February 28th 2012

Back when the political arena was being jump started in the race for the highest office in the land I made a vow to myself to remain totally in-different to the speechs and campaigning being wildly thrown about, which at the end-of-the-day made their way into mainstream media in hopes of swaying public opinion. Lately one individual has caught my eye in his ability to twist stuff around, making wild and un-supported claims that clearly violate his own professed theology. Without mentioning his name, for you to figure out, I will attempt to address some of his claims against not only the sitting President, where in doing so he is walking on and around your rights as a human, and last but not least your rights as an American Citizen. It was just this last weekend that he seems to be questioning President Obamas Christian values, during his speech to a Tea Party Group, where he said that the Presidents agenda is not about you, its not about your quality of life, its not about your job, its about some phony ideal, some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology, but no less a theology. He did remark that he believed the President was a Christian, whereas his political gang said he was NOT talking about the Presidents religion, but his political ideology. The practice of this individual to clarify his statements after he has obtained a 15-second sound-bite has become a major part of his manner, or political ideology if you must say. Some parts of our media tell us outright that his MOA is a large part of his strength as a candidate for the Highest Office in the Land, with tongue in cheek they maintain that this MOA reflects

what he really believes in, and a direct sign of his authenticity as opposed to the other guy on the same ticket who seems to have great difficulty saying anything that appears as a firm conviction. Unfortunately his clarifications are actually the opposite of what spilled from between his lips when making the sound-bite, albeit they are usually meant to cloud the issue rather than clarify his real intent. In reality there is a lengthy history behind the religious-right who has arguments that secular humanism is itself a religion, and that environmentalists are all pagans, whereas the Bible clearly indicates that it is a human responsibility to care for all of Gods creation, which the last time I checked included the environment this simple fact even the evangelicals understand. Speaking of such, it has been almost 20-years since the founding of the Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN), where they say it is grounded in the Bibles teaching on the responsibility of Gods people to tend the garden. Look around you today, the religious-right has become much more actively anti-environmental in response to the EEN and other environmentally minded Evangelicals, establish strong stainless steel links to the corporate anti-environmentalist than ever before over the past decade or more. This man is putting forth the argument he firmly believes in, but is unwilling to defend when hes not waving his arms about as the words spring forth to an audience that is already on his side. But what is his own theology? Is he accusing Obama of having a mote in his eye, while ignoring the beam in his own? It would appear that way! Take the Ten Commandments which he professes to use as his religious and political guidelines isnt one of the commandments Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor Exodus 20:17. From what Ive read or seen on the tube, this man has a very hard time mentioning Obamas name without violating Commandment number 9, but then again Ive seen that he and his staff are very practiced at wiggling out of things, whereas his defenders claim that he doesnt lie about Obama, he is being misinterpreted! Albeit not a dyed in the wool student of the Bible, it doesnt take one to see the problem with his defense, whereas not bearing false witness means a little more than just lying, where most scholars of Biblical Law tell us the

Ten Commandments are moral requirements acting as a guide to a successful life for you and the others in your influence, in this sense not bearing false witness is a matter of spirit, NOT the letter, of the 9th Commandment. Keep this mind when you continue to see or hear our manof-the-hour blather on and on about President Obama, saying stuff that he takes back in his weak attempts to clarify, which reminds me of an old GOP saying, do it and ask for reprieve, once it done, in other punch the world in the face and apologize after the fact. Thereby making the original misdeed okay in their minds, supported by their profuse apology of the act, that (in this case) spilled forth from their political lips. He said on Monday, When you have the President of the United States referring to freedom of religion and you have the Secretary of State referring to the freedom of religion, NOT as the freedom of religion but the freedom of worship you should get nervous. Because theres a lot of tyrants around the world who will talk about freedom of worship, but they wont talk about freedom of religion. Freedom of Worship is what you do within the four-walls of the church. Freedom of Religion is what you do outside the four-walls of the church. What the President is now seeming to mould, in the name of other elitists who think they know best, is to limit the role of Faith in the public square and your role to live that faith out in your public and private lives. The fact of the matter is he ripped this information from an article in the influential Catholic Right Journal, First Things which noted on February 22nd, 2010 (over two years ago), "Recently, both President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been caught using the phrase 'freedom of worship' in prominent speeches, rather than the 'freedom of religion' the president called for in Cairo. "If the swap-out occurred only once or twice, one might appropriately conclude it was merely a rhetorical accident. However, both the president and his secretary of state have now replaced 'freedom of religion' with 'freedom of worship' too many times to seem inadvertent." On this our man is claiming the Obama is secretly trying to destroy religious freedom yet research of the White Houses website for freedom of

worship youll find only five hits on freedom of worship four in 2009 and one in 2011. If you search for freedom of religion youll find forty-three hits, including 23 from 2011 and 3 so far this year. Nevertheless we all know that there isnt but one in a hundred politicians that doesnt play willy-nilly with the English language, but in our man of the hour we find him thriving on right-wing anti-Obama gossip, running it through his sparsely packed brain repeating it with flourish, without any concern if the gossip is true or not. In other words he is making a mockery of the 9th Commandment. Gossip in this case against the sitting President can be labeled slander, albeit at times it is insufficiently specific making in unambiguously refuted. Experts in the field of politics (which are many believe me) label our man as a candidate that is not much more than a bottom-feeding rumor-monger who violates the 9th Commandment as casually as some folks chew gum. But wait, isnt it true that weve heard (from his lips mostly) that he is a very religious person, and isnt his faith a matter of pubic record, and doesnt he constantly remind us of his of his affiliation with Bible? that read: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. "But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly." - Matthew 6:5-6 As I mentioned a time-or-two Im not a student that has a deep understanding of the words in the Bible, but I do know that the theme of inward faithfulness and authenticity versus public preening and hypocrisy pop up from time-to-time throughout the good book, in quoting this one passage it makes the contrast between outward show and inward faithfulness very clear and in reality the passage makes it really difficult for the religious-right to abide by its meaning basically because it makes a mockery of all their pretended righteousness in a nutshell. Our man today You bet, then consider a particular passage in Mathhew Chapter 6, verses five through 6

is in the middle of this pack, being a man who is an extraordinary example of the profound hypocrisy that is the very foundation of the US Religious Right. Albeit there are many more Biblical passages you might want to consider, in comparing how our-man-of-the-hour plays willy-nilly with, consider the fact that his supposed theology is much more specific than just strolling through the passages in the Bible keep in mind that he is just not a Christian, but is a Catholic, so how does he measured up to Catholicism? Well putting aside the Crusades (turning a blind eye to another period of mans bloody dominion on this planet) it is the present day doctrine of the Pope and his followers of being opposed to war. Our man when he was a Senator rather than echoing the mandate of the Catholic Church, sided with the GWB administration to tear or nations rules and regulation asunder, whereas he loudly proclaimed his support in embracing a preventive war, an immediate regime change, and the supported the authorization of armed forces, all with out a formal declaration of War by the only body that can under our Constitution Congresshe also stepped to the front line joining GWB in the evasion of a UN Security Council vote, which it is known the US could not have won, whereas his actions alongside the GWB administration was a clear violation of what the Catholic Bishops loudly protested arguing that the entire gang was morally corrupt. It wasnt but two months later, on January 13th, 2003 that Pope John Paul II spoke out against the coming war in his annual State of the World address, where the GWB administration ignored it also, along with our deeply religious man-of-the-hour. He has NEVER been asked to explain his version of just War Doctrine, and how it is he derives such a different version of it without replying on a phony theology he now speaks of Obama having, especially when it comes to President Obama having an insufficient bloodlust in his political stance. It wasnt just the Iraqi war that he sidestepped his religious doctrine with the Catholic Church (which as an organized religion is no favorite of mine seeing how they treated the indigenous peoples of the Americas) where he as at odds with a wide range of Catholic social thinking, such as when it comes to torture, of which the Catholic Church has a long and colorful history, study your history and give me your read on the Inquisition.

But, nevertheless, today we find the Catholic Church labeling the act an intrinsic evil and a barbaric practice assaulting the dignity of human life, and that it must be rejected as a fundamentally incompatible with the dignity of the human person and ultimately counterproductive in the effort to combat terrorism. Strong words from an organization that in all likelihood refined the art of torture in their not-so-recent history, yet as things change today we find them on the other side of the fence, and supposedly our manof-the-hour who is an upstanding member of the very same organization, yet along with a great deal of us after 9-11, turned a blind eye to its practice some would say with a moral reason to apprehend the culprits and their backers who flew their Boeing airliners into the buildings located on our home soilwaking up the American population to the act of terror in a big way. In this vein, it is where we find our man-of-the-day seemingly ignorant and in particular uninterested in what his religions doctrine really says about matters of public morality and its policy until it comes to some other subjects such as immigration where he leans back and smiles relating that Catholic bishops, priests and women have been religious in the forefront of the fight for comprehensive immigration reform, albeit he has challenged the Catholic bishops on this issue stating, If we develop the program like the Catholic bishops suggest, we would be creating a huge magnet for people to come in and break-the-law some more, wed be inviting people to cross the border, come into this country and with the expectation that they will be able to stay her permanently. I find little wrong with his interpretation, but I do take amends to hanging his hat on the backs of religion. And when it comes to income in-equality he says, Im for income inequality. I think that some people should make more than other people I have no problem with income inbecause some people work harder and have better ideas and take more risks, and they should be rewarded for it. equality. Not so strangely youll find very few that disagree with his

analysis, nor should they, but what they will find at odds with him is the way he and is partners in the GOP look at the labor of the Middle Class in their drive to survive. Especially when it comes to labor unions, a concept that most conservative right-wing followers class as a spit-on-floor phrase in a

normal conversation. Our man of the hour declares that all labor unions should be abolished, mainly those involved in the public sector. As for climate change, this mystery man (I laugh) has remarked numerous times that climate change caused by humans is patently absurd and a beautifully concocted scheme, I agree in some of this (as most of you know), but in his ignorant brain he is equating any climate change to not happening thereby ignoring the not-so-far-off conclusion that our present way of life will have to change, this in regards to our consumption of energy where some morning youll wake up in a cold dark house with nothing left to heat it or light the way to your morning cup of java. You say drill baby drill and rip up the landscape and this day will never come think or say again, please! When you take a glance at our 58.8 year-old man-of-the-day you begin to wonder what Bible he is reading where his practices run against the teachings of the Judeo-Christian books of religion, albeit when you look around youll find members of our society that take what feeds their agenda and to the devil with what doesnt fit their needs. So be it this is our society today. Unlike John McCain (the old school of politicians) in 2008, our man feels no obligation to set the record straight when someone speaks up at one of his meetings and slanders the President, recently a woman in Florida said, I never refer to Obama as President because legally he is not President. He constantly says that our Constitution is passe and he totally ignores it, as you know he does what he darn well please. He is an avowed Muslim. Our man responded, Im doing my best to try to get him out of the government right? I am. And youre right about how he uniformly ignores the Constitution. Not only did he fail to set the record straight, unlike McCain, he is far too much a moral coward to do that, he actually supports the misinformation the woman spouts he agrees with here even though he is careful to NOT to specifically echo her narrative. So let us dip back into that 9th Commandment, you dont have to lie to bear false witness, just slap a liar on the back and say good job, this automatically makes you part of the lie. And when you actually encourage

the liar.well if the priests didnt get through to you, then Im sure his mother did.