Saturday, October 13, 2007

Fair and Balanced?

I have been asked more than once and by more than one person over time why I do not seem to spend anywhere near equal time criticizing Democrats and Liberals and seem to be focused on Republicans and "Conservatives".

Here I shall answer, borrowing recycled lines from a recent exchange in e-mail. I will also add further commentary:

Ok, heres my honest answers,

As far as I can tell the Democrats are also in on this completely un-neccessary missile deal as well (see the post Missile Chess).
I do not see this particular post as a focused attack on Republicans. If one were to watch the "Why We Fight" clip embedded in one of my previous responses they would be able to ascertain that in our highly militarized society, Democrats are equally guilty. Everyone must bow to the god of war it seems. I have even been guilty of qualifying and dulling my own statements for fear of being dismissed as completely bonkers. From now on I won't do that.
The questions you ask regarding my criticisms of Republicans and percieved lack of criticisms of Clinton and the Democrats is a fair question and I shall answer.

Its because of the heresy. The Democrats are guilty of much. However, they are not the ones who have hijacked the Christian faith and twisted it into something that shames the name of Christ. That will surely change as the pendulum swings back the other way. I simply don't think its "Liberals" thathave done the most damage to our planet or our society or the church in the last 500 years. Take note that political liberalism has NOTHING to do with the matters usually attributed to "Liberals".
Concerning the Clinton years- I was not vocal during those. Nor was I blogging. So my thoughts on those years have generally not been expressed. If it will make people feel better I'll do some Bill bashing. I just figure the "conservative" pundits had the market cornered on that one and frankly I was quite tired of hearing about it... especially when the talk show crowd has so worn it out and spun facts in a way that is favorable to so-called "conservative" views. I can spend time on those points if necessary.... in fact wait and see.

I do blame Bill for much of the backlash that ushered in the Neocons. Thanks Bill. Those had to be the most expensive and consequential blowjobs in history.

Concerning the ire I have for Republicans- I have already told the tale and commented much about the false campaign Bush ran as a sober and Christian candidate. Perhaps I will never get over that. I am quite more familiar with the players on the RNC world stage than you might think, due to my former line of work. In my latest blog posts entitled "The Jesus Factor", there appears more than one commentor that I have met and held conversations with. The men I refer to are from both sides of the fence. Most notable of these is Doug Wead, author of "The Raising of a President". An interesting article about Mr. Wead that reveals the context in which I met him, Amway conventions where I handled AV,-can be found HERE.

I have met GWB and been in his home... and have actually made physical contact with him. I have been heavily exposed to Republican politics and politicians because of the area of the country I live in, my line of work, the ladies and gentlemen I work with and many of my personal friends. My thoughts on these matters have generally been illy recieved. My first political memories were of Richard Nixon.... 'nuff said, who was pardoned by Gerald Ford, another Republican. Then there was Jimmy Carter. I do not think Jimmy Carter was a great leader but I do think he generally got a raw deal. He takes the most heat for his handling of the Iran hostage crisis. However, his goal was to get the hostages home safely and not start a war. He succeeded. Carter also gets undue credit for faciliatatingthe rise of radical Islam. The trend actually started in about 1953 with the overthrow of Iran's Prime Minister Mossadegh and the installation of the Shah. Check out that story in the article entitled: "50 Years After the CIA’s First Overthrow of a Democratically Elected Foreign Government We Take a Look at the 1953 US Backed Coup in Iran".

The president of the U.S. in 1953 was Dwight D. Eisenhower (R).

I will say that Carter was president during the invasion of East Timor which I recently blogged about. The invasion was supported and supplied by the U.S.. This travesty is a perfect example of the selective humanitarianism and selective truth engineering of the corporate media and the western powers in general. No one I know has ever heard of this conflict. I myself did not learn about it until my trip to Sydney for the 2000 Olympics. This conflict ran though every presidency including the first stages of the current one. Thus, Carter and Clinton share some of the terrrible blame on that one. Carter was also president when the U.S. backing of the right wing extremists and death squads began in El Salvador which I have commented about at great length in the collection of posts found HERE. The assasination of Archbishop Oscar Romero also occurred on Carter's watch very shortly after Romero made pleas to President Carter to stop funding and arming the terror forces that were killing his people. Under Reagan, the funding of these terror groups was magnified greatly. This is where the Republicans and the "Conservatives" totally lost me. These crimes generally are as yet unacknowledged and un atoned for... not to mention the Iran Contra scandal (make SURE you visit this link- taking note that the scandal began in 1980). Instead history has Reagan and the band of Neocons that served under him, including the loathesome Dick Cheney and the disgraced Donald Rumsfeld and the criminal Robert Gates (see also Robert Gates, Neocon or Paleo-Neocon) as some of the greatest heroes of the modern era. I won't pretend I don't resent that. I could go into how Reagan allegedly fixed our country and allegedly won the Cold War almost single handedly- but I will allow the curious to read the rest of the blog- paying special attention to the subject of Blowback , terrorism and the military industrial complex. Its also worth noting that this particular confluence of events of the rape of El Salvador and the enabling of Saddam and the actions of the REAL appeasers in the Middle East happened at just about the same time I entered high school and began to process political information data and make comments about it.

Then there was the enormous amount of e-mail propaganda I recieved during the run up to the war in Iraq. Perhaps much of what i have to say can be attributed to refuting such propaganda and an attempt at un- indoctrinating those within my circle of influence.

Maybe my take on things appears as unobjective or one sided to some.... but I am actually writing from what I know, have been exposed to and what I percieve as most threatening. I am sure some people simply think that I just make it up as I go because of some kind of unreasoned malice for Republicans- but it simply isn't so. If one were to actually read and process all the information I provided in the links strewn in this post- I think the record speaks for itself. Yet, as requested I will find more about the crimes of Clinton and the Democrats to "balance things out". The one that comes to mind first would be the travesties at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco. There is also plenty of blame to go around for democratic leadrship in the recent post "The Torture Question Part 2"

Now, as I have said before:

Nowadays it seems , all one has to do to become a "Liberal" (a dirty word) is to refrain from singing the praises of the so-called "Conservatives" in power, dare to question them or, God forbid, challenge them on any matter. I don't think I need to elaborate on how counter- productive and yea even dangerous this trend is. It has gotten so bad, that I no longer insist that I am actually a Conservative in these discussions. I have come to the conclusion that the definitions of conservative and liberal have become so muddled, confused and overused that the whole conservative/liberal debate is pointless, meaningless and an impediment to everything we need to be trying to accomplish as a community if people with common interests. I believe that the whole conservative-liberal debate is indeed useless and the terms are devoid of any real meaning. There is no left and right - just authoritarian/worldly and more authoritarian/worldly. There is left and further left and right and further right so that they both really fall in approximately the same position on the dial. I often encourage my fellow men, Christians and citizens to climb out of those respective boxes and become discerning human beings again. I consider myself a disciple of Christ/spiritual warrior and nothing more or less.

Though I put no stock in such accolades I find it quite ironinc that Mr. Al Gore, the sworn enemy of all that's holy according to some, has now had a movie that won an Oscarand and an Emmy and the Nobel Peace Award while Mr. Bush, the most overtly Christian president perhaps ever, has become one of the most reviled men in the world and is considered by a vast majority across the planet to be the worst leader that the US has ever had. Not that public opinion means anything...or does it? This cannot be good for evangelism. It also has made the blowback of terrorism far more likely.

I do not necessarily consider myself as an evangelist by the way. I do consider myself as engaged in a spiritual war. Making headway in such a war can and will make work easier for those that have the gift of evangelism. I percieve my own function in the body as different. To be sure I am weary. I am anxious for this toxic trend in American politics to bleed out or at least drop to more tolerable levels. I pray every night that a man like Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson or Rudy Giuliani does not become our next president. If that means I am stuck with Hillary then so be it. I won't be happy about it- but I can live with it. I would like to say it doesn't really matter. However, there are young people in my family that I do not want to see shipped to the deserts of the Middle East to fight in un-necessary wars.

All that factors in quite nicely to my theories and observations. I do not see my life as a false dichotomy between the spiritual and carnal. The world I live in is both and so long as I am alive I cannot escape that truth. Perhaps worrying about national leaders and wars and heretics is carnal to some... but to me its all very spiritual in essence.

In response to this: "All of your posts are connected to the previous, and the previous, and the previous; and that connection started and ended at the Republican pary head-quarters back in 1980."

It actually goes back further than that. Its true that the hostile takeover of the Christian faith started with the "reconstructionist" movement in 1980. Therer's more about that HERE and HERE. I witnessed a lot of that as I lived in close proximity to one of the country's largest Southern Baptist churches. If you really want to know how far back it goes- you must go back to 1492 and further... perhaps all the way to Constantine and the idea that the church should rule the world also known as the constantinian cataract.


Click this article:

The Evangelical Roots of American Unilateralism: The Christian Right's Influence and How to Counter It

If anyone can find data as damning to the Democrats as these are I will be glad to post them and/or comment on them. I will note that the current day "conservative" movement sprang out of the politcal philosophy of Woodrow Wilson and "Wilsonian" democracy. Look that up. Woodrow Wilson was a Democrat and a secular- humanist- authoritarian- heretic as well.

Perhaps all this seems unobjective. Perhaps it is. I am very concerned with this particular dominionist political movement at this particular window in time. I see myself as focused on a specific target and specific matters and specific offenses rather than unfair. I don't think I ever advertised as "fair and balanced" anyway. I am focused on defending the honor of the Church against political opportunists and the accompanying heresies. Show me the Democrats who have done what the Falwells and Robertsons and Bushes and Dobsons have done and I will gladly filet them.

(James Dobson's Focus on the Family organization has on its board of directors Eric Prince, the founder of Blackwater Security which is currently involved in a scorching scandal in Iraq- a raw fact that may well speak volumes on why Dobson and his cohorts are so pro war in Iraq- because its worth zillions. This is perhaps the very epitome of a conflict in interests on the Christian side of things. Its also worth noting that this right- wing -"Christian " coterie of political operatives are supporters of Bush and the Republican party- donating bazilly-illions to the cause)

I have been told that the Republican party is NOT Satan. I agree. However, I think there is clear evidence that they work for the World and thus for the God of This World (Satan). The same is true for Democrats of course. Yet, it is said in the Bible that the institution of government was created by God. Many institutions were created by God and yet because of the sinful and fallen nature of many of them operate outside of God's intent and design. Consider that before I am labeled as a rebel or heretic. The Bible simultaneously tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves, love our enemies, submit to government authority and yet NOT love the World or anything in it. What sayeth thee?


Archbishop 10-K said...

I wouldn't worry too much about trying to be fair and balanced. Blogs exist to provide opinions slanted toward/against something. For fair and balanced news, go to a news outlet.

That being said, it might be good for you to also make posts against the opposite error, which is a sort of anti-religious apartheid like you might see in modern-day France and western Europe.

You said:

"I pray every night that a man like Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson or Rudy Giuliani does not become our next president. If that means I am stuck with Hillary then so be it."

What about Ron Paul? He's very conservative while having an anti-war stance.

About the rest of the political stuff, I'm a monarchist in the spirit of Chesterton, Belloc, Lewis and Tolkien, not a republican; I find the American dominionist movement you speak of amusing, but artificial without a king and a traditional government structure like Britain's or Spain's.

About the use of the words liberal/conservative. Here, I'd quote G.K. Chesterton who said a century ago:

"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected."

I prefer to call myself a restorationist instead, as Pope St. Pius X's motto was "to restore all things in Christ". Christ was neither a conservative nor a progressive. Rather, He came to restore the world to its state before the Fall (such as in His discourse on marriage and divorce, "but from the beginning it was not so...").

The only statement I'll really disagree with you on for now, though, is this one:

"I simply don't think its "Liberals" thathave done the most damage to our planet or our society or the church in the last 500 years."

That doesn't seem to take into account the overtly anti-Christian nature of the Russian Revolution, Spanish Civil War, Cristero War, French Revolution, etc., led by "liberals", which made thousands of martyrs.

Scott Starr said...

You may be right about the one statement you disagreed with Archbishop10k. I offer what I have said from the perspective of an American Indian- to which the present day conservative or dominionist element best represents the values of the "White" man. . I suppse It depends on how you define "liberal". I associate liberals in my mind with hippies and poets and homosexuals and anti-war people. I am after all a child of the sixties and seventies. In the minds of many the liberals are one and the same with communists, socialists and very authoritarian regimes. In my mind the "conservative" dominionists are the authoritarians these days. Again, its all a muddled mess to me. I may have been better off just sticking to my definitions of authoritarians than making that statement. Its hard for me to think of Hitler and Stalin as "liberals" just because they were socialists.
They were ultra authoritarians- wich again, I associate with these dominionists.

As far as I can tell the main "conservative" beefs with "liberals" of today's America is that they are not war-like, or trigger happy enough. That they want a universal health care system, that they are tolerant towards homosexuals and immigrants and that they dare to express concern for the environment.

This is perhaps a snapshot that oversimoplifies...but none of those matters concern me nearly as much as the heretical dominionism of the Neocons and the mendacious Republican party of the last sixty years. Everybody has an opinion... that's mine. BTW its good to see ya man.

Scott Starr said...

I was recently at a gathering where a fellow was commenting on a recent debate among democratic candidates for president. This fellow noticed that when these candidates were pressed about their beliefs on God- they would not come right out and profess belief in the Judeo-Christian God. Of course I noted that this is a no good situation. However, my return question is thus;

Which is worse... to not claim God or to misrepresent god and pimp God for political points?

Is one worse than the other or are they both just repugnant sin?

Which is the worse sin... sexual immorality or murder... lying or stealing... false witness or greed... self righteousness or godlessness... of heresy...or of tacit collusion with it?

Scott Starr said...

A friend of mine has raised a good point>

"Have you considered that it is not the Republicans that did the hijacking and instead the RADICAL FUNDAMENTAL CHRISTIAN's that did the hijacking of our republican party with their false doctrine of hate, exclusion, and world end? It spooks even me. Now in control they seek to fulfill the false doctrine of world end through and uncompromising view of those who disagree with them. Is anyone surprised?'

My response:

Indeed, it is a symbiotic relationship between the Christian dominionists and the Republicans. It works the same with the Iraeli zionists. You are absolutely right. Its the money... the Christian right wanted to buy into politics and the Republicans were only too happy to accept their contributions and they surely welcomed the power. Look at the first clip in the Jesus Factor Part 1 ... the last line in the clip sets it all up. Doug Wead says with regards to GWH Bush's victorious first bid for the Whitehouse and strategy that would be put into use when GW Bush would later run for the Whitehouse:

"We lost, as we always do, the Jewish vote, the Hispanic vote and all those votes... we lost the Catholic vote! We were the first modern presidency to win an election... and it was a landslide... and not win the Catholic vote... it was barely, but, we lost the Catholic vote... and how did we do it? we carried 82% or 83% of the evangelical vote. While we were frightened by the fact that we lost all these votes...we still won the Whitehouse
and the message did come home... My God you can win the Whitehouse with NOTHING but Evangelicals, if you can get enough of 'em... if you can get 'em all."

Part 2 of The Jesus Factor demonstrates how that knowledge was put into startegy for the presidential elections of 2000.

My friend is right. Follow the money.

Still at issue is the militarism of Republicans... something that Democrats are hardly any better about...

...Which is another reason I call myself an Independant Libertarian these days.

Scott Starr said...

P.s. I am very interested in Ron Paul, but I seriously doubt he's going to get the nomination. I am also interested in Huckabee. Its ironinc that he's a Baptist minister... he supports nearly every position held by the "conservative" Republicans and yet he has practically no support from the Christian right. They are rather talking about leaving the republicans and starting a third party instead of supporting Huckabee. I have heard one reason for this lack of support is that Huckabee will not condemn and hate with the proper vigor those whom the Christian right considers as its enemies. That alone makes me like him.

I am sure some will find it ironic that I was a registered republican until 2004. Now, I am an independant. I actually believed Reagan when he defined the Conservative agenda. I registered as a Republican in 1982 when I was 18. Then I learned to parse the news and the propaganda- learned about the crimes of the US in South and Central America and the Iran Contra affair... none of which can be blamed on anything to do with Democrats or modern, American "liberals".

I became what I am because of what Republicans did...not Democrats. Someone who wants me to ease up on the Republicns and/or dish it out equally to the Democrats has their work cut out for them. I mean no offense by this- although I'm sure somebody will interpret it that way. I am just stating my case and my reasoning. I have been asked about this several times.

Anyhow archbishop10k, I think you and I are essentially on the same page. Be sure and let me know if you are going to be deployed... you'll be on my prayer list concerning that for sure.

Anonymous said...

I don't give a rip about fairness and balance.

Jesus did not demand fairness and balance when He 'took it on the chin' for me.

The fact is, I have wondered why "a spade is a spade", but, only when right-wingers are holding the shovel.

I got your email BTW and I do understand and agree with your point.

But, the question needed to be asked.

I had never put you on the spot before and you had only nominally given reasons for your animus against right-leaners.
Also, I discussed your answers with Molly and we both agreed with your answer.

Yet, I tend to filet anyone that uses people for their own personal gain. While, you tend to filet anyone who uses people for personal gain while saying "I do this in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ."

I can't fault you for your selective animus against false and/or blinded disciples.

Nevertheless, I suspect that the animus will not open more eyes than it closes.
But, it is, again, your calling.

God bless,

Scott Starr said...

Well, I don't mind the question at all. It is after all a fair one. In fact I welcome it. Sometimes I get so carried away cataloguing offenses that I forget to define WHY.

I believe I needed to put these things on the table for myself and anyone reading any of this crap as well. Apparently there are readers according to the hit trackers. Its probably the CIA and/or Homeland

I have expressed before the desire to move past all this stuff. At the same time I see it as spiritual combat that I cannot seem to turn completely loose of.

I beg latitude and forgiveness.

You may be right about closing more eyes than opening. There are true believers out there that simply refuse to see the value of any of the matters I have adressed. I will simply have to count them as lost- not that I am the judge of any man. I will stand and be judged just as everyone else... perhaps even more harshly than some.

You must know that none of these matters bring me joy. As noted, it is my conscience that speaks- not my flesh... I'd be much happier doing something else like smoking weed and fornicating. Hopefully god has something more wholesome in store for me as an option... I fear not.

I am reminded of this:

Ecclesiastes 1
Everything Is Meaningless
1 The words of the Teacher, [a] son of David, king in Jerusalem:

2 "Meaningless! Meaningless!"
says the Teacher.
"Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless."

3 What does man gain from all his labor at which he toils under the sun?

4 Generations come and generations go,but the earth remains forever.

5 The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.

6 The wind blows to the south
and turns to the north;
round and round it goes,
ever returning on its course.

7 All streams flow into the sea,
yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from,
there they return again.

8 All things are wearisome,
more than one can say.
The eye never has enough of seeing,
nor the ear its fill of hearing.

9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

10 Is there anything of which one can say,
"Look! This is something new"?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.

11 There is no remembrance of men of old,
and even those who are yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow.
Wisdom Is Meaningless
12 I, the Teacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem.

13 I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men!

14 I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

15 What is twisted cannot be straightened;
what is lacking cannot be counted.

16 I thought to myself, "Look, I have grown and increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge."

17 Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind.

18 For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief.

Scott Starr said...

In response to this:

"I can't fault you for your selective animus against false and/or blinded disciples.

Nevertheless, I suspect that the animus will not open more eyes than it closes."

I have been thinking about that... as I always contemplate the things that are said. I have turned it over and over in my mind. I have come to the conclusion that the same people that will be put off by this animus are the same people that will be put off by and/or deny Jesus' call to actually love our enemies and turn from the cycle of violence as a solution. They will be the same people that will not see in the first place. Their judgment is not mine and their fate will not be on my hands so long as I am expressing truth. I am grounded in truth. Matthew Chapter 5 and Luke Chapter six do not lie and cannot be twisted into some other meaning. The record on Iran Contra and the other matters is already cast as well. Facts matter even if we do not like them. One could always make the argument that facts are being skewed and interpretations of facts are subjective. I am pretty sure that any intellectually and morally honest person will come to more or less the same conclusion that I have regarding these matters. If someone wants to put themself in collusion with the moral relativism of say Oliver North's ethic concerning this statement;

"There is great deceit, deception practiced in the conduct of covert operations. They are at essence a lie. We make every effort to deceive the enemy as to our intent, our conduct, and to deny the association of the United States to those activities ... and that is not wrong."

- and continue to define him as a patriot and a hero and moral role model... then I wash my hands of them. Likewise I expect the same from them. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it come hell, high water or judgment day. To those who disagree and think I'm the heretic... good luck to ya.

Bonus question for the readers;

Is my position conservative or liberal?

If you study this whole thread, I think you'll find my answer to that question.

Archbishop 10-K said...

Which is worse... to not claim God or to misrepresent god and pimp God for political points?

Good question. It seems like, in the gospels, Pilate was guilty of a lesser sin than the Jewish authorities, because the Jewish authorities knew Christ was the Messiah, while Pilate had no such idea of it.

In the 2004 election, that's why I supported President Bush over Senator Kerry, even though I'm a Catholic. Senator Kerry "marketed" his Catholic background and his days as an altar boy in order to be associated with the other JFK (Kennedy). However, his stance on abortion was so contrary to Catholic social doctrine that I preferred President Bush, even though Mr. Bush is a Protestant.

The list of candidates this upcoming election, though, is so ridiculous that it has me thinking that I'll either vote for Ron Paul, or not at all.