Cynical Nation

Ok Barry,
I can understand why you are so upset with Sheehan from your point of view... Chavez is certainly very controversial. However, he is democratically elected. In any case, if you condemn Sheehan so harshly and you think she is a "disgrace", I can argue that the same applies to George W. Bush. He is a president who got elected with the open support of lunatics like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and James Dobson, who are worse than Chavez. Despite their antidemocratic and radical lunatic views he accepts their support, money, and votes. So if you call Sheehan a dsigrace to the country, be ready to call Bush and Cheney the same. They are not any better than her.

> Chavez is certainly very controversial.

No, Blue, Susan Sarandon is "controversial." Hugo Chavez is a dictatorial, anti-American, pro-Castro, anti-democratic criminal thug and human rights abuser. He can go to hell, and so can Cindy Sheehan, as far as I'm concerned.

Chavez is an enemy of America.

There's absolutely no question about that.

There's also the strong possibility that Chavez may, at some point, try to harm the American economy via oil politics and that would almost certainly result in righteous military action on America's part.

More than that, Chavez is, like ALL socialists, "democratic," or otherwise, an enemy of humanity.

Fellow Socialist tyrant Adolph Hitler was also "democratically elected."

It's intersting that BlueWind finds Chavez nothing more than "controversial."

I'm a human and as a human I am a sworn enemy of ANY & ALL socialists. Of course, I prefer to take on the peacenik, nudnik "socialists" you tend to find in America. They intimidate a lot easier than thugs like Chavez.

The likes of Chavez, Castro, Stalin and Hitler tend to warrant aggressive action from "mother green and her killing machine" - the U.S. military.

I dont like Chavez. But he is certainly not like Stalin or Castro. He is a demagogue, but he is democratically elected. As I said, Robertson, Falwell, Dobson and several other lunatics are worse than him. Why does n't the white house condemn them? In my opinion they are certainly anti-democratic and anti-American. Why dont they republicans condemn them?

I'm sorry to have to point this out BW, but comparing the likes Robertson, Falwell and Dobson to either the Taliban, or to Left-wing thugocrats is nothing more than a convenient kind of cowardice. A sort of, "Well, tyrant X may be bad, but he's no worse than our own Reverend's A, B & C." It's a non-commital disavowal, as in, "I don't like Chavez because he's a tyrant, though I don't dislike him for his views."

The world is currently awash in Islamo-cultists & Islamo-nazis, there are currently no modern-day Christo-cultists & Christo-nazis...no Christians, nor Jews who actively seek to create a repressive Orthodox or fundmanetalist state.

Those who insist there are, give their own overt anti-Western bigotry away with every breath.

Chavez' crime is that he's a SOCIALIST, not that he's a tyrant or even particularly anti-American. Hell, Harry Belafonte's equally anti-American and he's just laughably pathetic at this point.

Before the experiment that is America, tyranny was a universal human condition.

The PRIMARY thing that allowed the American experiment to rise above the muck and mire of human depravity was the sanctification of PRIVATE PROPERTY, the foundation of Capitalism and the Free Market and the antithesis of every form of SOCIALISM.

The problem that free socities encounter is that those who succeed early on, as is human nature, seek to solidify their gains and that can only be done through government intervention. They look at their infinitely weaker, less cut-throat, competitive offspring and worry that they will be gobbled up by sharks now as hungry as they themselves once were. So they turn to government to create artificial barriers to the market (licenses, reams of regulations, etc) and in so doing they, along with an all too willing army of government bureaucrats and politicians, seek to circumvent the entire purpose of the American Constitution, which is to LIMIT and DECENTRALIZE GOVERNMENT at every turn.

In that way, it's understandable that the wealthy, especially the "idle rich" would embrace more government control, even, various forms of socialism, because they know that their own positions will be secured.

American traitor Armand Hammer (founder of the CPUSA) and founder of Armand Hammer Inc & Occidental Petroleum was granted a monopoly status under Joe Stalin in the then USSR. Socialism (a/k/a "universal slavery") works very well for the likes of Armand Hammer.

What's harder to understand are those lost and wayward souls who claim to espouse "freedom," while endorsing Liberal/Left/Socialist policies that are geared to eradicate real "freedom," which is Liberty/personal responsibility.

I suppose that most of those folks are simply slow-witted and woefully deluded dupes.

JMK,
I did not say that Robertson, Falwell, or Dobson are as bad as Chavez. I said they are WORSE than Chavez. And yes, they are ideologically similar to the Taliban or the Iranian lunatic president of Iran. Whys is that cowardice? It is just an observation. Do you agree with me that they are Taliban-like? Yes or No? It is a very simple question.

“Do you agree with me that they are Taliban-like?”

No! Not at all.

And it should be quite obvious WHY.

For one thing, they hold no real political power, for another and far more importantly, they have no "Christianizing agenda," and no “religio-cultist" traditions or belief systems.

Those who espouse the "religious fervor" of America's Founders are on firm ground. They are also on firm ground when they equate the entire foundation of Western Judeo-Christian culture to be based upon the values and morality espoused in the Ten Commandments (the “Judeo-Christian tradition”).

In short, though I have no religious denomination, nor attend any regular religious services, I humbly acknowledge that WITHOUT THOSE religious JUDEO-CHRISTIAN VALUES there is NO Western Civilization.

Imposing an enforced Judeo-Christian morality (our laws are designed to do just that) on ALL Americans, is NOT a violation of the First Amendment. It is merely mandating that ALL Americans present and future be AMERICANIZED in the culture, traditions and accepted morality that this nation was founded upon.

Moreover, it should be obvious that such things as displaying the Ten Commandments in public places, non-denominational public prayers, "In God We Trust," etc does NOT violate the First Amendment as they don't endorse a specific "state sponsored" religion.

Is America a Western Nation, one based entirely upon the Judeo-Christian ethic and morality?

Absolutely and without question.

Does that mean that EVERY American must be “Westernized” in order to be “American?”

Again, absolutely and without question.

That is NOT a religious viewpoint, nor is it, in any way an “intolerant” one. In fact, merely believing that America is NOT a Western/Judeo-Christian nation, but a secular-humanist one, IS hideously “intolerant.” It’s intolerant of both the ideas and ideals of Americanism and intolerant of our traditional mores & values, which are the essence of our nationhood.

Here’s an example. While I’ve never met Reverend Falwell, nor Pat Robertson, I have met James Dobson of Focus on the Family. He and I could NOT disagree more on abortion. He, like most Catholics, Orthodox Jews, and fundamentalist Christians equate abortion to murder.

On that I agree. At least I agree that abortion is the act of killing (not always the same as murder) fetuses.

But I not only approve of abortion, I espouse the mandating of birth control (Norplant) for all those on public assistance, as well as for those in our prisons and all other “wards of the state."

Though James Dobson vehemently disagreed with my positions, he never once equated my views to “Nazism,” nor tried to equate me with the likes of Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood and one of the parents of America’s Eugenics movement), the way many close-minded and bigoted American Liberals have. We simply disagreed at the base point of the foundation of our beliefs.

Simply put, I DO NOT believe in anything like the “sanctity of life,” nor “the brotherhood of man.” I believe the 5th Commandment actually means “Thou shalt not MURDER,” NOT “Thou shalt not kill.” Violent self-defense is sanctified in every religious tome in existence and codified into the basis of all Western law canons, the English Common Law.

Murder is the wanton taking of another life, either in the act of another criminal act (ie. robbery) or for no good reason at all (ie. rage). Killing in self defense, or in the defense of your property, to defend your reputation (ie. killing a would-be blackmailer), or for political ideals – for instance, killing those who’d seek “nationalize” or steal your private property is NOT murder, and as such, is NOT proscribed by the Fifth Commandment in my view.

I consider the religious view (abortion/killing fetuses is universally wrong, while Capital punishment for those guilty of heinous crimes is right) as inconsistent and almost as flawed as the secular humanist view (abortion/killing fetuses is a personal choice, but Capital punishment is universally wrong/cruel & unusual).

The only consistent viewpoints are either opposing BOTH abortion & Capital punishment, as the Catholic Church does, OR my own, that supports BOTH killing those guilty of murder, child rape and other heinous crimes and aborting/killing fetuses (better still, negating them via mandated birth control) of those who cannot take care of their own basic human needs, as that alone makes such people “unfit parents.” No child should be born into that kind of reckless and irresponsible hell.

Many religious people disagree with some, if not most of my views, based on their own (I believe flawed) interpretation of their respective religions.

That said, as much as I or anyone else in America may disagree with the views of the likes of Dobson, Robertson, Falwell, et all, they have shown a respectful tolerance for those (like me) who disagree with them, and have worked entirely within the system to try and change our laws in accordance with their beliefs – the same way that many misguided Liberals and socially conscious and morally upstanding Conservatives do.

No groups associated with any of these men you mention have ever sponsored, supported or assisted in any kind of terrorism, nor do they seek to impose any specific religious doctrine on their fellow Americans.

They support, some of what I support – an enforced Judeo-Christian morality, codified into law, as envisioned by America’s Founders. A position I’ve yet to hear ANY credible, or coherent argument against.

Afterall, the American experiment was rooted in Judeo-Christian morality and traditions (“...endowed by our Creator...”) and based on the foundation of private property (“Life, liberty and the pursuit of property”), making the “American” definition of “freedom” specific to “Liberty/personal responsibility” and NOT “license” or the ability to “do whatever we’d like, so long as we don’t harm others.”

JMK,
To make a long story short, I think that Robertson, Falwell and Dobson are morally equivalent to the Taliban, and you dont. I am right and you are completely wrong. Simple.

Actually you are more than wrong, you're insanely wrong.

First, Robertson, Falwell and Dobson are ALL members of recognized religious sects (various denominations of Protestantism), the same CANNOT be said of those who subscribe to Islamo-cultism. It's a CULT, not a religion.

Can I prove that?

Yes, unlike Christianity & Judaism, Islam, has never had a Reformation, ergo, traditional Islam IS fundamentalist Islam, making what is euphemistically called fundamentalist Islam a CULT.

Second, and even more obvious should be the FACT that none of the three Americans you mentioned have EVER even been suspected of either sponsoring, supporting, harboring or otherwise assisting terrorism.

The Taliban alligned itself with al Qaeda and the Islamic Jihad (two groups of Islamo-cultists/Islamo-nazis) and both harbored and supported international terrorism.

THUS:

The Taliban - practiced a perverted cult loosely based on Islam and both harbored and supported international terrorists (al Qaeda and the Islamic Jihad) and defied America's post 9-11 demand that they turn over all al Qaeda members within their borders (an act of war).

Robertson, Falweel & Dobson - practice a basic, generic form of Christians that some 40 million other Americans subscribe to. They oppose abortion on demand and want America's Judeo-Christian underpinnigs honored, preserved and upheld by precept of law. (Who doesn't?)

They work within the American political system to effect changes consistent with their deeply held views, same as Liberals and Conservatives do.

CONCLUSION:

Only an insane person would attempt to compare the two groups.

Well, according to your conclusion, I am insane. Therefore, being insane I can say whatever I want :)

For starters, I dont think it is appropriate to link the names of these 3 lunatics with Judaism. They have nothing to do with Judaism, and one of them (Robertson) made recently some very bizzare and malignant comments for the prime minister of Israel (Sharon).

If you look carefully what these people have been advocating, you may realize that they are radical religious lunatics, with bizzare ideas reminiscent of the Taliban and other theocratic regimes. Take a look at this analysis regarding them and you may agree. Cheers.

Reminiscent is one thing. A key fact remains: these men arent in power (thank god), while the Taliban hijacked a nation. So no, these men aren't as dangerous as a group of fanatics who set back a nation of people several centuries.

That Guy, I agree with you. All I am saying is that they are morally and intellectually equivalent to the Taliban. But of course, they never took control of the country and hopefully never will.

There is no stauncher supporter of the state of Israel than the so-called "Religious-Right."

My own views on Israel are much closer to Pat Buchanan's views, except that I see Israel's value solely from an Americanist vantage and in that regard it's ONLY value is as "America's sattelite in the Mid-East."

I do not consider that nation an Ally in any traditional sense of that word.

They serve a very useful and perhaps temporary purpose for us.

If tomorrow, we began running our cars and trucks on hydrogen fuel and created most of our electrical energy from nuclear power, we would not turn against Israel, but we simply wouldn't care any more about what might happen to them, then we cared about what happened to the Tutsis of Rwanda.

Apparently, the Robertsons & Falwell's WOULD CARE, and yes, I'd find that distressing, though far from illegal, or even "dangerous." We'd merely fundamentally disagree on yet another issue.

In short, there is no comparison between the likes of Falwell, Robertson and Dobson and the Taliban or any other Islamo-cultists.

The former, nor any in the mainstream Religious-Right, have NEVER even been suspected of harboring, supporting or sponsoring ANY kind of terrorism, foreign or domestic. Moreover, the former have NEVER sought to institute any form of an official state religion, let alone supported, nor tried to institute any form of theocracy here.

The latter, on the other hand have done both those things, AND it can be safely said that both those things (supporting terrorism and Theocratic states) is virtually their entire raison d'etre.

So, in the end, it's a lazy, virtually retarded comparison. There is no correlation - neither in degree, nor intent.

I have known many, many people in the JBS (John Birch Society) and most of them believe that America's monied elite have signed onto a One World Government and bemoan the coming global "Socialist slave-state." They believe the introduction of that must be stopped at ALL costs.

I KNOW, for a fact, that there are far too many extremely wealthy people, both here and abroad, who will never allow such an abomination to occur, thus making the second part of their statement ("...it must be stopped at ALL costs") true, but needless to worry over, as it WILL NEVER come to fruition. Even if 90% of the world's population could somehow be convinced it was to the general good, it would never happen. At present less than 10% of the world's populations would consider such a thing to be good.

So, is the JBS kooky?

Well, so far as they're misguided about an, at this point, fictional threat, YES.

Do they have a right to be kooky?

Of course they do.

Are they dangerous to America, or Americans?

Not at all.

Same with the Religious-Right. Do they hold many misguided ideas?

In my opinion, yes, they do.

Do they have a right to?

Again, yes, and without question.

Do they have a right to proselytize and try to convert as many Americans as possible and raise money to try and move America's social agenda closer to theirs?

Again, of course they do. We allow even more misguided and potentially even more dangerous American Liberals/Leftists to do the same.

JMK, just for you info. Many people consider Buchanan antisemitic. I do too.
The reiligious right is not a strong supporter of Israel. They pretend to be, but they are not.

There's nothing at all remotely "anti-semitic" about Pat Buchanan.

He, like the great Ron Paul (R-TX) opposed the First Gulf War, the Balkans & Iraq on the grounds that America shouldn't look to the Mid-East for oil and thus have no business being involved in whatever internal struggles exist there.

On that score, I believe they are short-sighted.

America IS and will be (for the forseeable future) and oil-based economy and the Mid-East's problems can effect the market price of oil worldwide. Thus OIL and Israel (our sattelite in that region) are both viable and necessary "American interests" at this juncture.

That's why America has supported Israel - as "America's sattelite in that region."

BUT, the facts are that Israel has, quite often, NOT been an Ally, or even a particularly good neighbor to its benefactor, the United States.

(*) The Rosenberg's used Israel as a conduit, in which to deliver the atomic bomb to the then USSR, back in the 1950's.

(*) Jonathan Pollard spied on the U.S. for Israel and the Israelis passed on the position of thousands of ocean microphones planted by the U.S. to China.

The preponderance of the evidence is that Israel did KNOWINGLY and DELIBERATELY FIRE UPON the USS Liberty. That is not proven to the "beyond any reasonable doubt" standard, but the preponderance of the evidence points to the fact that Israel both knew the USS Liberty was an American ship and deliberately fired upon it back on 6-8-1967.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/margolis12.html

Again;

(1) The so-called "Religious-Right" is one of the state of Israel's staunchest American Allies.

(2) None of those folks you mentioned have EVER even been suspected of harboring, sponsoring or supporting ANY form of terrorism whatsoever. NOT true of the Taliban or any other Islamo-cultists/Islamo-nazis.

and (3) None of the folks you've mentioned have EVER sought to forge a state sponsored religion on America, in any way. Again, not true of the Taliban or any other Islamo-cultists/Islamo-nazis.

The "Religious-Right" DOES oppose abortion, but then again, polls consistently show that some 67% of Americans oppose abortion beyond the first trimester, except in cases of rape and incest...and surely the "Religious-Right" does not represent 2/3rds of Americans.

They DO support traditional Judeo-Christian values as espoused by America's overwhelmingly Christian and NON-SECULAR Founders, but so do a huge majority of other, less religious Americans.

In fact, one of the reasons that Republicans have been able to win so many elections lately is that they're consistently able to tar Democrats as "SOCIALLY LIBERAL," a term that's become anathema to a large majority of Americans.

Does the Religious-Right hold any appreciable sway over the GOP?

Hardly.

Certainly no more than, say blacks, hold any sway within the ranks of the Democratic Party, which as the GOP does with the "Religious-Right," pays only blacks lip service and little more to the "black agenda."

Former Clinton "reformed welfare" (one of seven of the Gingrich planks that Clinton supported) and presided over the virtual evisceration of race/gender preference programs during his tenure.

The GOP has done pretty much the same thing with the "Religious-Right."

Again, your invidious comparison holds no water.

JMK,
Pat Robertson made some very antisemitic statements recently (regarding Sharon). The religious right has traditionally been antisemitic and still is. It just pretends not to be so. There is heavy hidden antisemtitism in the republican party as a whole, despite the existence of neoconservatives (who are wrong anyway).

Utter nonsense, BW.

Roberston believes in the apocryphal, as is his right.

In the view of the Apocryphal, hurricanes are "the wrath of God," Aids is "God's punishment for drug addicts and homosexuals," and Sharon (who sold out Israel in the minds of most Orthodox Jews & apocryphal Christians alike) was "stricken by God for giving up land for peace," in the minds of those like Robertson's.

Nothing wrong with believing in any of that, or even proselytizing it. I wish them good luck with that. Really, the more people who believe in such apocryphal things, the better I feel.

As that old Celtic saying goes, "In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is King."

Robertson was not alone in thinking Sharon's giving up land for peace was a betrayal of Israel. Many Orthodox Jews would've preferred to have stricken Sharon themselves.

Anti-Sharon sentiments ARE NOT, in and of themselves, "anti-semitic." This may surprise you, but despising one or more...or even many Jews, does not make one "anti-semitic." Take it from me, I generally dislike most people, and likewise many, many people find myself somewhat disagreeable [yeah, I know, I really can't believe that either], but personal dislike or animus is NOT anything close to, let alone the same as bigotry.

Moreover, Israel serves a very limited purpose for the United States. It currently serves as America's sattelite in that region. We have no other overriding interest or reason to support that tiny nation.

Ironically enough, if Robertson and his fellow apocryphals aren't pro-Israel, than Israel is just fresh out of friends within the United States. I mean, what with the virulently anti-Israeli, yes, even anti-semitic Liberal/Left (the Democrats have long advocated America's abandoning Israel to appease the Arab world) and with Americanist Conservatives, the likes of Patrick J Buchanan, who though far from actually, or personally "anti-semitic," have admittedly "no love lost for that country," Israel would have, listening to you, no Allies at all here in America.

No, The so-called "Christian-Right" is definitely and unequivocably pro-Israel. It's part of their Apocryphal belief system.

I see Israel for what it is. A useful sattelite in that oil rich region.

For now, they are an Ally, but there are no permanent Alliances, only permanent interests.

America's ONLY "permanent interest" is whatever's best for America at that time.