CAIR suing Greg Abbott

That's the big story, to me, out of Strangeabbott declaring the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and the Muslim Brotherhood, as "transnational terror organizations" then directing his butt-flunkies at DPS to open an criminal investigation against both.

That latter is clearly a page out of Donald the Demented's playbook.

The former? First, since Strangeabbott is not a president of a country (contra Tex-ass exceptionalism of the Texas nationalist type of wet dreams) is nugatory, first of all. 

It's also baseless, even per Donald the Demented's State Department:

Neither the Muslim Brotherhood nor CAIR is listed on the U.S. State Department’s list of terrorist groups.

There you are. 

It's also bullshit:

Abbott also said the investigation will target people or groups “who unlawfully impose Sharia law,” which he said violates the Texas Constitution.

Because these groups don't do that. 

Speaking of? This part:

Murtaza Sutarwalla, president of the Muslim Bar Association of Houston, spoke at the same news conference and rejected Abbott’s “repeated claims that the Sharia law is banned in Texas.”

Is true. 

Federal law allows the use of private religious law between consenting private religious individuals and authorities.   

Strangeabbott is either legally ignorant himself, playing off others' ignorance, or some combination. 

Ditto for him attempting to fuse and conflate CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood. 

Here's the bottom-line legal angle:

Abbott’s declaration opens up an array of potential constitutional issues, said Emily Berman, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center. Limiting property purchases based on viewpoints and religious affiliation could prove problematic under the First Amendment and the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. 

“What is the motivation of these designations?” Berman said. “Is it about their religious views? Is it about their viewpoints on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which would be another First Amendment red flag? You can’t discriminate on the basis of someone’s viewpoint.” 

The designation also raises due process concerns, Berman said, given that it’s not clear how groups can formally challenge the designation. 

The U.S. Secretary of State holds the power to designate a group a foreign terrorist organization, though they must notify Congress and publish the designation in the Federal Register. An organization can appeal that designation within 30 days of that publication. 

It’s not clear whether such a process exists at the state level. In the order, Abbott said he consulted with Freeman Martin, Texas Department of Public Safety director, and the state’s Homeland Security Council to determine whether to make the designation as required under state law. Whether groups can appeal the state-level designations is unclear. 

It’s possible CAIR, for example, could challenge the law in court by arguing the state is overstepping its bounds by making laws around national security matters, Berman said.

Period. End of story. 

The second story? 

As I told Kuff in commenting on his Off the Kuff story about Abbott's original proclamation, we all know what this is about: Palestine and Palestinians. The dog that IS barking, repeatedly, in Texas and that Kuff refuses to write about. And, Kuff and other Democraps who refuse to talk about the barking dog only encourage mouthbreathers like Strangeabbott and Legiscritter Cole Hefner.

Happy Thanksgiving, you bigotry and genocide fellow traveler. 

See, Abbott is one of many modern American conservative cafeteria Catholics who have approached modern fundagelical Protestants on many issues, including Israel and Zionism, even though Rome, like old mainline Protestant churches, is officially amillennial on the book of Revelation. 

Per the bullshit above, though, Abbott would turn a blind eye toward a Kiryeas Joel in Tex-ass. 

No, not everything happens "for a reason"; sometimes, #ShitHappens

Personally, I loathe that phrase, whether out of the mouths of conventionally religious, out of the mouths of New Ages, or out of the orifices of 12-steppers, for two reasons.

One is that it doesn't comport with modern scientific knowledge; the uncertainties of quantum theory show that, at a microscopic level, exact causation cannot be limned out. Related to that, things like chaos theory, emergent complexity, etc., show that exact results of causal events cannot be predicted even at the macroscopic level.

Two, as shown here in detail, it's got a huge, gross, boatload of insensitivity behind it.

This also illustrates why the Silver Rule is better than the Golden Rule.

"Do NOT do unto others what you do NOT want them to do to you."

I've written about the Silver Rule before, most recently with Kim Davis. Before that, with explaining its practical consequential differences, as part of attacking the so-called War on Christmas myth.

This has some extra significance with the HERO proposition losing by a fair margin in Houston Tuesday.

A lot of conservative Christians probably haven't even heard of the Silver Rule. Those who have would surely belittle it as non-Christian.

Beyond the Silver Rule, shit happened plenty in Houston on bigotry, and on the state of Texas in general in kissing the Legislature's ass, last week. And, noooo, there was no divine plan behind it; there was no "reason" except the lack of reason of a majority of a small minority of eligible voters who actually turned out. And, if my guesstimates are right, more shit will happen to Houston in times ahead.

And, beyond that, from personal experience in the newspaper biz, I know that shit happens all the time. Fatal car wrecks had no god or higher power behind them, for example.

Nor does a small town murder-suicide on the stereotypical "slowest day of the news year."

And, certainly, on the slowest day of the news year, no god had a purpose orchestrated behind a wingnut anti-abortion zealot killing a police officer and two others.

The Dunning-Kruger effect and race relations

The New York Times has a very interesting story about race relations in America.

Two key polling points are the "tells."

First, about 60 percent of Americans, including majorities among both whites and blacks, think race relations are generally bad, and about 40 percent think they're getting worse.

However, more than 75 percent think they're getting better in their own communities.

Which is just as impossible as everybody in Lake Wobegon being above average, or the Red Queen's multiple impossibilities actually being true.

That's why I mentioned the Dunning-Kruger effect. This seems to be the emotional or moral version of that, where most people think they're smarter or more competent than they actually are, expect people are thinking they're more racially enlightened than they may actually be.

Here's the real "tell" on that:

Similarly, only a third thought that most people were comfortable discussing race with someone of another race, but nearly three-quarters said they were comfortable doing so themselves.

Erm, Sure! 

Which is just as impossible as everybody in Lake Woebegon being above average, or the Red Queen's multiple impossibilities actually being true.

And, as for why many people think race relations have gotten worse? The tea partiers have drunk the rebranded Jim Jones Kool-Aid, with the result of this:

Seventy-two percent of blacks said they approved of the way Mr. Obama is handling race relations, compared with 40 percent of whites. …

 The divide, seen in the answers to virtually every question in the poll, was stark when respondents were asked whether they thought most Americans had judged Mr. Obama more harshly because of his race. Eighty percent of blacks said yes, while only 37 percent of whites agreed.

Don’t tell me you’re surprised.

I would suggest those 60 percent of whites (not counting any like me who ding Obama from the left at times) take a test about subconscious bias at Project Implicit.

But, I know they won't.

#GayMarriage — from serious to teary to angry on #SSM

I offered several serious hot takes on the Supreme Court's ruling yesterday declaring gay marriage the law of the land.

First was my take on the actual ruling, and the clear fact that whatever faint hopes of "growth" Chief Justice John Roberts showed on Obamacare, they were clouds without water, shadows only.

Second was my wondering if Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, with a major assist from state AG Ken Paxton, is prepared to play George Wallace, shouting "Straight today, straight tomorrow, straight forever." (Initial signs say that's a yes.

Third was my observation that four dissenting justices had four incredibly vacuous arguments, so vacuous they had to write four dissents because they couldn't agree what was the primary damage legalized gay marriage caused.

And now we're here. The emotions.

Who wouldn't, if you're not a homophobe, get teary-eyed at seeing two 80-somethings, Jack Evans and George Harris, get married after waiting 55 years?



Having seen gay friends and acquaintances struggle with coming out and more, who couldn't be teary-eyed as a loving, accepting straight person?

And, who couldn't be angry at the homophobia, or the political pandering of the likes of Paxton and Abbott, or a mix of both?

Who wouldn't be angry at religious institutions and self-appointed public faces and guardians of conservative Christian family values, already exposed as hypocrites, yet doubling down on their hypocrisy?

So, I call out two sets of hypocrites with these poster comments.

The first is obvious. Of course, that's not actually what Catholic bishops across the country said.

But it's what they might as well have said, given the Church's history on child sexual abuse at the altar.

The second?

Possibly short of Ann Coulter, what female wingnut is more grating as a defender of the far right? And short of nobody at all, what female wingnut is more hypocritical, along with her chip off the old block daughter, in pretending to be a moral guardian.

Jewboy, you can't run the Texas House

WTF? Some House GOP Christian conservatives want to depose Texas House Speaker Joe Straus just because he's Jewish.

No, seriously.

Hypocrisy alert – Obama, New Yorker,

Barack Obama now says the “infamous” New Yorker cover is “n insult against Muslim Americans.”

That’s after being too afraid, until now, to call out the right-wing smearers who allege he’s a Muslim for being bigots. He has gotten so far as to admit that’s been a mistake, saying he’s been “derelict” in pointing out how hurtful those attacks are to Muslims.

As I blogged a week ago, though, he can do better. Accuse the right-wing smear machine of bigotry just as bad as racial bigotry.

Instead, we have B.O. repeating the mistakes of John Kerry and other Democratic presidential candidates of the recent past.

Hey, B.O., this is a presidential election, not a tea party. Kumbaya doesn’t cut it.

Just when you think there’s nothing new under the sun of bigotry

You get this:

TEL AVIV, Israel - Eight Israelis accused of belonging to a neo-Nazi cell that attacked religious Jews and painted swastikas in synagogues were charged on Tuesday on counts including aggravated assault and weapon possession. …

All eight are immigrants from the former Soviet Union. A police spokesman said they won Israeli citizenship because they each have at least one Jewish grandparent, though most of them are not considered Jewish under rabbinical law.

Just as blacks and other minorities can be bigoted, so too can Jews, sadly.