Show Notes:: Not So Fast - Dred Scott

So, I wasn't going to do this to myself so soon but we are going to revisit the Kim Davis Affair - sorta.  If you remember, in my first contribution to the fracas  I talked a bit about special pleading or Christian exceptionalism; the "I'm special" mentality. 

Today I want to look at one specific argument that has been flaunted in Davis' defense:

,,,the Dred Scott decision of 1857 still remains to this day the law of the land which says that black people aren’t fully human,,,. Does anybody still follow the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision?  [:43]

Now I am certain the various analyses I read prior (for what I shall now call part one) have been correct, that Dred Scott  was overturned by the 13th and 14th amendments (1865 and 1868, respectively). So, no, it is no longer the law of the land.  And as I said previously, Huckabee was an ass, constitutionally speaking, in citing it as support for his cause.  But, something has been nagging at me,,,

I know the Reich is getting desperate, they are embracing scary levels of radicalism to seize power in any way that they can.  So, is,,,Huckabee "just" pandering to his base?  Or,,, is he really that stupid?  Personally I think I already know the answer, especially if one takes into account his statement in June regarding the King ruling concerning Obamacare, the other thorn in the Reich's side:

Today's King v. Burwell decision, which protects and expands ObamaCare, is an out-of-control act of judicial tyranny. Our Founding Fathers didn't create a "do-over" provision in our Constitution that allows unelected, Supreme Court justices the power to circumvent Congress and rewrite bad laws. The Supreme Court cannot legislate from the bench, ignore the Constitution, and pass,,,

Notice his verbiage, the talking points of the Reich,,, this is what is bothersome.

 

Nestled in a article, by contributing writer Danielle Allen over at WaPo, is a discussion of the underlying issue of both the DS and Obergefell rulings, the "question of property rights."

In referring to Kennedy's opinion, Allen asks,

,,,if marriage is just a mode of organizing property rights and attendant duties and privileges, why couldn’t gay couples be given access to those rights via another organizational form, for instance, civil union?

She then immediately reminds us,

But this would have been to permit the re-emergence of a world of separate but equal, where there is no justification for the separate vehicles other than animus and discrimination.

With his arguments about dignity, Kennedy reminds us that this world of “separate but equal” is firmly closed off,,,

Did you catch it? "But this would have been to permit the re-emergence of a world of separate but equal,,," [and we all know how well that worked out].

In other words, the ole Us vs Them mentality. Or "I'm special" because "I hold to the '"traditional' (religious) definition of marriage and you don't." 

Which brings us to the important word in Allen's concluding thought, "animus".

I have written about the UvT mentality a few times and how it is woven into the Reich's agenda.  It's importance was imparted on me via a Diane Benscoter TEDTalk titled  "How Cults Think" where she speaks of extreme religious batshittery as a brain virus (much like Dr. Darrell Ray in the God Virus, The: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture).

,,,the most dangerous part of this is that is creates "us" and "them," "right" and "wrong," "good" and "evil." And it makes anything possible. Makes anything rationalizable.

Benscoter expands that idea in a blog post where she talks further in regards to memeplexes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memeplex (groups of memes which have been used to understand, in this case, the phenomenon of religion).

This concept gives us a means to view, from an evolutionary perspective, how and why we have tended to clump together into groups with highly polarized ideologies. We can start to understand the pull to view the world from a “Us” versus “Them” perspective,,,.

And that my dears fits into the Reich's agenda like a hand fits a glove. 

Let me explain,,,

Two years ago, at the height of the Cliven Bundy v. BLM stand-off a writer for Truth Wins Out (TWO), Bruce Wilson, "discovered" the money behind the Reich.  An annual conference called – The Gathering, that gives away up to a billion dollars a year with much of the money given to Christian organizations (Alliance Defending Freedom, The World Congress of Families, Family Research Council, and American Family Association). The largest donor at this conference is the National Christian Foundation – which last year gave away $670 million dollars to various right wing causes.

Now unless you have been living under a rock, these are not only the main purveyors of hate (in the US and abroad - Uganda and Russia) but also the main driving forces behind ALL the faux religious liberty cases we have witnessed in recent years.  The take away, and why I mention this, as Wayne Besen (also of TWO) points out,

It is critically important to understand that the main goal of many of these extreme Christian fundamentalist groups is to take over nations and turn them into totalitarian theocracies. This includes the Untied [sic] States of America and helps explain why our politics are so polarized.

Do you get it now? 

What Besen did, is "come up with 10-Point Playbook that these homegrown Christian extremists use when they attempt to accomplish their frightening goals."  You will recognize this list as I have mentioned it before,

1) Find inflammatory wedge issues and scapegoats to divide people and force them to choose sides  [Marriage equality]

2) Persuade people to join your righteous “team” in its effort to purify society. Demand absolute loyalty and obedience to that team’s leaders (even above allegiance to the state) [American Family Association, Family Research Council]

3) Identify and cultivate key major donors to fund mission. To reward their support, back conservative economic policies [Koch Brothers, Greens (Hobby Lobby), Waltons (Walmart), John Schnatter (Papa Johns)]

4) Create parallel infrastructure and institutions (i.e. private education, conferences, think tanks, and charities)  [John Birch Society, Heritage Foundation, The Gathering]

5) Build an insular media cocoon to disseminate propaganda. This vast echo chamber is contemptuous of contradictory facts, suspicious of reason, and impervious to mainstream media scrutiny  [Fox News, BarbWire, Glenn Beck, WorldNetDaily]

6) Infiltrate society’s major institutions in a clandestine effort to undermine, influence, and ultimately control (See 7 Mountains Movement: government, education, family, religion, entertainment, business, and media)  [Texas State Board of Education]

7) Facilitate the decline of secular government by deliberately and persistently creating crises in confidence and eroding trust in venerable institutions  [GOP/TP, Gov't shutdown over Debt Ceiling, IRS and Benghazi]

8) Oppose all gun control laws and tacitly encourage local militias, so in the event of insurrection fundamentalists are the most well armed sector of society  [NRA, Gun Owners of America]

9) Constantly agitate and manufacture havoc, because theocracy can only be attained amid chaos. Without a functioning central government, the shadow infrastructure created by fundamentalists makes them the best situated to fill a vacuum, restore order at the price of liberty, and install their regime  [Racism,, see #7]

10) Export model abroad: Send influential emissaries and dedicated missionaries; deploy basic services to create dependence; and dispense money to acquire strategic local alliances; while organizing key international gatherings and fostering opposition at The United Nations…we’ve seen the manifestation of these efforts most notably in Uganda and Russia – with both nation’s veering far to the right, restricting freedom, and passing draconian anti-gay laws [Uganda, Russia]

So, I ask again, is Huckabee's use of this analogy, along with the rest of the Reich's cadre, incidental; based on just plain ignorance or stupidity.  Or is he, in a not so underhanded sort of way, stating "I have this plan you see. I really have no problem discriminating against a distinct class of people in order to carry this plan to fruition"

You have to remember, the Reich does have a plan, it begins with "a "reformed" interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause or an outright repeal of the First Amendment,  continuing with the abolition of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ending with the implementation of dominionist ideology in order to govern by theocratic control. 

I fell into a rabbit hole so maybe a part 3,,,