CLAN: We saw something happen last Friday night!

MONDAY, APRIL 15, 2024

All tangled up in Blue: We thought of Michael Corleone again, late this past Friday night.

We thought about what he saw in the streets of Havana on the eve of Batista's fall.

"I saw an interesting thing happen today," he tells a group of associates on a sundrenched hotel patio. When he describes what he saw, Hyman Roth takes him aside and tells him he blabbed too much.

What did we see on Friday night? As MSNBC concluded its broadcast day, we saw a lengthy discussion of Christian nationalism.

The discussion started at 11:31 p.m. With only one commercial break, it consumed the rest of the show.

Stephanie Ruhle had assembled "some fantastic experts," she said as she introduced her guests. In Ruhle's description, the panel included "my old friend, Peter Wehner." 

"There is a new force in American politics that is becoming more visible and way more vocal," Ruhle said at the start of the segments. 

"This is such an important conversation," she said. "People don't realize what's happening."

LET'S GET SMARTER, her chyron had said at the start of the hourlong program. If you want to watch the entire discussion in question, you can start by clicking this. Or you can go to the Ruhle website and see the bulk of what was said.

To do so, just click here.

The lengthy discussion consumed half the show. It was a perfectly sensible topic.

The fantastic experts in question were these. Nothing was obviously "wrong" with any one of the three:

The Eleventh Hour with Stephanie Ruhle
Friday, April 12, 2024

Anthea Butler: Religious Studies professor at Penn; an MSNBC columnist
Peter Wehner: Senior writer at The Atlantic; senior fellow, the Trinity Forum
Catherine Stewart: Investigative reporter and author

Wehner is an anti-Trump former Republican White House official. In that sense, the panel was presumably bipartisan in the narrow political sense.

At any rate, those were the experts. There was nothing "wrong" with any of them.  The important conversation began, with quite a few claims advanced.

We aren't experts on Christian nationalism; there's a good chance you aren't either.  Among the many claims we heard, these claims emerged:

Christian nationalism is "a malignant movement" built on "a fear of losing white power"—and especially, on the fear of a loss of "white male power."

Christian nationalists "don't want immigrants" (apparently, none at all). According to Ruhle and Professor Butler, "we women would be home raising our children" if Christian nationalists had their druthers. "We would be in our kitchens. We would be nice trad-wives."

We were told that "this political moment that we're in right now" is "drawing so many people into the movement. It represents "almost a Nietzschean will to power," Wehner said, adding that the movement's adherents "want power to inflict real harm on the people they disagree with." 

At that point, the commercial break arrived. After the commercial break, the panel discussed the way Donald J. Trump is seen as a literal savior by (some) Christian nationalists.

"Right-wing conspiracy theories have never more bloodthirsty," viewers were told. The movement is growing "more prominent, more powerful," Ruhle's viewers were additionally told.

Claims were advanced about various organized groups, and about the role of Christian nationalists in the events of January 6. Eventually, some of the organized groups were actually named, accompanied by refences to QAnon, the Great Replacement Theory. and the Jericho Marches.

Eventually it had to happen! It came to sweeping claims about having to get parental permission slips to teach about Black history in Florida.

The claim struck us as very broad. But that's where it goes within clans.

On our own, we don't know much of anything about this particular movement. We weren't sure that we'd learned anything new—indeed, that we'd learned anything at all—after we watched this discussion.

Why made such thoughts pop into our heads? We'll offer two quick points:

For starters, no one from within this alleged movement was interviewed, or even quoted, during the course of this show. Nor was there jany indication that any such people had been asked to take part in the show.

Also, no one on the panel seemed to sympathize in any way with any part of this particular movement. Tim Alberta might have been there, but that very sane non-Christian nationalist wasn't present this night.

Instead, there were claims about bloodthirsty beliefs, but also and about the desire to do great harm.

That was our first observation. As is routinely the case in today's "cable news," everyone who sat on the panel seemed to agree, in every possible way, with everybody else. 

That was our first observation But also, when Saturday morning came, we searched for an Associated Press report which had been shown on screen at the start of the long discussion.

When we found the AP report, its headline was exactly as had been shown. That said, the report in question was two years old and, among other things, it said such things as this:

Christian nationalism on the rise in some GOP campaigns
The Associated Press, May 29, 2022

[...]

In the book, Whitehead and co-author Samuel Perry measured rates of Christian nationalism by drawing on a 2017 Baylor University survey. It gauged opinions on such things as America’s role in God’s plan and whether the U.S. should be declared a Christian nation, advance biblical values and allow school prayer and religious displays in public places.

Their research found about one in five Americans align with many of those views. That’s down from nearly one in four a decade earlier, just as Americans have become less religious overall. But Whitehead said Christian nationalists, who are more numerous among Republicans, can be expected to maintain their fervor.

[...]

Elizabeth Neumann, chief strategy officer for Moonshot, a tech company that aims to counter online violent extremism, disinformation and other harms, said Christian nationalism began picking up steam around 2015 amid a rising narrative of purported persecution of Christians.

Neumann, who served in the George W. Bush and Trump administrations and grew up in an evangelical Christian household, called the movement “heretical and idolatry” and an “apocalyptic vision (that) very often leads to violence.” Many pastors are pushing back against it, she added.

“I see Christian nationalism as the gasping, dying breath of the older generation in America that is afraid that Christians are going to be replaced,” she said.

That was the end of the Ruhle program's sole identified journalistic source. The headline Ruhle's producers displayed referred to (a few) political campaigns which were underway two years ago—campaigns which eventually failed. 

Even then, the report said that Christian nationalism was in a relative state of decline. Also, the norms by which Whitehead and Perry had established a 20 percent membership class were a good deal more tame than the claims we'd heard on Ruhle's program.

For ourselves, we don't support "prayer in the [public] schools" or "religious displays in public places" (depending on what kind of "public places" you mean). But those criteria are pale before the claim that bloodthirsty imagery is leading adherents to want to "inflict real harm on the people they disagree with." 

"Many pastors are pushing back against it," one of the AP's experts had said. Two years ago, she said she saw the movement “as the gasping, dying breath of the older generation in America."

She might have been right and she might have been wrong, but that assessment came from the Ruhle program's primary journalistic document. No such possibility was identified or evaluated as Ruhle and her panel of experts assured us that the movement, "right now," was coming on very strong.

On balance, we aren't fans of Ruhle's work. In our view, her physical poses on the air were horrible right from the start. 

In our view, the nightly recitation of her program's slogan—LET'S GET SMARTER [with our all-star panel]—is a nightly insult to her viewers' intelligence.

That slogan strikes us as an insult to basic human intelligence. Could the same thing have been true about the way she, and/or her producers, assembled this "important conversation?"

We thought again of Michael Corleone after we watched this program. For perhaps the ten millionth time, we thought we'd seen an interesting thing happen on a major "cable news" program.

We also thought we'd learned nothing at all, except about the dominant role in human affairs long played by the existence of ingroups, described at one point in the Iliad as "clans."

Final point, and very important:

Trust in a clan isn't trust in the "Klan." That was a brutal and murderous group, but also a spelling error.

Tomorrow: Clans describe the trial


121 comments:

  1. Christian Nationalism is one thing, but Trump is losing the Mormon vote:

    https://www.npr.org/2024/04/14/1242051595/trump-arizona-mormon-lds-republican-voters

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But he's winning the moron vote.

      Delete
    2. Whatever journalistic shortcomings might have been on display during Ruhle's show, Bob is once again being naive. It matters not a whit that, overall, fewer Americans consider themselves religious. What matters is how much power the overtly religious have. They own the Supreme Court. As a result, abortion rights have been rolled back. During Trump's disastrous term, he let the far right select a slew of religious extremist judges for lower courts. The religious extremists also control the House of Representatives. The Speaker of the House is a bona fide religious extremist who went along with the attempt over turn the results of the 2020 election. There are many Republican-controlled states that have religious extremists in all levels of government. We see them on Fox News and other right-wing media outlets, too. (Remember the Easter bullshit on Fox that Bob pointed out?)

      Delete
    3. So someone has finally gotten around to giving us the picture of what Christian Nationalism is about.

      Surprise. Surprise.

      Thanks, Mike L.

      Delete
    4. Gee, why couldn’t Somerby do what Mike L just did? Too lazy, or what? He wants to downplay it? I mean, how difficult is it to be even slightly informed?

      Delete
    5. Abortion is just one part of it. But it is definitely a part...

      "The Alabama Supreme Court issued a ruling on February 16 declaring that embryos created through in vitro fertilization (IVF) should be considered children. Several of the state’s IVF clinics have since paused services, and lawmakers, doctors, and patients are raising concerns about the far-ranging impacts of the ruling on health care, including reproductive technology....The plaintiffs are three couples who all underwent IVF treatment at a fertility clinic in Alabama. Through the IVF treatment they received, they all became pregnant and gave birth to healthy babies. As a result of the IVF treatments, they also produced a number of additional embryos—this is standard procedure in an IVF cycle. Those additional embryos that were not used were frozen and preserved by the fertility clinic....which is located within a hospital. In December 2020, a patient of that hospital entered the fertility clinic's cryo-preservation unit and opened one of the tanks in which frozen embryos are stored. These embryos are stored at sub-freezing temperatures, so when the patient put his hand in and grabbed some of the embryos, he burned himself and dropped the embryos, which hit the ground and were destroyed.
      The plaintiff couples brought lawsuits against the fertility clinic and the hospital. One of the lawsuits is for negligence and wantonness.... The other lawsuit...was against the hospital and the clinic for the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, which is an Alabama statute. At the trial court, this case was dismissed; the trial judge stated that embryos that exist in vitro are not people or children for the purposes of the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, and therefore there was no claim that the couples could bring under that act. The couples appealed that decision to the Supreme Court of Alabama, the highest court in the state. The Supreme Court disagreed and, in a nutshell, said that the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act does apply. https://bit.ly/3Q3jq6R
      "In his concurring opinion last week, Chief Justice Tom Parker....invoked [the following] reasoning:
      'In summary, the theologically based view of the sanctity of life adopted by the People of Alabama encompasses the following: (1) God made every person in His image; (2) each person therefore has a value that far exceeds the ability of human beings to calculate; and (3) human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself.'" https://bit.ly/3UeO5kd

      Delete
    6. Anonymouse 12:27pm, any Republican here already suspected that the new and dire Christian Nationalist is just the latest rebranding of a conservative.

      Mike L. merely verified it.

      Delete
    7. Re-branded from what. Economically anxious?
      LOL.

      Delete
    8. To equate the "conservatives" that are currently in positions of power with traditional conservatives seems more than a bit disingenuous. You could maybe argue that Paul Ryan was your typical conservative. Mike Johnson not so much. Same goes for current "conservative" judges. Case in point: https://www.npr.org/2022/07/05/1109444617/the-supreme-court-conservative

      Delete
    9. Minor correction Mike I., Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society picked all of Trump's nutjob religious judges. Same as he would for any Republican President.

      Delete
  2. "Also, no one on the panel seemed to sympathize in any way with any part of this particular movement. "

    It is almost as if Somerby is calling for the revival of the Fairness Doctrine. Conservatives did away with that a long time ago. Someone who wants to hear the Christian Nationalist perspective may have to go watch Fox News, where it is presented 24/7.

    Here is a description of Ronald Reagan's role in eliminating the Fairness Doctrine:

    https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/topic-guide/fairness-doctrine

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ronald Reagan. The two-word mic drop to any clown who tries to tell you Trump is the worst President in the history of the United States.

      Delete
    2. When our Constitution prohibits the establishment of a national religion, why should anyone on that panel sympathize in any way with any part of a movement to abrogate the constitution of our nation?

      When there is a discussion of pedophilia among priests in the Catholic Church, should there be a panelist who sympathizes in any way with the exercise of pedophilia among priests?

      Next Somerby will call for a sympathic panelist who supports the revival of slaveholding in the South, now that immigrants are being kept out by our closed border. Is there no extreme view that Somerby will not want to hear represented, other than the women who claim they are not receiving equal pay in their careers (thank you Claudia Goldin)?

      Delete
    3. Anonymouse 12:00pm, being on the side of raping children (a criminal act) is not the same as being a representative of what is being portrayed as a large quasi-religious/political movement.

      Also please remember who it is who argues that we need not be too obsessive over preventing the sexualization of children via creepy references to the dynamics of one-room cabins of yore…

      Delete
    4. Being on the side of raping children is worse than setting aside the Constitution of the US, which protects the rights of all citizens? Glad you have your values straight. Our criminal justice system also derives its authority from our nation's constitution.

      Delete
    5. Anonymouse 6:53pm, I was replying to a braindead anonymouse who compared a scenario of MSNBC interviewing a Christian Nationalist to allowing a pedophile on to defend sexual assault.

      That was a ridiculous comparison and you’re still making ridiculous comparisons.

      Delete
    6. "In 1987 the FCC formally repealed the fairness doctrine but maintained both the editorial and personal-attack provisions, which remained in effect until 2000.

      In addition, until they were finally repealed by the commission in 2011, more than 80 media rules maintained language that implemented the doctrine." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Fairness-Doctrine

      Who was president in 2011?

      Delete
  3. Today was the first time I decided to cast my vote for Trump. I voted for Biden and intended to vote for RFK Jr. until his inexplicable VP selection. This choice is compelled by the Putin-like abuses of power by Democrats to persecute their opposition, brought home by today's events. I am convinced this same observation and reaction accounts for 25% of Trump's support because no one could have told me in 2020 I would be doing this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Trump doesn't have the paid troll vote from Eastern Europe, his campaign is surely doomed, so this endorsement must be very reassuring to conservatives.

      But don't make up your mind too quickly. There is still a lot of time to change your mind, after you hear Trump's testimony at trial.

      Delete
    2. You can't charge someone with crimes, once they file their election papers.
      That's just science.

      Delete
    3. Likewise, I voted for Trump twice, but I have now decided he is too corrupt and too much of a puppet for Putin, and the current Republican Party as well, using Russian stooges and spreading Russian misinformation.

      Observing all the investigations and trials, and how Trump is reacting to them has really opened my eyes and is a major factor in why I am changing my vote. Also Trump at his rallies just is not the same, he keeps slurring his words and mixing up words, and then mumbling and trailing off, it is disturbing.

      It is just too much traitorous activity. I used to love the Republican Party, but I am an American, first and foremost.

      As an American who deeply loves their country, I have decided to vote for Biden.

      Biden is keeping the foreign wolves at bay, and the economy is booming, he has my vote because I love my country and want it to do well.

      It is now obvious that the Republican Party has been captured by people who care more about benefiting personally than benefiting the country.

      This will be my first vote for a Dem. God bless Biden and God bless America!

      Delete
    4. Trump is an easy vote for me. I voted for him in 2016, first Republican vote for president, lukewarm but now with more enthusiasm because I'm not a gay man or unstable woman and I don't want my government telling me they are cutting off my son's penis.

      Delete
    5. I have been a lifelong steady Republican voter and have voted for every Republcan candidate since Nixon. My wife owns a cloth coat. But the stench of Trump's megalomaniacal corruption and treason and his love for Putin and other right wing autocrats has finally convinced me to support President Biden, who marched with a union and lowered my prescription drugs and passed an infrastructure bill, and is forgiving student loan debt, and passed the CHIPS ACT, all while Trump grifts his rube fans for cash to pay his lawyers.

      Delete
    6. Wow. A white man is going to pull the lever for a bigot.
      Stop the presses!

      Delete
    7. Me too, former Trump voter here, I am switching to Biden. I live in a swing state and most everybody I know is doing this as well.

      Delete
    8. Kennedy 2024: Make Polio Great Again

      Delete
    9. Oddly, RFK Jr's national poll numbers are going down instead of up, since he announced last October. The April ones are even lower, perhaps because Trump has been boosting him. He has been around 11-13% until Apr (now at 8%) but needs 15% on an average of five polls to join the debates.

      Delete
    10. I voted for Trump six times in 2016 and six more in 2020. I’ll vote for him six times again this year. We won’t allow the Democrats to steal another election.

      Delete
    11. I'm voting for Dick Durbin.

      Delete
    12. I'm voting for polio directly, instead of indirectly via Kennedy

      Delete
    13. Anonymouse 7:19pm, why not. You certainly seem to have embraced autism.

      Delete

  4. I am a fantastic expert organizing a crusade against Christian Nationalism.

    Gathered under my flag, faithful anti-Cristian anti-nationalist martyrs!

    ReplyDelete
  5. If you stipulate that no one show (such as Ruhle's) has the time and space to fully cover all perspectives on a topic, then journalistic choices are being made by the show's producers and editorial staff. When a topic is controversial, the choices made may not please those on all sides of that issue. Somerby seems to be arguing for equal time or balance among perspectives, but is that really appropriate when other shows make no attempt at balance themselves, presenting only the alternative view to Ruhle's or ignoring the topic entirely?

    If Somerby is going to insist that Ruhle show such balance, he should, in fairness, require that all other venues show the same balance, but that is not what he is arguing here today. He is only focusing on Ruhle, as if she were the only show to focus on a single topic without examining the alternative views (such as those held by Q-Anon and the Christian Nationalists themselves, as opposed to those interviewed talking about such people).

    Is it sufficient to interview Christian Nationalists or even to show excerpts of them talking about their own views, or must they be allowed to provide "guests" to the MSNBC show itself? When someone is an expert on religious studies, can't they be presumed to know their subject matter? And if they are an investigative reporter who has spoken with Christian Nationalists (and others opposing them), can't they be presumed to know their topic too? Somerby gives no one the benefit of the doubt. Instead he assumes doubt, no matter who the guest interviewee is, saying that they weren't "wrong" but he isn't sure he learned anything or that anything anyone said was right, but he thought everyone was agreeing with everyone else about sweeping claims, about which he insists he knows nothing.

    It is hard to learn or know anything if you continually keep a mental stance that whatever is being said may be entirely wrong, even if nothing is "wrong" with the guests. Somerby actively resists knowing anything because he will not accept anything said, unless it comes from the mouths of Christian Nationalists themselves, who are hardly going to say anything unpleasant or critical of their own views. But Somerby insists that he must be told what is "wrong" with the viewpoints of the three guests on Ruhle's show, so that he can know how to better criticize Ruhle. And is that balanced or unbiased? It doesn't seem so to me.

    I know someone who is a Christian Nationalist personally. She is a member of Q-Anon as well. The blanket statements made by the guests are consistent with her discussions with me. When discussing Trump, she reminded me, "Support for Trump is religious, not logical. It is about faith in God." Perhaps that is the bit that Somerby is complaining wasn't said. But I'll bet it was said and he didn't hear it.

    It is hard to take Somerby's calls for balance seriously when he is looking so hard for reasons to set aside what he hears on MSNBC. And that isn't any kind of objectivity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You explain well why it is hard to take Somerby seriously, thank you.

      Delete
    2. What “balance” did Bob call for other than inviting one of these Christian nationalists on to be questioned about this so-called movement? That used to called journalism.

      Unless these people are utter naifs, they know they’re going to challenged by people who are not sympathetic in the least to their thinking.

      Delete
    3. Well, apparently Bob presumes that these horrible "Christian nationalists" really do exist. That they aren't just bogeymen to frighten the moonbats.

      Delete
    4. Anonymouse 2:22pm, I think Bob recalls the days when journos invited the subjects of their programs on the air in order to let them speak for themselves in answering probing questions.

      You may be too young to recall that prehistoric era.

      Delete
    5. That wasn't really the objective of the program, Cecelia.

      Delete
    6. Anonymouse 4:14pm, indeed. The objective of the program is to tell you that you should be in fear. That’s it, kiddies! We’ve decided.

      Why not also allow the people (the subjects of the piece) explain themselves via a tough interview in order for viewers to weigh things out?

      So passé.

      Delete
    7. No, Cecelia, the purpose was just to inform the audience of a very nasty movement that has captured the republican party. This wasn't the Jerry Springer show. Don't know who you would suggest to be the spokesperson. Moses?

      Delete
    8. Anonymouse 4:53pm, someone must be speaking for them and they have to have a bit of organization, otherwise they’re some crackpots who mouth off on Twitter who have far linfluence than followers of RFK, Jr, Bernie Bros, or Democrats who want Israel pushed into the sea.

      Delete
    9. As I said, Cecelia, that wasn't the objective of the program. It was not to give an audience to these theocrats, it was to give some historical perspective regarding how the mixing and politics and religion has been employed many times in the past by various petty tyrants. Trump is just the latest in a long line of charlatans and mountebanks. I hear he's selling Maga Bibles to help pay for his criminal defense lawyers.

      Who would you like to hear from? Maybe one of the christo-fascists trump installed on the highest court in our land? How about a judge who makes rulings citing verses from the bible? The Speaker of the House, who speaks to god and believes he's Moses?

      Delete
    10. Anonymouse 6:20pm, with your logic the media would never expose or confront extremists.

      Sixty Minutes would never have existed and McCarthy would have never been confronted as to having no shame.

      But, of course, YOU know all about Christian Nationalists. You’re an authority. We’re supposed to take that on faith from you and the media, even as you suggest we support these people.

      Delete
    11. You're almost comical with your feigned ignorance of Christian Nationalism, Cecelia. Ask MTG, one of the leaders of your party, what it means. Just go to any random Trump Nurenberg Rally and watch. Then talk to some of people there wearing their "Trump is Jesus" t-shirts.

      Delete
    12. Anonymouse 6:43am, so now I’m feigning ignorance of the movement that anonymices brought up as being a new and dire threat to the country. Therefore, it somehow makes a lick of sense that anonymices will not define or elucidate upon the tenets of this philosophy/theology and the media won’t question a Christian Nationalist on air.

      You are a ridiculous clown show down to your clown shoes.

      Delete
    13. Cecelia,
      In 6:43's defense, you make it extremely difficult to tell when you are just feigning ignorance, and when it's the real thing.

      Delete
    14. Anonymouse 8:57am, you make it extremely easy to ascertain that you and the media want this term to be kept as nebulous as possible. It’s not a movement. It’s merely the latest appellation.

      Delete
    15. 10:26,
      Antifa says "Hi".

      Delete
    16. You just want to argue, Cec. Maybe you should have watched the program so the term wouldn't be so nebulous to you. You would probably recognize people all around you who think and act like Christian Nationalists.

      I am against it. I have always been proud of our Constitution and believed the strength of our Union is that we opened our country to religious refugees from other countries. The base of your party seems to not feel that way. I don't want an American Taliban. How about you?

      Delete
    17. I want an American Taliban. I am for diversity.

      Delete
    18. The Taliban would be the opposite of diversity.

      Delete
  6. Don Wright has died.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How is Don Wrong doing?

      Delete
    2. Don (Always) Wrong is on trial in a Manhattan Courthouse.

      Delete
    3. It's like you can't fuck a disease ridden porn star while your wife is gross because she is recovering from pregnancy anymore. Enough with the wokeism!

      Delete
    4. Rest well, Don.

      Delete
  7. Trump has the anti-misogynist vote locked in.

    ReplyDelete
  8. “But those criteria are pale before the claim that bloodthirsty imagery is leading adherents to want to "inflict real harm on the people they disagree with." 

    Wrong. It’s right there in quote from Neumann:

    ‘Neumann…called the movement “heretical and idolatry” and an “apocalyptic vision (that) very often leads to violence.

    ReplyDelete
  9. “the report said that Christian nationalism was in a relative state of decline.”

    No, it did not.

    Some quotes:

    “Christian nationalism began picking up steam around 2015”

    “Christian nationalists, who are more numerous among Republicans, can be expected to maintain their fervor.”

    “white evangelical Christians were among the strongest supporters of the assertion that God intended America as a “promised land” for European Christians. Those who backed that idea were far more likely to agree that “true American patriots may have to resort to violence ... to save our country.”
    “To my mind, white Christian nationalism is really the threat,” Jones said.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Christian nationalism is on the rise in the Republican Party but is overall in decline:

      "Their research found about one in five Americans align with many of those views. That’s down from nearly one in four a decade earlier, just as Americans have become less religious overall."

      Delete
    2. Yes, and that’s why it is important and relevant to discuss it, as Ruhle did.

      Delete
    3. Anonymices, coincidentally, Bob thought so too!

      Bob: “ The lengthy discussion consumed half the show. It was a perfectly sensible topic.”

      Delete
    4. It’s “sensible” says Somerby. Why does he think that? He seems to think that the AP article shows its influence waning, which is the opposite of what it says. He also seems to be uncertain about what Christian nationalism even is, but sure, it was a “sensible” discussion. Lol.

      Delete
    5. Anonymouse 7:44om, he seems to think the topic is worthwhile , the conducting of the discussion, not so much.

      Delete
  10. “For ourselves, we don't support "prayer in the [public] schools" or "religious displays in public places" (depending on what kind of "public places" you mean).”

    He doesn’t support these things, but is he willing to fight against them? If not, they must not be particularly important to him, even though they are important enough to others to fight for and against. If he wants to avoid controversy, fine, but then leave the fight to people who do care.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's just jealous because Hunter has a hot cock.

      Delete
  11. In the scene Bob makes references from "The Godfather Part II" Corleone brings up something uncomfortable about the
    current situation. He is asked by Roth not to be so impolitic.

    He turns out to right. More correct than he could have
    hoped.

    Bob doesn't know much about Christian Nationalism, he
    tells us. This is his argument for telling us no one else does
    either.
    Well, I guess I don't know much about Christian Nationalism either. What I, and any reasonable person does
    know is that in our time The Republican Party does not exist
    without hardcore support from people of "faith." When you
    talk about the Republican Base, that is pretty much who you
    are talking about. In the Trump years, the furthest of the
    religious right took over the party, that's why he panders to
    them, crudely if hilariously.
    Bob pretends he doesn't know about any of this because
    it makes him uncomfortable to bring it up. He should not use
    his own intellectual dishonesty to cast doubt on the
    seriousness of other people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anyone who isn't a bigot, or isn't perfectly fine with bigotry, left the Republican Party two dozen years ago.
      Hence, the lock on the Republican Party by Christians.

      Delete
    2. That’s going to be a tough sell, sweetie, considering what Jewish students are reporting about college campuses.

      Delete
    3. I read this in an email yesterday morning. It’s Substack blurb to solicit interest in subscribing and it occurs to me that it is certainly illustrative of the media mindset and latest campaign.

      https://fourthwatch.substack.com/p/show-your-work-journalism-shaming?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=221233&post_id=143588379&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=o1rt7&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

      Delete
    4. @2:24- Steve Krakauer?
      LOL!

      Delete
    5. Anonymouse 2:24pm, yeah. He’s defending a new hire at the New York Times. The stuff of all right winger.

      Delete
    6. You could be right, Cecelia, but I've heard how Jews
      and African Americans were turning to the Republican
      Party for many, many years and it never seems to much pan out. Indeed, it seems to be true of only a
      small sliver of the hard right "faith" fanatics among
      them. I wonder if you are secretly repulsed by the
      way Trump talks about American Jews or if I think
      too much of you.

      Delete
    7. Anonymouse 4:01pm, I linked what is an emailed promo of Krakauer’s subscription- only substack column. I’m not a subscriber.

      The excerpt from Krakauer didn’t mention a single thing about demographic groups trending toward either party.. Dude just defended a new NYT reporter from a nutjob legacy journo who went postal because the new hire said she was looking forward to the fun she would have in covering the presidential election.

      Delete
    8. Even girl journalists from Boston can take care of themselves and don't need Froomkin or Krakauer to defend them. It is not unusual for worldly male journalists to be offended by chirpy enthusiasm or optimism. It is too girly for them, but it is a kind of sexist patronizing to think that someone who is happy to be at a new job is too naive to do that job properly.

      Cecelia doesn't see this for what it is -- sexism, not "nutjob legacy politics."

      Delete
    9. Anonymouse 7:17pm, sexism… You didn’t read it. He chided her over being excited and looking forward to covering the election campaign because that means she isn’t doom and gloom over Christian Nationals.

      Delete
    10. National Christians.

      Delete
  12. Liberals are really good at ginning up hate against some alleged group of allegedly horrible people: racists, sexists, white nationalists, homophobes, Islamophobias. Now it's Christian Nationalists.

    Immigration is big, complex issue: How many legal immigrants should we allow? What criteria should be used? How should illegal immigration be controlled? How beneficial or harmful are various numbers of illegal immigrants? Etc., etc.

    Conveniently for liberals they don't need to debate these thorny questions. They simply brand anyone who disagrees with them as a "Christian Nationalist". End of debate.

    P.S. from a selfish POV I regret that antisemites are pretty much not included today in liberal list of boogiemen, even thought Jews are the biggest victims of hate crimes in the US.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Jews are the biggest victims of hate crimes in the US."

      Targeted by the extreme right, David, your people.
      You remember the fascists, David, the ones who put your ancestors in ovens? Isn't it ironic that you now find yourself on the same team.

      Delete
    2. DIC, you are conflating fighting for justice and against oppression, with hate, and in doing so your claim lacks coherence or relevance, and mainly points to your addled emotional state.

      Your side is losing so we get why you are triggered and lashing out, hopefully you find a way to be at peace with equally sharing the world with those who you feel superior to.

      Delete
    3. David speaks for the Right, when he complains that Liberals gin up hatred against all the Right-wing heroes (and, I might add, the GOP voter base); racists, sexists, white nationalists, homophobes, Islamaphobes, etc.

      I know this, because I took Bob Somerby's advice and listened to "the Others". They agree 100% with David.

      #theyarewhowethoughtheywere

      Delete
    4. David is a Jewish atheist who believes school prayer should be mandatory.

      Delete
    5. David, I’d be equally skeptical on this board of the appearance of old-time Democrats, Bob-defenders-cum-anonymouse-flying-monkeys and everything else.

      It’s an operation and operators gonna operate.

      Delete
    6. I don't even know what "Christian Nationalists" are. They don't have a membership card. They're not registered as a 501C3 organization. They don't have a suffix like doctors and dentists. Say, "John Doe CN". They don't have a Christian Nationalist Party, like Democrats or Republicans.

      Could someone please tell me what they are. Who is included in the the group of Christian Nationalists? Thanks.

      Delete

    7. It's evil that lives among us. I am scared shitless now. Wait, I will go barricade my doors and windows now.

      I am Corby.

      Delete
    8. I guess it’s the religious right of the Ralph Reed era but amped up exponentially in keeping with our modern day craziness, you %#!!! racist @;&&&!!! Putin-puppet fascist!!!

      Delete
    9. I operate. You copulate.

      Delete
    10. Quaker in a BasementApril 15, 2024 at 3:09 PM

      "Liberals are really good at ginning up hate against some alleged group of allegedly horrible people"

      O, the irony1

      Delete
    11. I am still waiting to find out who the Christian Nationalists are. Apparently they're undefined.

      Delete
    12. Actually, the Christian Nationalists are NOT Ralph Reed's Christians at all, not even amped up. They are a different beast, one that wants an authoritarian takeover of our government in order to implement a Taliban-style theocracy in which women are treated like property, science is suppressed, censorship rules, and a brotherhood of powerful men rule everyone else by force (to promote their own interests). Reading their own writing is genuinely scary. Cecelia, don't minimize the threat to everyday Christians posed by such a group of fanatical extremists who are attracted to perversity and violence.

      Delete
    13. Anonymouse 6:44pm, I didn’t minimize so-called Christian Nationalists. I advocated for getting them on tv and on the record.

      Delete
    14. They don't need more exposure. We need Trump to condemn them instead of promoting them, as he is doing with Johnson.

      You, Cecelia, did minimize them by equating them to Ralph Reed's brand of Christians, which they have no similarity to at all.

      Delete
    15. I want to exile David to Israel. I want Cecelia to be my housekeeper. I am a Christian Nationalist.

      Delete
    16. @6:44 Before telling us how awful the Christian Nationalists are, please tell us WHO they are. How does one identify them? Do they call themselves "Christian Nationalists"? How many are there?

      Going by the name, every patriotic Christian would be one. But, I don't think that's what you mean.

      Delete
    17. https://crooksandliars.com/2024/04/project-2025-blueprint-christian#google_vignette

      Delete
    18. David, here’s a blog post at the ADL website about Nick Fuentes:

      “Fuentes Delivers Antisemitic, “Christian Nationalist” Rant to Fellow White Supremacists”

      https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/fuentes-delivers-antisemitic-christian-nationalist-rant-fellow-white-supremacists

      Perhaps you should get your head out of the sand.

      Delete
    19. I don't even know what "Christian Nationalists" are." They are a bunch of weirdos and assholes like you David.

      Delete
    20. Biden again asked Maga Moses Mike Johnson to pass the bipartisan Senate immigration bill. Anybody complaining about liberals and the border is an ass who is ignoring Trump's efforts to keep the bill off the floor so Biden does not get a win. Save the blathering until after the bill passes. In the meantime call your Congresscritter.

      Delete
    21. Anonymouse 7:10pm, oh, you make so much sense.

      No one needs to know what Christian Nationalist think, and I sure don’t, but you chide me for “minimizing” them because they’re such a threat?!

      We’re not suppose to know anything about them, but damn you if you say anything that isn’t accurate as to Christian Nationalist.

      The public shouldn’t be informed of what they’re about, but Trump should denounce them.

      Anonymices are the most manipulative “want it all ways to Sunday” imbecilic drama queens on the planet.

      Delete
    22. Anonymouse 7:12pm, I’ve already informed you that you would not fare well in any of your scenarios. Move on.

      Delete
    23. Christian nationalism isn’t our aspiration. It’s the future.

      Delete
    24. Anonymouse flying fanatics.

      Delete
    25. Same reason Cecelia wants drag queens to have a Saturday morning cartoon show.

      Delete
    26. Anonymouse 11:12pm, just like all the other days of the week.

      Delete
    27. Cecelia, as a wife and mother, you do womanly work. Now you understand that’s your whole job. Plus, you’ll submit cheerfully to your husband, whom you already love. When you accept God’s plan, you’ll thrive under Christian Nationalism.

      Delete
    28. Anonymouse 6:54am, I have already accepted God’s plan and if my husband ever absolutely insisted upon something contrary to my opinion, I would acquiesce to his decision. I trust him. I’m ratherfond of him. I very much need him.

      Delete
    29. Anonymouse 8:36am, thanks and let me add that God loves all his little flying monkey anonymices too. Here’s hoping that at some point they evolve.

      Delete
    30. Your ignorance is moronic, 9:00 AM

      Delete
    31. Turns out Cecelia never really cared about drag queens. It was all theater in support of the bigoted Republican Party. Who knew?

      Delete
    32. Cecelia, like every other Right-winger, doesn't care about inflation or the deficit, either. It's ALL cos-playing in support of bigots.

      Delete
    33. Anonymices, 9:23am, ok, but you best refrain from accusing me of not wanting a Saturday morning drag show cartoon.

      Them’s fight’n words.

      Delete
  13. I am making $162/hour telecommuting. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning $21 thousand a month by working on the web, that was truly shocking for me, she prescribed me to attempt it simply ,

    COPY AND OPEN THIS SITE__________ 𝐖𝐰𝐰.𝐒𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐏𝐚𝐲𝟕.𝐜𝐨𝐦

    ReplyDelete
  14. https://crooksandliars.com/2024/04/project-2025-blueprint-christian#google_vignette

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Got it. @7:41. Christian Nationalists are people who want Christianity to be the official US religion. They obviously have not chance at all of attaining this goal.

      Delete
    2. You think you can stop us, Dave?

      Delete
    3. Dave, are you familiar with Fuentes? I cited him above. There’s an example of a member of the group you thought maybe was imaginary.

      Delete
    4. You're very ugly when you play dumb, David. No chance at all? It's already happening.

      **************
      The Supreme Court Benches the Separation of Church and State
      The court has adopted an approach that would see the lines between church and state hopelessly blurred, if not eliminated altogether.

      In Carson v. Makin, the court held for the first time that a state must fund religious activity as part of an educational aid program. Maine’s tuition assistance program pays for students in rural areas with no public high school to attend another public or private school. Concerned with maintaining a strong separation between religion and government, Maine has long prohibited the use of public funds to finance religious instruction and indoctrination. Many other states have adopted similar provisions, in some instances dating back two centuries. And with good reason: Avoiding compulsory taxpayer support for religion lies at the heart of the Constitution’s religious liberty protections. https://www.aclu.org/news/religious-liberty/the-supreme-court-benches-the-separation-of-church-and-state
      *****************

      Delete
    5. Anonymouse 6:48am, you can deduct donations to charitable religious organizations and from houses of worship, be they Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. You can receive govt backed loans and grants to church based colleges and universities.

      How is it different for government to pay for private religious schools in areas with no public schools?

      Delete
  15. Wehner isn’t just an anti-Trump Republican. He is a staunch Republican and worked for Reagan and both Bushes. He did not vote for Hillary, and was critical of Obama. He is a professed Christian and a fellow at the Trinity Forum, a faith based nonprofit. He is no liberal. He has insight into the GOP and into the evangelical community. His views may provide some valuable insights.

    Here he is from 2019:

    “The Deepening Crisis in Evangelical Christianity”

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/evangelical-christians-face-deepening-crisis/593353/

    ReplyDelete