Wielding The "Faith" Weapon

Think Progress' Tara Culp-Ressler observes

Instead, many right-wing commentators are seizing on the location of the massacre — a Wednesday night Bible study in a church whose history dates back more than 200 years — as evidence that Christians are under attack in the United States.

Fox News was quick to declare that the Charleston shooting was an “attack on faith.” On Thursday’s Fox and Friends, panel members discussed the “rising hostility against Christians in this country because of our biblical views.” GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum followed suit, calling the shooting part of a broader assault on “religious liberty” in this country.

“We have no idea what’s in his mind. Maybe he hates Christian churches,” former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said in reference to the white shooter.

Focusing on the religion of the nine victims, however, obscures the larger reality of race-based hate crimes at houses of worship. The tragedy at Emanuel A.M.E. represents just the latest in along line of violent attacks on black churches — targeted not for their “biblical views,” but because of the color of their parishioners’ skin.

White Americans have long been wary of the black church establishment for reasons that are far removed from religious beliefs. In the 1800s, when freed blacks started organizing an autonomous denomination where they wouldn’t be subjected to segregation in the pews — the African Methodist Episcopal Church — their white neighbors were nervous that an all-black space would give slaves the opportunity to organize and rebel. Indeed, the early leaders of black churches preached a theology of liberation. One of the founders of Emanuel A.M.E. attempted toorganize a slave revolt in 1822, and the church was burned to the ground in punishment. White slaveowners were so wary of future attempts that laws prohibiting all-black congregations were enacted throughout much of the South and remained in place until after the Civil War.

During the modern Civil Rights movement, black liberation theology was forged in the context of the oppressive laws propping up institutional racism. Black churches taught their parishioners that, in a white-dominated society, the Gospel was relevant to them because it proved that God is invested in the struggle for justice and freedom. It’s not hard to see why houses of worship became hubs of activism in the black community in the 1960s — but, just as in the 19th century, they were punished for it.

In what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. called “one of the most vicious and tragic crimes ever perpetrated against humanity,” the 1963 bombing of 16th Street Baptist Church in Alabama killed four young girls and injured 22 others. A year later, KKK members beat churchgoers leaving Mount Zion A.M.E. Church in Mississippi, and eventually burned the building to the ground. White supremacists continued targeting black churches well in the 1990s, as racially motivated arson attacks swept the South.

These crimes weren’t about the fact that parishioners were reading the Bible or praying to Jesus (and, in fact, they were largely perpetrated by a racist group that identifies as a Christian organization). They were about the fact that African Americans were drawing power from all-black spaces, organizing in their own communities, and standing up to racial oppression. In other words, black Christian churches aren’t attacked for being Christian; they’re attacked for being black.

Politicians including Giuliani, Rick Santorum, Lindsey Graham,and Rand Paul have been shocked! shocked! that firearm violence has taken place inside a church. But Emanuel A.M.E.  was not targeted because it was an ordinary church, but an extraordinary one, one with a long and storied involvement in the civil rights movement. Many houses of worship leave their door(s) unlocked during Bible study, worship services, and during other activities. They are not immune from the gun violence which characterizes  American society, as we learned six years ago (Maddow report of the time, below) when The New York Times reported

George Tiller, one of only a few doctors in the nation who performed abortions late in pregnancy, was shot to death here Sunday in the foyer of his longtime church as he handed out the church bulletin.

The authorities said they took a man into custody later in the day after pulling him over about 170 miles away on Interstate 35 near Kansas City. They said they expected to charge him with murder on Monday.,,,

A provider of abortions for more than three decades, Dr. Tiller, 67, had become a focal point for those around the country who opposed it. In addition to protests outside his clinic, his house and his church, Dr. Tiller had once seen his clinic bombed; in 1993, an abortion opponent shot him in both arms. He was also the defendant in a series of legal challenges intended to shut down his operations, including two grand juries that were convened after citizen-led petition drives.

On Sunday morning, moments after services had begun at Reformation Lutheran Church, Dr. Tiller, who was acting as an usher, was shot once with a handgun, the authorities said. The gunman pointed the weapon at two people who tried to stop him, the police said, then drove off in a powder-blue Taurus. Dr. Tiller’s wife, Jeanne, a member of the church choir, was inside the sanctuary at the time of the shooting.








Anti-abortion activist Scott Roeder was soon arrested and at trial maintained "I did what I thought was needed to be done to protect the children. I shot him."   Nonetheless, he was convicted and sentenced to life in prison, where in May, 2013 he was placed into solitary confinement for 45 days for making threats against abortion providers.

On the most visible issues of culture, the right doesn't have much left, with support growing for both same-sex marriage and abortion rights, a relatively un-traditional Pope speaking out against the foundation of conservative belief, and the nation gradually (but perceptibly) becoming more libertine. The obsession of many conservatives with portraying themselves as victims most opportunistically takes the form of smearing the left- and American society- as bias against religion or, in the new (secular) parlance, "faith."   It is the new front in the culture wars and one which Democrats running for national office must be ready to confront.







Share |

Focus Like A Laser

Stick to your guns, Hillary- or rather, stick to the guns.

Thirteen-year National Rifle Association board member Charles Cotton said State Senator Clementa Pinckney, one of the victims of  the terrorist act in Charleston, S.C. "voted against concealed-carry. Eight of his church members who might be alive if he had expressly allowed members to carry handguns in church are dead,... Innocent people died because of his position on a political issue.”

Tasteless, and probably inaccurate, though an excellent answer to the question "Give an example of blaming the victim."

Nonetheless, Charles Cotton is not alone in absolving of blame the actual assailant. Interviewed Thursday (segment below) by a fixture of Nevada politics, Jon Ralston, Hillary Clinton remarked

Well, I think, look, there are a number of factors feeding into this and I thought President Obama’s statement earlier today was very moving.  We have to have a candid national conversation about race and about discrimination, prejudice, hatred.  The people who do this kind of dastardly horrible act are very small percentage, but unfortunately the public discourse is sometimes hotter and more negative than it should be, which can, in my opinion, trigger people who are less than stable to do something like what we’ve seen.

In addition to arguing that hot public discourse may "trigger people who are less than stable to" commit mass murder, Clinton stated

Well, I think we have to speak out against it, like for example a recent entry into the republican presidential campaign said some very inflammatory things about Mexicans.  Everybody should stand up and say that’s not acceptable.  You know, you don’t talk like that on talk radio.

Well, no, we should not say that's not "acceptable" (and people do talk like that on talk radio, though perhaps she meant "should not talk like that"). We should disagree with the content of the argument- but not the right of the individual to argue. The statement may not be valid but save use of the "n" word or something similar, it is legitimate.

That's what free expression is all about. It costs us nothing to permit the voicing of ideas we agree with, or which sound lovely and pleasant. Bad ideas- not their pronouncement- ought to be confronted with a stronger argument in opposition.

Clinton's remarks do not bode well for "a national conversation about race." The fear of conservatives that their comments would be not only opposed but suppressed is enhanced by individuals who advocate a candid conversation, then suggest that opposing viewpoints provoke felonies.  Comments like those of Donald Trump did not trigger the murderer in Charleston.  Ultimately, the assailant
(presumably Roof) in this incident is responsible for the act of violence he alone committed.     If a politico or talk radio host were to advocate ending the drug war, and a spike in deaths from illegal drugs were to ensue, she would not be to blame for the tragedy which unfolded.

The former Senator's remarks were no way to initiate that "candid national conversation about race and about discrimination, prejudice, hatred."  They were no way to dismantle and demolish the noxious viewpoint.  Instead, they distracted from the more constructive and valid point Clinton made when she stated

Let’s just cut to the chase.  It’s guns and we have to have a better balance and I know you’re going to have a universal background check kind of provision on the ballot here in Nevada. Apparently, the public, I can’t speak…I haven’t seen any recent polls of this state, but the national polls I’ve seen overall, gun owners support that, people who are strong proponents of the second amendment support that, but the Congress stops in the face of tremendous lobbying pressure from the gun lobby, so maybe on a local and state level we have to keep building towards some kind of more sensible balance to policy.

She should have cut immediately to the chase. Admittedly, the National Rifle Association won't be persuaded, nor will the right, except by the NRA and its political power. Nevertheless, the focus should be on reducing crime. Shutting up Donald Trump and his ilk won't do that.  Gun control- and other sensible policies- will.












Share |

But Good Show, Hillary!

Salon's Sophia Tesfaye noted Thursday

In the aftermath of a vicious attack on African-American worshippers by a white gunman in a South Carolina church yesterday, Hillary Clinton said it was time for America to be “honest” and “face hard truths about race, violence, guns and division.”

“How many people do we need to see cut down before we act?” she asked, speaking before the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials in Las Vegas today, according to the National Journal.

The Democratic presidential candidate prayed for the victims before reminding the gathered elected officials of the role public policy plays in American gun violence.  “In the days ahead, we will again ask what led to this terrible tragedy and where we as a nation need to go. In order to make sense of it, we have to be honest. We have to face hard truths about race, violence, guns and division,” she said.

Clinton told the crowd that she was shocked by what she called the “crime of hate,” calling a church “the last place we should ever see violence.”

“So as we mourn and as our hearts break a little more, and as we send this message of solidarity that we will not forsake those who have been victimized by gun violence, this time we have to find answers together,” she said.

So far, Clinton is the only 2016 candidate to explicitly call for the reevaluation of guns in America following this mass shooting, although candidates on both sides have explicitly called out the role of racism.

The last phrase or two, "although candidates on both sides have explicitly called out the role of racism," is unnecessary. As of now, Hillary Clinton is the only presidential candidate to have exhibited both the insight and courage to recognize (a portion of that speech, below) the role of both racial hostility and firearm lust.

And she has- thus far- done much more by what she has not said.  Without reference to Clinton, Salon's Arthur Chu writes

I get really really tired of hearing the phrase “mental illness” thrown around as a way to avoid saying other terms like “toxic masculinity,” “white supremacy,” “misogyny” or “racism.”

We barely know anything about the suspect in the Charleston, South Carolina, atrocity. We certainly don’t have testimony from a mental health professional responsible for his care that he suffered from any specific mental illness, or that he suffered from a mental illness at all.

Unfortunately, he's going to get more tired.  Presidential candidate and Professor of Psychiatry Lindsey Graham commented "I just think he was one of these whacked out kids. I don't think it's anything broader than that." Thoughtful reflection is not something we can expect from Graham, who in September was so terrified by ISIL that he declared "this President needs to rise to the occasion before we all get killed back here at home."

As South Carolina's senior U.S. Senator, Graham has an interest in assuring Republican voters that the shooting wasn't about the proliferation of guns and not primarily about racial animus. But the mental health dodge, deftly exhibited by Bill O'Reilly while interviewing Montel Williams Thursday evening, will spread. If we can convince ourselves it is an isolated case, no self-examination is necessary, and self-examination is not a pastime most Republican primary voters routinely engage in.

Share |

They're Hooked On A Feeling

Our border control agents should be pleased to learn that Donald Trump has as much regard for them as for anyone else not named Donald Trump. The real estate mogul yesterday stated immigrants are

coming from more than Mexico. It's coming from all over South and Latin America, and it's coming probably -- probably -- from the Middle East. But we don't know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don't know what's happening. And it's got to stop and it's got to stop fast.

Or at least we think Trump was talking about immigrants. (He uttered "immigrant" or any variant thereof only once, between nuclear weapons and the Second Amendment.) He claimed also

Thank you. It's true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

He's not saying they are- just assuming they are, as he now assumes Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A. Further, the notion that crime rates soar as an area increases a glut of immigrants is a myth, as noted by this Think Progress blogger who recalls also

Trump’s claim that undocumented immigrants are rapists stem from a nativist argument often peddled by anti-immigrant activists and politicians. For example, Rep. Steve King (R-IA), who’s introduced several pieces of legislation aimed at restricting immigration, has dedicated an entire webpage to undocumented immigrants who have killed American citizens.

But at least Steve King was obsessed about illegal immigrants. Trump made no distinction between legal and illegal immigration, ignoring the understanding among Repub politicians that they must at all times pretend they are targeting only illegal immigration.

In so doing, Trump represents  the Republican id, as he did when making a remark largely unnoticed and seemingly at odds with the nativism.  Part of his solution is to undo President Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.  But also: "I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me, and I'll build them very inexpensively, I will build a great, great wall on our southern border. "

Amazing. "It's coming from all over South and Latin America, and it's coming probably -- probably -- from the Middle East," Trump warns as he irresponsibly raises the specter of terrorists overrunning Texas.  Yet, he found it necessary to assure his audience he would "build them (walls) very inexpensively"- then to add "And I will have Mexico pay for that wall."   (He must be the kind of builder Tom Paxton was singing about, below.)

An audience member, not noticing that Trump evidently cares so much about stopping immigration he won't commit a cent to doing it, yelled out "yeah!"  Fitting that was, because with a lot of conservatives, it's less about immigration than about sticking it to Mexico and Mexicans. America- yeah! USA! USA!










Share |

Ask Trump, And Everybody

Donald Trump wouldn't like Robert Reich's suggestion.  Among the reforms former President Clinton's labor secretary advocates for reducing income and wealth inequality is lowering the threshold for estate taxation (video below).  He explains

Today the estate tax reaches only the richest two-tenths of one percent, and applies only to dollars in excess of $10.86 million for married couples or $5.43 million for individuals. 

That means if a couple leaves to their heirs $10,860,001, they now pay the estate tax on $1. The current estate tax rate is 40%, so that would be 40 cents.

Yet according to these members of Congress, that’s still too much. 

Abolishing the estate tax would give each of the wealthiest two-tenths of 1 percent of American households an average tax cut of $3 million, and the 318 largest estates would get an average tax cut of $20 million.

It would also reduce tax revenues by $269 billion over ten years. The result would be either larger federal deficits or higher taxes on the rest of us to fill the gap.

This is nuts. The richest 1 percent of Americans now have 42 percent of the nation’s entire wealth, while the bottom 90 percent has just 23 percent. ...

Adjusted for inflation, the estate tax restored to its level in 1998 would begin to touch estates valued at $1,748,000 per couple.

That would yield approximately $448 billion over the next ten years – way more than enough to finance ten years of universal preschool and two free years of community college for all eligible students.









Yesterday, Donald Trump essentially invited questions about his position on the estate tax, given that he emphasized

And I have assets -- big accounting firm, one of the most highly respected -- 9 billion 240 million dollars....

And I have liabilities of about $500 million (ph). That's long-term debt, very low interest rates.

In fact, one of the big banks came to me and said, "Donald, you don't have enough borrowings. Could we loan you $4 billion"? I said, "I don't need it. I don't want it. And I've been there. I don't want it."

But in two seconds, they give me whatever I wanted. So I have a total net worth, and now with the increase, it'll be well-over $10 billion. But here, a total net worth of -- net worth, not assets, not -- a net worth, after all debt, after all expenses, the greatest assets -- Trump Tower, 1290 Avenue of the Americas, Bank of America building in San Francisco, 40 Wall Street, sometimes referred to as the Trump building right opposite the New York -- many other places all over the world.

So the total is $8,737,540,00.

He wasn't bragging, please understand, because he added "Now I'm not doing that... I'm not doing that to brag, because you know what? I don't have to brag. I don't have to, believe it or not."

Each candidate, Democratic or Republican, should be asked about the estate tax and (in one form or another) the other nine ideas Reich has.  No Repub genuinely interested in being nominated would support raising the estate tax, which would be instructive, as it would be if any Democrat were to oppose increasing the levy.





Share |

Foreign Policy Savant

Humbly declaring "I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created, Donald Trump (cartoon below by Danziger) has jumped with both feet into the clown car.

And not a moment too soon. Last month, Trump told GOP TV's Greta van Susteren

All I can tell you it is a foolproof way of winning, and I’m not talking about what some people would say, but it is a foolproof way of winning the war with ISIS.   And it will be absolutely, 100 percent –they’ll at minimum come to the table but actually they’ll be defeated very quickly.

So here is a modest suggestion (if I can be so humble as to refer to myself as modest): President Obama should welcome Mr. Trump to the White House to explain how this most brutal of terrorist groups can be vanquished.

This is a no-lose option.  There is a modicum of chance that Trump has a plan which a) exists; b) would eliminate the Islamic State; and c) would more likely improve the situation in the Middle East than worsen it.  There also is possibility, about as likely, that Elizabeth Warren will be the next GOP presidential nominee.

Trump probably would reject the request, perhaps by reminding all of America how much he hates the U.S. President, a Kenyan masquerading as a Hawaiian.  But the offer itself from the leader of the Free World would enhance the candidate's credibility. Moreover, it would give said candidate the opportunity, as he sees fit, to enhance his credibility further by denouncing the President most Repubs loathe or by accepting it, lending him foreign policy gravitas and a leg up on the other contenders.

That is an outcome devoutly to be wished for.  Recognizing Trump as "a circus sideshow attraction,"  Salon's Bob Cesca early this morning remarked

With Trump officially joining the race, he vindicates the increasingly obvious analysis that the Republican Party, at the presidential level at least, is little more than a shell corporation for opportunists and careerists who aren’t interested in governing or even winning. The addition of Trump is the would-be final brick in the effort to turn the GOP’s nominating process into a dysfunctional and menacingly ugly reality show competition in which the contestants each scramble to be the most flagrant panderer to the Tea Party base and, subsequently, augment their Q-scores within the lucrative conservative entertainment complex. 

So, President Obama: invite Donald Trump to the White House.  Call his bluff. And if he does go, show the man behind "The Art of the Deal" that he can be played by the man he considers a terrible negotiator presiding over an Administration of terrible negotiators.  Further, the GOP, as Cesca puts it, would be further down the road "telegraphing to the world that it’s interested in fielding candidates who are commensurate with the seriousness of the nation’s perils."

Share |

We'll Hear From Her Once It Doesn't Matter

Campaign manager Robby Mook of Hillary for America was interviewed Sunday on CBS' Face the Nation by John Dickerson, who asked him why his candidate "was on the sidelines" during the recent fight over Trade Adjustment Assistance and Trade Promotion Authority, precursors to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (coverage map of the pact, below, from the AFL-CIO).  (Has been on the sidelines would have been more accurate. Regrettably, it's not over till the fat lady sings.)   Unfortunately, he responded

Well, Hillary not been (sic) on the sidelines.

Let me say, first and foremost, speaking of a fighter, there will no tougher fighter at the negotiating table for everyday Americans when these trade agreements are being negotiated. So, families can trust her to fight hard for them in any of these agreements.

Well, Robby, Hillary has been on the sidelines.  Among the issues Mrs. Clinton addressed in her speech (news report below) at Roosevelt Island yesterday were health, including reproductive; immigration, "gay people," small business, college debt, legal services for poor people; equal pay for women; energy policy (even sustainability); rebuilding the nation's infrastructure; preschool education; cybersecurity; campaign financing; nuclear proliferation. In fact, she mentioned nearly everything except Deflategate. And trade (or copyright and patent protection, generously provided in the TPP).







Still, Mook maintained

But Hillary has been abundantly clear about where she stands on the issue of trade. She laid out three key principles and tests that any trade agreement needs to meet. First and foremost, it needs to protect American jobs. Second, it needs in to increase wages for workers here in the United States, and, third, it needs to be consistent with our national security interests.

Mook has learned well the first rule of manipulating an interview: talk, talk, and confuse. One might be able to surmise Clinton's perspective if she had a priority; instead she has three "key principles and tests," which may not point in the same direction.  The Administration's rationale for keeping the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership secret is national security. Among Clinton's "principles and tests." Trade documents- even our own- are "foreign government information," claims the office of the United States Trade Representative.  

Moreover, President Obama contends the TPP will increase jobs, even as he supports Trade Adjustment Assistance (which went down to defeat Thursday, thus temporarily derailing fast track) so that workers who lose their jobs may get retrained.  The notion that employment will increase with this agreement (when retraining is promoted) is fairly far-fetched, but that doesn't prevent supporters from floating it.  The three principles and tests criteria is useless except to sound thoughtful while avoiding taking a stand.

Mook adds "We're waiting on- there's obviously a trade bill that may be coming. We don't have the exact text, but when we do, she will take a clear position."

Evidently, the former Secretary of State has not taken a clear position, inasmuch as her advocate added "We're waiting on- there's obviously a trade bill that may be coming.  We don't have the exact text, but when we do, she will take a clear position."  She "has been abundantly clearly" on trade but eventually "she will take a clear position." Oh, that's clear. "Obviously a trade bill," Mook assures us, "may be coming."  And in other news, the earth is round.

But the more disturbing implication is that Mrs. Clinton won't take a position because "we don't have the exact text." News flash: the Executive branch is keeping the text secret- much of what is known has been gleaned from leaked drafts- precisely because it fears that knowledge would doom it to defeat.   Surely Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Mook know that the "trade" deal itself has not yet reached the floor of either chamber, but TPA/fast track has, and approval of that would assure approval of the international agreement.

The TPP can still be approved if TPA is rejected. But if TPA (fast track) is approved, TPP still has life. Therefore, if Clinton is uncertain, or wishes to maintain an open mind, about the pact, there is no reason not to oppose fast track. If that goes down to defeat, she can still advocate the concept of free trade as well as the pact itself, suggesting improvement for labor and/or the environment.

"We don't have the exact text yet" so HRC can't take a position.  But she still could take a position- against fast track and for allowing Congress to insert labor and environmental standards.  But she has not. The lack of transparency, Senator Sanders noted on FTN, "is one of many reasons to be voting against this piece of legislation." And it, is, as he argued, "a little bit silly for members of Congress to be voting yes on a bill that they haven't seen."

Lincoln Chafee has taken a position (the wrong one) on TPP.  Martin O'Malley has taken a position (the right ones) on TPP and on fast track.  Bernie Sanders has emphasized his opposition to both. Hillary Clinton won't say, until (it would seem) she can finesse the issue, avoiding offending either the base of her party or the Big Money Boyz and the Obamots, the latter never questioning anything Barack O. does.   Or as Robbie Mook puts it, "no tougher fighter."

Share |