Geopolitical Brouhaha 2 | ***Dave Does the Blog

Wielding 9-11 as a Weapon

Trump turns a tragedy that unified Americans into a way to politically attack his enemies

The still-pinned professionally produced political attack by @realDonaldTrump against @IlhanMN does more to insult America and spit on the memory of 9-11 than any comment by her. https://t.co/CW6OTY1fof #IStandWithIlhanOmar
— ***Dave Hill (@Three_Star_Dave) April 13, 2019

The still-pinned professionally produced political attack by @realDonaldTrump against @IlhanMN does more to insult America and spit on the memory of 9-11 than any comment by her. https://t.co/CW6OTY1fof #IStandWithIlhanOmar

It’s the terrorists — the forces of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qa’eda — who intended their 9-11 attacks as a weapon, as a means of dividing and weakening the US and its society, of fomenting a war between East and West, between Christian and Muslim.

It didn’t quite work. There was war, but it was — with the help of people like (yes) George W. Bush — not framed as a war between East and West, between Christian and Muslim, but against the specific factions, forces, and individuals ostensibly behind the attacks (with an opportunistic veering off into Iraq, but that’s another story).

The rise of Donald Trump and his nationalism, his continuous invective against the Other — the Muslims, the immigrants, the exploitative allies and trading partners, the city-folk, the gays, “socialists,” the transgender, the women, the non-white, the poor — has all too easily picked up that weapon of fear and resentment and ignorance and tribalism.

And now, with a Twitter attack not just in passing, but pinned to the top of his stream, Donald Trump has picked up that 9-11 weapon that Osama bin Laden laid out for him and is using it as a weapon against someone who represents everything he stands against: a Democratic woman of power who has been democratically elected to oppose his agenda.

In doing so, Donald discredits any reverence America still feels for 9-11. He turns it into a cudgel to use against his opponent. He politicizes it, hugs it to himself like he hugs the American flag, not because it really means anything to him, but because he can weaponize the gesture against others. He diminishes that attack’s significance far more than Omar’s in-passing reference to it in an address that wasn’t even about 9-11. He makes it all about him and his political position and his nationalistic movement.

And he does it at a moment when self-avowed fans of his are being arrested for making death threats against the person he’s continuing to so prominently attack.

Yeah, Donald, I can recognize the real enemy of America here.

“Oppression is whatever a body’s obliged to do”

The hijab can be a symbol of oppression or of freedom

The hijab — the scarf-neck-head covering worn by some Muslim women — is not actually dictated per se by the Koran, but is a traditional dress in some parts of the Muslim world that has been tied to religious and theocratic rulings. It’s controversial in a number of places as religious wear, and as Muslim religious wear, but also as a sign of oppression against women in the Muslim world (and, as such, often conflated with other and more restrictive garb to hide, mask, or enforce the modesty of women).

The first article below demonstrates, though, that it’s not a matter of either-or. Some Muslim women (such as Ilhan Omar) wear hijab as a sign of their religious devotion, and celebrate it as a personal freedom. Others, esp. those living in some Middle Eastern Muslim nations, have it forced on them by state law, and consider it as a constriction of freedom.

The conflict seems perfectly understandable to me, analogous to another example of religious identification. I know a number of Jewish people, especially women, who wear a Star of David as a necklace, as an expression of their religious belief. Nobody (aside from anti-Semites) thinks a thing of it, save perhaps observing how cool it is that someone can choose to wear the symbol openly and without government sanction.

But if you had a law (as in Nazi Germany) where Jews were forced to wear a Star of David on their clothing to identify them as Jews … that’s clearly oppressive.

From there, it seems straightforward to celebrate that Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab have the freedom to do so … but to condemn nations who mandate that all women do so (or even more).

Do you want to know more?

Title via Mark Twain, who put it regarding work and play in Tom Sawyer:

Work consists of whatever a body is obliged to do, and that Play consists of whatever a body is not obliged to do.

Trying to make sense of Brexit will drive you mad

The one man who seems to have any idea of what’s going on is planning on taking a break from explaining it.

If you think trying to stay on top of Brexit developments as an outsider is nigh-impossible, rest assured: people who are much more closely following the debacle are getting just as exhausted.

By day, Jon Worth works as a communications consultant for European politicians. By rest-of-his-day he makes Brexit flowcharts — 27 versions since January, to be exact.
Brexit has become a tangled, confusing web of decisions and possible outcomes that change almost daily. It is both the perfect candidate for diagramming what happens next and a Sisyphean task of trying to outline every possibility.

The diagrams are lovely, and even include probability factors where Worth can assign them.

For all that even political insiders are finding his flow charts useful, Worth has reached the end of his rope..

But he’s exhausted. After more than two dozen updates to his flowchart, he’ll take a break on April 12th, the deadline for Britain to leave if Parliament does not approve Prime Minister Theresa May’s deal — regardless of what is happening with Brexit. He says he can’t keep going at this pace.

Do you want to know more? The Man Trying to Make Sense of Brexit Is Tired and Would Like to Stop Now – The New York Times

“Let’s make matters worse” is wonderful foreign policy!

Trump is cutting off aid to Central American countries whose residents are fleeing to the United States.

While a lot of people still think of Mexico related to illegal immigration to the US, it’s actually the nations of Central America that have seen the biggest upsurge over the last few decades. That’s because life in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras is pretty damned awful — rampant poverty, crime, violence …

I mean, folk tramping hundreds of miles north to the US aren’t just doing it on a lark, or because they admire our cable TV. These are desperate people, driven by desperate situations, fleeing north to seek asylum from the hell-holes their countries have come.

So, of course, what is Trump’s response? How is he proposing to help the residents of these hemispheric neighbors, in countries that have been often ravaged by American diplomatic, commercial, and military actions over the past century-plus? How is he looking to provide the assistance to these nations so that people don’t feel the economic or even existential need to flee?

The United States is cutting off aid to the Northern Triangle, otherwise known as the Central American countries of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, the State Department told CNN Saturday, one day after President Donald Trump said they had “set up” migrant caravans for entry into the United States.
“We were paying them tremendous amounts of money. And we’re not paying them anymore. Because they haven’t done a thing for us. They set up these caravans,” Trump said Friday.
[…] According to the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, comprised of retired diplomats, military leaders and members of Congress, aid programs in the three countries are working to address the “root causes of violence” in order to “promote opportunity and security for their citizens.” Officials would not say exactly how much money would be affected by the directive with some of it likely already spent. Between last year and this year, about $1.3 billion was allocated to the region with the vast majority of it going to those three countries, according to a study from the Congressional Research Service.

Because apparently foreign aid is “paying” people.

“They set up these caravans,” Trump said at an event in Canal Point, Florida, on Friday. “In many cases, they put their worst people in the caravan; they’re not going to put their best in. They get rid of their problems. And they march up here, and then they’re coming into their country; we’re not letting them in our country.”

It’s not even questioning whether the aid being given is being used effectively. Trump’s simply convinced (or wants to convince us) that we “paid them” but have been, instead betrayed, and that the folk fleeing to the US aren’t actually, um, fleeing people, but instead are part of an organized effort by these countries to send “their problem” people to the US.

Yeesh.

Do you want to know more?

The dire, dreadful urgency of The National Emergency!

"This is a DIRE NATIONAL EMERGENCY, so I'm going to threaten what I'll do… some time next week. Now I have to head off to Mar-a-Lago for the weekend." https://t.co/ie9POzttih
— ***Dave Hill (@Three_Star_Dave) March 29, 2019

“This is a DIRE NATIONAL EMERGENCY, so I’m going to threaten what I’ll do… some time next week. Now I have to head off to Mar-a-Lago for the weekend.” https://t.co/ie9POzttih

Loyalties

Ilhan Omar criticized pressure to pledge loyalty to Israel. Mike Pence confirmed it.

This is what got Rep. Ilhan Omar in trouble:

At a recent event, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said, in a reference to American Jewish supporters of Israel, “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says that it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.” When criticized by House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.), who is Jewish, Omar wrote on Twitter, “I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress.”

This is what Vice President Mike Pence said today at the annual conference of AIPAC, the America-Israel Political Affairs Committee, the preeminent American pro-Israeli lobbying group:

As I stand before you, eight Democrat candidates for president are actually boycotting this very conference. So let me be clear on this point, anyone who aspires to the highest office in the land should not be afraid to stand with the strongest supporters of Israel in America. It is wrong to boycott Israel, and it is wrong to boycott AIPAC.

and

Anyone who slanders those who support the historic alliance between the United States and Israel should never have a seat on the Foreign Affairs Committee of the United States House of Representatives.

I mean, call me silly, but I think Pence has just made Omar’s point.

Do you want to know more?

Let’s fight purported anti-Semitism with a big dose of Islamophobia!

Because clearly the only people critical of Israel are un-American crypto-Islamicists

Many folk have dogpiled on Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) over her criticisms of knee-jerk American political support for the Israeli government, which has been interpreted by some as anti-Semitism (even though some of the biggest knee-jerking comes from people other than Jewish-Americans).

So, of course, in a discussion fraught with questions of religious intolerance, hatred and fear of the Other, and the conundrum of what it means to be pro- or anti-American in support of another nation, let’s pivot to … bashing Muslims!

Fox News host Jeanine Pirro on Saturday questioned whether Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-Minn.) hijab is a symbol of loyalty to Sharia law, which she warned is “antithetical” to the U.S. Constitution. “Omar wears a hijab, which, according to the Quran 33:59, tells women to cover so they won’t get molested,” she said.
“Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to Sharia law, which in itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution?” she asked.

Because, of course, only those crazy, evil, un-American Muslim types would ever dream of women covering their heads, right?

Strangely enough the Apostle Paul might disagree.

Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
[…] Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

But I mean, even so, that was centuries ago. In this modern era, in America, can you imagine people covering their heads for religious reasons? Only dangerous fanatics would do that!

Oh, but those folk aren’t covering up because of “Sharia Law,” which to Judge Jeanine clearly makes all the difference. “Sharia Law” is bad, so anyone who follows it is, well, obviously evil (and probably hates American and Israel).

Not, I suspect, that Judge Jeanine has any idea of what “Sharia Law” is, let alone having any coherent argument as to why it is “antithetical to the United States Constitution,” any more than any other personal religious code of conduct.

(Here are three resources that might be of help in understanding what Sharia is.)

Of course, if someone is concerned about Rep. Omar and her “loyalty” to Sharia Law, maybe someone should ask her. Or, given the breadth and vagueness of what Sharia actually is, ask her about particular beliefs. Or even, if you want to be really lazy, compare popular conceptions about what Sharia means to her public policy statements.

Pirro argued that Omar’s alleged “anti-Israel sentiment” did not come from the Democratic Party. “Your party is not anti-Israel. She is,” Pirro said. “So if it’s not rooted in the party, where is she getting it from?”

Wait, wait, let me guess your answer, Jeanine! Could it be she gets it from Evil Muslim Sharia Law Secret Spy Anti-America radio broadcasts? Am I close? Because that’s the thing you seem to be implying.

It’s also interesting looking at an underlying argument here:

Suggesting Jewish-Americans have a divided loyalty against the US in their support of Israel is pernicious and anti-Semitic.*
Suggesting Musim-Americans have a divided loyalty against the US in their hatred of Israel is … well, the kind of rabble-rousing thing you can hear about on Fox News.

(* Omar didn’t actually say that, but she’s being characterized as having done so.)

The idea that the way to combat anti-Semitism is to drum up suspicion of Muslims as somehow being un-American is … well, frankly, it’s philosophically incoherent, as it evokes the same sort of paranoia about the Other that is exemplified in anti-Semitism itself. I’m not particularly surprised to find it coming from a talking head on Fox News, but it’s worth calling out even when it shows up there.

Do you want to know more? Judge Jeanine asks whether Omar’s hijab is ‘indicative’ of her loyalty to Sharia law | TheHill

Allegiance

I’ve read Rep. Omar’s recent comments about the influence of the pro-Israel lobby in American politics and honestly, they only way they can be considered anti-Semitic is if you consider any criticism of the government of Israel or American foreign policy toward it to be, per se, anti-Semitic.

“But she’s talking about money! And everyone knows the libel against Jews as fat-cat wealthy people!” And, yes, those are pernicious and anti-Semitic stereotypes (ironically garbled from anti-Semitic prejudice that allowed European Jews to lend money at interest, then socially punished them for it).

But the money flowing into pro-Israeli lobbying coffers and political action committees isn’t just from American Jews. Political and financial support for Israel comes from a substantial chunk of the Christian Right (some of whom see an Israeli state as necessary for the End Times). Other non-Jewish Americans see Israel as a stalwart ally (which could be debated, though in Middle Eastern terms they’re probably better than a lot of the alternatives), or as a representative democracy in region full of autocrats (which makes unwillingness to criticize the actions of that democracy all the more odd), or believe in a Zionist goal of a Jewish homeland given the historically terrible and devastating history of European Jewry that culminated in the Holocaust.

So equating criticism of money spent on behalf of Israeli interests through PACs and lobbying with criticism of wealthy Jews is kind of a stretch, unless you make it a whole lot clearer that’s what you’re doing.

I don’t see any of that in Rep. Omar’s statements.

“But now she’s talking about allegiance, and we all know about the pernicious accusation that Jews have a divided loyalty between the nation and other Jews.” I’m well familiar with that, including the analogous anti-Catholic prejudice that we seem to have gotten over as a nation. And, again, we see the twisted history of a persecuted community ghettoized and forced to band together against prejudice becoming, itself, taken as a “divided loyalty.”

But, again, Rep. Omar didn’t say that Jews were pushing for (or held) an allegiance to a foreign power. She was clearly noting that there are a lot of politicians who are so knee-jerk pro-Israel that, regardless of whether it is in American interests or not, they will support Israeli government actions. As might be demonstrated by, well, anyone criticizing Israeli state actions drawing criticism as being anti-Semitic and anti-American and pernicious and deserving of rebuke and punishment.

Sort of like what’s happening to Rep. Omar.

One might expect it in politicians and pundits framing everything about Israel as a false dichotomy — you either steadfastly stand behind the Israeli state, no matter what it does, no matter what level of apartheid it enforces, no matter how it deals in bad faith with the Palestinians, no matter how it drags down American relations with other states in the region — or you’re un-American, you’re anti-democracy, you want Israel destroyed, and you’re an anti-Semite.

Which does, in fact, seem to be the reaction going on. Which makes suggestions that some folk seem have as much allegiance to Israel as to America a rhetorically uncomfortable but not altogether unjust.

All of which is a ridiculous position to take. We criticize our own government for its actions … why can we not criticize Israel’s government? We can say that Trump, or Obama, or Bush, or Clinton are dumb or corrupt or destructive or whatever … why can we not criticize Benjamin Netanyahu as vigorously? We can say that the US is doing something wrong … why can we not say that Israel is doing something wrong. We can critique our government’s actions without suggesting that America should be destroyed … why is criticism of Israeli government policy made out to be a desire to see Israel destroyed.

It’s altogether possible that someone doesn’t think that Israel isn’t acting wrongly in its relations with its neighbors and with the Palestinian Arabs. Fine. But we should be able to have that debate without recourse either to (a) blaming it on the Jews or (b) being accused of blaming it on the Jews.

But if critical suggestions that a wide array of American supporters (not just Jewish ones) and politicians (ditto) seem to have knee-jerk support for anything that the Israeli government does draw fire as being inherently anti-Semitic … well, I think it merely confirms the suggestions being made.

Do you want to know more?

The Diplomatic President

Just in case anyone is still wondering: this is STILL not normal. This is the US President, in Vietnam on a delicate diplomatic mission that could mean life or death for millions … and he's taking time out for petty public snipes at a political opponent. https://t.co/1MgskQr3RE
— Dave Hill (@Three_Star_Dave) February 27, 2019

Just in case anyone is still wondering: this is STILL not normal. This is the US President, in Vietnam on a delicate diplomatic mission that could mean life or death for millions … and he’s taking time out for petty public snipes at a political opponent. https://t.co/1MgskQr3RE

Might the UK De-Brexit?

The opening has been raised that UK’s Labour party may be willing to push for a new public Brexit vote, given that the May government seems to be staggering, uncontrollably, to a “hard exit” Brexit where everything is going to be a hot, swirling, exploding mess.

Personally, I always considered Brexit a horrible mistake — while the EU is far from perfect, and UK membership brought some distinct problems, the terrible complications that have arisen as the UK has tried to extricate itself has demonstrated how horrible. While the sticking point has been “How do we keep Eire and Northern Ireland borderless while still maintaining trade and customs separations?” every other step along the way has shown how much the necessarily deep economic and populational entanglement between the UK and the mainland are going to be painful and very, very expensive to break or pull back from.

Add to that the evidence of heavy shenanigans by pro-Brexit forces (and outside influences) during that referendum (akin and proximate to our own US 2016 fiasco), and the immediate aftermath of many people who voted for Brexit admitting they really hadn’t realized what it would mean … it would seem, from the outside, a second referendum would be in order. But politically it’s been hugely fraught, given the Conservative majority, and the deep national divisions over the whole affair.

If Labour manages to convince enough in Parliament, though, to put up a second vote, especially if the end-of-March deadline looms without some sort of agreeable alternate solution … that, it seems to me, would be an informed vote. People (and politicians) in the UK have a much clearer view of what’s at stake now. No matter whether that happens, or however such a second referendum would roll, those deep divisions will remain. But at least there will have been that more informed affirmation (or denial) of the departure.

(Assuming the EU would allow the withdrawal process to end. Which they would be nuts not to, but, hey, it’s the EU.)

Interesting times.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47363307

The Trump Admin declares war on the International Criminal Court

The ICC was set up by international treaty to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide charges around the world. The US was one of seven countries to vote against the treaty, alongside such other stalwarts of the rule of law as China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, and Yemen.

Over the last 15+ years, the ICC has been going along, doing its thing. It’s not an unproblematic body, hamstrung in many ways, with concerns about both politicization of how it selects cases and debate about how those cases intersect with national sovereignty and constitutional protections.

That said, the US attitude towards the court has been, at the very least, unseemly for a supposed champion of world justice and human rights, largely, it seems, for fear that actions by the US or US officials might be investigated and indictments handed down.

And, in fact, word that the ICC is considering opening an investigation into US war crimes in Afghanistan, as well as crimes committed by Israel against the Palestinians, has led to Donald Trump, the guy who can’t stand indictments, others’ judgment, or international cooperation, to strike preemptively at the organization. In a draft letter put together by unilateralist John Bolton, the Trump Administration is threatening sanctions and prosecution of ICC judges and prosecutors who have the temerity to investigate the Afghan War.

“The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court,” Bolton will say, according to a draft of his speech seen by Reuters. […] The draft speech says the Trump administration “will fight back” if the International Criminal Court formally proceeds with opening an investigation into alleged war crimes committed by U.S. service members and intelligence professionals during the war in Afghanistan.
If such a probe proceeds, the Trump administration will consider banning judges and prosecutors from entering the United States, put sanctions on any funds they have in the U.S. financial system and prosecute them in the American court system.

Man, remember the good old days when the US at least tried to seem like the Good Guys? I mean, make that a country like “China” or “Iran,” and it would sound tonally perfect.

On the other hand, one has to appreciate the melodramatic flourishes involved.

“We will not cooperate with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC. We will not join the ICC. We will let the ICC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us,” says Bolton’s draft text.

Yeesh.

Trump administration to take tough stance against The Hague’s ICC
The United States on Monday will adopt an aggressive posture against the International Criminal Court in The Hague, threatening sanctions against its judges if they proceed with an investigation into alleged war crimes committed by Americans in Afghanistan.

Original Post

A History Lesson

If there are two things that I’ve learned at the Bristish Museum it’s;
1. The Brits stole a fuck ton of shit.
2. Every culture, since the beginning of time, appreciates a nice vase.
— Nakkiah Lui (@nakkiahlui) September 5, 2018

RT @nakkiahlui: If there are two things that I’ve learned at the Bristish Museum it’s;

1. The Brits stole a fuck ton of shit.

2. Every c…

What’s that country all about?

A fun world map with the most common word on their English Wikipedia page assigned to it. Some interesting results:

The number one word for the US is “War”
The number one word for Canada is “Quebec”
The number one word for Vietnam is “French”
The number one word for Spain is “War”
The number one word for Belgium is “French”
The number one word for Denmark is “Islands”
The number one word for Macedonia is “Greece”
The number one word for Zambia is “Rhodesia”
The number one word for Cyprus is “Turkish”
The number one word for Mongolia is “Population”
The number one word for the UK is “Ireland”

The Most Frequently Used Word on Each Country’s Wikipedia Page
The United States is “war.”

Original Post

The Ugly Americans

There are a lot of people who will tell you that the US has always been a pro-US corporation bully; if so, Trump is stripping away any pretense to being anything else.

I mean, threatening third world countries with economic sanctions, treating to cut World Health Organization funding, if WHO passed a resolution supporting breast feeding rather than formula feeding?

The US will be a century trying to live down what this President (who was almost certainly a bottle baby) has done in less than two years.

Trump Administration Shocks Global Health Officials by Opposing Pro-Breastfeeding Resolution
The United States threatened poorer countries with economic retaliation if they sponsored the measure.

Original Post

The First Casually of Trade War

A look at Harley-Davidson and other companies — and their workers — struggling with the multiple trade wars that Trump has started.

Harley-Davidson, Blaming E.U. Tariffs, Will Move Some Production Out of U.S.
The iconic motorcycle manufacturer said that the move was the “only sustainable option” to maintain its business in Europe, an increasingly vital market.

Original Post

The most amazing threatening non-threatening threatful former threat!

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea: EVIL NUCLEAR ROCKET MAN THREAT? Or BESTEST NEW AUTHORITARIAN BUDDIES? Or ONGOING UNUSUAL AND EXTRAORDINARY FISSILE MENACE?

Sorry, Donald — that doesn't look very good on your Nobel Application Form.

Trump flips on North Korea, declaring country still an ‘extraordinary threat’ | US news | The Guardian

Original Post

On the GOP Scriptural Dedication to the Law and Government

Remember when Kim Davis refused to issue gay marriage licenses and Republicans were all like “You can’t do that! The Bible says to obey government law!”
— Jess Dweck (@TheDweck) June 15, 2018

RT @TheDweck: Remember when Kim Davis refused to issue gay marriage licenses and Republicans were all like “You can’t do that! The Bible sa…

Let’s raise a glass to trade wars!

When you bump up tariffs, and other countries bump up tariffs in response, guess what happens?

Stuff that’s imported or relies on imported materials gets more expensive for American consumers.
American businesses that rely on exports — and the American states that rely on tax income from them — lose bigly.

The American Bourbon industry — and, pretty much, all American distilled spirits — just got shivved by Donald Trump. But, hey, at least he gets to look tough, and that’s the important thing, right?

Cheers!

Trump’s Trade War Just Firebombed The Bourbon Industry In Kentucky
The European Union and Mexico have kept a promise to retaliate against Trump’s nonsensical trade tariffs with trade tariffs of their own.

Original Post

Jeff Sessions says the Bible supports Trump’s immigrant family policy

Well, kinda-sorta, but hearing pious Sessions quoting Scripture to bolster the Trump Administration’s decision to separate all children that are brought across the border by illegal immigrants or by families legally seeking asylum … well, it’s a pretty grim stretch, not to mention somewhat nauseating.

My first thought on reading these headlines was that we were going to get some sort of Old Testament horror show about how God told the Israelites that they could steal the children (usually as slaves) of the tribes they conquered (except for the cases where God say they could be out-and-out killed) — and that that would be what Sessions was relying upon.

Nope. It’s less bloody-handed, but even more menacing than that.

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order,” [Sessions] said. “Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves and protect the weak and lawful.”

Okay, that’s already a dubious argument, but let’s actually look at that passage (Romans 13:1-7):

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; 4 for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority[a] does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. 6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is due them—taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

So we’ll set aside the Trumpian / GOP multi-faceted irony of quoting a passage that also says, “Hey, those taxes? Pay up!”

Let’s also set aside that this was Paul writing a letter that was readable by any Roman authority, to members of a church in a movement that was already being scowled upon for being a bit dodgy and possibly disloyal to the Empire.

Instead of all that, let’s look at what this passage basically says: The government was appointed by God, to punish evildoers, so put up with what it does, otherwise God will use it to get you.

That sentiment is profoundly un-American. It’s certainly the direct opposite of anything that resembles traditional GOP conservatism. Granted, Sessions is the Attorney General — the chief law enforcement officer (under the President) of the federal government, so one would expect a certain fondness for “OBEY!” as a philosophy.

Still, it’s a breathtaking defense of governmental authoritarianism, esp. for someone who claims to be Christian, and is a member of a political party most often associated with conservative Christianity, a movement that often rails against actions by the Evil Government.

Imagine, if you will, if the Obama Administration had devoutly cited Romans 13 as a defense for the laws and policies it advanced. “Obama declares Islamist theocracy, claims to rule by divine right” would have been the mildest of responses from the Religious Right and every Republican politician.

Sessions’ feeble and pernicious defense of his and his boss’ policies about separating children from their families is the height of hypocrisy, and one that should give any American the chills at its sweeping implications (so, any legal policy of the government should be considered the dictates of God?). And it reminds me of another quotation:

❝The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart:
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!❞
— William Shakespeare (1564-1616) English dramatist and poet. The Merchant of Venice

Jeff Sessions Cited the Bible to Defend Separating Immigrant Families
“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13”

Original Post

You know, folk, there’s a time when it stops being funny

Of course, there’s the irony that, after palling around and praising over and over and over again one of the most brutal and bloodthirsty tyrants on the planet, and one who has literally threatened to obliterate Americans in nuclear fire, Trump would then turn around and talk about how the mainstream media is America’s “biggest enemy.”

So funny to watch the Fake News, especially NBC and CNN,” he wrote. “They are fighting hard to downplay the deal with North Korea. 500 days ago they would have ‘begged’ for this deal — looked like war would break out. Our Country’s biggest enemy is the Fake News so easily promulgated by fools!

But at some point the ironical eye-rolling has to give way to actual alarm over the President of the United States calling major media outlets “Our Country’s biggest enemy”. I mean, those are the kind of things said by dictators and autocrats. Like, say, Vladimir Putin. Or Kim Jong Un.

At what point, one wonders, will the President of the United States actually decide to stop talking and start acting?

And what happens then?

NOTE: It seems likely that Donald didn’t actually write that, given the un-Trumpian “promulgate” and, in fact, that entire “so easily promulgated by fools” line sounds more like something Dr. Doom would say rather than Donald Trump. But it went out under Donald’s personal Twitter account, so one must presume it had his blessing.

After meeting with North Korean dictator, Trump calls press America’s ‘biggest enemy’
Hours after returning from a trip where he lavished praise on one of the world’s worst dictators, President Trump declared that America’s biggest enemy is… “fake news.”

Original Post