Today in Blatant Hypocrisy

And who but Tony Perkins, who is still bent out of shape by the Supreme Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. Here's the whole diatribe, via Joe.My.God.:

The Fourth of July is a time of national celebration and commemoration. We rejoice in our liberty and remember those who won our freedoms and have preserved them at great cost. Yet underlying these things is a foundation that must remain strong for “liberty and justice for all” to mean anything.

It’s the rule of law. Law that is fair and impartial, consistent and understandable. Without allegiance to the rule of law, we become a nation where those in power can do what they want without accountability. And in this 244th year of our independence, I fear we are on the brink of that happening.

Last month, the court ruled in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia that the 1964 Civil Rights Act opposing discrimination based on the biological sex of an individual now must mean that “discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote these words, even acknowledges in his decision that the meaning of “sex” in 1964 was not even vaguely connected to homosexuality or transgenderism. In his words, the court “proceeds on the assumption that ‘sex’,” in 1964, referred “only to biological distinctions between male and female.”

America has never been a perfect nation and never will be. But with all our problems, we have made tremendous progress in securing the God-given rights we too often take for granted.

But the exercise of those rights will be increasingly diminished and put in jeopardy if Congress refuses to safeguard them and, instead, allows the Supreme Court to rule however its justices prefer, regardless of the text of the Constitution and the law itself.

I don't know if I have the fortitude this morning to dissect this drivel. Let me just note, as a foundation, that, as usual, Perkins is speaking in code. In this case,"liberty and justice for all": given Perkins' record, we can safely assume that "all" is code for "white, heterosexual Christian men".

And of course, the rest of it bears that out, since it's Perkins' usual attack on gay and trans people, this tine hinging on the meaning of "sex". Perkins, of course, would like us to believe that we live in a world in which nothing changes, or should: attitudes remain carved in stone, and language always means what he thinks it should mean.

And of course, the real world isn't like that. Take, for example, attitudes toward same-sex marriage, one of Perkink's favorite bêtes noires. Pew Research has an instructive article about the change in attitudes on this subject over the past twenty years or so:

One caveat on this: this only notes changes over the past twenty years or so, during the time same-sex marriage was becoming a hot-button issue. It's worth noting that in the period covered by this chart, marriage was already being legalized in various jurisdictions, including the Netherlands (2001), Belgium and several Canadian provinces (2003), and by 2005 was legal in Canada nationally, as well as Spain -- and Massachusetts. If we went back another twenty years, the shift would be much more dramatic.

Perkin's major beef (this time) is with the Court's interpretation of the word "sex" as denoting a protected class in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He maintains that Congress intended it to mean biological sex and nothing more. (And have you noticed the reverence with which the evangelicals regard biological sex?) The Obama administration, which first included gay and trans people in the definition of sex discrimination, quite rightly interpreted "sex" to include characteristics normally associated with one sex or the other. Thus, if you can't fire a woman for marrying a man, you can't fire a man for doing the same. This is the reasoning that Justice Gorsuch included in his opinion. Does anyone think that the meaning hasn't changed in 56 years, with the progress made in gay rights and now being made in trans rights? Only Perkins and his ilk, apparently.

At any rate, that's the story on the latest bullshit from Perkins, one of the most mendacious people in the public sphere. I guess he needs money.

Today in Disgusting People

Actually, it's not just a person, it's a whole organization. The "American" "Family" Association is in full pearl-clutching mode over a new PBS series:

PBS is going all out in the month of June to celebrate LGBTQ+ Pride Month by launching a six-episode series of short videos on a dedicated YouTube Channel created by its Digital Studios.

Each Tuesday, beginning May 26, PBS will release a Prideland vignette focusing on an LGBTQ+ person and how that person deals with the ever-changing attitudes of Southern communities toward homosexual lifestyles.

On June 12, PBS will offer its member television stations the opportunity to air a one-hour companion special featuring series host and homosexual activist Dyllón Burnside. PBS’s decision to partner with Burnside to push the homosexual agenda is an unjust attack on Christianity and a mockery of the Bible and God’s design for human sexuality.

Sadly, PBS is proudly promoting a lifestyle that is unhealthy to both the individual who participates in the unnatural sexual behavior and to society as a whole.

In 2020, PBS received $445 million in taxpayer funding. This means you and I are directly paying for PBS to insult our faith and scoff at our God. I hope you will take a moment to let PBS know you oppose its support and promotion of this series.

Once again, we get a full dose of the arrogance and self-importance that seem to be a basic component of certain brands of "Christianity". As an example, here's the key comment:

PBS’s decision to partner with Burnside to push the homosexual agenda is an unjust attack on Christianity and a mockery of the Bible and God’s design for human sexuality.

So, doing a series on a historically persecuted group -- persecuted by the likes of the AFA -- is an "attack on Christianity". In fact, anyone who disagrees with them or dares to express a different viewpoint is attacking their religion. This, of course, is just a repeat of their "poor persecuted Christians" mantra -- from a group that has no claim to be actual followers of Christ and that is part of the evangelical movement that's managing to infiltrate all levels of government.

Oh, that the taxpayers whose dollars are being used to fund this endeavor include LGBT+ individuals and allies. The AFA, by the way, is not one of those taxpayers -- it's incorporated as a 501(c)3 charitable organization, which means it's tax-exempt. And it's a hate group, listed by the SPLC.

In other words, AFA was founded and is run by power-hungry hypocrites who use distortions, misrepresentations and outright lies to push their agenda, which itself is simply to take over control of what you read, watch, and think.

It occurs to me that Hitler had the support of the churches in German, and Mussolini had a treaty with the Vatican. Take that as you will.

WTF? A Twofer

The "Christian" apologists are out in full force, and even more clueless than ever. First, Glenn Beck, from a diatribe against Pete Buttigieg:

You can’t pick and choose if you’re going to use the Bible.

As if every Christian throughout the history of the religion hasn't done just that.

And even more unhinged, Bill Donohue:

There is a reason the Diocese of Harrisburg filed for bankruptcy the day after the Boy Scouts of America did: both have been targeted by lawyers who have a profound hatred of institutions that promote traditional moral values. It is incontestable that no religious organization is known for doing this more than the Catholic Church, and no secular organization can rival the Boy Scouts on this score.

It would be interesting to learn a bit more about what Donohue considers "traditional moral values". I had never heard that they included raping boys put in your care.

Words fail me.

Turn Off Your Irony Meter (Update)

Apparently Christianity Today, which has long been a mouthpiece for conservative "Christians", has done the unforgivable:

Just in from hate group leader Tony Perkins:

Yesterday, Mark Galli, the outgoing editor-in-chief of Christianity Today published a scathing editorial calling for President Trump to be removed from office. Within hours, the article went viral as the mainstream media rushed to capitalize on what they believed was an opportunity to exploit a divide in President Trump’s evangelical supporters.

But anyone following Christianity Today shouldn’t be surprised by the magazine’s public backing of impeachment. In 2016, CT’s executive editor denigrated Christians who supported then-candidate Trump weeks before the general election, writing: “Enthusiasm for a candidate like Trump gives our neighbors ample reason to doubt that we believe Jesus is Lord.”

What's happening to the evangelical movement? First it was Chick-fil-A tapering off their donations to anti-gay hate groups, then the Hallmark Channel restoring a commercial with a lesbian kiss (in spite of the outrage expressed by another hate group), and now this!

This is the part that got my irony meter whirling out of control:

Dismissing the genuine concerns of millions of evangelicals and publicly questioning their commitment to Christ signaled an out-of-touch, ivory-tower elitism completely out of step with Jesus’ own command to love one another (John 13:34).

(Emphasis added.)

(Perkins always likes the sprinkle his press releases with references to Bible verses. I guess we're supposed to be impressed by that. To me, at least, it doesn't mask the fact that he has built his career on the exact antithesis of Christ's teachings.)

There's a lot of speculation that the evangelical movement is starting to unravel, and, at least in part, that might be the case: the wing that is sincere in their beliefs may very well be alarmed at the polls showing the majority's low opinion of Christianity, largely due to the efforts of Perkins and his ilk. The political wing is obviously alarmed at the openness of dissent, and feels they have to quash it to maintain their own credibility.

Oh, well -- pass the popcorn.

Update: There's more information on this whole flap at Crooks and Liars, including Franklin Graham's reaction (his father founded the magazine) and the oop-ed writer's reaction to Trump's rage tweets.

Today in Christian Love

You may or may not have been following the Chick-fil-A story, but here's a short summary: Earlier this month, Chick-fil-A, which had gained more than a little notoriety for donating heavily to anti-gay groups, announced a change in its charitable giving priorities:

Starting in 2020, the Chick-fil-A Foundation is introducing a more focused giving approach to provide additional clarity and impact with the causes it supports. Staying true to its mission of nourishing the potential in every child, the Chick-fil-A Foundation will deepen its giving to a smaller number of organizations working exclusively in the areas of education, homelessness and hunger.

(Emphasis in original.)

The outrage in "Christian" circles is way up on the Richter scale, with such luminaries as Tony Perkins, the group that Joe Jervis calls the "red-caped Catholic loons" (for the life of me, I can't remember the organization's real name), Charlie Kirk (whoever he is), and Bryan Fischer calling for a boycott. It seems that not only was the company to cease giving to bigoted groups such as the Salvation Army (remember when during the Bush administration, the SA tried to get an exemption from non-discrimination laws?), but actually donated to the "god-hating" SPLC (one of the oldest and most respected civil rights organizations, which has the temerity to call out hate groups -- so designated as a result of their own words and actions). (Interestingly enough, all the stories I can find on that donation are at right-wing sources; I'm not going to link to any of them, because they have very little contact with reality -- the only thing they seem to have reported accurately is the fact of the donation and the amount -- a very modest $2500.)

And we all know how effective boycotts by the "Christian" right have been.

Anyway, according to Snopes, that's not exactly the case.

What's True

The Chick-fil-A Foundation's November 2019 announcement of a new charitable-donations strategy meant the Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, both high-profile groups that have been criticized in the past as anti-LGBT, would no longer receive funding in 2020.

What's False

However, the new donations strategy also meant several dozen other groups — with no anti-LGBT record — would not receive funding in 2020 either, and so the strategy does not appear to have been targeted specifically at the Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Further, Chick-fil-A has repeatedly declined to specify that the cut to the controversial groups' funding was linked to their LGBT-rights records, and a company spokesperson would not rule out the possibility that the groups could receive funding again in the future.

So once again, there's a lot of manufactured outrage over something that didn't actually happen. I guess someone's not been getting enough attention lately.

And do notice how these "Christians" are reacting to a donation policy focusing on education, homelessness, and hunger. True followers of Jesus, right?

Compare and Contrast

The difference couldn't be more stark.

First, well-known "Christian" con man, hypocrite and Trump sycophant, Franklin Graham:

Here’s a topic that probably won’t be mentioned in the upcoming Democratic debate. An incredible 2.4 million cases of sexually transmitted diseases were diagnosed across the U.S. just last year alone. Hollywood is busy promoting promiscuity to the world—almost every movie, every television show is focused on sex. The saying goes, ‘sex sells.’ Well, the statistics in the CNN article verify that there’s a price to pay, and it is a very heavy price. God made us male and female and gave sex for us to enjoy inside a marriage relationship between a man and a woman—not two men, not two women. The Bible says that anyone who sins sexually, sins against their own body. How true. What’s the protection the world is looking for? It’s simple—follow God’s guidelines. Have only a monogamous relationship with your husband or wife.

Interestingly enough, if you look up the CDC's statistics on incidence of STDs, the Bible-belt states are pretty much up there toward the top in each category.

And then there's someone who actually walks the walk: Tyler Perry has opened a new studio complex, with a few additional facilities planned:

Tyler Perry opened Tyler Perry Studios over the weekend, a 330-acre complex with 12 sound stages in Atlanta on a former military base that was once a stronghold for the Confederacy.

Perry said he has big plans for the complex, which is larger than California lots owned by Warner Brothers, Paramount, and Walt Disney Studios combined.

Said Perry: “You know, the studio’s gonna be what it is. I’ll tell you what I’m most excited about next is pulling this next phase off, is building a compound for trafficked women, girls, homeless women, LGBTQ youth who are put out and displaced… somewhere on these 330 acres, where they’re trained in the business and they become self-sufficient.”

Which one would you rather hang out with?

Sycophant du Jour

Franklin Graham has really jumped on the Trump bandwagon -- maybe he's trying to displace Robert Jeffress as the apple of Trump's eye. This is just a sample of the BS he's come out with recently:

Evangelist Franklin Graham issued a dire warning about the fate of the United States, should the presidential impeachment inquiry started by the U.S. House lead to President Donald Trump’s ouster. “Our country could begin to unravel if an elected president is thrown out of office because of lies and the media,” said Graham, president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, in an interview.

“It could be a devastating thing. We’re in very dangerous territory. I would encourage all the politicians to look very carefully at where we are and first of all make sure that truth is told.” Graham, a staunch Trump supporter, said the impeachment inquiry about Trump’s interactions with the leader of Ukraine was a political move by a party that refuses to accept Trump’s victory three years ago.

This sort of kicks Newspeak up an order of magnitude -- "We have always been at war with Eastasia."

What he's afraid is going to unravel is the goal he and his fellow-travelers have been working toward for decades -- since Ronald Reagan and the "Moral Majority", at least: a theocracy with evangelical "Christians" pulling the strings of whatever puppet they manage to install. All that is, to their way of thinking, nearly accomplished, thanks to Trump, who really is a figurehead at this point, Moscow Mitch, Vladimir Putin, and who knows who else working very quietly to transform this country into something out of the Old Testament.

Today iIn Bald-Faced Liars

And of course, it's an evangelical preacher -- none other than Robert Jeffress:

There is no such thing as a separation of church and state in the Constitution. We have allowed the secularists, the atheists, the humanists to hijack our Constitution and pervert it into something our forefathers never intended.

And I’m gonna say this. I’m gonna say this, and it may cost me some book sales, but I’m gonna say it anyway. Thank God we have a president like Donald J. Trump who understands that. I don’t like seeing my friend under attack like he is under right now, but I don’t like the prospect of what’s going to happen in America if we allow the left to seize control of this country again.

And I believe one of the great ironies of history is gonna be this: When the historians look back, they are gonna say with great surprise, that it was a secular, billionaire real estate tycoon from New York City who became the most pro-life, pro-religious liberty, and pro-Israel president in history.

I have a couple of quotes for Mr. Jeffress. The first is from Amendment I to the Constitution of the United States of America, which begins:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . .

The second is from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists:

. . . I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Now, you may recall that Jefferson, aside from being the third president of the United States, had also served in several capacities in previous administrations, including vice president and secretary of state. He was also, while American envoy to France, in close touch with the framers of the Constitution, so I suspect he had a fairly good idea of what it meant. (And no, as long as we're on the subject, America was quite deliberately not founded as a "Christian nation.")

As for the rest of the drivel -- well, can you say "sycophant"?

There's video at the link, if you can stand it.

Today in Right-Wing Hypocrisy

From none other than the holotype of bigoted, hypocritical "Christian":

Sessions was speaking at the Boston Lawyers chapter of the Federalist Society when a man, later identified as United Methodist Pastor Will Green of Ballard Vale United Church in Andover, Mass., interrupted with quoted lines from the Bible.

“I was hungry and you did not feed me. I was a stranger and you did not welcome me. I was naked and you did not clothe me,” Green said. “Brother Jeff, as a fellow United Methodist I call upon you to repent, to care for those in need, to remember that when you do not care for others, you are wounding the body of Christ.”

The pastor was then escorted from the room. Another pastor, identified as Darrell Hamilton of First Baptist Church of Boston, also addressed Sessions and was escorted out.

That quote is from Matthew 25, and is my favorite to throw in the face of these anti-immigrant neo-fascists. But Sessions' response is priceless:

"I don't believe there's anything in my theology that says a secular nation-state cannot have lawful laws to control immigration in this country. That’s what we’re talking about," Sessions said. "It’s not immoral, not indecent and not unkind to state what your laws are and then set about to enforce them, in my view. I feel like that’s my responsibility and that’s what I intend to do.”

That's one of the smarmiest things I've heard from Sessions, who is also the type specimen of smarmy.

So, suddenly the U.S. is a "secular nation"; funny, I could swear that we're a "Christian" nation. And by the way, they're not enforcing the laws; they're making it up as they go along. Note: "the law" is as follows:

8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum

(a) Authority to apply for asylum

(1) In general

Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.

What Trump, et al. are trying to do is circumvent the law to keep their racist, isolationist base happy. That's all.

Footnote: Scrolling down through the Code section, I ran across this. Hide your irony meter:

(2) Exceptions

(A) In generalParagraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that—

(i) the alien ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion;

Pity the Trump cultists aren't trying to emigrate. Oh, well, you can't have everything.

Via Joe.My.God.

Today in Right-Wing Civility

Junior on the attack:

Donald Trump Jr. blasted Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) at a boisterous rally in his home state on Friday, calling him a “piece of garbage” for sinking Navy Rear Adm. Ronny Jackson’s nomination to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs earlier this year.

Trump Jr., who headlined a rally for Tester's GOP Senate rival Matt Rosendale and Rep. Greg Gianforte (R), slammed Tester over Jackson's failed VA nomination, saying the Democratic senator had “ruined this guy’s life" after a bitter confirmation process.

President Trump's eldest son accused Tester, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, of putting out “all sorts of baseless accusations” on the orders of Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.).

Do I really need to say anything?

Via Joe.My.God.

Idiot du Jour, Trump Family Edition

Looks like Eric is making a strong bid for dumbest Trump:

It is a very scary day for America when the House Minority Leader threatens to weaponize the legal system against political rivals using “Subpoena Power”. This is what they do in third world countries. Disgusting concept and a slippery slope that America wants no part of. https://t.co/XmsOxf6Zte

— Eric Trump (@EricTrump) October 22, 2018

Anyone who passed a civic class in high school knows what a load that one is.

And as for McDaniel's tweet, I have one word: "Benghazi".

Some of the responses are hysterical. Click through to read them all.

Today in "Christian" Values

From none other than Pat Robertson:

Christian evangelist Pat Robertson thinks the apparent assassination of an American journalist by Saudi Arabia isn’t worth jeopardizing “$100 billion worth of arms sales” with the terrorist-friendly nation.

On The 700 Club this week, Robertson called attention to the death of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in a Saudi consulate in Turkey. Khashoggi was reportedly killed, beheaded, and dismembered by Saudi agents, but Robertson is worried about the possibility of a deteriorating relationship with Saudi Arabia… because gun deals. . . .

“For those who are screaming blood for the Saudis — look, these people are key allies,” Robertson said. While he called the faith of the Wahabists — the hardline Islamist sect to which the Saudi Royal Family belongs — “obnoxious,” he urged viewers to remember that “we’ve got an arms deal that everybody wanted a piece of…it’ll be a lot of jobs, a lot of money come to our coffers. It’s not something you want to blow up willy-nilly.”

It's no wonder he supports Trump -- they think alike.

Today in "Real Christians"

Most of them are more subtle than this:

Evangelicalism’s newfound obsession with the notion of ‘social justice’ is a significant shift — and I’m convinced it’s a shift that is moving many people (including some key evangelical leaders) off message, and onto a trajectory that many other movements and denominations have taken before, always with spiritually disastrous results.

So much for "love thy neighbor" -- and just forget about Mark 25. (I wonder if this guy has even read the Gospels)

And just out of curiosity, if it's not social justice, just what is the "message"?

Today's Must-Read: Trump and the "Christians"

Digby has a must-read post on the reasons why the "Christian" right supports Trump. It boils down to a very simple summary: Roe v. Wade:

It's easy to see why they love Trump so much. He's a kindred spirit: a liar and a con man. They love liars and con men:

For evangelical Christian leaders like Jerry Falwell Jr., this is their political holy grail.

Like many religious conservatives in a position to know, the Liberty University president with close ties to the White House suspects that the Supreme Court vacancy President Donald Trump fills in the coming months will ultimately lead to the reversal of the landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade. But instead of celebrating publicly, some evangelical leaders are downplaying their fortune on an issue that has defined their movement for decades.

“What people don’t understand is that if you overturn Roe v. Wade, all that does is give the states the right to decide whether abortion is legal or illegal,” Falwell told The Associated Press in an interview. “My guess is that there’d probably be less than 20 states that would make abortion illegal if given that right.”

People like Falwell are savvy enough to realize that if they start blowing horns and beating drums, there's going to be a backlash, big time. And overturning Roe is just the first step: in the event that should happen (and I have my doubts), the fight will go to the state houses. And right now, public opinion is against them:

Two-thirds of Americans do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned, according to a poll released Friday by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. Among women of reproductive age, three out of four want the high court ruling left alone. The poll was conducted before Kennedy’s retirement was announced.

There is similar support for same-sex marriage, the "Christian" right's other hot-button issue.

And don't forget that neither of those is an end in itself: they are a means. Watch for more cases centering on what the right calls "religious freedom" (i.e., their right to tell everyone else how to live).

A note: I don't share the widespread fear that Roe and Obergefell are going to be overturned next week. There's a whole process that has to happen, starting with finding someone who can prove they have suffered harm by someone else having an abortion or getting married.

As always, read the whole thing.

Snowflake du Jour

But of course:

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders is expected to receive Secret Service protection as soon as Wednesday, two sources familiar with the decision tell CNN, but they did not specify how long it will last.

The Secret Service declined to comment, telling CNN: "For operational security purposes the Secret Service does not comment on its protective operations."

The news comes days after Sanders was asked to leave a small Lexington, Virginia, restaurant because of her role with the Trump administration, a move that has since sparked a national conversation on civility and public service in the age of Trump.

Here's the best part:

"I was asked to leave because I worked for President Trump," she said, adding, "We are allowed to disagree but we should be able to do so freely and without fear of harm, and this goes for all people regardless of politics."

From a woman whose boss has called for journalists (among others) to be physically attacked, and who has herself called reporters stupid. Hypocrisy, thy name is Legion.

Via Joe.My.God.

And from commenter Doug105 at that post:

 

A reply to that from commenter Paul in Leesburg says that rather than "campaign rallies" they should be called "Nuremberg-style rallies." Works for me.

Today in Disgusting People, Part II

Tony Perkins, of course, who else? Trying to justify Trump's immoral and illegal policy of separating families seeking asylum. Here's his press release, with, as might be expected, one lie after another. (Well, it's Tony Perkins, after all.)

Now that President Trump’s scored big points for his historic meeting with Kim Jong Un, his opponents are desperate to change the subject. Anxious to turn the country’s attention away from the administration’s diplomatic success, they’ve returned to an issue that the Congress has repeatedly failed to resolve — immigration.

Yesterday’s Washington Post got the ball rolling with an inside look at one of the 100 shelters where children, whose parents were arrested for entering America illegally, are housed. The article couldn’t help but tug on heartstrings, since almost 1,500 boys are living in a warehouse-sized summer camp, separated from their parents when they crossed the border illegally. What was once a Walmart super center is now full of classrooms, medical rooms, basketball courts, and even a pool hall.

Juan Sanchez, who manages the nonprofit that’s housing the kids, says that the circumstances are difficult, especially for kids struggling to adapt, but promises, “We’re trying to do the best that we can taking care of these children. Our goal ultimately is to reunite kids with their families,” he said. “We’re not a detention center. What we operate are shelters that take care of kids. It’s a big, big difference.”

Attorney General Jeff Sessions defended the White House’s position on Wednesday, telling a gathering, “Persons who violate the law of our nation are subject to prosecution. 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.” Critics quickly attacked the AG’s comments — with particularly harsh criticism from those on the Far Left, many of whom don’t appreciate scriptural references unless it can be twisted to justify their agenda.

Thursday, reporters took out their frustration on Press Secretary Sarah Sanders press conference, asking how the administration could possibly defend a policy that prosecutes adults for crossing the border illegally. Sanders stood her ground. “…[It’s] very biblical to enforce the law. That is actually repeated a number of times throughout the Bible,” she said. “It’s a moral policy to follow and enforce the law.” And, she went on, if you’re looking for someone to blame for this situation, try Democrats.

Let’s also consider the precedent it would create if we didn’t enforce the law. Are liberals suggesting that we shouldn’t incarcerate anyone who has kids? Are children the new get-out-of-jail-free card? As Sessions said, “If you bring a child, it is still an unlawful act. You don’t get immunity if you bring a child with you. We cannot have open borders for adults with children.”

Just a couple of comments:

Trump's "diplomatic success" with North Korea: You mean, the one where he gave Kim Jong-Un everything he wanted and got nothing?

"Entering the country illegally": I suppose, now the Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III has made it illegal to enter the country if you're brown, that's correct. However, in the real world, it's bullshit. (And you notice, he doesn't mention the cages made of mesh fencing.)

As for Sessions and his appeal to Romans, maybe he should check out Isaiah, specifically verse 10:

1Woe to those who enact unjust statutes and issue oppressive decrees, 2to deprive the poor of fair treatment and withhold justice from the oppressed of My people, to make widows their spoil and plunder the fatherless.…

Of course, there's a lot more in the Bible about those who make unjust laws, none of it positive.

The last paragraph is so over the top I can't think where to start.

Gah! I need to wash my brain out with bleach.

Today's Must-Read" "It's In the Bible!"

Both Attorney General (for the time being) Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (you have to include the "III" -- it's part of his heritage) and press secretary (for the time being) and preacher's daughter Sarah Huckabee Sanders (your number 1 source for fake news) are appealing to Scripture to justify the Trump regime's unconscionable policy of separating children from parents seeking asylum. Adam L. Silverman as a good post on the whole thing at Balloon Juice -- with lots of quotes from the aforementioned Bible that completely destroy the two holier-than-thous.

As BettyC mentioned earlier, both Attorney General Sessions and Sarah Huckabee-Sanders, the White House Press Secretary, decided to take their religion out and wave it around in everyone’s faces today. This was done to justify the change in policy that the President, via Attorney General Sessions, made in 2017 that children will be separated from their parents if they either present themselves for asylum or enter the US without documentation. The White House Press Secretary defaulted to the more generic argument that throughout the Bible it is asserted that laws should be followed. The Attorney General decided to (mis)apply Romans 13 to justify the unjustifiable.

(Do click through and read Betty Cracker's post as well -- evidence that this is too much for even the White House press corps.)

A couple of thoughts:

Romans was written by Paul, who never met Jesus and never heard him preach. Paul was also the first in a long line of Grifters for Christ.

Second, Huckabee Sanders, of course, blamed the whole thing on "loopholes that the Democrats refuse to close." And you must take advantage of loopholes, no matter how reprehensible the results, mustn't you?

And as Silverman points out, the Bible is repleted with exhortations to "welcome the stranger." If you want to bring the Bible into it.

Oh, and by the way -- just how is the Christian Bible applicable to American civil law? Anyone?

Masterpiece Cakeshop

I was going to spend some time this morning doing a summation post on the Supreme Court decision and its ramifications, but I've spent this morning, and last morning, fighting with my browser and I'm pooped.

The bottom line is that the decision was very limited, did not deal with the Constitutional issues of "religious freedom" (read: "license to discriminate") versus equality under the law, and was really a punt based on a somewhat dubious interpretation of comments by members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Nevertheless, the "religious" right is going to be braying about their immense victory over the forces of evil (gay people) and expect a flurry of suits and legislation on that basis.

Maybe tomorrow.

Hypocrisy So Thick

you could walk on it. Mitch McTurtle's rationale for cancelling the Senate's August recess:

“Due to the historic obstruction by Senate Democrats of the president’s nominees, and the goal of passing appropriations bills prior to the end of the fiscal year, the August recess has been canceled,” McConnell of Kentucky said in a statement on Tuesday.

(emphasis added -- as if you needed it.)

McTurtle obviously has the same sense of history that his boss does. (You don't think Trump is his boss? Guess again.)

What the article points out, and what is probably more on point, is that cancelling the recess is going to hamstring the ability of vulnerable Democrats to go home and campaign. And don't ever think he's not that underhanded.

A Reminder

For all the RWNJs who are about to start screaming about Roseanne Barr's First Amendment right to freedom of speech being violated because just about every network and streaming service that is/was showing her new series or reruns of her old one has dumped her:

 

As might be expected, they're fine with the NFL trying to muzzle the players protesting police violence against minorities.