Category Archives: politics

The Cold Holy War.

There are many layers to the oppression of immigrants, in our time.

Because of 9/11, both the cause and perpetrators of which have never actually been proven, immigrants of a particular religious persuasion are regarded as suspect by those who assign terroristic activity in a broad swath to anyone to which the alleged 9/11 terrorists’ religion ascribes – namely, Islam.

It isn’t immigration the objectors resist; it’s the threat of infiltrating terrorism, driven by a belief that those who practice Islam are intent upon destroying everyone who does not.

They falsely assign the threat of terrorism to every immigrant woman wearing a head covering, every immigrant whose skin is a particular shade of brown, and every immigrant whose surname begins with Al.

What we are embroiled in, presently, is the secondary effect of a not-so-cold, holy war.

Never before has the separation of church and state been more relevant, been more vital, been more required, if we as Americans are to survive as a nation.

As for the holy war, we must leave that to those who practice religion.

If the government attempts to assign value to anything based in religious persuasion, it is already out of its lane; unfortunately, such assignments are being made, every day, by those in power.

President Trump was described recently by the news media, following his obvious tacit acceptance of the rally chant against the Congresswoman: “Send Her Back!”,  as an “old-world segregationist”.

Perhaps society needs to take a straight ahead look at itself. To what extent do cultural groups self-segregate, and to what end does doing so protect and sustain culture itself? People of similar ilk stay close together. When they do not, or when they are forced apart – such as when Hurricane Katrina scattered the Creole population in the Gulf of Mexico – how do they survive?

Many old world beliefs, discarded by progressives intent upon a new world order, had value. Educated people can distinguish between what is old and worthy, vs. what is archaic and outmoded.

But, President Trump represents neither.

.

.

.

.

.

© 7/18/19   Ruth Ann Scanzillo      All rights, including the title, those of the author, whose name appears above this line. Please respect original material. Thank you.

littlebarefeetblog.com

 

Defending the Indefensible.

I have heard the defense of Donald J. Trump, many, many times.
.
But, let me tell you – as a former teacher to 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 year olds for 20 years, and 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 year olds for five years: Donald Trump’s DAILY utterances, his weekly Tweets, his blatant and endlessly repeating lies….these are traits which, taken in totality, overwhelm those of all prior elected Presidents in my lifetime.
.
He displays behavior – posturing, verbal bullying/name calling – which equates with a 14 year old candidate for high risk school program placement, the kid every teacher in the building considers future potential criminal material.
.
In short, neither Clinton nor JFK, while they expressed sexual behavior patterns which many would not condone, bore carriage in public, on air, in print, or in virtually every interaction portrayed in live or videotaped media, in the character of anything but mature, adult men aware of the image they were modeling for the next generation. Were they hiding their sins behind social graces? Perhaps. But, the nation’s c.h.i.l.d.r.e.n were never subject to their lies, their meanness, boorishness, or juvenile posturing.
.
When you try to apologise Donald Trump in the terms outlined by his devoted base, you stoop to the level of the schoolgirl defending the most outrageous brute of a boy in school, just because she thinks he’s cute and he winked at her in the cafeteria.
.
The man is summarily indefensible.
.
Would you vouch for the devil, just because he knew Jesus, personally?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
© 7/8/19  Ruth Ann Scanzillo.
littlebarefeetblog.com

A Letter From The Law.

Sometimes realization comes in the strangest costume.
.
Last night, I spent several significant minutes concluding that the latest female Trump accuser was, at best, unbalanced.
.
Watching the excerpted clip of the final two minutes of her interview with Anderson Cooper, I declared E. Jean Carroll a delusional loon with a rape fantasy. Tonight, taking the entire interview – which gave the final two minutes their proper context – I discovered a lucid testimony maker making a bold assertion: the man who attacked her was living out a rape fantasy. And, the point missed by so many: she claimed this within the framework of generational context.
.
Perhaps only old people will get it. Those, say, over 60.
.
What was society’s collective position on rape when a husband could force himself on his wife, by law?
.
I doubt that husbands behaving within the bounds of a law which served their patriarchal domination considered themselves rapists; to them, it was their estimable right to have their wives, whenever and however they so chose.
.
As such, this accuser described her attacker in the very terms; she implied that he acted within his perceived right, the embodiment of the residual effect of the letter of the law.
.
Now, how is it a different conversation to ask what society’s collective moral position was on abortion, prior to the connotation of the term “reproductive rights”?
.
For every option a man took, within the law, a woman had none; now, the law states that a woman can dispense with the very life carried in her womb. Could one law have led to the other? Whether or not, in both cases the letter of the law acts as enabler, driving morality to drink.
.
So, which leads: law, or conscience? How much longer will humanity use the law not as judge but as scapegoat for amoral action against another, before semantic label becomes libel?
.
It takes courage to remove the mask.
.
.
.
.
.
© 6/26/19 Ruth Ann Scanzillo.   Thank you for respecting original material. If you are reading this from 163.com, we are already wise to your action.
littlebarefeetblog.com