Sarah Palin blames son’s domestic violence on Obama

January 21, 2016 • 8:20 am

Most of you may have heard that Sarah Palin’s 26-year-old son Track Palin was arrested in Wasilla, Alaska on Monday for domestic violence. He apparently slugged his girlfriend, pulled out a gun, and threatened her. Here’s an excerpt from the police report (name of victim redacted):

Screen Shot 2016-01-21 at 7.34.30 AM Screen Shot 2016-01-21 at 7.35.27 AM Screen Shot 2016-01-21 at 7.35.34 AM

As Gawker reported, Track was arrested for “assault in the fourth degree (domestic violence), interfering with a report of domestic violence, and possession of a weapon while intoxicated.”

Now I’m not going to tar Palin with her son’s misdeeds. Suffice it to say that this “model American family” has its problems. But where I do fault Palin is for blaming the actions of Track, an Iraq war veteran, on the Obama administration. As PuffHo reports:

Palin decided to address what she called “the elephant in the room” during a campaign rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, before she introduced Donald Trump, whom she endorsed Tuesday.

“My son, like so many others, they come back a bit different. They come back hardened, they come back wondering if there’s that respect for what it is their fellow soldiers and airmen and every other member of the military have so sacrificially given to this country,” Palin said, adding that she can “relate with other families who can feel these ramifications of PTSD and some of the woundedness our soldiers do return with.”

Palin went on to criticize the Obama administration’s treatment of veterans, implying that the president had something to do with her son’s situation.

The Washington Post gives more detail about what Palin said:

“It’s a shame that our military personnel even have to wonder if they have to question if they’re respected anymore. It starts from the top,” said Palin. “The question, though, it comes from our own president where they have to look at him and wonder, ‘Do you know what we go through? Do you know what we’re trying to do to secure America and to secure the freedoms that have been bequeathed us?’”

Now I’ve learned that Palin’s son was in a combat unit in Iraq for a year in 2008, but I can’t find evidence that he was actually involved in any fighting. Nevertheless, I suppose just being in a combat zone itself could cause mental problems that later trigger violent behavior.

But that doesn’t matter, because Sarah Palin not only overlooked Obama’s extensive efforts to help veterans (and Republicans’ opposition to bills providing veterans benefits; see also here), but uttered not a single word of sympathy for the victim of her son’s attack. She is making political capital out of a deplorable physical attack on a woman.

At least one veteran’s organization has decried Sarah Palin’s attempt to tar the President for what her son did (it’s not clear, by the way, whether Track Palin even has post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD):

“It’s not President Obama’s fault that Sarah Palin’s son has PTSD,” said Paul Rieckhoff, who heads Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA). “PTSD is a very serious problem, a complicated mental health injury and I would be extremely reluctant to blame any one person in particular.”

A few Europeans I talked to are amazed that Palin is even taken seriously as an American political figure. But one added, correctly, that when she endorsed Donald Trump for President in a speech we liberals find hilarious, she was hitting exactly the right notes that resonated with Iowa Republicans.

She’s baaaack!: Sarah Palin endorses Trump

January 20, 2016 • 9:30 am

Well, this is going to be an interesting election season, though I don’t see any good outcome. Bernie Sanders has moved way ahead of Hillary Clinton in Iowa, so perhaps he has a crack at the Democratic nomination—though I still wouldn’t bet on it. And even if a Democrat is elected in November, be it Clinton or Sanders, not much will happen,for both will be deadlocked with a Republican Congress, though for different reasons. Meanwhile, the GOP camp continues as a source of amazement, with Trump and Cruz going after each other hammer and tong. There’s not a credible leader among them, which speaks very poorly of Republicans (and our country in general).

The latest LOL is Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Donald Trump yesterday in Iowa. I’ve embedded her speech below. If you can watch the first three minutes without gritting your teeth, you’re a better person than I. If you can make it through the whole 21 minutes, you deserve a medal. (I did!)

How could it come to this in America: Sarah Palin is regarded as not only a celebrity, but as someone whose endorsement is worth having? DO NOT MISS her loud claim that Trump will “KICK ISIS’S ASS!” at 5:46, and her misuse of the word “largesse” as a perjorative at 15:48.

Where’s Tina Fey when we need her? Just the sight of Palin and Trump standing side-by-side on a platform, with Trump grinning like a fool and nodding like a bobblehead figure as Palin praises him, is an embarrassment to our country.

Finally, the Daily News headline from today: 569f05ee2a00004d00030dac

Jeffrey Tayler dissects Marco Rubio

January 17, 2016 • 11:45 am

Jeff Tayler’s been publishing his Sunday Secular Sermons every week in Salon, but I’ve missed a couple. Catching up, I found a good one today, “Marco Rubio’s real disqualification: New video outlines bizarre religious faith—and he wants to govern by it.” It turns out that Rubio has just issued a bizarre campaign video. . .  but I’ll let Tayler handle it:

He has just put out a television campaign ad entitled “Marco Rubio on His Christian Faith.”

As a pianist taps out a somniferously bland tune that would befit an ad for a last-rites parlor, Rubio, seated against a dark backdrop, explains the delicate balance he strives to achieve in melding his faith and career as a lawmaker, as well as offering detailed, faith-inspired plans for governing the United States in a time of international turmoil and domestic discontent.

No, wait! He leaves out the plans and turmoil abroad and the discontent at home. He uses his campaign ad to talk only about religion. Aren’t campaign ads supposed to at least have something to do with politics?

Anyway, let’s dissect Rubio’s message line by line.

And then Tayler does, but I’ll refer you to the Salon article for the bloody dissection. But first watch the video below, which, even among faith-osculating Republicans, is a travesty for a political ad. It’s only thirty seconds long, but it’s not only packed with Jesus-osculation, but adds Rubio’s assertion that he’ll govern according to Christian principles (“I try to allow that to influence me in everything I do”). And remember, this isn’t an ad for a church: it’s a political ad to run on television.

Jefferson is spinning in his grave!

I once thought Rubio was a likely candidate for the GOP nomination, but he’s fallen far behind, with Cruz and Trump, equally odious, now leading the pack. I still predict that Trump will be gone by the fall. At any rate, after his parsing of Rubio’s speech, Tayler reaches his conclusion:

The crushing banality, the overwhelming unoriginality of everything Rubio says in his commercial evokes something akin to astonishment. Absolutely any convinced Christ-worshipper could have uttered the exact same words, which are nothing but boilerplate pulpiteer’s patter. That Rubio chose to speak thus before the camera shows just how abysmally low the expectations of the faith-addled are: proffer mind-deadening insipidities and sit back and await the hosannas and hallelujahs that are sure to issue from the segment of the public that will not think for itself, but has to be told fairy tales to feel comfortable about voting for a candidate.

. . . You have, Senator, a constitutional right to profess belief in whatever you want. But you have no right to do so unchallenged by those tasked with ferreting out the truth and conveying it to the public. Unfortunately, though, you can broadcast such views throughout the land with little fear of being called out by journalists, who will shy away from religion as too sensitive and personal a topic.

Given that Republicans are making Christianity and faith a major issue in their campaigns, and saying they’ll govern in a Christian way, which violates the First Amendment, it’s no longer useful nor judicious to avoid questioning their faith. The questions rhetorically posed to Rubio by Tayler should be physically posed to Rubio by reporters. It’s time for the press to stop showing undeserved respect for unevidenced faith.

Trump rally features cringe-making “Freedom Kids”

January 16, 2016 • 11:15 am

Just to show you how low American politics have fallen, here’s a video of the “entertainment” during a Donald Tump Rally in Pensacola, Florida three days ago.

Read a bit more about the “Freedom Kids” at Mother Jones.

The tune, if you don’t recognize it, is “Over There” by American showman George M. Cohan, written to whip up patriotism during World War I. The words of the Trump version, however, are by sone right wingnut.

For an immeasurably better rendition of the song (with the original words), here’s a scene from the fantastic 1942 movie “Yankee Doodle Dandy,” in which James Cagney played George M. Cohan. Cohan is shown writing the song, performing it during WWI, and then, years later, during the Second World War, visiting Roosevelt in the White House. Afterwards, he falls in line with some soldiers heading Over There, unrecognized but joining in as everyone sings his song. The bit when he dances down the White House stairs is fantastic.

It’s schlocky but I love it. The movie won a passel of Oscars, including a Best Actor award for Cagney. See it if you can. I used to watch it every Fourth of July when I was a kid. Do they even show it any more?

Another great scene, showing off Cagney’s dancing talents, is here. He plays Johnny Jones, a jockey who loses a big race. The end of this clip also features Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney doing the same song in “Babes on Broadway.

Antonin Scalia tries to tear down that wall (the one between church and state)

January 4, 2016 • 12:30 pm
On Saturday, Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Justice, conservative, Catholic, and “originalist” (one who thinks that law must ultimately rest on the original and unchangeable meaning conveyed by the authors of the US Constitution) gave a short speech at Archbishop Rummel High School, a Catholic school in Metairie, Louisiana. In that talk, as reported by two sources (the Associated Press and the New Orleans Times-Picayune), he basically reinterpreted the First Amendment to the Constitution. Instead of claiming that that amendment protects believers and nonbelievers alike, he claimed that it applied only to the faithful, not to atheists or agnostics.  That is a stunning reversal of precedent, and, if you know anything about history, a rejection of Scalia’s own originalism.
Here’s what he said (my emphasis):

He told the audience at Archbishop Rummel High School that there is “no place” in the country’s constitutional traditions for the idea that the state must be neutral between religion and its absence.

“To tell you the truth there is no place for that in our constitutional tradition. Where did that come from?” he said. “To be sure, you can’t favor one denomination over another but can’t favor religion over non-religion?”

and

The Constitution’s First Amendment protects the free practice of religion and forbids the government from playing favorites among the various sects, Scalia said, but that doesn’t mean the government can’t favor religion over nonreligion.

That was never the case historically, he said. It didn’t become the law of the land until the 60s, Scalia said, when he said activist judges attempted to resolve the question of government support of religion by imposing their own abstract rule rather than simply observing common practice.

If people want strict prohibition against government endorsement of religion, let them vote on it, he said. “Don’t cram it down the throats of an American people that has always honored God on the pretext that the Constitution requires it.”

That’s just wrong. Here’s the First Amendment, written by James Madison in 1789 and passed in 1791 (my emphasis):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Madison was at most a deist, and there’s no indication of religious belief in any of his writings. He was, however, a good friend of Thomas Jefferson, who was again at most a deist, but more probably an atheist/agnostic. And Jefferson’s own views on religion clearly influenced Madison’s.

Three years before the First Amendment was written by Madison, and five before it was passed, Jefferson’s own law, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, had been passed. (Jefferson actually wrote it in 1777 and introduced it to the Virginia legislature two years later). That statute, by the way, was one of three of his accomplishments that Jefferson wanted engraved on his tombstone. The other two are his authorship of the Declaration of Independence and his founding of the University of Virginia; his Presidency isn’t mentioned. What’s clear is that Madison’s First Amendment is based on Jefferson’s law.

It is clear in the Virginia Statute, as well as in Jefferson’s own writings, that he held nonbelief to be just as privileged as other beliefs. Here’s the conclusion of the Virginia Statute (my emphasis):

. . . .Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.
Note the crucial phrases: “no man. . . shall suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief” and that “all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of Religion.” What is nonbelief but “an opinion in the matter of religion”?
If Scalia were really an originalist who interpreted the Constitution according to the authors’ intent, he wouldn’t be saying that it’s okay to favor religion over non-religion. That would have appalled both Jefferson and Madison, and their documents don’t say anything about denigrating nonbelief.
Further, anyone who’s studied American history knows that Jefferson was a man without belief—a deist only if you stretch the term. But Scalia denies even that, jettisoning the palpable facts of history. As the Times-Picayune reports:

Scalia noted that Thomas Jefferson, who first invoked the idea of a “wall of separation between church and state,” also penned Virginia’s religious freedom law, founded a university with dedicated religious space and, in writing the Declaration of Independence, regularly invoked God.

Such deference for a higher power has been consistent ever since, Scalia said.

Has Scalia read the fricking Declaration of Independence? (The Constitution, by the way—the document to which Scalia says he adheres—does not mention God ONCE.) There are two mentions of goddy beings in the Declaration, the first being the rights that come from “The Laws of Nature and Nature’s God”, which is a dubious way to invoke a deity—indeed, it could be seen as pantheism. The other mention is this: men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. . .”.   That’s a pretty watery statement, probably designed as a rhetorical flourish, and hardly shows Jefferson “regularly invoking God.” If you want to know what Jefferson believed and what Madison intended in the Constitution, look at their personal histories and statements of belief. You won’t find anything about a personal God, and their laws were clearly designed to protect nonbelievers as well as believers.

Oh, Scalia said more:

Citing a quotation attributed to former French President Charles de Gaulle, Scalia said “‘God takes care of little children, drunkards and the United States of America.'” Scalia then added, “I think that’s true. God has been very good to us. One of the reasons God has been good to us is that we have done him honor.”

That is a severe case of faith-based delusion. Why isn’t God so good to Muslims, who do him (in the form of Allah, peace be upon him) even more honor? And clearly God has been best to Scandinavia, where most people are atheists but societal well-being is far higher than in the U.S. Clearly, God loves those best who deny Him most.

Scalia should not be sitting on the Supreme Court. He’s not only addled by faith (remember his belief in Satan?), but he’s violating his own originalistic philosophy when it’s convenient for him to do so. That is judicial activism. Let’s hope that he’ll be off the bench within the next decade, giving Hillary Clinton an opportunity to replace him with someone sensible.

-335ff278a52421bb
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia speaks at Archbishop Rummel High School in Metairie on Saturday, January 2, 2016. (Photo by Brett Duke, Nola.com |The Times-Picayune)
h/t: Les, Randy

You won’t believe what Donald Trump said! (Yes you will. . .)

December 13, 2015 • 8:45 am

Clickbait headers don’t work when they’re about Donald Trump, for he’s basically a walking tabloid headline.

Unlike the rest of the world, Republican candidates have been cagey about denouncing Trump’s reprehensible call to ban Mulim immigrants from the U.S. I hope that those candidates realize how bigoted such a call is, but they also know that a lot of Republicans secretly agree with Trump, so they’re loath to denounce him strongly.

And with the Iowa primaries coming up in seven weeks, Trump has taken the gloves off. (Well, he did that when he threw his hat in the ring, but now he’s donning the brass knuckles). Here’s what Trump said about Cruz at his rally in Iowa on Friday:

“I do like Ted Cruz, but not a lot of evangelicals come out of Cuba,” he told the crowd at a town hall event at the Iowa State Fairgrounds in Des Moines. Not a lot come out.”

The short video:

Now he’s not referring to any refusal by Cuba to let religious people emigrate. Instead, he’s criticizing Cruz for not being an evangelical Christian. That’s the sort of malarkey that plays to the Republican mindset. But seriously, Trump isn’t an evangelical himself, though he claims he is—when’s the last time he praised Jesus?—and Cruz more or less is:

The father of the Texas senator [Cruz], who has appealed to the born-again believers in the Hawkeye State, escaped from Cuba as a young adult. Both of Cruz’s parents come from traditionally Catholic backgrounds, but Cruz grew up Southern Baptist.

And Cruz’s political action committee, “Keep the Promise”, responded promptly:

“We knew when Trump criticized Cruz it would not be substantive, but we hoped it would be coherent,” the super PAC told CNN.

Seriously, they hoped it would be coherent? No way: they wanted it to be incoherent. There’s more than enough hypocrisy to go around in the GOP.

I predicted earlier that Rubio would finally get the nod when the dust settles, but now I think it’ll be Cruz. Well, that’s simply a wild guess, as there’s lots more fun ahead. As they say in the Catskills, the clown car will be here for eleven months, folks.

 

The San Bernardino victims and the guns that killed them

December 4, 2015 • 1:15 pm

It’s looking increasingly like the couple who killed 14 people in San Bernardino were terrorists motivated by Islamic extremism, but I don’t have the heart to bang on about that. Nor do I have the will to discuss those who—without even a perfunctory show of sorrow about the 14 lives lost and the many children left without parents—worry in public that this attack will promote “Islamophobia.” All I can do right now is remind us what really was lost in California—these lives:

Screen Shot 2015-12-04 at 10.39.08 AM

. . . and to put some blame where I think it some blame lies: at lax US gun laws. According to the New York Times, these were the weapons used by the killers:Screen Shot 2015-12-04 at 11.47.07 AM

These weapons, including the two assault rifles, were obtained legally.  What is the justification for those assault weapons? How can they possibly be legal? What kind of country would allow that? Only a nation under the thumb of the National Rifle Association, which sees banning these military-style weapons as the first step (God help us) in disarming Americans, Americans who shouldn’t, under the Second Amendment, be armed anyway.

Nothing will happen about gun regulation, for we have both the NRA and the Republican Party to deal with, and they love their guns.  I don’t understand why these weapons are legal, and I don’t understand why the Republicans have just behaved so reprehensibly about gun control. Almost before the 14 bodies cooled, the Republicans voted against reasonable gun restrictions:

While the nation suffered through the shock of another bloody massacre, on Thursday every Senate Republican except Mark Kirk of Illinois voted against legislation to prevent people on the F.B.I.’s consolidated terrorist watchlist from purchasing guns or explosives.

The measure has been introduced repeatedly since 2007. The Government Accountability Office has documented that over years of congressional blockage, hundreds of suspected terrorists on the watchlist bought guns.

Another bill that would have expanded background checks to gun show and online firearms sales to screen out convicted felons and the mentally ill also failed on Thursday. The four Republican senators running for president — Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham — all turned up to vote against these common-sense measures.

“If you need proof that Congress is a hostage to the gun lobby, look no further than today’s vote,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein, who sponsored the terror watchlist measure.

Read those paragraphs again. Seriously, why would you vote against keeping guns out of the hands of people who are not even permitted to fly? The Republicans are an odious and now a murderous party. Truly, this country is lost, and I am dispirited. All we can do is sigh and vote Democratic in the fall.

I’ll add this timely cartoon by reader Pliny the In Between, who notes that the American Legion (a veterans’ organization) in Washougal, Washington is auctioning off an AK-47 (e.g., a Kalashnikov) to raise money for programs for veterans and children. You couldn’t make that up.

Venns tees.004