The Right Has Forgotten

What America stands for!

Yesterday I listened to Sean Hannity on his national radio program. As I expected, he was distorting the immigration bill that was hammered out in Congress this week. But he said four things I wanted to lay out before you that I thought needed clarifying, because they are common talking points of the right wing talking heads that are on the dole.

First, Sean hearkened back to the rule of law days of Reagan. Since the right wing attitude of the day as demonstrated in the Presidential debates of the conservatives is to emulate Ronald Reagan, they are conveniently revising even his history because, as reported, he offered amnesty to millions of workers in the country illegally in 1986. So if it's good enough for Reagan, it's certainly good enough for any conservative now.

Second, Sean made the comment of the failure of these people to recognize a sovereign country, namely, the USA. I wonder if that same sort of failure to recognize sovereignty is the same as the kind we displayed in failing to recognize Afghanistan's when we went after and failed to catch Osama Bin Laden. Which ended up being the excuse when President Bush was pressed because Bin laden was hiding in Pakistan. We want others to follow rules we don't?

Third, Sean repeated how important it is that the rule of law be observed. That's almost funny when you consider the long list of indicted Republicans: Tom Delay, Bob Ney, and Duke Cunningham to name a few. Spider webbing from there of course is the current Department of Justice scandal of the "rule of law" crowd that has lead one graduate of a prominent Christian university to resign her position at the Department and plead the fifth. A Christian at the Gonzalez led Department of Justice pleading the fifth?! Not to mention the President acknowledging warrant-less eavesdropping on Americans, another illegal act. And they trumpet the need for rule of law which they ignore routinely?

And the final thing that Hannity said that struck me as completely un-American was that immigrants shouldn't come here unless they are invited. Wow. Such ignorance of history and all that America stands for is so mind boggling it defies description. One could almost slap the political label fascist on it, but it still defies description. Regardless, I knew then that Sean Hannity never visited the Statue of Liberty. Or, if he had, it was a waste of time because he doesn't believe in the principle of the Lady. That's the invitation right there! It's what America stands for. It's an open invitation, and always has been.

The upshot is that such mishandling of the truth and history is being presented to Americans on such a massive scale. The right has no shame in their revisionist approach mainly because they want to remake America into something that it was never intended to be. So why such misrepresentation and deception? Why not simply state that they don't like the way it was set up to begin with and they want to change it? Because they know that they would be tarred and feathered and run out of town.

So I guess this Gonzalez like lack of memory is spreading among conservatives. Which proves to any one listening or reading, regardless of the issue, that they are incapable of the leadership of a country as great as ours.

Judas Moment Redux

A perfect example of what I stated in a previous post entered into my in-box this morning.

I regularly get posts from right wing groups because it lets you know what they really think. What they say in their lobbying and what they say to their supporters are usually two different things.

Consider the Traditional Values Coalition, led by Reverend Lou Sheldon. They oppose the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes prevention Act. It is not unusual to for cons to parrot their misinformation about bills before Congress. Just stroll over to Townhall.com and read what their posters put up. It's like listening to a bunch of mini-radio heads trying to out do one another. It's both pathetic and funny. TVC is no different.

Their latest post throws out the martyr card to their supporters. "Oh, look how we are being attacked!" That's supposed to be proof that they are doing God's work. But the sellout is down at the bottom of the letter.

In between there you get their justifications for opposing lobbying reform and hate crimes. It is imperative to stop the Homosexual Fascists. I wonder in what state that political party appeared on the ballot? It's a new one on me! What they really want is to continue to verbally lash out at groups that interfere with their political agenda.

Now, what that amounts to is not a hate crime. When one attempts to silence a group through the actions dictated against one, is more accurately called terrorism. And so when right wing nutjobs kill abortion doctors, or gays, because of their gender or choice, that is what this bill calls a hate crime, but is actually terrorism.

But they are stumping their opposition as freedom of speech! I have to again point out to the religious community that calls themselves Christians, if you were preaching love and compassion to those you dislike, as you are supposed to be doing, this bill wouldn't exist.

And lobbying reform? Isn't Christian lobbying an oxymoron? How does lobbying constitute being the salt of the earth? The city on the hill? The light so shining before men?

So after TVC describes their enemies, including the Secular Socialists (another unheard of group for which they have no verifiable proof of their talking point moniker), what do they ask for?

Prayer? Love? No. They get right down to the most important traditional value, they ask for money. There's the sellout. The implied mission, and then the kiss.

Some of you may have heard that recently President Bush had a host of religious right leaders in the White House to discuss, not family values, not marriage, not compassion, or feeding the poor, or anything else remotely Christian. Instead, these religious leaders were there to discuss the policies concerning war in Iraq and Iran.

Ah yes, another Judas moment.

The Judas Moment?

"Christian-oriented cults include: The Church of the Latter Day Saints or Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints (also known as Mormons); Christian Science; Unity; Unitarianism (various groups); The Way International (not all groups using the term "The Way"); Rosicrucian Society of America; Bahai; Hare Krishna; Scientology; The Unification Church ("Moonies"); the so-called "Children of God" headed by "Moses" Berg; Jehovah's Witnesses and other fringe groups whose teachings should be suspect."

There you have it. The definitive word from the Pat Robertson controlled 700 Club about cults. And guess who leads the pack? The group that Mitt Romney belongs to.

So isn't it interesting that Robertson invited Romney to speak to the commencement class of 2007 at Regent University. The coincidence is that Romney is a right winger running for president. And that makes it okay to invite a cult member to come speak to your Christian graduates. Will they invite other cult members to come speak at Regent? It isn't too likely.

"Some occult groups mix Christianity into their teachings, often deceiving people into following them." That's what the Mormons do. In fact, I have a recent Mormon tract that was handed to me yesterday. The Cover syas "The Gospel of Jesus Christ." The first chapter is about faith in jesus Christ, and the only scripture alluded to is a Proverb from the Old testament. That should immeditely raise red flags for fundamentalists and evangelicals. The page that states the gospel is a way of life uses 2 Nephi 31:20 as it's reference source. Whoooaaaaaa! Hold on there Nellie!
Any fundamentalist worth his salt right there is screaming that Nephi is NOT an inspired part of the Bible. Okay then we'll turn the page.

And read this: "How can I know? The gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored through revelation from God to the Prophet Joseph Smith and to other prophets." By now I think the fundamentalist has blown a head gasket and has passed out. This is what Mitt Romney believes, at least ostensibly.

The 700 Club web site continues their discussion about cults with this statement: "...you need to seek help for deliverance from cultish spirits." Since cults aren't of God, then they must be from Satan, because they deceive. Which means that Pat Robertson exposed those graduates to the spirits of deception by allowing a cult member to address them. Now I'm sure these class members were encouraged to fully put on their spiritual armor as per the instructions in Ephesians. But it begs the question of why invite a cult member to come into your "sanctuary" in the first place?

Let's turn our attention for a moment to a comment James Dobson made. In the US News and World Report Dobson was quoted as saying of Presidential candiadate Fred Thompson, “Everyone knows [Thompson’s] conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for,” Dobson told U.S. News & World Report. “[But] I don’t think he’s a Christian; at least that’s my impression.”

Fred Thompson does not belong to a cult. Mr. Thompson belongs to one of those denominations of Christianity that fundamentalists consider lukewarm. What is more outrageous about Dobson's statement is that it serves as a religious test for office, in clear contradiction to the Constitution. So let this point sink in here folks. The Christian Right cares nothing about the Constitution. To them, since it is bereft of God, it needs to be replaced by the Bible as the law of the land. Which is why they adhere to these standards they do. Any investigation of their purposes, such as that done by Michelle Goldberg in Kingdom Coming, and Chris Hedges in American Fascists, will see that the Christian idea of America is far different than the Constitutional version, and founders version of America. Which leads to the current conundrum of endorsing a cult member as President. Surely if Fred Thompson, who at least belongs to a Christian denomination isn't Christian enough, then Mitt Romney, a member of a well know and long castigated group preaching what they do will most assuredly never get the endorsement of the Religious Right.

So why then did Robertson invite him to Regent? Could it be that the Religious Right is contemplating this very thing under the guise of similar values? Even Robertson has said in his own books (New World Order) that only Christians should hold high office. Does that mean a cult member now fits that description because they refer to the Bible? And where does a Ted Haggard fall into that paradigm?

This looks to be a Judas moment to me. Christianity is facing a choice. Will they stand by their anti-Constitutional principles and fail to endorse a leading candidate, or will they continue to sell their spiritual heritage for 30 pieces of political silver?