10 (Biased) Examples of Christian Terrorism

 

jesusgunnedHere we go again, some clueless partisan will now explain how the kid stealing gumballs who will get whipped if he is caught by his folks is far worse than the crack dealer who thinks drive-bys are the best way to deal with competitors or witnesses and whose Mom and Pop will never admit is a nasty sucker instead of their misunderstood little boy.

SATURDAY, AUG 3, 2013 07:00 AM PDT

10 worst examples of Christian or far-right terrorism

Conservatives claim that all terrorists are Muslim, but most violent attacks in the US are carried out by white men

How racist! Did they count the white men who were Muslim terrorists twice?

BY 

From Fox News to the Weekly Standard, neoconservatives have tried to paint terrorism as a largely or exclusively Islamic phenomenon. Their message of Islamophobia has been repeated many times since the George W. Bush era: Islam is inherently violent, Christianity is inherently peaceful, and there is no such thing as a Christian terrorist or a white male terrorist. But the facts don’t bear that out. Far-right white male radicals and extreme Christianists are every bit as capable of acts of terrorism as radical Islamists, and to pretend that such terrorists don’t exist does the public a huge disservice. Dzhokhar Anzorovich Tsarnaev and the late Tamerlan Anzorovich Tsarnaev (the Chechen brothers suspected in the Boston Marathon bombing of April 15, 2013) are both considered white and appear to have been motivated in part by radical Islam. And many terrorist attacks in the United States have been carried out by people who were neither Muslims nor dark-skinned.

When white males of the far right carry out violent attacks, neocons and Republicans typically describe them as lone-wolf extremists rather than people who are part of terrorist networks or well-organized terrorist movements. Yet many of the terrorist attacks in the United States have been carried out by people who had long histories of networking with other terrorists. In fact, most of the terrorist activity occurring in the United States in recent years has not come from Muslims, but from a combination of radical Christianists, white supremacists and far-right militia groups.

Given that Ft. Hood shooting by Maj. Hassan was classified as “workplace violence” you might be able to make a case as far as government records go; if you count the times Islamic fundamentalists with normative scripture to quote have been involved in violence as opposed to Bible Verse spouting Christians doing such things the count would be far more one-sided in the other direction. If we expand our focus world-wide there is no question, almost the only people involved with terrorism today are Islamists; the remainder are a radical and unsupported teaspoon in a bucket of Islamic aggression supported by most of the Imams outside the U.S..

Below are 10 of the worst examples of non-Islamic terrorism that have occurred in the United States in the last 30 years.

Well Virginia, at least one sentence in this piece was accurate, too bad the author could not keep to the ‘examples of non-Islamic’ part instead of turning it into a lynch-whitey-and-the-Christians-fest.

1. Wisconsin Sikh Temple massacre, Aug. 5, 2012. The virulent, neocon-fueled Islamophobia that has plagued post-9/11 America has not only posed a threat to Muslims, it has had deadly consequences for people of other faiths, including Sikhs. Sikhs are not Muslims; the traditional Sikh attire, including their turbans, is different from traditional Sunni, Shiite or Sufi attire. But to a racist, a bearded Sikh looks like a Muslim. Only four days after 9/11, Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh immigrant from India who owned a gas station in Mesa, Arizona, was murdered by Frank Silva Roque, a racist who obviously mistook him for a Muslim.

But Sodhi’s murder was not the last example of anti-Sikh violence in post-9/11 America. On Aug. 5, 2012, white supremacist Wade Michael Page used a semiautomatic weapon to murder six people during an attack on a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Page’s connection to the white supremacist movement was well-documented: he had been a member of the neo-Nazi rock bands End Empathy and Definite Hate. Attorney General Eric Holder described the attack as “an act of terrorism, an act of hatred.” It was good to see the nation’s top cop acknowledge that terrorist acts can, in fact, involve white males murdering people of color.

Deceitful definitions are the hallmark of this list. Neo-Nazi (National Socialism) is a far Left mind-set, not a far-Right one. The Right thinks of itself as the “owners” of the status quo, the “traditional way things are done”; their problem children use its system to steal power and abuse it. Meanwhile the Left sees itself as the “champion of the underdog” to the point that they excuse virtually any crime or ‘gaming of the system’ that puts one of “their own” over on “the Man.” Sounds like divisive tribalism in PC clothing to me.

The #1 on this list is not about Christians or the far-Right, who tend to be theocrats seeking to own the system and not radicals seeking to destroy it. It is about a far-Left, Neo-Nazi loser who was about as un-Christian as they come as well as being rejected by virtually all of the mainstream Right, Middle and Left. This does not for a moment stop the Leftists from pulling him out as a straw man to use against their opponents in the theft of power from the people.

2. The murder of Dr. George Tiller, May 31, 2009. Imagine that a physician had been the victim of an attempted assassination by an Islamic jihadist in 1993, and received numerous death threats from al-Qaeda after that, before being murdered by an al-Qaeda member. Neocons, Fox News and the Christian Right would have had a field day. A physician was the victim of a terrorist killing that day, but neither the terrorist nor the people who inflamed the terrorist were Muslims. Dr. George Tiller, who was shot and killed by anti-abortion terrorist Scott Roeder on May 31, 2009, was a victim of Christian Right terrorism, not al-Qaeda.

Tiller had a long history of being targeted for violence by Christian Right terrorists. In 1986, his clinic was firebombed. Then, in 1993, Tiller was shot five times by female Christian Right terrorist Shelly Shannon (now serving time in a federal prison) but survived that attack. Given that Tiller had been the victim of an attempted murder and received countless death threats after that, Fox News would have done well to avoid fanning the flames of unrest. Instead, Bill O’Reilly repeatedly referred to him as “Tiller the baby killer.” When Roeder murdered Tiller, O’Reilly condemned the attack but did so in a way that was lukewarm at best.

Keith Olbermann called O’Reilly out and denounced him as a “facilitator for domestic terrorism” and a “blindly irresponsible man.” And Crazy for God author Frank Schaffer, who was formerly a figure on the Christian Right but has since become critical of that movement, asserted that the Christian Right’s extreme anti-abortion rhetoric “helped create the climate that made this murder likely to happen.” Neocon Ann Coulter, meanwhile, viewed Tiller’s murder as a source of comic relief, telling O’Reilly, I don’t really like to think of it as a murder. It was terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester.” The Republican/neocon double standard when it comes to terrorism is obvious. At Fox News and AM neocon talk radio, Islamic terrorism is a source of nonstop fear-mongering, while Christian Right terrorism gets a pass.

The Leftist once again gives a pass to the evil of his own sides radicals. while denigrating the Right for the same thing. I think both sides can be guilty of this kind of condoning of crime.

Late-term abortion, the kind Tiller specialized in, is far from cut-and-dried in it’s ethics and morality regardless of your religion, or lack thereof. In a world where 6 month preemies routinely live and prosper the justification for late-term abortion over delivery and adoption start to look pretty damn self-serving. I do not agree in any way with the theocrats on the Right; the only place in the Bible where it even might be talking about abortion is so vague that both sides use it as a proof that their side is the correct one according to scripture. I certainly do not support an individual taking a persons life into their own hands absent a clear and present danger to a person’s life, limb or property. But, we do need to have a conclusive debate on just when a fetus becomes a baby; the present standard seems to be that until a baby breathes air, with permission of the mother, it is a piece of flesh and may be done with as the clinic chooses, i.e. let die and then disposed of or sent to the research labs.

I have always supported a woman’s right to choose, in the first trimester, have been iffy on it in the second and have never supported it except in the case of extreme birth defects or an actual threat to the mother’s life coupled with a likelihood that the baby will be dead or a victim of massive defects in the final three months.

A woman gets to choose, but how many times does society have to allow her to keep choosing? At what point does a woman-with-a-choice become a mother-with-a-responsibility? We would arrest a woman sharing her cigarette and whiskey with her newborn but, we do nothing save frown in disapproval if she does it a day before she delivers; even when the child is ‘wanted‘! This is an indefensible position.

Would I have been willing to shake Tiller’s hand? No.

Do I think he deserved anything but due process of law in his professional life? Again, unequivocally, no.

3. Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church shooting, July 27, 2008. On July 27, 2008, Christian Right sympathizer Jim David Adkisson walked into the Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee during a children’s play and began shooting people at random. Two were killed, while seven others were injured but survived. Adkisson said he was motivated by a hatred of liberals, Democrats and gays, and he considered neocon Bernard Goldberg’s book, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America, his political manifesto. Adkisson (who pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree murder and is now serving life in prison without parole) was vehemently anti-abortion, but apparently committing an act of terrorism during a children’s play was good ol’ Republican family values. While Adkisson’s act of terrorism was reported on Fox News, it didn’t get the round-the-clock coverage an act of Islamic terrorism would have garnered.

Here we have the classic partisan trick of taking some lone-wolf radical and pretending that they represent the mainstream of their opposition; all parties in America are guilty to some extent or another but, this list get nauseating inn how disingenuous it is in it’s attempt to tar the opposition with a brush of distortion and concealed facts.

4. The murder of Dr. John Britton, July 29, 1994. To hear the Christian Right tell it, there is no such thing as Christian terrorism. Tell that to the victims of the Army of God, a loose network of radical Christianists with a long history of terrorist attacks on abortion providers. One Christian Right terrorist with ties to the Army of God was Paul Jennings Hill, who was executed by lethal injection on Sept. 3, 2003 for the murders of abortion doctor John Britton and his bodyguard James Barrett. Hill shot both of them in cold blood and expressed no remorse whatsoever; he insisted he was doing’s God’s work and has been exalted as a martyr by the Army of God.

So, what he is saying Virginia is that the “Army of God” is far more radical than even the “Rev.” Phelps’ group of anti-gay “activists”? What exactly does this say about mainstream Christianity in relation to the normative schools of doctrine within Islam? Is there even a correlation?

5. The Centennial Olympic Park bombing, July 27, 1996. Paul Jennings Hill is hardly the only Christian terrorist who has been praised by the Army of God; that organization has also praised Eric Rudolph, who is serving life without parole for a long list of terrorist attacks committed in the name of Christianity. Rudolph is best known for carrying out the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta during the 1996 Summer Olympics—a blast that killed spectator Alice Hawthorne and wounded 111 others. Hawthorne wasn’t the only person Rudolph murdered: his bombing of an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama in 1998 caused the death of Robert Sanderson (a Birmingham police officer and part-time security guard) and caused nurse Emily Lyons to lose an eye.

Rudolph’s other acts of Christian terrorism include bombing the Otherwise Lounge (a lesbian bar in Atlanta) in 1997 and an abortion clinic in an Atlanta suburb in 1997. Rudolph was no lone wolf: he was part of a terrorist movement that encouraged his violence. And the Army of God continues to exalt Rudolph as a brave Christian who is doing God’s work.

The Army of God is hardly an example of the kind of “Christian” that even the typical ‘radical Christian’ can accept as normative. In Islam, Sunni and Shiite, the norm is support of honor killings, gays executed, and apostates murdered, all with the sanction the Qur’an or ahadith.

Just imagine how much worse the Irish ‘Troubles‘ would have been if there had been hordes of Catholic priests and bishops running around IReland preaching support for the IRA’s violence. Of course the new Irish “converts” to radicalism would have found it confusing when they realized they had joined an atheistic, Marxist group (IRA)!

6. The murder of Barnett Slepian byJames Charles Kopp, Oct. 23, 1998. Like Paul Jennings Hill, Eric Rudolph and Scott Roeder, James Charles Kopp is a radical Christian terrorist who has been exalted as a hero by the Army of God. On Oct. 23, 1998 Kopp fired a single shot into the Amherst, NY home of Barnett Slepian (a doctor who performed abortions), mortally wounding him. Slepian died an hour later. Kopp later claimed he only meant to wound Slepian, not kill him. But Judge Michael D’Amico of Erin County, NY said that the killing was clearly premeditated and sentenced Kopp to 25 years to life. Kopp is a suspect in other anti-abortion terrorist attacks, including the non-fatal shootings of three doctors in Canada, though it appears unlikely that Kopp will be extradited to Canada to face any charges.

And which mainstream, normalized Christian sect is it that supports this kind of radicalism? Army of God? A group so radical that the groups considered radical by the mainstream think they are over-the-line is now normative Christianity?

7. Planned Parenthood bombing, Brookline, Massachusetts, 1994. Seldom has the term “Christian terrorist” been used in connection with John C. Salvi on AM talk radio or at Fox News, but it’s a term that easily applies to him. In 1994, the radical anti-abortionist and Army of God member attacked a Planned Parenthood clinic in Brookline, Massachusetts, shooting and killing receptionists Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols and wounding several others. Salvi was found dead in his prison cell in 1996, and his death was ruled a suicide. The Army of God has exalted Salvi as a Christian martyr and described Lowney and Nichols not as victims of domestic terrorism, but as infidels who got what they deserved. The Rev. Donald Spitz, a Christianist and Army of God supporter who is so extreme that even the radical anti-abortion group Operation Rescue disassociated itself from him, has praised Salvi as well.

So, the only praise this guy got was from a group that Radical Right groups consider too radical? How is this an indictment against any sect of mainstream Christianity? All of the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence endorse honor killing, the execution of gays and apostates as well as other doctrines equally abhorrent to the modern civilised human.

8. Suicide attack on IRS building in Austin, Texas, Feb. 18, 2010. When Joseph Stack flew a plane into the Echelon office complex (where an IRS office was located), Fox News’ coverage of the incident was calm and matter-of-fact. Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa seemed to find the attack amusing and joked that it could have been avoided if the federal government had followed his advice and abolished the IRS. Nonetheless, there were two fatalities: Stack and IRS employee Vernon Hunter. Stack left behind a rambling suicide note outlining his reasons for the attack, which included a disdain for the IRS as well as total disgust with health insurance companies and bank bailouts. Some of the most insightful coverage of the incident came from Noam Chomsky, who said that while Stack had some legitimate grievances—millions of Americans shared his outrage over bank bailouts and the practices of health insurance companies—the way he expressed them was absolutely wrong.

All of which adds up to his being more in tune with Leftists like Chomsky than with conservatives or Christians; another strawman; unless the author’s argument is that only white Lefties commit terrorism.

Of course, Virginia, there are bad people on the Right but, being Right Wingers they will work the system from inside rather than game it from outside.

9. The murder of Alan Berg, June 18, 1984. One of the most absurd claims some Republicans have made about white supremacists is that they are liberals and progressives. That claim is especially ludicrous in light of the terrorist killing of liberal Denver-based talk show host Alan Berg, a critic of white supremacists who was killed with an automatic weapon on June 18, 1984. The killing was linked to members of the Order, a white supremacist group that had marked Berg for death. Order members David Lane (a former Ku Klux Klan member who had also been active in the Aryan Nations) and Bruce Pierce were both convicted in federal court on charges of racketeering, conspiracy and violating Berg’s civil rights and given what amounted to life sentences.

Robert Matthews, who founded the Order, got that name from a fictional group in white supremacist William Luther Pierce’s anti-Semitic 1978 novel, The Turner Diaries—a book Timothy McVeigh was quite fond of. The novel’s fictional account of the destruction of a government building has been described as the inspiration for the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995.

I don’t know about their being “liberal” but, they certainly are NOT aligned with ANY mainstream grouping on either the Left or Right! William Luther Pierce’s own words show that clearly; the closest is the anti-semitism shared with the Left-of-Center Left and radical theocrats from the far Right.

Liars and hypocrites: those are terms that apply pretty well to every politician in the Western world these days, and the Republicans are no better than the Democrats.”

 

“…stop listening to the hypocritical cant of the liberals and the mindless ramblings of the conservatives.”

 

“..But when democracy instead becomes a threat to continued Jewish rule, they are just as fervent anti-democrats.”

 

“… The government we have in Washington now … cannot and should not be reformed or repaired or salvaged. It should be pulled down and have a stake driven through its heart. Everyone who is a part of it should be dealt with in the same way. …… If you want to make an impression on anyone in Washington today, you must convince him that you are willing and able either to hurt him or to help him.”

Clearly this movement is not aligned with conservatives, liberals, Republicans, Democrats or anyone else interested in evolution of society over revolution by a disgruntled minority.

Especially disturbing is when a partisan just makes things up and puts them in the mouth of their opponent; unjustly and dishonestly hanging them with a rope they had nothing to do with making. The last one ion the list full of it, from start to finish.

10. Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing, April 19, 1995. Neocons and Republicans grow angry and uncomfortable whenever Timothy McVeigh is cited as an example of a non-Islamic terrorist…

What I noticed was more of a confusion about why the LEft insists that an anti-government, self-declared agnostic must be conflated with conservative Christians. That hardly adds up to denying that any self-declared “Christian” is without faults.

…Pointing out that a non-Muslim white male [G DeW: WHY do you have to drag race into this? There are plenty of white Muslims in prison for terrorist crimes.] carried out an attack as vicious and deadly as the Oklahoma City bombing doesn’t fit into their narrative that only Muslims and people of color are capable of carrying out terrorist attacks. Neocons will claim that bringing up McVeigh’s name during a discussion of terrorism is a “red herring” that distracts us from fighting radical Islamists, but that downplays the cruel, destructive nature of the attack. [Emphasis added]…

There is one problem with this; There is no mainstream political organisation, Left, Right or Middle, that says any such thing. They all focus on the fundamentalist and radical mentalities.

It is well known on the Right that the majority of American Muslims have absolutely no faith in the representation of the national Muslim “advocacy” groups like CAIR and MPAC. The problem actually is not the perpetrators of terrorist acts, it is the numerous fundamentalist-minded Imams who are the initial radical element; using their authority as religious leaders to cherry-pick from actual scripture and doctrine only what they need to radicalize individual Muslims whenever they can.

“…Prior to the al-Qaeda attacks of 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing McVeigh orchestrated was the most deadly terrorist attack in U.S. history: 168 people were killed and more than 600 were injured. When McVeigh drove a truck filled with explosives into the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, his goal was to kill as many people as possible. Clearly, McVeigh was not motivated by radical Islam; rather, he was motivated by an extreme hatred for the U.S. government and saw the attack as revenge for the Ruby Ridge incident of 1992 and the Waco Siege in 1993. He had white supremacist leanings as well (when he was in the U.S. Army, McVeigh was reprimanded for wearing a “white power” T-shirt he had bought at a KKK demonstration). McVeigh was executed on June 11, 2001. He should have served life without parole instead, as a living reminder of the type of viciousness the extreme right is capable of.”

Here we run up against the Leftist’s cherished fantasy that the KKK and all of the most violent and virulent racism from American history came from Republicans when the truth is that until the late 50’s and early 60’s when Federal court decisions made their legislative foot dragging on integration moot did the Left STOP being the ideology of the Black-hater, Jew-hater or indeed the “other”-haters they had always been; at least in public, there is no sign that the racism of the Left has done anything but morph into a more subtle and slimy form.

Before the Civil War the people in the North that most opposed abolition were Democrats; in the South the ones who supported it were Republican. During the Civil War (or The War, as Southerners like to refer to it to this day) The people in the North who opposed the war were Democrats. After the war was over the KKK was formed by, once again, Democrats.

In the 50’s it was Democrats who perpetrated the famous acts of violence against peaceful protestors; Gov. Wallace – Dem, Bull Connor – Dem, MLK’s assassin – Democrat… the list is endless. Republicans have their faults to be sure, any partisan grouping is going to have them running out of their ears but, if you hang someone, use a rope that they made, not one you crafted to lynch the innocent.

 

Guy DeWhitney on Government by Heretics Crusaders

My ideal of government:
Un-self-consciously, individual humans that are raised to feel a profound duty to protect all aspects of seldom/individuality that neither “picks someone’s pocket nor breaks someone’s leg” and a profound respect for the notion that we are all one and what goes around not only comes around, it DIRECTLY affects us; i.e. “successful” assholery damages a psyche’s ability to make ‘good’ choices in the future.Guy DeWhitneys Heretics Crusade

Calling Yourself Liberal and Religious won’t MAKE You a Good Person

PartyPlayFairDemo

Today we have two re-writes of older articles that seem very relevant today:

First, we will take the “Liberals” as well as the “Conservatives” to task for partisan hypocrisy…

Nowadays the word Liberal is often used as a pejorative; I often use it that way myself for good reasons.

Yet I am a moderate, and probably spend about 40% of the time cursing the idiocy of the Left, and 60% of it complaining and worrying about the Right (It is too bad there are not more real conservative minds in the Conservative camp these days.). Of the two the Conservatives tend to scare me a bit more but the Leftists in total power would be/ have been worse. But the actions of the radicals on either side do not condemn entire schools of thought to a mature mind.  This should be remembered by pundits on both sides in this age of attack politics.

 Lately a radically Conservative group has taken over almost all the political voice of conservative American Christianity.  They have used their pulpit to propound, and pound in, their own view of history, and how Christianity has influenced the development of the United States as a nation.

 They are not actually lying about the influence of the churches. The problem is that they have forgotten from just where in the Church all that influence came.  Yes, it was those damn liberals every time!

 In American history, every time the religious culture has had a profound positive influence (as judged by successive generations) on changes in society those influences have their roots in the Liberal-to-Radical churches. They most certainly did not come from the Conservative ones!

 The Conservative Churches in every case have held the line with the status quo through history whether it was regarding the Revolution, slavery, child labor, workers rights, racial equality or now, gay rights.  Yet the Conservative Churches of today want to shine their halos with the contributions made for the most part by the Liberal Churches of the past.

This activity is not unique to Christianity by any means.  A Radical Conservative Jew will spend much energy telling you about Judaism’s amazing contributions to Western society, but will refuse to see that his brand of thinking never produced any of it.  Find a Conservative Imam, and you will find a man eager to convince you that Islam has been an enormously positive contributor to civilization over the centuries.  But if you remind him that blind faithfulness to Islam’s Conservative philosophy had nothing to do with the various periods of (heretically liberal) Islamic glory that he is polishing up for you to admire; he may even take offense.

  In every case where religious and political power intermingle the things that modern world civilization would call progress has only come when the dominant Church(s) is(are) liberal to the point of being heretical (to the parent dogmas and doctrines), tolerant and more focused on understanding, accepting and spreading the “love behind the Law” rather than promoting a zero-tolerance attitude regarding adherence to the “Letter of the Law.”

But only stagnation and decay ensue when the Churches are conservative and cling to a memory, or fictitious ideal, of “the way it should be.”

 It should be noted that Conservative religious thought can have a greatly positive influence on society but, that usually the effects remain chiefly negative.

 Witness: the defense of slavery, and the stances of “Godly” preachers and priests against child labor laws, and minority civil rights laws.

Witness: the attempts at forced, coerced and violent conversions directed at any people of another religion that are under the influence of a politicized religion (theocracies, inquisitions, shari’a states).

 We all admit that Conservatism is designed to be highly successful at keeping the wheels of a society turning. Who but a fool will deny that there is a true virtue most times in maintaining most of the status quo; Leftists take note of the qualifications and keep your straw men to yourselves – I am not Christian, and never have been a Republican, or supporter of either Bush.

 But, it also must be admitted that Conservative governments and organizations have a poor track record when attempting to grease those wheels, to make accommodation for the fact that seems “odd“, “weird“, “different” to the average mind; whether the ideas are good ones or not!

When the going gets rough or to be a creative inspiration for the people who bear the main burdens of pushing the cart of civilization further, faster and safer than our ancestors ever believed it could go Conservatives can be of more a drag chain when they should be acting like the regenerative brakes that go with a hybrid engine.

 Conservative ideology certainly does not allow real flaws in the basic social system to be changed without a protracted, and often ugly, fight with the liberal mindset who are busy finding things that are not really broken to make into really nasty situations with well-meaning new laws and more, and more, and more tension from enforcement, and less and less elbow room for the well-intentioned citizen just trying to get along and improve their lives.

 Without a Liberal element in society, one that has enough influence to smack the current bosses on the head now and then but, not enough to dominate society  a person lives in what is at best a well upholstered slave camp destined to fade into the dust of history.

And…

Without a Conservative element at the core to give perspective and balance a people will… well, just look at the aftermath of every single revolution in the past – the American revolution was actually a colony revolt – it was an independently evolving, functioning society that broke away from the parent nation/culture rather than an indigenous movement to topple all the central power structures and replace them ad hoc with unproven or dis-proven but, “much better” institutions; not long after they succeed the real bloodshed is just beginning!

 Who was it again that decreed with proven ‘Holy Authority‘ that all human problems can, and may, only be solved by a totally Left-wing or totally Right-wing ideology? When did admitting that your Party’s platform cannot solve all problems if followed by “good” people?

The voting public needs to take off their trendy, strait-jackets/sheep-outfits, grow up, and look at reality – of the real kind, rather than the oh-so-importantly-unimportant political sort – and then find the ideal solutions, not the solutions that serve your political tribe while walking over everyone else’s Lives’, Liberties, and frantic Pursuits of Happiness.

Economics 001 a Remedial Course for Modern Monetary Morons

Economics is more than just money

Today there seem to be few people, let alone economists, who actually seem to grasp the basic  ideas of monetary theory upon which they build their roads to whatever fantasy land their prejudices predispose them to believe in. Economists pronounce, politicians spout and pundits pund but, how many of them really grasp, and apply, a basic understanding of what money is; how many have a clue how far everyone has strayed from reality?

Come Virginia, let us begin at the beginning; what is the difference between coinage historically (which is not like coinage in the modern world) and paper “monies“, and just what money really is.

I will be analyzing monetary theory without being bound by any politically oriented school of “economics“, instead I will attempt to put money in the same light that Newton put moving objects; money follows laws that do not respect any political need or opinion and I hope to merely describe what it is and what it is not irrespective of what anyone wants it to be.

Let’s start with coinage, a concept that still holds its place at the head of the parade despite vanishing as a concept by the 1970’s.

Historically, coins were what people now mostly think “money” should be, a portable piece of actual wealth, something “worth” just what its face declares. Don’t forget though that all value is relative, if no-one wants gold, it is “worth” little, if they crave it, it is worth a lot.
Cash monies on the gold standard promised payment in hard coin with value of its own.

At first glance this seems a good system, though it does carry hidden “costs.” If the gold or silver or copper in a coin is “worth” exactly its face value the person or group who minted that coin will lose the amount of “value” (manpower and resources) represented by the minting of the coin from bullion.  No matter how cheaply a chunk of bullion quality metal is turned into coinage that amount of value will be lost to the minter if they receive the “face” value in goods or services in return for their shiny, new coins.

This does not change with banknotes; printing costs plus the cost of the raw materials simply replaces the minting costs; remember, the raw material of a coin is the value of the coin.

For a long time banknotes represented actual bullion in a vault, or somewhere in the control of the issuer of the note, while coins represented actual wealth themselves. But, the ability of coiners to debase the metals they used producing coins “worth” less than their face value, and the fact that not all promissory notes represented an honest promise of actual coinage made the system far from perfect.

Enter “fiat” money. Bitterly fought, this is what “money” is supposed to be, though the transition is far from over globally and nationally.

A “currency” based on the exchange of gold and silver etc. is not in fact a real monetary system, it is barely one step up from barter. In barter or specie based economies not only must a person, or society, have the wealth and productivity to fill their own basic needs, they need to accumulate extra goods (coinage) simply to be able to participate in the system that provides those basic needs and services. Then they must accumulate even more if they wish to enjoy a level of “comfort” far below what is consonant with their current efforts to add productivity and wealth to their communities.

Barter ecomonies belong to an uncivilized past. Coinage was a simple, brute force answer to the problem of trusting someone when you have no way of enforcing that trust. Cash on the barrelhead as they said. Hopefully we have grown a bit beyond that, at least in the Western (civilized, modern) world.

Here is the bombshell Virginia, it is so simple that the “intelligentsia” just can’t get it: In a civilized society the function of money is to serve as counters in the games of economics, nothing more, nothing less. Money is not a commodity as it has no value of its own. Money is supposed to represent the wealth and productivity of the issuer only, not to be “worth” anything at all on its own!

Ideally, if a government wanted a bridge built and had the spare raw materials and manpower to build it, all the gov needs to do is print the right amount of money, and pay for a new road.

They do not make anything appear by doing so, they do not cause “inflation”, they just tossed counters in the game that were needed to let the players turn raw materials and idle bodies into a bridge thus creating wealth, not diminishing it! Or not creating as such, but acknowledging, since keeping the money level in balance with the national productivity is the whole goal.

Ideally, within a nation, it should be practical to pay each citizen with new, non-inflated money in tune with any growth in GDP, just like dividends to stockholders in a corporation. Infrastructure improvements (bridges, roads, universities and research facilities, etc.) would only be “unaffordable” if they used so many resources or manpower that they caused a significant rise in prices and wages in the private sector; wouldn’t that be so terrible, we couldn’t build a road one year because there was no unemployment and people were selling what they made as fast as they could make it!

Practically, especially with the current rats nest of insanity that we call economics worldwide, that kind of system would be almost impossible to implement; more the shame on us for letting things get so messed up.

Simply put, we should not be borrowing the money the government has the sole right to print/mint and regulate!!! The amount of dollars in circulation is supposed to be enough, theoretically, to buy all the goods and services produced this year, instead we treat money as though it is coinage and create a pre-broken system that invites inflation, deflation and puts everyone at the mercy of molehill booms and mountains busts.

Fairness Doctrine is NOT a “Leftwing” Idea!

fairness

I think that in the end Obama will make G.W. look like the best thing since sliced bread BUT, I remember when talk radio was a place where you could LEARN about things and THINK about them, not just gulp down some predigested, group-thunked, sheeple fodder from BOTH sides!

Keeping media free and objective is one of the MOST important ways we can protect our entire society, on both sides!

And while we are at it let’s go back and beef up the media ownership rules!
NO individual or corporate entity should be allowed to own more than ONE outlet of each media type in any one locale.

The only folks who do NOT support that idea are the very ones who seek to under abuse">abuse the concept and impose their mindset on the masses merely by buying enough "airtime" to drown out other voices!

Why do I call myself a both Moderate and Liberal?


(HH Here: As things stand today the words Liberal and Leftist are often used as though they mean the same thing. That is about like saying that the terms Conservative and Jingoist are also interchangeable. Come to think of it that is how BOTH sets of words are used today. Jingoists are branding anyone Liberal with the label Leftist and Leftists demonize anyone who is at all Conservative as a Jingoistic Chauvinist.

So, before we discuss the ever to be feared Leftists and Jingoists let us first discuss what a Liberal and a Conservative truly are.

Dictionary.com says that to be Liberal is to be:
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.

4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners. (HH: Simple note to the vocabulary impaired; Prejudice and bigotry require a person to IGNORE factual data to come to their conclusions about others i.e. it is NOT bigotry to dislike people like Nazis and Supremacists and others who are demonstrably inimical.)

8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc. (Another note for the Leftists, Not bound means you can CHOOSE to go beyond tradition and convention IF it seems desirable, the Liberal is not REQUIRED to abandon them whenever possible.)

9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.

10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.

11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
(This last one is why so many “liberal” reforms have had their impetus from religious folk. Those who interpret their religion with Love see things that those who see God as a legalistic prig cannot. It was not the “Conservative” churches that supported the reform of Slavery or child labor or minority civil rights, it was always the Liberal Churches that spearheaded the way. The Conservative Churches fought tooth and nail until the “Liberal” ways became common wisdom because of the fear-mongering of their resident jingoists who magnified the threat to “Biblical Authority” in each case. Now each cause is embraced in toto by all but the most radical of Rightwing Churches.

Mr. Hill over at Fox and other unreconstructed Leftists should take note that this definition does NOT say a word about radicals or revolutions or Marxism.

O.K. that is pretty clear. So what then is a “Leftist” if they are NOT a “Liberal” you might ask? The short answer is that a Leftist is more or less a Marxist. But I do not think that the short answer will suffice in this forum so let us delve a little deeper.

Back we go to Dictionary.com or any other standard English dictionary:

1. a member of the political Left or a person sympathetic to its views.

O.k. then, what is the “political Left”?

Wikipedia.org has this to say: “In politics, left-wing, political left, leftist and the Left are terms used to describe a number of positions and ideologies. They are most commonly used to refer to support for changing traditional social orders or for creating a more egalitarian distribution of wealth and privilege. …

The phrase left-wing was coined during the French Revolution, referring to the seating arrangement in parliament; those who sat on the left supported the republic, the popular political movements and secularization.[1][2] The concept of a distinct political Left originated with the June Days Uprising of 1848. (HH: The totalitarian excesses post revolution were exclusively the result of extreme interpretations of the “Leftist” movement.) The organizers of the First International saw themselves as the successors of the left wing of the French Revolution. The term was applied to a number of revolutionary movements in Europe, especially socialism, anarchism[3] and communism. The term is also used to describe social democracy. In contemporary political discourse, the term the Left usually means either social liberal or socialist.[4]”

Well there you go, Leftism is NOT Liberalism by any definition. Leftism is radical, revolutionary and ultimately has always expressed itself in totalitarian ways to the limits allowed by other elements in a given society. For the Leftist to attempt to cloak themselves by claiming responsibility for the Liberal progress of the past is simply an attempt to put the wolf in sheep’s clothing. To the great peril of the U.S. the Democratic party has won the White house at the very moment a true blue radical Leftist has come to prominence. ACORN and Van Jones et. al. will be seen as just the tip of the iceberg as the people of the U.S. come to grips with the difference between the Liberal and the Leftist.

So, that takes care of the Liberal=Left fantasy, let us now move on to the dreaded Conservative and the even more dreaded Jingoist.

Let us go forth to Dictionary.com again and look up the word Conservative:

1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.

3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.

4. (often initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.

5. (initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.

6. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.

Well now, that does not sound very bad does it? A Conservative is someone who appreciates the good in tradition and is both slow to accept radical change without good reason and avoids novelty and showiness for their own sake. Doesn’t it sound like the best thing to be might be a person who is Conservative at first but is aware that imperfections need to be dealt with in a Liberal fashion?

Is there anything in that definition that demands that a Conservative never change? Must the Conservative always judge their customs as superior and in need of no reform? There does not seem to be a word about any of that. It just says the Conservative is not reckless or careless or frivolous. Nothing to say you cannot be a somewhat Liberal Conservative nor to forbid a person from being a conservative Liberal.

Both ideologies seem to be about finding the best solutions (or non-solutions for non-problems) for all. The Conservative is more focused on not rushing to mess up what is good without good reason and the Liberal is a bit more focused on making what is wrong right but both have the love of civilization at their heart.

Can you imagine a harmonious, benign society that does not have a healthy presence of BOTH Conservative and Liberal elements keeping things out of the hands of the partisans? I can’t. So why do we follow the mindset of either Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore? THAT I can’t answer.

But what about those Jingoist people? What are THEY into?

Good old Dictionary.com says this about them:

the spirit, policy, or practice of jingoes; bellicose chauvinism.

Bellicose means: inclined or eager to fight; aggressively hostile; belligerent; pugnacious.

And here is good old Chauvinism:

1. zealous and aggressive patriotism or blind enthusiasm for military glory.

2. biased devotion to any group, attitude, or cause.

Do we really need to break it down any further? To the Bellicose Mind, sure of its group’s purity and righteousness, a mind that wants to see things reformed for harmony is no better than one that seeks the destruction of all that is good and traditional.

To the mind that sees The Society That Is as an evil and unfixable obstacle to be eliminated in order to establish the perfect world to come ANY Conservative thought is a reactionary and evil frustration of the destined, and desired, revolution.

Neither group can ever be trusted to compromise or to co-operate in anything but the destruction of a mutual enemy. And Of course, like the Soviets and Nazis, go at each other again the moment that enemy is down for the count. Sometmes they do not even wait that long and defeat is snatched fromthe jaws of victory as a result.

It is never easy being Moderate. You need to be able to stand up to the Chauvinists attempting to control the Conservatives on one side and the Radicals influencing the Liberals on the other. Each are goo at mouthing the right words to their useful idiots to keep them pulling the wagon.

And each is pretending every Moderate is a proponent of the opposition, instead of a free soul seeking solutions rather than questing for victories.

As a Moderate you will be called the worst things that either set of totalitarians can think of and be accused of every crime each extreme has ever committed. But history shows that while most of the trial and trauma of humanity has come from the Jingoists and Leftists, when the dust settles it is usually the decency and stability of the Liberal Conservative middle that has prevailed. It is what has lead us from the Purdah and slavery of the Early Greeks in imitation of the rest of the “civilized World” to the heights of Western Civilization enjoyed and respected today by all who are not seeking unjust power over others. To those who have love for Mankind and God in their hearts the West is most certainly on the path to where we all want to be.

Indeed all of Western History can be seen as the slow triumph of Moderate thought over the partisans who would tear us all apart into warring tribes for all time.

So ignore the calls to hate the Conservative or the Liberal. See them for what they are, battle cries trying to rally the forces of destruction against those who would build instead.

Look to your home, your family, your culture and be a bit Conservative, then look to find the cracks to be found in the most perfect political creations and let your inner Liberal voice your concerns. Protect what is strong and strengthen what is weak. But above all, wish to do good to each other.

Big Game Hunters Guide to Conservatives and Liberals.

When venturing out into the hostile wilderness of politics seeking a prize for your mantle it is good to know as much as possible about your game.

Conservatives are elusive game. The problem is that they come in three different types. Quite distinct and with different values as trophies.

The first type of conservative to be found on the veldts of D.C. is known as the Business Conservative. The only thing conservative about this creature is it’s suit and home life. Essentially these beasts are of the jackal family existing only to prey on the weak and the old. Much of government regulation is made to deal with the rampages of these beasts. They are hard to winnow out though from other stripes of Conservative as they take on protective coloring to hide their bloodthirsty tendencies. The most notable of this degenerate breed is known as Bernie Madoff.

The Business Conservative is a dragline to progress wherever he or she, is found. On the other hand the very excesses of this breed of scavengers has provoked many laws dealing with things as diverse as child labor and general workplace safety.

Another breed of Conservative is known as the Jesus Freak. This one is also hard to identify with certainty as the B.C. most often disguises himself as one. A number of True Conservatives also can be mistaken for this breed at first glance but will show its true colors with study.

The true Jesus Freak is essentially a theocracy believing heretic of the Christian religion. Their supposed savior and teacher Jesus taught in unequivocal terms several lessons that these critters chose to ignore while striving to create a heretical government in His very name.

The first of these lessons is that prayer in public, especially for a SOCIAL purpose is anathema. The only true prayer to God according to their prophet is in private and just between the Christian and God. He goes on to disapprove the person who prays in order to be SEEN to pray, for social status . Yet we find that “pious” public prayer by individuals and groups is the hallmark of the J.F.!

The Teacher the J.F’s claim also taught that his followers were not supposed to seek a civil government based on His teachings. They were to hold their relationship with God in their hearts, not base the machinery of government on it. This too the J.F. ignores blithely. Many believe the J.F.s to be degenerate Christians while others feel they are more like the B.C.s, a wholly alien breed hiding amongst the real Christians.

The last main species of Conservative is what we choose to all the True Conservative. This is a self reliant individual who has no more desire to interfere with others private affairs than they desire others to interfere in their own. The often are Christian or Jewish but need not be religious at all to follow their herd. In fact they do not tend to homogenous herds but are salted amongst the other breeds of Conservative and even in non-Conservative herding grounds. They tend to be generous but slow to true friendship. Once made however this connection will bear great strain. The True Conservative can be your best friend in times of trouble and won’t trouble you in good times.

The T.C. is a hardy breed that will often be found on the frontiers of society hewing a new path of their own in the wilderness unlike the other two who tend to huddle and herd in “safe” zones that do not challenge their assumptions.

Interestingly this huddling tendency is shared by some of the Liberal breeds as well.
The Liberal herds are much more amorphous compared to the Conservatives. They exist as more of a spectrum than a set of sub breeds. At the far right of this spectrum the Liberal blends imperceptibly into the Moderates and causes few problems. Indeed the Middle Left part of the Liberal herd has been responsible for most of the social “progress” the whole Human race has made.

From the middle of the Liberal herd to the very Left fringes however an strange disorder overtakes the herd. A disorder that is ultimately not usually fatal but always debilitating to not only the Liberal breeds but any others living in close proximity.

This disorder shows itself as a form of self hatred directed at the entire herd in reverse proportion to the herd’s own progress with the disorder. The most infected parts are not attacked at all while non-infected Liberals can be viciously mauled even worse than would a non-Liberal who wandered into their grounds.

The mindset of the Leftmost Liberals is a hard thing for an outsider to distinguish from a J.F.. Both breeds have an overwhelming desire to take their fantasies and impose them as law on all other breeds in the land and will mutilate and maul any who disagree with their “Truth” while claiming the highest moral ground. Both the L.L. and the J.F. seek a totalitarian, essentially fascist society that conforms to their ideal of a “Proper society”. Woe betide any who stand in the way of these subherds when they are on the move.

Please take note that this article only refers to the American breeds. Elsewhere the main breeds also exist but the J.F. can take a number of different forms based on different religions, some of which make the most vicious North American J.F. look like a tame kitten.

Please remember that the T.C. is currently on the endangered list and protected. Also, the law allows you to tag, photograph and release but culling the herds is something we must leave to natural processes.

Yes, sometimes the Head Heretic gets a bit hot under the collar

(I wrote this shortly after the surge began last year. It has been slightly edited due to the fact that I am not quite as pissed off now.)

O.k. I am getting very upset at the hard-core Liberals now. I have to admit it was getting to be a bit boring being angry at the neo-cons while simply being contemptuous of the spineless liberals. But this is too much people.

Let me be clear as to what I mean by hard-core Liberal. To be liberal in almost anything is not usually bad. Just about all social progress since the beginning of man has sprung from the liberal side of our hearts.

But that does not mean that to be conservative is bad either. It is the conservatives of history who held things together and usually saw the worst threats to their societys first. Of course they made up quite a few threats as well, but that’s for another article.

By Liberal I mean someone who runs everything through a political sieve that is not particularly “liberal” but conforms to an unrealistic “ideal” against which the real world OF THE OPPONENTS must be tested. Their own inconsistencies are never examined. but because they are supposed to be in support of the underdog and have warm-fuzzy hearts we are just supposed to assume their motives are pure and their menas the best.

Take Bi-lingual education. It just is not nearly as effective in getting a person through the transition to a new language as immersion. In fact it is shown in study after study that children that are bilingually educated have a much harder time becoming fully fluent in the new language.

Now if the Liberals want to champion the little guy while making sure his kids can’t do more than clean their pools I guess they picked a good tactic. On the other hand if they want the kids of non-English speaking parents to assimilate and have the best opportunities they should put them in an immersion class for one year then mainstream them. Children are so plastic in their language even just mainstreaming them is highly effective.

Within a couple weeks they acquire a basic working use of the language and in a year they are fluent. Which method is more “compassionate”?

Now on to why I am so angry.

I think everyone would like to see Iraq concluded as soon as possible, with the possible exception of Haliburton. But if we learned anything from Vietnam is has to be that to cut and run instead of winning is a crime against both the people of that nation as well as our own. To simper away like cowards is to betray every promise of what America is about. We messed in that place now WE MUST FIX IT! That means we MUST STABILIZE IT BY WHATEVER MEANS POSSIBLE. In other words, we have to WIN.

I have watched and said nothing for far too long about the Left of the left and their garbage because of the clear and present excesses of the Right. But no more.

You had no problem yelling and whining about too few troops in the beginning, and you were right, THEN.

This is Vietnam all over again alright; a bunch of clueless cowards sabotaging any effort to win while demanding a quick resolution!

You know what I have learned in my 43 years of watching the circus we call politics? The worst things that people like that fat ass Limbaugh have said about liberals is TRUE…about the HARD Left.

Of course it is equally true that the just as fat opportunististic Michael Moore is right about the hard-core Neo-cons.

but neither is right about the whole “opposing” philosophies being evil. They are not even natural opposites, just different aspects of how we look at things.

It is obvious to anyone with half a mind that more troops would be a good thing toward making things secure. How do you tell your son in uniform that he is safer as we withdraw in humiliation before an arrogant bunch of fanatics with fewer and fewer people behind him.

The sooner we can get to a point where we can gracefully depart the better. ANY other resolution would be a national disaster for us and THEM you bleeding hearts! Think about that! If you are so freaking worried about Iraqis you should be asking for MORE troops! We still should be trying to hang everyone in the particular chain of command of things like Abu Graib (right up to the VPres. Mr. Cheney) but you need to stop being hypocrites and support a RESOLUTION to the war that is good for everyone, not just a hook you can use to gouge the opposition in the next election.

O.k. it is a civil war, so we put it down!!!!! If you actually look at sources on all sides you will see that depending on where you look people hate us or are hopeful that we might actually get off our butts and keep them safe.

Last year there was a demonstration in the streets of Baghdad with over ten thousand people. Guess what they were protesting. The violence, the killing OF IRAQIS BY FACTIONALISTS!!!! The majority of Iraqis want things to stop blowing up, little more.

We need to act decisively against military targets and PROTECT THE PEOPLE and win the war. For criminy’s sake it is a flippin’ desert, how hard would it be to secure the borders (the killer problem with Vietnam militarily) with MORE TROOPS?

The hard Left whined and moaned about inadequate armor and troops in the beginning, now the Hard Lefties want Your sons and daughters to die, well equipped but too few to survive so they can reap the political fallout here!

When are the moderates of both sides going to stop letting evil minds and hearts control their thoughts? When are the military people going to stop playing the politics game and tell everyone what they need and how they need to use it. The government should put limits on what they can do, THEN GET OUT OF THEIR WAY!

Things like Abu Graib and Guantanamo didn’t come from a professional soldier’s mind I guarantee that! They came from an evil, political worm. And those worms eat the apple from both sides! And we and the Iraqis’ keep bleeding!

Update: the Surge has worked and things are much more stable.