Americans are split on whether the U.S. should allow Syrian refugees into the country. 47 percent say they should be allowed to enter as long as they go through a screening process, but slightly more -50 percent- say they should not be allowed to come to the U.S. at this time.

There is a stark partisan divide on this: 68 percent of Republicans say Syrian refugees should not be allowed into the country at this time, while 63 percent of Democrats think they should be allowed.

However, there is widespread agreement on a stricter screening process for Syrian refugees. Nearly eight in 10 Americans (78 percent) - including majorities of all partisan stripes- say it is necessary for Syrian refugees to go through a stricter security process than they do now.

This poll was conducted by telephone November 19-22, 2015 among a random sample of 1,205 adults nationwide. Data collection was conducted on behalf of CBS News by SSRS of Media, PA. Phone numbers were dialed from samples of both standard land-line and cell phones.

The poll employed a random digit dial methodology. For the landline sample, a respondent was randomly selected from all adults in the household. For the cell sample, interviews were conducted with the person who answered the phone. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish using live interviewers.

The data have been weighted to reflect U.S. Census figures on demographic variables.




“Sixty-six percent do not think he has a clear plan - a new high. Large majorities of Republicans and independents say the President doesn't have a clear plan, and almost half of Democrats (40 percent) agree. More Democrats (45 percent) say he doesn't have a plan than say he does. In considering military options, 50 percent of Americans now favor sending in U.S. ground troops to fight ISIS militants in Iraq and Syria, up four points from August. ….




http://www.cbsnews.com/news/paris-attacks-salah-abdeslam-sighting-raids-arrests-brussels-belgium/

Hunt for Paris suspect shuts down Belgian capital
CBS NEWS
November 23, 2015

Play VIDEO -- Belgium maintains maximum terror alert status
Play VIDEO -- How Paris attacks changed the fight against ISIS
Photograph -- Belgian soldiers patrol a shopping street where tourists frequented in central Brussels, Nov. 22, 2015, after security was tightened in Belgium following the fatal attacks in Paris. REUTERS


BRUSSELS -- Belgium's capital would normally be bustling on a Monday morning, but this Monday morning is different. CBS News correspondent Debora Patta reported most of the shops were still shuttered and the metro was shut down as the country woke up to a third day of security lockdown.

Belgian authorities have repeatedly warned that a Paris-like attack is imminent -- likely targeting shopping areas and public transport.

Drastic measures were put into place, including closing down schools for the first time in the country's history since World War II.

The heightened alert even spread as far as Washington D.C., where Department of Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson ordered additional checks for passengers boarding flights in Belgium destined for the U.S.

DHS "continually assesses the global threat environment and re-evaluates the measures taken to promote aviation security. As part of this ongoing process, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson has directed the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to implement enhanced security measures for departures to the U.S. from Brussels National Airport," a statement released Monday said.

The statement said passengers may be asked to power up electronic devices and any that would not power up could be removed. It warned travellers to give extra time for check in at Brussels.

Numerous red flags missed before Paris attacks?

The urgent sound of police sirens was the only noise that punctuated an unusually quiet city center Sunday night. Security forces were bolstered across the capital; soldiers in full camouflage on patrol with police officers. Police cordons blocked the usually choked thoroughfares.

Residents were urged to follow police instructions -- and to stay away from windows in some areas.

Then, in a series of coordinated strikes, police carried out 19 raids late into the night, right across the capital city.

At a hastily-convened midnight news conference, Belgian Federal Prosecutor Eric Van Der Spyt announced that 16 people had been arrested in the operations. That figure went up Monday morning, when the prosecutor's office said an additional five homes around Brussels and two in the city of Liege had been raided, netting five more suspects.

"Until now, no firearms or explosives were found. Salah Abdeslam is not -- not -- among the persons arrested during the searches," said Van Der Spyt, referring to Europe's most-wanted man. And so a suspect in the Paris attacks who evaded police on that bloody Friday night and managed to slip back into Belgium, remains on the run.

There had been reports that Abdeslam was spotted Sunday night in Liege, a city about 60 miles from Brussels, near the German and Dutch borders. The prosecutor said Monday, however, that while a car did try and speed away from a roadside check, there was not believed to be any link to the suspect.

Van Der Spyt said only that "specific elements of the enquiry" into the attacks on the neighboring nation "necessitated the operation of Sunday night." Most of the suspects in the Paris carnage lived or had links to the Belgian capital, and specifically to the Molenbeek neighborhood where Sunday night's raids were focused.

Abdeslam's brother Mohammed appealed on local television, urging Salah to hand himself over to police.

"I think that effectively at the last minute Salah decided to change course," he said. "He perhaps saw or heard something, and decided not to carry out his plans."

But Belgian police have their hands full; they're searching not only for Abdeslam, but for a number of other people they believe are linked to the terror plot.

The failure to capture Abdeslam thus far will bring no comfort to Belgians, who are beginning to wonder how long the stringent security measures freezing life in their capital can be kept up.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/france-judge-marc-trevidic-paris-attacks-agencies-not-coping/

France's ex-top terror investigator: "We are not coping anymore"
By TUCKER REALS CBS NEWS
November 23, 2015

Photograph -- French police secure the area as shots are exchanged in Saint-Denis, France, near Paris, November 18, 2015 during an operation to catch fugitives from Friday night's deadly attacks in the French capital. REUTERS
Photograph -- Former head of the French courts' counterterrorism invesgitations, Judge Marc Trevidic, is interviewed by France Inter, part of the French public radio network. FRANCE INTER
Play VIDEO -- What intelligence community is looking for in response to Paris attacks
20 PHOTOS -- Manhunt for Paris terror suspects


"Of course there are security flaws. If there weren't, an organized terrorist attack of that level wouldn't have occurred."

That stark assessment comes from Judge Marc Trevidic, who spent 10 years leading counterterrorism investigations for the French national courts.

Trevidic, who left the post last summer but remains part of the French judiciary, has told national media in the wake of the Paris attacks that the biggest problem facing law enforcement agencies in his country is the overwhelming amount of work on their plates.

"They are simply overloaded... we've got security services who have been hiding the fact that they could no longer cope," Trevidic told France Inter, part of France's public radio network.

He said attacks and planned attacks that have been thwarted -- dozens this year alone, according to officials -- have been stopped "by pure luck."

"On the whole, during the last few years, we realized that we are not coping anymore," he said of France's intelligence agencies. "Those who were really under surveillance... we were not even able to stop them from going to Syria... we couldn't stop them from coming back."

Trevidic's remarks come amid indications that European security agencies -- particularly in France and Belgium, missed a series of red-flags which could have led to greater scrutiny of the suspects in the attacks that left 130 people dead in Paris.

Several of the nine suspects had been flagged to French agencies by Turkey or other nations, and the man believed to have planned the attacks, Belgian national Abdelhamid Abaaoud, bragged earlier this year about being able to move freely between Syria and Europe.

CIA Director John Brennan has also pointed to the sheer quantity of individuals in and from Europe who warrant surveillance as being a major challenge for America's allies.

Between 300 and 500 people from Belgium alone -- the most per capita from any European nation -- are believed to have travelled to Iraq and Syria to join the fight with ISIS and other groups. Hundreds more have travelled from France.

The interview with Trevidic highlights the fact that agencies in his country and others are struggling to get a grasp on how many of those people have returned, and what they're doing once they do come back.

French television network BFM TV reported Monday, citing a judicial source, that judges had issued 235 indictments in connection with 99 separate criminal investigations into suspected French jihadists who've travelled to Iraq and Syria.

So far, French prosecutors have secured 11 convictions in those cases, said BFM, adding that only 10 of the proceedings are actually related to attacks or attempted attacks on French soil.




"Of course there are security flaws. If there weren't, an organized terrorist attack of that level wouldn't have occurred." That stark assessment comes from Judge Marc Trevidic, who spent 10 years leading counterterrorism investigations for the French national courts. Trevidic, who left the post last summer but remains part of the French judiciary, has told national media in the wake of the Paris attacks that the biggest problem facing law enforcement agencies in his country is the overwhelming amount of work on their plates. "They are simply overloaded... we've got security services who have been hiding the fact that they could no longer cope," Trevidic told France Inter, part of France's public radio network. …. "On the whole, during the last few years, we realized that we are not coping anymore," he said of France's intelligence agencies. "Those who were really under surveillance... we were not even able to stop them from going to Syria... we couldn't stop them from coming back." Trevidic's remarks come amid indications that European security agencies -- particularly in France and Belgium, missed a series of red-flags which could have led to greater scrutiny of the suspects in the attacks that left 130 people dead in Paris. …. CIA Director John Brennan has also pointed to the sheer quantity of individuals in and from Europe who warrant surveillance as being a major challenge for America's allies. Between 300 and 500 people from Belgium alone -- the most per capita from any European nation -- are believed to have travelled to Iraq and Syria to join the fight with ISIS and other groups. Hundreds more have travelled from France. …. French television network BFM TV reported Monday, citing a judicial source, that judges had issued 235 indictments in connection with 99 separate criminal investigations into suspected French jihadists who've travelled to Iraq and Syria.”


Two uncomfortable things occur to me. First, the open borders policy in the EU may be most of the problem, along with the lack of well-integrated communities due to ghetto-like conditions there. I’ve seen no information on such situations of suspected jihadists living in the other European countries other than Belgium and France, but I feel sure it exists all over Europe. People in situations which are marginalizing and uncomfortable tend to react over time with anger and despair, hence the urge to go “fight the Crusaders.”

Second, I wonder how well prepared we in the US are for maintaining surveillance of large numbers of people from foreign countries. A number of the 9/11 hijackers were not under US watch, often because they came into the country on a student visa and overstayed their allowed time here, but the authorities had not tracked each one down and made them either renew or leave the country. Meanwhile they blended in culturally with other Middle Easterners and “disappeared” from sight. It looks as though we were “not coping” at that time also. If our USA PATRIOT Act has not rendered us more capable of tracking people and their activities now, then it is a big waste of time, money and citizens rights, in my opinion. I would like to see an up-to-date report on that subject. How is our security situation?




http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/22/457012242/trump-doubles-down-on-claim-he-saw-thousands-cheer-on-9-11

Trump Doubles Down On Claim He Saw Thousands Cheer In N.J. On 9/11
Eyder Peralta
Updated November 22, 2015

PHOTOGRAPH -- Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a campaign stop on Saturday in Birmingham, Ala., Eric Schultz/AP


Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has shown he is not one to back down.

In fact, when he was questioned by ABC News today about his assertion that "thousands and thousands of people" cheered the collapse of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11 just across the river in New Jersey, Trump doubled down.

"It did happen. I saw it. It was on television. I saw it," Trump said.


George Stephanopoulos responded, "You saw that with your own eyes? Police say it didn't happen."

Trump said: "George, it did happen. There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey where you have large Arab populations. They were cheering as the World Trade Center came down. I know it might be not politically correct for you to talk about it, but there were people cheering as that building came down — as those buildings came down, and that tells you something. It was well covered at the time."

We asked our library to look through contemporaneous news reports. They tells us that that they could not turn up any news accounts of American Muslims cheering or celebrating in the wake of Sept. 11.

A 2007 piece from Reuters about Paterson, New Jersey, does address the celebrations but it concludes that they never happened. Reuters reports:

"Paterson was shaken by the September 11 attacks. On that day, a report circulated on some radio stations and Internet sites that Muslims in Paterson had demonstrated in celebration.

"Paterson officials promptly issued a statement denying the report, and Muslim leaders insist it was pure fabrication."

After Trump initially made the assertion on the stump on Friday, The New York Times came to the same conclusion:

"There were cheers of support in some Middle Eastern countries that day, which were broadcast on television. But a persistent Internet rumor of Muslims celebrating in Paterson, N.J., was discounted by police officials at the time. A search of news accounts from that period shows no reports of mass cheering in Jersey City.

"Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the response of Muslim-Americans on Sept. 11 was disgust.

"'I know because I wrote it,' he said of the council's reaction, adding that if Mr. Trump had evidence of cheering, he should present it." “In fact, when he was questioned by ABC News today about his assertion that "thousands and thousands of people" cheered the collapse of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11 just across the river in New Jersey, Trump doubled down.

"It did happen. I saw it. It was on television. I saw it," Trump said.


George Stephanopoulos responded, "You saw that with your own eyes? Police say it didn't happen."

Trump said: "George, it did happen. There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey where you have large Arab populations. They were cheering as the World Trade Center came down. I know it might be not politically correct for you to talk about it, but there were people cheering as that building came down — as those buildings came down, and that tells you something. It was well covered at the time."




“We asked our library to look through contemporaneous news reports. They tells us that that they could not turn up any news accounts of American Muslims cheering or celebrating in the wake of Sept. 11. A 2007 piece from Reuters about Paterson, New Jersey, does address the celebrations but it concludes that they never happened. Reuters reports: "Paterson was shaken by the September 11 attacks. On that day, a report circulated on some radio stations and Internet sites that Muslims in Paterson had demonstrated in celebration. "Paterson officials promptly issued a statement denying the report, and Muslim leaders insist it was pure fabrication." …. "There were cheers of support in some Middle Eastern countries that day, which were broadcast on television. But a persistent Internet rumor of Muslims celebrating in Paterson, N.J., was discounted by police officials at the time. A search of news accounts from that period shows no reports of mass cheering in Jersey City. "Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the response of Muslim-Americans on Sept. 11 was disgust. "'I know because I wrote it,' he said of the council's reaction, adding that if Mr. Trump had evidence of cheering, he should present it."


My downstairs neighbor is a nice person, but he listens to everybody from Rush Limbaugh to the other even wilder broadcasters who deal in “urban legends.” He will ask me if I believe it, and just judging from the way the story goes, it sounds too outrageous for me to even imagine it to be true. Why does he think those things are factual? Yesterday’s story is one about the US government being behind the fall of the World Trade Towers in 2001. Most people who believe highly unlikely things are classed as “conservative” politically. What many of them actually are is paranoid. The whole uproar about Obama’s birth certificate is exactly the same kind of thing, and yet that story persists in rightwing environments.




http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/gop-candidates-really-dont-want-talk-about-kill-gays-conference?utm_medium=email&utm_source=botb&utm_campaign=rightwingwatch

GOP Candidates Really Don't Want To Talk About 'Kill The Gays' Conference
SUBMITTED BY Miranda Blue on Wednesday, 11/18/2015


A couple of weeks ago, we reported extensively on a conference in Iowa organized by extremist pastor Kevin Swanson, at which three Republican presidential candidates joined Swanson on stage shortly before he went off on a series of rants about how the biblical punishment for homosexuality is death, Harry Potter is bringing God’s judgment on America, and how if your gay child gets married you should show up to the wedding covered in cow manure.

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow ran a segment on the conference, but other than that, as a number of commentators have noted, the media has been strangely silent on the Republican candidates’ participation in this event.

Today, Des Moines Register columnist Rekha Basu reports that she reached out to the campaigns of the three candidates, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and Bobby Jindal (who has since dropped out of the presidential race), and found them rather reluctant to talk about it.

A spokesperson for Huckabee, who at the event deflected a question about Swanson’s extremism, told Basu after viewing video of some of Swanson’s remarks that Huckabee “appreciated the opportunity” to speak at the conference. The Cruz and Jindal campaigns didn’t bother to reply at all. (Before the conference, Cruz had been asked about his participation by CNN’s Jake Tapper, but brushed off the question.)

Calls and emails seeking a reaction to Swanson's remarks by spokespeople for Cruz and Jindal (who suspended his campaign Tuesday) went unanswered. Huckabee’s spokeswoman Alice Stewart asked for documentation and was sent a video link. She responded the next day saying, "Gov. Huckabee appreciated the opportunity to speak with an audience in Iowa about the importance of standing up for our religious liberties."

Basu also reached out to The Family Leader, an influential Iowa conservative group that sponsored Swanson’s conference and will be hosting candidates for a “presidential family forum” later this week. A Family Leader spokesman at least went as far to say that the group doesn’t condone executing gay people, but didn’t comment on the wisdom of sponsoring Swanson’s conference:

Asked if Vander Plaats or the Family Leader condemn Swanson’s remarks, Drew Zahn, its director of communications wrote in an email: “The Family Leader absolutely condemns any call for violence against homosexuals. Our involvement with the conference was intended to advocate and preserve our First Amendment religious liberties and the rights of conscience for all Americans. The Family Leader consistently advocated the Bible's principle of treating others as you would be treated, a principle come to life in the friendship between TFL President Bob Vander Plaats and One Iowa's Donna Red Wing.”

But Zahn wouldn’t say whether the organization would express those views to Swanson, or would have withdrawn sponsorship from the program if they had known what he would say.

We really wonder how long Cruz and Huckabee will be able to continue to plead ignorance about Swanson’s extremism after being asked about it repeatedly.

FILED UNDER:
ORGANIZATIONS:The Family Leader, National Religious Liberties Conference
PEOPLE:Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, Bob Vander Plaats, Kevin Swanson, Ted Cruz
TOPICS:Anti-Gay, Election 2016

- See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/gop-candidates-really-dont-want-talk-about-kill-gays-conference?utm_medium=email&utm_source=botb&utm_campaign=rightwingwatch#sthash.7FxvOBdz.dpuf




“A couple of weeks ago, we reported extensively on a conference in Iowa organized by extremist pastor Kevin Swanson, at which three Republican presidential candidates joined Swanson on stage shortly before he went off on a series of rants about how the biblical punishment for homosexuality is death, Harry Potter is bringing God’s judgment on America, and how if your gay child gets married you should show up to the wedding covered in cow manure. …. A spokesperson for Huckabee, who at the event deflected a question about Swanson’s extremism, told Basu after viewing video of some of Swanson’s remarks that Huckabee “appreciated the opportunity” to speak at the conference. The Cruz and Jindal campaigns didn’t bother to reply at all. (Before the conference, Cruz had been asked about his participation by CNN’s Jake Tapper, but brushed off the question.)”


“Huckabee’s spokeswoman Alice Stewart asked for documentation and was sent a video link. She responded the next day saying, "Gov. Huckabee appreciated the opportunity to speak with an audience in Iowa about the importance of standing up for our religious liberties." When the cops shoot an unarmed man, usually Hispanic or black, they almost always say in these very words, “I feared for my life.” That’s because they know most judges and grand juries will exonerate them completely if that is their expressed reason for such violence.

Likewise when Christians get caught trying to take away someone else’s liberties, they claim they are “standing up for religious liberty.” Clearly there is only one set of religious liberties that matters!! When politicians get trapped in such a situation as these three were, they want to deny it entirely or as Jindal and Cruz did, give no response. I’m sure they don’t usually know the extent to which such rabble-rousers as Kevin Swanson will go in their excruciatingly embarrassing comments, but they should look into that sort of thing before they accept a speaking engagement there. That very thing hurt John McCain with his equally embarrassing sidekick Sarah Palin. She is a quite strikingly attractive woman, but she had a number of lapses in her basic knowledge under the glaring lights of the TV cameras. I basically felt sorry for her, or would have if she had been less pugnacious.

Of course Donald Trump has done the same sort of thing, and his blue collar, Fundamentalist white followers love him all the more for it. A poll report from yesterday, however, said that lots of Republicans do not like Trump, and it would be very interesting if he didn’t get the nomination after all. The trouble is that Ben Carson comes across as a “weak” candidate, and Rubio and Cruz are even more unpopular. I do believe that if Trump gets the nomination he will not be able to beat Hillary Clinton. At any rate I will certainly help her as much as I can. I usually make some telephone calls at the local DNC headquarters.

The article below shows the extent to which Trump himself goes in his hatred or fear of Islamic people in general. He has proposed a huge computer registry which must include all Muslims in the US. “When asked how this would be different from Nazi policies in the 1930s and 1940s to register Jews, Trump curtly replied, “you tell me.”





https://newrepublic.com/article/124295/america-nation-xenophobic-trumps?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New%20Campaign&utm_term=TNR%20Daily%20Newsletter

Is America a Nation of Xenophobic Trumps?
His surging campaign is forcing a debate over American identity.
BY JEET HEER
November 20, 2015

(Go to the website to see the photo of a crowd maddened with delight at being so close to Trump. He might as well be Elvis Presley or the Beatles.)


When Donald Trump first entered the Republican presidential primary, there was a widespread impulse to treat him as if he were a joke candidate. The Huffington Post, for one, famously announced that it would cover Trump only as entertainment news. Yet there’s diminishing entertainment value to be found in Trump’s campaign, as he continues not only to dominate the polls on the Republican side but also to set the very terms of debate, with his rivals echoing and endorsing his strident xenophobia. Thanks to Trump, this has become a political contest about national identity, with the core question being, “What sort of country is America?”

Signal

Thanks to Trump, this has become a political contest about national identity, with the core question being, “What sort of country is America?”

In the Islamophobic turn that Trump and the GOP have taken since the Paris attack, the question of national identity has taken on a new urgency. The radical proposals now being put forward by Trump (and frequently echoed in only slightly less virulent form by his rivals) would define the United States as a much less tolerant and pluralistic country, one in which an entire religion could be cast under a shroud of state-sponsored suspicion. Perhaps the saving grace of this election is that the two major Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, have recognized the severity of Trump’s challenge to fundamental questions of national identity and have answered his challenge with strong rebukes arguing for a more tolerant America.

The far-reaching nature of Trump’s proposals cannot be shrugged off. Interviewed yesterday by NBC, he said he “would certainly implement” a mandatory national database for Muslim Americans. When asked how this would be different from Nazi policies in the 1930s and 1940s to register Jews, Trump curtly replied, “you tell me.”

In an interview with Hunter Walker of Yahoo, Trump didn’t shy away from acknowledging that he wants a radical change in how the nation treats its Muslim American minority. “We’re going to have to do things that we never did before,” Trump said. “And some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule. And certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy. And so we’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago.”

On the Republican side, Trump’s xenophobia has met with near-complete capitulation. True, John Kasich and Jeb Bush have expressed mild reservations, and have criticized Trump’s tone; on Friday morning, Bush accused Trump of manipulating people’s angst and their fears. But on matters of policy, they have both shifted in Trump’s direction. Kasich has called for a halt to Syrian refugees coming into America, and Bush says that only Syrian Christians refugees should be accepted. Meanwhile, Trump’s calls to close the gates to Syrian refugees have become the GOP party line. “Everyone is now saying how right I was with illegal immigration & the wall,” Trump tweeted on Thursday. “After Paris, they’re all on the bandwagon.”

Even some Democrats have joined the anti-immigrant and anti-refugee bandwagon. In Congress, 47 Democrats joined 242 Republicans on Thursday to vote for new screening requirements on refugees. David Bowers, the Democratic mayor of Roanoke, Virginia, justified rejecting Syrian refugees by citing the example of Japanese-American internment.

Yet, these expressions of nativism don’t represent the national Democratic Party, which has been hearteningly forthright in criticizing Trump-style xenophobia. Speaking to an audience at Georgetown, Sanders went off script to deliver an ad-lib rebuke. “People should not be using the political process to inject racism into the debate,” the Vermont senator said on Thursday at Georgetown University. “Donald Trump and others who refer to Latinos and peoples from Mexico as criminals and rapists, if they want to open that door, our job is to shut that door. This country has gone too far. Too many people have suffered and too many people have died for us to continue to hear racist words coming from major political leaders.”

Speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations yesterday, Hillary Clinton took pains to explain why an Islamaphobic response would betray cherished values. “Turning away orphans, applying a religious test, discriminating against Muslims, slamming the door on every Syrian refugee, that is just not who we are,” Clinton said. “We are better than that.”

Trump, Sanders, and Clinton have one thing in common: They all recognize that aspirational ideals about what America is key to our politics. For Trump, American greatness comes from defeating foes, which might mean doing some previously “unthinkable” things to Muslim Americans. For Sanders and Clinton, America’s greatness comes from its pluralism and rejection of bigotry. Which vision of America will win out is quite possibly the highest stake in the 2016 election.

Jeet Heer is a senior editor at The New Republic.


COMMENTS


Christopher Ingrassia6:33 PM+11
Look at all those white people.

Michael Cannon6:42 PM
Precisely. That is the question. Is Trump the answer?

Gary Stevenson6:50 PM
+Michael Cannon No, sir. Dr. Ben Carson is the answer.

Conservative Christian Republican6:56 PM
carson is a pussy

Michael Cannon6:56 PM
Reply
Carson will never get the nomination. He's not viewed as a "strong" enough candidate. The conservative voters are being shepherded into the "only a strong leader can make America great again" narrative. Carson is already seen as a weak obfuscate. On the other side, it will be a centrist, most likely HRC.
Show less

David Kotschessa6:59 PM
Trump is not "dominating" the polls. His support among conservatives has capped around 40%. That sounds like a lot, until you consider that means %60 of republicans do not like him. It is hard to believe any democrat would support him - so you basically have a very small minority of Americans in support of Trump.

David Kotschessa7:11 PM
Reply
+Christopher Ingrassia
I really don't have past data on polls to know how accurate they are during the primaries. We know that on election nights they are fairly accurate in predicting the winner when it is not too close.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/9442/election-polls-accuracy-record-presidential-elections.aspx -- If Trump were to win the republican nomination, there is no chance he would win the presidency, leading many to believe conspiracy theories about him basically doing all this for Hillary's sake.