Throwback Thursday Presents: The Rebirth Of A Nation -- The RNC Propaganda Piece Disguised As A Tribute Video

Note:  This was written in September, 2008.  This was in response to the GOP snuff film disguised as a tribute to 9/11.

Propaganda. It's defined as "A concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people." To add a little bit to the context of what I will discuss, I will take it one step further.

Hate Propaganda. It's defined as "...the systematic dissemination of doctrine, rumour or selected information to promote or injure a particular race, color, ethnicity, religion or national origin."

The Republican Party just finished their National Convention, in which John S. McCain and Sarah Palin were officially nominated as the Republican candidates for President and Vice President of the United States. Now, there is much to be said about McCain, Palin, how she was picked, whether or not McCain is ready, whether or not Palin is qualified, etc. ad nauseum. But this isn't about those two, specifically. This is about a piece of propaganda that aired during the Convention. The piece was propaganda on the same level as D.W. Griffith's "The Birth of a Nation." If you're not aware of the film, it was basically a recruitment film for the Ku Klux Klan. Don't believe me?This is the poster.

So yes, "The Birth of a Nation" is not exactly progressive in it's approach to race relations. What does this film have to do with the Republican National Convention's "Tribute To 9/11 Video"? Absolutely everything. If you wish, you can click here to see it in its entirety. The link also has journalism's Prophet of Rage, Keith Olbermann apologizing on behalf of his network. Olbermann may have one of his patented Special Commentaries about this, but I decided that I couldn't wait for Olbermann to express what I was feeling. Let's begin.

The piece is supposed to be a "Tribute To 9/11."

See? It says it right there: "9/11 Video Tribute."

The house lights dim, and an ominous piano sets the stage for what we're about to see. So, how does this Tribute To 9/11 begin? Of course, it should begin with showing the courageous efforts of First Responders, the police, the military, and common everyday citizens showing remarkable courage in the face of an unforeseen catastrophe. That's what a tribute's supposed to be, right? Well, THIS piece of propaganda filth begins with...
A shot from the Iran Hostage Crisis. The ominous Narrator of Doom tells us "The first attack occurred in Iran... 444 days America held hostage."

Stop right there. My first reaction was that, as usual, the Republicans in this God-awful administration are tying together pieces that have nothing to do with each other. I first thought "What does the Iran Hostage Crisis have to do with 9/11?" If you said "nothing", then you get a silver star. However, if you dig a little deeper, you'll see that this video is designed to anger up the blood against Iran, who is on President Bush's "Axis of Evil." Pretty sneaky, sis. They are reminding us about how we were attacked by Al Qaeda by opening with images of Iranians holding Americans hostage. In other words, the Right is hammering the point home that Iranians are bad, too. The Republican Party sets the tone by tying an event from 1981 to the United States being attacked on 9/11. It's clever in its wickedness.

They move on from there to show all sorts of shots of terrorists rallying against the country, including this one:
...and the narrator reminds us that those big bad terrorists have been always pushing our buttons. The attack on the USS Cole is pictured, but the attack on U.S. troops in Beirut was oddly missing. My speculation is that since this attack happened under the watch of President and Patron Saint Ronald Reagan, it would undermine the current theme of this film. Even if it's not the case, it's strangely odd that an attack that killed 241 American servicemen was not featured as part of how "the terrorists" have been picking on poor ol' U.S.A. A shot of this terrorist is also featured in the video:
...you remember him, right? Osama bin Laden? The guy who actually ORCHESTRATED 9/11?!? The guy who is still making "Death To America" mixtapes in the caves of Afghanistan and/or Pakistan? Moving on...

Then, we get to the meat of this propaganda sammich.

Clips from the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon are shown over... and over... and over again.
Is it really a tribute to show horrific catastrophes over and over again? That's not a tribute, to me. That's like showing a tribute to police officers by airing footage of them being killed in action, or showing a tribute to firemen by watching a burning structure collapse on them and entomb them. What's next? A tribute to Hiroshima by showing mushroom clouds and the entire region being vaporized? A tribute to JFK by showing the assassin's bullet ripping his skull open? The Ominous Narrator chimes in on the attacks, and accompanies the footage by saying "...and kill us, they did. This time, on American soil. The date was September 11. 9/11." To bring the point home, the Evil Narrator of Doom also reminds the good citizens of the Republican Party of some more points, that need to be analyzed and dissected before it's swallowed whole like the poison it is.

Quote: "This enemy sworn to our destruction has been at war with us for decades. This we now know."
Analysis: For one, "decades" is a bit of a stretch, especially in the context of this video. The video opens with the Iran Hostage Crisis, which is about as far from 9/11 on every aspect as President Bush is from competence as a President. Remember, Al Qaeda is NOT based in Iran, and there wasn't even such a thing AS Al-Qaeda when the U.S. hostages were taken. Furthermore, it should be noted that the U.S. hostages were freed in the absolutely scandalous Iran-Contra Affair, in which "members of the Executive Branch (of the United States Government) sold weapons to Iran in exchange for hostages." It's not only disingenuous to paint Obama's ideas as appeasement, but it's downright hypocritical, seeing as how the Republicans TRADED WEAPONS WITH OUR "ENEMY."

The "decades" line is also a lie because the first public reference to Al Qaeda occurred in 1998, under an Executive Order from Bill Clinton, two weeks after the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Furthermore, the first attack involving Osama bin Laden occurred around 1992, when bin Laden attacked a hotel.

This "decades" line is a propaganda piece because it lumps any Islamic faction that has anything to do with enmity of the U.S. into one lump of "Islamofascist terrorism." This video fans the flames of xenophobia wrapped in the comfortable blanket of Old Glory. It fails to underscore the differences between the Iranians that held the U.S. hostage, Al Qaeda, and Iraq. It also misleads the average person into ignoring how Americans' own actions precluded the Iranian Hostage Crisis and the attack on 9/11.

"We know this now" is another problematic phrase, because it misleads the average person into believing that we were blindsided and 'poor old Uncle Sam' was minding its own business when the bad guys attacked. But the Iranian Hostage Crisis...

...was seen by many as a blow against U.S. influence in Iran and its support of the recently fallen Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who had been restored to power by a CIA-funded coup in 1953 and who had recently been allowed into the United States for cancer treatment.

Furthermore, a little research into Al Qaeda shows that its origin started as a result of the Soviet war in Afghanistan, that began in 1978. At the time, and leading into the 1980's, the Soviet Union was the big bully on the global block. And the U.S., wanting to stop the spread of Communism, did its part by funding the mujahedeen and the Taliban through Pakistan. So, once again, the U.S. sowed the seeds of terrorism by funding groups that would eventually turn on her. But the U.S. has yet to reap the whirlwind.

Trouble began to brew according to this account:

Following the Soviet Union's withdrawal from Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 had put the country of Saudi Arabia and its ruling House of Saud at risk as Saudi's most valuable oil fields (Hama) were within easy striking distance of Iraqi forces in Kuwait,^[60] and Saddam's call to pan-Arab/Islamism could potentially rally internal dissent. In the face of a seemingly massive Iraqi military presence, Saudi Arabia's own forces were well armed but far outnumbered. Bin Laden offered the services of his mujahedeen to King Fahd to protect Saudi Arabia from the Iraqi army. The Saudi monarch refused bin Laden's offer, opting instead to allow U.S. and allied forces to deploy on Saudi territory.^[61]
The deployment angered Bin Laden, as he believed the presence of foreign troops in the "land of the two mosques" (Mecca and Medina) profaned sacred soil. After speaking publicly against the Saudi government for harboring American troops, he was quickly forced into exile to Sudan and on April 9, 1994 his Saudi citizenship was revoked.^[62] His family publicly disowned him. There is controversy over whether and to what extent he continued to garner support from members of his family and/or the Saudi government.^[63]

There's no need to get into further detail about the events that led to the attack on the World Trade Centers, but bear in mind something else: The Bush Administration had an explicit warning from the Clinton Administration about bin Laden's plans. The Bush Administration did nothing. Absolutely NOTHING. Research will also prove that the line from the film where the Evil Narrator says "It is a war we never chose to fight ...for too long, we looked the other way" is equally misleading. We only looked the other way after we interfered in matters that were none of our concern. We kicked the kerosene lamp onto a bundle of hay and we looked the other way when the structure burned to the ground. We lit the short fuse on a catastrophic bomb, and looked the other way when the bomb exploded. We looked the other way, like a bully would after wreaking havoc. We then feign surprise when the people we bully decide to fight back. "We never chose to fight"? Hardly. We chose to interfere. We chose to sow poisonous seeds, and we can't take it when we reap cataclysmic fruit.

And lest you forget just how low the Republicans will go in order to tug at the heartstrings of the simple minded, the film includes graphic photos like this:
What better way to show just how horrific the events of 9/11 were, than to show blood-stained signs where people were looking for loved ones or paying tribute? To say that this is in bad taste only marks the tip of the iceberg at my disgust for the Republicans. Again, would they show a tribute to a cop by showing a bullet-riddled uniform of a cop killed in a hail of gunfire? Of course not. But there is no problem with them including blood-stained images as a reminder of just how horrific and terrible the attacks were.

The video ends with this image:...and Darth Narrator saying "...the enemy is wrong. This is a war America will win. And we'll have a president that knows how. And... we will never let it happen... again."

Yes, to make sure that you're completely sold on the War on Terror, the propaganda spinmeisters end with footage of the World Trade Center, pre-9/11. And the Darth Narrator's screed underscores the necessity to understand the concept of cause and effect, actions and consequences. "We'll have a president that knows how"... the thinly-veiled implication is that Barack Obama's Presidency will give rise to more attacks on U.S. soil, and that the U.S. will surrender in the War on Terror. First of all, a war on a "belief" or "action" can't be won. You can have victory against Al Qaeda or any other group that's an enemy, but to win a war on "terror", you have to make sure that "terror" is destroyed across the globe. It is utterly impossible to do this, especially with this hamfisted approach to foreign policy.

For example, this criminally negligent administration decided to fight the war on terror (tm) by first circumventing the Constitution of the United States. The congressmen and Senators abdicated their ability to keep the President in check, by giving him the authority to invade Iraq. And as we all know, Iraq has been a complete disaster, even while Republicans crow about the success of "the surge." But what has toppling Saddam Hussein done, but create a power vacuum filled by Al Qaeda insurgents - who HAD NO PRESENCE IN IRAQ PRIOR TO THE U.S. INVASION - who then continued in their civil war. And while we were busy declaring "Mission Accomplished", the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (remember them?) has been not-so-quietly regaining strength.

"We'll have a president that know how"? Oh, you mean the same future President that declared the following:

How would American troops be greeted? "I believe...that the Iraqi people will greet us as liberators." (March 20, 2003)
Did Saddam Hussein have a nuclear program that posed an imminent threat to the United States? "Saddam Hussein is on a crash course to construct a nuclear weapon." ( October 10, 2002)
Will a war with Iraq be long or short? "This conflict is... going to be relatively short." (March 23, 2003)
How is the war going? "I would argue that the next three to six months will be critical." (September 10, 2003)
How is it going (almost two months later, from the war's "greatest critic")? "I think the initial phases of [the war] were so spectacularly successful that it took us all by surprise." (October 31, 2003)
Is this war really necessary? "Only the most deluded of us could doubt the necessity of this war." (August 30, 2004)
How is it going? (Recurring question for the war's "greatest critic") "We will probably see significant progress in the next six months to a year." (December 4, 2005)
Will the President's "surge" of troops into Baghdad and surrounding areas that the senator had been calling for finally make the difference? "We can know fairly well [whether the surge is working] in a few months." (February 4, 2007)

The same future President that knows how to win a war will be the same future President that declared that Iraq was safe by walking the streets of Baghdad... without mentioning the soldiers, helicopters, and gunships that accompanied him on his leisurely stroll. THIS is the man that the Republicans say "knows how to win." And his second-in-command is a woman whose "foreign policy experience" includes living in Alaska, because it's so close to Russia.

This propaganda is "The Rebirth of a Nation", because it caters to the lowest common denominator of demonizing "radical Islam" by tying all Middle Eastern conflicts to the spectre of the Islamic boogeyman. Just as "The Birth of a Nation" demonstrated how the valiant knights in shining robes known as the Ku Klux Klan will save virtuous White women from the scourge of Black men, "The Rebirth of a Nation" will show how the valiant knights of the Conservative Republican Evangelical movement will save virtuous White Christian citizens from the scourge of Islam, and the scourge of a Black American man with a funny name running for President.

We know better, so we should do better. If we don't act to stop a Bush III Administration, we have to make sure that propaganda such as this is nipped in the bud. It's up to us to understand this video, as well as the election, for what it is... a chance to begin correcting the wrongs of this administration, and an opportunity to return us to credibility on the world stage. This is one Rebirth that we should not allow to happen.

5 Biblical Reasons Why The United States Is Not A Christian Nation (and will never be with Republicans In Charge)

Not exactly the description given in Revelation 1:13-15, but that never bothered a good ol' American Republican

You hear it all of the time.  Conservatives, the Evangelical Right Wing, the Tea Party, and even the most hardcore racists argue that America was founded as a Christian nation.  Demagogues like Ann Coulter argue that liberal, progressive ideas are the antithesis of Christianity, and that only Republicans corner the market on Christianity.  If you're a Democrat and/or a liberal, you are a heathen unbeliever, and probably a secret Muslim born in Kenya to Communist parents.  


The Republicans believe that if you elect an Evangelical Conservative Tea Partier, you will elect a man (because face it, what "Good Christian" [tm] man will elect a WOMAN to lead him and this great country of ours?) who will take this country back from the Godless heathens who worship at the temple of George Soros and hippies.  Only with a Republican at the helm can this country be brought to its "Christian origins."  I will get to these so-called "Christian origins" later, but for now, in a method made famous (at least in my head) by Cracked.com, I present to you:


5 Biblical reasons why America will never be a Christian nation (with the Republicans in charge).  

1)  Scripture:  Matthew 25:31-46

³¹ “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. ³² All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³ He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.    ³⁴ “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. ³⁵ For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, ³⁶ I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
   ³⁷ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? ³⁸ When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? ³⁹ When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
   ⁴⁰ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
   ⁴¹ “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ⁴² For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, ⁴³ I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
   ⁴⁴ “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
   ⁴⁵ “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
   ⁴⁶ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

So how does this prove your point?
This scripture gives us teachings from Jesus about how we are to treat one another.  I don't have to provide a litany of links to prove that the Republicans seem to flat out hate the poor.  They support policies that favor the wealthiest Americans, and support cuts that affect the least fortunate.  Anything that does not allow major corporations to run rampant and unchecked is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, and it's bad for this country.  But in the Scripture, Jesus clearly states that the way you treat the least of those around you is the way that you treat Him.  Every GOP candidate is talking about cutting so-called "entitlement programs", because they are a drain on this country's resources.  The fact that the poor often SURVIVE off these "entitlement programs" that the GOP looks to decimate means little to them.  What matters more to them is that the extremely wealthy and the corporations (which are people, too -- Mitt Romney) get tax break after tax break, and that these same corporations continue to run completely unregulated, for the good of "the free market."


And you often hear these same people (with such disdain for the poor) act as if their acts are God-ordained.


2)  Scripture:  Acts 4:32-37 

³² All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. ³³ With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all ³⁴ that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales ³⁵ and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.  ³⁶ Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”), ³⁷ sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet. 

So how does this prove your point?
Pop quiz:  When was the last time that you heard a Republican bragging about sharing what he/she had, or opening his home to the poor?  When was the last time you heard about a Tea Party rally where the proceeds went to feed the needy?  When was the last time a prominent member of the GOP advocated a policy that encouraged helping the needy?


You haven't.


Why?  Because according the the Republicans, these actions are nothing but a redistribution of wealth from hard-working Americans to the leeches and lazy good-for-nothings who need to get off welfare and get jobs.  In other words, to the Republicans, acts such as these (especially if they were government policy) reek of SOCIALISM.  


And all you have to do is Google any GOP contender to see how he/she feels about the eeeeeeeeevils of socialism.

 3)  Scriptures:  Psalm 15:4-5; Romans 13:6-7 

who despises a vile person but honors those who fear the LORD; who keeps an oath even when it hurts, and does not change their mind; ⁵ who lends money to the poor without interest;    who does not accept a bribe against the innocent.  Whoever does these things will never be shaken. (Psalm 15:4-5)

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. ⁷ Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.  (Romans 13:6-7)

 So how does this prove your point?
Again with the poor.  How is a Good Christian (tm) supposed to keep America on the straight and narrow if they enable the lazy poor people by not charging them interest on a loan?  If these poor people can't pay the exorbitant interest rates on the loans they take out, then they'll never learn to be hard-working capitalist Americans.  The poor should learn from the responsible rich people.  It's not as if they are allowed to get away with interest-free loans and the like.


Does anyone REALLY think that a Republican will support or even initiate a policy that advocates interest-free loans to the poor?


4) Scripture:  2 Chronicles 7:14 

if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land. 

So how does this prove your point?
This scripture actually speaks towards the belief that America was founded as a Christian nation.  The Tea Potty --er, PARTY, love to talk about how the Founding Fathers started this nation as a Christian one.  They love to talk about how everything that President Obama does will lead this nation into the "evils of Islam", despite Obama himself proclaiming to be a Christian (side note:  The Tea Potty --er, PARTY never have reconciled Obama's role as a "secret Muslim" with his roots at Trinity United Church of Christ, under Rev. Jeremiah Wright.  But common sense has never been their strong suit.  /End digression).


But what is it that sets Christians apart from other faiths?


Quite simply, it is the NAME OF JESUS.  Everything in Christianity focuses on doing things in the name of Jesus, praying in the name of Jesus, acting in the name of Jesus.  When addressing a crippled man who was asking for money, the Apostle Peter said "Silver and gold have I none, but what I do have, I give to you.  In the name of Jesus, rise and walk."  (I'm paraphrasing here)  Scripture teaches that even demons recognize the name of Jesus and tremble at it.


So, what does this have to do with the good ol' USA?


Well, the Tea Partiers love to invoke the U.S. Constitution and the Founding Fathers (even if they lie about it or are horribly ignorant about the facts of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution).  If this nation were indeed founded as a Christian one, then wouldn't the actual name of Jesus be listed in the documents that serve as the cornerstone for this great land?


But if you look up either of these documents and search for the name of Jesus in either of them, you will not find His name.  But how can this be?  How can a GREAT CHRISTIAN NATION not have the name of Jesus in its "birth certificate" (yeah, whatever... heh...)?  


The surprisingly simple answer is that this nation was NOT founded as a "Christian" nation.  The Declaration of Independence has one mention of God, and one mention of "The Creator."  The U.S. Constitution has NO mentions of God.  It mentions "Religion", but only in that pesky First Amendment way, where "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." 


Despite Tea Potty (face it, I stopped trying to change this) attempts to rewrite the First Amendment as a way to prohibit any other religions BUT Christianity, the facts are there in black and white.  If this nation were founded on principles of Christianity (as the Evangelicals love to claim), then there would be an explicit mention of the sovereignty of Christ in its founding documents.  But any person or entity that does not recognize Jesus can't be called "Christian."  The U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence do not mention Jesus Christ, therefore, this country was not founded as a "Christian" nation.  Res ipso loquitor.



5)  Scripture:  1 Corinthians 13:1-13

 ¹ If I speak in the tongues^[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. ² If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. ³ If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,^[b] but do not have love, I gain nothing.
 ⁴ Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. ⁵ It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. ⁶ Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. ⁷ It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
 ⁸ Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. ⁹ For we know in part and we prophesy in part, ¹⁰ but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. ¹¹ When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. ¹² For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
 ¹³ And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

So how does this prove your point?
The Bible speaks as length about the power of love.  Jesus Himself said that the second greatest commandment is to love your neighbor as you would yourself.  

However, when you hear about Republicans, they speak more about their love for the wealthiest of the wealthy.  They will fight to the death for the rights of BP to destroy the Gulf Coast.  They will protect the banking industry that devastated the economy.  They will war against anyone who comes against corporations and contractors (i.e. Blackwater/Xe/FluffyBunny Inc or whatever they call themselves these days).  They even grant "personhood" status to corporations, giving those companies free reign in using their wealth, power, and influence to determine elections, buy off politicians, and protect their own interests and desires to accumulate more and more wealth.

But when it comes to people that are in the greatest need, the love is absent.  The poor are mocked and ridiculed, and even blamed for their own circumstances.  Veterans return from war to poor job outlooks and even worse health care options.  Where is the love for those who are hurt, and for those who need assistance, or for those who need help?  We have seen real grassroots protests manifest themselves in the forms of the Occupy Movements, and those protesters have been ridiculed as hippies and lazy bums who just need to get a shower and a bath.  Some have been subject to almost unforgivable levels of brutality, including the veteran that was injured by police officers, and the college students who were showered with pepper spray by an officer who acted as if he was watering some plants.  There is no love given to those who need it, by those who profess that America is a Christian nation.  


BONUS REASON:  The community thing.

During the 2008 Republican Convention, you had intellectual luminaries such as Rudy (noun, verb, 9/11) Guiliani and Sarah Palin mocking the fact that a "community organizer" had the gall and audacity to run for President.

If Republicans felt that this country was/is a Christian one, then being a community organizer should be something that should be EMBRACED, and not ridiculed.  What was Jesus doing during His ministry on Earth?  He wasn't speaking from some magnificent gold-lined edifice, wagging his fingers in shame at the poor.  He was WITH them.  Among them.  He was such a part of the "community" that He ministered to that the religious scholars at the time were aghast.

Being out in the community, getting your hands dirty WITH the people who you are ministering to, is part of being a Christian.  And if you really think about it, Jesus did express His opinions about those who wanted to bring commerce into the church...

Yeah, the whole "cleaning out the temple" thing seems to escape most "Christian" Republicans...

BONUS REASON 2:  What Symbolism Do You Look To Protect?

Good ol' American Republicans look to make flag-burning a crime.  They want to make the desecration of the U.S. flag a crime, because burning it means that someone wants to see America destroyed.  Oh, the flag must be protected at all times, because it is a symbol of what makes America great, and to desecrate it means to desecrate all of the sacrifices that were made to make this nation great.

OK, nationalistic jingoism and borderline idolatry aside, let's say that everything that they said about the flag is true.  If a symbol of something you cherish and love and believe in should not be desecrated or set on fire, then let's go with it.

You never hear Republicans (and former Democrats) complain when arguably the most powerful symbol in Christianity is desecrated and used as a weapon of terror.

Surprisingly, Republicans haven't rushed to condemn this.

So there you have it.  America was never founded as a Christian nation.  And until the Republicans begin to actually live the Christian lifestyle that they profess, and until they have a desire from a truly Christian standard of love and not condemnation, they will never be in a position to develop the United States of America into a Christian nation.

Coming Attractions... In A World...

...Samuel L. Bronkowitz Presents:  "Shut'cher Gobbige Mowf!"

This is a sneak preview of my relaunched blog.  Here is what you can expect when I tell people to "shut they gobbige mowfs"...

You can expect face-meltingly awesome satire, like a sneak preview from R. Kelly's memoirs.

You can expect scathing commentary, such as my thoughts on Republican Convention's "Tribute To 9/11."

When conservatives first started railing about "taking the country back", I had something to say.

There may even be more personal posts as well.

Stay tuned!

Now, let me answer some questions that no one have asked.

Q:  Why that title?  What does it mean?
A:  When I was in Paratrooper school, one of the Airborne instructors was possibly psychotic.  One of his favorite quotes was "Shut your garbage mouths", especially when we expressed our agony at doing a metric ton of push-ups, or when we expressed dismay at practicing our drops onto a steel rebar beam that poked through the sawdust.  And then there was the bunny-hops.  Oh, the bunny hops.

Q:  Are the above things the only things you'll talk about?
A:  No.  I'm a liberal/progressive Christian, and I will talk about all of the things out there that work my nerves... like the Evangelical Right's distortion of Christianity, racism, local politics, national politics, pop culture, the fact that I Used To Love H.E.R. (tm - Common), and so forth.