Stephen Miller, Steven King: Birds of a Feather

The Forward has an article titled "Why Stephen Miller Is The Most Hated Jew In America — By Fellow Jews"

How did we get stuck with him? Michael Wolff, in his book Fire and Fury, says Steve Bannon, who brought him on board, used to refer to Miller as "my typist." [More...]

During the transition, Bannon and Stephen Miller, a former Sessions aide who had earlier joined the Trump campaign and then become Bannon’s effective assistant and researcher, assembled a list of more than two hundred EOs (Executive Orders) to issue in the first hundred days. But the first step in the new Trump administration had to be immigration, in Bannon’s certain view.

.... Before Trump, Bannon had bonded with Sessions on the issue. The Trump campaign became a sudden opportunity to see if nativism really had legs. And then when they won, Bannon understood there could be no hesitation about declaring their ethnocentric heart and soul.

....In the larger media and political world, Miller — who Bannon referred to as “my typist” —was a figure of ever increasing incredulity. He could hardly be taken out in public without engaging in some screwball, if not screeching, fit of denunciation and grievance. He was the de facto crafter of policy and speeches, and yet up until now he had largely only taken dictation.

Bannon got Stephen Miller to write the immigration EO. Miller, a fifty-five year-old.... was a former Jeff Sessions staffer brought on to the Trump campaign for his political experience. Except, other than being a dedicated far-right conservative, it was unclear what particular abilities accompanied Miller’s political views. He was supposed to be a speechwriter, but if so, he seemed restricted to bullet points and unable to construct sentences. He was supposed to be a policy adviser but knew little about policy. He was supposed to be the house intellectual but was purposely unread.

He was supposed to be a communications specialist, but he antagonized almost everyone. Bannon, during the transition, sent him to the Internet to learn about and to try to draft the EO (Executive Order).....

[To read the pages yourself, type "typist" in the search bar on the left side of the book page, and after you read that paragraph, type "Stephen Miller" in the search bar for the rest.]

More from the Forward: Jews should disown Stephen Miller Over Trump's Family Separation Disgrace.

On a related note: Rep. Steven King of Iowa says he doesn't want Somali Muslims working at meat-packing facilities that handle pork because they don't eat pork and they might hope he goes to Hell for eating it.

According to King, [fellow Rep.] Ellison said that Somali Muslims must go to the Imam for "special dispensation" to handle pork."The rationale is that if infidels are eating this pork, they aren't eating it, so as long as they're preparing this pork for infidels, it helps send 'em to hell and it'll make Allah happy," he said on the radio. "I don't want people doing my pork that won't eat it. Let alone hope I'll go to hell for eating pork chops."

How are the Somali Muslims different than Jews who keep kosher and don't eat pork -- some of whom own Iowa meat-packing companies?

King should not be re-elected to Congress.

King is known for his anti-immigration stances, saying that "we can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies." King has also said he wants "an America so homogeneous that we look the same."

Also, according to the Des Moines Register, less than 1/3 of 1 percent of Iowa's meat-packing employees are Somali Muslims (I've read elsewhere they almost all work in the poultry departments).

The public may have no say as to whether Jared or Ivanka or Stephen Miller are Trump advisers, but Iowans have the right to vote King out of office, and they should, in my view.

< Trump: No Court, No Judge, Just Immediate Removal | Supreme Court Upholds Trump's Travel Ban, Overrules Korematsu >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Chief Justice Roberts, (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 26, 2018 at 12:14:03 PM EST
    joined by Alito, Gorsuch, Kennedy, and Thomas, gave deference to the President, indicating that Trump exercised lawful discretion to suspend aliens to the US, and, that, Trump has "ample power" to impose entry restrictions.  The Proclamation (Sept. 2017) was held to survive its national security justification. Trump v Hawaii was reversed and remanded.

     Roberts raised the issue of vetting protocols being just pretexts for discrimination of Muslims--a series of statements made by Trump and his advisors both during the campaign and upon assuming office. But, Roberts held that the issue is not whether to denounce the President's statements, but the significance of these statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, that is neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility.  The Court claimed that it must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but also, the authority of the Presidency, itself.

    Roberts trust in Trump was bolstered by the Proclamation's exceptions, the removal of Iraq, Sudan and Chad, and a waiver program. The majority found these compelling...enough so to outweigh public statements by Trump such as "a total and complete shut down of Muslims entering the US".  

    The majority goes with presidential authority, underscoring the power given to the president since WWII and the false assumption that the president will handle it well, and not use such power to terrorize, humiliate and demonize fellow US citizens that may be affected.

    Breyer, joined by Kagan, had a reasoned, and fact-based dissent. They analyzed the question, "Is the Proclamation lawful?" by asking if the Proclamation was affected by religious animus against Muslims, or was its sole purpose national security.  The Court's tipping points, were looked into:  yes, they found, there were exceptions, waivers, but they were not being applied as written,  Indeed, there were discrepancies (two waivers out of 6,555 elgible including some who met criteria).  And, the Proclamation did not apply to asylum seekers or refugees.(despite the pr. trolling of Trump, may not seriously affect the border/child abuse.  Breyer would have sent the case back to District Court, for further proceeding and leave the injunction in place. Breyer sates that if the Court must decide now, he would find a Muslim-ban rather than a scurity-ban; even citing the Trump website that was taken down, so quickly.

    Sotomayor joined by Ginsburg, dissented because the Proclamation fails to safeguard religious neutrality, and the appearances were not cleaned up by the animus of the President.  The dissent faults the majority for ignoring facts, misconstring our legal precedents, and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering inficted on families, including many of whom are US citizen.

    Fireworks in the peanut gallery (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 28, 2018 at 11:09:13 AM EST
    What Should the US Immigration Policy Be? (2.00 / 2) (#6)
    by RickyJim on Mon Jun 25, 2018 at 10:14:32 AM EST
    I see very little discussion of that general question in the current bitter harangues.  An exception is Masha Gessen's recent article in the New Yorker where she brings up "open borders" as the possibly only just policy.  And is the US policy under Trump any worse than that in other countries, eg Europe and Israel in how they are treating this issue?

    Well, U.S. policy has been (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 26, 2018 at 10:04:36 AM EST
    to intern the children of immigrants lacking papers.

    And, reuniting the kids with their parents may not happen, and may take a long time if it does.

    I cannot dismiss the concern over that as a bunch of distracting "harangues."

    The kids are not a distraction.

    Rachel gets the focus on the kids should not change.


    Open Borders...yes please! (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 25, 2018 at 10:47:42 AM EST
    Or absent that, open borders in the Americas.  Or absent absent that, at least freakin' North America.

    Borders are just one of many ways to stack the deck, screw the poor, and serve the rich.  I certainly got no use for 'em.


    It would also (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 25, 2018 at 11:41:10 AM EST
    be nice to formulate Immigration Policy on facts, the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings.

    Now you're just asking for too much ;) (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 25, 2018 at 12:50:04 PM EST
    those three things are so foreign to Trump/Sessions they may as well be a mother and her two kids from El Salvador.

    that is wrong (none / 0) (#10)
    by nyjets on Tue Jun 26, 2018 at 05:15:38 AM EST
    Every nation has the right to regulate who enter the country. Also, the more workers that enter the country leaves less jobs and resources for the citizens of the countries.
    Open borders hurts the citizens of the country.

    Nobody alive today... (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 26, 2018 at 10:30:01 AM EST
    agreed to these borders...why should people alive today who had no say in drawing these lines be bound by them?  Why should people have less right of movement than a bird, or a fox, or even money?

    If the workers don't come here, the jobs will move there...what's the difference?

    Open borders would help people by making them more free...I fail to see how that's a bad thing.  Birth lottery is a stupid-arse way to determine a living breathing human being's quality of life, liberty, and happiness....everybody should have a chance to find a greener pasture wherever that pasture may be.  


    that makes no sense (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by nyjets on Tue Jun 26, 2018 at 11:43:01 AM EST
    The fact that no one alive did not agree to the borders is a nonsensical argument. It is completely irrelevant.

    And I agree, we need to take steps to keep jobs in this country and make sure they are not exported to other countries.

    And the only thing that open borders due is mess up the lives of the citizens of the countries that they currently live in as they can not find jobs to support their families.


    You cannot export farm labor. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jun 26, 2018 at 03:39:01 PM EST
    Have you ever picked grapes? I have. It's back breaking, incredibly hard work. Did it once when I was 17. Never, ever wanted to do it again. And that is the attitude of most "native" Americans. We need to import farm labor. When Alabama passed it's draconian immigration laws, watermelon farmer left melons in the field to rot. Couldn't find locals to do the hard work.

    There is plenty of work available to everyone. Immigrants probably create more jobs than they take. Immigrants create and start businesses more often than not.


    Grapes of Wrath (none / 0) (#48)
    by linea on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 09:24:06 PM EST
    Mexico imports farm workers from Guatemala, to do the work Mexicans won't do (for the wage offered).

    Maybe if the US had family farmers rather than massive tracts of land owned by corporations that required an incredible number of farm labours in very discrete time frames this wouldn't be an issue. What are the lesson from Grapes of Wrath? Perhaps one overlooked lesson is that the large corporate farms are intrinsically in opposition to societal goals and should be replaced by family-owned homestead farms?

    Perhaps denying corporations an unending supply of (often abused and defrauded) cheap and disposable foreign workers might promote the transition to the return of family farms? Dunno.


    How many jobs in the U.S have been lost (none / 0) (#33)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 26, 2018 at 12:27:35 PM EST
    due to the lack of loyalty and economic patriotism on the part of the U.S investor class?

    The trickle-down-on-'em mentality of people who've convinced themselves that they've fulfilled all their duties of citizenship by getting richer, which somehow magically benefits all their fellow citizens, is a bigger problem than unregulated immigration, imo.


    And (none / 0) (#35)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jun 26, 2018 at 12:46:59 PM EST
    how many jobs will be lost because of tRump's idiotic trade wars, bye bye Harley Davidson.

    In my mind... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 26, 2018 at 12:41:38 PM EST
    imaginary lines on maps and globes are what make little to no sense...all that gives them merit is a blind adherence to pre-existing conditions of "authority" and a lack of imagination.  

    Strange how the EU open borders (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 26, 2018 at 07:14:52 AM EST
    Did so much for many EU nations

    My opinion (none / 0) (#47)
    by linea on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 08:55:10 PM EST
    Re: `Strange how the EU open borders... Did so much for many EU nations.'

    The EU does not have an open border.

    There is no inspection and passport check within the EU but there is inspection at every point of entry into the EU. To call that `open borders' is ridiculous, in my opinion.


    Strange how the EU open borders (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 26, 2018 at 07:17:09 AM EST
    Did so much economically for many EU nations.

    In the end, open borders lead to a better world for the world.


    are you sure about that? (none / 0) (#13)
    by nyjets on Tue Jun 26, 2018 at 07:33:22 AM EST
    Are you sure about that?
    I though the opposite. Open borders caused a certain amount of economic decline as local economies collapsed under the weight of different peoples moving into different areas.

    Positive (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 26, 2018 at 09:30:01 AM EST
    Go visit Poland

    Open borders caused problems for (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jack E Lope on Wed Jun 27, 2018 at 02:49:57 PM EST
    Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain - "PIIGS" - which are not the countries that received a bunch of immigrants due to the EU, but were the countries that suffered in the wake of the European debt crisis.

    Capital, however, was free to cross borders and gobble up ownership of lots of low-priced assets in PIIGS.  Then, the earnings of those assets were free to cross borders back to the new owners, in well-to-do countries of the EU.

    It's capital that needs extreme vetting before crossing borders.


    Hell yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 28, 2018 at 11:15:02 AM EST
    money is what needs the vetting...foreign oligarchs buying up real estate to hide their money from volatility, raising rents and the cost of homes for working people who actually live here, is but one example.  A much bigger quality of life issue than migrants and refugees crossing lines on a map, imo.  

    As if closed borders (none / 0) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 28, 2018 at 08:34:33 AM EST
    Haven't caused problems...sigh

    I'm not a Trump voter. I'm not a simpleton.


    My point was (none / 0) (#42)
    by Jack E Lope on Thu Jun 28, 2018 at 05:22:17 PM EST
    ...that it's not the people crossing those borders that cause the economic problems - it's the ability of capital to move freely across those borders.

    As if capital moving across (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 28, 2018 at 10:53:52 PM EST
    Borders always equals economic problems. That's even more absurd. I'm not a Trump voter. I'm not a simpleton.

    And I do notice (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 04:30:55 PM EST
    Ya'll are fine with the capital of other sovereign nations moving across any old border to make the Trump family richer and more powerful

    are you sure about that? (none / 0) (#14)
    by nyjets on Tue Jun 26, 2018 at 07:33:22 AM EST
    Are you sure about that?
    I though the opposite. Open borders caused a certain amount of economic decline as local economies collapsed under the weight of different peoples moving into different areas.

    The truth is (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 26, 2018 at 08:01:30 AM EST
    Employers are complaining they can't find enough employable people.
    Another truth is if you are 50ish you better be hoping for immigrants to pay for your social security and Medicare

    that is innacurate (none / 0) (#16)
    by nyjets on Tue Jun 26, 2018 at 08:31:28 AM EST
    employers are complaining they can not find enough employees to work for low pay. There are plenty of American born employees who are willing to work. There are just not enough jobs for them.

    Not inaccurate (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 26, 2018 at 08:46:03 AM EST
    Automation and technology (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 26, 2018 at 09:54:52 AM EST
    have displaced the low skilled, blue collar jobs.

    Immigrants are not the cause, but do make a convenient scapegoat.


    i do agree (none / 0) (#23)
    by nyjets on Tue Jun 26, 2018 at 10:05:23 AM EST
    I do agree they are not the cause. The total number of jobs in this country has been decreasing in this country. That is why we can not have open borders.
    My point is that there are not enough jobs for citizens and foreigners from other countries.

    Immigration has been (none / 0) (#25)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 26, 2018 at 10:12:00 AM EST
    down for a decade.  A net zero from our Southern Border as many have gone back to Mexico, etc.

    It is a matter of supply and demand.  As the economy needs workers that the U.S. cannot provide, people come here to do the low rung work that U.S. citizens will not.   Trying to stop it is like trying to make water run uphill--I suppose it can be done, but it will take a lot of disproportionate effort to do it.



    Many republicans are starting to see Miller (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 24, 2018 at 03:42:30 PM EST
    As a problem.

    But like Pruitt Trump will likely see that as a feature not a bug.

    I would expect him to be there as long as Trump.

    There's no amount (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 24, 2018 at 05:40:52 PM EST
    of theivery that is too much for Scott Pruitt it would seem. So I guess there is never going to be too much Nazi from Miller.

    To most Iowans shame... (none / 0) (#2)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Jun 24, 2018 at 05:13:53 PM EST
    King is in a pretty safe district. About the only thing that could hurt him are tRump's tariffs. The question is if farmers will be able to connect the dots between GOP policies and their economic hardship. Somehow I doubt it.

    Hopefully, someone (none / 0) (#27)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 26, 2018 at 10:14:01 AM EST
    will run against him....

    Worst thing would be for him to run uncontested.  Make him spend money and time defending his seat.  


    Yes... (none / 0) (#36)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jun 26, 2018 at 02:32:50 PM EST
    he had an opponent in the GOP primary and there was a 3 way race in the Democratic primary. The winner was J.D. Scholten, a former baseball player, who got 51.27% of the primary vote.

    Scholten has good name recognition and has been able to raise funds at a good clip - even outraising King coming into the June primaries. But will that be enough?


    Polaris is considering... (none / 0) (#46)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 08:38:42 PM EST
    moving production of its Indian motorcycles from a plant in King's district to Poland due to tRump's tariffs. A potential loss of 600+ good paying jobs - a big hit to the area's economy.

    Stephen Miller is so unlikable ... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 24, 2018 at 05:40:54 PM EST
    ... that when he was in high school, his own mother urged his prom date to ditch him at the dance and run off with the captain of the football team.


    As far as Rep. Steven King is concerned, the cheese and pepperoni slid off that pizza slice a long time ago. That he's repeatedly re-elected to Congress is entirely reflective of his own district's white conservative constituents, who are the intellectual and electoral equivalent of bass bait.


    Steven Miller (none / 0) (#5)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 25, 2018 at 08:20:40 AM EST
    Became a monster in less time...he is just 32 years old b 1985.

    Both Steve's will be happy (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 26, 2018 at 09:01:04 AM EST
    The SC just upheld Trumps travel ban

    Pete Williams says (4.00 / 1) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 26, 2018 at 09:03:29 AM EST
    Only the injunction is struck down and the lawsuit is still alive but on life support.

    Trump will claim complete (none / 0) (#24)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 26, 2018 at 10:06:31 AM EST
    victory and say the Supreme Court agrees with him that Muslims are bad people.  

    And he will be emboldened get even more outrageous in taking action consistent with his bigotry and racism.


    I agree this is huge (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 26, 2018 at 10:12:49 AM EST
    And a complete disaster

    This is the cornerstone of the whole racist xenophobic nightmare.

    Along with the wall, this is why he was elected.

    Its horrible

    Mueller, if you have something now is the time.


    Did you hear the snippet (none / 0) (#28)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 26, 2018 at 10:21:52 AM EST
    from his rally last night where he said his based was more intelligent and better than any other political base ever?

    No pretense of being President of the whole country.

    Not saying we should go Bill Maher, but the economists at Chase have been predicting for months a recession within two years--because of rising interest rates. Add in the tariffs, and it would seem a recession is possible.  

    The price/earning ratios of publicly traded companies are at levels that historically will not support further increases in the stock market.  Chase is advising to hold off on buying equities.  


    Bill Maher (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 26, 2018 at 10:26:52 AM EST
    GO Bill Maher b!itches

    Wicked (none / 0) (#44)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jun 29, 2018 at 03:05:08 PM EST
    birds of prey flock together. Miller acolyte shows the colors
    A Trump administration appointee to the State Department tore into standard UN documents that condemn racism as a threat to democracy.

    The deputy assistant secretary for refugees and migration, a foreign service officer promoted by the White House to an unusually senior position for his rank, disputed the idea that leaders have a "duty" to condemn hate speech and incitement, and repeatedly rejected use of the words nationalism, populism, and xenophobia.