Mediaboss Marketing

An executive order signed by Donald Trump last month allows a significantly broader population of immigrants to be picked up for deportation.

As promised, "bad dudes" are getting kicked out of the country, President Donald Trump told manufacturing CEOs at a recent meeting.

"You see whats happening at the border, all of a sudden for the first time, were getting gang members out, were getting drug lords out. Were getting really bad dudes out of this country, and at a rate that nobodys ever seen before," Trump said Feb. 23. "And theyre the bad ones. And its a military operation, because what has been allowed to come into our country when you see gang violence that youve read about like never before, and all of the things, much of that is people that are here illegally. And they are rough, and theyre tough, but theyre not tough like our people. So we are getting them out."

Trumps comments are partially accurate, but he also leaves out details. Well give more context to his comments.

For a start, the military will not be used for deportations, Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly has clarified. Trump just used the term "military operation," as an adjective, to indicate "its happening with precision," said Trumps press secretary, Sean Spicer.

We also wanted to know how much Trumps policies are different from what happened under the Obama administration. There are some similarities, but there are some key differences, too.

Bad dudes

Trump is known for referring to immigrants convicted of crimes as "bad hombres" and "bad dudes."

At a press conference Feb. 13 with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Trump said his immigration officers were at work getting criminals out of the country.

"I said at the beginning we are going to get the bad ones -- the really bad ones, we're getting them out. And that's exactly what we're doing," Trump said.

But criminals have been deported before Trump took office. At least 2,000 people deported last fiscal year were suspected or confirmed gang members, according to immigration officials.

The same day as the press conference with Trudeau, Kelly issued a statement saying U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement had conducted a series of targeted enforcement operations the week before in the areas of five major cities: Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, San Antonio and New York City. Some regional operations were done over the course of two, five or seven days. In total, more than 680 people were arrested. About 75 percent of them had been convicted of crimes that included but were not limited to homicide, drug trafficking and aggravated sexual abuse, Kelly said.

A sample of the arrests, according to ICE:

235 arrested by agents from ICEs Chicago office: 163 had criminal convictions.

161 arrested in the Los Angeles area: 151 had criminal convictions.

51 arrested in the San Antonio area: 23 had criminal convictions.

Data on overall arrests and removals is not yet publicly available.

Kelly said targeted enforcement operations are routine and have been going on for years.

Targeted operations under Obama

An ICE fact sheet also issued Feb. 13, highlighted several past arrests of convicted criminals during "Cross Check" operations.

Among them:

2015: A national 5-day operation that resulted in the arrest of more than 2,059 convicted criminals (58 were known gang members or affiliates, 89 were convicted sex offenders.)

2012: A national 6-day operation that led to the arrest of more than 3,100 people, including 2,834 individuals who had prior criminal convictions (50 were gang members, 149 convicted sex offenders.)

2011: A national 7-day operation were 2,901 individuals were arrested (42 were gang members, 151 were convicted sex offenders.)

More people were arrested in these operations, but they were of larger, national scale. Trumps focused on five regions.

In fiscal year 2016 (Oct. 1, 2015 through Sept. 30, 2016) ICE carried out 240,255 removals (includes people apprehended by ICE in the interior of the country and by border patrol at or between ports of entry). Of that total, 2,057 were suspected or confirmed gang members, according to the agency.

In fiscal 2016, ICE said that 65,332, or 92 percent of people apprehended by ICE officers and removed from the country were convicted criminals.

Randy Capps, director of research of U.S. programs at Migration Policy Institute, said the recent February targeted operations were similar or even smaller in scale to operations done at times during former President Barack Obamas administration.

"So the scale of the operation was not significantly larger than anything weve seen in the recent past," Capps said. "It remains to be seen whether the Trump administration will increase the scale of such operations, and if so by how much."

Without statistics yet on overall ICE arrests and removals, its difficult to tell whether Trump has increased the scale of arrests or removals in other ways, Capps added.

For reference: from fiscal years 2013 to 2016, the percentage of ICE interior removals of individuals with criminal convictions ranged from 82 to 92.

In Februarys operations, the share of those arrested with criminal records was 75 percent.

Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., claimed the recent targeted operations did not lead to arrests only of criminals and said the enforcement was "not business as usual." We rated that Half True as there were reports of people in violation of immigration laws but without criminal convictions being arrested, though for the most part operations focused on people who committed crimes.

Quick hits

An overview of immigration executive orders signed by Trump and implementation memos issued by the secretary of Homeland Security.

Trumps campaign promise to triple the number of ICE officers is In the Works, he has signed an executive order authorizing it, but hirings still need to happen.

Plans to build a border wall and have Mexico pay for it are still a campaign promise In the Works. An executive order signed by Trump directed its construction, but Mexico has not conceded to footing the bill.

Read the original post:
President Donald Trump's deportation of 'bad dudes' - PolitiFact

President Donald TrumpDonald TrumpMerriam-Webster again needles Trump over spelling fumbles Senate Dems request DOJ watchdog probe Sessions recusal Social media users mock Trump for misspelling 'hereby' in multiple tweets MOREs speech at last weeks CPAC meeting was a stirring reiteration of themes deployed throughout his campaign and in his inaugural address. Like a rock star packaging a series of concerts, the President has undertaken an American carnage tour. Everywhere he goes, he takes pains to remind his listeners that the country he now leads is a mess. At home and abroad, a mess.

At the center of the mess that Trump conjures is the problem of violent crime. At CPAC, he again highlighted it and promised to work with the Department of Justice to being (sic) reducing violent crime.

Trumps Chicago would seem to be worse off today than it was during the notorious crime era of the Roaring Twenties. And, listening to the President you would think that Chicago is Americas most dangerous city.

That honor actually goes to Detroit, and a recent study based on crime rates and economic data did not even find Chicago to be one of the "25 Most Dangerous Cities in America.

It turns out that 7 of the 10 Americas most dangerous cities are found in states that Trump won. These are cities like Memphis, Tennessee; St. Louis, Missouri; Birmingham, Alabama; Cleveland, Ohio; and Indianapolis, Indiana. The last should especially draw a wince from Trumps Vice President, Mike PenceMike (Michael) Richard PenceGOP rep: Trump or Mike Pence will be president for next 4 years The Hill's 12:30 Report What Donald Trump learned from Barack Obama MORE, who was Indianas governor from 2013 to 2017.

These are, of course, the kind of inconvenient facts that Donald Trump likes to avoid.

If we think about crime in the country as a whole, there are more inconvenient facts. FBI crime statistics estimated that 1,197,704 violent crimes were committed around the nation in 2015. While that was an increase from 2014 figures, the 2015 violent crime total was 0.7 percent lower than the 2011 level and 16.5 percent below the 2006 level.

The murder rate shows a more dramatic decline: in 2014 there were 4.5 murders for every 100,000 people in the US. That figure has fallen consistently since its high point of 10.2 in 1980. Todays murder rate is lower than it has been since 1950 when it was 4.6 per 100,000 people

But these inconvenient facts make no dent on Trumps current law and order rhetoric which he began ratcheting last July, after the tragic mass shooting of police officers in Dallas, Texas. Accepting the Republican nomination, he pointed out that America was shocked to its core when our police officers in Dallas were brutally executed. An attack on law enforcement is an attack on all Americans. I have a message, he said, to every last person threatening the peace on our streets and the safety of our police: when I take the oath of office next year, I will restore law and order our countryIn this race for the White House, I am the Law and Order candidate.

Others have noted how this turn echoes the law and order campaigns of President Richard Nixon. True, but I think Trump also learned an important political lesson from an insight Barack ObamaBarack ObamaLeft wing protests only strengthen the Right Important economic lessons from the Land of the Rising Sun What Donald Trump learned from Barack Obama MORE offered during the 2008 Presidential campaign, when he imprudently noted that older, white men in the United States seemed angry and politically confused, such that they would vote against their own economic best interest.

As Obama put it, You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Sarah Palin made fun of Obamas wording in the 2008 campaign, but it expressed a sentiment that was all too well understood by the Republican candidate in 2016. Donald Trump saw an enormous opportunity to capitalize on those frustrations if he could wrap himself in the flag, patriotism, the Second Amendment, and the rhetoric of law and order.

He has relied on this rhetoric to deliver a coded message about race and to stoke racial fear, while allowing him to deny allegations of racism or that he is responsible for escalating racial and ethnic tensions in the US.

Lest there be any doubt about Trumps intentions, his current message echoes views vividly expressed in an ad he ran in New York newspapers after the arrests of one Latino and four black men (known as the Central Park Five) in the rape and beating of a white jogger in 1989.

The ad was titled BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY, BRING BACK OUR POLICE! It read: Let our politicians give back our police departments power to keep us safe. Unshackle them from the constant chant of police brutality which every petty criminal hurls immediately at an officer who has just risked his or her life to save anothers. We must cease our continuous pandering to the criminal population of this City. Give New York back to the citizens who have earned the right to be New Yorkers.

How little things have changed for Donald Trump since the 1980s. Once again, it is far easier for the President to praise American law enforcement and to rail against bad dudes and bad hombres than it is to address the real causes of crime and violence in American cities or to restore Americas manufacturing base and improve the economic lives of our workers.

Americans need to come to terms with this shrewd but cynical move. We need to understand the political work that Trumps law and order rhetoric does for him, but also the damage it does to the social fabric of the nation he leads. We must resist its divisive allure and recognize that the most significant threat to law and order in the United States is found not on the streets of Chicago, but in the Oval Office.

Austin Sarat is Associate Dean of the Faculty and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence & Political Science at Amherst College. He is author or editor of more than 90 books on American law and politics.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Read the original post:
What Donald Trump learned from Barack Obama - The Hill (blog)

Miami Herald

President Trump returns to Mar-A-Lago Friday Miami Herald President Donald Trump returns to South Florida again Friday and will stay at his Mar-A-Lago estate in Palm Beach. Trump arrived in Orlando at 1:08 p.m. and was greeted by Gov. Rick Scott. U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio and Education Secretary Betty DeVos were ... and more »

Read the original:
President Trump returns to Mar-A-Lago Friday - Miami Herald

MARCH 3, 2017

IVE READ THE NAME Milo Yiannopoulos so many times over the past couple of weeks that I dont have to copy and paste it anymore. The spelling is ingrained into my brain. I have what you might call Milo-Mania, a disorder characterized by clicking on anything that bears Milos name usually followed by a world-weary, need-to-lie-down-for-a-minute headache. The pain intensifies when I begin to think that Milo Yiannopoulos might be the first gay role model for impressionable young minds. The headache is somewhat eased by the knowledge that someday soon I will never have to type the name Yiannopoulos again.

On Monday, February 20, following the unearthing of video interviews in which he seemed to countenance pedophilia, Milo was disinvited to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), and his forthcoming book, Dangerous (for which he had received a six-figure advance), was canceled by Simon & Schuster. The following day, Milo resigned from the political website Breitbart.com after several employees threatened to walk out if the alt-right publication didnt terminate him. These events followed months of rampant controversy: a Twitter war with SNL star Leslie Jones that got him banned from the social media site, a riot before a speaking engagement at Berkeley, and an exhausting list of other offenses and provocations. The week of Valentines Day, Jeremy Scahill, editor of The Intercept, canceled his appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher because he refused to share the stage with the out-gay-Catholic-alt-right blogger. The show, as they say, went on. Although the interview itself was nothing special, Maher enthused about Yiannopoulos as the second coming of Christopher Hitchens only gay and said he would be happy to have the young provocateur on his show again. The Real Time appearance could have been a star-making move for Milo.

Then this snippet from an interview he did on comedian Joe Rogans podcast last year, in which he discussed his alleged abuse at the hands of a priest when he was a young teen, got passed around the internet:

Yiannopoulos: If it wasnt for Father Michael, I would have given far less good head. Rogan: Was there a real Father Michael? Did he make you suck his dick, for real? Yiannopoulos: He didnt make me. I was quite enthusiastic about it. Rogan: How old was he at the time? Yiannopoulos: I dont know He was quite young. Quite hot. Rogan: Really? Yiannopoulos: Yeah.

This exchange undoubtedly made a lot of people uncomfortable, but its hardly a reason to get booted out of a conference, lose a book deal, and be forced to quit ones job. Its not uncommon for victims of sexual abuse to rationalize the trauma as a rite of passage or a learning experience. Milo is not the first person to have said such a thing, not by a long shot. Clearly, the folks at CPAC and Breitbart simply couldnt stomach hearing their gay minion who had certainly been outspoken before about his preference for black cock speak out about his prolonged relationship with a Catholic priest when he was 14.

But that was just the beginning of the outrage. Rogan went on to press Yiannopoulos further on the subject of pedophilia. He asked if Milo had ever hung out at any of X-Men director Bryan Singers alleged parties. This is where the exchange got really sick. Yiannopoulos started talking, at length, about parties hed been to in Hollywood parties where the media elite engaged in unprotected sex with underage boys. Every time Rogan asked him to name names, Milo deferred, saying that he practices discretion. This is the same Milo who, at his college speeches, singles out students in the audience in order to ridicule them in front of his adoring fans, the same man who says transgendered women should not be allowed in the restrooms comporting with their gender identity, knowing full well hes exposing them to further victimization. This same man was claiming to practice discretion for pedophiles who also happen to be powerful Hollywood executives. Milo, who has such a bad poker face, couldnt hide the fact that he was gloating about the sense of privilege he feels to be welcomed into the company of these elite creeps.

Milo Yiannopoulos is an out gay man. His campus tour is called Dangerous Faggot, and it is wildly popular with right-wing students who come out to hear his politically incorrect diatribes. But what, exactly, are we supposed think is dangerous about him? That he mocks the powerless while flaunting his collusion with the powerful? Doesnt that just make him another run-of-the-mill albeit rather flaming Republican?

Theres another clip of Milo floating around the internet that I find more telling than the Joe Rogan interview. Its from five years ago on 10 OClock Live, a Daily Showtype program on Great Britains Channel 4. In the clip, Yiannopoulos debates the subject of gay marriage with none other than gender-bending icon of the 80s, Boy George. Attired characteristically in a sequined jacket, with tons of make-up and a hat fashioned after the one Burgess Meredith wore as the Penguin, Boy George seems entirely his flamboyant self. Milo, sitting beside him, is a stark contrast: a stiff, mumbling nerd in a shirt and tie that look like they came from Kmart. Moderator David Mitchell introduces Milo as a writer for the Catholic Herald, who is Catholic and gay. Then he introduces the other guest as a musician and singer, who is also I was surprised to learn gay. The joke draws a huge laugh due to the hilarious juxtaposition between the swanky pop icon and the uptight, buttoned-down reporter. Poor Milo his hair buzzed on the sides, with curly fringed bangs drooping down seems to sheepishly shrug, Im gay, if thats okay?

In the debate, Milo trots out the standard conservative attacks on same-sex marriage e.g., heterosexual unions are the glue of society but the discussion takes a weird turn when he admits to Mitchell, Boy George, and the studio audience that he wishes he wasnt gay a strange psychological ball to drop in the middle of a debate. In response, Boy George, in his seriously awesome pink top hat, reaches out to Milo and says: I want you to be happy. Its a touching moment; one can imagine the pop icon has learned how to do this over his nearly 40 years of speaking up for LGBTQ people. Before Milo was even born, Boy George was helping kids who experienced the same self-hatred Milo is very publicly going through. Could anyone picture the Milo we know and hate these days extending that kind of compassion to an at-risk youth?

Even back at the time of 10 OClock Live, there was more than one Milo. You can practically see Milo the Gay wrestling with Milo the Catholic. Boy George trounces him in the debate, aided by the audiences clear support for gay marriage. Even Mitchell, supposedly moderating, gets in a few barbs at young Milos expense. Through it all, Milo just sits there, stewing like Draco Malfoy, determined that someday people will take him seriously.

Five years later, during the interview on Real Time, Bill Maher, after mentioning that Milo is gay, erupts into laughter, chortling Spoiler alert! Milo rolls his eyes and retorts, What tipped you off? Hes a changed man now, in appearance. His hair is straightened and bleached, and even though he often wears suits when doing live engagements, his tanned chest is exposed and he is laden with necklaces. Milo now knows how to drop the word fabulous, and he waves his hands around a lot. He must have taken a cue from Boy George in that debate: Maybe the key to being taken seriously is to be outrageous! When Bill Maher comments that he looks like Brno, Milo flinches, perhaps suddenly realizing that whoever hes hired to style him has indeed been fashioning him after the Sacha Baron Cohen character. Milos platinum-blond hair, his tracksuits, his gold chains, all went out of fashion eons ago.

While Milo largely behaved himself during the televised interview, in the Overtime segment posted on YouTube, he flashed his politically incorrect attitudes, getting into nasty spats with the other guests, saying yet again that trans women cant be trusted in bathrooms, even hitting on the only person on the panel who had his back, former Georgia Congressman Jack Kingston. This is a thing with Milo going too far; much like Brno who, in the eponymous 2009 movie, tried to sleep with every man he encountered, even presidential candidate Ron Paul. Milo has the same trouble with boundaries largely because he has crafted his public persona to make the same smirking misjudgments that caused audiences so much discomfort while watching Brno.

Its hard to see, frankly, how he thought this act was ever going to work. Five years ago, Boy George may have appeared the more flamboyant of the two, but the most outrageous thing he said in the debate was, I think gay marriage is a bit conservative. Perhaps because, like Cohen, he is performing a parodic version of hyperbolic gayness (though without the redemption of self-consciousness), Milo doesnt know when to pull back. During Real Times online segment, both Bill Maher and fellow guest Larry Wilmore had to tell him to shut up. Whenever Milo tried to make a joke, he was the only one laughing.

So who actually does think hes funny? Supposedly Breitbart hired him to reach a youth audience that may not otherwise tune in to debates about economic nationalism and routine bouts of Hillary-bashing. Milo dropped out of not one, but two colleges, never finishing a degree. He made a name for himself by writing clickbait and internet trolling. He actually fits the mold for a Breitbart blogger except for that gay thing. Surely an out-gay instigator wasnt going to last very long with an alt-right publication. Whatever symbiosis both parties achieved, it had to have been a volatile relationship from the get-go.

And yet, Milo surely does represent a very real part of the population. He is, after all, an openly gay closet case. While Milo is frank about his desire for men, his Catholicism takes precedence over his sexual identity. He has stated many times that he would rather be straight, if given the choice. This cauldron of intellectual and emotional confusion undoubtedly gives voice to a shadowy subculture of closeted gays. There are men everywhere just like Milo: politically conservative, devoutly religious, who nonetheless engage in sex with other men. If you doubt this, check out Jane Wards 2015 book Not Gay: Sex Between Straight Men or just go to the next conservative convention near you, download Grindr, and bear witness to the sea of faceless white torsos looking for no-strings encounters. Because these men choose not to be openly gay, they have no real visibility in politics or the media. So, in a way, Milo like an albino crocodile or some other natural anomaly is giving the public a glimpse into the mind of a closet-case. I guess we can thank him for that.

I imagine that most gay intellectuals recognize in Milo an unfortunate cocktail of privileged upbringing, too much religion, and sexual abuse. I personally find him a tragic character. He never really seems to understand what hes talking about, while at the same time trying so hard to get in. No wonder, in the five years since that Boy George debate, he turned to hate-baiting on the internet. This methodology has gotten him compared to Trump, to whom he claims to be fiercely devoted. Milos characteristic deflections are the same as Trumps: anyone who disagrees with him is an idiot who doesnt know what hes talking about. Like Trump, Milo frequently refers to his own array of alternative facts. He even displays little verbal and physical tics when hes backed up against an argumentative wall and seems to know his opponent has outsmarted him, tics that are more likely than not signs of an undiagnosed psychiatric disorder. Im totally autistic or sociopathic, Milo once stated. I guess Im both. Its unclear whether he was trying to be provocative or if that was a desperate cry for help a conundrum that just brings on another headache.

Poor Milo, we might actually feel sorry for you if your ideas werent so loathsome. Now go away so we can forget all about you.

Kyle Mustain is a freelance writer living in Brooklyn. His film reviews can be found on the website Film-Forward.

See the article here:
Out-Gay, Alt-Right: The Two Milos - Los Angeles Review of Books - lareviewofbooks

By Rhina Guidos Catholic News Service Posted March 2, 2017

WASHINGTON (CNS) When the Conservative Political Action Conference, popularly known as CPAC, met near Washington in late February, the events main organizer did everything possible to separate the annual gathering from a fringe group it said it wants no part of and whose members dont reflect their values.

There is a sinister organization that is trying to worm its way into our ranks and we must not be duped, said Dan Schneider, executive director of the American Conservative Union, which hosts the CPAC gathering, referring to the self-described alt-right movement, whose followers espouse white nationalism, populism and white supremacy.

Saying the group had hijacked the very term alt-right,' Schneider pummeled away at its supporters whom he called fascists, and angrily rebuked them for using the term, which he said up until its hijacking had been used for a long time in a very good and normal way.

They met just a couple months ago in Washington, D.C., to spew their hatred and make their Heil Hitler salutes, said Schneider angrily. They are anti-Semites. They are racists. They are sexist. They hate the Constitution. They hate free markets. They hate pluralism. They hate everything and they despise everything we believe in. They are not an extension of conservatism.

Those belonging to the self-described alt-right movement had attended the conference before without incident, including Richard Spencer, the de facto leader of the alt-right, a shortened version of alternative right. But Feb. 23, he was asked to leave CPAC as Schneider publicly excoriated the movement.

That same day, Maria Mazzenga, assistant director at the Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies at The Catholic University of America was at the universitys campus in Washington, describing the movement and Spencer during an event and panel discussion about how Catholics should respond to the alt-right.

Spencer, she said, is a white nationalist who calls himself an identitarian not a white supremacist, but he advocates for a white homeland, for a dispossessed white race, and calls for peaceful ethnic cleansing to halt the deconstruction of European culture. Those who follow him and the alt-right movement hold the same views, she said, adding: Sounds like white supremacism to me.

Mazzenga reminded the audience that Steve Bannon, a Catholic who is the chief strategist and special counsel to President Donald Trump, was the former CEO of Breitbart News, who once called the site the platform for the alt-right. Bannon has been critical of the churchs stance on immigrants, another hallmark of the alt-right, and he sneeringly calls (Republican House Speaker) Paul Ryans Catholicism social justice Catholicism strangely enough, Mazzenga said.

Bannon, she said, holds the views of one of two camps of Catholic Americans she studies: the exclusionary variety and the inclusionary.

Exclusionary Catholic Americanism is defensive, adopts a siege mentality, emphasizes persecution of enemies, views other religious traditions as threatening to its very existence, Mazzenga said. Inclusive Catholic Americanism seeks to reconcile American ideals of religious liberty and ethnic pluralism with Catholic traditions. It seeks continuity with its parent, Judaism, and commonalties rather than differences with other religions to which its related, like Islam.

Both views are strong in the countrys politically charged and divisive environment, and also very much present in the churchs pews and institutions today. While Catholic churches welcome refugees and immigrants, views that demonize Muslims, that believe theres a war between Christianity and Islam are often tolerated among American Catholics, said Jordan Denari Duffner, who participated in the panel and studies Islamophobia for the Bridge Initiative at Georgetown University in Washington.

While Islamophobic views, which are very much in tune with those who follow the alt-right movement, have little impact in places such as the Vatican, they have found a sympathetic outlet among some publications in Catholic media, Duffner said.

Some of those views portray Islam as a religion that is violent, misogynistic, not part of the Judeo-Christian West and say that Muslims cant be trusted and seek to impose their way of life on us, Duffner said.

If some of this doesnt sound unfamiliar to you, its because its become so mainstream, she said, and even appears in some Catholic newspapers, websites and on popular Catholic television programs in the U.S.

Julia Young, a historian with The Catholic University of America who also participated in the panel, said similar views have existed before in the country, but this time the targets for such views, which some would call nativism, others would call xenophobia, seem to be immigrants and Muslims.

The hierarchy of the Catholic Church in the U.S. has always made clear where it stands, she said. As early as 1919, the U.S. bishops formed an immigration bureau whose sole focus was to speak on behalf of and defend immigrants, to provide legal counsel and defense for them, particularly with the goal of keeping families together, Young said.

Duffner said high profile Catholic leaders such as Cardinal Blase J. Cupich of Chicago, Cardinal Joseph W. Tobin of Newark, New Jersey, as well as other bishops and the bishops conference have spoken up against the anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiment that those in the alt-right foster. But she said shed like to see national efforts trickle down to Catholics in the pews, to bring them together with people of different faiths, particularly Muslims, because it would help combat some of the prevalent and erroneous views some of them hold about Islam.

She said shed also like to see Catholic leaders confront the portrayal of Islam that we are seeing in books published by Catholic publishers, adding that Catholic media should police itself and examine some of its portrayals.

Panelist Christopher Hale, executive director of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, said that while the internet created a democracy, it also created an oligarchy of lies in which some of the views that target certain communities and are based on fear and lies have gained ground.

The more you communicate, the more you get systems of communication, the more your lies become the truth, Hale said. The only way to fight lies is with the truth.

But for the truth to win out, he said, we must engage these folks and the wrong approach, he said, is to think that were better than they are, even if they hold views that may be difficult to hear.

Talking to people who hold views such as the ones embraced by the alt-right is the Christian approach, he said, and the idea of not talking to them, of thinking that some people are below our worth is what he calls the deplorable option, referencing Democratic candidate Hillary Clintons comment in which she called Trump supporters a basket of deplorables.

Lets be real, he said. Racism isnt simple. Theres a lot of things built up in racism beyond just a moral evil. Theres structural issues, theres economic issues. Xenophobia is complicated. So, if were going to be really engaging, we have to spend a little less time denouncing and actually engaging and proclaiming the truth without any hesitancy but understand that the way people got to where they are, theres a path they took. They didnt just parachute in.

Dialogue, he said, is vital.

Young, the historian, said that as a Catholic, for her it also is important to be supportive of the victims or targets of some of those who are attacked by the alt-right and its sympathizers, while also seeking a way to dialogue with them.

I dont think those are incompatible, she said.

View post:
Catholics called to stand against 'alt-right' views but seek dialogue - CatholicPhilly.com