Showing posts with label Evangelicals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Evangelicals. Show all posts

Monday, October 15, 2012

Fundamentalists the same everywhere?

You know, if you replace the words "God" and "Jesus Christ" in these people's quotes with "Allah" then they sound just like the Muslim Brotherhood.  Just for fun, I've taken some quotes from this story to show you what I mean:

One indignant worshiper raised his voice, and demanded to know: “Am I trying to start a revolution?  The answer is ‘yes’,” he continued. “I’m not trying to get our guns to march on Washington, but we need to do two things: Get on our knees … and spread the Koran to our fellow men.”


Others responded with: “If we don’t do something now ... We need to get over our fear”, as well as a warning that “America is gonna have Allah coming after her”.


In a chaotic group discussion, I was repeatedly bombarded with a chorus of: “The only answer is Allah."

Brother Jerry said the value of the dollar was affecting his retirement savings, before reaffirming, “We’re fundamental Muslims, and Allah is in control of the economy."

Kevin, a telecom installer, then explained, “When we push Allah aside, he curses the economy. The whole world is suffering because we’ve been disobedient to Allah.”

“When we all get right with Allah, then the economy is gonna be fixed, the country is gonna be fixed, and the world is gonna be fixed.”

"I’m going to vote for Mitt Romney," Kevin said. "But the answer is not Democrat or Republican - it’s Allah.”



Gee, I guess Bible-thumping American fundamentalists aren't that different than religious fundamentalists anywhere else.

P.S. -- But seriously though, the answer really is Allah.


By Ben Piven
October 10, 2012 | Al Jazeera

Sunday, October 14, 2012

'08 vs. '12: 'The 'Most Important Election Of All Time'


Andrew SullivanBill Maher and others have mentioned this dug-up letter from the anti-gay Christian group Focus on the Family in 2008 that gave 34 dire predictions if Obama got elected.

Exactly none of them has come true.  BUT if we re-elect Obama, surely all of them will.

Seriously though, don't these people feel at all ridiculous playing Chicken Little, over and over again?


By Libby Anne
October 1, 2012 | Patheos

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Another nail in the GOP's coffin

The GOP is already in trouble, demographically.  They already lost blacks and women, and they're losing Hispanics; meanwhile, the GOP is "not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."  And now there's this:

The [Pew] study, titled "Nones" on the Rise, indicates that 1 in 5 Americans now identifies as "religiously unaffiliated," a group that includes those who say they have no particular religion, as well as atheists and agnostics.

Perhaps more instructive is a close look at the age breakdown: If you're under 30, there's a 1-in-3 chance that religion plays little or no role in your life, according to the survey.

"This finding and the growth of this group has very real political consequences and political implications," says Greg Smith, a senior researcher at the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life and a co-author of the study.  "It's heavily Democratic," he says.

Why are so many under 30s turning away from religion?  I side with this explanation:

"There is considerable evidence suggesting that the 'nones' have actually been caused by politics," says Campbell, co-author of American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us. "Many people have pulled away from the religious label due to the mingling of religion and conservative politics."

Conservatives, by making their religion political (or actually subordinating their religion to their politics, I would say), have turned off a whole generation of people from religion (and politics, too).  This all started in the U.S. in the 80s, so it's no surprise that kids born then and grew up in this evil mix of religion and politics can't stand it as young adults.




By Scott Neuman
October 9, 2012 | NPR

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

For conservatives, charity's all about THEM

Rush Limbaugh's latest monologue on government assistance vs. charity is quite telling on his part.  Unintentionally so.

See, he sets up government assistance and charity in opposition to one another. That's not necessarily so, it's not a zero-sum game, but let's go with his conceit. So, which one is better?

I've settled this before.  First, look at U.S. poverty statistics pre- and post-LBJ's War on Poverty.  Presumably, America has been just as Christian and charitable all along, so the only independent variable here is government spending, which made all the difference.  Second, there is scant data on how effective charity is.  (I'm not talking about overhead rates; I mean, how well do they achieve their stated mission.)  Most charities don't seek to measure their effectiveness, and most contributors don't demand it in the first place.  So next time somebody tells you charity is more effective than government assistance, ask him to prove it.  He probably can't.  Or if he can, only anecdotally*.  Third, and perhaps most important, both charitable giving and poverty are pro-cyclical.  So as people's incomes go down in tough economic times, so does charitable giving.  As a result, charity is at its weakest when it's needed most.  Whereas government can borrow all it wants at low interest rates even during downturns -- especially during downturns, in America's case.  (Never mind, for now, the downsides to over-borrowing.)

Beyond the pre-eminent effectiveness of government aid, what's so telling about Rush and conservative's view of charity is their focus on the giver.  See, with government assistance there is no "should I/should I not donate" moment of moral decision-making for the giver.  The decision on the amount, the form, and the recipient, is decided by our elected officials. According to conservatives, government assistance "deprives" givers of the good feeling they get from giving.  And it "deprives" them of the moral opportunity to be good Christians and decide personally whom to give their money to.  You see, it's all about making them feel good and getting them into heaven, not helping the needy.  

That shouldn't surprise anybody, since their rock-bottom belief is that our world is evil and sinful; it is a "vale of soul-making" constructed as an elaborate test to separate the Saved from the Damned, like God's version of Survivor.  Therefore, by design we are not entitled to enjoy our time on Earth, they firmly believe.  Indeed we should expect pain and privation, perhaps even welcome the chance to endure it.  And if we are well off, well... according to Evangelicals at least, that's a sign of God's blessing for a righteous life.  Thus it is doubly sinful of government to "punish" the righteous with higher taxes as it "takes away" their chance to be charitable.  Rush dog whistles at this all the time.


I know too many Christian conservatives to say, as some liberals do, that this is all about their greed. For the super-rich One Percent, it certainly is about greed.  But for the GOP base it is not so simple.  Nay, there is a distinctly Evangelical Christian underpinning to all this.  (Rush acknowledged the rift among Christians by calling out the Catholic Church's consistent and principled stand for government aid to the needy.)  Nevertheless, it's all about their feelings and their salvation, not the needy.

(*The question of results/performance is all about them, too, in a way.  Monitoring and evaluation of results demands precious resources that many small charities don't possess. A possible way to overcome this is to have many small charities working very locally, where the results are "evident" to givers.  "Seeing is believing" for most conservatives who distrust statistics, especially government stats.  They may also want that good feeling of seeing the people they benefited.  But to have only micro-scale charity would not only be inefficient and duplicative, but also dangerously inadequate and unequal, because it would concentrate charitable giving around wealthy people, creating vicious cycles of local poverty and virtuous cycles of local well-being, both isolated from each other.)

It really does come down to whether or not you believe we're all in this together. Conservatives don't.  

If you do, then the question is not so much the how (the process of giving assistance), but the result (improved well-being for the needy).  To put it in ethical terms, liberal-progressives believe that one's personal moral satisfaction should not come from being a superior charitable giver (in relative or absolute terms, no matter); one's satisfaction should come from knowing that he contributes to a fair and just society that guarantees the basic needs and dignity of those who can't take care of themselves, for whatever reason.  Liberals don't want to live in God's obstacle course for human gerbils; liberals want to live in a normal, civilized country where everybody is better off.  It is well within our power to make that happen, therefore it is our moral obligation.  

If you're morally serious about that aim, then you have to look at statistics, you have to put pre-conceived notions aside, and make evidence-based decisions.  And government assistance, as mentioned above, has proven in every developed country to be the best way to achieve that aim.


September 11, 2012 | The Rush Limbaugh Show

Friday, August 17, 2012

Why GOP Congressional staffer quit after 28 years

Yikes!:

Mike Lofgren: Well, I would say that in today's GOP, Ronald Reagan would be considered too moderate. After all, he pleaded with Congress to pass a clean debt relief bill when the deficit threatened to get out of hand. He passed several tax increases.

Does that mean that Zombie Reagan is not the answer to the GOP's prayers?  Today, would the Party's Bachmanns, Palins, Pauls and Wests just as soon put a bullet through his rotten RINO brain?



By Joshua Holland
August 13, 2012 | AlterNet

Saturday, May 12, 2012

Stupid is: 'Does [a Christian] God Still Bless the USA?'

Said country singer-songwriter Lee Greenwood in his tee-ball interview with FOX about his new book: "... I decided to ask the question: are we still a Christian nation?  Are we changing so much that we're not being the same people as we used to be?  ... So it [the book] kind of support [sic] the theory that Christianity was born in the nation with our patriots."  Huh?  I always thought Christianity was born with Christ in the first century, but what do I know?

Greenwood continued just as stupidly, responding to the question about what he hoped for his book: "Um, well first of all I hope it brings unity.  I mean, I hope it awakens the patriots of America who, uh, believe that, uh, that we are still a Christian nation.  If you go somewhere in another part of the world, where in Europe or wherever, you're gonna see different faiths.  But when I've [sic] always believed we're a Christian nation from the beginning."  

Yeah, telling at least 24 percent of Americans that they are not patriots, nor can they be, should certainly unite us, you moron.  Secondly, it's just plain stupid and wrong to remark that Europe has more religions than the U.S.!  We're the world's melting pot, for God's sake!  Has Greenwood ever been to New York or Washington, DC?  And speaking of our history, have the Greenwoods of the America really forgotten what was the major religion of some 654,000 odd African slaves forcibly brought to the U.S.?  (Hint: it rhymes with lip balm and psalm.)

Another thing.  The world's three major religions all recognize the same One God, although they differ on the specifics.  Does that mean, in the U.S., that Jews and Muslims can't be patriots?  And I guess Hindus, Sikhs and atheists really have no chance at all.

You can say all this is kind of harmless, silly stuff by a guy who's not polished or ready to be put in front of a mike and hold forth on his views, and maybe so, but I see guys like Greenwood as the softer side of Christo-fascist bigotry that is offered up everyday on FOX and other mainstream outlets and it elicits hardly a whimper of protest.  If we understood what our country was about then this squeaky-voiced twerp's asinine assertions would be challenged loudly, immediately.  He wouldn't be silenced, nevertheless, the majority of polite, informed society, would never give him the time of day.

And oh, for the record: Mitt Romney is not a Christian.  He's a Mormon.  None of the major Christian sects recognize Mormonism as Christian.  (Not that that's gonna stop white Evangelical voters from supporting Romney.  And not that that makes Mormons better or worse than Christians... although some of Mormons' beliefs are really out there....  Religion is basically a club; either you're in or out, that's all.)  So I'm still waiting for Lee Greenwood, Mormon Glenn Beck, and FOXNews's bleach-blonde correspondents to take on that little inconvenient fact.  


May 7, 2012 | FOXNews

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Poll: 1 in 6 voters admits they're morons

Hats off to the Public Religion Research Institute for taking this poll.  It's not every day that idiots willingly identify themselves as such.  Now we know that at least 17 percent of U.S. voters are morons, politically.  

The stupidest demographic of all?  White evangelical Protestants: 24 percent think Obama's a Muslim.


By Lauren Markoe
May 10, 2012 | Religion News Service

Friday, December 2, 2011

Sirota: U.S. Muslims more loyal than Evangelicals

They used to say the same thing about Catholics: when JFK was elected, non-Catholics were worried he'd take orders from the Pope in Rome. Nowadays it's Muslims' turn.


By David Sirota
November 29, 2011 | AlterNet

If you have the stomach to listen to enough right-wing talk radio, or troll enough right-wing websites, you inevitably come upon fear-mongering about the Unassimilated Muslim. Essentially, this caricature suggests that Muslims in America are more loyal to their religion than to the United States, that such allegedly traitorous loyalties prove that Muslims refuse to assimilate into our nation and that Muslims are therefore a national security threat.

Earlier this year, a Gallup poll illustrated just how apocryphal this story really is. It found that Muslim Americans are one of the most — if not the single most — loyal religious group to the United States. Now, comes the flip side from the Pew Research Center's stunning findings about other religious groups in America (emphasis mine):

American Christians are more likely than their Western European counterparts to think of themselves first in terms of their religion rather than their nationality; 46 percent of Christians in the U.S. see themselves primarily as Christians and the same number consider themselves Americans first. In contrast, majorities of Christians in France (90 percent), Germany (70 percent), Britain (63 percent) and Spain (53 percent) identify primarily with their nationality rather than their religion. Among Christians in the U.S., white evangelicals are especially inclined to identify first with their faith; 70 percent in this group see themselves first as Christians rather than as Americans, while 22 percent say they are primarily American.

If, as Islamophobes argue, refusing to assimilate is defined as expressing loyalty to a religion before loyalty to country, then this data suggests it is evangelical Christians who are very resistant to assimilation. And yet, few would cite these findings to argue that Christians pose a serious threat to America's national security. Why the double standard?

Because Christianity is seen as the dominant culture in America — indeed, Christianity and America are often portrayed as being nearly synonymous, meaning expressing loyalty to the former is seen as the equivalent to expressing loyalty to the latter. In this view, there is no such thing as separation between the Christian church and the American state — and every other culture and religion is expected to assimilate to Christianity. To do otherwise is to be accused of waging a "War on Christmas" — or worse, to be accused of being a disloyal to America and therefore a national security threat.

Of course, a genuinely pluralistic America is one where — regardless of the religion in question — we see no conflict between loyalties to a religion and loyalties to country. In this ideal America, those who identify as Muslims first are no more or less "un-American" than Christians who do the same (personally, this is the way I see things).

But if our politics and culture are going to continue to make extrapolative judgments about citizens' patriotic loyalties based on their religious affiliations, then such judgments should at least be universal — and not so obviously selective or brazenly xenophobic.

Thursday, December 2, 2010

NKY: Mecca for morons?

Great, now add Ark Encounter to the Creation Museum. NKY wasn't the sharpest to begin with, but now it's becoming Mecca for Morons in search of christo-tainment.

(Get this: you can donate a peg for the Ark for $100, a plank for $1,000, or a beam for $5,000. I think a splinter is more my speed....)


Creationist Theme Park Supported By Democratic Kentucky Governor
By Nick Wing
December 1, 2010 | Huffington Post

URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/01/kentucky-creationist-theme-park_n_790283.html

Sunday, October 18, 2009

And the GOP's 2012 contenders are...


I know it's almost obscene to talk about the 2012 election already, but... I couldn't resist sharing this Rasmussen poll of Republicans, because it's great news for Obama: none of the top 5 GOP candidates holds any public office, therefore they will get almost no attention from non-GOP voters; and Mike Huckabee is the frontrunner with 29% support, including "huge support" from Evangelical Christians, who hold veto power over the GOP nomination. (The 6th-ranked candidate is Rush Limbaugh, if you count the 11% of Republicans who consider him the leader of their party.)

Note that Rep. Ron Paul, whose bill to audit the Fed is quickly become this year's most popular piece of bi-partisan legislation, is not even in the running. But don't expect that to last. He has retained his huge netroots support and his Internet fundraising infrastructure. And unlike the rest of the pack, who spend their time writing books about themselves and then doing the speech circuit, Ron Paul is actually doing stuff. But he'll never win, regardless -- the Evangelicals and neocons will make sure of that.

I almost feel sorry for the GOP, because they're in such a rut: The contenders can't get their party's nomination unless they win over the Jesus freaks and the rabid anti-immigration mob, but in doing so, they shock and alienate the rest of the electorate. Meanwhile, there is a niche candidate who "owns" each important issue (religion, anti-immigration, small government, etc.) who can out-flank anybody, like Romney, who tries to fight on all fronts at once.

All this is adding up to a repeat of 2008, when everybody and their grandma ran for the GOP presidential nomination and nobody cared. The difference in 2012 is that there looks to be no "establishment" candidate whom everyone can grousingly get behind after all the internecine blood has been spilled. The Republicans will divide and conquer themselves again; and meanwhile Obama, even if he is a mediocre sellout as President, will coast to re-election.


October 17, 2009 Newsmax.com

Friday, May 1, 2009

WWJT?



Churchgoers more likely to back torture, survey finds

April 30, 2009 | CNN.com


The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new analysis.


More than half of people who attend services at least once a week — 54 percent — said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is "often" or "sometimes" justified. Only 42 percent of people who "seldom or never" go to services agreed, according the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.


White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified — more than 6 in 10 supported it.


People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only 4 in 10 of them did.


[I'm shocked. - J]


The analysis is based on a Pew Research Center survey of 742 American adults conducted April 14-21. It did not include analysis of groups other than white evangelicals, white non-Hispanic Catholics, white mainline Protestants, and the religiously unaffiliated, because the sample size was too small.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Uthman: Palin reveals McCain campaign's cynicism

OK, even if you hate this op-ed, you gotta check out the Chappelle show clip referenced herein!  I promise you'll laugh.


Palin-Drones
By Allan Uthman
The Beast

A few months ago, a friend asked me who I though McCain would or should pick to be his vice presidential candidate. "I think if I were working for McCain," I said, "I'd wait until Obama makes his choice, and if he picks a man, pick a woman, or if he picks a woman, pick a man." You know, work the difference. So it was no surprise to me that McCain picked a woman. But, just like everyone else, I was dumbfounded that woman was Sarah Palin, one-year governor of a state over twice the size of Texas with the population of El Paso (there is one person per square mile in Alaska).

It seemed at first that McCain may have thrown the election by choosing an unknown, unready running mate with a BS in communications from Idaho University and a hard-right Christianist ideology, in a ploy to woo disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters. "We're not that stupid," came the cry from insulted feminists, and they were right to recognize that Palin did not in any way represent their ambitions.


But it turns out that they are that stupid, or at least some of them are. While it seems unfathomable that women who supported Hillary Clinton could flip to the GOP ticket for a woman who is pro-life, pro-assault rifle and pro-Bush just because she's a woman, McCain's numbers among white women have shot up with Palin's stunt nomination. This is incredibly disappointing.


Palin is so obviously not equipped to be president that her own surrogates are not willing to discuss the possibility that McCain could die or become incapacitated in office. "She's not running for president," is the refrain. But of course, the only relevant issue when considering a VP choice, according to both presidential candidates (at least before Palin was picked), is whether they are ready to become president. John McCain will be 73 by January, used to smoke, loves to eat barbecued meat, and has had multiple bouts with serious cancer. If any president was ever likely to die in office, it's McCain. The guy could go any minute, really And yet his campaign thinks it's okay to select a nominee based entirely on demographic appeal, after a single interview.  And then they withhold her from the press, an obvious sign that they know she is not knowledgeable enough to survive under the spotlight. She gives one speech—a single goddamn speech—over and over again, repeating the same, already debunked, self-flattering lies about her fabricated image as a reform-minded maverick, and the press stands up and cheers, just for the novelty of her. This is a step backwards for gender equality, because if Palin were a man, the press would have murdered him by now. Special dispensation is not equality.


What this selection says about John McCain is simple: He doesn't give a damn what happens to this country when he's dead. McCain's personal favorite choices, Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge, are much closer to him in terms of politics and experience. These are guys who McCain would have selected if he were a real maverick, bucking party orthodoxy for the good of the country. McCain would probably have won anyway, impressing independents by risking GOP mutiny to stay true to himself, although he would never have closed the fundraising gap. Of course, there's a good chance that all McCain ever had to do to win this thing was talk about Vietnam and stay white.


One of the most infuriating things to see on TV news—the only news that matters, when it comes to shaping public opinion—is when they do one of those "fact-check" segments while omitting relevant facts. A good example is the squashing of Palin's attempted book-banning episode when she was mayor of Wasilla, a town of 7,000 which Palin left $20 million in debt.


This is from The New York Times:


"[I]n 1995, Ms. Palin, then a city councilwoman, told colleagues that she had noticed the book 'Daddy's Roommate' on the shelves and that it did not belong there, according to [future Palin campaign director Laura] Chase and [former Wasilla mayor John] Stein. Ms. Chase read the book, which helps children understand homosexuality, and said it was inoffensive; she suggested that Ms. Palin read it.



" 'Sarah said she didn't need to read that stuff,' Ms. Chase said. ''It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn't even read it.'


As mayor, Palin asked the town's library director, Mary Ellen Emmons, three times, how she'd feel about book-banning, the last time asking if she'd change her mind if people were picketing the library. Emmons was staunchly opposed. Palin fired Emmons for "not fully supporting her efforts to govern," only rehiring her when there was an outpouring of public protest against the move.


To me, this is a really big deal. But the story has been "debunked" repeatedly in the press, relying on a factcheck.org report dismissing a hoax e-mail that provided a bogus list of books "banned" by Palin. So the story is "Palin never banned any books," which is true, but she sure as hell would have if she could have. The abortive firing episode gets nary a mention, giving the impression that the very idea Palin wanted to ban books is false, when it clearly is not.


And, since Obama's church is such a hot topic, it would seem strange that Palin's church, which preaches end-times theology and glossolalia, has received little mainstream scrutiny. You want crazy pastor quotes? Check out Palin's pastor, Ed Kalnins:


On John Kerry: "I'm not going tell you who to vote for, but if you vote for this particular person, I question your salvation. I'm sorry."


On Bush: "I hate criticisms towards the president, because it's like criticisms towards the pastor – it's almost like, it's not going to get you anywhere, you know, except for hell. That's what it'll get you."


On Iraq: "What you see in Iraq, basically, is a manifestation of what's going on in this unseen world called the spirit world. ... We need to think like Jesus thinks. We are in a time and a season of war, and we need to think like that. ... Jesus called us to die. You're worried about getting hurt? He's called us to die. ... I believe that Jesus himself operated from that position of war mode. Everyone say 'war mode.' "


Yeah. That's where Palin learned about morality. And she was in attendance at the church just weeks ago, as a guest speaker from Jews for Jesus described Palestinian terrorism as a manifestation of God's "judgment of unbelief" against Jews for rejecting Christ. It's not surprising that evangelical Christians are fired up by Palin, but again, I can't fathom the idea that Hillary Clinton supporters are excited about her.


And then there's this little tidbit, from her RNC speech:


"A writer observed, 'We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity.' And I know just the kind of people that writer had in mind when he praised Harry Truman."


That unnamed "writer" was unnamed for a reason. It was Westbrook Pegler, an openly racist columnist who wrote of wishing for the assassinations of FDR—and Robert Kennedy. Pegler's xenophobic, red-baiting politics were so extreme (he described Jews as "instinctively sympathetic to Communism, however outwardly respectable they appeared") that he was booted from the John Birch Society. In 1963, Pegler wrote that it was "clearly the bounden duty of all intelligent Americans to proclaim and practice bigotry." And, by the way, Pegler described Truman as a "hater," and Truman called Pegler a "guttersnipe." High praise, indeed.


It's hard to imagine why Palin or her speechwriter would include a phoned in quotation about how much better small-town people are than the rest of us from such a toxic source, when so many similar folksy platitudes could be pilfered from more benign writers, even ones whose names could be mentioned in public. I can only conclude that this was a coded message to the fascist right, the worst element in American politics, the very people we were all hoping were waning in significance this election cycle, that it was game on once again. I suppose there are plenty of white women who are anti-labor, pro-life, evangelical Christians. It's just that I can't imagine any of them were planning to vote for Obama, or Clinton, before the Palin selection.


Before anyone starts claiming that black Obama voters are equally shallow, consider whether they'd have voted for Alan Keyes. Because that's the nearest analogy I can think of for Palin's politics. Black people wouldn't vote for Alan Keyes, even if he were running against Robert Byrd. They're just not that stupid. So what the hell is wrong with white women? Are they really so aggrieved that Hillary got edged out of the Democratic nomination by Obama that they're willing to ruin the country just for spite?


The tragedy here is that, for all McCain's groundwork in building an image of himself as a man of character, the McCain/Palin campaign is the most cynical in modern American history. No longer feeling the need to even find a fact to hang their hat on, they have broken through the limits of distortion into the realm of utter fabrication, revealing their total contempt for the voting public. They don't twist the truth; the truth's got nothing to do with their strategy. It's much easier to just lie. And it's working. For their lies about their opponents and about themselves, they have been rewarded by substantial gains in key demographics, especially white women. Palin's selection has also enabled them to deflect criticism by crying sexism whenever Palin's obvious deficiencies as a candidate are raised.


And about that: It was the Clinton campaign that opened the door on claiming gender victimization as an electoral tactic. As her chances in the Democratic primary waned, Clinton and her surrogates went hog wild on the sexism charges, lashing out at anyone who dared criticize her. Admittedly, there were some ignorant comments here and there, albeit never from the Obama campaign. But when things got hairy, the Clinton campaign and its supporters leaned on sexism as an all-purpose excuse for losing, and it was a big steaming pile of horseshit.  The fact is that Clinton's gender was pretty much the only thing that distinguished her from a field rife with old, white, compromised senators. If Hillary Clinton were a man, there would have been no telling her apart from Dodd, Biden, or John Kerry for that matter. But Obama, even if you made him white, would still have been young, eloquent, and charismatic. In other words, as weird as this sounds, if you made Clinton and Obama into white men, Obama would have kicked her ass—it wouldn't have been close.


But Hillary's dead-enders insist that their expected primary victories were robbed from them by the "rampant misogyny" of Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, and somehow Obama himself. And as Hillary's defeat drew ever closer, she herself ratcheted up the faux feminist rhetoric, leaving Obama with hordes of angry, inconsolable women blaming him for their imagined oppression, and somehow admiring Sean Hannity at the same time. And now, the Republicans have picked up the tactic and run with it, accusing Obama of calling Palin "a pig" (willful ignorance of cliché metaphors is a symptom of this condition) and labeling anyone who dares scrutinize Palin a sexist, including Tina Fey. These allegations hold about as much water as calling condemnations of Michael Vick racist.


There's a great sketch from the Dave Chapelle show, wherein Chappelle and crew are dressed up as classic movie monsters. Charlie Murphy is Frankenstein's monster, and when he gets fired from his office job, he accuses his boss of racism. A black coworker looks at him and exclaims, "nigga, you a Frankenstein!"


Nobody is after Sarah Palin because she's a woman. The fact is, she's a Frankenstein. And if women are so angry about losing a primary fight that they're willing to elect a Frankenstein, even a female Frankenstein, then they really are gullible, emotional, weak-minded fools, and they really do deserve all the derision they've gotten and more.

Saturday, October 4, 2008

Taibbi: Palin: Aspiring to be no better

Love him or hate him, Taibbi's observations alone are worth the read.  His books and articles will be the first on Palin's banned list, no doubt.

 

Mad Dog Palin

By Matt Taibbi

October 2, 2008  |  Rollingstone.com

 

I'm standing outside the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul, Minnesota. Sarah Palin has just finished her speech to the Republican National Convention, accepting the party's nomination for vice president. If I hadn't quit my two-packs-a-day habit earlier this year, I'd be chain-smoking now. So the only thing left is to stand mute against the fit-for-a-cheap-dog-kennel crowd-control fencing you see everywhere at these idiotic conventions and gnaw on weird new feelings of shock and anarchist rage as one would a rawhide chew toy.

 

All around me, a million cops in their absurd post-9/11 space-combat get-ups stand guard as assholes in papier-mâché puppet heads scramble around for one last moment of network face time before the coverage goes dark. Four-chinned delegates from places like Arkansas and Georgia are pouring joyously out the gates in search of bars where they can load up on Zombies and Scorpion Bowls and other "wild" drinks and extramaritally grope their turkey-necked female companions in bathroom stalls as part of the "unbelievable time" they will inevitably report to their pals back home. Only 21st-century Americans can pass through a metal detector six times in an hour and still think they're at a party.

 

The defining moment for me came shortly after Palin and her family stepped down from the stage to uproarious applause, looking happy enough to throw a whole library full of books into a sewer. In the crush to exit the stadium, a middle-aged woman wearing a cowboy hat, a red-white-and-blue shirt and an obvious eye job gushed to a male colleague — they were both wearing badges identifying them as members of the Colorado delegation — at the Xcel gates.

 

"She totally reminds me of my cousin!" the delegate screeched. "She's a real woman! The real thing!"

 

I stared at her open-mouthed. In that moment, the rank cynicism of the whole sorry deal was laid bare. Here's the thing about Americans. You can send their kids off by the thousands to get their balls blown off in foreign lands for no reason at all, saddle them with billions in debt year after congressional year while they spend their winters cheerfully watching game shows and football, pull the rug out from under their mortgages, and leave them living off their credit cards and their Wal-Mart salaries while you move their jobs to China and Bangalore.

 

And none of it matters, so long as you remember a few months before Election Day to offer them a two-bit caricature culled from some cutting-room-floor episode of Roseanne as part of your presidential ticket. And if she's a good enough likeness of a loudmouthed Middle American archetype, as Sarah Palin is, John Q. Public will drop his giant-size bag of Doritos in gratitude, wipe the Sizzlin' Picante dust from his lips and rush to the booth to vote for her. Not because it makes sense, or because it has a chance of improving his life or anyone else's, but simply because it appeals to the low-humming narcissism that substitutes for his personality, because the image on TV reminds him of the mean, brainless slob he sees in the mirror every morning.

 

Sarah Palin is a symbol of everything that is wrong with the modern United States. As a representative of our political system, she's a new low in reptilian villainy, the ultimate cynical masterwork of puppeteers like Karl Rove. But more than that, she is a horrifying symbol of how little we ask for in return for the total surrender of our political power. Not only is Sarah Palin a fraud, she's the tawdriest, most half-assed fraud imaginable, 20 floors below the lowest common denominator, a character too dumb even for daytime TV — and this country is going to eat her up, cheering her every step of the way. All because most Americans no longer have the energy to do anything but lie back and allow ourselves to be jacked off by the calculating thieves who run this grasping consumer paradise we call a nation.

 

The Palin speech was a political masterpiece, one of the most ingenious pieces of electoral theater this country has ever seen. Never before has a single televised image turned a party's fortunes around faster.

 

Until the Alaska governor actually ascended to the podium that night, I was convinced that John McCain had made one of the all-time campaign-season blunders, that he had acted impulsively and out of utter desperation in choosing a cross-eyed political neophyte just two years removed from running a town smaller than the bleacher section at Fenway Park. It even crossed my mind that there was an element of weirdly self-destructive pique in McCain's decision to cave in to his party's right-wing base in this fashion, that perhaps he was responding to being ordered by party elders away from a tepid, ideologically promiscuous hack like Joe Lieberman — reportedly his real preference — by picking the most obviously unqualified, doomed-to-fail joke of a Bible-thumping buffoon. As in: You want me to rally the base? Fine, I'll rally the base. Here, I'll choose this rifle-toting, serially pregnant moose killer who thinks God lobbies for oil pipelines. Happy now?

 

But watching Palin's speech, I had no doubt that I was witnessing a historic, iconic performance. The candidate sauntered to the lectern with the assurance of a sleepwalker — and immediately launched into a symphony of snorting and sneering remarks, taking time out in between the superior invective to present herself as just a humble gal with a beefcake husband and a brood of healthy, combat-ready spawn who just happened to be the innocent targets of a communist and probably also homosexual media conspiracy. She appeared to be completely without shame and utterly full of shit, awing a room full of hardened reporters with her sickly-sweet line about the high-school-flame-turned-hubby who, "five children later," is "still my guy." It was like watching Gidget address the Reichstag.

 

Within minutes, Palin had given TV audiences a character infinitely recognizable to virtually every American: the small-town girl with just enough looks and a defiantly incurious mind who thinks the PTA minutes are Holy Writ, and to whom injustice means the woman next door owning a slightly nicer set of drapes or flatware. Or the governorship, as it were.

 

Right-wingers of the Bush-Rove ilk have had a tough time finding a human face to put on their failed, inhuman, mean-as-hell policies. But it was hard not to recognize the genius of wedding that faltering brand of institutionalized greed to the image of the suburban-American supermom. It's the perfect cover, for there is almost nothing in the world meaner than this species of provincial tyrant.

 

Palin herself burned this political symbiosis into the pages of history with her seminal crack about the "difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull: lipstick," blurring once and for all the lines between meanness on the grand political scale as understood by the Roves and Bushes of the world, and meanness of the small-town variety as understood by pretty much anyone who has ever sat around in his ranch-house den dreaming of a fourth plasma-screen TV or an extra set of KC HiLites for his truck, while some ghetto family a few miles away shares a husk of government cheese.

 

In her speech, Palin presented herself as a raging baby-making furnace of middle-class ambition next to whom the yuppies of the Obama set — who never want anything all that badly except maybe a few afternoons with someone else's wife, or a few kind words in The New York Times Book Review — seem like weak, self-doubting celibates, the kind of people who certainly cannot be trusted to believe in the right God or to defend a nation. We're used to seeing such blatant cultural caricaturing in our politicians. But Sarah Palin is something new. She's all caricature. As the candidate of a party whose positions on individual issues are poll losers almost across the board, her shtick is not even designed to sell a line of policies. It's just designed to sell her. The thing was as much as admitted in the on-air gaffe by former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan, who was inadvertently caught saying on MSNBC that Palin wasn't the most qualified candidate, that the party "went for this, excuse me, political bullshit about narratives."

 

The great insight of the Palin VP choice is that huge chunks of American voters no longer even demand that their candidates actually have policy positions; they simply consume them as media entertainment, rooting for or against them according to the reflexive prejudices of their demographic, as they would for reality-show contestants or sitcom characters. Hicks root for hicks, moms for moms, born-agains for born-agains. Sure, there was politics in the Palin speech, but it was all either silly lies or merely incidental fluffery buttressing the theatrical performance. A classic example of what was at work here came when Palin proudly introduced her Down-syndrome baby, Trig, then stared into the camera and somberly promised parents of special-needs kids that they would "have a friend and advocate in the White House." This was about a half-hour before she raised her hands in triumph with McCain, a man who voted against increasing funding for special-needs education.

 

Palin's charge that "government is too big" and that Obama "wants to grow it" was similarly preposterous. Not only did her party just preside over the largest government expansion since LBJ, but Palin herself has been a typical Bush-era Republican, borrowing and spending beyond her means. Her great legacy as mayor of Wasilla was the construction of a $15 million hockey arena in a city with an annual budget of $20 million; Palin OK'd a bond issue for the project before the land had been secured, leading to a protracted legal mess that ultimately forced taxpayers to pay more than six times the original market price for property the city ended up having to seize from a private citizen using eminent domain. Better yet, Palin ended up paying for the fucking thing with a 25 percent increase in the city sales tax. But in her speech, of course, Palin presented herself as the enemy of tax increases, righteously bemoaning that "taxes are too high" and Obama "wants to raise them."

 

Palin hasn't been too worried about federal taxes as governor of a state that ranks number one in the nation in federal spending per resident ($13,950), even as it sits just 18th in federal taxes paid per resident ($5,434). That means all us taxpaying non-Alaskans spend $8,500 a year on each and every resident of Palin's paradise of rugged self-sufficiency. Not that this sworn enemy of taxes doesn't collect from her own: Alaska currently collects the most taxes per resident of any state in the nation.

 

The rest of Palin's speech was the same dog-whistle crap Republicans have been railing about for decades. Palin's crack about a mayor being "like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities" testified to the Republicans' apparent belief that they can win elections till the end of time running against the Sixties. (They're probably right.)  The incessant grousing about the media was likewise par for the course, red meat for those tens of millions of patriotic flag-waving Americans whose first instinct when things get rough is to whine like bitches and blame other people — reporters, the French, those ungrateful blacks soaking up tax money eating big prison meals, whomever — for their failures.

 

Add to this the usual lies about Democrats wanting to "forfeit" to our enemies abroad and coddle terrorists, and you had a very run-of-the-mill, almost boring Republican speech from a substance standpoint. What made it exceptional was its utter hypocrisy, its total disregard for reality, its absolute unrelation to the facts of our current political situation. After eight years of unprecedented corruption, incompetence, waste and greed, the party of Karl Rove understood that 50 million Americans would not demand solutions to any of these problems so long as they were given a new, new thing to beat their meat over.

 

Sarah Palin is that new, new thing, and in the end it won't matter that she's got an unmarried teenage kid with a bun in the oven. Of course, if the daughter of a black candidate like Barack Obama showed up at his convention with a five-month bump and some sideways-cap-wearing, junior-grade Curtis Jackson holding her hand, the defenders of Traditional Morality would be up in arms. But the thing about being in the reality-making business is that you don't need to worry much about vetting; there are no facts in your candidate's bio that cannot be ignored or overcome.

 

One of the most amusing things about the Palin nomination has been the reaction of horrified progressives. The Internet has been buzzing at full volume as would-be defenders of sanity and reason pore over the governor's record in search of the Damning Facts. My own telephone began ringing off the hook with calls from ex-Alaskans and friends of Alaskans determined to help get the "truth" about Sarah Palin into the major media. Pretty much anyone with an Internet connection knows by now that Palin was originally for the "Bridge to Nowhere" before she opposed it (she actually endorsed the plan in her 2006 gubernatorial campaign), that even after the project was defeated she kept the money, that she didn't actually sell the Alaska governor's state luxury jet on eBay but instead sold it at a $600,000 loss to a campaign contributor (who is reportedly now seeking $50,000 in taxpayer money to pay maintenance costs).

 

Then there are the salacious tales of Palin's swinging-meat-cleaver management style, many of which seem to have a common thread: In addition to being ensconced in a messy ethics investigation over her firing of the chief of the Alaska state troopers (dismissed after refusing to sack her sister's ex-husband), Palin also fired a key campaign aide who had an affair with a friend's wife. More ominously, as mayor of Wasilla, Palin tried to fire the town librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, who had resisted pressure to censor books Palin found objectionable.

 

Then there's the God stuff: Palin belongs to a church whose pastor, Ed Kalnins, believes that all criticisms of George Bush "come from hell," and wondered aloud if people who voted for John Kerry could be saved. Kalnins, looming as the answer to Obama's Jeremiah Wright, claims that Alaska is going to be a "refuge state" for Christians in the last days, last days which he sometimes speaks of in the present tense. Palin herself has been captured on video mouthing the inevitable born-again idiocies, such as the idea that a recent oil-pipeline deal was "God's will." She also described the Iraq War as a "task that is from God" and part of a heavenly "plan."  She supports teaching creationism and "abstinence only" in public schools, opposes abortion even for victims of rape, has denied the science behind global warming and attends a church that seeks to convert Jews and cure homosexuals.

 

All of which tells you about what you'd expect from a raise-the-base choice like Palin: She's a puffed-up dimwit with primitive religious beliefs who had to be educated as to the fact that the Constitution did not exactly envision government executives firing librarians. Judging from the importance progressive critics seem to attach to these revelations, you'd think that these were actually negatives in modern American politics. But Americans like politicians who hate books and see the face of Jesus in every tree stump.  They like them stupid and mean and ignorant of the rules. Which is why Palin has only seemed to grow in popularity as more and more of these revelations have come out.

 

The same goes for the most damning aspect of her biography, her total lack of big-game experience. As governor of Alaska, Palin presides over a state whose entire population is barely the size of Memphis. This kind of thing might matter in a country that actually worried about whether its leader was prepared for his job — but not in America. In America, it takes about two weeks in the limelight for the whole country to think you've been around for years. To a certain extent, this is why Obama is getting a pass on the same issue. He's been on TV every day for two years, and according to the standards of our instant-ramen culture, that's a lifetime of hands-on experience.

 

It is worth noting that the same criticisms of Palin also hold true for two other candidates in this race, John McCain and Barack Obama. As politicians, both men are more narrative than substance, with McCain rising to prominence on the back of his bio as a suffering war hero and Obama mostly playing the part of the long-lost, future-embracing liberal dreamboat not seen on the national stage since Bobby Kennedy died. If your stomach turns to read how Palin's Kawasaki 704 glasses are flying off the shelves in Middle America, you have to accept that Middle America probably feels the same way when it hears that Donatella Versace dedicated her collection to Obama during Milan Fashion Week. Or sees the throwing-panties-onstage-"I love you, Obama!" ritual at the Democratic nominee's town-hall appearances.

 

So, sure, Barack Obama might be every bit as much a slick piece of imageering as Sarah Palin. The difference is in what the image represents. The Obama image represents tolerance, intelligence, education, patience with the notion of compromise and negotiation, and a willingness to stare ugly facts right in the face, all qualities we're actually going to need in government if we're going to get out of this huge mess we're in.

 

Here's what Sarah Palin represents: being a fat fucking pig who pins "Country First" buttons on his man titties and chants "U-S-A! U-S-A!" at the top of his lungs while his kids live off credit cards and Saudis buy up all the mortgages in Kansas.

 

The truly disgusting thing about Sarah Palin isn't that she's totally unqualified, or a religious zealot, or married to a secessionist, or unable to educate her own daughter about sex, or a fake conservative who raised taxes and horked up earmark millions every chance she got. No, the most disgusting thing about her is what she says about us: that you can ram us in the ass for eight solid years, and we'll not only thank you for your trouble, we'll sign you up for eight more years, if only you promise to stroke us in the right spot for a few hours around election time.

 

Democracy doesn't require a whole lot of work of its citizens, but it requires some: It requires taking a good look outside once in a while, and considering the bad news and what it might mean, and making the occasional tough choice, and soberly taking stock of what your real interests are.

 

This is a very different thing from shopping, which involves passively letting sitcoms melt your brain all day long and then jumping straight into the TV screen to buy a Southern Style Chicken Sandwich because the slob singing "I'm Lovin' It!" during the commercial break looks just like you. The joy of being a consumer is that it doesn't require thought, responsibility, self-awareness or shame: All you have to do is obey the first urge that gurgles up from your stomach. And then obey the next. And the next. And the next.

 

And when it comes time to vote, all you have to do is put your Country First — just like that lady on TV who reminds you of your cousin. U-S-A, baby. U-S-A! U-S-A!

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

Evangelicals 'over the moon' with delight at Palin's unwed pregnancy


Yeah, um, props to Bristol Palin for keeping the baby. And props to Jamie Lynn Spears. Props to Juno, too. Props to all teen mothers, alright! But doesn't anybody else think the reaction of these major right-wing Evangelical groups is a bit weird? I mean, an out-of-wedlock pregnancy has actually increased Evangelicals' regard for Governor Palin. Isn't this an example of our cultural norms slipping down the slope?

I guess the difference is that Gov. Palin's daughter comes from a white family with ample means. If she were black, got pregnant, and had to rely on federal assistance, then Focus on the Family, Grover Norquist, et al would label her a worthless welfare queen, a drain on decent taxpayers. There is no such thing as an unwanted white pregnancy.



Evangelicals rally behind Palin after pregnancy news
By Rebecca Sinderbrand
September 2, 2008 | CNN.com

Saturday, November 10, 2007

Separation of Church and Bush


This resolution from the Bishops of the United Methodist Church -- President Bush' church -- on Iraq just proves that we do have separation of church and state in America. But liberals, contain your glee.

In this case that separation may be a bad thing.

I never thought I'd say this, but... maybe Bush needs to spend more time in church.


Bush's bishops: Exit Iraq now

Wednesday, August 8, 2007

Pentagon: We're rapture-ready, sweet Jesus!

Worried yet?

(By the way, all you Catholics and non-Evangelicals won't get "raptured" up to Heaven. You'll be "Left Behind" to battle the Antichrist [i.e. the UN] in order to prove your Christian mettle and be saved. I'm not making this up.)



BLOG | Posted 08/07/2007
Kill Or Convert, Brought To You By the Pentagon
Max Blumenthal | TheNation.com


Actor Stephen Baldwin, the youngest member of the famous Baldwin brothers, is no longer playing Pauly Shore's sidekick in comedy masterpieces like Biodome. He has a much more serious calling these days.


Baldwin became a right-wing, born-again Christian after the 9/11 attacks, and now is the star of Operation Straight Up (OSU), an evangelical entertainment troupe that actively proselytizes among active-duty members of the US military. As an official arm of the Defense Department's America Supports You program, OSU plans to mail copies of the controversial apocalyptic video game, Left Behind: Eternal Forces to soldiers serving in Iraq. OSU is also scheduled to embark on a "Military Crusade in Iraq" in the near future.


"We feel the forces of heaven have encouraged us to perform multiple crusades that will sweep through this war torn region," OSU declares on its website about its planned trip to Iraq. "We'll hold the only religious crusade of its size in the dangerous land of Iraq."


The Defense Department's Chaplain's Office, which oversees OSU's activities, has not responded to calls seeking comment.


"The constitution has been assaulted and brutalized," Mikey Weinstein, former Reagan Administration White House counsel, ex-Air Force judge advocate (JAG), and founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, told me. "Thanks to the influence of extreme Christian fundamentalism, the wall separating church and state is nothing but smoke and debris. And OSU is the IED that exploded the wall separating church and state in the Pentagon and throughout our military." Weinstein continued: "The fact that they would even consider taking their crusade to a Muslim country shows the threat to our national security and to the constitution and everyone that loves it."


On the surface, OSU appears as a traditional entertainment troupe that brings cheer to American troops around the globe. Founded by champion kickboxer Jonathan Spinks, OSU performs comedy, acrobatic stunts and strongman displays. Its roster of entertainers includes a former WNBA star, the Flying Wallendas, a ventriloquist, and former boxing champ Evander Holyfield. "We make no bones about the fact that we are speaking directly to the soldiers of the greatest fighting force of in the world," OSU proclaims. "No 'mamsie pamsie' stuff here!"


But behind OSU's anodyne promises of wholesome fun for military families, the organization promotes an apocalyptic brand of evangelical Christianity to active duty US soldiers serving in Muslim-dominated regions of the Middle East. Displayed prominently on the "What We Believe" section of OSU's website is a passage from the Book of Revelations (Revelation 19:20; 20:10-15) that has become the bedrock of the Christian right's End Times theology: "The devil and his angels, the beast and the false prophet, and whosoever is not found written in the Book of Life, shall be consigned to everlasting punishment in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."


With the endorsement of the Defense Department, OSU is mailing "Freedom Packages" to soldiers serving in Iraq. These are not your grandfather's care packages, however. Besides pairs of white socks and boxes of baby wipes (included at the apparent suggestion of Iran-Contra felon Oliver North, according to OSU) OSU's care packages contain the controversial Left Behind: Eternal Forces video game. The game is inspired by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins' bestselling pulp fiction series about a blood-soaked Battle of Armageddon pitting born-again Christians against anybody who does not adhere to their particular theology. In LaHaye's and Jenkins' books, the non-believers are ultimately condemned to "everlasting punishment" while the evangelicals are "raptured" up to heaven.


The Left Behind videogame is a real-time strategy game that makes players commanders of a virtual evangelical army in a post-apocalyptic landscape that looks strikingly like New York City after 9/11. With tanks, helicopters and a fearsome arsenal of automatic weapons at their disposal, Left Behind players wage a violent war against United Nations-like peacekeepers who, according to LaHaye's interpretation of Revelation, represent the armies of the Antichrist. Each time a Left Behind player kills a UN soldier, their virtual character exclaims, "Praise the Lord!" To win the game, players must kill or convert all the non-believers left behind after the rapture. They also have the option of reversing roles and commanding the forces of the Antichrist. (Video preview here).


Producers of the Left Behind videogame were faced with a storm of controversy after Christian blogger Jonathan Hutson exposed its eliminationist overtones in a series of posts on the website Talk2Action. Statements by the Anti-Defamation League, the Conference on American Islamic Relations, the Christian Alliance for Progress, and others condemned the game and demanded that Walmart pull it from its shelves. Even Marvin Olasky, the evangelical publisher, intellectual author of "compassionate conservatism," and a force behind the George W. Bush Administration's White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives," denounced the Left Behind videogame. In a blog post on the website of his World Magazine, Olasky described the game's content as akin to "the way homicidal Muslims think." As a result of the fallout, Left Behind Games fired its senior VP and released three board members.


This controversy has not deterred OSU from encouraging US troops to play virtual rounds of kill or convert after a hard day of house-to-house searches and counterinsurgency warfare against Iraqi insurgents. What's more, OSU's "Freedom Packages" include a copy of evangelical pastor Jonathan McDowell's More Than A Carpenter -- a book advertised as "one of the most powerful evangelism tools worldwide" -- that is double-published in Arabic. Considering that only a handful of American troops speak Arabic, the book is ostensibly intended for proselytizing efforts among Iraqi civilians.


OSU has cultivated support from the Department of Defense for years. After a private October, 2005 meeting between OSU's Spinks and Defense Department officials, OSU was invited to perform inside the Pentagon. This week, Pentagon employees and active duty service members are expected to enjoy a breakfast with Spinks and Baldwin, followed by an OSU performance in which they will receive "spiritual encouragement via a Biblical message." The events will be held respectively in the Pentagon Executive Dining Room and the Pentagon Auditorium.


Spreading the Gospel to US troops is only one of many crusades Baldwin has waged in the name of the Lord. During 2006, Baldwin frequently stationed himself on the sidewalk outside a pornographic video store in New York. There, he photographed the license plates of people entering the store and threatened to publish an ad in a Nyack paper publicizing the names of those who patronized the store. "In my position, I just don't think I'm supposed to keep my faith to myself," Baldwin told a group of Texas Southern Baptists in 2004. "I'm just doing what the Lord's telling me to do."


Soon after his appearance at the Pentagon, Baldwin ships out to Iraq for OSU's "Military Crusade." With its cadre of celebrity entertainers pushing End Times theology, and the overt support of the Defense Department, OSU is hoping to transform Bush's surge into a battle of biblical proportions.


They just can't keep their faith to themselves.


See: www.raptureme.com
_____________________________

Post script: For some unknown reason, according to an anonymous Pentagon official quoted by the Navy Times on August 16, Operation Straight Up decided not to send care packages to U.S. troops in Iraq containing the game "Left Behind: Eternal Force" and Christian books.