Of Bayonets And Business... Why Romney's Navy Assertion Makes Even Less Sense

In last night's debate, Gov. Mitt Romney stated this about the readiness of the U.S. Navy:

"Our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917... The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We're now at under 285. ... We're headed down to the low 200s if we go through a sequestration. That's unacceptable to me."
Romney also said the U.S. Air Force is "older and smaller" than at any time since it first flew in 1947. 

President Obama responded with a level of snarkiness and sarcasm that is rarely seen from this President.  

"You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.
"And so the question is not a game of Battleship," Obama continued, "where we're counting ships. It's what are our capabilities."

In other words, the President completely roasted Mitt in this regard.

Artist's rendition

But here is why Governor Romney's assertion, and his desire to increase the military budget by giving the military $2 trillion that it does not need.  As President Obama succinctly pointed out, our military needs have changed over the past several decades.  Our warfare tactics have changed considerably.  When I was in the Army, I was a "Combat Signaler."  What this meant is that I helped to run communication wire from one point to another, so that units can talk to each other.  Shortly after I left, this job was merged with another one, because technologies changed.  We live in a world where we can communicate effortlessly across the globe withOUT wires, so there is no longer a need to string wires across the wilderness (or desert).

The point is that Mitt equates throwing extra money at the military and building extra ships equates to military readiness.  Mitt also champions himself as a savvy businessman.  Has anyone ever seen a businessman run an operation by continuing to throw money at the problem?  Say what you will about Romney's business dealings (and there IS lots to be said about venture capitalism and how it can treat the most vulnerable in the workforce), but no venture capitalist has ever -- at least to my knowledge -- decided that what a company needs to do to become more profitable is to give it more equipment than it needs or demands.  Looking at the auto industry, Romney's business instincts led him to pronounce that Detroit should go bankrupt.  He did not analyze the auto industry and decide "What Detroit needs to stay alive is for the government to build more plants and give GM even more money than it's asking for."

Yet, here is Mitt, saying that the best way for the U.S. to maintain its military might is for the President to give the Pentagon more money, above and beyond what it's asking for.  He's also doing this without regards as to how it will be paid for.  As President Obama stated, our military might is not determined by how many ships we have.  It's determined by how we use the resources, the technology, and the personnel that we have.  Streamlining and being efficient with equipment seems like a good way to manage a business.  Isn't it odd that Mitt isn't applying these same principles to this country's defense budget?

Now, don't get me wrong.  I firmly believe that you can't run a government in the same way that you run a business, because a business' goal is to be profitable.  And in lots of cases, those profits may come at the expense of people.  I just find it unusual that Mitt (while almost totally agreeing with Obama on every point) would run the rest of the government like a business... except for the military, which he wants to give plenty of hand-outs.

It doesn't make for an effective Commander-in-Chief.

Surprise Keynote Speaker To Appear At The Republican Convention

Dateline - Tampa

With former President George W. Bush opting out of the Republican National Convention this August, Republican leaders have been scrambling for a keynote speaker that will ignite the conservative base behind Willard "Mitt" Romney's troubled campaign.

Dark Lord of the Right, Emperor Dick Cheney also opted out, citing reasons that included "avoiding sunlight" and "vacationing in (his) personal sarcophagus, listening to his favorite album, 'The Wails And Screams Of The Eternally Damned.'"

"I especially like track 6:  'They're All Gonna Laugh At You!'"

Party insiders have found a solution that will be the boost that the Romney campaign needs, and the momentum will reportedly carry Romney all the way through the November general election.  In a move that surprised many outsiders, Republican Party Chairman Reince Priebus reached out to former Vice-Presidential candidate and former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for assistance.

"You betcha by golly heck.  My gosh-darned moose-killin', wolf-shootin' pit-bull soccer mom speech is already prepared, and once I finish writing the notes on my hands, I'll...", Sarah Palin stated.

"Now, how many o's are in 'Muslim'?"

Preibus interrupted Palin by assuring her (and the rest of the GOP) that he didn't want Sarah to speak at the Convention.  

"Remember that witch hunter/exorcist that prayed over you when you became governor?  Well, we need you to get in touch with him, so that HE can... well, get in touch with the witches he cast out.  Desperate times call for desperate measures, and we need to call in a few dark favors.  We figured out that there is only one personality that can galvanize the Right behind Mitt.  And for that, we need to do the unthinkable."

By mid-August, the GOP faithful hope to have all of the tools necessary for their task, which include acquiring some blood from one of the many folds in Rush Limbaugh's back fat and strands of Michele Bachmann's hair.  With all of these pieces in place, the GOP plan on conducting a prime-time seance to have the ghost of Ronald Reagan provide stirring remarks to the GOP faithful.

"Well, I do not recall having my spirit be invited to speak..."

If this is unsuccessful, Preibus has a Plan B in store, which is to have Herman Cain and former GOP Chairman Michael Steel perform a heart-warming rendition of some famous "Amos & Andy" routines.

Mittens, Barack, And The NAACP... Some Takeaways

"For the life of me, I don't know why these lazy freeloading cursed people don't like me.  Maybe it's my hair."

As we all know, Republican Presidential candidate Sir Willardham Mittenschweiger Von Romneyton XIII (known as Mitt to his friends and his former employees) visited the NAACP during their national conference.  And in typical patronizing Republican fashion, Mitt talked down to his audience.  One of his "highlights" was when he expressed his desire to repeal "Obamacare."  The response was swift and terrible.  Unfettered by the chorus of boos that were longer than the worst act at Showtime At The Apollo, Romney continued with his speech.  He expressed his desire to "strengthen traditional families" and things like that. Throughout the speech, though, Romney got a mild amount of applause.  He didn't get booed again until he unilaterally decided that he was the best candidate for Black America.  He never elaborated on why or how.  The response for that was equally vicious.

 "Mittens is on some ol' bullshucks..."

"I know, right?  He must have us twisted if he thinks we're falling for his okee-doke..."

Suffice it to say, Mittens' appearance at the NAACP did not go as planned.

Or did it?

I believe that his speech went exactly as planned, and that his entire appearance was a sort of win/win for the Romney campaign.

For starters, Romney is the only Republican Presidential candidate in modern history to speak at the NAACP convention.  So, by virtue of him showing up, he already gets showered with accolades of being "brave" and open-minded, and doing something that even G-Dub hasn't done.

Never speaking at an NAACP meeting?  Mission Accomplished, suckers!

So, he gets a little credit for going into "hostile territory" and delivering a keynote speech.  In an era of low expectations, Romney gets awarded a certificate of achievement for just showing up.

Romney stated that the purpose of his speech was to reach out to the independents, and Black voters who have not made up their minds about who to vote for.  But when you look at the content, the real purpose of his speech was a little more insidious in nature.

Romney's speech wasn't directed towards any independents.  It was a dog-and-pony show to shore up his conservative bona fides.  The GOP has not exactly been circling the wagons around Mitt, and the GOP endorsements have been less than stellar.  The endorsements, along with the Super Pac vows to flood the market with anti-Obama campaigns, focus more on "ANYONE BUT OBAMA" than Romney being the best man to lead this nation.  By going into the "belly of the beast", Mitt was looking to assure his base that he's just as conservative and just as narrow-minded as them.  The fact that the NAACP audience booed him gives Mitt sympathy points.  The reaction was "Those ungrateful Negroes don't know what's good for them. A decent White man comes up and talks to them about what they need, and they BOO him!"

The de facto leader of the GOP, and resident slovenly blowhard degenerate hillbilly-heroin consumer, Rush Limbaugh, even sided with Mitt and said that Mitt was talking over the heads of his audience, and that's why they booed him.  Not-so-suddenly, the NAACP is seen as a divisive, racist organization bent on taking free stuff from good white folk.  I won't even entertain the other, more ridiculous comments that the degenerate bigoted bully made regarding this issue.

And how did Mitt respond to the boos?  He immediately responded by saying that the people who booed were just booing because they wanted free stuff.  Of course they were, Mittens.  In an audience that contained Black professionals in probably every arena, the boo-ers were just freeloading bums who want someone to hand out gubmint freebies.  Because that's what the NAACP has been about since its existence, demanding free stuff from hard-working white folks.

Now, does that sound like the reaction of someone trying to reach out to the independents?  Of course not.  It sounds like the same patronizing garbage that we can expect from the Republican Party.  Remember when Newt Gingrich addressed the NAACP?  He basically told all of the attendees that they need to get off the welfare.  We all know that statistically speaking, Black people do NOT make up the majority of people receiving public assistance.  Gingrich made comments that he would never make to a conservative group, telling them to get off public aid and get a job.  But facts have never gotten in the way of a good racist, hateful screed.  And Romney's speech was no different.  And in the eyes of conservatives, Mittens scored.

But What About The President?

Conversely, President Obama is facing criticism in some circles for not attending, by appearing via video screen, and by sending in a surrogate, as in the Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden.  While Romney's case was a win/win, Obama's decisions could be viewed as a lose/lose.

Had Obama attended, and had he delivered a passionate, fiery speech about what's at stake both in November and beyond, it would not have been interpreted as Obama speaking to the independents.  It would have been viewed as the Black President speaking to a Black organization about the Black takeover of the United States.

I'm only exaggerating slightly.

Instead, President Obama seemed to play it extremely safe, and delivered a tepid speech via video.  The reaction to that speech wasn't exactly robust.

"A video?  That's it?"

"I coulda caught this whole thing on YouTube."

Needless to say, you won't hear the Tea Potty, the GOP, and everyone else talk about this tepid response, but they are trying to create tension by insinuating that Obama is taking the Black vote for granted.  VP Biden DID give a fiery speech, and the only time that he was booed was when he announced that his time was up.  

I don't believe that Obama is taking the Black vote for granted, but I think that he's being far TOO careful about not being seen as "The Black Candidate" or "The President of Black America."  As strategies go, this one was a misstep, because EVERY vote counts.  And the President should know by now that critics are going to condemn him no matter which way he goes.  He could say "gesundheit" when someone sneezes, and a Tea Potty idiot will accuse him of being an atheist Muslim socialist commie terrorist for not explicitly saying "God bless you."


The President should have thrown caution to the wind and addressed the NAACP in person, giving the same kind of passion and fire that made him such a transformative figure that took the Democratic Party by storm in the 2008 campaign.  The opposition is playing for keeps, and Obama should, too.  While his ads are a lot more aggressive, hitting Mitt hard with the outsourcing issue, Obama should leave nothing to chance.  And if it takes a Black President to give a passionate speech to a Black Civil Rights organization to rally up the troops, then so be it.  After all, by playing it safe, what's the worst that can happen?

"I, Sir Willardhampton Mittropublican St. Romneysworth XII, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States..."

And God help us ALL if that happens.

Trayvon Martin, Barack Obama, and the Birther Movement

We are all familiar with the Trayvon Martin story.  The story has gained national attention.  President Barack Obama said something that was very interesting to me.  He said:

"If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon."  Of course, the Right-Wingers had a grand-mal hissy fit about it.  But this isn't about them.  This is to delve deeper into just how pervasive racism is these days.

I am going to take the President's statement one step further.  At the risk of hyperbole, I would say that the President COULD BE Trayvon Martin.  Ever since President Obama was inaugurated, the racists have been working themselves up into a frenzy about Obama's "right" to become the leader of the free world.  Right on cue, they began to rabidly fume about the fate of this country, uniting in a Tea-Potty-inspired chorus of "This is not the America I grew up in!"  From that time until now, the President has faced challenge after ridiculous challenge about his legitimacy as President.

Birther Queen Orly Taitz continues in her Don Quixote-meets-Bride of Frankenstein quest to take the President down.

If the gates of Hell had a greeter, it would look like this.

Thankfully, just about every common-sense judge has laughed her and her ridiculousness out of their courtroom.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is also in on these shenanigans.  The crime rate in Maricopa County must be in single digits, because the sheriff must have nothing else to do but waste Maricopa County taxpayers' money on something that's been settled a long time ago.

The pinnacle of this birther nonsense was media buffoon Donald Trump.  Here is an alleged billionaire who took pride in getting the President to show his (Obama's) birth certificate.  What Trump basically did was brag about getting a sitting President of the United States to show his papers.  Trump bragged about getting to do to a Black man what hasn't been done in decades... show documentation that shows that you are who you say you are.

Let's not forget about the outright disrespect shown to President Obama during the State of the Union address by Joe Wilson.  Even in the hyper-partisan world of politics, a Congressman yelling "You lie!" during the State of the Union address was just flat-out disrespectful.

No, sir.  YOU lie when you claim to respect the office of the President.

Even though she may not be a birther, Arizona Governer Jan Brewer couldn't hide her utter disdain at the President when she disrespected him by putting her finger in his face.

  Nothing says "I respect the office of the President" quite like a gnarled twig of a finger in the face of the office-holder.

Brewer actually said that she felt "threatened" by the President.

Threatened.  By a sitting President of the United States.  By a man who Brewer's political allies dismissed as a mere "community organizer."  By a law professor.  By an Ivy-League graduate.  By a former United States  Senator.

It goes to show that no matter who you are, and no matter how far you go, as a Black man, there will always be some racist who will feel "intimidated" by your presence, and claim that you "don't belong" where you are.

Which brings me full circle back to Trayvon Martin.  Despite the George Zimmerman Defense Blitz that has been launched (the kit comes complete with scary images of a black guy with gold teeth, Facebook posts, and news leaks speculating about Travyon Martin's school suspension), it is crystal clear to anyone -- even Jeb Bush, for goodness' sakes -- that Trayvon was doing absolutely nothing wrong when Zimmerman encountered him.  Despite what the racists would have you believe, Trayvon didn't have to "report" to Zimmerman about his whereabouts, or why he was there.  As mentioned on another website, even if Zimmerman actually WAS a cop, Trayvon was well within his rights to not tell Zimmerman anything but where to put that gun.

No matter who you are, whether you are a high-school teenager or the President of the United States, someone will always feel threatened by your presence as a Black man, especially when they feel that you "look suspicious", or that you "don't belong."  We live in a time where people went from an absolute defense of the President to carrying guns to a protest rally for people who disagree with the President.  And we live in a time where a man with an arrest record and a gun gets the "squeaky clean" benefit of the doubt over the young man he just murdered.

You know, just in case anyone believed for a second that we're living in a post-racial America.

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.

9/11... Never Forget...

I told myself that I wasn't going to say anything in regards to 9/11.  But a ton of Facebook posts inspired this, in addition to all of the tributes at the beginnings of the football games I saw.  There were quite a few statuses that said "We will remember", and "Never Forget."  Well, here are a few things that I think that we should NEVER FORGET.

NEVER FORGET that the only good thing that Bush did in the wake of 9/11 was not panic when he was notified.  Jokes about his intelligence aside, I can't fault him on his reaction while he was in a room filled with children.

NEVER FORGET how Rudy Guiliani exploited 9/11 all the way to the Republican National Convention, where he sneered and mocked things such as being a "community organizer."

NEVER FORGET the worldwide goodwill that the Bush Administration destroyed with his cowboy diplomacy by going into Iraq.

NEVER FORGET how the Republican Party used 9/11 to make a damnably offensive "Tribute To 9/11" video during the Republican National Convention, and how it was used to scare people into continuing the Bush Administration through John McCain and Sarah Palin.  I talked specifically about this horrid piece of terror propaganda here.

NEVER FORGET that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and the downed Flight 93 were not the first time that terrorists launched an attack on American soil.

NEVER FORGET how the Bush Administration used the fear from 9/11 as an end-run around the U.S. Constitution, in order to invade Iraq.

NEVER FORGET that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

NEVER FORGET that Donald Rumsfeld was the Secretary of Defense during 9/11, and his response to the soldiers being sent to Iraq with substandard equipment was:  "As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army that you might want or wish to have at a later time."

NEVER FORGET how the media (including the so-called "liberal mainstream media") sat on their thumbs when the Bush Administration was laying out their case for war in Iraq.

NEVER FORGET that former Bush Administration Press Secretary Scott McClellan basically dared the press corps to call him and the administration out on the criminally deceitful run-up to the war.

NEVER FORGET that Osama bin Laden was a Bush Administration afterthought until the tail end of the Bush Administration.

NEVER FORGET that Osama bin Laden was taken out during the Obama Administration.

NEVER FORGET "Mission Accomplished."

(I'm mentioning these three because there is a campaign out there to almost demand that the Bush Administration gets more credit for taking out bin Laden, and that the Bush Administration is not credited enough with keeping America safe)

NEVER FORGET that all of the intel that was used to hunt down and eventually kill bin Laden was gathered through means other than torture.

NEVER FORGET that the same people who used 9/11 as terror pornography are the same people who blocked health care for the First Responders for almost 10 years.

NEVER FORGET THAT IT TOOK ALMOST TEN YEARS FOR THE FIRST RESPONDERS TO GET THE HEALTH CARE THAT THEY DESERVED FOR THEIR HEROIC ACTS, AND EVEN NOW, IT'S FILLED WITH RIDICULOUS LOOPHOLES.  Ahem.  Sorry for shouting.

NEVER FORGET that 9/11 doesn't "belong" to anyone.

NEVER FORGET that the best way to honor those who have fallen is not through jingoistic wave-flagging, pseudo-patriotic rants about terrorists and Muslims, or sacrificing our freedoms for the sake of "security."

Republicans Prepared To Disagree With President Obama's Handling Of Hurricane Irene

SYGM News -- Even as Hurricane Irene continues to batter the East Coast of the United States, the Republican Party is already preparing its response to President Obama's handling of this weather phenomenon.

"I weep for America, because I'm a Good American."

Speaker of the House John Boehner has already disagreed with how the President is handling the aftermath of the storm, even though the storm is still active.

"We are not sure how the President will respond to this, or how FEMA will respond.  But you can guarantee that it will be a call that is bad for Americans, and bad for this economy.  We are prepared to disagree with the President and his administration on how to handle this, and we are prepared to block any aid that FEMA plans to distribute, unless there are some budgetary offsets on the table.  As of now, we have seen none."

Republican Presidential candidate and Texas Governor Rick Perry is also ready to be proactive in countering the President's response.

"Just as I do while serving as the President of Texas, God Bless Texas, I'm willing to do as serving as the President of the United States, even though I hate Washington.  I would have handled this completely differently than Obama, even if I don't know how he is directly responding.  I would do my best to assure that Ponzi schemes such as aid from FEMA and the National Guard units across the country are not wasted on liberal elites in New York City."

Congressman Michele Bachmann (R-MN), another Presidential candidate, chimed in that she is sure that President Obama and his "socialist policies" will do nothing to aid the people of this country.

"I haven't seen an effective response to a natural disaster since the outstanding way (former FEMA director) Mike Brown handled the Katrina mishap.  He was doing a heckuva job then, and he'll do a heckuva job in my administration."