Charming to some. Smug to others. Abrasive to most. But even with such mixed feelings and emotional reactions invoked at the mention of his name, Donald Trump is leading the Republican polls. Most recently, Trump called for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States–which he further explained did not apply to U.S. citizens who were Muslim and would only last until the incompetent politicians on the hill can get themselves together. What that means is unclear, but it is evident from his interview with CNN’s Don Lemon that Trump, along with much of America, is not pleased with the lack of progress, law-making, and reform taking place in Washington, D.C.

Yes Mr. Trump, give yourself a pat on the back for creating a dialogue on an issue that is quite important and one that most Americans are less than educated about. However, you get points off for spreading extra bigotry. The American public needs to be wary of what Trump’s proposal actually means and the kind of law-making it reflects before we nod in agreement like the political pawns we are expected to be.

Apart from the blatant unconstitutional basis for this proposal, such a ban as the one proposed by Trump is problematic for a number of reasons. First and foremost, to ban a group of people from entering the United States on the basis of religion would be next to impossible in practice. There are approximately 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, equaling about 23 percent of the world’s population. These are 1.6 billion people coming from the Asian-Pacific region, the Middle East, Europe, Northern Africa as well as other African nations, just to name a few. These are people that do not share many physical characteristics and are not identifiable by a singular trait as they encompass anybody and everybody.

So how exactly would one prove he or she is not Muslim? Would people carry around affidavits sworn by their pastors? Would wearing a cross save you from categorical discrimination on the basis of religion? And what about the atheists of the world who practice no religion at all? How would they convince those around them that they are not Muslim? Additionally, do we really think ISIS members or other radical extremists would volunteer information about their practices to U.S. Customs Officers? These questions might sound absurd, but they are real and only highlight the ridiculousness of Trump’s proposal.

Secondly, there are a large number of Muslim businessmen and women, doctors, scientists, and academics that frequently travel to the United States and greatly contribute to the technological, educational, medical, economic, and scientific growth and advancement of the U.S.–areas of practice and study that have been decreasing in domestic educational interest for years. To ban them from entry into a country that they have been actively and positively contributing to would not only serve to offend them and turn them off from future engagements and endeavors, but it would be just plain stupid. Punishing Muslim innovators and educators due to the actions of a few–people whose behaviors they condemn and find absolutely reprehensible–is a waste of invaluable resources on an unfounded basis.

Thirdly, Trump’s ban is reminiscent of much darker times in history–i.e. when Jews were forced to wear badges identifying their faith under Adolf Hitler’s leadership and when Japanese-Americans were placed into internment camps following the attack on Pearl Harbor. One would assume that many lessons had been learned following the colossal tragedies that resulted out of such blatant and unfounded discrimination, but yet, with Trump’s rhetoric, it appears we have not. This Nazi-esque type of discrimination and exclusion based on religious beliefs has been condemned by parties on all sides and was even dubbed “un-American” by former Vice President Dick Cheney.

Finally, Trump seeks to confuse the issue at hand and puts the U.S. into an action-based response that is anticipated, wanted, and planned by extremist groups such as ISIS. The point of terrorism is to create terror, to stir up emotions of fear and irrational reactions used to isolate, alienate, and leave people vulnerable, open to great influence–exactly what the likes of ISIS would welcome, large groups of Muslim people feeling abandoned, isolated, and unwelcomed by the very societies they have set out to enrich, contribute positively to, and raise families in as model citizens. ISIS wants to build a “complete society” with men and women alike and they will recruit. Those vulnerable and rejected by Western societies are likely targets.

Trump’s rhetoric is dangerous two-fold. Not only does it seek to alienate and isolate Muslims from Western societies, leaving the doors open for ISIS recruitment, but it also works to confuse Islam with terrorism, dangerously perpetuating the idea that the two are interchangeable when they are absolutely not. Trump is promoting a display of Islamophobia that would be considered disgusting for anyone, much less a possible Republican Presidential candidate.

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dangerous Rhetoric of Donald Trump appeared first on Law Street.

“No more baby parts.” That is what Robert Lewis Dear, the gunman who killed three people and injured several more at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado, allegedly told authorities following his arrest. We can assume that the shooter was referring to the smear campaign of videos released earlier this year by the Center for Medical Progress. These videos have been analyzed multiple times and have been proven to be doctored, falsely claiming that Planned Parenthood sells parts from aborted fetuses for profit.

Planned Parenthood does not sell baby parts. So why did Dear say “no more baby parts”? That is simple: because the slanderous and hateful rhetoric surrounding those videos continued even after they were proven to be fake, and those fake facts were repeated over and over again by the media and by politicians seeking an emotional reaction from their audience and to bolster their numbers. They are by no means to blame for the tragedy that occurred in Colorado, at least not directly. But politicians do–especially those candidates running for president–need to hold themselves accountable for spreading lies.

It is no secret that politicians stretch and manipulate facts to suit their own agendas, but at some point manipulation turns into outright falsehood. The citizens supporting these candidates, though, don’t know that, and are unlikely to research the facts on their own when they are listening to someone they trust. This is great for people making a living from fact-checking debates, but very bad for the future of American policy.

After the shooting in Colorado, Democratic candidates took to social media immediately to show their support for Planned Parenthood.

We proudly #StandWithPP of Colorado Springs and the brave law enforcement personnel who fought to protect it.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) November 28, 2015

Today and every day, we #StandWithPP. https://t.co/oifqTQLx1X — Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 27, 2015

My thoughts and prayers are with those in Colorado. #StandWithPP

— Martin O’Malley (@MartinOMalley) November 28, 2015

Meanwhile, Republican candidates stayed relatively quiet. Who can blame them, really, when the place where yet another shooting happened was an organization they so vehemently denounce? A few of the GOP presidential candidates, such as Trump, Fiorina, and Huckabee, finally acknowledged the tragic event, but also turned it into an opportunity to mention, once again, the lie that Planned Parenthood sells fetal tissue.

In an interview with “Fox News Sunday,” Carly Fiorina was asked whether she thinks the violent rhetoric towards Planned Parenthood is to blame for actions like those in Colorado, to which she replied:

First, it is not alleged. Planned Parenthood acknowledged several weeks ago they would no longer take compensation for body parts, which sounds like an admission they were doing so. Secondly, this is so typical of the left to immediately demonize the messenger, because they don’t agree with the message…What I would say to anyone who tries to link this terrible tragedy to anyone who opposes abortion or opposes the sale of body parts is, this is typical left-wing tactics.

Here we see a prime example of fact manipulation, as well as blaming the opposition rather than taking responsibility for spreading lies. It would put Fiorina in an awkward position, of course, to contradict what she said in the CNN debate about the Planned Parenthood videos, which turned out to be incorrect. But is it better to hold tightly to false facts, rather than admit to your supporters that you were wrong? Only in a political career. It is extremely saddening to see that politicians, especially the politicians running for the highest office in the United States, are relying on such underhanded tactics to achieve their goal. It certainly does not bode well for us, the American citizens who have to put up with it.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Politicians To Blame For Hateful Planned Parenthood Rhetoric appeared first on Law Street.

In an interview on “The Rachel Maddow Show,” Senator Bernie Sanders, Democratic presidential candidate, declared that he wanted to debate the Republican presidential candidates right now so he can expose their “reactionary agenda.” Sanders believes that debating these candidates on the presidential issues instead of allowing the media to focus on polling and fundraising will expose their policies that favor the wealthy.

Traditionally, the presidential primary candidates only face each other. Republican presidential candidates debate among themselves as do Democratic presidential candidates. But never before in modern years have the individual presidential candidates within each party debated across party lines. Before candidates Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln, presidential debates weren’t even an aspect of the elections. That only happened because Lincoln kept following Douglas on his campaign trail, goading him into arguments. So is that same pattern of events going to be set in stone by Sanders?

Sanders is primarily running on reducing the income inequality gap in America—which is extremely important considering the top 20 percent of U.S. households own more than 84 percent of the wealth and the bottom 40 percent own about .3 percent of the wealth. Sanders’ primary purpose for this debate would be to question the Republicans on their future plans regarding Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which are all hot topics considering America’s economic situation.

While Sanders’ call for a debate between the presidential candidates may seem a little outlandish, he has valid points. After the Great Recession, the top 1 percent has had a positive 36.8 percent increase in income but the rest of the country has experienced a negative change in income, at about .4 percent. The top one percent has an average income of $1,303,198 and the bottom 99 percent has an average income of $43,713.

Sanders wants to capitalize on the Republican presidential candidates’ plan for economic reform. Sanders is particularly focused on raising the minimum wage to a living wage and making education affordable for every American. That’s somewhat consistent with Hillary Clinton, who has supported numerous efforts to change the economic system as well, including raising the minimum wage and fighting for women’s equal pay.

But some of his Republican presidential candidates are trailing more closely to the income inequality issue than others. Jeb Bush’s economic policies still focus on cutting back taxes and rolling back regulations on industry, but Bush also recognizes a major problem, stating, “If you’re born poor today, you’re more likely to stay poor.”

So Sanders’ call for a debate between the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates might seem a little extreme, he has some fair points. Many of the major campaign contributors are big banks, such as Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. By calling out for a debate, Sanders is trying to confront all of the presidential candidates on their economic plans for the future. Considering the dire income disparity in America right now, that’s not a bad plan.

Sarina Neote

Sarina Neote is a member of the American University Class of 2017. Contact Sarina at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bernie Sanders’ Call for an Early Debate: Could it Work? appeared first on Law Street.

Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders announced that he is running for president as a Democrat in an interview with the Associated Press earlier this week. Sanders, an Independent Senator from Vermont and a self-identified “democratic-socialist,” will seek to represent the left-leaning side of the Democratic Party. While many view his bid for the Democratic nomination as a long shot, he presents the party’s first challenge to Hillary Clinton.

Clinton’s campaign has garnered a significant amount of attention in the media and from her Republican challengers, indeed many headlines this week focused on her speech on criminal justice rather than on Sanders’ campaign announcement. However, having a serious challenger to Clinton in the Democratic primary is something that many party members support. A recent Bloomberg poll found that 72 percent of self identifying Democrats and independents think a primary challenger is good for the Democratic Party. While many may question Sanders’ ability to become a significant opponent to Clinton, he has repeatedly said he is “in it to win.”

Describing yourself as a socialist generally does not bode well in American politics, but many of Sanders’ core issues tend to resonate well with populists in the Democratic Party. Sanders is an outspoken critic of Wall Street and identifies economic inequality as one of the most important issues facing the United States. In his interview with the AP, Sanders said, “What we have seen is that while the average person is working longer hours for lower wages, we have seen a huge increase in income and wealth inequality, which is now reaching obscene levels.”

His opposition to Wall Street and what he calls the “billionaire class” also extends to his desire for campaign finance reform. Sanders actively supports a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling and move toward a public-funding system.

Sanders also has strong appeal among environmentalists as someone who recently voted against the Keystone XL Pipeline, and cosponsored a Senate resolution to acknowledge that climate change exists and is a result of human activity. He has also sponsored legislation that would call for a carbon tax and is a strong proponent of alternative energy. He has a 95 percent rating on the League of Conservation Voters scorecard, which evaluates congressional members’ voting records on environmental issues.

As a self-identified socialist, Sanders stands politically to the left of Clinton and many establishment Democrats. He supports expanding medicare to develop a single-payer system for all Americans and has opposed several free trade agreements. He has vocally expressed his opposition to Trans-Pacific Partnership as well as giving the president fast-track authority to pass it without amendments from Congress. Although he supported President Obama’s executive action on immigration, which protects nearly five million illegal immigrants from deportation, he has also said that guest workers may lead to greater unemployment of American low-wage workers.

On some issues, however, Sanders’ positions are in line with a large portion of Americans, particularly those within the Democratic Party. Sanders voted against the Iraq war, which Clinton initially voted for and later came to hurt her 2008 presidential bid. He is also a longtime supporter of same-sex marriage, an issue that has gained increasing public support and currently has a landmark case in front of the Supreme Court.

While many believe that Hillary Clinton winning the Democratic Party’s nomination is a foregone conclusion, Sanders has shown that he intends to do more than force Clinton to discuss the issues that are important to left-leaning Democrats. That said, he is considerably behind in early polling numbers, campaign organization, and fundraising, which will all present important challenges as he tries to become a legitimate challenger. The 73 year old from Brooklyn says that he can appeal to a wide audience because of his role as the longest-serving Independent Senator in American history.

Sanders says, “I’ve run outside of the two-party system, defeating Democrats and Republicans, taking on big-money candidates and, you know, I think the message that has resonated in Vermont is a message that can resonate all over this country.”

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Independent Senator Bernie Sanders Running For President as Democrat appeared first on Law Street.

There’s a very pointless fight going on in the world of American politics right now. It’s over whether or not President Obama “loves” America. See? It really is as stupid as it sounds.

It seemingly started a few days ago when Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City, made statements speculating about how President Obama feels about America. He stated on Wednesday:

I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America … He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country.

When accused of being racist, Giuliani got even weirder, saying:

Some people thought it was racist — I thought that was a joke, since he was brought up by a white mother, a white grandfather, went to white schools, and most of this he learned from white people.

He also blamed America’s supposed antipathy to America on socialism. Overall, it was a weird, yet not entirely unexpected outburst. After all, in the almost ten years since Obama has been on the national stage, there’s been plenty of speculation about his beliefs, ideologies, and thoughts.

It hasn’t just stayed with Giuliani though, because now possible Republican 2016 Presidential candidate, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has jumped into the discussion. He essentially said that he didn’t know how Obama feels about America, and also doesn’t know if Obama’s Christian, because he’s never asked him.

Walker has now run in circles around those comments, saying

I assume most people in this country love America. And to me I don’t think it’s worth getting into the battle over whether he does or he doesn’t. He can handle that himself. I know I do.

And his spokesman stated:

Of course the governor thinks the president is a Christian. He thinks these kinds of gotcha questions distract from what he’s doing as governor of Wisconsin to make the state better and make life better for people in his state.

The entire thing is such a bizarre and pointless debate. First of all, any discussion of Obama’s religion again, is exhausting. Walker saying that he’s not sure what Obama’s religion is because he hasn’t asked him is ridiculous, especially after the continuous media coverage and Obama’s constant reaffirmation of his beliefs in 2008. The fact that Walker is feeding into that speculation is just as bad–remember when McCain at least corrected that one insane lady at his event who thought that Obama was Muslim?

The debate over whether or not Obama “loves America” is equally exhausting. It’s polarizing, it’s pointless, and it’s ridiculous. First of all, why does it matter that much? Should we follow this implication through and assume that if Obama doesn’t “love” America, he’s currently attempting to destroy it? That’s insane and beyond paranoid.

What it really is is a way to call Obama elitist, and different than the American ideal of country above self. It’s a debate that we’ve been having for years now, and it’s silly. I hope that in 2016, everyone will focus on getting the best person for the job, and not just silly paranoid speculation.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GOP Candidates Speculate Whether Obama “Loves” America appeared first on Law Street.