Thursday, July 4, 2019

Happy Independence Day! Work for Human Rights!

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees,
you hypocrites!
You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces.
You yourselves do not enter,
nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees,
you hypocrites!
You give a tenth of your goods.
But you have neglected the more
important matters of the law:
mercy and
You should have practiced the latter,
without neglecting the former.
You blind guides!
You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
You worry and fret
about words and phrases and
count the costs to your own fattened wallet
but ignore the cries of the children,
the perils of the poor and marginalized.
Although you were once immigrants yourselves
welcomed in grace
you now turn away immigrants
seeking safety and welcome
Blind guides!
Ungrateful ones!
For this was the sin of your sister Sodom
(don't listen to charlatans who tell you otherwise...):
She and her daughters were arrogant,
overfed and unconcerned;
they did not help the poor and needy.
Don't be like Sodom!
Woe to those who fail
to side with the poor and needy!
Woe to those who refuse
to welcome the refugee!
Judgment will draw nigh!
There will be a swift witness
against those who swear falsely,
against those who oppress the laborers in their wages,
against who cheat at charities meant to aid
the widow and the orphan,
against those who thrust aside the sojourner seeking refuge.
There will be hell to pay!
Now listen, you rich people,
weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you.
Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes.
Your gold and silver are corroded.
You have hoarded wealth in the last days.
Look! The wages
you failed to pay the workers
who mowed your fields are crying out against you.
The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty.
You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence.
You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter.
Do what is just and right;
rescue the oppressed from the power of the oppressor.
Don’t exploit or mistreat the refugee,
the orphan,
or the widow.
Don’t spill the blood of the innocent in this place.
Do not place the innocent in prison.
Tear down those walls!
Free the captive
provide healthcare to the sick
preach actual good news to the poor!
(And not any sort of cheap counterfeit
"stay quiet and accept the punishments coming to you
at the hands of rich oppressors and slave traders!"
sort of "good news")
Preach the real good news to the actual poor.
For what you do for the least of these
for the poor
the strangers
the outcasts
the refugees
those in the oppressed classes...
What you do for them,
you do for and with and alongside God
you do for and with and alongside
your own children and
you do for and with and alongside
your own self.
It's simple
do unto others,
what you'd have them do unto you
and here's a hint:
IF you were escaping hunger and rape and murder
YOU would want to be welcomed in as a refugee.
Do that, for others.
and love
and love
and love.

~The Bible, God, Jesus...
along with just reasonable, compassionate people everywhere
regardless of their faith tradition
or belief system

Monday, June 24, 2019

Top Ten Reasons Not to Be An Ass

An attempt at a brief review of SOME the arguments against putting immigrant/refugee children in cages/internment camps/whatever... of separating these children from their parents, and of Trump's immigration "policy..."
1. Biblical:
The Bible is exceedingly clear. Genesis to Revelation we see commands/arguments/teachings to welcome the immigrant. Not heeding this teaching is regularly compared to failing to do "for the least of these..." and an attack directly upon God.
2. The war crimes argument:
We cannot treat prisoners of war the way we are treating the children in the for profit shelters/concentration camps. We would be violating war conventions if we did.
3. The child abuse argument:
We cannot leave our children locked in a room laying on a concrete floor with no toothbrushes or toothpaste/basic needs and fail to provide sufficient resources for them... if we did that we would be charged with child abuse and the children be taken away.
4. The libertarian argument:
One of our basic human Liberties is the right to self-determination. This would include the right to live where one wants to live. If someone is moving to a place and not causing any harm in making that move, there is no rational human rights reason to not let the move. Indeed, laws against self-determination would be violation of Human Rights.
5. The Holocaust argument:
Everyone universally agrees (well except for Nazis) that not enough was done to stop people from being killed in Nazi Germany, in Rwanda, and other places where widespread murder and oppression happened. We recognize now that Roosevelt was wrong to not let Jewish children in during World War II when he could have. People died as a result. We need to learn from that lesson.
6. The Golden Rule (beyond any one religion) argument:
If YOUR life was threatened in another land, you would want another safe nation to let you in. Come on, this is easy! Just do what you'd want other people do for you.
7. The don't be an ass argument:
These refugees are just seeking a decent life. Don't be an ass. They are at risk of starvation, oppression, murder and rape where they live and they just want to escape from there. Don't be an ass.
And, in response to some of the attempts to make an argument against legalizing seeking refuge...
8. The "They'll take our jobs" argument:
Data does not support that, by and large. Take it up with the data. Or just think it through... People coming to this nation are People. People will buy food, clothes, necessities... they'll buy stuff. When more people buy stuff, that leads to more jobs, not fewer.
9. The racist "they are murderers and drug dealers..." argument:
Yes, some of them are. Just like some US citizens are murderers and drug dealers. But not the majority, and we don't blame the whole group for the actions of a TINY minority. We don't throw all white preachers in jail because some white preachers molest children. That ideal is not rational or moral. Besides that, the data shows that immigrants are LESS likely than US citizens to commit crimes, so admitting more immigrants in may actually result in lower crime rates! (that's a bit facetious, but still...)
10. The "We can't take in ALL people who want to move here" argument:
Probably not. But we can take in many more. We're not out of space here.

...just off the top of my head. I could go on, but you get the idea. We all (by and large) recognize how wrong our ancestors were to put Japanese Americans in internment camps last century. We recognize that we were wrong for not accepting more Jewish refugees in WWII. We're making these same sorts of mistakes again.
Come on, this should be easy. We're witnessing our nation engage in a great national sin. Let's work for change and for basic human decency.

Friday, June 21, 2019

The Binding of the Years

The creek was dark
beneath the canopy of trees
save for one shaft of sun
that lit the stream there like gold

I could see 
on the bottom of the creek
a crawdad, scuttling to safety

the crawdad hid beneath 
an ancient sheet of paper
heavy with age and 
weathered with water

There was writing 
on the old paper,
a message that 
was being erased 
by the steady flow

The writing was in Spanish
and the remaining words
that I could read said

...El sol, la luna y las estrellas, 
la atadura de los años,
esto nos mantendrá firmes...

...which I translated to say

...the Sun, the moon and the stars,
the binding of the years,
these are what hold us steady...

It is my estimation
that this was from a 
diary of a wanderer,
a sojourner and stranger
holding steady to the path in front of her,
the stream, rolling alongside her,
and the stars above her

I believe that she 
was speaking of a 
promised land
one better than older
promised lands
and more sure.

I added my own words to the water
and walked on.

Wednesday, June 5, 2019

Imagine It Was a Conversation...

Imagine it was a conversation
instead of a policy

You meet this nice young gentleman
with the glorious copper skin
and liquid black hair and eyes

and you notice the perfect little
circle on his forearm
and ask about it,
is that a birthmark?

he says
it's a scar.

what from?
you ask

one of the bullets that tore through my body
ten years ago

Oh my.
you say

My city where I live
is not safe
I would like to move to your city
he says

But, surely you don't want to leave your home?

No, surely, I do not.
my city,
it is not safe
Do you think I could move to your city?

Maybe that was just an isolated event
you offer hopefully
and with no basis

No, that scar is from the first time I was shot
I have others,

he points to his chest

and here

he points to his lower back

These men, they are part of a gang
they promised to shoot me again
and so, I would like to move to your city
Is it safe there?

you say
pretty much

But why don't you get the police
to arrest these men who shot you?
you ask hopefully
and not knowing about his police

he shakes his head, sadly
The police are owned by these shooters
My city
he explains again
is not safe.
Could I move to your city?

Do you have other family there?
you ask

I used to have a mother and father
two cities away from me

Maybe you could move there
and live with them?
You offer hopefully
and without knowing about his parents

he shakes his head sadly
the cartel,
they killed my parents

My nation
he explains
is not a safe nation
Do you think I could move to yours?

Imagine this
was a conversation
and not a policy supported by your particular friends
and party

Would you tell this man
Yes, of course, you should move here!
I'm so sorry for the state of your nation and
the pain and
losses you've endured!

Or would you say
No, you can't move here?

and if you'd say
What if you were on the
other side
of that conversation?


The scar is a jagged hole
ripped through his arm ten years ago.
That scar is matched by others
on his chest and
his back,
holes torn through flesh and bone
punched through his body
by bullets and despair
and into which
bitter hopelessness
might have been poured

and yet!

and yet,
in spite of it all
a dangerous strength and determination
lives on
that maybe
these scars will serve to prove that
refuge is reasonable and
welcome is warranted
and the opportunity to
can be afforded.

As for me?
Any person who can walk through
hundreds of miles
and dozens of bullets
asking for the simple chance to
can be my neighbor, any time.

In fact, I don't think we need to demand
that sort of price of anyone,
and shame on those who do.

Wednesday, May 22, 2019

Not That You Need My Approval

Rise up wild daughter of the woods
dance and romp
struggle and scream
kick and punch.
Persist. Resist. Insist. Consist
of and within your
own sweet and glorious dragon Self.

Kick at the stones and
split the sky into
one thousand shards of color
bellow in rage

Or don't.

Just rest and relax or do
it is your own unchained soul wants.

It IS your life. Live it by your rules.

This poet stands with you and your choices.

Tuesday, May 14, 2019

Another Set of Questions for Marshal, and Any Anti-Abortion Defenders

Marshal, on a recent post of his at his website (and no doubt, many, many other anti-abortion activists): "There is no need to abort. EVER..."

In addition to Marshal, he had amongst his supporters/commenters a man who said that people who defend the medical procedure of abortion were "Molech-worshiping ghouls."

These people are bona fide anti-abortion zealots. It really should NOT be a viable medical option, according to these men. My questions to their type...

1. So, you recognize that girls as young as ten (and younger, of course) have been raped, I suppose?

2. Do you recognize that some ten year olds have gotten pregnant as a result?

3. Do you recognize that a child's body is not prepared to give birth?

4. Do you recognize the trauma that would be involved in having a ten year old girl go through that process?

5. You're opposed to an abortion even under that set of circumstances?

6. If so, what sort of monster are you?

7. Would you truly sacrifice these children on the altar of anti-abortion worship?

"Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech,
for you must not profane the name of your God."

Leviticus 18

Molech-Worshiping ghouls, indeed.


"Just because a girl can get pregnant, though, doesn't mean she can safely deliver a baby. The pelvis does not fully widen until the late teens, meaning that young girls may not be able to push the baby through the birth canal.

The results are horrific,
said Wall and Thomas, who have both worked in Africa treating women in the aftermath of such labors.
Girls may labor for days; 
many die. 
Their babies often don't survive labor either.

The women and girls who do survive often develop fistulas, which are holes between the vaginal wall and the rectum or bladder. When the baby's head pushes down and gets stuck, it can cut portions of the mother's soft tissue between its skull and her pelvic bones. As a result, the tissue dies, and a hole forms. Feces and urine then leak through the hole and out of the vagina. Women with fistulas are often divorced and shunned. And young girls are at higher risk."


Carrying on, then...

Most people would grant that in my example of a pregnant 10 year old who is pregnant as a result of rape that abortion should be allowed. This includes, I believe, most anti-abortion thinkers

["The most widely accepted reason for performing abortions, with little difference in support depending on the timing, is when the woman's life is endangered: 83% think this should be legal in the first trimester and 75% in the third." ~Gallup]

They recognize that would be wrong to force that 10 year old to have that baby. Good for them. But why are they willing to make that exception?

Suppose, for instance, that instead of getting pregnant as a result of rape, that somehow magically that 10 year old suddenly had a two-year-old baby holding it in her arms, as a result of rape. Now she has a two-year-old. Would anyone anywhere support the notion of killing that 2 year old?

No. Of course not.

Why is that?

It's because most of us recognize there is a fundamental difference between a two-year-old baby and a two-day-old zygote or a 2 week old fetus.

Both are on the human life spectrum, BUT, the one IS indisputably fully a human indisputably deserving of a right to life, while the two-day-old zygote is not fully a human. It's literally a human zygote.

And that is a significant, significant difference.

8. Do you recognize that there are huge differences (especially/specifically in terms of any rights we might consider/a presumed right to life) in a two day old zygote, a three week old blastocyst, a five week old embryo, a ten week old fetus and a two month old baby?

9. Or do you think that, as far as rights go, that a zygote and a baby are pretty much exactly equivalent?

10. IF you think that a zygote and a baby are equivalent, do you think that all those people (the vast majority of us) who'd be supportive of the ten year old rape victim getting an abortion (if that was the family's choice) are monstrous to support such a case?

11. Do you recognize that probably most people would find the position that a ten year old rape victim being forced to have a possibly deadly pregnancy to be a monstrous position to hold? Can  you understand why?

12. If you think that a zygote and a birthed baby are the same (as far as a right to life is concerned) do you recognize that this is only an opinion that you can't prove, and not an established fact?

Thursday, May 9, 2019

You Fool

Sorta long ramble here, but something to think about...

He said he was a self-made millionaire
"My father gave me a very small loan in 1975, and
I built it into a company that's worth many, many billions of dollars,"
Turns out the "very small loan" was, he said, $1 million.

Except that it turns out he lied about that.
He and his parents cheated on their taxes to give him millions of dollars
before he was an adult and
his daddy loaned him $60 million to start his business.

But THEN, he was a
self-made man
who built a company that's worth billions of dollars.

Except that it turns out he lied about that.
For a ten year period
the time he was "writing" his book about
the art of the deal
and boasting about how great a business man he was
he lost $1 billion
over a ten year period.


Lost it.
Mismanaged a billion dollars away.
In ten years.
I'm pretty sure I couldn't even spend a billion dollars
in ten years.

What would one buy?!

No, he was an awful business man during those years.
But he kept borrowing money and then
borrowing more money and then
getting more in debt and then
borrowing more money and then
when he got in trouble with his business being in debt
he'd go bankrupt
and get out of his debt.

All the while boasting (ie, lying) about his wealth and
using his boasts and privilege of wealth
to borrow more money and
get more in debt,
ultimately going bankrupt
six times
over 15 years

All the while boasting (ie, lying) about his great wealth and
using his boasts and privilege of wealth
to borrow more money
and get more in debt

and run for political office
based on his boasts (ie, lies, false claims, swindles, cons) of
what a great business man he was
(he wasn't)
and how wealthy he is
(we don't know, because he's very evasive about his money)

But as he was running for the office of president
he assured us he'd release his tax documents
so we could see where his money came from and
to whom he was indebted.

He didn't release this tax documents.
Refuses to do so.
Actively fights to keep them hidden.

This clever business man created a school and made
(but we don't know how much because
Trump won't tell us)
off the school
which was eventually found to be a fraudulent university
and was shut down and Trump was sued over it.

At about the same time, Trump donated thousands of dollars to
Pam Bondi
who was in charge of deciding whether or not
to investigate Trump University for fraud/crimes.

Bondi and Trump said that there was no relation to that donation
and the fact that
she decided not to investigate Trump University.

At about the same time
Trump was found to have used his charity
to enrich himself and his family.
The Charity, like the school, was
shut down as fraudulent
and Trump and his family were told they could
never run a charity again.

This man who was constantly in debt to the tune of
hundreds of millions of dollars
eventually started meeting with
to conduct
with them and various Russians have paid Trump
maybe hundreds of millions of dollars
we don't fully know
because Trump keeps his finances secret
and assures us we can trust this man
who cheated with his charities organization
and his university,
who was barred from being involved in charitable organizations,
who lied constantly about his wealth
who used his false claims about his wealth to get loans of
hundreds of millions of dollars, and
promptly "lose" $1 billion,
who has gone bankrupt
six times
in fifteen years

Who has used his wealth to raise
Large Gold TRUMPs everywhere he went
in tribute to his own name
and who built himself
Gold Toilets
on which to shit.

Who said to himself,
‘This is what I’ll do.
I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store my surplus grain.
And I’ll say to myself,
“Self, you have plenty of grain laid up for many years.
Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’

And he made himself merry
assaulting women
and boasting about it
and laughing about it
And used his money and privilege to
force his way into the rooms where
teen-aged girls
were changing their clothes
and he laughed about getting to
ogle half naked teen-aged girls.

Laughed about it on a public radio show.

And some might rightly note that God once said to a rich man

"You fool!
This very night your life will be demanded from you.
Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?"


"Depart from me, you who are cursed, 
into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 
For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, 
I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 
I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, 
I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, 
I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me."

Saturday, April 20, 2019

Invisible Man

Some quotes from Ralph Ellison's "Invisible Man..."

I am an invisible man. No, I am not a spook like those who haunted Edgar Allan Poe; nor am I one of your Hollywood-movie ectoplasms. I am a man of substance, of flesh and bone, fiber and liquids – and I might even be said to possess a mind. 

I am invisible, understand, simply because people refuse to see me. Like the bodiless heads you see sometimes in circus sideshows, it is as though I have been surrounded by mirrors of hard, distorting glass. When they approach me they see only my surroundings, themselves or figments of their imagination, indeed, everything and anything except me...

I was never more hated than when I tried to be honest. Or when, even as just now I've tried to articulate exactly what I felt to be the truth. No one was satisfied...

I remember that I'm invisible and walk softly so as not awake the sleeping ones. Sometimes it is best not to awaken them; there are few things in the world as dangerous as sleepwalkers...

For, like almost everyone else in our country, I started out with my share of optimism. I believed in hard work and progress and action, but now, after first being 'for' society and then 'against' it, I assign myself no rank or any limit, and such an attitude is very much against the trend of the times. But my world has become one of infinite possibilities. What a phrase - still it's a good phrase and a good view of life, and a man shouldn't accept any other; that much I've learned underground. Until some gang succeeds in putting the world in a strait jacket, its definition is possibility...

Whence all this passion towards conformity anyway? Diversity is the word. Let man keep his many parts and you will have no tyrant states. Why, if they follow this conformity business, they'll end up by forcing me, an invisible man, to become white, which is not a color but the lack of one. Must I strive towards colorlessness? But seriously and without snobbery, think of what the world would lose if that should happen. America is woven of many strands. I would recognize them and let it so remain...

Everywhere I've turned somebody has wanted to sacrifice me for my own good—only /they/ were the ones who benefited. And now we start on the old sacrificial merry-go-round. At what point do we stop?

I denounce because though implicated and partially responsible, I have been hurt to the point of abysmal pain, hurt to the point of invisibility. And I defend because in spite of it all, I find that I love.

Thursday, April 18, 2019

Reparations (Don't Run in Fear, White People)

I've been engaged in a dialog (if you can call it that... I raised points and asked questions and was met with insults, errant presumptions and no answers to the reasonable questions I was raising...) with some conservative folk recently on the topic of Reparations.

My position is that the US only officially apologized for slavery in 2008 and we've never (that I can tell) had a serious consideration of the notion of reparations for the devastating harm caused by the great evil of slavery (and the extension of Jim Crow laws that lasted until my lifetime! 1965!) to the people and their families affected by slavery/Jim Crow. That is, as far as I can tell, there has never been a serious congressional level researched review of the matter led by the black folks whose families have been affected by centuries of slavery and Jim Crow.

I note the surveys that say (depending on the survey and how the question is asked) that ~60-80% of black folks think that Reparations either ought to happen or at least be considered.

Consider: If a Jewish family had art in Nazi Germany that was stolen by Nazis and that direct family was killed off by Nazis, but descendants of that Jewish family had escaped and a great grandchild was to find out today that a great grandchild of the Nazi that stole their family's art still had that art, then it would be reasonable to expect that the art would be returned to the family from which it had been stolen. That wasn't to cast any blame on the descendant of the original Nazi thief... to say that they were to blame for the Holocaust or anything... only that to be just to the aggrieved family, it is reasonable that this debt should be paid.

Of course.

Reparations for the great evil of slavery is like that. It is, at the very least, a reasonable thing to be considered.

Of course, the easiest and best thing to have happened was that slavery never happened in the first place. The second best (least awful?) thing would have been to make Reparations in 1865, when it was much more clear and direct a payment to the injured parties.

That didn't happen and now, the question IS rightly muddled today.


...that we didn't do the right thing right away does not absolve us of the paying the debt that was/is owed, or at least considering the matter seriously and at the Congressional level.


I say all of that to say this... In that conversation I was having, one of the questions I was asking was simply, "Can we agree that a great evil was done and a great debt was owed?" Never answered. They could not even agree that slavery was a great evil. They DID say that if reparations were going to be paid, it should have happened back then (in ~1865). But it didn't.

I brought up the Jewish art scenario to see if they could agree that debts should be paid to descendants of the aggrieved, since the right thing wasn't done immediately. No answer.


I say all of that to say this: What they kept coming back to is the (on the face of it, ridiculously stupidly false) claim that the only reason people bring up the notion of reparations today is to intentionally divide and stir up bad feelings. I raised the question that we're talking about tens of millions (if not more) of American citizens who think the question should at least be considered... is it reasonable to assume bad intent on ALL those people's part? No answer.

I then pointed out that they are assuming "hurt feelings" or "division..." and I asked (and THIS is the central point I'm making here...), It will cause hurt feelings or division for whom? The majority of black folk and their allies who think the question of reparations should finally be seriously considered at the congressional level? No, of course they won't feel offended or divided.

No, the concern these white conservative men were raising is that it would cause hurt feelings/hard feelings/division amongst white people... they don't want their white feelings hurt.

But it's not about them.

I've been clear that the question of reparations is not to cast aspersions or blame upon white people today, people who never owned slaves. The question is, does the US gov't owe a debt of payment to the people (and their descendants) whose lives were devastated by the great evil of slavery... because it was US policy that allowed decades of slavery (following centuries of slavery prior to the US becoming a nation) and decades of the Jim Crow extension of oppressive harm to the families of black folk.

When I asked them whose feelings are being hurt by raising the question of considering reparations? Still no answer.

Of course, the answer is obvious (maybe not to them, I don't know... they wouldn't even acknowledge the question). These white men feel that if a concern makes them feel uncomfortable, they don't want to really hear the concern because it's "divisive."

It's the presumption of white privilege that these very same white men would insist doesn't even exist... even as they claim it! They could not even get beyond their emotional fears that it might hurt their feelings/cause "division" (to them) to recognize that the question is about black folk, the descendants of slaves and those harmed/oppressed by the great twin evils of slavery and Jim Crow.

That is why it is reasonable (it seems to me) to let the matter be taken seriously at the congressional level in an effort led by black folks to consider if reparations should be paid and, if so, how. There's no denying the evil of slavery and Jim Crow. There's no denying that a debt was owed, and a seriously grievous debt. There's no denying that a debt owed does not end at the death of those originally oppressed/harmed.

Let's listen to black folks. It's not OUR call to make, white folks.

Monday, April 1, 2019

Starling Dance

Sun lay low and gold,
mellow heat on an autumn eve
painting trees a rich coffee color.
A sudden tree explosion sends starlings
skyward, starward
into a flurry of songburst and wingplay
over and back
swinging loosely, easily, knowingly.
Synchronized and chaotic.
Beautiful black shadows dancing on an

alabaster sky.

Wednesday, March 20, 2019

Re: False Claims (this one's for Marshall...)

Sorry, I've been busy and hadn't had time to respond to your finally trying to answer the questions put to you. My letting you continue to comment does not mean you successfully/correctly answered the questions... Only that you made an attempt and we need to wade through your attempt.

DAN: "1. DEFINE "Enemy of the State/People."
MARSHALL: Originally, you offered no definition from Wiki, but only examples of how the expression has been used in history. The actual definition from Wiki is as follows:

"An enemy of the state is a person accused of certain crimes against the state, such as treason."

I'm good with this definition, though it's hardly comprehensive if it says "certain crimes" but gives only one example.
So, IS this your definition or not? It's not clear, but I think it is.

Moving on, then, an immediate question arises... "The press" has not been seriously accused of any "crimes against the state." None.

A. Do you recognize that reality?
Perhaps in an attempt to deal with this, you bobble around, saying...

All that is truly required for the expression to be appropriately applied is that it satisfies the definition regarding crimes committed against the state/people. But even there, the question is, "Would that be 'crimes' of a type codified by law, or 'crimes' in the sense detrimental acts of any kind?"

So, you are defining down YOUR definition of Enemy of the State/People to be "a group accused in a casual manner of some vague metaphorical "crime...", NOT an actual crime... Thus, if a person thinks that Trump's hairpiece is a 'crime against the state...' then TRUMP is an enemy of the state." Or, "If I think it's a crime for a media outlet to be biased in some way (some UNDEFINED way, since we're all unbiased to one degree or another,), then that makes one an enemy of the state..."

B. Is that what you're saying/doing? Watering down "enemy of the state" to the point where it means anyone you don't like of any offense can be reasonably considered an enemy of the state?
If so, the immediate problem arises that the phrase is meaningless. We are ALL "enemies of the state" in the minds of SOME group of people and thus, the term has no point, no meaning.

If the term has no meaning, then it remains a false claim. If we are ALL "enemies of the state" then NONE of us are enemies of the state. It's a ridiculously false claim.

Beyond that, this is not what "Enemy of the state" means.

Other follow up questions...

C. What "crime" is the media "guilty" of? Not being perfectly unbiased? No one is. By that measure, Fox News and you and Craig and Billy Graham are ALL enemies of the state. Is that what you mean?

D. By your measure, do you think Fox News is an enemy of the state? What's the difference? You appear to have no objective measure for what makes one an enemy of the state.
Marshall: To pretend that a media that can't help but spin stories to portray Trump in the worst light...indeed, they tend to spin stories to promote liberal points of view and have for some time...isn't detrimental to the people is to be complicit in the practice.
Here you appear to be defining "enemy of the state" as a media that is biased against Trump and, in YOUR estimation, portraying him in a bad light (what others would call portraying him accurately and HE makes his own self appear in a bad light because he is an awful, awful person, according to people across the political spectrum...)

E. Fox News was clearly biased against Obama. Does that make them an enemy of the state? Why not?
Your entire case appears to be based NOT on the meaning of the term Enemy of the State or People, but on you thinking it's okay to just make a claim that has no meaning and is not factual.

Again, the reality is that “the media” in all its forms has always been biased to one degree or another. Being biased does not make one an enemy of the state. And, if you were being consistent, then FoxNews would be an enemy of the state, as well, given your ridiculous definition.

It's simply a stupidly false claim.

I'm out of time but I'm going to go ahead and post this and give you a chance to respond, Marshall.