BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
Showing posts with label torture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label torture. Show all posts
07 July 2017
17 October 2016
El desprecio de Donald Trump para la constitución y de la derecha Round-Up 13OKT16
EL campaña drumpf / trompeta-peniques es una amenaza para la República Americana. Drumpf / Trump tiene una boca grande y alienta a violaciónes de sus oponentes libertades civiles y los derechos civiles, pero los peniques de Mike es una amenaza mayor porque es un político profesional que sabe cómo para empaquetar la revocación de las libertades civiles y los derechos civiles en una campaña de propaganda que puede engañar a muchos a apoyar la eventual imposición deautoritarismo en sí mismos. Esto desde + The Huffington Post y de PFAW ala derecha del reloj .....
El desprecio de Donald Trump para la constitución
En un debate dominado por los insultos, despotricando y frotis de Donald Trump, uno de sus muchos momentos perturbadores recibieron decididamente menos atención que otros.
Afirmación de Trump que lo haría la cárcel, Hillary Clinton, si es elegido presidente fue impactante, y con razón. Pero dejó en gran medida inadvertido fue su ataque a la Sexta Enmienda, o el derecho de los acusados a un juicio justo con "la seguridad de los abogados."
Durante el foro ayuntamiento presidenciales del domingo, Trump criticó a Clinton por haber representado un acusado de violación, mientras que la práctica de la ley en Arkansas en 1975, incluso llevando la mujer, que era menor de edad en el momento en que fue violada, al debate y una rueda de prensa como prueba de que Clinton, y no Trump, es el verdadero enemigo de las mujeres.
el hecho de que Clinton representado un hombre acusado de violación es ningún secreto. Clinton escribió sobre ella misma en su libro "Historia viva". Pero muchos conservadores han aprovechado en ese caso para argumentar que Clinton es el verdadero agresor de la mujer, la más reciente en su intento de ejecutar la interferencia de Trump después del lanzamiento de una grabación de 2005 él presumiendo de agredir sexualmente a las mujeres.
Clinton representó el violador acusado de mala gana después de recibir una petición del juez . El caso se resolvió en última instancia, cuando el acusado se declaró culpable de un cargo reducido sustancialmente.
Los que asaltan a Clinton por lo que representa un criminal acusado parecen estar bajo la impresión de que toda persona acusada de ningún delito debe ser encontrado de forma automática culpable, la supresión de esa necesidad molestos para un ensayo en el que el acusado se presume inocente y tiene derecho a un abogado.
Sí, incluso las personas acusadas de crímenes tan vil como violación deben tener su día en corte y una defensa celosa, no importa lo culpable que aparecen.
Clinton no es el único que se ha enfrentado la crítica política por hacer su trabajo como un abogado que representa a un cliente desagradable.
el Comité Nacional republicano recientemente salió con un anuncio atacar candidato a la vicepresidencia demócrata Tim Kaine para la defensa de las personas en espera de ejecución . Dos años antes, la Asociación de Gobernadores Republicanos lanzó anuncios similares en contra de un candidato a gobernador demócrata en Carolina del Sur, acusando a él de proteger "los criminales, no nosotros." A principios de este año, un grupo conservador se recuperó frente a un juez federal que había un potencial candidato a la Corte Suprema por citar su trabajo como defensor público.
este tipo de ataques debilitan nuestro sistema legal y la Constitución.
Sólo podemos imaginar los anuncios negativos que estos grupos se han creado para atacar a John Adams, que defendió con éxito a varios soldados británicos implicados en la masacre de Boston, o Abraham Lincoln, quien representó con éxito contra asesinos.
Pero al igual que en otros casos, esta hostilidad patente a un principio constitucional lecho de roca proviene principalmente de una de las partes, la parte que ha designado a un hombre que hizo campaña sobre la restricción de las libertades religiosas y la libertad de la prensa ; un hombre que a día de hoy sigue manchar el Parque Cinco central; un hombre que es compatible con los tratados de ruptura , crímenes de guerra y el uso de la tortura " , incluso si no funciona "; y un hombre que se lamentaba de que el sospechoso en el caso reciente atentado de Nueva York recibiría tratamiento médico y asesor legal después de ser arrestado. Y es el mismo partido que está manteniendo un asiento vacante del Tribunal Supremo con la esperanza de que este hombre va a llenar la vacante.
Mientras que los ataques de Trump sobre los valores fundamentales de Estados Unidos son una vergüenza, que por desgracia no está solo en ellos.
Afirmación de Trump que lo haría la cárcel, Hillary Clinton, si es elegido presidente fue impactante, y con razón. Pero dejó en gran medida inadvertido fue su ataque a la Sexta Enmienda, o el derecho de los acusados a un juicio justo con "la seguridad de los abogados."
Durante el foro ayuntamiento presidenciales del domingo, Trump criticó a Clinton por haber representado un acusado de violación, mientras que la práctica de la ley en Arkansas en 1975, incluso llevando la mujer, que era menor de edad en el momento en que fue violada, al debate y una rueda de prensa como prueba de que Clinton, y no Trump, es el verdadero enemigo de las mujeres.
el hecho de que Clinton representado un hombre acusado de violación es ningún secreto. Clinton escribió sobre ella misma en su libro "Historia viva". Pero muchos conservadores han aprovechado en ese caso para argumentar que Clinton es el verdadero agresor de la mujer, la más reciente en su intento de ejecutar la interferencia de Trump después del lanzamiento de una grabación de 2005 él presumiendo de agredir sexualmente a las mujeres.
Clinton representó el violador acusado de mala gana después de recibir una petición del juez . El caso se resolvió en última instancia, cuando el acusado se declaró culpable de un cargo reducido sustancialmente.
Los que asaltan a Clinton por lo que representa un criminal acusado parecen estar bajo la impresión de que toda persona acusada de ningún delito debe ser encontrado de forma automática culpable, la supresión de esa necesidad molestos para un ensayo en el que el acusado se presume inocente y tiene derecho a un abogado.
Sí, incluso las personas acusadas de crímenes tan vil como violación deben tener su día en corte y una defensa celosa, no importa lo culpable que aparecen.
Clinton no es el único que se ha enfrentado la crítica política por hacer su trabajo como un abogado que representa a un cliente desagradable.
el Comité Nacional republicano recientemente salió con un anuncio atacar candidato a la vicepresidencia demócrata Tim Kaine para la defensa de las personas en espera de ejecución . Dos años antes, la Asociación de Gobernadores Republicanos lanzó anuncios similares en contra de un candidato a gobernador demócrata en Carolina del Sur, acusando a él de proteger "los criminales, no nosotros." A principios de este año, un grupo conservador se recuperó frente a un juez federal que había un potencial candidato a la Corte Suprema por citar su trabajo como defensor público.
este tipo de ataques debilitan nuestro sistema legal y la Constitución.
Sólo podemos imaginar los anuncios negativos que estos grupos se han creado para atacar a John Adams, que defendió con éxito a varios soldados británicos implicados en la masacre de Boston, o Abraham Lincoln, quien representó con éxito contra asesinos.
Pero al igual que en otros casos, esta hostilidad patente a un principio constitucional lecho de roca proviene principalmente de una de las partes, la parte que ha designado a un hombre que hizo campaña sobre la restricción de las libertades religiosas y la libertad de la prensa ; un hombre que a día de hoy sigue manchar el Parque Cinco central; un hombre que es compatible con los tratados de ruptura , crímenes de guerra y el uso de la tortura " , incluso si no funciona "; y un hombre que se lamentaba de que el sospechoso en el caso reciente atentado de Nueva York recibiría tratamiento médico y asesor legal después de ser arrestado. Y es el mismo partido que está manteniendo un asiento vacante del Tribunal Supremo con la esperanza de que este hombre va a llenar la vacante.
Mientras que los ataques de Trump sobre los valores fundamentales de Estados Unidos son una vergüenza, que por desgracia no está solo en ellos.
13 de de octubre de, el año 2016 17:34- Brian Tashman @ The Huffington Post : Desprecio de Donald Trump para la constitución.
- Alan Colmes : Jeffress: Una demanda contra Trump 'no quiere decir que es la realidad'.
- Tom Gara @ Buzzfeed : Aquí está la respuesta de Donald Trump a ser llamado un "depredador sexual" en 2006.
- Zack Ford @ Piense Progreso : Jerry Falwell Jr. votará a favor de Donald Trump aunque agredido sexualmente a las mujeres.
- Michael Fitzgerald @ Towleroad : Ben Carson: matrimonio homosexual provocarán "asesinatos en masa" y "caos total".
- Travis Gettys @ Raw Story : Desde hace mucho tiempo Trump ejecutivo explica por qué su 'vengativa y deshonesto "ex-jefe nunca debería ser presidente.
- 1r Enmienda , 2016 elecciones Pres , 6th enmienda , las libertades civiles , Donald drumpf / triunfo , libertad de prensa , Hillary Clinton , defensores públicos , la libertad religiosa , la tortura , la Constitución de Estados Unidos , los crímenes de guerra
14 October 2016
Donald Trump’s Contempt For The Constitution & Right Wing Round-Up 13OKT16
THE drumpf/trump-pence campaign is a threat to the American Republic. drumpf/trump has a big mouth and encourages violations of his opponents civil liberties and civil rights, but mike pence is a greater threat because he is a professional politician who knows how to package the revocation of civil liberties and civil rights in a propaganda campaign that can deceive many into supporting the eventual imposition of authoritarianism on themselves. This from +The Huffington Post and PFAW's Right Wing Watch.....
Donald Trump’s Contempt For The Constitution
In a debate dominated by Donald Trump’s insults, ranting and smears, one of his many disturbing moments received decidedly less attention than others.
Trump’s claim that he would jail Hillary Clinton if elected president was shocking—and rightfully so. But left largely unnoticed was his attack on the Sixth Amendment, or the right of defendants to receive a fair trial with “the assurance of counsel.”
During Sunday’s presidential town hall forum, Trump railed against Clinton for having represented an accused rapist while practicing law in Arkansas back in 1975, even bringing the woman, who was a minor at the time she was raped, to the debate and a press conference as evidence that Clinton, and not Trump, is the true enemy of women.
The fact that Clinton represented a man accused of rape is no secret. Clinton wrote about it herself in her book “Living History.” But many conservatives have seized on that case to argue that Clinton is the true abuser of women, most recently as they try to run interference for Trump after the release of a 2005 recording of him bragging about sexually assaulting women.
Clinton reluctantly represented the accused rapist after receiving a request from the judge. The case was ultimately resolved when the defendant pled guilty to a substantially reduced charge.
Those who assail Clinton for representing an accused criminal seem to be under the impression that anyone accused of any crime should be automatically found guilty, doing away with that pesky need for a trial in which the accused is presumed innocent and has a right to legal counsel.
Yes, even people accused of crimes as vile as rape should have their day in court and a zealous defense, no matter how guilty they appear.
Clinton isn’t the only one who’s faced political criticism for doing her job as a lawyer representing an unsavory client.
The Republican National Committee recently came out with an ad attacking Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine for defending people on death row. Two years earlier, the Republican Governors Association launched similar ads against a Democratic gubernatorial candidate in South Carolina, accusing him of protecting “criminals, not us.” Earlier this year, a conservative group rallied against a federal judge who was a potential Supreme Court nominee by citing her work as a public defender.
Such attacks undermine our legal system and the Constitution.
We can only imagine the negative advertisements that these groups would have created to assail John Adams, who successfully defended several British soldiers implicated in the Boston Massacre, or Abraham Lincoln, who successfully represented accused murderers.
But as in other instances, this patent hostility to a bedrock constitutional principle mainly comes from one party—the party that has nominated a man who campaigned on restricting religious liberties and the freedom of the press; a man who to this day continues to smear the Central Park Five; a man who supports breaking treaties, committing war crimes and using torture “even if it doesn’t work“; and a man who lamented that the suspect in the recent New York bombing case would receive medical treatment and legal counsel after being arrested. And it’s the same party that is keeping a Supreme Court seat vacant in hopes that this man will fill the vacancy.
While Trump’s attacks on core American values are disgraceful, he is sadly not alone in them.
Trump’s claim that he would jail Hillary Clinton if elected president was shocking—and rightfully so. But left largely unnoticed was his attack on the Sixth Amendment, or the right of defendants to receive a fair trial with “the assurance of counsel.”
During Sunday’s presidential town hall forum, Trump railed against Clinton for having represented an accused rapist while practicing law in Arkansas back in 1975, even bringing the woman, who was a minor at the time she was raped, to the debate and a press conference as evidence that Clinton, and not Trump, is the true enemy of women.
The fact that Clinton represented a man accused of rape is no secret. Clinton wrote about it herself in her book “Living History.” But many conservatives have seized on that case to argue that Clinton is the true abuser of women, most recently as they try to run interference for Trump after the release of a 2005 recording of him bragging about sexually assaulting women.
Clinton reluctantly represented the accused rapist after receiving a request from the judge. The case was ultimately resolved when the defendant pled guilty to a substantially reduced charge.
Those who assail Clinton for representing an accused criminal seem to be under the impression that anyone accused of any crime should be automatically found guilty, doing away with that pesky need for a trial in which the accused is presumed innocent and has a right to legal counsel.
Yes, even people accused of crimes as vile as rape should have their day in court and a zealous defense, no matter how guilty they appear.
Clinton isn’t the only one who’s faced political criticism for doing her job as a lawyer representing an unsavory client.
The Republican National Committee recently came out with an ad attacking Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine for defending people on death row. Two years earlier, the Republican Governors Association launched similar ads against a Democratic gubernatorial candidate in South Carolina, accusing him of protecting “criminals, not us.” Earlier this year, a conservative group rallied against a federal judge who was a potential Supreme Court nominee by citing her work as a public defender.
Such attacks undermine our legal system and the Constitution.
We can only imagine the negative advertisements that these groups would have created to assail John Adams, who successfully defended several British soldiers implicated in the Boston Massacre, or Abraham Lincoln, who successfully represented accused murderers.
But as in other instances, this patent hostility to a bedrock constitutional principle mainly comes from one party—the party that has nominated a man who campaigned on restricting religious liberties and the freedom of the press; a man who to this day continues to smear the Central Park Five; a man who supports breaking treaties, committing war crimes and using torture “even if it doesn’t work“; and a man who lamented that the suspect in the recent New York bombing case would receive medical treatment and legal counsel after being arrested. And it’s the same party that is keeping a Supreme Court seat vacant in hopes that this man will fill the vacancy.
While Trump’s attacks on core American values are disgraceful, he is sadly not alone in them.
October 13, 2016 5:34 pm- Brian Tashman @ The Huffington Post: Donald Trump’s Contempt For The Constitution.
- Alan Colmes: Jeffress: A Claim Against Trump ‘Doesn’t Mean It’s Reality’.
- Tom Gara @ Buzzfeed: Here’s Donald Trump’s Response To Being Called A “Sexual Predator” In 2006.
- Zack Ford @ Think Progress: Jerry Falwell Jr. will vote for Donald Trump even if he sexually assaulted women.
- Michael Fitzgerald @ Towleroad: Ben Carson: Gay Marriage Will Lead to ‘Mass Killings’ and ‘Utter Chaos’.
- Travis Gettys @ Raw Story: Longtime Trump exec explains why her ‘vindictive and dishonest’ ex-boss should never be president.
06 October 2016
09 April 2016
The GOP Response to Belgium? Torture & the "Patrolling and Securing" of Muslim Neighborhoods 23MAR16
TORTURE. donald drumpf wants America to torture people suspected of, arrested for, convicted of terrorism. Torture! sen ted cruz wants to turn neighborhoods with majority Muslim residents into ghettos subject to high levels of government and police surveillance. I lived in an apartment complex where at least 40% of the residents were from predominately Muslim countries, should all of the residents been subject to interrogation just because we live there? Papers please? I don't live in and will not live in a country like that. From +Democracy Now! cruz's and drumpf's extreme, racist, ignorant, fascist views and sane analysis from people with experience of being governed by people with these views.
The GOP Response to Belgium? Torture & the "Patrolling and Securing" of Muslim Neighborhoods
MARCH 23, 2016
Yasser Louati Slams Cruz & Trump's Response To Brussels Bombings
Following the Belgium attacks, Republican presidential contender Ted Cruz issued a statement saying, "We need to immediately halt the flow of refugees from countries with a significant al Qaida or ISIS presence. We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized." Meanwhile, Donald Trump urged the waterboarding of captured Paris suspect Salah Abdeslam despite international laws against torture. "I would do a lot more than waterboarding," Trump said. We get a response from our three guests: Frank Barat in Brussels, journalist Joshua Hersh and Yasser Louati of the the Collective Against Islamophobia in France.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to get your response, Yasser, to our own politicians here in the United States. Following the attacks in Belgium, Republican presidential contender Ted Cruz, who’s a senator from Texas, issued a statement saying, quote, "We need to immediately halt the flow of refugees from countries with a significant al Qaida or ISIS presence. We need to empower law enforcement to patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods before they become radicalized." Later Tuesday, Senator Cruz spoke to CNN.
SEN. TED CRUZ: If you have a neighborhood where there is a high level of gang activity, the way to prevent it is you increase the law enforcement presence there, and you target the gang members to get them off the streets. ... I am talking about an area where there is a higher incidence of radical Islamic terrorism. If you look at Europe, Europe’s failed immigration laws have allowed a massive influx of radical Islamic terrorists into Europe, and they are now in isolated neighborhoods where radicalism festers.
AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s Senator Cruz speaking on CNN. Meanwhile, Donald Trump, the Republican front-runner, was asked on The Today Show about what Belgium officials should do to get information from Salah Abdeslam, who was captured last week.
DONALD TRUMP: I’m not looking for breaking news on your show, but frankly, the waterboarding, if it was up to me, and if we changed the laws and—or have the laws, waterboarding would be fine. And if they want to do—as long as it’s with—because, you know, we work within laws. They don’t work within laws. They have no laws. We work within laws. The waterboarding would be fine. And if they could expand the laws, I would do a lot more than waterboarding. You have to get the information from these people. And we have to be smart, and we have to be tough, and we can’t be soft and weak, which is what we are right now.
AMY GOODMAN: So that was Donald Trump and, before him, Ted Cruz, calling for more waterboarding and for the monitoring of and police going into Muslim communities in the United States. Yasser Louati, your response?
YASSER LOUATI: First, Europe is not waiting for Ted Cruz to give us policy advice. If he wants to patrol neighborhoods, ask him to go patrol neighborhoods where you have a high rate of white-collar criminality, who have put millions of Americans out of their homes and lost their jobs. Let’s start with that.
Second, we have this idiot you call Donald Trump. What does he know about foreign policy? How about ending the drone war? How about ending the war against terrorism? How about paying for the consequences of the collapse of Iraq, that saw the emergence of the so-called Islamic State. So, every single war abroad carried by superpowers is—they’re directly translated into terrorist attacks. And to quote one of your CIA officials, you know, who said, being a—"Terrorist attacks is a small price for being a superpower." So how about addressing that?
When it comes to policies, yes, we need to address our policies, increasing dramatically inequalities and the exclusion of millions of people. And again, it doesn’t take more than 10 individuals to carry out massive-scale terrorist attacks. But unfortunately for America, you have two of the dumbest politicians running for the presidency, and that should be a shame for every single politician in America.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Josh Hersh, I saw you smiling as you saw some of those videos. Your response to the presidential candidates here?
JOSHUA HERSH: Well, I mean, it’s obviously an emotional and somewhat ludicrous response, but at the same time there is a law enforcement response. And we have to recognize that, that there is a role for law enforcement. But I mean law enforcement instead of the military, law enforcement in the way that we’re starting to learn we have to apply law enforcement in smart and engaged ways in our American cities. I mean, Ted Cruz mentioned if we had a neighborhood that was full of gangs, well, we wouldn’t send tanks down the streets. We wouldn’t blow up apartment buildings. We would try and figure out smart, intelligent ways to get information there, to work with neighbors to build relationships with people who might actually be able to inform, under the assumption that most of the residents of that neighborhood don’t want the gangs there, either.
AMY GOODMAN: And, Frank Barat, your response to listening to the presidential candidates in the United States? Actually, the New York police commissioner, Bratton, lashed out against the patrolling of Muslim communities. But your response to Cruz and to Trump, Frank, in Brussels?
FRANK BARAT: I mean, it’s ridiculous on so many levels. Maybe they should read the reports by intelligence agencies that have shown—have showed that the use of torture is actually pretty useless in getting sort of information, or good and solid information, out of people or terrorists. So, again, I mean, those people and most mainstream politicians are not interested by the facts, right? Otherwise, they would completely change their policies.
I wanted to say something about Paris and France. And the interesting and the scary thing is that the state of emergency and the repression of the sort of, you know, Muslim and Arab community—most of them, the majority, being French—has also been used now against social movements, against students, against unions. So they’re using—it’s a bit like, you know, the "shock doctrine," as Naomi Klein would put it. You know, they’re using this terrible thing that happened in Paris and using this to actually repress not only the Muslim community or the Arab community or the youth, but also any sort of political movement that intends on changing the narrative and changing the power in place. So, this is something we’ve seen happening over and over around the world.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you all for being with us. Frank Barat, speaking to us from Brussels, Belgium, he is an author and activist, was the coordinator of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine, president of the Palestine Legal Action Network in Belgium. And I want to thank Joshua Hersh for joining us. We’ll link to your piece. He reported from Brussels following the Paris attacks in November, wrote a piece headlined "What They Missed: The Anti-Terror Raid That Asked All the Wrong Questions." At the time, he was BuzzFeed News Michael Hastings fellow. And thanks so much to Yasser Louati, joining us from Paris, spokesperson and head of the International Relations Desk for the Collective Against Islamophobia in France.
25 March 2016
FORMERLY FUNDIE; 5 Serious Questions I Have For Christians Who Support Donald Trump 24MAR16
5 Serious Questions I Have For Christians Who Support Donald Trump
5 Serious Questions I Have For Christians Who Support Donald Trump
March 24, 2016 by
Image via Gage Skidmore, Flickr
I used to consider myself a person of at least average intelligence, but I’ve been trying to wrap my head around the idea of Christians supporting Donald Trump, and I just can’t do it.
I tried, but I have failed miserably.
Instead, I’ve just found myself left with questions. So, here are 5 questions I have for Christians who support Donald Trump:
5. How are you able to support someone who is famous for unwholesome talk and constantly putting people down?
You know that Bible we read? (It’s thick and usually has a fake leather cover. Check the shelf.)
Well, that Bible has a few things to say about how we use our tongues and about the kind of garbage we should resist allowing to flow from our little speaking machines.
I mean, I know it’s a big book, but surely you’ve gotten to the part where Paul says that no unwholesome words should come out of our mouths, but only those words which edify and build people up, no?
I’ll tell you this: When you compare what the Bible teaches about how we should use our words, to how Trump uses his, you’re going to find two opposite examples. It’s one thing to disagree with people, and even forcefully challenge their ideas, but that can be done without stooping to the levels Trump stoops to.
Or, let me ask it this way: How would you react if your kids came home from school talking like Donald Trump? How would you feel if they talked to you the way Trump talks to others?
Would you seriously be okay with that? C’mon now! Be honest with yourself.
4. How are you able to support someone who speaks so poorly to women?
Trump’s mouth is bad enough, but what’s worse is how he uses it toward women. Between inappropriate sexual innuendos, salivating over how hot he thinks his own daughter is, and how he brags about being sexually promiscuous– as if women are a hill to conquer– I can’t even begin to fathom how a Christian can reconcile supporting this.
How would you feel if someone spoke to your own daughter(s) the way Trump speaks to women? What if someone told your daughter that the only reason she got her job was because she was pretty, or if her boss told her she must look good “down on her knees?” I mean, I can’t even believe I actually have to ask you this.
Are you *really* okay with this? You guys would have kicked me out of Bible school for less than this, and now y’all are endorsing him. It just doesn’t make sense.
3. How do you deal with the conflicting imagery of Jesus dying for his enemies, with Donald Trump’s constant calls to torture them– and even kill their families?
The two messages can’t be further apart: Jesus says, “love your enemies, and do good to them.” Jesus teaches us to reject an “eye for an eye” systems of justice, but to instead be people who love to show mercy, even when it is totally undeserved and comes at a cost to ourselves.
But Trump? In referring to protestors Trump says, “Knock the crap out of them.” And worse, in regards to real enemies, he continually advocates for illegal torture and even killing innocent family members in retaliation. This stuff is beyond immoral– it’s actually totally illegal. It’s a war crime.
How do you contend with the fact that in order to follow Donald Trump, you first must stop following Jesus? If you want to support torturing people that’s you’re right– but you can’t do that and still pretend to be a Christian.
Remember that hellfire preacher from your childhood who would shout, “Choose this day whom you will serve!”? Well, maybe now is an appropriate time to do that.
2. What changed between Bill Clinton and now? Don’t you think you owe him an apology?
Seriously, what changed? Because you know, I remember those days and we were calling for Clinton to be impeached and thrown out of office. Remember why?
Because “character counts” that’s why.
If a few years ago we claimed that poor personal character disqualified one from holding the office of presidency, and even went through the efforts to impeach a sitting president because his personal character, how the (oops, almost had some unwholesome language myself. Good catch, Ben) are you supporting Trump?
Did you legitimately change your mind, or are you just being hypocritical since the guy with poor moral character happens to be your guy this time? Because as far as I can tell, changing your mind about the value of character, and being a total hypocrite, are the only two options available to you.
1. Are you feeling okay?
For real– are you ok? Because I’m not sure you’re thinking clearly.
It’s one thing for Christians to have a disagreement on political policy, but I can find no plausible path towards supporting Donald Trump without betraying the Christian faith.
While I want to be charitable with my assumptions, in this case that means I’m just going to have to assume that something must be wrong, and that you’re just not thinking clearly. Because all the other options? Well, those options would far less charitable.
…
I’ve tried to reconcile this idea of being a Christian and supporting Trump, but to me, it just doesn’t seem possible– not unless one just completely redefines the word Christian. So help me out: if you claim to be a Christian and a Trump supporter, how do you reconcile those two things? I’d be impressed if it could be done.
** this post originally included some good-natured sarcasm that I have since removed so as to not be a stumbling block to some readers. However, call me crazy, but I think we as Christians really need to lighten up.
Follow the guy who’d rather eat a chunk of old tuna out of the mayo jar than vote for Trump:
Related posts from The Official Blog of Benjamin L. Corey:
06 January 2016
Top Wins for Civil Liberties in 2015 28DEZ15
TIME after time I thank GOD for the ACLU and the work they do protecting our civil rights and civil liberties. I am also a proud member of the ACLU, have been for years! Here are their top victories for 2015.....
We hope you share our pride in these considerable achievements, and look forward to continuing our work in the year ahead.
Take a look at some of this year’s victories below.
Reforming a Broken Criminal Justice System
We closed or reformed scandalously dangerous prisons and jails in Arizona; Baltimore, Maryland; and Los Angeles and Monterey County, California.
Winning the Freedom to Marry
Our Supreme Court victory in Obergefell v. Hodges made same-sex marriage the law of the land. That was the culmination of years of strategic ACLU litigation and advocacy, including 12 state wins just since our 2013 Supreme Court victory in Windsor.
Securing Net Neutrality
Intensive ACLU advocacy helped finally to secure “net neutrality,”
crucial new Federal Communications Commission rules that prohibit
Internet service providers from favoring some content over other
content—for example, through the creation of “fast lanes” for websites
willing and able to pay providers a premium for faster access to
consumers.
Opposing Torture
Years of ACLU advocacy and litigation helped spur the historic release of the so-called Senate Torture Report on the CIA’s torture of detainees—and made possible our landmark lawsuit on behalf of victims, targeting torture profiteers.
Combating Religious Refusals
In Nebraska, Colorado, and North Carolina, the ACLU successfully fought efforts to use religion to discriminate against LGBT people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)