On the Reasonable Opposition to this Current Administration

Some on the Right keep referring to opposition to Trump amongst liberals to be indicative of "Trump Derangement Syndrome," as if to say there were no rational, moral, just reasons to stand strongly opposed to this administration.

The reality is, of course, this is just not true. Disgust and concern about this particular president are reasonable, given...

* his unending false claims,
* his attacks on the press,
* his objectification and harassment and assault of women (all of which is based on HIS OWN testimony, he who boasts about bedding married women, ogling half naked teen-aged girls in a dressing room he used/abused his position of power and wealth to gain entry to, who boasts about assaulting women, grabbing them by the crotch and being able to get away with it because of his fame, wealth and power! These are his OWN words, not scurrilous unsubstantiated rumors),
* his famous loathing and distrust of reading, experts, scholars and science,
* his clear moral failings - from his self-confessed greed, to his cheating of employees, his cheating on his multiple wives, etc, etc...

None of these faults are secrets or hidden knowledge. None of this is made up attacks by liberals. Most of it is just based on his own words and boasts. And the fact is, it's NOT just liberals who note all these very real failings. Unknown numbers of conservatives have made the same observations... including prominent GOP and conservative politicians, promoters, supporters and scholars/thinkers.

The Wikipedia list of Never Trumpers runs into the hundreds of prominent conservative republicans who would not vote for him in the general election and who have opposed him, pretty strongly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/…/List_of_Republicans_who_opposed_…

And here is a small sampling of what some of these conservatives have had to say about the fundamental unfitness for office of this man...

CONSERVATIVE George Will, on Trump...

"It is urgent for Americans to think and speak clearly about President Trump’s inability to do either."

"This seems to be not a mere disinclination but a disability. It is not merely the result of intellectual sloth but of an untrained mind bereft of information and married to stratospheric self-confidence."

Trump, who he says has a "combination of impulsivity and credulity" that makes him "uniquely unfit to take the nation into a military conflict."

CONSERVATIVE General Colin Powell, on Trump...

Powell called Trump a "national disgrace" and "international pariah"

"Yup, the whole birther movement was racist,"

"I don't know that he can do that [be a moral leader]... because right now that is not the way he is acting..."

On the media attacks. "How can a president of the US get up and say that the media is the enemy of Americans...?"

THE CONSERVATIVE Weekly Standard has called Trump...

“a serial liar,” “a singularly dishonest figure,” an egomaniac who can’t help boasting that his nuclear button is “bigger” than Kim Jong-un’s (or do his small hands just make it look bigger?), a policy ignoramus, an ingrate, an adulterer, a president distinguished by the “sheer volume” of his “crazy statements and actions.”

CONSERVATIVE Andrew Sullivan on Trump...

Sullivan saw America, a country that “has never been so ripe for tyranny,” following the same path, with Trump as the upper-class traitor rallying the envious, frustrated masses against the political establishment in order to make himself ruler. Sullivan is sounding a different alarm these days. The danger Trump presents is not fascism—he is too scatter-brained for that—but incompetence and buffoonery. By January 2018, in the same magazine, he was seconding Wolff’s warning of the White House’s “chaos and dysfunction” and comparing the President to a drunk driver lucky enough not to have crashed...yet.

"we knew that people in the White House had leaked it, in both an astonishing betrayal of confidence, and a clear attempt to warn the country of the unique danger this unfit president poses."

CONSERVATIVE Max Boot, on Trump...

"it’s time for President Donald Trump to be removed from office via the 25th Amendment because he is clearly “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”

“I was outraged when he came down the escalator at Trump Tower, denouncing Mexicans as rapists and drug dealers, and my outrage has not diminished at all since.”

THE CONSERVATIVE Open Letter in opposition to Trump (there were at least two versions from dozens (~122) of conservative experts on foreign policy), on Trump...

"...we are united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency...

His vision of American influence and power in the world is wildly inconsistent and un-moored in principle...

His embrace of the expansive use of torture is inexcusable...

His hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric undercuts the seriousness of combating Islamic radicalism...

his insistence that Mexico will fund a wall on the southern border inflames unhelpful passions, and rests on an utter misreading of, and contempt for, our southern neighbor...

He is fundamentally dishonest...

We commit ourselves to working energetically to prevent the election of someone so utterly unfitted to the office." 

There was a second letter on similar themes that included...

“He weakens U.S. moral authority as the leader of the free world. He appears to lack basic knowledge about and belief in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws, and U.S. institutions, including religious tolerance, freedom of the press, and an independent Judiciary..."

The letter predicted that Trump would be the “most reckless President in American history.”

Asked in 2018 about that letter (written in the 2016 campaign), one of its signers has said...
“I think every word has turned out to be true, and worse.”
======
I could go on and on with conservative after conservative raising grave concerns about the basic unfitness for office of this con man. Of course.

So, for those who see and recognize all of Trump's very obvious failings and who have decided that the lies, the sexism, the racism, the cheating, the ignorance, the greed, the petty vindictiveness, the lack of experience and knowledge and just basic human decency... who see all that and have decided, "Well, I can STILL support him... all of those lines that he has crossed are not THAT serious that I couldn't still support him..." well, that's on you.

But I'm asking you to have the integrity to frame the opposition to Trump in an honest manner... people of good will from across the political spectrum have looked at these obvious reasonable, temperamental and moral failings and have decided that these are lines that MUST not be crossed and thus, we must oppose him and his agenda. NOT because of mindless hatred, but based on concern about these very serious moral failings. It simply isn't mindless liberal ill will and hatred, not in the real world.

NOTE: I'm just stating some reasonable points here, and I'm not looking for any real discussion (either from those who'd want to criticize the un-thinking conservatives who wrongly mischaracterize  the motivations of WHY people oppose Trump, nor from Conservatives. However, IF any conservatives wish to comment here, they may, but I request that they begin with acknowledging a few realities:

* Given the reality that this president regularly repeatedly makes false claims and attacks the media with false accusations, AND
* Given his deplorable behavior towards women and teen-aged girls...

It is not unreasonable to be strongly opposed to this administration. I understand the notion that there are some lines that ought not be crossed and, while I may disagree with the notion that Trump has crossed multiple lines, I recognize the reality that people from across the political spectrum DO believe this in good conscience.

Further, I will gladly concede the reality that many/most of these same people who think Trump has crossed multiple lines would ALSO oppose a Democrat who crossed the same lines. That is, if Ralph Jones is the next Democratic candidate for president and Ralph makes multiple false claims nearly every single day and of the sort of false claims that Trump has made AND if Ralph also made a habit of calling the press the enemy of the people AND if Ralph also laughed about using his wealth and privilege and power to behave as Trump has towards women and girls... IF all of that were true (or even part of it!), I recognize that Dan and those like him would also oppose this Democrat candidate, because for Dan and people like him, it's about the behavior, NOT about the partisan politics.

If you can agree with these basic realities, you may comment here.

If you can't agree with these realities, then you're not agreeing with reality and I don't think anything you have to say will further the conversation.

Power Corrupts... Men?

I've been doing some reading on the research about gender differences in levels of corruption in positions of power. There appears to be some smattering of evidence from different research that suggests (as many of us, no doubt, would suspect) that women in positions of power tend to have less corruption.

Again: Women in positions of power tend to have less corruption in the gov't (or office) than when men are in positions of power.

Important note: The research, thus far, does NOT appear to be saying that Women are Less Corrupt than men, or that women are inherently purer/better than men (although, that certainly has been my experience... just saying'!)... it's just noting that when women are in positions of power, there tends to be less corruption.

Other research I've read suggests that testosterone has an effect on tendencies towards corruption and, since men have more testosterone than women, they tend to be more corrupt. But that's not a conclusive finding, just some data that's out there and a theory that's floating.

I'll cite some of the readings I've done below.

It COULD be that, because women have had the option of being in positions of power, that they have just not yet grown as corrupt as men tend to sometimes grow and that, given time, they will become more corrupt. 

It COULD be that the women who try to gain positions of power are doing so specifically to promote our better ideals of human rights, freedom from oppression, etc (as opposed to running on themes of "shrinking gov't," or "reclaiming our way of life," or "tax relief for the wealthy, cuz... trickle down...," for instance).

We just don't yet know.

It sounds like the research is not conclusive. However, as the first article cited below notes, at worst, there appears to be NO negative effects that result from electing/hiring more women to positions of power in terms of corruption and, at best, there is an improvement.

Add that research and information to the reality that women and other minorities are way under-represented in positions of power and I say we have a compelling case to make 2019, 2020, 2021 and beyond some Years of Women (along with other Minorities!)

Get out and vote.

[Caveat: This does not need to be said for anyone with an adult level of reasoning or understanding, but OF COURSE, this does not mean vote for women, even if they have no great wisdom or appropriate expertise or moral character or honest, etc. Of course, no one would argue that, and only a simpleton would feel the need to bring that up, I'd hope... or perhaps, a charlatan.]

+++++++

"Importantly, the study does not find that women are “inherently less corrupt” than men, and found no correlation found between corruption and gender in other occupations. Some critics worry that as equality improves, women will get more corrupt as they become ingrained in the existing political structures and networks. However, the study found that there is a stronger negative correlation between corruption and women’s representation in parliament in countries with higher equality. Thus, the policy-making role is what enables women “to impact corruption,” not some inherent difference between the moral character of women and men.

Overall, the study shows that another benefit of promoting gender equality is reducing corruption in politics."

[The article also notes that the places with least corruption are also the places with most gender equity, so, go figure... Interesting reading, below... ~Dan]

https://www.representwomen.org/understanding_new_research_on_gender_and_government_corruption

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/women-and-corruption-perceptions-aside

“When people with high testosterone are given social power, they start to believe they are entitled to special treatment and that they can exploit others for their own purposes. This means they don’t think the rules, even the law, apply to them; they can play by their own rules...”

https://www.psypost.org/2018/05/testosterone-increases-narcissism-corruption-among-power-study-suggests-51203

Transitive Property, Basic Reason. Rational Consistency and Shit...

Someone was asking me a question, having a problem with some basic understanding of basic reasoning, so I'm just pointing to the transitive property to help them understand.

IF Dan opposes racism, and
IF Mr X supports/fans racism,
THEN Dan opposes Mr X

IF Dan opposes anti-Semitism, and
IF Ms Y supports anti-Semitism,
THEN Dan opposes Ms Y.

It doesn't matter how many substitutes one gives for the second condition, Dan will still oppose racism/sexism/anti-Semitism.

That is, it doesn't matter...

IF Dan opposes sexual assault, and
IF a GOP politician commits sexual assault,
THEN Dan opposes that GOP politician

OR

IF Dan opposes sexual assault, and
IF a DEMOCRAT politician commits sexual assault,
THEN Dan opposes that DEMOCRAT politician

OR

IF Dan opposes sexual assault, and
IF a Green politician commits sexual assault,
THEN Dan opposes that Green politician

It doesn't matter WHO you insert into the middle condition, Dan is opposed to the bad/harmful behavior, and thus, will always be opposed to that behavior.

It's really not difficult to understand.

So, having said all that, if someone says to me, "But what if it were a Libertarian politician who committed sexual assault... THEN would you oppose them?"

The question is a stupid one and has already been answered. WHY? Because I've already made it clear that I'm opposed to sexism, slavery, racism, sexual assault, etc... there's no need to ask what has already been answered, because I'm consistent on my opposition to harm.

Now, IF you are a pathetic partisan hack who SOMETIMES opposes sexual impropriety (i.e., when it is a person not in your group/party), but SOMETIMES gives a pass to sexual impropriety (i.e., when it is a person IN your group/party), THEN asking them to clarify is rational.

But I'm not inconsistent that way.

Ultra conservative fundamentalist type, Al Mohler, has pointed out that the GOP/conservatives who support Trump have lost their credibility and any sense of high moral ground as/when they've embraced Trump but opposed Clinton for much less sexual impropriety, he isn't wrong. He's pointing out the petty hypocrisy of such immoral and irrational conservatives, and rightly so.

But I'm not them.

So, go ahead, ask me if I'm opposed to slavery (or sexism, or sexual assault, etc) if it's THIS person, but don't be surprised if I just laugh at your inability to understand reason and reality and laugh off your hypocrisy and irrationality.

WTF, Virginia Democrats?!

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/08/politics/dems-justin-fairfax-resign/index.html

From a CNN news story about the recent revelations in Virginia politics about top leaders in the Democrat Party...

"While we believe that anyone accused of such a grievous and harmful act must receive the due process prescribed by the Constitution, we can't see it in the best interest of the Commonwealth of Virginia for the Lieutenant Governor to remain in his role," the group added.

Late Friday night, both of Virginia's powerful Democratic US senators -- Tim Kaine and Mark Warner -- called on Fairfax to resign in separate statements.

US Rep. Bobby Scott, a Viginia Democrat who sources tell CNN was approached by initial Fairfax accuser Vanessa Tyson a year ago with her allegation of assault, said that if either allegation against Fairfax is true, he must resign.

"The recent allegations against Lt Governor Fairfax are disturbing and extremely serious," Scott tweeted. "Both allegations must be investigated immediately. If either is found to be true -- and there appears to be significant corroborating evidence -- then the Lt Governor should resign immediately."

Former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe called for Fairfax to resign soon after Watson's allegations surfaced, something he did not do after Tyson's allegations were made public in a lengthy, detailed statement.

"The allegations against Justin Fairfax are serious and credible," McAuliffe said in a statement. "It is clear to me that he can no longer effectively serve the people of Virginia as Lieutenant Governor. I call for his immediate resignation."

========

Yay, Democrats, holding people accountable and taking credible charges seriously. Good for you.

Lead the way, by example. SOMEone has to.

Yet another serious sign as to why we MUST start voting for women in serious numbers - their representation should be at least 50% in political offices, given their representation in the population. And, given the very bad history that so many men in power have of abusing power, I'd suggest it's time for something like more than 50% representation of women and minorities.

The White Guys had a good run. It's time to release the power that white men have enjoyed/abused for so long and for, we the people, to give women, people of color, gay folk, transgender folk, and immigrants a turn, see if they can manage to avoid the temptation of letting power corrupt.

Not All Opinions Are Created Equal

I am always supportive of people holding different opinions, but we must note that not all opinions are created equally. There are some opinions that are motivated by emotional attachment to traditions and personal preference and others that are based upon research and data. There are some opinions that are based upon moral principles and some that are based on fears and false claims.

Recently, I've heard so MANY conservative white men responding emotionally and fearfully to worries that the American Psychological Association are "anti-man..." The APA recently produced a statement expressing concern about the harmful repercussions of toxic masculinity or traditional masculinity of the sort that can be toxic/has been toxic.

From a recent APA article...

But something is amiss for men as well. Men commit 90 percent of homicides in the United States and represent 77 percent of homicide victims. They’re the demographic group most at risk of being victimized by violent crime. They are 3.5 times more likely than women to die by suicide, and their life expectancy is 4.9 years shorter than women’s. Boys are far more likely to be diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder than girls, and they face harsher punishments in school—especially boys of color.

APA’s new Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Boys and Men strive to recognize and address these problems in boys and men while remaining sensitive to the field’s androcentric past. 

Thirteen years in the making, they draw on more than 40 years of research 
showing that traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful and that socializing boys to suppress their emotions causes damage that echoes both inwardly and outwardly.

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/01/ce-corner.aspx

As you can see from the article, this is a research based position drawing on observed data from experts in the field.

Now, I'm fine with people raising concerns or questions about such conclusions. "Is this really saying that stoicism is always a bad thing?" for instance. I'm also fine with people pointing to other data that may reach different conclusions.

What I always want to point out, however, is that not all opinions are equally valid.

Saying, "I have read that data from the APA and hear what the experts there are saying. However, there are these OTHER researchers who have data that says..." is one thing. Reasonable, data-driven, not anti-expert or "no nothing" in nature.

But saying, "Those jerks at the APA are saying that being a 'traditional man' is BAD! What a bunch of pansies..." would be an example of a stupid opinion, an ignorance opinion, coming from a place of hyper emotionality or blind allegiance to traditions or fear, not from a place of reason or data.

You are always free to reach silly, ignorant opinions coming from a place of fear if you want. But you will have to expect that more adult reasoners will respond with data and dismiss your conclusions as not based on reliable data or anything but flighty opinions.

Into a Dark World

Into a dark world,
he had discovered a bit of color
that left him wondering
where the color had all gone,
and how long it had been gone...

It was the splash of color that
awakened him to its absence
and sent his mind a-wondering.

"It's a mystery," he said.
"That's what it is."

And so, he set out to solve it.

To Understand That Which is Confusing, First, Listen

Stan, at his blog, laments about that which he says he simply can't understand. He says, and I quote...

To me, the mind of the liberal Christian is inscrutable. I will never understand.

He then proceeds to offer several examples of disagreements with liberals that he finds "inscrutable." The problem, it seems to me, is that he hasn't asked/won't listen to liberals when they explain their positions.

He says, by way of example...

"I'm told that God's Word requires open borders...  I don't see anything in my Bible that says or suggests, "You shall not do anything that blocks the free flow of refugees from other countries to your own." But the liberal Christian would like to make it a law that we open our borders and embrace all who come at whatever cost because it's there in the Bible."

First of all, of course, there are all manner of liberals and there may indeed be some who say this. But I know of none. This is not our reasoning or what we say. So, Stan does not understand our position because he doesn't even understand what we are and aren't saying.

I, and folks like me, have made it clear that we do not agree with treating the Bible as a holy rule book. That saying, "God wants us to behave certain ways and all we have to do is find what ways God wants us to act by citing a passage in the Bible that addresses it, then we're okay..." is not faithful to what the Bible teaches or what reason would tell us.

We make it clear that the Bible is written to a specific audience, the ancient peoples found in its pages... and equally make it clear that we should be wary about lifting pre-historic rules found in biblical stories and saying, "This teaches us what God's rules are about slavery, or how to treat women, or gay folk or wars or enemies or polygamy..."

No, I/we do NOT say "Let's have open borders because the Bible says so." Clearly, the Bible NEVER addresses modern foreign policies in a world such as we have today.

So, Stan misunderstands. To crack the code of the "inscrutable mind" of liberals, then, Stan should begin by asking "Am I understanding you aright?" and proceed from there.

(For the record, I support MORE open borders, but not wholly open borders. I support reasonable border policies that do not promote harm and that allows for refugees seeking safety to find that safety and I do so as a matter of support for human liberties, which includes the right to self determination... NOT because the Bible says to have open borders.)

Stan continues in his confusion, citing another example...

Almost everyone is clear that the Bible is not ambiguous about the sin of homosexual behavior... [there is NOTHING like unity that this is "the Bible's" and certainly not God's opinion about homosexual behavior - DT] 

The liberal Christian is concerned that some might try to pass laws that would try to forbid sexual sin. "Oh, no," they argue, "you can't make your laws based on your religious views." Now, hang on a minute! Didn't you just say that we should make immigration laws based on your religious views? But not this? I don't get it.

What people like me argue is that we ought not cause harm to others. We note the very real reality that LGBTQ folk HAVE experienced harm throughout the millennia. Oppression, mockery, beatings, imprisonments and death all have been a common reality for gay and queer folk. We argue that human rights argues in FAVOR of self determination and AGAINST causing harm.

We DO argue that trying to force your solely religious opinions on others by force of law is a wrong, as it is counter to human rights and the right to freedom of and from religion. It is a right that conservatives almost always would support... when it comes, for instance, to fundamentalists from other religions forcing their views on others by force of law. By and large today, even many fundamentalist Christians would oppose forcing sexual morals by law in our nation... they would typically oppose, for instance, fundamentalist Muslims from outlawing gay behavior and imprisoning gay folk. But we hold this position because of support for/belief in human rights.

So, Stan fails to understand because he doesn't ask.

One more. Stan says...

One of the serious problems brought to light by liberal Christians is the problem of poverty and the opposing problem of excessive wealth. The solution to this problem, they say, is to pass laws that will tax the rich and give to the poor. Heavy taxes. It's a good thing, so it ought to be a law. Generosity is biblical, so we ought to make it the law.

Again, we support a progressive tax scheme (as opposed to a flat tax or regressive tax scheme) NOT because "the Bible says generosity is good, therefore, let's tax the wealthy..." but because it is a rational way of dealing with taxation in a nation where some people have more than others. A flat tax across the board, for instance, would be deadly to the poorest, as if you are scraping by on $10,000 a year, barely feeding your family, then scraping by on 10% less (or 20% or whatever) becomes draconian. Therefore, reason and justice would say that such a tax scheme is not rational or moral. It would lead to unwanted results. On the other hand, if those making over, say, $1,000,000 a year were taxed at 50% or even 70% (as has happened in the past in the US), they STILL have hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to "scrape by" on and it's not like it's any great hardship.

A progressive tax scheme, then (we reason) maintains incentive to get wealthy and yet does not oppress or harm the poorest. Reasonable and reasonable. Many of us DO note that the Bible (and other faith traditions and human rights traditions) would argue against treating the poorest in a shabby manner, but we do not argue that, "The Bible says 'Do unto others..." therefore, BECAUSE the Bible says that, let's enact it as law..." Rather, we hold a rational argument that may be informed by our various faith traditions, but is still based upon reason, not religion.

So, Stan concludes, erroneously...

Contrasting "conservative" and "liberal" in Christian terms means generally, first and foremost, a worldview based on Scripture versus a worldview based on the world. Still, it seems completely irrational that liberal Christians would conclude that it is ungodly to have a biblical worldview and argue that Scripture should be interpreted through a cultural, current-world filter. Really?

No, not really.

No, liberals do not have a worldview based on "the world..." what does that even mean? AND conservatives do not hold a worldview based upon "Scripture." Rather, we all hold worldview based upon our reasoning. Conservatives reason that the Bible says X, Y and Z and they REASON OUT that, "therefore, we should support these positions..." but they reach that position USING THEIR REASON.

Likewise, liberals believe that the Bible teaches X, Y and Z, that reason teaches 1, 2 and 3, that other philosophies teach Alpha Beta and Gamma and WE REASON out that, "Therefore, I hold these positions..."

And it's all based on conclusions we reasoned ourselves into. Human reasoning. We all may be seeking more perfect, divine answers, but we all rely upon our reasoning because that's how the human mind works for all of us.

Thus, I'm NOT arguing that "scripture should be interpreted through a cultural, current world filter..." Not really. No. Stan misunderstands because he doesn't ask.

Should he ask, however, there are the answers to some of his questions and misunderstandings.

What would be nifty is if Stan (and really, this is not an attack on Stan, but on this line of reasoning which is common to the fundamentalists' brain) and others would read, learn and change what they've stated that is simply false to reflect the reality of the Other's position.

There is a Wild-ness

There is a Wild-ness, 

in every step we take

if Wild, we wish to be...

I've started a new blog that will focus on my nature photos and poetry/prose. This blog will remain for political discussions, but given the quality of discussion here (or lack, thereof) for the last good long while, it will be less of an emphasis for me this year.

The blog can be found here, for those interested...

https://thereisawildness.blogspot.com

It's not a blog for political discussion, just fyi. But for those who love nature, you're welcome to stop by for a visit.

The Cranky Man's Useless Fence

The Cranky Man built a petty little fence
to keep Red Raven out
and, knowing about
Over, and
Under, and
Around,
Red Raven laughed aloud...

And Then, After Christmas...

Shortly after Christmas: Matthew's story updated slightly, made even more relevant to today...

When the Political Leader realized that he had been outwitted by the Wise People,
he was furious,
and this dim-witted, villainous leader gave orders to
kill all the boys in Bethlehem
and its vicinity who were two years old and under,
in accordance with the time he had learned from the Wise.
And he gave order to build Wall
to keep people from seeking safety
and to arrest them when they did
commit the crime
of seeking refuge.

Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:

“A voice is heard in Ramah,
weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because they are no more.
And a voice was heard in
Guatemala
Mexico
Nicaragua...
Weeping and great mourning
Maria
Gabriela
Juana...
weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted
because those children are no more.”

"Merry Christmas" Ain't Everything... (or, Really, Anything...)

Trump: "When people wrong you, go after those people, because it's a good feeling... I always get even..."

Jesus: "Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you."

Trump: "I'm putting people on notice who are coming here from Syria as part of that mass migration, that if I win, they're going back!"

Jesus: "I was hungry and you gave me something to eat. I was thirsty and you gave me drink. I was a stranger and you welcomed me in."

Trump: "Why do I have to repent? Why do I have to ask for forgiveness if I'm not making mistakes?"

Jesus: "Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish..."

Trump: "Part of the beauty of me is that I'm very rich."
"I'm very greedy."

Jesus: "Do not store up treasures for yourself on earth, for where your treasure is, there your heart is, as well..."

James: "Is it not the rich who oppress you?"

"Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you..."

Trump: "Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything."

Jesus: "Oh, come on, people! This man is a charlatan and an oppressive pervert of the worst sort!"
=======
(Okay, I made that last one up, but you get the point... And I could go on and on, but that will suffice)
For my fellow Christians who think that Trump is a great Christian because his Christmas cards say "merry christmas...," there's more to it than that.

Just sayin'...

Happy Welcome the Stranger Holy Days

This is a group art project from my church several years ago... the Star of Christmas, created using a collage of Christmas season/Black Friday advertisements encouraging people to buy more junk they don't need.

Subverting commercialism for a remembrance of the story of poor immigrants being guided to a safe sanctuary in the midst of dodging a government out to harass and kill them.

Happy Subversive Holy Days, all you subverts!