upworthy

jeff sessions

Due to new border policy, there's been no end to the horrifying stories of parents and children being separated as they try to cross into America.

Under the "zero tolerance" policy in 2018 that criminalizes all border crossings — previously only a civil offense — even those seeking refuge and asylum are punished as criminals. And families are being ripped apart. It all feels like something out of a novel about a terrifying dystopian regime. And yet it's all truly, terrifying real.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is defending the law using some circular logic — and the Bible.

Speaking in Indiana on June 14, 2018, Sessions justified the policy by suggesting that it's "good" because "it's a law." His primary source of evidence?  The Bible.


"First, illegal entry into the United States is a crime, as it should be. Persons who violate the law of our nation are subject to prosecution. I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order."

Stephen Colbert shot back at Sessions' hypocrisy.

On Colbert's show, the devout Catholic took Sessions' policy to task, referring to it as "evil" and exhorting his audience to fight the government's use of "cruelty as a deterrent."  

As for Sessions' cherry-picked Bible passage, Colbert had this to say:

"I will give Sessions this. That is what Romans 13:1 says. You gotta have laws. But if he just read a little bit further into Romans 13:10, it says 'love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.' But I'm not surprised Sessions didn't read the whole thing. After all, Jesus said 'suffer the children to come unto me,' but I'm pretty sure all Sessions saw was the words children and suffer and said 'I'm on it.'"

Colbert wants people to see this policy for what it is and to do something about it.

Colbert also urged his audience, "Call your elected representatives and demand they do something. Because I sincerely believe that it doesn't matter who you voted for. Because if we let this happen in our name, we are a feckless country."

Watch Colbert's full segment below:

More

Kirsten Powers shut down a colleague who called Kamala Harris 'hysterical.'

The clip has gone viral — and for really good reason.

Sen. Kamala Harris went into the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on June 13, 2017 with a list of hard-hitting questions for Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Though Sessions did what he could to dodge them, Harris was dogged in her pursuit of the truth.

Anyone who tuned in to CNN later that night for coverage of the hearing heard a slightly different analysis, including one word in particular that stood out: "hysterical."


USA Today's Kirsten Powers took issue with former Trump advisor Jason Miller's description of Harris's behavior and asked him to explain why he thought Harris was being any more "hysterical" than her male counterparts.

"I think calling her hysterical is probably a little gendered," Powers told him, when he couldn't give an explanation.

Before Powers had even finished her statement, panelist Jeffrey Lord interrupted to insist "hysteria is a neutral quality."

"It's just women who are usually called hysterical," Powers responded.

And she's right.

As a concept, "hysteria" can be traced back to an ancient Greek belief that connects excessive emotion to the uterus. Seriously.

British scholar Helen King traces the term back to Hippocrates. While that usage faded, "hysteria" returned during the Victorian era and has been used as an excuse to dismiss women as being uncontrollable, irrational bundles of emotion ever since.

And although associated with witch trials and the anti-suffragist movement, hysteria also helped lead to the invention of the vibrator — so, silver linings, I suppose.

And while it's no longer solely used to describe women, a simple keyword search on Google Books of all English books published between 1800 and 2000 show the descriptor is applied to women on a much more regular basis than men.

[rebelmouse-image 19528287 dam="1" original_size="887x390" caption="Image via Google Books Ngram Viewer." expand=1]Image via Google Books Ngram Viewer.

Add in the fact that there's no conclusive evidence that women are any more "emotional" than men, and you see where the problem is with singling Harris out specifically as being the "hysterical" one in that hearing.

In the context of the hearing, if you were to label anyone "hysterical," the most appropriate recipient would probably be a visibly flustered Sessions, who at one point talked about how Harris' questions made him feel nervous.

[rebelmouse-image 19528288 dam="1" original_size="500x281" caption="GIF from Washington Post/YouTube." expand=1]GIF from Washington Post/YouTube.

Too often, "hysteria" is still used to dismiss strong women with opinions and drive.

In Miller's case, whatever point he had in trying to dismiss Harris' questioning was rendered moot by a sloppy choice of words that reflected his own sexism.

He might claim that his perspective was "objective" in ways that Powers' analysis wasn't (the implication being that Powers isn't capable of seeing things rationally); but the moment he called Harris "hysterical," he betrayed his own subconscious fear of — and bias against — strong and opinionated women.

According to himself, Donald Trump loves women. What he reportedly does not love, however, is when women play men — especially men he has put into positions of power.

Although Alec Baldwin (and his impeccable Trump impression) was hosting, the most recent cold open on "Saturday Night Live" featured the return of Melissa McCarthy as White House press secretary Sean Spicer — chewing an allotted one piece of gum, using Barbies to explain the Muslim ban, and terrorizing members of the press with a motorized podium. It seemed designed to be everything Trump hates.


Since reports of Trump's distain for McCarthy's Spicer impression broke last week, rumors and casting suggestions have circulated as to which other members of Trump's administration could be played by women on "SNL." Kate McKinnon as newly appointed United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions was an unexpected but totally welcome addition to the roster — and one that undoubtedly got under the president's skin.

Even the part of the briefing that became a QVC-type ad for Ivanka Trump's jewelry and accessories seemed designed to make the president uncomfortable. Not because Ivanka's products were being advertised (Trump's made it clear how he feels about that), but because of who was wearing them.

With McKinnon in costume as Sessions and unable to step into Kellyanne Conway's shoes to recreate her recent breach of ethics, McCarthy's Spicer filled that role, speaking highly of the brand in front of the press, even wearing "Ivanka's" bracelet and heels. If Trump's recent comments on the need for his female employees to "dress like women" are to be believed, the sight of his press secretary being played by a woman wearing heels and a sparkly bracelet must be infuriating to him.

When the most powerful person in the country is a man with a deep need to control his appearance and the appearance of those around him, sometimes the only way to remind him that the citizens don't work for the president — and that the president works for the citizens — is to constantly refuse to comply with his demands. It would be even more hilarious if it weren't so necessary.

Live, from 2017: Women can wear whatever the hell they want.

After four years as a member of Missouri's House of Representatives and another four as its secretary of state, Jason Kander took a chance and ran for the U.S. Senate in 2016.

While the fresh-faced 35-year-old would ultimately come up short in his bid to unseat incumbent Sen. Roy Blunt in the 2016 election, the race was a whole lot closer than many expected. A Democrat in a traditionally red state, Kander came within just 3 points of Blunt. For comparison, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton lost the state by 19 points.

Though unsuccessful, the campaign helped Kander reach a whole new audience when one of his ads — in which he, a former Army captain and Afghanistan veteran, assembled a rifle while blindfolded — went viral. In defeat, Kander's star only continued to rise.


Photo by Whitney Curtis/Getty Images.

Within days of the election, political insiders began speculating what Kander's next move could be, with some even floating him as a possible presidential candidate in 2020.

But that's not in the cards for him — at least not yet.

In his final days as Missouri's secretary of state, Kander delivered an impassioned plea to the state's lawmakers, asking them to show restraint when it comes to implementing new laws that would suppress voter turnout.

"I'm going to be brief today because I recognize that most of you and your families didn't come here today to listen to me," he said. "And frankly, most of you are not going to like what it is I have to say."

What followed was a powerful case against disenfranchising eligible voters in the name of stopping voter-impersonation fraud, a cause close to his heart that would follow him to his next endeavor.

"We have actually already had this debate in America," said Kander. "American heroes faced down batons and dogs and firehoses to march across a bridge in Selma."

Fresh out of office, on Feb. 7, Kander announced the launch of Let America Vote, a national organization dedicated to fighting voter suppression.

Though those who support voting restrictions such as voter ID laws claim their purpose is to prevent voter fraud, in effect, those laws only make it harder for eligible voters to cast a ballot.

The problem with restrictive voter ID measures goes far beyond Missouri, and Kander knows this. That's why the former chief election official is making it his mission to fight the wave of ongoing voter suppression efforts happening now in at least 20 states. Combine that with the fact that President Trump has made repeated claims that there were more than 3 million ballots illegally cast in the 2016 election (even though the data shows that to be untrue), and it's pretty clear that someone needs to step up to defend the right to vote.

Kander wants to be that someone.

But let's start with the basics. Why are voter ID laws a bad idea?

For one, the type of fraud that these laws prevent is extremely rare. On the flip side, the number of people disenfranchised by these laws remains high.

"The only kind of fraud that a photo ID law can even claim to prevent is voter-impersonation fraud," Kander tells Upworthy. "There's never been a reported case of voter-impersonation fraud in Missouri, and it's so rare nationally that Americans are more likely to be struck by lightning than they are to commit voter-impersonation fraud."

In Missouri, Kander points out, there were over 200,000 "eligible, registered, legal voters" who didn't have the specific type of ID that many lawmakers have proposed making a requirement to vote.

It's those kinds of requirements that he says make it clear that voter ID laws are "a policy that is meant to be a solution to an imaginary problem of voter-impersonation fraud — or at least a very, very uncommon problem of voter-impersonation fraud."

Photo by Ron Jenkins/Getty Images.

The people most likely to be negatively affected by voter ID restrictions are people of color, low-income individuals, and students.

Voter ID laws are often coupled with restrictions on things like early voting, automatic voter registration, and same-day registration.

A voter ID law "is a Republican, partisan solution to the problem that certain people are very unlikely to vote for Republicans," Kander says.

He's not wrong, either. Political scientists at University of California, San Diego found that when strict voter ID laws are in place, Democratic turnout drops by an estimated 7.7 percentage points; turnout for Republicans declines by just 4.6 points. When you look at the effect that has on a national scale, it amounts to millions of additional eligible voters turned away on Election Day.

How much potential voter-impersonation fraud does this cut down on? According to a study done by Justin Levitt of Loyola Law School Los Angeles, just 31 cases out of 1 billion votes. Yep, billion. With a B.

The truth is, no matter what your political views are, we should all be able to agree that free and fair elections in which we can all participate are a necessary part of a functioning democracy.

Anything less is, frankly, undemocratic.

"Republican politicians are working very hard to try and have the voter-suppression campaign exist in the mind of Americans in a voter fraud frame of reference, but once you can point out to voters that it actually exists in a partisan wrangling and partisan politics frame of reference, that is when they realize that the true motivations have been exposed, and they're no longer interested in supporting," Kander adds. "They no longer consider it to be anything other than un-American."

Kander backstage during an election night event on Nov. 8, 2016, in Kansas City, Missouri. Photo by Whitney Curtis/Getty Images.

In the past, we could count on the courts to shoot down some of the more egregious attempts at voter suppression. But given the 2013 Supreme Court decision to cut down key elements of the Voting Rights Act, the confirmation of Jeff Sessions as U.S. attorney general, and the president's own belief that there's widespread voter fraud, it's more important than ever for everyday people to get involved in reshaping the narrative around these laws.

Today, it may be the party you support that benefits most from these laws. But what about a year from now? 10 years from now? A generation from now? What we do now determines what kind of country we aspire to be, and hopefully it's one where we can agree that regardless of one's political views, we all have a right to stand up and be counted.

Kander addresses the Missouri legislature on Jan. 4. GIF from Missourians for Kander/YouTube.

For more information and to get involved, sign up on Let America Vote's website.