Christian Right’s Politics of Providentialism Keeps U.S. from Addressing Gun Violence - Chrissy Stroop in Rewire

Reactionary Fundamentalist Christians have allowed themselves to be driven by fear of change, fear of progress, fear of any knowledge or growth that challenges their narrow understanding of their  faith and its syncretism with idolatrous nationalism.

As a result, whenever something bad happens, they trot out their cliche decline jeremiad, a genre that links purported symptoms of national decline to spiritual causes.  This inartful dodge prevents the actual roots causes of serious social issues from being addressed and corrected.

While they would contend that to give up their views on such matters as prayer in school and the so-called traditional family would lead to a destructive nihilism, it’s their inability to trust their own moral compass that leads them into a violent and ultimately nihilistic politics, one that puts greater trust in a strict top-down hierarchy than in democracy or the rule of law.

Unfortunately, until they are defeated politically, we are stuck with the devastating social consequences of their political externalization and projection.

The full article is available here

How Fox News Pushed White Supremacist "Great Replacement Theory" - Media Matters

The shooter who killed 20 people and injured dozens in El Paso, TX weekend first posted online a document outlining the white nationalist “great replacement” theory to which he subscribed. Fox News has long mainstreamed this theory’s rhetoric.

The gunman in El Paso described immigrants as “invaders” flooding into the United States, which is rhetoric that both President Donald Trump and Fox News personalities frequently employ.

Fox hosts Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, who both have a history of pushing white nationalism and bigotry on cable airwaves, blatantly push the theory that white Americans are being replaced through immigration to the benefit of Democrats.

Variations of the white supremacist “great replacement” theory have also appeared on other Fox programs.

The full article is available here

Trump’s World Is The Epitome of “Crime Infested” - Zeddaray

Nothing is more 'crime-infested' than Trumpworld. His properties, his charity, his business, his "university", his friends, his campaign, his inauguration, his White House, his family.

He's a criminal, who gets away with it because he's rich and white and extremely racist. And that's all that "crime infested" attack is. Pure racism from a criminal who surrounds himself with thieves and rapists and treacherous charlatans.

The full article is available here

The Blindness Of White Privilege: Donald Trump's Bigotry

Trump either doesn't understand or doesn't care to understand (a) the ongoing effects of structural & systemic inequality (b) how redlining and placement of interstates through African American neighborhoods leads to economic blight (c) that accumulated white privilege excludes non-whites.

White Privilege and White Supremacy both simply point at current conditions and denigrate those suffering under them - without any understanding of causality and complicity.

Authoritarians’ Sympathetic Friends: U.S. Conservatives - Robert Kagan in Washington Post

Since the end of the Civil War, the story of the U.S. has been the continual expansion of rights to more and more groups. When certain strands of conservatism object to this historical reality, it is to the democratic ideals of the United States' founding that they are objecting. Therefore, these days some U.S. conservatives have become adoring fans of some of the world’s staunchest anti-democratic and anti-U.S. leaders.

Today, many in the United States — mostly, but certainly not exclusively, white Christians — claim to be defending themselves and their “values” against decisions by U.S. courts granting rights and preferences to minorities, to women, to the LGBTQ community, to Muslims and other non-Christians, and to immigrants and refugees.

There has always been an element of anti-Americanism in that strand of conservatism, in the sense that it has stood in opposition to the liberal Enlightenment essence of the American founding.

Since the end of the Civil War, the story of the United States has been the continual expansion of rights to more and more groups claiming them, as well as continual resistance to that expansion. When conservatives object to this historical reality, it is to the democratic ideas of the United States' founding documents (Declaration of Independence and Constitution) that they are objecting.

These days, some American conservatives find themselves in sympathy with the world’s staunchest anti-American leaders. As the Trump administration tilts toward anti-democratic forces in Europe and elsewhere, most Americans appear indifferent, at best. In contrast to their near-obsession with communism during the Cold War, they appear unconcerned by the challenge of authoritarianism.

Political theorist Marc Plattner argues that the gravest threat to liberal democracy today is that the “mainstream center-right parties” of the liberal democratic world are being “captured by tendencies that are indifferent or even hostile to liberal democracy.”

The full article is available here

Neoliberal Extreme Capitalism and Resurgent Fascism - Henry Giroux in Tikkun

Fascism is never entirely interred in the past.  The conditions that produce its central assumptions are with us once again, ushering in a period of modern barbarity that appears to be reaching towards homicidal extremes in the West, especially in the United States.

Cynical authoritarian politicians and managers of extreme capitalism have used the crises of economic inequality and immigration - and what Paul Gilroy has called its "manifestly brutal and exploitative arrangements" - to sow social divisions and resurrect the discourse of racial cleansing and white supremacy. 

In doing so, they have tapped into the growing collective suffering and anxieties of millions in order to redirect their anger and despair through a culture of fear and discourse of dehumanization; they have also turned critical ideas to ashes by disseminating a toxic mix of racialized categories, ignorance and a militarized spirit of white nationalism.

In this instance, neoliberalism and fascism conjoin and advance in a comfortable and mutually compatible project and movement that connects the exploitative values and cruel austerity policies of “casino capitalism” with fascist ideals.

These ideals include the veneration of war, anti-intellectualism, dehumanization, a populist celebration of ultra-nationalism and racial purity, the suppression of freedom and dissent, a culture of lies, a politics of hierarchy, the spectacularization of emotion over reason, the weaponization of language, a discourse of decline, and state violence in heterogeneous forms.

Fascism is never entirely interred in the past.  The conditions that produce its central assumptions are with us once again, ushering in a period of modern barbarity that appears to be reaching towards homicidal extremes in the West, especially in the United States.

The full article is available here

Why Do Some Believe A Sitting U.S. President Shouldn't Face Criminal Prosecution In Court? - Reuters

Unfortunately, the U.S. Justice Department has a decades-old internal policy which argues that a sitting president cannot be indicted (dating back to 1973) despite the fact that the idea that no one is above the law is a central tenet of Constitutional Republicanism.

The U.S. Constitution explains how a president can be removed from office for “high crimes and misdemeanors” by Congress using the impeachment process. But the Constitution is silent on whether a president can face criminal prosecution in court, and the U.S. Supreme Court has not directly addressed the question.

Some legal experts have argued that the nation’s founders could have included a provision in the Constitution shielding the president from prosecution, but did not do so, suggesting an indictment would be permissible.

According to this view, immunity for the president violates the fundamental principle that nobody is above the law (which would be in keeping with the spirit of constitutional republicanism).

Unfortunately, the U.S. Justice Department has a decades-old internal policy which argues that a sitting president cannot be indicted, dating back to 1973. In the midst of the Watergate scandal engulfing President Richard Nixon, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel adopted in an internal memo the position that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

“The spectacle of an indicted president still trying to serve as Chief Executive boggles the imagination,” the memo stated.

The Justice Department reaffirmed the policy in a 2000 memo, saying court decisions in the intervening years had not changed its conclusion that a sitting president is “constitutionally immune” from indictment and criminal prosecution.

The full article is available here

Trump & His Supporters: The Cruelty Is The Point - Adam Serwer in The Atlantic

The cruelty of the Trump administration's policies, and the ritual rhetorical flaying of his targets before his supporters, are intimately connected.

We can hear the spectacle of cruel laughter throughout the Trump era.  The Trump-supporter community is built by rejoicing in the anguish of those they see as unlike them.  They have found in their shared cruelty an answer to the loneliness and atomization of modern life (and/or late stage capitalism).

This reflects a clear, guiding principle to this community: Only Trump and his allies, his supporters, and their anointed are entitled to the rights and protections of law (and immunity from it if necessary).  The rest of us are entitled only to cruelty, by their whim. 

This how the powerful have ever kept the powerless divided and in their place, and enriched themselves in the process.  Trump's ability to get away with graft, corruption, and fraud is tied to cruelty.

The cruelty of the Trump administration's policies, and the ritual rhetorical flaying of his targets before his supporters, are intimately connected.  His cruelty makes his supporters feel good, it makes them feel proud, it makes them feel happy, it makes them feel united. 

So long as Trump continues to cause them to feel that way, his supporters will let him get away with anything, no matter who it harms or even if it costs them.

The full article is available here

Trump’s Duplicity On Anti-Semitism - Rabbi Danya Rattenberg

Trump, who referred to white supremacists who chanted “Jews will not replace us” in Charlottesville two years ago as “very fine people,” insists that the Democrats have become an “an anti-Jewish party” now.

Trump has also retweeted white nationalists who accuse Jewish businessman George Soros of paying Central American migrants to form caravans and “invade” the United States. The ancient myth that we Jews are the villains behind the scenes, running things in secret, continues to persist in our society.

Also, consider that Trump's using of antisemitism isn't meant to pander to Jews (except maybe Sheldon Adelson) so much as to his Evangelical base, which cares for us only insofar as we are useful instruments for them and not for ourselves.

The full article is available here

The Mixed Bag of Republican Party with Race and Helping Those At The Bottom - Heather Cox Richardson

Cherry-picked versions of GOP history argue that the party has been unchanging in its support for black rights and ordinary U.S. Citizens, but that's just not right.

The long history of the GOP has been both glorious - as they argue - and sordid.

From 1860 to 1864, the new Republican party put the federal government to work for ordinary white men rather than oligarchs. It gave out land, provided education, invented national taxation (including what would become the IRS), all while fighting for the nation.

After the war - when Andrew Johnson tried to resurrect the pre-war world, minus the slavery that had supported the rich southerners he hated, and Democrats signed on - the Republicans passed the 14th and 15th Amendments, providing for black male citizenship and guaranteeing black male voting.

If only we could stop right there, all the threads you read about the glorious Republican Party would be true.  But as we know, many years have come and gone between 1870 and 2019.

Former Confederates hated black voting, but organizing as the Ku Klux Klan had backfired. So they started to say they weren't racists ... they were "fiscally conservative." They complained that poor blacks elected leaders who promised schools, roads, hospitals, and so on were using their tax dollars for socialism.

In 1872, a GOP faction wanting to replace U.S. Grant sided with the Democrats to argue that protecting black rights was communism.  To win reelection, Grant needed to cozy up to Wall Street, which would give him the money to offset the anti-Grant newspapers.

Grant won, and the GOP began to interpret their pro-ordinary man ideology as pro-prosperity, which increasingly meant passing laws to protect business. This meant tariffs, above all, for they protected businesses from foreign competition. But protecting labor was "socialism."

By the 1900s, the GOP worked for big business, crushing ordinary farmers and workers. The 1917 Bolshevik Revolution was another rhetorical boogeyman that the well-heeled portion of the GOP could use to claim that activist government was socialism and a ruse to redistribute tax money to black people and immigrants who were ruining American traditions.

In the aftermath of the Great Depression, FDR's New Deal regulated business and finance, protected basic social welfare, and promoted infrastructure. Even most GOP recognized their old system was a disaster, and backed active government.

But the pro-big business Hoover faction of the GOP, led now by William H. Taft's son Senator Robert Taft (OH), still hated the New Deal's active government and set out to erase it. They were so convinced that US citizens hated this "socialism" they assumed they would defeat Truman in 1948.

When Eisenhower ran for the GOP nomination in 1952, the Hoover/Taft faction blamed the "Eastern Establishment" for stealing the nomination. Moderates had won, but Taft was irate and his men vowed revenge.  In Arizona senator Barry Goldwater, they found a powerful figure to carry out their agenda.

The full thread is available here

The Dictatorship of Ignorance in the Age of Trump - Henry Giroux in Tikkun

"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can have." - James Baldwin

We are witnessing the closing of the political coupled with explicit expressions of cruelty and “widely sanctioned ruthlessness.”

Moreover, the very conditions that enable people to make informed decisions are under siege as schools are defunded, media becomes more corporatized, oppositional journalists are killed, and reality TV becomes the model for mass entertainment.

Under the reign of corporatist neoliberalism - with its antithesis for community and embrace of deregulation, privatization, downsizing and consumerism - individuals are left to find sanctuary in the feudal orbits of self-interest, a selfie culture, and individualistic rather than social goals.

As public values, trust, solidarities, and modes of education are under siege, the authoritarian discourses of hate, racism, rabid self-interest, and greed are gaining traction. Under such circumstances, civic illiteracy substitutes opinions for informed arguments and works to erase collective memory (for example, the revisionist history of Trump-supporting right wing polemicists like Dinesh D'Souza, Dennis Prager, Candace Owens, and David Barton, etc.).

As market mentalities and moralities tighten their grip on all aspects of society, democratic institutions and public spheres are being downsized, if not altogether disappearing. As these institutions vanish — from public schools and alternative media to health care centers — there is also a serious erosion of the discourses of community, justice, equality, public values, and the common good.

This grim reality has been called by Alex Honneth a “failed sociality” - a failure in the power of the civic imagination, political will and open democracy. It is also part of a politics that strips the social of any democratic ideals and undermines any understanding of education as a public good.

There is an urgent political need for a public to understand what it means for an authoritarian society to both weaponize and trivialize the discourse, vocabularies, images, and aural means of communication in a society.

The full article is available here

A Guide to Your Rights When Interacting with Law Enforcement - Catholic Immigration Network

Undocumented immigrants and their families have rights. These "Know Your Rights" resources are available in multiple languages and include pictures and explanations of the different warrants that officials may use in immigration enforcement actions.

The full guide is available here

Trump Incorrectly Rants About Article 2 - Splinter News

Speaking about Special Counsel Robert Mueller with reporters outside the White House today, Trump ranted about  “a thing called Article II”—presumably meaning the section of the Constitution on presidential authority.

“Nobody ever mentions Article II,” Trump continued. “It gives me all of these rights at a level that nobody has ever seen before.”

In fact, Article II gives him “rights” at exactly the same level as every other president for the past 200+ years.  Also it is chock full of very clearly enumerated limits to his power, as well as the basis by which he can be removed from office through impeachment.

The full article is available here

U.S. Women Dying Even A Year After Giving Birth - Huffpost

“The United States is the only developed country in the world where the maternal mortality rate is increasing, particularly among women of color — and lack of postpartum support is a major contributing factor.”

The full article is available here

Trump Administration's Citizenship Question for Census: Bad Faith Mockery Of Law

Every single thing about the way the Trump administration has handled the citizenship question - from its origins, to its lies before Congress and courts, to this latest chapter where Trump’s impulsivity had DOJ lawyers scrambling to explain to courts that they weren’t trying to mislead them - has been rife with egregious bad faith and mockery of the law.

The full article is available here

Border Patrol Agent Secret Facebook Group Joked About Migrant Deaths, Posted Sexist Memes - MSN

Group members joked about the deaths of migrants.

A private Facebook group of 9,500 current and former Border Patrol agents had extremely troubling xenophobic, sexist, and dehumanizing content.

Group members joked about the deaths of migrants, discussed throwing burritos at Latino members of Congress visiting a detention facility in South Texas on Monday, and posted a vulgar illustration depicting Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez engaged in oral sex with a detained migrant, according to screenshots of their postings.

One user posted a manipulated image showing President Trump forcing Ocasio-Cortez to perform oral sex on him. Like I said, pretty vile. Here as elsewhere, the outspoken congresswoman is a favored target for gendered abuse.

In early 2018, federal investigators found a raft of disturbing and racist text messages sent by Border Patrol agents in southern Arizona after searching the phone of Matthew Bowen, an agent charged with running down a Guatemalan migrant with a Ford F-150 pickup truck. The texts, which were revealed in a court filing in federal court in Tucson, described migrants as “guats,” “wild a** s***bags,” “beaners” and “subhuman.” The messages included repeated discussions about burning the migrants up.

The full article is available here

Liberal Democracy in Danger: Putin Is Its Enemy & Trump Agrees With Him - Heather Cox Richardson

In 2019, we have a Republican president who is so steeped in Movement Conservative Plutocratic rhetoric - which deems all Democrats and Moderate Republicans to be "dangerous liberals" - that he has lost touch with our founding principles. He agreed with Putin, a geopolitical enemy, that western liberalism is obsolete.

Here we are, with the autocrat Putin telling us our days are over, and our president agreeing as he misunderstands the comment. How did we get here?

After WWII, a few leading men hated the idea that the government would reflect new voters: people of color and women.

As government increasingly supported schools, hospitals, and clean cities, and as it regulated business, protected workers from dangerous workplaces, mandated minimum wages and maximum hours, and required businesses to clean up the pollution they put into the public environment, these men began to argue that anyone who wanted to expand the liberal idea was, in fact, a dangerous "socialist" or "communist."

Since it was quite clear that no one was arguing for the hallmark of those systems of government - they both depend on public ownership of businesses - they argued that the taxes necessary to pay for government programs redistributed wealth from rich to poor.

They insisted that anyone who reinforced the idea of western liberalism - Republicans and Democrats both - were dangerous "Liberals." By demonizing their opponents, that fringe group of businessmen came to dominate the Republican Party, and to take over America.

Now, in 2019, we have a Republican president who is so steeped in that rhetoric he has lost touch with our founding principles. He agreed with a geopolitical enemy that western liberalism is obsolete.

Putin's comment was not about politics; it was about the future of humanity. The head of an enemy power has taunted us with the idea that the principles on which the United States' democratic experiment was founded are "obsolete."

Clearly, Putin prefers his own authoritarian system that sets up a few people over the rest of the population. Putin has turned Russian into a deadly oligarchy in which he and his cronies hold all the power. Do we want the same?!?

The full article is available here

In 1922, My Great Grandmother Wasn't Going To Be Allowed Into U.S. With Her Husband and 6 Children - Jeff Wiersma

It is only because a person with enough financial means agreed to be her sponsor that the officials at Ellis Island reversed their ruling and allowed my Great Grandmother Sadie to enter the United States.

My Great Grandfather, Louis Jacob Wiersma, immigrated to the U.S. from Holland with his wife and 7 children in 1922. (Cornelius, in center of photo to the left, is my late Grandfather).

Louis left his homeland due to the economic woes that followed World War I - a situation so bad that his cousin - who was already in the United States - urged him to immigrate so that his family of 8 wouldn't starve!

Being that Louis was laborer and not a land-owning aristocrat, the family of 8 had to make the trans-Atlantic trip down in steerage as 3rd class passengers.

Before arriving at Ellis Island, they were split up by people called groupers into different groups; first by boat, then into women and children, and men, and then into smaller groups of about thirty or so. (In that era, they weren't treated as criminals and were assured that they would be reunited as a family after processing).

Once the boat finally arrived at Ellis Island, they were all examined by U.S. doctors. The first federal immigration laws passed in 1882 prohibited anyone who was physically incapable of taking care of themselves.

My Great Grandmother, Sadie, was detained since she had a limp that was the result of an early childhood injury. SHE WAS NOT GOING TO BE ALLOWED INTO THE UNITED STATES.

This mean that the family of 8 would either (a) have to all return to Holland and potential starvation or (b) only send Sadie back, meaning Louis and his 7 kids would enter the US without their wife/mother.

Fortunately, a member of the Kroll family came to Ellis Island from Whitinsville and promised to serve as her sponsor. It is only because a person with enough financial means agreed to be her sponsor that the officials at Ellis Island reversed their ruling and allowed my Great Grandmother Sadie to enter the United States.

It's no wonder that people today fleeing starvation being called "rapists," "thugs," "not the best being sent" and "animals" upsets me so much! No wonder families being forcefully separated at the border has me emotionally distraught!

Some Thoughts On Interacting With People We Have Political Differences With - Jeff Wiersma

I really, really enjoy debating and discussing ideas and issues. I've always found it enlivening to drill down to the core of the beliefs that we hold and philosophies that we adhere to. I've always been interested in ultimate questions and examining given assumptions.

The reality of life is that not every operates from the same ethical and philsophical framework.  People who see things through differing lenses are bound to arrive at different conclusions, and this what often stirs debate and discussion.

Sometimes, I've debate and discussed in a productive manner. Sometimes, I have fallen short of engaging in a productive manner. It turns out that I'm not perfect; but I do try to at least be aware of when I've missed the mark and to own up to it.

In reflecting on the instances when discussion and dialogue went well, the following thoughts occurred to me.

* We can agree to disagree with those of different beliefs. 

* However, dehumanization need not be tolerated. Beliefs which deny the full humanity of all (and thereby deny equal protections to those deemed less-than-fully-human) are necessarily inferior ethically to those which recognize the full humanity of all. The negating of someone’s existence goes well beyond differences of opinion. 

* Someone’s continued and unrepentant use of dehumanizing rhetoric and bad faith arguments are legitimate grounds for ending discussion with them, but never for completely writing off those that utilize them in their entirety. The future is not fixed - and though it is more rare than one would hope - people do change their minds.

* Be discerning about who is able to engage in intellectually honest dialogue and who is unable to, and then proceed accordingly.

* Fact check what you say before putting it out there. Having accurate and verifiable citations from trustworthy sources helps bring objective clarity to otherwise subjective discussion.  

* An effective approach to stated opinions that don’t hold up to scrutiny and fact-checking is to ask clarifying questions. Why does the party that offers untenable and disprovable opinions believe that what they claim is the case? This can be helpful to getting down to the nitty gritty of the fear that is steering the ship. 

* Impact always takes priority over intent. Whether on not one intended to cause offense with a statement; if its impact made the recipient feel badly, an apology for that causing that impact is the appropriate response. 

* Assertively stating and defending one’s beliefs doesn’t mean one has to be disagreeable. Being assertive is the healthy middle ground between being passive and being aggressive.

* Good faith debate is only possible with intellectual honesty. It's often the case that many things that we believe to be true are based merely on what we wish to be true or what we feel should be true. Good faith debate requires moving beyond unexamined and rote statements of opinion.

* Ignorance is not an excuse. Beliefs held for ideological reasons - but lacking an awareness of the negative impacts their resultant policies have on marginalized groups - are not a carte blanche; even if there was no intent to be harmful.  

Even POW's Are Guaranteed Hygene Items That Trump Thinks Detained Kids Don't Need

Children At Risk In U.S. Border Jails - Human Rights Watch

“A pediatric emergency physician at Stanford who formed part of our team, told me if a child came into her emergency room and reported this kind of treatment, she would be obligated to report it as child neglect."

The full article is available here

The Youngest Child Separated From His Family at the Border Was 4 Months Old - NY Times

“At the airport, Constantin’s father refused to board the plane without his infant son. The immigration officers, he said, told that his infant son would be handed to him once he took his seat. But the plane lifted off and the baby never came.”

The full article is available here

‘Never again’ means nothing if Holocaust analogies are always off limits - Rabbi Danya Rattenberg

We know that the path to atrocity can be a process and that the Holocaust began with dehumanizing propaganda, with discriminatory laws, with roundups and deportations, and with internment. Those things are happening in our country now!

If done with caution, Holocaust analogies can be useful. Looking at Holocaust history — thoughtfully, carefully — can help us to see the parallels between then and now.

It can also help us to understand when those parallels are not apt, and what that does and doesn’t mean about news as it breaks.

Of course, analogies are imperfect, and every situation has its own nuances and context, but looking at monstrous events of the past can help us understand where we are in ways that can be difficult to see in the day-to-day.

We must remember that the Holocaust didn’t begin with gas chambers, and it’s not business as usual in U.S. right now.  We already know that the path to atrocity can be a process, and that the Holocaust began with dehumanizing propaganda, with discriminatory laws, with roundups and deportations, and with internment.

Those things are happening in our country now, and they’re known as some of the stages of genocide first articulated by Genocide Watch in 1996.

The full article is available here

Impeachment, Trump, and The Rule of Law - Heather Cox Richardson

According to a court filing from Trump's lawyers, his justification for refusing to cooperate at all with any investigations is that Congress cannot investigate the president. Trump and his lawyers believe that he is above the law.

This is a line many Republicans are now also taking. Since they're unable to deny that Trump is lawless, they are simply adopting Nixon's argument that when the president does something, it's not illegal.

Republican members of Congress are are abetting the rise of a dictator.
And remember this: as soon as he is not in office, he's in trouble. This equation makes it reasonable to think that his "jokes" about staying in office permanently are not a joke.

This is exactly why the Founders came up with the concept of impeachment, a way to remove a bad president without criminal penalties.

The full article is available here

In Court, Trump Administration Argues Detained Migrant Children Don't Need Soap, Toothbrushes - Newsweek

“The Trump administration went to court this week to argue that migrant children detained at the United States-Mexico border don’t need basic hygiene products like soap and toothbrushes in order to be in held in ‘safe and sanitary’ conditions. Trump's team also argued that requiring minors to sleep on cold concrete floors in crowded cells with low temperatures similarly fulfilled that requirement.”

The full article is available here

Expert on Concentration Camps: That's Exactly What U.S. Is Running at Border - Andrea Pitzer

The definition of a concentration camp is mass detention of civilians without trial.  Many of the people housed in the U.S. border detention facilities are not so-called "illegal" immigrants. They are refugees who have committed no crime, yet they are being detained. 

Andrea Pitzer, author of One Long Night: A Global History of Concentration Camps, who has researched instances of concentration camps in France, South Africa, Cuba, the Soviet Union, and - with Japanese internment - the United States.

She contends the U.S. is operating such a system right now at our southern border. 

“We have what I would call a concentration camp system,” Pitzer says, “and the definition of that in my book is, mass detention of civilians without trial.”

Not every concentration camp is a death camp - in fact, their primary purpose isn't extermination, and never in the beginning. Often, much of the death and suffering that occurs is a result of insufficient resources, overcrowding, and deteriorating conditions. 

So far, 24 people have died in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement under the Trump administration, while six children have died in the care of other agencies since September.

Many of the people housed in these facilities are not so-called "illegal" immigrants. If you present yourself at the border seeking asylum, you have a legal right to a hearing under domestic and international law. They are refugees who have not committed a crime and are fleeing violence and persecution.

Yet they are being detained on what increasingly seems to be an indefinite basis.

The full article is available here

What The Nazis Learned From The Early 20th Century Racially-Segregated U.S. - Jessica Blatt

1930's Nazi thinkers and lawmakers were especially drawn to U.S. legal codes based on white supremacy. They also admired the U.S. scientific racists and white-supremacist propagandists of the early 20th century.
Unfortunately, when the Nazis looked at the early 20th-century United States, they were inspired.

The United States' models of legalized racial segregation and discrimination inspired the Nazi lawyers who crafted the Nuremberg laws that stripped German Jews of their citizenship, barred mixed marriages, and prohibited interracial child-bearing.

Nazi lawyers saw the U.S. as the "leading racist jurisdiction," the prototype of a legal regime designed to control "foreign races" living in their midst.

Nazis admired the U.S. scientific racists and white-supremacist propagandists of the early 20th century. Hitler famously admired the United States' "wholesome aversion for the Negroes and the colored race in general."

Hitler's writings and speeches exhibited an approving awareness of the U.S. policies of compulsory sterilization for "undesirable" people, restricting immigration of those that eugenicists deemed to be "inferior races," and the history of exterminatory policies towards Native Americans.

The full article is available here

Reflecting Back On When I Used To Be A Religious Right Pro-Lifer - Jeff Wiersma

My cloistered worldview didn’t understand or account for ectopic pregnancy. It didn’t get the science of fetal heartbeats correct. It didn’t even acknowledge - let alone care to address - policy approaches to systemic issues that have helped other industrialized nations achieve lower abortion rates.

I have a theory that the average Joe/Jane Pro Life person has been ill-equipped to understand the ramifications of the legislation they’re told to support by the politicians and commentators who they listen to.

While the macro forces of Religious Right misogyny need to be resisted strenuously - and the real harm they cause can’t be diminished - I maintain that the everyday Religious Right Pro Life Christian sincerely believe they are standing up for what they genuinely believe is right. 

What am I basing this theory on?  I'm basing it on what I experienced during the time when I was a Religious Right Pro-Lifer.

It's important for those outside of the Religious Right to understand: this subculture encouraged me to give strong deference to authority.  This instruction was often under-girded by the assertion that people in authority only hold their positions because God ordained them to be in power.

I was not encouraged to develop critical thinking skills and was often warned strongly against questioning what leaders and celebrity pastors (who I was told spoke infallibly for God) said or taught.

With the issue of pregnancy specifically, the trouble is that the simple, rigid dualism of that worldview didn't equip me to have a comprehensive view of issue that nuanced. 

My worldview didn’t understand or account for ectopic pregnancy. It didn’t get the science of fetal heartbeats correct. It didn’t even acknowledge - let alone care to address - systemic issues that have helped other industrialized nations achieve lower abortion rates.

What was regularly reinforced to me was that “abortionists” were wantonly cruel murders of babies.  I now see that this was a thoroughly dehumanized caricature, but I simply didn't know any better at the time.

Pregnancy was so politicized and weaponized as a wedge issue that I was rendered wholly incapable of seeing the terrible outcomes of that narrow, reductionist policy agenda.

That ideological bent didn't acknowledge - let alone help me to develop - a consistent ethic of life; one where issues like the lives and health of women while pregnant, climate change, mass incarceration, gun violence, war, capital punishment, and refugee crises constitute a seamless garment of pro-life belief.

And tellingly, there was never any mention of how men - whose "cooperation" is necessary for a pregnancy to occur -  factored into the entire issue.  The entire issue was framed to me as a problem radical feminism and godless, evil liberals.

So, what changed?

Gladly, I eventually saw this worldview for the inadequate construct that it was.  But that process didn't happen automatically. 

It happened because I listened to opposing viewpoints and had civil discussion with people patient enough to push past what I believed, however foolishly, to engage on conceptual, ethical, and philosophical levels.

It happened because I maintained a dogged dedication to intellectual honesty (the truth shall set you free) that ultimately sent me against the strong flow of the Religious Right.

I say this not to pat myself on the back.  In fact, it's still somewhat embarrassing to admit that I once held such misguided beliefs.

Rather, I say it to encourage people not to write off Jon and Jane Doe Pro Life person in the way that I was taught to write off "abortionists" and "crazed feminists" and "evil liberals" by the Religious Right.

While the macro forces of Religious Right misogyny need to resisted strenuously, the everyday people who have been mislead by its rhetoric will only be willing to engage in an exchange of ideas if they aren't dehumanized.

Trump's "Infanticide" Incitement - New York Times

This is the danger of Trump's dishonest incitement and fear-mongering about "infanticide:"

Trump supporter Matthew Haviland: “I will kill every Democrat in the world so we never more have to have our babies brutally murdered by you absolute terrorists.”

The full article is available here 

Stream Chamberlain’s 1st New Song In 9 years, “Some Other Sky,” at Brooklyn Vegan

"Some Other Sky" is the first single from their upcoming album Red Weather, which is being produced by My Morning Jacket guitarist Carl Broemel. Release date still TBA, but the new song comes out as a 7″ single on Friday (4/26) via Arctic Rodeo Recordings, backed by a new acoustic recording of “Street Singer” from 1995’s Fate’s Got a Driver.

“Some Other Sky” continues in the Americana-inspired direction of Chamberlain’s later period, and it’s got a nice mix of atmosphere, pedal steel-fueled twang, and Springsteenian heartland rock, with just a bit of their punk roots shining through.

Stream the new song here

Stream The New Over The Rhine Album at Rolling Stone

Karen Bergquist and Linford Detweiler - who perform as Over The Rhine - are an enduring creative unit who helped revitalize the Cincinnati neighborhood from where they take their name, made fans and friends of songwriting icons Lucinda Williams and Mary Gauthier, have released their 15th studio album, Love & Revelation.

You can stream the album here

Rethinking The Normalization Of Fascism In The Trump Era - Henry Giroux in Tikkun

Trump's ultra-nationalism, racism, policies aimed at social cleansing, his adoration of some of the world's most heinous dictators, and his hatred of democracy (and the rule of law) echoes a period in the 1930's and 40's when the unimaginable became possible; when genocide was the endpoint of dehumanizing others and the mix of nativist and nationalist rhetoric ended in the horrors of the concentration camps.

As historian Timothy Snyder points out, "To abandon facts is to abandon freedom.  If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because the basis upon which to do so has been undercut.  If nothing is true, then all is spectacle."

For US President Donald Trump, lying is rhetorical gimmick in which everything that matters politically is denied, reason loses its power for informed judgments, and language serves to infantilize.  Trump uses lying as a tool of power to discredit any attempt to hold him accountable for his actions, all while destroying those public spheres and institutional foundations necessary for the possibility of a democratic politics.

Fascism begins first with language and then gains momentum as an organizing force for shaping a culture that legitimates indiscriminate violence against entire groups.

Coupled with a society that worships celebrity culture, the power of spectacle makes it easier for Trump and his associates to rehabilitate fascist ideas, principles, and a fascist political culture.

Faux-Populism (also Trump) is the natural outcome of a neoliberal culture of hyper-punitiveness amplified through an ascendant fascist politics that enshrines militarization, privatization, deregulation, manic consumerism, the criminalization/dehumanizing of entire people groups, and the financialization of everything.

This new era of barbarism cannot be understood or addressed without a reminder that fascism has once again crystalized into new forms.  Trump's rhetoric and policies are best understood as a contemporary remnant of the proto-fascist imagination.

While there is obviously no proportional or apples to apples comparison between Trump/other Right Wing Faux Populist and the fascist societies of Hitler, Mussolini, and Pinochet, the basic tenets of extreme nationalism, racism, misogyny, and a hatred of democracy and the rule of law are too similar to ignore.

Trump's ultra-nationalism, racism, policies aimed at social cleansing, his adoration of some of the world's most heinous dictators, and his hatred of democracy (and the rule of law) echoes a period in the 1930's and 40's when the unimaginable became possible; when genocide was the endpoint of dehumanizing others and the mix of nativist and nationalist rhetoric ended in the horrors of the concentration camps.

Neo-nazi and fascist groups have found, in Trump, someone who echoes there rhetoric of "blood and soil" and the "fear of inferior blood" and has brought it to very center of power in the United States.

The full article is available here

The Mueller Report Proves Trump Believes He Is Compromised By Russia - Seth Abramson

No US president can stay in power (avoid impeachment) if they are compromised by a foreign power.

“The Mueller Report reveals that, in the weeks before the 2016 election, Trump believed Kremlin agents held videos of him from a 2013 Moscow trip that could end his candidacy.

That Trump and his fixer Michael Cohen discussed these tapes suggests that they believe - as did the Kremlin agent they were dealing with - that they existed, and that the Kremlin was (through an intermediary) reassuring Trump that the Kremlin agent-held tapes would be suppressed.

The primary ground under which a POTUS could be impeached for an inability to uphold his Oath of Office and secure the national defense - that isn't criminal - is if he has been compromised by a foreign power via blackmail that provably puts him in thrall to a foreign power.

Mueller only put ‘high confidence’ intel in his report, so we know that US law enforcement holds that the Kremlin agent was telling the truth about the videos. And no US president can stay in power (avoid impeachment) if they are compromised by a foreign power. So impeachment is mandated for Trump.”

The full article is available here

The Mueller Report Is Damning Of Trump's Criminality, He Must Be Removed From Office - Jared Yates Sexton

"I don't say this lightly. It makes me unbelievably sad and depressed that this has happened. But we have a criminal president and he must be removed. It has to happen. We are in a crisis. We have to recognize that. Right now, we have a criminally compromised president."

I just finished the Mueller Report. Here are some of the most shocking and important revelations.  Long and short: Donald Trump needs to be removed from office.

Immediately.

I don't say this lightly. It makes me unbelievably sad and depressed that this has happened. But we have a criminal president and he must be removed. It has to happen.

We are in a crisis. We have to recognize that. Right now, we have a criminally compromised president.


The biggest takeaways:

• Mueller wrote this report in such a way as to send a message that the investigation was the be all and end all of this matter.
• Regarding collusion, Mueller repeatedly mentions that he was hindered by the Trump administration either lying or else not providing information. Mueller said that they destroyed evidence and stone walled him. That's why he couldn't establish the collusion charge in totality.
• Regarding obstruction, Mueller was clearly putting the matter in the hands of Congress. The report is a full and explicit layout of impeachable, high crimes.
• When Bill Barr put forth his summary last month, he not only lied; it appears that he actively obstructed justice by misrepresenting the report. This was his attempt to try and save Donald Trump and the administration.

Also significant:

• The Trump Campaign was sometimes receptive when approached by Russia.  Other times they just proceeded with the knowledge that Russia was interfering on their behalf.  They were not ignorant of the fact that Russia was interfering, not at all.
• The Trump Campaign knew that the Democratic National Committee emails were going to be released before they were.  Mueller found that Trump himself was in contact with campaign members and people outside of the campaign in the effort to plan how to capitalize on their release.
• Trump repeatedly told his subordinates to obstruct justice.  He had them contact the principals, including Comey and Flynn, in order to take their temperature and to communicate what Trump thought. 
• Trump wanted to obstruct even more than he did.  The only thing that kept him from doing so was that multiple people declined to perform actions that would make them accessories to a crime. 

The full article is available here

There’s No Such Thing As “Judeo Christian Values” - Rabbi Danya Ruttenburg

“Judeo-Christian” isn’t a thing.  It’s important for interfaith dialogue, coexistence, basic respect, and historical accuracy to not conflate Judaism and Christianity.

The right wing trope of “Judeo-Christian Values” positions Jews and Christians against Muslims and is Islamophobic.

It omits Christian oppression and murder of Jews over more than 1000 years.  It also ignores Jewish civilization worldwide and facts of key Jewish developments in the Middle East and North Africa.

The full article is available here

Prager U Wrong On Republican Southern Strategy: Debunked by Historian Kevin Kruse

Historian Kevin Kruse thoroughly debunks the revisionist history of Dennis Prager regarding the racist Southern Strategy of the Republican Party from the 1960's onward.

This is the basic argument being put forth by Prager U: Long after the Democrats lost the South, a conspiracy of liberal academics and journalists cooked up a theory that didn't reflect what was happening at the time.

For starters, the idea that the "southern strategy" was invented after the fact is deeply ahistorical. There was considerable discussion of it throughout the 1960s, especially within the ranks of the Republican Party.

The video claims there was a conspiracy concocted later by academics, and names three central myths in this conspiracy.

None of the myths that delve into are actually central to the actual scholarship on party realignment, but are imputed to unnamed "left-leaning academic elites."

Also, in an ironic twist, Carol Swain -- the star of the Prager U video -- described the southern strategy in her own book, The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration (2002).

The full article is available here

Candace Owens' false statement that the Southern strategy is a myth - Politifact

During a congressional hearing on hate crimes, Prager U/Turning Point USA’s Candace Owens said that the Republican Party never had a strategy of capitalizing on racism to lure voters.Candace Owens said the Republican’s Southern Strategy is a "myth" that "never happened."

Efforts by the Republican Party - starting in the 1960's - to win over white Southern voters have been documented by scholars for decades.

The strongest evidence that it happened comes from the Republicans who were part of that strategy. There are numerous instances of them talking about the approach in documents or interviews.
The full article is available here

Film Review: Unplanned (Grade = F) - AV Club

Insofar as there is a formal level to this slab of Christian Broadcast Network-like, after-school propaganda - the film Unplanned has greater technical finesse than the truly dreadful 'God's Not Dead' or Left Behind movie franchises.

But there’s not a single scene that speaks to characters with lives outside their streamlined narrative function; they’re performers in a parable traced over a Chick tract.

It's pantomime-villainy characterization.
The full article is available here

Critical Part Of Mueller's Report That AG Barr Didn't Mention - The Atlantic

Barr’s summary does not describe how Mueller investigated or came to explain the many interactions the campaign had with various Russians during the election.

Mueller’s mandate, given to him by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, empowered him to investigate not only any “coordination” between the campaign and Russia, but any “links” between them as well. Barr’s summary does not describe how Mueller investigated or came to explain the many interactions the campaign had with various Russians during the election.

Mueller was empowered to probe the campaign's links to Russia as well as any coordination - which is why his counterintelligence findings are so key. If all we do is apply criminal standards to investigative findings, we are missing the point.

National-security and intelligence experts have said that Mueller’s decision not to charge Trump or his campaign team with a conspiracy is far from dispositive, and that the underlying evidence the special counsel amassed over two years could prove as useful as a conspiracy charge to understanding the full scope of Russia’s election interference in 2016.

A counterintelligence probe would ask more than whether the evidence collected is sufficient to obtain a criminal conviction - it could provide necessary information to the public about why the president is making certain policy decisions.

Trump’s consistent praise of Putin, his pursuit of a massive real-estate deal in Moscow while Russia was waging a hacking and disinformation campaign against the United States in 2016, and the secrecy that continues to surround his conversations with his Russian counterpart have given some in the national-security community pause.

The full article is available here

The William Barr Summary Of The Mueller Report and "Did Not Establish" - The Atlantic

When prosecutors say that an investigation "did not establish" something, that doesn’t mean that they concluded it didn’t happen, or even that they don’t believe it happened.

It means that the investigation didn’t produce enough information to prove that it happened.

Without seeing Mueller’s full report, we don’t know whether this is a firm conclusion about lack of coordination or a frank admission of insufficient evidence.  The difference is meaningful.

The full article is available here

Think We Should Do Away With The Electoral College? Think Again - Red Jahncke

The Constitution provides for a federal republic because if the U.S. were a direct democracy, a few large states could elect a president by themselves. That would be a disservice to the remainder of the nation.

The Electoral College doesn’t reflect one-man-one-vote because it wasn’t designed to. It's a blend of the pure democracy of the U.S. House (with one elector per U.S. representative, each of whom represents about 750,000 Americans today) and our federal system.

As a nation, we are both a democracy and a federation of states. The Electoral College was designed specifically to prevent the tyranny of big states over small states, as was the U.S. Senate, which affords all states, large and small, equal representation.

If we did away with the Electoral College in favor of the national popular vote, the election would still be decided in a handful of states — populous states such as California and New York. Voters in small states would be completely disenfranchised. Candidates would never have to campaign in small states.

The 2000 and 2016 presidential elections are only the fourth and fifth where the winner lost the popular vote, out of 58 contests, with the other three being elections in the 19th century. That means the Electoral College is batting 53 for 58.

The full article is available here

Trump Admits Wall Isn't A National Emergency - USA Today

In his Rose Garden press conference, Trump admitted that he didn't need to declare a national emergency to fund his border wall, but that he did it so he could "get it done faster."

30 minutes into an off-the-cuff defense of his decision to declare a national emergency to help build his border wall, President Donald Trump made an admission that may have handed ammunition to legal opponents of the move.

Trump admitted that he didn't need to declare a national emergency to fund his border wall, but that he did it so he could "get it done faster."

U.S. government data from the southern border indicates the vast majority of narcotics captured at the border is coming in through ports of entry, not the wide swaths of border in between where additional barriers could be erected.

And the number of migrants apprehended for trying to enter the U.S. illegally is significantly less than it was a decade ago.

The full article is available here

The MAGA Hat Boys Aren’t Totally Innocent, But I Feel Empathy Towards Them - Jeff Wiersma

I unfortunately recognize the smug arrogance, the dehumanization and bullying of all that was other, the toxic masculinity and Eurocentric Christendom all too well, because it was my adolescent worldview. 

Despite rejecting the claims of one investigation that found no fault in the Covington Catholic boys’ actions at the National Mall last month (while acknowledging that the so-called "Black Israelite" group were the instigators), and despite my ardent opposition to the Trumpism the boys are caught up in ... I still feel empathy for them.

Why?

Because they’re just like who I was at that age. As a teen, I was a full-fledged, enthusiastic foot soldier for the Religious Right. I was fully convinced that what I learned from those sources was true - that I needed to be fought for in order to save our country from God’s judgment. Obviously I was 100% wrong, but I was naive and took what I was told by those sources at face value.

I unfortunately recognize the smug arrogance, the dehumanization and bullying of all that was other, the toxic masculinity and Eurocentric Christendom all too well, because it was my adolescent worldview.

The only things that rescued my from continuing to be that person were (1) being held accountable for my actions (2) converting from Fundagelicalism to Christianity (3) realigning my political and philosophical beliefs to align with Jesus, not Movement Conservatism.

Given who my parents are - how they’ve always questioned the powers that be and stood up for the least of these - it may have been inevitable that I reformed. It also coincided with maturing from an adolescent to an adult.

BUT it still took being held accountable for the harmful beliefs I took on as truth.

Senate Intelligence Committee Democrats Dispute Claims That Russia Probe Found No Collusion - Mother Jones

"The intelligence committee hasn’t discussed the matter, let alone released a committee report.”
- Senator Angus King (I), Maine

Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee are pushing back on a claim by the panel’s chair, Richard Burr (R-N.C.), that the committee’s two-year investigation has not found “anything that would suggest there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.”

And they dispute an NBC News report saying that Democrats agreed with Burr that they have yet to see clear evidence of a conspiracy between President Donald Trump and Moscow.

“That’s not true,” Sen. Angus King, a Maine independent who caucuses with Democrats, told Mother Jones. “I think it’s misleading. The intelligence committee hasn’t discussed the matter, let alone released a committee report.”

The full article is available here

In Early 70’s, Republicans Favored Abortion & Liked Roe v. Wade. What Changed? - Heather Cox Richardson

The recent disinformation campaign against New York's new abortion law reflects the takeover of the Republican Party by radical Movement Conservatives in the 1970s. It's a story not about principle, but about the pursuit of political power.

In 1971, the evangelical Southern Baptist Convention agreed that abortion should be legal in some cases, and vowed to work for modernization. 

By 1972, Gallup pollsters reported that 64% of Americans agreed that abortion was between a woman and her doctor. 68% of Republicans agreed.

In 1973, the Supreme Court, under Republican Chief Justice Warren Burger, in a decision written by Republican Lewis Blackmun, decided Roe v. Wade, legalizing first-trimester abortion. 

So in the early 70’s, Republicans favored abortion and liked Roe v. Wade. What changed? 

In 1972, Nixon was up for reelection, and he and his people were paranoid that he would lose. Nixon's handler Pat Buchanan was a Goldwater man who wanted to destroy the popular New Deal state that regulated the economy and protected social welfare and civil rights. To that end, he believed Ds and traditional Rs needed to be kept from power and Nixon had to win reelection.

Catholics, who opposed abortion and believed that "the right of innocent human beings to life is sacred," tended to vote for Democratic candidates. Buchanan (himself Catholic), urged Nixon to woo Catholic Democrats before the 1972 election over the issue of abortion. 

Nixon/Buchanan Movement Conservatism wanted to dismantle the active federal government that regulated business, enforced civil rights law, and promoted social welfare. They attacked anyone who supported such a government as immoral. And with the issue of abortion, Movement Conservatives re-framed the entire scope of women's rights around a single use, and as murder, in a cynical power play.

The full article is available here