I hate when I'm forced to rush to the defense of a Republican, but when it comes to defending Republicans from religious persecution, I have to step up.
Enter Pastor Robert Jeffers, Senior Pastor at First Baptist Dallas in Big D, and his self-perceived need to step in and take aim at the fact that Mitt Romney is Mormon. According to Jeffers, Romney should not be considered as a legitimate presidential candidate because of his faith -- that only people he deems "Christian" are worthy of holding office.
"Do we prefer somebody who is a believer in Jesus Christ, or somebody who is a good moral person, but part of a cult? I know it's not politically correct to say, but it's true -- Mormonism is a cult."
So, basically what Jeffress is saying is that he would rather a murdering rapist president, just long as that person believes in Jesus Christ, over a morally upright person who happens to have a different faith. I know Satanists that are of a higher moral calibre than Jeffress. Personally, I want a president who knows what the hell they're doing and prefers to do the will of the people over the wills of corporate interests and captains of industry, and especially the will of some elusive spirit.
Anyway, here's an English lesson for you, Mr. Jeffress. It is the definition of the word "cult" from several dictionaries, including Webster's dictionary. This is important because Noah Webster sought to Christianize the United States.
cult: 1. Attentive care; homage; worship. 2. A system of religious belief and worship; esp., a system of rites employed in worship. - Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, pg. 212, 1892
For a more modernized description of cult, click here.
Go to sleep now, Mr. Jeffress. Tomorrow may be a brighter day.
I came across this clip today by one of my friends on Facebook. My friend stated that New Jersey governor, Chris Christie, should run for president and that this clip proves that Christie is a genius. I watched the video, and I'm absolutely dumbstruck.
Christie is co-host of "Christie: On the Line", a televised program where he takes questions from viewers on the air. One such caller named Gail recently asked Christie why he wants to cut funding for public education, while sending his children to a private school. Not an unreasonable question, right?
Not if you're Chris Christie. Watch Christie's reaction below:
Did you notice that Christie did everything except answer the question?
Gail didn't ask you why you send your kids to private school, asshole. She simply asked why you want to cut spending for public education while you send your kids to a private school. That's it. There was absolutely nothing offensive or inappropriate about her question. You're just angry that somebody actually called you out on your bullshit. You're right -- where you choose to send your kids to school is none of her business. But it is her business that you chose to cut spending for public school, and that concern was at the heart of her question.
Is this how you always treat the people in your state, governor? Just blow off a reasonable question while slamming the person asking the question? Then again, should I be surprised that this is the way a Christian Republican treats people?
If I were the Governor of Pennsylvania and I treated any Pennsylvanian this way, I'd likely be tossed out of Harrisburg at the end of my first term.
Please, governor, display your genius to your constituency and the rest of America by explaining how cutting funding for public education is going to improve the quality of education in New Jersey, or any state for that matter. That is, of course, after you're done explaining why you used a NJ State Police helicopter to get to your son's baseball game.
Chris Christie -- one more reason I'm glad I don't live in New Jersey.
I have to admit, despite the fact that I try to stay informed of political goings-on, I have never heard of Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL). And now that I have, I'd like to introduce you to him if you haven't made his acquaintance already.
Last March, Shimkus inferred that climate change is a myth by stating that sea levels will not rise and that God would never destroy the earth through a flood again, as stated in Genesis 8:21-22 and 9:11. Clearly, Shimkus is anti-science, but perhaps the most frightening aspect of Shimkus is that he aspires to chair the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Furthermore, he recently sent a letter to his colleagues in which he states that he is "uniquely qualified among a group of talented contenders to lead the Energy and Commerce Committee."
One could only assume that such a person is well-studied in climate change, energy production, and commerce. Of course, he has none of these credentials, but he does have a teaching certificate from Christ College in Irvine, CA. However, to be fair, he also has an MBA from Southern Illinois University.
So we have now reached a point in our political system where a Bible-thumping, climate-change denier who gets kick-backs from the oil industry with no scientific background in energy production or climate change seeks to take the wheel of our nation's energy policies.
I don't know about you, but this man makes me a wee bit nervous.
The First Amendment is under attack again, and as usual, it is the usual suspects who are doing the attacking; the Texas Board of Education. When are the troglodytes in this braindead organization going to go away?
It's not enough that they hate science for the sake of dogma and want to change history. Now they want to alter the way religion is covered in social studies text books throughout Texas. Apparently, textbooks talk way too much about Islam, and not enough about Christianity. They've even gone so far as to threaten textbook publishers with the following warning:
"State Board of Education will look to reject future prejudicial social studies submissions that continue to offend Texas law with respect to treatment of the world's major religious groups by significant inequalities of coverage space-wise and by demonizing or lionizing one or more of them over others."
In other words, write only page after page of rosy material about Christianity, but damn you to hell if you write even one word Islam that is anything but negative. The most telling aspect of this whole thing is that no one on the board has been able to offer any kind of evidence that Islam receives preferential treatment over Christianity in any textbook.
Perhaps what goons like Don McLeroy are truly frightened of are the Founders who identified themselves as anything but Christian. Perhaps the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams, states it best that: "The Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Also, I think McLeroy and his clones should be reminded that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." That includes members of the public school boards, Mr. McLeroy.
Our country is at war. The economy is in the crapper. Health care reform isn't happening. And somewhere in Washington, a Texan thinks that the BCS should take precedence over the lives of average Americans.
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas...another shock) believes that the BCS ranking system isn't fair because Texas Christian University somehow isn't on par with Alabama or Florida. Keep in mind that this is the same climate-change denier who said, "Wind is God's way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it's hotter to areas where it's cooler. That's what wind is."
Somebody get me some ibuprofen!
Of all the things to worry about, this clown thinks it's more important for Congress to get involved in college football than helping Americans out. Surely, you have something infinitely more important to do Congressman? I suggest you get to it.
By now everyone who pays any attention at all to politics has heard about the uproar regarding the commentary that Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC...shock) made during the speech that President Obama was giving last week over health care reform. "You lie!" he yelled at the president, in response to the president's claim that his health care reform did not cover illegal immigrants. He apologized the very next day. But as is typical of Repubs these days, Wilson's attack has no credibility.
Meanwhile, Limbaugh is upset with Wilson because of his apology, and also believes that the president is lying. Hit the play button:
Limbaugh again opens his mouth when he should do Americans a huge favor and nail it shut. But I have to thank Rush because he just keeps on making his own party look ridiculously inept. Here's why.
In 2003, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 was introduced on the House floor. The bill authorized federally funded health care for illegal immigrants. It was unanimously passed by both the House and the Senate, and President Bush signed it into law on December 8, 2003. The interesting part is, Joe Wilson voted for it.
So, open up wide, Rush and Mr. Wilson. Your crow is ready.
House minority leader, John Boehner (R-Ohio) has been on the warpath against the president lately. On one hand, I can understand since he's trying desperately to hold his party together. At the same time, voters in Ohio are breathing down his neck, as well as the president's. The economic scene is bad in Pennsylvania, but it's even worse in Ohio. As a result, Boehner has attacked the stimulus package that the president has signed into law. I can understand Boehner's frustration - if I were him I'd be asking where the promised money is, too.
On the other hand, Congressman Boehner is annoying me simply by virtue of the fact that he's ignorant about the recent economic events not only in his own state, but his district as well.
Earlier in the week during an interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace, Boehner condemned the stimulus plan and claimed that the money was nowhere to be found. "The infrastructure dollars that were sent there months ago..there hasn't been a contract let, to my knowledge." So far at least $83 million dollars has been distributed to Ohio, with Boehner's own district receiving a significant amount of that money. That money is being used to fund 52 infrastructure projects.
Here in Pennsylvania $16 billion worth of stimulus money will be distributed.
Meanwhile, our fearless leader is under intense fire from Republicans and Democrats alike for refusing money for state universities - primarily Penn State, Pitt, and Temple. Pennsylvania hasn't had a budget since Rendell took office, and now he's kicking our most trusted learning institutions in the stomach. I can't think of one good thing this man has done since he moved to Harrisburg, other than help keep the Pens in Pittsburgh.
Paul Wolfowitz recently wrote an article for the Salt Lake Tribune on June 19th simply titled, "Obama needs to change stance on Iran". The basic premise of the article is the same rhetoric that's been coming from the neo-con lunatic fringe like Lindsey Graham and Mike Pence - that the president is weak, passive, timid, etc.
The United States has a history of intervening in the politics and affairs of other nations. Each time it was because of national interest and preservation. It also has a history of non-intervention as well. Founders such as Thomas Paine, George Washington, John Adams, James Monroe, and Thomas Jefferson had strong warnings against meddling in the internal affairs of other nations. But it wasn't until the 20th century during the Teddy Roosevelt administration that American intervention became prominent. His administration prided itself in the fact that they didn't drag the country into World War I. In fact, the administration's slogan eventually became, "He kept us out of war." But it wasn't before long that the United States did become involved in WWI.
After the entrance of the United States into World War II, intervention became one of the crown jewels in American foreign policy. Every administration since Harry Truman has at least one account of intervention. Perhaps the most famous and alluded to account of American intervention took place during the Reagan administration when he called Mikhail Gorbachev onto the carpet and demanded, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" So-called "conservatives" love bringing up the specter of Ronald Reagan, even though he left the country $2 trillion in debt when his presidency ran its course.
But we're talking about Iran, not the Eastern Bloc. Much different scenario.
American intervention in Iranian politics began with Operation Ajax, which was the blueprint for the overthrow of Mohammed Mosaddeq in 1953, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran. The British government accused Mosaddeq with violating rights to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which made Britain increasingly wealthy. Britain subsequently approached the Truman administration with a plan to dethrone Mosaddeq, but Truman washed his hands clean of the plan. However, the plan resurfaced during the Eisenhower administration who accepted it with open arms. Eisenhower allowed the CIA to engage in its first covert operation, and Mosaddeq was ousted from power in 1953. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was placed in power. Pahlavi himself was overthrown in 1979 by the Islamic Revolution, and a brutal theocracy was born.
Less than 1 year later, conflict erupted between Iran and Iraq over border disputes and fear of Shi'a insurgency. The conflict claimed the lives of over 188,000 Iranians, over 100,000 of which were killed by chemical weapons and nerve gas. The sad reality is through American intervention these weapons were sold by the United States to Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Hussein would later use these weapons against Kurds in the northern region of his country. Even after it was learned that Hussein was using nerve gas on his own people, the Reagan administration continued to sell weapons of mass destruction to his administration. To date, Iranians are still angry over the fact that the United States gave its weapons and resources to Iraq. It should be of little surprise that the phrase, "Death to America!" practically cakes the ceilings of the mosques in Tehran.
It was later learned that the Carter administration supported Iraq's invasion of Iran because he felt it would hasten the release of US political prisoners being held in Tehran, in spite of the fact that Iraq was placed on a terrorist state watch list on December 29, 1979.
Ten years after the end of the Iran-Iraq war, the United States entered Kuwait to evict the Iraqis who had invaded the country. After ongoing talks with US ambassador April Glaspie, who informed Hussein that "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." Apparently, this meant a green light for Saddam to invade Kuwait, who began amassing troops along the Iraq-Kuwait border in July 1990. In January 1991, bombs started to fall in Baghdad, and less than 10 hours later all communications and power were lost in the city. Immediately after the aerial assault the ground war began, and 100 hours later President George H. W. Bush declared victory.
The irony of the Gulf War is that in 1994, then Defense Secretary Cheney stated that if troops "finished the job" in Baghdad and took out Saddam it would have been a quagmire. But lo' and behold, 19 years later, Bush 43 decided to invade Iraq after scaring the bejeezus out of the American public with reports of WMDs. $900 billion, 100,000 dead Iraqis, and 4,315 dead American troops later, Cheney admitted what the rest of us knew all along - that Gulf War II was a war of choice. No WMDs were ever found in Iraq, not to mention no proof of Iraq's involvement in 9/11.
I think the video below pretty much sums up American foreign policy in Iraq. Yep, that's Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with a dictator in 1983.
Funny how neocons like Sean Hannity love to slam President Obama for saying that he would be willing to meet with Ahmadinejad, but give Rumsfeld a pass for shaking hands with a known murderer.
So, if this is Mr. Wolfowitz's idea of President Obama being tougher with Iranian dictators, I want no part of it. Ahmadinejad has already stated that the blood of Iranian civilians is on the hands of Western countries, primarily the UK and the US. If that's the case, how much more blood are you willing to be spilled, Paul?
In case you've been living under a rock for the past week, there's been a presidential election there. The incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has declared victory, while the challenger Mir Hussein Mousavi and his followers cry fowl. As a result, Tehran has been in turmoil as tens of thousands loyal to Mousavi have taken to the streets in protest. Personally, I'm in lockstep with the protesters.
But what really puzzles me is why the United States House of Representatives felt it was absolutely essential to vote on resolution to show moral support for dissenters in Tehran. House Resolution 506, introduced by Rep. Mike Pence (R-Indiana) states the following:
RESOLUTION
Expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law, and for other purposes.
Resolved, That the House of Representatives— (1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law; (2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones; and (3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections.
I think it's safe to say that most of the civilized world is on the the side of those who seek freedom in Iran. In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Pence said "I appreciate the fact that the president said the protesters have a right to be heard and represented, and I appreciate the fact that he said he is troubled. But I respectfully disagree with the administration's decision to essentially draw the line at not meddling and not interfering."
The overall tone from the Republicans has been just shy of sabre-rattling while accusing the president of being soft and timid toward Iranian hardliners. Some have even evoked the name of Ronald Reagan and his famous "Tear down this wall" speech to Mikhail Gorbachev, in an attempt to draw correlations between Obama's "softness" and the situation in Iran.
I can hear it now - "Mr. Khamenei, give the presidency to Mousavi! We demand it!"
Please.
Senator John McCain has back-pedaled from his previous statements in which he was also said Obama was timid. John McCain is the last person that should be offering the president any foreign policy advice toward Iran. Jokes about bombing Iran is not foreign policy, Senator.
So what do Congressman Pence and his like-minded peers hope to achieve with their little resolution? Is it really necessary to waste the time and effort to draft a resolution like this? What do they think will happen - that Iranians will just stop what they're doing and kiss their feet?
Let's say that the president does come out with a stronger approach toward Ahmedinejad and Khamenei while Mousavi and his supporters embrace President Obama with open arms. What would likely happen is the current leadership would label Mousavi as friendly toward the "Great Satan", and the blood that is already spilling in the streets of Tehran would only increase. What would be your intervention approach then, Congressman Pence - a fleet of aircraft carriers and tanks?
While Republicans have been calling the president timid toward Iranian foreign policy, even Henry Kissinger said "the president has handled the situation well," during a recent interview on Fox News. He went on to say, "Anything that the United States says that puts us totally behind one of the contenders, behind Mousavi, would be a handicap for that person. And I think it’s the proper position to take that the people of Iran have to make that decision...and I think it was the right thing to do because the public support for the opposition would only be used by the - by Ahmadinehad...against Mousavi." Ironically, John McCain has recently said in his Facebook page that Kissinger is the "smartest man in the world!"
So here's a friendly foreign policy reminder for Mike Pence and those Republicans who call themselves "conservative":
"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to domestic nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."
George Washington's Farewell Address, 1796
By the way, the resolution passed overwhelmingly 405 to 1. Anyone want to guess who voted "No"?
I just love when Rush Limbaugh opens his mouth and blathers on about things he doesn't understand. If only his listeners could think for themselves.
In the June 11th edition Limbaugh's radio program, he stated that people who exercise regularly put undue strain on national health care. Apparently, Rush took exception to comments from President Obama when he said, "If we can get somebody first of all who is overweight to lose weight so they don't become diabetic, we save money."
Diabetes costs Americans over $27 billion a year. What's worse is that it's preventable. But true to form, Limbaugh tossed logic and reason aside for the sake of political identity. I'm starting to think that Limbaugh would hack off his own arm with a rusty butter knife than find common ground with his political opponents.
Hit the play button to hear Rush's response:
Let's take a look at the facts, Rush.
According to the CDC, $475 billion will be spent on heart disease in 2009. Things that contribute to the increase in heart disease in America are use of tobacco products, a crappy diet, and little or no activity.
The use of tobacco products alone contributes to ~$200 billion in unnecessary health costs. Chugging on tobacco products the way you do is not a good idea if you want to fight heart disease, Rush.
About $93 billion is spent every year on complications due to obesity.
In 2008, the overall cost of diabetes was ~$27 billion.
The cost of physical inactivity also takes a toll on the workplace. In 2007, over $58 billion in revenue was lost due to illnesses and other complications due to physical inactivity and poor health.
However, injuries sustained during sports or recreation are about $117 billion. Which is more costly?
It's truly astonishing how out of touch this man really is. Leave it up to Limbaugh to slam those who are passionate about life enough to get out of their house and go do something with their lives. Maybe if you got off your ass once in a while instead of eating painkillers like candy and chomping on cigars every 10 minutes, you might start to feel better, Rush.
My wife, daughter, and I came back from DC last night. Yes, I was there when history was made. Among the armies of the flag-waving hopeful, I was somewhere mixed in. Yes, it was cold. I couldn't feel my toes. And I despise large crowds. 2 million people is a large crowd. But for a brief moment I felt like a weight was lifted from my shoulders; the moment when we got a new Commander in Chief. I didn't cry, but man was happy.
Anyway, now that I'm back, I'd like to recap what I learned.
1. 2 million people can make a very, very large mess.
2. If you ever go to a presidential inauguration, make sure it's at least 35 degrees.
3. In spite of the bitter cold, people don't have the common sense to put on a pair of winter boots/shoes. The Smithsonian Institution had to help the Red Cross with victims of frostbite and hypothermia. I would guess that, by noticing the numbers of people wearing sandals and clogs, and the lack of gloves, it's no wonder people were being treated.
4. If you're at the Metro, stand far away from the rail, lest you play chicken with an oncoming train. A 68 year-old woman victoriously escaped the jaws of death after nearly being crushed.
5. Even among the winds of change, leave it to a bunch of fundamentalists to try to destroy the mood. Apparently, if you voted for Barack Obama you're going to hell. I'm screwed. I'm guessing that they conveniently forgot Daniel 2:21, Daniel 4:17, Daniel 5:21, John 19:11, Romans 13:1, and 1 Peter 2:13-17. I suppose they're willing to give God a pass for voting for Obama.
6. If you don't like people jeering at your appearance, don't be a dick. In spite of what this article says, there weren't a "few" protesters at the inauguration, there were 2 million of them. Trust me.
7. Only Aretha Franklin can wear whatever the hell she wants, no matter how silly, and make it look cool.
