Tag: Marco Rubio

The Stones are Crying Out. Can You Hear Them?

Roger Mitchell1 Comment

It has been reported that the toll from Donald Trump’s self-declared “war” on Caribbean fishing boats has now reached a total of 18 attacks, with at least 70 persons losing their lives because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even though some (that is, a few) members of Congress are demanding that the attacks end (that is, until Congress itself can declare them official), there is no sign that Trump and his gung-ho henchmen (Rubio, Hegseth, etc.) will stop voluntarily. It is more than likely that the killings will escalate and multiply until the end goal of the neo-con White House and its puppet-masters is reached: a full-blown war against near or distant “enemies” who are unable to stand up against the military might of the US Department of War (that is, the highly profitable business model known as the “military-industrial complex).

In my lifetime, I have read a few books which have left a lasting impact, which I cannot forget, overlook, or ignore: Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath, Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago, Roth’s Choosing Against War, Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning, et al. There are pamphlets, essays, polemics, articles too numerous to mention, which have shaped my thinking in so many ways, bringing me to the point I am at today. When it comes to Trump’s “Fisherman’s War”, however, one stands out as extremely relevant and sounds a clear warning. The excerpt below is taken from it.

“Today, the stones still cry out. Every story of victims—whether nonviolent prisoners like those Steve Bannon met in jail, or casualties of wars we fuel in Israel-Gaza or Ukraine-Russia—haunts our collective conscience. Jesus tied the stones’ cries to Jerusalem’s fall in 70 AD, when Israel’s zeal for violence mirrored Rome’s and left both exposed as complicit in the same sin. America stands at a similar crossroads. Our politics, like Caiaphas’, justifies flesh-and-blood victims for “national security” or “progress.” We cheer Barabbas-types—leaders promising strength through exclusion or war—while ignoring the Lamb who redefines polis not as the victors’ club but as the refuge for the least of these.” — https://www.lewrockwell.com/2025/04/david-gornoski/the-stones-still-cry-out-holy-weeks-political-reckoning/

Caiaphas-type politics which demand that someone die. Barabbas-type leaders who prey on weak, insignificant countries, societies, and persons. Pilate-type rulers who could stop the carnage but are politically inclined to “go along to get along” and, therefore, impotent and useless. And, of course, there are the “huddled masses” which obediently provide the necessary background noise and support for such actions, all in the delusion that somehow blowing boats out of the water without just cause will make America safe and their own lives personally better and more prosperous. Oh, yes, the collective zeal for violence at the mainstream level does mirror that in Washington and, like the crowd which screamed out, “Crucify him, crucify him!”, urge and hector our own Caesar-like “leaders” to increase the tempo and pressure because all would be lost if we relented for even a moment. Whether our collective conscience haunts us or not is debatable.

And still, the stones cry out!

Well, yes, this is an obvious reference to the devastation and killing fields in Gaza, not the waters off the coast of Venezuela, but everything I have described above applies to this as well. This ought to raise the question which everyone has heard at some time or another: WWJD? What would Jesus do, indeed, about the situations in both locations where the powerful and mighty rain down violence, death, and destruction on the poor and helpless? Actually moving from theory to consequence, probably negative, is to rephrase the question. What will Jesus do? What will be Heaven’s response to these not-so-isolated instances of theft, murder, and injustice, all of which are occurring on our watch and often with our complicity and consent, both vocal and silent.

Why do the nations rage, and the people plot a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, “Let us break Their bonds in pieces and cast away Their cords from us.” — Psalm 2:1-3

And, the answer.

He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; the Lord shall hold them in derision. Then He shall speak to them in His wrath, and distress them in His deep displeasure… — Psalm 2: 4-5

My belief, informed by history and the warnings (both implicit and explicit) laid out in the Holy Bible, is that it will not be pretty nor comfortable. Many of us will probably express regret that we allowed the stones to cry out because it was easier than to raise a fuss ourselves.

The Death of Due Process: Mahmoud Khalil

Roger Mitchell1 Comment

What in the world? This is America, after all, The Land of the Free and the Home of Constitutionally Protected Freedoms as delineated in the first ten amendments, commonly known as the Bill of Rights.

Chances are pretty good that if you were to ask any average American about Mahmoud Khalil, he or she would respond with one word. “Who?” If this person derived their politics from the right side of the ledger who vigorously supports Donald Trump, then the odds go up that, on learning about the status of Mahmoud Khalil, the answer would immediately come back with double the quantity of words and heightened intensity. “Good riddance!” In this, they will echo the words of Kristi Noem, who could not let a good opportunity go to waste.

A week ago, I posted an article in which I explored the issue of Tren de Aragua, a notorious, violent, criminal gang from Venezuela which operates internationally (including the United States), and was designated by Donald Trump as a Foreign Terrorist Organization via an Executive Order on his very first day in office, second term. Since then, the administration has been active in rounding up and deporting alleged gang members back to Venezuela or shipping them off to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador, whichever is easier, more effective, and less costly.

Let’s get one thing perfectly clear right now. I do not support the importation and keeping of violent criminals into this country. Undoubtedly, there are people here who ought to be removed from American society–violently, if necessary. Nevertheless, there are rules to follow in the process, the foremost among them being the 5th Amendment to the Constitution:

“No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” .

Now, of course, this brings up the question of whether or not the government is operating according to the 5th Amendment. I cannot say. I don’t know. If it is, well and good. If not, then we have a problem which will only get worse as social, economic, and political circumstances worsen and degrade. In order to maintain the trust of the American people, it is incumbent on the administration to make sure it works within the law whether it advances the political agenda or not.

Which brings us to Mahmoud Khalil. Born in Syria of Palestinian origin and a citizen of Algeria, legally admitted to the US with Green Card and permanent resident status, Columbia University student, married to an American woman, soon to be a father. He was arrested in the lobby of his apartment complex in New York City, on March 08, then shipped without notice to Jena, LA, where he was held incommunicado without notice to his attorney or pregnant wife. He was the first person arrested after Trump had promised to crack down on university student protests over the conflict in Gaza.

Obviously, Khalil had broken some law or committed a crime, right? After all, if you haven’t done anything wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of. Right? Why else would the government go after him if he was innocent? As it turns out, he had been involved in the protests at Columbia, acting as an intermediary between the university and the main body of participants. He had been open and cooperative with the university and the media and refused to mask his face, becoming widely known to the public and giving the administration a clear target to aim at in the battle against “anti-semitism”, a term no one can define well but which is politically useful. Sort of like “freedom-fighters” and “democracy”.

Marco Rubio, the current Secretary of State has alleged that Khalil engaged in “antisemitic protests and disruptive activities, which fosters a hostile environment for Jewish students in the United States”, but he produced no evidence to this effect and did not accuse Khalil of committing any crime whatsoever. In a court case before Jamee Conans, an immigration judge in Louisiana, Rubio brought out an arcane law as precedent to prove that he could legally deport Khalil, whether he was guilty of any wrong-doing or not. CNN described it this way.

“The administration previously said it based its deportation order for Khalil on an obscure provision from the Immigration and Nationality Act – which provides broad authority to the Secretary of State to revoke a person’s immigration status if their “activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences” to the country.”

““For cases in which the basis for this determination is the alien’s past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations that are otherwise lawful, the Secretary of State must personally determine that the alien’s presence or activities would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest,” the memo from the secretary reads.”

OK, let’s get this straight. Marco Rubio has applied an obscure regulation from 1952 to justify his action against Khalil, who has not had any criminal charges filed against him. According to the memo seen above, Khalil’s “past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations that are otherwise lawful” are sufficient to require his deportation. His beliefs? His words? The company he keeps? Not only in the past and currently, but also those to happen at some time in the future?

What is this if not a full-throated assault on free speech in America, a guaranteed right covered by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution? If any Secretary of State (there are many, they change all the time) can determine arbitrarily that a person is a “threat to national security” at any time and for any reason, and use the overwhelming power of the federal government against them, does this not rip the guts out of the 1st Amendment? Since the powers-that-be today will not be those in charge tomorrow, how can anyone be certain that what he says or believes today will not be held against him tomorrow when the politics have shifted? The fact is that he cannot and this type of action by Rubio and Trump will only have a chilling effect on what is said and done in this country.

The 5th Amendment is toast. The 1st Amendment is almost gone. With those out of the way, who can guarantee that the 2nd Amendment, the so-called Right to bear Arms, will not be targeted next? When the Goon Squad breaks down your front door to confiscate your guns, what authority can you appeal to for deliverance, especially if you have refused to stand up for those who were taken out and beaten in the War against Free Speech, Beliefs, and Friendships?

Where is Martin Niemoeller when you need him?

The Trump administration has been given the green light to deport Khalil by Jamee Comans, an immigration law judge in Louisiana, who justified her ruling based on Rubio’s statement. Khalil’s lawyers have until April 23 to appeal the decision and it is quite possible that this case will be heard all the way to the Supreme Court.

An ironic twist to this saga is that the Leftists who were so keen to cancel, censor, and silence their critics a few years ago are now howling loudly on behalf of Mahmoud Khalil, while the Rightists who complained loudly and bitterly about being told to sit down and shut up are now advocating that Khalil be treated in exactly the same way. Or worse.

Fairness, integrity, and consistency. I guess it all depends on which version of justice you subscribe to. Go figure.