WE MUST CALL IT WHAT IT IS: EVIL

Been reading a lot lately. One excellent book I have gotten a hold of is The Politics of Jesus: Rediscovering The True Revolutionary Nature of Jesus' Teachings and How They Have Been Corrupted.

A phenomenal book. Very quickly, I want to leave y'all with some thoughts pulled directly and shamelessly from Dr. Hendricks' book.

"...it is more important, it is our sacred prophetic duty, to
identify and call by name the policies, governmental officials, corporate
officers, events and developments, and greedy elites that are responsible for
the impoverishment of the people. Calling the demon by name is an integral
part of our vocation to treat the people's needs as holy. thus, we must
call by name every factor, condition, person, or persons that do not treat the
people's needs as holy. We must call the demon by its name:
evil.

We must call by name tax laws that favor the interests of the rich:
evil.

We must call by name corporate boards and executives who underpay their
workers while giving corporate executives annual salaries and bonuses so large
that it would take the average worker centuries of labor to earn as much"
evil.

We must call by name those who claim to hold the people's needs as holy but
in reality do not: evil.

We must call evil by name to remind the people that public officials are
supposed to be public servants, and remind public servants that it is the
welfare of the many that they are to serve, not the whims and wants of the
privileged few.

We must call the demon by name in our churches, call by name ministers'
crass materialism and their lack of prophetic engagement; must call by name
their collusion with forces that exploit and oppress those whom they are
supposed to serve.

We must call by name the perversion of Jesus' Gospel by prosperity
preachers who blame the people for their sickness and poverty, instead of
decrying the demonic mistreatment of the poor by those who hold only their own
needs as holy.

We must call evil by name when pensions are squandered, when
Americans are dispossessed of their livelihoods by greedy executives who export
American jobs to regions where they can better exploit workers'
desperation." (Bold mine) (Dr Obrey
Hendricks, Jr. The Politics of Jesus (Doubleday, 2006), pp
148,149

Dr. Hendricks goes on, I am somewhat pressed for time.

I will say this: The conservatives have done a great job in equating moral conservatism with political conservatism. The two have nothing in common.

If Political Conservatism had its way from the founding of the United States, the British would have never had to fight to keep the colonies. Breaking from Britain was a Liberal idea. The conservatives wanted to remain part of the crown.

If Political Conservatism had its way in the 1960's, Jim Crow would be alive and well. It was political conservatives that wanted to keep slavery and African-Amercians under the thumb of White America.

And now, it is Political Conservatism that wants to destroy bargaining rights in a number of states. It is political Conservatism that wants to repeal child labor laws in the State of Maine. It is Political Conservatism that seeks to deny children as well as adults in this nation a free education. It is political Conservatism that would have children go to bed hungry at night. It is Political Conservatism that seeks to deny equality to people based on their sexuality. It is Political Conservatism that seeks to destroy families of brown people that speak Spanish through the scapegoating of an entire class of people based on their ethnicity.

Make no mistake, Political Conservatism and Moral Conservatism are utterly antithetical, and they will never be reconciled.

I will leave you, Searchers with a quote from a Founding Father:

"As mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those
who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled
to the protections of the civil government. I hope ever to see America among the
foremost of nations in examples of justice and liberality."-George Washington

Peace, Searchers, I'm sure looking forward to having my laptop back...

RELIGIOUS RIGHT MOST LIKE TALIBAN IN THE UNITED STATES: CHRIS MATTHEWS OF MSNBC

I caught the video below on MSNBC, it's about 14 minutes long, but I found a 50 second clip on Huffington Post of the end of the segment with Ron Reagan and Frank Gaffney, they were discussing, of sorts, the situation in Afghanistan.

The focus of most has been on the insult Gaffney, a neocon, threw at Ron Reagan, the son of President Reagan and a radio host on Air America, you'll hear it at the end, Gaffney tells Reagan, "Your father would be ashamed of you."

Totally below the belt, and you have to expect that from a neocon, but the thing that really perked up my ears was Chris Matthews' comment at the end, I'll paraphrase it-the religious right are the closest thing we have to the Taliban in the United States, and I couldn't agree more. In parts of the U.S., the "religious right" doesn't necessarily mean those with Republican leanings. I know plenty of Democrats that are racist hatemongers.

Here's the brief write up from HuffPo:
Peace-

Right-wing neoconservative Frank Gaffney went on "Hardball" Thursday night to defend Dick Cheney but ended up just insulting his fellow guest.
After a long exchange with Air America host Ron Reagan on the war in Afghanistan, Gaffney gave up on arguing and went for a personal attack. "Your father would be ashamed of you," he told Reagan, whose father was the late president.


"Oh, Frank," Reagan replied, "you better watch your mouth about that, Frank.



And here's a brief write-up about Frank Gaffney from Steve Benen from the Washington Monthly:

Now, Gaffney probably knows he crossed a line of decency; in fact that probably why he said what he said. Gaffney's a right-wing nutjob whose job it is to say ridiculous things.


And that's really what matters here. Gaffney's insane rhetoric isn't the problem; the fact that he was invited onto national television (again) to share his insane rhetoric is the problem.

Gaffney probably isn't a household name, but inside the media establishment, he's a pretty well known figure, as evidenced by his joint appearance with Dick Cheney on Wednesday night. And when offered a major media platform, Gaffney takes full advantage.


In April, for example, Gaffney appeared on MSNBC to argue that whenever President Obama uses the word "respect" in foreign policy, the word is "code for those who adhere to Sharia that we will submit to Sharia." He wasn't kidding.

In June, Gaffney wrote a column insisting that President Obama might really be a Muslim. In March, Gaffney argued that "evidence" exists connecting Saddam Hussein to 9/11, the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, and the Oklahoma City bombing. Last September, Gaffney argued that Sarah Palin has learned foreign policy through "osmosis," by living in Alaska. (Bold is mine)

He's argued that U.S. forces really did find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but the media covered it up. He's used made-up quotes and recommended "hanging" Democratic officials critical of the Bush administration's Iraq policy. He even believes there's "evidence" to support the "Birthers," and once recommended a military strike on Al Jazeera headquarters.

So why is it, exactly, that MSNBC's "Hardball" invited Gaffney on to talk about foreign policy? What is it the viewing public can learn from listening to his unhinged perspective?
To be sure, Gaffney is certainly entitled to believe obvious lunacy, but that doesn't mean he deserves a microphone or the opportunity to convince a national television audience that his lunacy is legitimate.

Honestly, is there nothing conservatives can say that would force them from polite company? Just how nutty must far-right activists be before they're no longer invited to share their ridiculous ideas?

The right wing is getting more and more in the outfield, if any "wing" should be closely observed it is the right. And do not forget: Right Wing does not necessarily mean Republican. I cannot stress that enough.
Peace-