Left Agenda

If you think that would make Left Agenda like the bastard Beck more, you’re sorely mistaken.  Though we do not believe in God/Dog, nor for that matter in an actual man called Jesus, in no way shape or form do we hate either.  I’ve often said that some parts of the New Testament could be equated to a Mother Goose book for adults; some parts.

That being said, as I understand it, some of the things Jesus preached about and his followers supposedly wrote about and now millions of people around the world now follow to the letter (Yes, that was said with tongue firmly in cheek) it seems that Glenn Beck is permanently distancing himself from those teachings (there’s audio), perhaps more in favor of the hateful and mean-spirited Dog/God of the Old Testament.

On his daily radio and television shows last week, Fox News personality Glenn Beck set out to convince his audience that “social justice,” the term many Christian churches use to describe their efforts to address poverty and human rights, is a “code word” for communism and Nazism. Beck urged Christians to discuss the term with their priests and to leave their churches if leaders would not reconsider their emphasis on social justice.

“I’m begging you, your right to religion and freedom to exercise religion and read all of the passages of the Bible as you want to read them and as your church wants to preach them . . . are going to come under the ropes in the next year. If it lasts that long it will be the next year. I beg you, look for the words ’social justice’ or ‘economic justice’ on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!”

Later, Beck held up cards, one with a hammer and sickle and other with a swastika. “Communists are on the left, and the Nazis are on the right. That’s what people say. But they both subscribe to one philosophy, and they flew one banner. . . . But on each banner, read the words, here in America: ’social justice.’ They talked about economic justice, rights of the workers, redistribution of wealth, and surprisingly, democracy.”

So, any talk about “social justice” means that your church is out to get you and out to spread the eeeevils of communism.  Never mind that many people have suggested that Jesus was probably more of a communist than Christians would like to consider.

But what about the actual written words of the Bible?  We’ll give pause to the entire fact that the Bible has been so edited as to be unworthy of any historical consideration.

Matthew 5:3 ESV / 5 helpful votes

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Ezekiel 16:49-50 ESV / 5 helpful votes

Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it.

Zechariah 7:9-10 ESV / 4 helpful votes

“Thus says the Lord of hosts, Render true judgments, show kindness and mercy to one another, do not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor, and let none of you devise evil against another in your heart.”

That’s just a few, you can find more from the Bible that shows how much of a liberal hippy Jesus really must have been.

The point is, it’s pretty clear what the danger really is to this nation.  It’s a large percentage of people being so delusional that they have left all critical thought behind and believe anything that a impassioned, baby-faced “Christian” tells them to believe.  Never mind what he teaches literally goes against their own beliefs, never mind that he lies and distorts the truth to no end, and never mind that while he pushes the meme of being the everyman he’s actually sitting in a millionaire’s golden throne.

While the Jesus that people usually refer to is peaceful, forgiving, and completely against the amassing of wealth while others suffer, American Christians have instead pimped out the religion and now it’s all about the money, money, money, moooooney!  Truly, Glenn Beck shows he’s one of the best spin doctors to grace our America since Joe McCarthy.

Now, if Jesus was such a commie bastard and Glenn Beckistan hates commies, then doesn’t the transitive property show that Glenn Beckabator hates Jesus?  For shizzle.

Repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is finally being discussed and the movement is growing stronger.  Passed during Clinton’s 1st term, in 1993, it was generally accepted as a compromise.  Prior to DADT, military personally were subject to general or undesirable discharges from the military simply for being gay, and a dishonorable discharge if they were caught having sexual or ‘indecent’ relations of a homosexual nature.

The world has changed.  What was once regarded as a compromise by the majority of Americans, and I’m guessing that doesn’t include homosexuals, has become a stain on civil liberties.  People with open minds and hearts vice dogmatic and homophobic RWW (Right Wing Wackos) have learned and acknowledged that continuing the policies in DADT constitutes an injustice.

Those policies clearly state the reasons for this perceived threat of openly gay military personnel:

“demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts” because ”it would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.”

So, gay people being themselves and having relationships and loving other people is a “risk to… morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.”  This may have been true at some point in America’s history; I’m sure prejudice against homosexuals could have caused some upset among some of the people that were acceptably bigoted.  But what about now?

Public sentiment has completely changed:

The public supports it, and so do America’s serve members.

So, if public sentiment and armed forces’ sentiment has changed then there is no “risk to… morale.”  Great that’s one thing down!

Thankfully, along with the acceptance of the LGBT community also comes the wisdom that homosexuals aren’t some perverted group of people anymore than the rest of humanity.  I’m sure there are many heterosexual and homosexual predators, neither of which is a predator because of their sexual orientation.  That being said, then there’s no worry of “risk to…, good order and discipline,” because the service member being gay doesn’t have shit to do with either.  Fabulous, that’s two down!

The last one, “unit cohesion,” seems to be the one that homophobic, a.k.a. concerned citizens, are desperately grasping to in order to show that we can’t repeal DADT.  Merrill A. McPeak, former Chief of Staff for the United States Air Force, wrote an op-ed piece published in the NY Times yesterday titled, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Change”.  Let’s just consider it another case of futureshock; some elderly Americans are having a difficult time keeping up with changing sentiment and attitudes (Even lying to fight change).  McPeak seems to think it’s a terrible idea to allow gays to serve openly because:

Armies have to care about what succeeds in war. Sometimes they win or lose because of material factors, because one side has the greater numbers or better equipment. But armies are sure to lose if they pay no attention to the ideas that succeed in battle. Unit cohesion is one such idea. We know, or ought to, that warriors are inspired by male bonding, by comradeship, by the knowledge that they survive only through relying on each other. To undermine cohesion is to endanger everyone.

…

I do not see how permitting open homosexuality in these communities enhances their prospects of success in battle. Indeed, I believe repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” will weaken the warrior culture at a time when we have a fight on our hands.

Did you catch the switcheroo there?  The policy clearly states that openly gay people in the military are a “risk to…, unit cohesion,” and now McPeak is trying to argue that he doesn’t see how it will improve unit cohesion. The argument is no longer that homosexuals serving openly will be any such risk, but how does it make things better?  McPeak is being disingenuous at best and a fucking asshole homophobic lying bastard at worst.  Which one do you pick, cause neither make for a winning argument?

This so eloquently sums up many of the debates we’re having here in the U.S. Of course, I understand that some of the Liberals’ comments are complex and take a certain amount of rational thought. I offer an apology to any conservapukes that don’t quite understand and also a helping hand in translating these words to 2nd grade grammar and vocabulary.

Go here to see a blown up version.

The RNC wants more officials in federal office, there’s no doubt about that.  But, to what lengths are they willing to go?  Well, they need money to run a campaign.  Elections cost money, too much as far as I’m concerned.  What was released today, though, shows how scandalous the RNC is concerning how they will convince people to contribute to them.  These slides are part of a Power Point presentation given for RNC financiers. They had a little pow-wow on how to get more money, and someone left a hard-copy of the presentation lying around at the hotel.  They’re not denying it, but they are trying to separate Steele from the fall-0ut.

Now as the RNC points out, there are two main types of contributors.

The two types are Direct Marketing and Major Donors.  This translates into Main Street contributors and Big Business/extremely wealthy contributors.  That’s all fine and good.  Those are two completely different groups and I’m guessing that most of my readers and guests would fall into category 1, Main Street contributors.  So, how does the RNC propose to get more Main Street contributions?

First, they note why people give.  Again, category 2 contributors are covered.  We know why Big Business and extremely wealthy people contribute, because they want something in return or as the RNC shows in the above slide, they’re Calculated Givers, i.e. they’ve calculated what their contribution will get them in return.  Let’s get back to the regular people like you and me.  Category 1, Main Street contributors, are called Visceral Givers.

Merriam-Webster’s definition of visceral:

Main Entry: vis·cer·al

1 : felt in or as if in the viscera : deep <a visceral conviction>
2 : not intellectual : instinctive, unreasoning <visceral drives>
3 : dealing with crude or elemental emotions : earthy <a visceral novel>
4 : of, relating to, or located on or among the viscera : splanchnic <visceral organs>

Notice the terms used: “not intellectual”, “crude or elemental emotions”, “unreasoning”.

Hello!  Republican Main Street people, the RNC is talking about you.  This isn’t some liberal, elitist Democrat calling Republican voters “not intellectual” or stupid, it’s the RNC!

So, these people, the Visceral Givers need to be sold on the idea of giving the RNC money.  Hmm, how do they sell the idea to visceral people?

That’s right in order to “sell” the idea of contributing to the RNC, the RNC has chosen Visceral Givers, or non-intellectuals and people that react from raw emotions as the buyers.  Republicans, that’s you! Not in my words, not by some liberal elitist but by the very party that you are supporting.  They’re calling you idiots.  And what are they selling to these idiots?

Obama = Socialism.

Now, Republicans, Main Street voters, Real Red Blooded Americans,… are you buying what they’re selling?  The RNC is selling Americans lemons, let’s make lemonade out of their mess.  Friends don’t let friends contribute to the RNC.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

(Preamble to the Constitution of United States of America, emphasis added)

In the turmoil of Washington, in all the protests and boycotts across the nation there is a single notion that tends to be lost on some American people and more than one political party(here, here, here). The option given, at the root of many debates, is who can we trust? The government, or the corporations and small businesses. While this debate will continue for decades, the basic notion of these debates can be clarified through the following rationale.

1. For many Americans the only power we have over American policy making choices is our vote.  We vote for our city, county, state, and federal representatives.  We vote on laws that reach the ballot.  The call to arms for the American people and for Democracy in general is, “Let’s put it to a vote!”

-Who watches the government to make sure they do as we elect them to do?  The American people: we can impeach them, we can not elect them for another term, we can find other people to represent us, or even decide to run for office ourselves.  We can also form ‘watchdog groups’ that continuously watch over government actions; there are many.

2. For many Americans the only power you have over small or big business is to not purchase their products, if that is even an option.  Voting power goes to only a small group of people called the shareholders.

-Who watches over those running a small or large business?  Shareholders have a vote, the Board of Directors has the final say.  The American people get bupkis.  You don’t like what a company is doing, don’t use their goods (As corporations grow, they use many names and titles.  Understanding which goods belong to which companies is becoming exceedingly difficult without prior research.  What looks like choice could actually all be the same thing with different names.).  There is no vote for the American people.

3. We enact laws over ourselves for society’s protection.  We use government to uphold these laws.  Why should businesses be exempt from also having laws to protect society from them?  Can businesses not also harm people, society, the common good?

4. By using government, we can regulate businesses much like we regulate ourselves.  Do we all need to be regulated?  No, but for the common good we agree to these regulations.  Do all businesses need to be regulated?  No, but for the common good they should agree to regulations.

- Corporations have the privilege of being people in the eyes of the law; they have many of the same rights as every individual American.  But, they do not have the same responsibilities.  Their responsibilities nor their desires should trump our freedom.

5. By using government, by voting, we, the American people, can have power over ourselves, government, and businesses.  We can control the government, we can allow businesses to control government, or we can allow our government officials to control themselves and us.  There is no purer system than the Democratic/Republic system of America, but only if we use the power we have over the entities that seek to take power from us.

-Many people still don’t vote.

yellow: all people over 18; green: all eligible voters

-Furthermore, many people vote against the interests of the American people and instead for the interests of American businesses.

6. How much power do you have over businesses? Little to none.  How much power do we have over government? As much as we want.

-Many corporations are part of a large web of companies.  While we may protest one company, their revenue and their power can easily be segued to another thread on the web.

7. The government IS the American people.  They are, by definition, representatives of the American people.  When someone says they want government to have no power, they are saying that they want Americans to have no power.

- We formed the government for the betterment of all people.  By dismantling and weakening our government to a size small enough to “drown in [a] bathtub” we weaken the American people’s power and freedom.

8. Businesses are… well, businesses.  Obtaining more money is their goal.  They do not represent anyone or anything, unless it makes them money.  Is this evil?  No, they should be free to pursue their riches, especially if in doing so they provide some needed service to the American people.  Does this make them someone that we should have faith in to protect the American people?  No, their goals are entirely dominated by money, not freedom for the American people.

9. So, what power do Americans have?  We have power over our government, and we have no power over other people, or businesses.  But, we can use the government, as it’s designed to do, to protect ourselves from other people and from businesses by enacting laws and regulations.

These ideas are not foreign to the American people.  We constantly debate which laws we should have over each other and how strict these laws should be.  Why is it then that so many Americans, and entire political parties continue to want Americans, and therefore the government, to turn a blind eye to the affairs of businesses?  Are businesses somehow more important than the American people?  Are businesses more trustworthy than the American people?  The answer is simple, no.  We need laws and we need regulations.  To preserve the freedoms and the power that the American people have we must create laws to keep other forces from taking those powers, and from taking our freedom.