That "House divided" quotation

I've been listening to the Congressional debate about the Iraq resolution, and I'm listening over and over to Congressional representatives quote the saying "A house divided against itself cannot stand." (Somehow no one says anything about a Senate.) They all attribute it to Abraham Lincoln.

I know that most Americans associate the phrase with Lincoln, and for good reason, because he used it to great effect in the Lincoln Douglas debates. But Lincoln was quoting someone else.

One of Lincoln's favorite sources was the Bible, that indispensable basis of English literature. The quote is actually from Jesus, in the Gospel according to Matthew, chapter 12:

22. Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. 23 And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David? 24 But when the Pharisees heard [it], they said, This [fellow] doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. 25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: 26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? 27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast [them] out? therefore they shall be your judges. 28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. 29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house. 30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. 31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the [world] to come. 33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by [his] fruit. 34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. 35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. 36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

I quote from the King James version, not because I think it is the best translation, but because it is the literary version in English, and this is about allusion in English, not about theology.

What really shocks me is that many of the Congressional representatives who think they are quoting Lincoln, not realizing that he was quoting Jesus, think they are Bible-believing Christians and that the United States is supposed to be a Christian nation based on the Bible. Have they even read the Bible? They certainly don't know it very well. By their words in the Congress they shall be judged, and by their words in Congress they shall be condemned.

Republicans are the real "Democrat Party"

Huh?

No, I'm not kidding. The Republican Party in the U.S. belongs to something called the "Democrat International". It is an international organization of political parties that organizes Conservative and rightist parties. Their membership is worldwide, but is especially strong among European conservative parties. They cooperate in the European Parliament, and seek to extend their influence elsewhere. Why the Republicans are in the International with them I do not know.

For the record, the Democratic Party is in neither the Liberal International, nor the Socialist International, and is, AFAIK, not in any international political organization.

Wow, that was fast!

Here's the lowdown:

The Army court-martial of 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, which ended in a mistrial Wednesday, may have stranger turns ahead: Prohibitions against double jeopardy may keep prosecutors from having a second trial, his lawyer and a legal expert say.

I suspect that the military and the administration don't want a ruling on the legality of the war, and are afraid they will lose. Too bad. I was hoping they would lose.

Why DID the US invade Iraq, anyway?

We know it wasn't 9/11. Bush never even pretended it was, and I don't know how anyone got any idea that there was some connection between Iraq and 9/11.

WMD? Joseph Wilson and others debunked that before we went in. Bush knew there weren't any, and he lied about it, not just to the public, but to Congress, which is criminal.

To impose democracy? That's a great oxymoron. I can't take that seriously. I hope they didn't. They never even made noises about invading Equatorial Guinea, North Korea (which actually has WMD) or Myanmar.

Bush wouldn't even take the question from Cindy Sheehan. Helen Thomas cornered him at a press conference, but he couldn't come up with a coherent response.

Oil? Why not invade Venezuela? Bush doesn't exactly like them either. Or Equatorial Guinea.

I guess it was "This guy tried to kill my Dad." Bush really thinks his family owns the US of A.

Civil disobedience

The American tradition that everyone, even Nat Turner, is entitled to a day in court is so strong that people will deliberately violate the law to get a day in court and challenge the law. H.D. Thoreau did it personally to challenge the Mexican War. The IWW had free speech fights to challenge the kind of threats to freedom of expression that called forth the ACLU into being. Dr. King did it to challenge segregation laws. Billy Mitchell even did it to bring attention to the future of air power. Of course his situation was a little different. The law he broke wasn't the one he wanted to make the issue, but the principle is the same. He went out of his way to deliberately violate a law to get a day in court and turn it into a platform. Lt. Watada violated the law that he wished to make the issue, and his day in court is a wonderful chance to challenge the legality of the war in Iraq. I hope he wins his case. [crosposted @ D-Kos]

The latest as of today:

On the first day of the court-martial in Fort Lewis, an Army base near Seattle, Watada explained that he saw the order to go to Iraq and support combat operations as illegal because the war itself was illegal.

Wesley Clark at the DNC Winter Meeting, February 2, 2007.

Democrats.org has a post called "Wesley Clark Video" that's worth checking out...

Wes's speech still isn't tuned to the audience, which was hardcore Dems who reacted more to Hillary than to Wes. But I think that Wes's sentiments will appeal more to the country at large, not to mention the fact that he has far more experience with foreign policy and national security affairs. Hillary does have the one issue of health care down, and I know that that's important, but I don't think it's as critical as either the threat of global warming or the disastrous war and our relations with the rest of the world. We can deal with health care when we get more pressing issues out of the way, and Hillary would be the person to push universal coverage through Congress.

But let's not forget Barack Obama! He doesn't have enough experience to be president yet, but one day he will make one of the best we ever had.

In the meantime I think Wes Clark is not only the most qualified candidate in any party, I think he is the Democrat with the best chance of winning in today's world. Maybe he should have used this speech instead:

Studying countries that no longer exist

Condoleeza Rice and I have something in common. We are both experts in the history of countries that no longer exist.

Now, when she began to study the Soviet Union it did exist and she did not expect it to become history as soon as it did. No one did.

The successor states to the Soviet Union are still important in world affairs. Russia in particular is still a major power, if no longer a superpower in the same category as the United States. So her expertise is important.

However, many of the problems of the world today, from Bosnia to Palestine to Iraq, are the result of the collapse of an empire which collapsed long before the Soviet Union. I am, of course, referring to the Ottoman Empire. The problems caused by the collapse of that long ago empire, not the problems caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union, are the problems that are causing the most problems for the United States today.

Isn't it about time we had a Secretary of State, or a National Security advisor, who is an expert on the Ottoman Empire?