Sunday, July 31, 2011

Bill Maher: Why Is the Ft. Hood Shooter a "Muslim Terrorist," But the Norwegian Murderer Not a "Christian Terrorist"?

On last night's episode of Real Time, Bill Maher talked about how violent religious extremists were in the news this week. There was Pfc. Naser Jason Abdo, who was arrested on Wednesday for his 2009 attack on Ft. Hood, and then of course Anders Breivik, the Norwegian man who killed dozens of people in his home country earlier this month. As Maher noted, "I'm sure the media would have no trouble calling the guy at Ft. Hood a Muslim terrorist, but they refuse to call Anders Breivik a Christian terrorist. But that's what he was. He is a Christian terrorist. He wanted to start a Christian onslaught against the Muslims. And it reminds me that this is not a problem with the Muslim religion -- it's a problem with religion. And Christianity is perfectly capable of coming out of its dormant phase and once again becoming the violent, blood-lusty religion it was under the Crusades." And a panel debate ensues.


Maher expressed some similar sentiments to New York magazine a few days ago, when a reporter there asked him about the controversy over the Ground Zero cross.

Friday, July 29, 2011

Change or Die: How People Cling to Outdated Traditions That Will Hurt Them in The Long Run


From Alternet - written by Courtney E. Martin.
A debate within a gentlemen's club reveals how some men cling to outdated sexist traditions that may come back to haunt them.
I can still remember sitting at the kitchen table in my childhood home and reading my dad’s words, typed by his hard candy-wielding secretary, Helen, onto a piece of official law firm letter head. “I will not belong to a club that would one day admit my son, but would never admit my daughter.”
 
At just 12 years old, I was suddenly awash in a sense of my own importance. Now, nearly 20 years after I first read those bold words, this very same bastion of outdated tradition is starting to see the writing on the walls.


The El Paso Club, a 134 year old “gentlemen’s club” in downtown Colorado Springs—once a haven for local businessmen to have a drink and block out the discomfiting progress of the outside world—has finally had to consider the future. Some members have suggested letting women in, arguing that the club is on “a death spiral” if they continue the male-only tradition; others feel that allowing women to be members would be tantamount to death itself. According to the Colorado Springs Gazette, Randy Kilgore, an insurance agent, declared, “We can’t decimate a 130-year old men’s club to let in a few women. It would be the end of the club.”


This is the silver lining of an otherwise ugly recession. It destabilizes us. It makes us uncomfortable. It forces even the most incurious of us to question long-held beliefs. A report from the Population Reference Bureau last year showed that more than 70 percent of Americans age 40 and over felt they had been affected by the Great Recession, and no doubt, many more would join the majority after the release of this week’s disappointing job numbers. We’re facing hardship, but we’re also facing ourselves. Or as poet Theodore Roethke wrote, “In a dark time, the eye begins to see.”


Signs of outdated traditions’ rapid decay—particularly among the middle class—are everywhere. Men who have lost their jobs are picking up the slack at home—upending gendered family roles in exciting new ways, even as it’s under unexciting circumstances. Our interdependence has become undeniable, once again, forcing cloistered individuals and families out into their neighborhoods to community meetings, farmer’s markets, or just to play in local parks rather than fancy summer camps or pricey movies. Conspicuous consumption is increasingly being replaced by collaborative consumption; companies like Zipcar and Netflix let people share their resources rather than contributing to the ever-growing pile of debt and stuff. There’s potential for a renaissance in more egalitarian and robust public life.


My dad was willing to resign from the most prestigious business club in town back in 1992 because of his own values—seeded in the 60s during the rise of the anti-war, civil rights, and feminist movements. Having a daughter with lots of questions about the world and big dreams for her own future helped force him to walk his talk. While I wish that the remaining members of the El Paso Club were questioning their male-only policy out of a surge of long-neglected principles, they’re not. They’re questioning it because they won’t survive if they don’t. Turns out that it sometimes takes an apocalypse—often of the meteorological or economic variety—for some people to change.
Famed psychologist Jean Piaget, argued that what motivates learning is a gap between what we know and what we need to know. Seen for this vantage, the most recent recession has forced so many Americans to reckon with what they don’t know, to experience the “disequilibrium”—in Piaget’s parlance—of learning and change. As painful as this may be, it’s also a good thing. We’re becoming a more mature nation. We’re letting go of rituals, rules, and roles that don’t serve us anymore.
With one palpable exception, of course. While the majority of us are experiencing disequilibrium, the rich have largely remained shielded from discomfort. Wall Street is still getting its big bonuses, despite undeniable documentation of corruption and recklessness. Which is why those at the very top tiers of our increasingly class-cleaved society won’t be shaking things up anytime soon. If anything, they’ll be hunkering down.


The men of the El Paso Club, as prestigious as they may feel, are not super rich and, therefore, are subject to the winds of change. Will they bend and survive or break and die?


So far, they’re dead-set on the latter. The membership voted 31 to 69 to remain a male-only club to the grave. When faced with the choice to change or die, some people will, in fact, choose to die.
Courtney E. Martin is a writer, teacher, and speaker living in Brooklyn. She is also the author of Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters: How the Quest for Perfection is Harming Young Women and Do It Anyway: The New Generation of Activists. You can read more about her work at www.courtneyemartin.com.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
View the article at:

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Tell Congress: Investigate Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. for Its Ties to the British Phone-Hacking Scandal

As reported on AlterNet
                                                     Photo Credit: AFP

Now that the scandal has made its way across the pond, American activists are urging Congress to investigate News Corp., the U.S.-based media empire that operates Fox News.

It's becoming increasingly hard to swallow Rupert Murdoch's claims of ignorance about News of the World reporters' phone-hacking habit. As if the story of hacking a dead young woman's voicemail, giving her family false hope about her survival, wasn't enough, it's now been reported that NOTW reporters hacked the phones of British soldiers in Afghanistan, victims of a London bombing, former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and possibly even victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks. The work of a few "rogue" reporters, as the paper's leaders claimed? It seems unlikely.
Now that the scandal has made its way across the pond, American activists are urging Congress to investigate News Corporation, the U.S.-based Murdoch media empire that operates the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, and Fox News. As a Change.org petition launched by CREDO puts it:
[I]f any News Corporation outlets were spying on Americans, we deserve to know....
The hacking activities at News of the World were not limited to a few rogue reporters, but reflect systematic orchestration from the highest levels of News Corporation — just as we have seen the lies and misinformation agenda of FOX News get handed down from senior management there....
Spying on victims of the worst terrorist attack in our history — to help sell more newspapers, or for any other reason — is totally unconscionable. And if executives knew about these abuses, or implemented similar abuses at other American outlets, they must be held accountable.
Also pushing for a Congressional investigation is the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, whose executive director, Melanie Sloan, said last week, "It is becoming increasingly clear this scandal was not perpetrated by a few rogue reporters, but was systematically orchestrated at the highest levels of News Corp. If Mr. Murdoch’s employees can be so brazen as to target the British prime minister, then it is not unreasonable to believe they also might hack into the voicemails of American politicians and citizens."


As CREW also points out, it's noteworthy that in 2007 one of NOTW's top executives at the time, Les Hinton, apparently lied before a parliamentary committee by claiming that a single bad-apple reporter was responsible for phone-hacking at the paper. (At the time, the investigation focused primarily on celebrities' phones.) Hinton is one of Murdoch's closest friends and advisers and was subsequently made the head of Dow Jones, which publishes the Wall Street Journal. Hinton resigned from that post on July 15, in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal. Need we ask why?
CREW drafted a letter to several Congress members on July 11:
British Prime Minister David Cameron has ordered an investigation into the hacking scandal, but given the shocking allegations regarding the 9/11 scandal, the number of News Corporation publications involved, and the fact that the company owns many American media outlets as well...it is imperative that the United States begin its own inquiry immediately.
Congress should immediately investigate whether and to what extent News of the World journalists hacked or attempted to hack the voicemails of American terrorist victims, politicians, and celebrities, as well as whether journalists working for any other News Corporation media outlet in the United States engaged in such tactics.
One of the recipients of the letter was Sen. John D. Rockefeller, who has already indicated that he supports an American probe into News Corp., although he has stopped short of saying Congress should be involved. The scandal "raises serious questions about whether the company has broken U.S. law, and I encourage the appropriate agencies to investigate to ensure that Americans have not had their privacy violated," Rockefeller said in a statement. "I am concerned that the admitted phone hacking in London by the News Corp. may have extended to 9/11 victims or other Americans. If they did, the consequences will be severe."


Let's hope so. To Tell Congress to investigate Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. today, click here:
http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-congress-investigate-news-corporation-2?partner=59

Lauren Kelley is an associate editor at AlterNet and a freelance writer and editor who has contributed to Change.org, The L Magazine and Time Out New York. She lives in Brooklyn. Follow her on Twitter here.

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Donald Trump strikes again...

Donald Trump Tells GOP To Default Just to Screw Obama

As seen in the article by Julianne Escobedo Shepherd
Sourced from AlterNet
Can we stop indulging this insane person? Yesterday on Fox and Friends (where else?), Donald Trump offered his advice to the Republican party on the debt ceiling. One would think that a man of his financial success would have sound, practical, possibly innovative advice for balancing a budget and coming up with a compromise, but apparently Trump doesn't have that much dignity. The shamed former GOP Presidential candidate offered only one missive: Default, just to screw Obama. McClatchy:



Trump seems to think that using the country's sparkling AAA credit rating as a sacrificial lamb and letting the nation default would damage Obama, who has been willing to put everything including entitlements on the table, more than it would hurt Republicans, who have refused to raise revenues on the richest Americans and companies during the debt ceiling negotiations.
"When it comes time to default, they're not going to remember any of the Republicans' names. They are going to remember in history books one name, and that's Obama," Trump said.


Aside from being utterly disgusting, Trump's statements are instructive, in a nutshell: they illustrate how disconnected hyper-conservative millionaires of his ilk are to the middle class, much less the poor, who will feel the brunt of it if the country defaults. But he also underestimates and insults the intelligence of the American public: if the GOP pushes the country into default because of a stalemate and a painfully transparent desire for Obama to go down, we will recognize as much, and we will punish them.

Read the full report at McClatchy.

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Modern conservatives behave like a bizarre religious cult...

Why Conservatives Behave More Like a Bizarre Religious Cult, Than a Legitimate Political Entity

As seen in the Alternet article and written by Digby | Hullabaloo:
It is easy to get caught up in every rivulet of the default crisis as we approach the inevitable cascade of market panics followed byshock doctrine cuts to social services. It is easy to find fault with the Administration for its many flaws in handling the situation, and with Congressional Democrats as well.

But it's also important to remember the big picture. The big picture is that America is being held hostage by a conservative movement that behaves much more as a bizarre religious cult, than a legitimate political entity. It is perhaps the most dangerous cult to have ever held sway over a major nation-state in modern times.

It is a cult founded on a number of dogmatic beliefs that have no basis in reality. These are people who believe that the inflection point of the Laffer Curve is somewhere in the low single digits, and that cutting taxes to insanely low levels will magically lead to revenue increases. These are people who believe that government itself is basically unnecessary but for a private property protection scheme, and that the unfettered market will provide all that society needs, and will dole out the appropriate price for all goods, wages and services with zero inflation through the magic of the market. These are people who believe it is impossible for humans to affect the climate, and that it is better for humans to attempt to magically adapt somehow to a much hotter world than to do anything to even curb the behaviors that might be making it hotter. These are people who believe that the proper way to punish corporate evildoers is to not punish them at all, because people will simply stop purchasing from corporations that poison their water and air and crash their economies--because the average consumer presumably has the secret market-given wisdom, and magic powers necessary to make financial choices to punish Koch Industries and Goldman Sachs if necessary. These are people who view Objectivism as a legitimate and serious philosophical discipline, and the fictional works of Ayn Rand as gospel to live by.

The fact that no country on earth has attempted to operate by these principles in the modern era is irrelevant. These people do not operate according to facts, but according to a deep and abiding faith in a wholly untested set of principles that can only be put into place upon the destruction of the current order.


As with any cult, the prospect of Armageddon is not troubling to them. Thus, the answer to exponentially rising healthcare costs is to do...nothing. The answer to rapidly increasing global temperatures is to do...nothing. The answer to a devastating default on the faith and credit of the United States is to do...nothing.

The possible outcomes of any and every imaginable crisis are only two: 1) give the cult everything it wants, when it wants it; or 2) do nothing and let the world burn. Which is fine, because once the flames have died down, the cult can at last build their Kingdom here as it is in Milton Friedman's heaven. If healthcare costs explode, then the system collapses and the people who are left will only buy the healthcare they can afford at market prices. If global temperatures rise, then Social Darwinism will preserve the deserving. If the American economy collapses, then it can be rebuilt, minus the surplus population and those pesky Keynesian programs that kept it afloat and alive. 2nd Amendment remedieswill deal with the lesser people who resist.

One can rage all day and night, and legitimately so, at the failures of the Left and Democrats over the last 30 years. It would take an encyclopedia to count them all.

But one also must remember that the American political system is facing perhaps the most dangerous enemy it has ever faced: an intransigent cult of individuals who simply do not care if everything goes down in flames around them, so long as the sacred tenets of the cult remain unchallenged.

The American political system was crafted by thinkers and philosophers deeply steeped in the Enlightenment. The Founders assumed that the competing elements of self-interest and cooperation, hinged on a delicate balance of powers, would be enough for men and women of Reason to, through fits and starts, ultimately find the best solutions for the problems facing the country based on evidence and argument. The system is built, in essence, upon the presumption of Reason. Of give and take. Of compromise.

The system was not built to handle a takeover of the system by an unreasoning cult. Big money has had outsize influence on our political system before, and the American People have managed to beat it back time and time again. But never before have we been faced with the sort of unified, concerted, intentionally reinforceddelusion that besets our halls of power today.

Yes, it is true that the conflict within what passes for the Left in this nation is in part a fight over the power of Big Money to co-opt the political vehicles that are supposed to carry our preferred policies forward.

But even more than that, the conflict is about how to handle the metastasizing cancer that the market fundamentalist cult is perpetrating on our body politic. Some on the Left believe in the inherent intelligence and reasonableness of the American voter, and assume that by keeping a level head and appearing to be the most sensible person in the room, the public will ultimately reject the cult and its trappings, even if we must give significant ground in the meantime. Others see politics as a game of tug-of-war in which only one side is doing any real pulling, and believe that an equally forceful counterweight is needed in order to keep the cult from pulling us all over a cliff. I consider myself squarely in the latter camp.

But whichever of those two sides one agrees with, it's important to remember the big picture: our future is being held hostage by a cult that doesn't care if the world burns down so long as they get what they want. Dealing with the implications of that needs to be the top priority of serious thinkers in our political system if we hope to preserve it.

Monday, July 25, 2011

Right Wing Christian Jihad - more terrorism likely in USA's future...

Long, but well worth the read. Words of warning for America's future. 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Christian Jihad? Why We Should Worry About Right-Wing Terror Attacks Like Norway's in the US

July 23, 2011 |  
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
There is a growing movement in America that equates godliness with hatred of our government -- in fact, hatred of our country.

Photo Credit: AFP
The Norwegian police on Saturday charged a 32-year-old man, whom they identified as a Christian fundamentalist with right-wing connections, over the bombing of a government center and a shooting attack on a nearby island that together left at least 91 people dead.


In my new book "Sex, Mom and God" I predicted just such an action. I predicted that right wing Christians will unleash terror here in America too. I predict that they will copy Islamic extremists, and may eventually even make common cause with them.


There is a growing movement in America that equates godliness with hatred of our government in fact hatred of our country as fallen and evil because we allow women choice, gays to marry, have a social safety net, and allow immigration from other cultures and non-white races.
According to the Guardian newspaper, the killer wrote:
"Today's Protestant church is a joke," he wrote in an online post in 2009. "Priests in jeans who march for Palestine and churches that look like minimalist shopping centres. I am a supporter of an indirect collective conversion of the Protestant church back to the Catholic."
It seems Anders Behring Breivik longed for a "pure" and ultra conservative religion. He was a man of religious conviction, no liberals with their jeans need apply! Liberals beware.
Norway is just a first taste of what will happen here on a larger scale.


A HISTORY of VIOLENT ACTION
There is a history to the far right, religious right extremism on the rise today, extremism so extreme that in its congressional manifestation it is risking the good faith and credit of the US in the debt calling fiasco. The Tea Party activists also want purity of doctrine.


My family was part of the far right/violent right's rise in the 1970s and 80s when we helped create the "pro-life" movement come into existence that in the end spawned the killers of abortion providers. These killers were literally doing what we'd called for.


The terror unleashed on Norway - and the terror now unleashed by the Tea Party through Congress as it holds our economy hostage to extremist "economic" theories that want to destroy our ability to function -- is the sort of white, Christian; far right terror America can expect more of.


THE "CHRISTIAN BROTHERHOOD"
Call this the ultimate "Tea Party" type "answer" to secularism, modernity, and above all our hated government. Call this the Christian Brotherhood. From far right congress people, to far right gun-toting terror in Norway and here at home, our own Western version of the Taliban is on the rise.
Foreigners, visitors from another planet and Americans living in a bubble of reasonable or educated people might not know this but the reality is that the debt ceiling confrontation is by, for and the result of America's evangelical Christian control of the Republican Party.


It is the ultimate expression of an alternate reality, one that has the mistrust of the US government as its bedrock "faith," second only to faith in Jesus.


To understand why an irrational self-defeating action like destroying the credit of the USA might seem like the right thing to do you have to understand two things: that the Republican Party is now the party of religious fanatics and that these fanatics -- people like Michele Bachmann -- don't want to work within our system, they want to bring it down along the lines of so-called Christian "Reconstruction." (See my book for a full account of what this is.)


In the scorched-earth era of the "health care reform debates" of 2009 and beyond, Evangelicals seemed to believe that Jesus commanded that all hospitals (and everything else) should be run by corporations for profit, just because corporations weren't the evil government. The right even decided that it was "normal" for the state to hand over its age-old public and patriotic duties to private companies -- even for military operations ("contractors"), prisons, health care, public transport, and all the rest.


PRIVATE "FACTS"
The Religious Right/Far Right et al. favored private "facts," too.
They claimed that global warming wasn't real. They asserted this because scientists (those same agents of Satan who insisted that evolution was real) were the ones who said human actions were changing the climate. Worse, the government said so, too!


"Global warming is a left-wing plot to take away our freedom!"
"Amtrak must make a profit!"


There is an indirect but deadly connection between the "intellectual" fig-leaf providers/leaders like my late father and periodic upheavals like the loony American Right's sometimes-violent reaction to the election of Barack Obama, killings in Norway and what the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party is about to do to us in forcing a default on our loans, and thus destroying the US economy in a way bin Laden could only have dreamed of doing.


No, your average member of some moronic gun toting Michigan militia is not reading books by my late father Francis Schaeffer where he called for the overthrow of the government because of Roe v Wade and the legalization of abortion. Nor have they heard of people like Robert George. And the killer in Norway may or may not have read my father's books.


But Michele Bachmann is reading my father's books. And she was trained in far right Reconstructionist theory at the Oral Roberts law school by one of Dad's followers.
Bachmann says she got into politics because of reading my father's work. And she is one of his extremist followers.


Non-Evangelicals with far right agendas like Robert George (I'll introduce him to you in a moment) have cashed in on the Evangelicals' like Bachmann's willingness to lend their numbers and influence to one "moral" anti-American crusade after another, or rather I should say, to one political crusade after another masquerading as moral crusades.


"RESPECTABLE" FAR RIGHT "INTELLECTUALS"
For instance, conservative Roman Catholic Princeton University Professor of Jurisprudence Robert George is an antiabortion, anti-Obama, anti-gay-rights, and anti-stem-cell-research "profamily" activist, and he has found ways to effectively carry on the far right Reconstructionist agenda while denying any formal connection to it and taking the intellectual high road.
Take George's brainchild: the "Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience."
This was published in 2009 as an anti-Obama manifesto, and many far right Evangelical leaders signed on.


The "Manhattan Declaration" reads:
"We will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act . . . nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's."
In case you've never heard of George, he's been a one-man "brain trust" for the Religious Right, Glenn Beck, and the Far Right of the Republican Party as well as for the ultraconservative wing of the Roman Catholic Church. Here's how the New York Times introduced him to its readers:

"[Robert George] has parlayed a 13th-century Catholic philosophy [the natural law theory] into real political influence. Glenn Beck, the Fox News talker and a big George fan, likes to introduce him as "one of the biggest brains in America," or, on one broadcast, "Superman of the Earth." Karl Rove told me he considers George a rising star on the right and a leading voice in persuading President George W. Bush to restrict embryonic stem-cell research. . . . Newt Gingrich called him "an important and growing influence" on the conservative movement, especially on matters like abortion and marriage. "If there really is a vast right-wing conspiracy," the conservative Catholic journal Crisis concluded a few years ago, "its leaders probably meet in George's kitchen.""

GOVERNMENT IS THE ENEMY

It's a question of legitimacy and illegitimacy.

What the Religious Right, including the Religious Right's Roman Catholic and Protestant enablers, did was contribute to a climate in which the very legitimacy of our government--is questioned as part of religious faith itself.


The "Manhattan Declaration" called laws with which its signers disagreed "edicts," thereby conjuring up images of dictators handing down oppressive rules, rather than legitimately elected democratic bodies passing legislation. In other words, when the Right lost in the democratic process, "other means" to undermine the law were encouraged. This is the language of revolution, not democracy.
The Far Right intellectual enablers began by questioning abortion rights, gay rights, school prayer rulings, and so forth. What they ended up doing was to help foster a climate in which--in the eyes of a dangerous and growing (mostly white lower class undereducated gun-toting) minority--the very legitimacy of the U.S. government was called into question, sometimes in paranoid generalities, but often with ridiculous specificity: for instance, in the persistent lie that President Obama was not a citizen or was a Muslim or that the Federal Reserve and/or United Nations were somehow involved in a plot to "take away our freedoms" or that sensible gun control equaled "tyranny."


TERROR FOR CHRIST
It was in the context of delegitimizing our government that actions by domestic terrorists like Timothy McVeigh became thinkable. In 1993 McVeigh told a reporter, "The government is continually growing bigger and more powerful and the people need to prepare to defend themselves against government control."


Change a word or two and his words could have been lifted from my father's 1981 book A Christian Manifesto, or for that matter a few decades later, from statements by the so-called Tea Party or those by Michele Bachmann, or Robert George or his follower Glenn Beck.


In my father's book he called for the overthrow of the US government unless non-violent ways were found to overturn Roe v Wade. He compared America to Nazi Germany.


Note the ominous rhetorical shadow Dad's book cast over a benighted and divided American future, a future that produced the climate of hate that eventually spawned the murder of abortion providers such as Dr. George Tiller in Wichita in 2009 and the threat of destroying America's credit in an effort to literally defund the USA.


Here's a bit from Manifesto on how the government was "taking away" our country and turning it over to Liberals, codenamed by Dad as "this total humanistic way of thinking":
"The law, and especially the courts, is the vehicle to force this total humanistic way of thinking upon the entire population..."


And this:
"Simply put, the Declaration of Independence states that the people, if they find that their basic rights are being systematically attacked by the state, have a duty to try and change that government, and if they cannot do so, to abolish it."


Then this:
"There does come a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate. . . . A true Christian in Hitler's Germany and in the occupied countries should have defied the false and counterfeit state. This brings us to a current issue that is crucial for the future of the church in the United States, the issue of abortion. . . . It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God's law it abrogates its authority. And our loyalty to the God who gave this law then requires that we make the appropriate response in that situation."


In other words, Dad's followers were told that (1) force is a legitimate weapon to use against an evil government; (2) America was like Hitler's Germany--because of legal abortion and of the forcing of "Humanism" on the population--and thus intrinsically evil; and (3) whatever would have been the "appropriate response" to stop Hitler was now appropriate to do here in America to stop our government, which Dad had just branded a "counterfeit state."


EXTREMISM IS NEXT TO GODLINESS
To understand the extremism coming from the right, the fact that there are members of Congress who seem to be genuinely mentally unhinged leading the charge on the debt ceiling, you need to understand that this hatred of all things government has theological roots that have nothing to do with facts.


Theology is -- by nature -- not about reason but about faith. If God's will is to be served then so be it if America is plunged into chaos! This debt ceiling fiasco is just another chapter in the "culture" wars.
The extreme language of Evangelical/"pro-life" rebellion has now been repackaged in the debt ceiling showdown. It is the language of religion pitted against facts.


And the anti-government charge is being led by people who are either true believers, thus unable to reason, or people catering to the true believers so that they can remain in the good books of the Tea Party, which is nothing more than the Evangelical far right repackaged and renamed.
Some people took the next step. The night of December 14, 2008, Bruce Turnidge was in handcuffs and sitting next to an FBI agent in Turnidge's farmhouse in Oregon. He was ranting about the "need" for militias and cursing the election of an African American president. Hours earlier, his son, Joshua, had been arrested for allegedly causing a fatal bomb explosion.


"Bruce started talking about the Second Amendment and citizens' rights to carry firearms," said George Chamberlin, the FBI agent. "Bruce talked at length that the government should fear the people and that the people should not fear the government."


In February 2010, a little more than a year after Obama's inauguration, Joseph Stack, a fifty-three-year-old software engineer, piloted a plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas, and killed one man and injured several others.


Before killing himself, Stack posted an online suicide note railing against the federal government and expressing grievances similar to those Dad had enumerated.


A Facebook group celebrating Stack had thousands of members sign on almost instantly after he was "martyred for our freedoms," as one contributor called it. The site featured the Gadsden flag (the flag with the logo "Don't Tread On Me") and these words: "Finally an American man took a stand against our tyrannical government that no longer follows the constitution and turned its back on its founding fathers and the beliefs this country was founded on."


In March 2010 the so-called Hutaree Militia, a right-wing, biblically inspired fundamentalist group, was alleged to have hatched a plot to kill police officers. Members of this outfit had planned attacks on police officers as a way of acting out their hatred for the government as well as a way to launch the civil chaos "predicted" in so-called End Times biblical prophecies. The day the plotters were arrested, I checked their online homepage. Here's what I found as their mission statement (misspellings in the original post, which has since been taken down, as has the site):


"As Christians we all are a part of the Souls of the Body of Christ, the one true church of Christ. . . . This is the belief of the Hutaree soldier, as should the belief of all followers in Christ be."


THE BLACK MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE DRIVES THE RIGHT TO INSANITY
Following the election of our first black president, the "politics" of the Evangelical, Jewish, Roman Catholic, and Mormon Far Right was not the politics of a loyal opposition, but rather the instigation of revolution, which was first and best expressed by Rush Limbaugh when even before President Obama took office he said, "I hope Obama fails."


To the old-fashioned conservative mantra "Big government doesn't work," the newly radicalized Evangelicals (and their Roman Catholic and Mormon cobelligerents) added "The U.S. government is evil!"


And the very same community--Protestant American Evangelicals--who had once been the bedrock supporters of public education, and voted for such moderate and reasonable men as President Dwight Eisenhower, became the enemies of not only the public schools but also of anything in the (nonmilitary) public sphere "run by the government."


As they opened new institutions (proudly outside the mainstream), the Jesus Victims doing this "reclaiming" cast themselves in the role of persecuted exiles.


What they never admitted was that they were self-banished from mainstream institutions, not only because the Evangelicals' political views on social issues conflicted with most people's views, but also because Evangelicals (and other conservative religionists) found themselves holding the short end of the intellectual stick.


And yet having "dropped out" (to use a 1960s phrase), the Evangelicals nevertheless kept on demanding that regarding "moral" and "family" matters the society they'd renounced nonetheless had to conform to their beliefs.


CHRISTIAN JIHAD
Another Far Right Roman Catholic ideologue (and also an academic) even wrote a book calling on Christians, Jews, and Muslims to join together in a jihad against the secular West. In Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War a former friend of mine, Peter Kreeft (a professor of philosophy at Boston College), called for "ecumenical jihad."


I met with Kreeft several times in my home in the 1980s and early 1990s while he was developing his "jihadist" ideas. Kreeft's was not a plea for blowing people up, and his book was published pre-9/11.
His book was based on the fact that many believers in Roman Catholicism, Evangelical Protestantism, and Islam (at least in their fundamentalist forms) rejected the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Homosexuality is out, sex education is evil, and so on. Kreeft called on all believers to unite to overthrow "secularism" in the same anti-secular spirit that Robert George channeled a few years later when trying to undermine the Obama administration through his brainchild, the "Manhattan Declaration."


Kreeft called for an "alliance" of fundamentalist Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and Muslims to prosecute a culture war against what he viewed as the Western cultural elite. Ecumenical Jihad was dedicated to Richard John Neuhaus, the late Roman Catholic convert priest, and to Charles Colson (who later teamed up with George to author the "Manhattan Declaration").


The groups Kreeft, Colson, and Neuhaus had in mind to "bring together" in an ecumenical jihad were alienated Evangelicals, Orthodox Jews, and conservative Roman Catholics, to which Kreeft added Muslims (not that any actually signed on to his program as far as I know). These groups did not share each other's theology, but they had a deeper link: anger at the "victimhood" imposed on them by modernity.


Kreeft and Neuhaus were calling abortion murder. Thus, the logic of their argument was that of my father's, too: The U.S. government was enabling murder and was thus disparaged as a "regime," even a "counterfeit state," that needed to be overthrown.


A WILLINGNESS TO DESTROY AMERICA IN ORDER TO "SAVE" IT
George and Colson and the others who wrote and then signed the "Manhattan Declaration" (like Kreeft before them) also called for fundamentalists to unite if need be for civil disobedience to stop the U.S. government from passing laws that did not comply with their religious "values" and/or to undermine those laws if they were enacted.


So if the U.S. government legalized gay marriage and thus "compelled" all Americans (including church groups) to recognize gay men and women's civil rights, the government need no longer be obeyed when those laws affected religious people who disagreed with them. The "Manhattan Declaration" called believers to "not comply." And just as Neuhaus dismissed the U.S. government as a "regime"--and my father did the same when saying the government was a "counterfeit state"--George and his co - signers also used dismissive and demeaning language about the U.S. government.
In a country awash in weapons and wallowing in the rhetoric of rebellion against an "evil" government, sporadic outbursts of murder tinged with political overtones seem as inevitable as they seem horribly "normal."


It doesn't seem like much of a stretch to foresee a day when a "secessionist" group and/or members of some "militia"--let alone one lone individual--will use their U.S. passports, white skins, and solid- citizen standing as a cover for importing a weapon of mass destruction to "liberate" the rest of us from our federal government's "tyranny" and/or to "punish" some city like New York, known as the U.S. "abortion capital" or San Francisco as the place that "those gays have taken over." And the possibility of an assassination in the same vein is a never-ending threat.


What we fear most from Islamist terrorists will be unleashed here as it was in Norway.
Terror is on the way on the way from our very own Christian and/or Libertarian "Tea Party" type activists inspired by right wing "Christian" intellectuals and political leaders like Bachmann who - after the killing starts -- will then disown them and express horror at their actions, actions that are in fact the logical extension of the anti-government rhetoric spewing from Congress and the religious right.


Frank Schaeffer is a writer. His new book is Sex, Mom, and God: How the Bible's Strange Take on Sex Led to Crazy Politics--and How I Learned to Love Women (and Jesus) Anyway.
Frank Schaeffer is a writer and author of Crazy for God: How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Taken from the following website:

Saturday, July 23, 2011

Right wing Christian zealot possibly tied to Norway Massacre

The Norway Massacre and the Nexus of Islamophobia and Right-Wing Zionism

Details on the culprit behind yesterday's massacre in Norway, which saw car bombings in Oslo and a mass shooting attack on the island of Utoya that caused the deaths of at least 91 people, have begun to emerge. While it is still too early for a complete portrait of the killer, Anders Behring Breivik, there are enough details to begin to piece together what's behind the attack.

Although initial media reports, spurred on by the tweets of former State Department adviser on violent extremism Will McCants, linked the attacks to Islamist extremists, it was in fact an anti-Muslim zealot who committed the murders. An examination of Breivik's views, and his support for far-right European political movements, makes it clear that only by interrogating the nexus of Islamophobia and right-wing Zionism can one understand the political beliefs behind the terrorist attack.

Breivik is apparently an avid fan of U.S.-based anti-Muslim activists such as Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes, and has repeatedly professed his ardent support for Israel. Breivik's political ideology is illuminated by looking at comments he posted to the right-wing site document.no, which author and journalist Doug Sanders put up.

And then we have the relationship between conservative Muslims and so-called "moderate Muslims".
There is moderate Nazis, too, that does not support fumigation of rooms and Jews. But they're still Nazis and will only sit and watch as the conservatives Nazis strike (if it ever happens). If we accept the moderate Nazis as long as they distance themselves from the fumigation of rooms and Jews?
Now it unfortunately already cut himself with Marxists who have already infiltrated-culture, media and educational organizations. These individuals will be tolerated and will even work asprofessors and lecturers at colleges / universities and are thus able to spread their propaganda.
For me it is very hypocritical to treat Muslims, Nazis and Marxists differ. They are all supporters of hate-ideologies...(page 2-3).
What is globalization and modernity to do with mass Muslim immigration?
And you may not have heard and Japan and South Korea? These are successful and modern regimes even if they rejected multiculturalism in the 70's. Are Japanese and South Koreans goblins?
Can you name ONE country where multiculturalism is successful where Islam is involved? The only historical example is the society without a welfare state with only non-Muslim minorities (U.S.)...(page 7).

We have selected the Vienna School of Thought as the ideological basis. This implies opposition to multiculturalism and Islamization (on cultural grounds). All ideological arguments based on anti-racism. This has proven to be very successful which explains why the modern cultural conservative movement / parties that use the Vienna School of Thought is so successful: the Progress Party,Geert Wilders, document and many others...(page 13). 

I consider the future consolidation of the cultural conservative forces on all seven fronts as the most important in Norway and in all Western European countries. It is essential that we work to ensure that all these 7 fronts using the Vienna school of thought, or at least parts of the grunlag for 20-70 year-struggle that lies in front of us.
The book is called, by the way 2083 and is in English, 1100 pages).
To sums up the Vienna school of thought:
-Cultural Conservatism (anti-multiculturalism)
-Against Islamization
-Anti-racist
-Anti-authoritarian (resistance to all authoritarian ideologies of hate)
-Pro-Israel/forsvarer of non-Muslim minorities in Muslim countries
- Defender of the cultural aspects of Christianity
- To reveal the Eurabia project and the Frankfurt School (ny-marxisme/kulturmarxisme/multikulturalisme)
- Is not an economic policy and can collect everything from socialists to capitalists...(page 20)
           Daniel Pipes: Leftism and Islam. Muslims, the warriors Marxists Have Been praying for.
The following summarizes the agenda of many kulturmarxister with Islam, it explains also why those on death and life protecting them. It explains so well why we, the cultural conservatives,are against Islamization and the implementation of these agendas... (page 27).

We must therefore make sure to influence other cultural conservatives to come to our anti-rasistiske/pro-homser/pro-Israel line. When they reach this line, one can take it to the next level...(page 41)

Breivik's right-wing pro-Israel line, combined with his antipathy to Muslims, is just one example of the European far-right's ideology, exemplified by groups such as the English Defense League (EDL). The EDL, a group Breivik praises, along with the anti-Muslim politician Geert Wilders, share with Breivik an admiration for Israel.

Anti-Muslim activists and right-wing Zionists share a political narrative that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a "clash of civilizations," one in which Judeo-Christian culture is under attack by Islam. Israel, in this narrative, is the West's bulwark against the threat that Islam is posing to Europe and the United States. The nexus of Islamophobia and right-wing Zionism was clearly on display during last summer's"Ground Zero mosque" hysteria, which culminated in a rally where Geller and Wilders addressed a crowd that included members of the EDL waving Israeli flags. 

This comment by Breivik is one example of the twisted way in which Islamophobia and a militant pro-Israel ideology fit together:
Cultural conservatives disagree when they believe the conflict is based on Islamic imperialism,that Islam is a political ideology and not a race.
Cultural conservatives believe Israel has a right to protect themselves against the Jihad.
Kulturmarxistene refuses to recognize the fact that Islam's political doctrine is relevant and essential. They can never admit to or support this because they believe that this is primarily about a race war - that Israel hates Arabs (breed).
As long as you can not agree on the fundamental perceptions of reality are too naive to expect that one to come to any conclusion.Before one at all can begin to discuss this conflict must first agree on the fundamental truths of Islam's political doctrine.
Most people here have great insight in key Muslim concepts that al-taqiiya (political deceit), naskh (Quranic abrogation) and Jihad. The problem is that kulturmarxister refuses to recognizet hese concepts.They can not recognize these key Muslim concepts. For if they do so erodes the primary argument that Israel is a "racist state" and that this is a race war (Israelis vs. Arabs) and not defense against Jihad (Kafr vs. Ummah)
Breivik's admiration for the likes of Daniel Pipes is also telling, and should serve as a warning that, while it would be extremely unfair and wrong to link Pipes in any way to the massacre in Norway, Breivik's views are not so far off from some establishment neoconservative voices in the U.S. For instance, both Pipes and Breivik share a concern with Muslim demographics in Europe. In 1990, Pipes wrotein the National Review that "Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene...All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most."

Pipes was appointed by the Bush administration to the U.S. Institute of Peace, andsits on the same board than none other than the Obama administration's point man on the Middle East, Dennis Ross.
Pipes' and Breivik's concern about Muslim and Arab demographics also recall the remarks of Harvard Fellow Martin Kramer, who infamously told the Herzliya Conference in Israel last year that the West should "stop providing pro-natal subsidies for Palestinians with refugee status...Israel's present sanctions on Gaza have a political aim, undermine the Hamas regime, but they also break Gaza's runaway population growth and there is some evidence that they have."

Adding to the Israel/Palestine angle here is the fact that the day before the attack on the island of Utoya, a Palestine solidarity event was held there.

Why Breivik, and his accomplices if he had any, would attack young Norwegians remains unclear. But it probably had something to do with Breivik's belief that European governments, and the Norwegian government, were run by "Marxists" allied with Islamist extremists who were bent on destroying Europe through "multiculturalism."

Of course, support for Israel and its current right-wing policies do not automatically translate into support for extremist right-wing violence. But Palestinians, and the larger Arab and Muslim world, know far too well the consequences of Islamophobia and far right-wing Zionism. Now, it seems that Norwegians do too. While much remains to be learned about the attacks in Norway, it has exposed the dangerous nexus of Islamophobia, neoconservatism and right-wing Zionism, and what could happen when the wrong person subscribes to those toxic beliefs.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Taken from:
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/638965/the_norway_massacre_and_the_nexus_of_islamophobia_and_right-wing_zionism/#paragraph3

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

"Why We Need President Obama -- A Critical Moment" - by Deepak Chopra

One of the virtues of being on the liberal side of politics is that total obedience isn't required. There are no hidden agendas. Ideology doesn't lead to unreason.



In a political climate where it feels as if the inmates are running the asylum -- as in the current Republican threat to default on America's debt -- the prevailing sanity of President Obama is something that others and I have taken for granted.

We cannot afford that luxury any more, I'm afraid.

For many reasons, this is the moment when loyalty is going to count the most. That's a hard sentence to write. Liberal politics is based on a non-regimented, all-inclusive approach to democracy. Freedom of thought is paramount. But certain harsh realities must be faced. For thirty years and more, the progressive tradition has been severely undermined, dating back to Nixon's "Southern strategy" (coddle the racists) and Ronald Reagan's smiling reactionary agenda (AIDS victims deserve what they get), through the first President Bush's Willie Horton strategy (another boost for racism) and the second President Bush's deceptive "compassionate conservatism."

It was such a relief to return to humane, non-ideological governance when President Obama won in 2008 that we underestimated the debasing effect that two generations of right-wing indoctrination has had. Each increment of this debasement seemed fairly tolerable, even bizarrely quixotic. A pledge never to raise taxes until the end of time? Blatant favoritism toward Christian groups, however intolerant their dogmas? Stuffing the foreign service with neo-cons, the Justice Department with graduates of Jerry Falwell's law school? These aberrations go unnoticed outside Washington, perhaps, but bit-by-bit the damage has been corrosive.

When Lincoln was assassinated, an anguished Walt Whitman wrote "O Captain! My Captain!" whose theme was that the ship of state had reached a great victory -- the end of the Civil War -- just as the captain lay dead on the deck. We all know that this victory was unfulfilled, followed by a reactionary period that destined America to a hundred more years of virulent racism. Without being melodramatic, I think the work of undoing decades of reactionary policies has barely begun.

Which is to say that all of us who have taken advantage of our liberal heritage to question and criticize President Obama need to step back and consider the radical nature of the opposition, from the Supreme Court down to the local precinct. The current debt ceiling crisis is proof that sensible, sane responses are not going to be automatic anymore. Paul Krugman calls the current Republican tactic outright extortion. The leaders of the Republican Party are so terrified of losing their seats in Congress that they have collapsed in the face of the ultra right and its worst ideologues.

If you suppose that the average citizen remembers that the right wing are the very ones who got us into this forlorn tangle of wars abroad, financial collapse, out-of-control spending, and massive bonuses for the rich, you have not felt the power that fear exerts. Since 9/11, playing upon fear has been wildly successful for the right wing -- it re-elected a catastrophic president -- and now outrage has been added to the mix thanks to the romping recklessness of Wall Street, which paid not the slightest penalty for bringing on the recession.

If ever there was a time to stand behind the captain, this is it. Not because pluralism and free expression are wrong. They aren't and never will be. But like Churchill calling upon a coalition cabinet in the depth of the war years, it's paramount that we see the greater danger for what it is. Attention was drawn to the cover of a recent issue of the Economist, which showed a tall President Obama towering over a squabbling handful of pygmy Republican rivals for the presidency. The headline read, "He Could Still Lose." We need to remember that if that were to happen, it wouldn't be because President Obama made too many mistakes or failed to pass a sufficiently liberal agenda. The reason would be that all of us forgot the 30-year reign of reactionary administrations (minus the Clinton years) and the power of debased politics to keep coming back, again and again.
deepakchopra.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Full article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/why-we-need-president-oba_b_900666.html

Thursday, July 14, 2011

The GOP's Debt Ceiling War Not About Debt But About Obama



From Huffington Post article written by:


But the GOP didn't acquiesce in turning the debt into a non-issue solely to appease a GOP president. Congress jumped the debt ceiling 64 times since 1962 before Bush took office for Democratic and Republican presidents alike. The ceiling was raised even in election years without any public fanfare.
But when polls showed that a majority of Americans were concerned about mounting debt, and that a sizable number of Americans wanted to rein in spending, the debt ceiling instantly became a fresh weapon for the GOP to barrage Obama. They calculate they can score three political pluses on the cheap. They can further tar Obama and the Democrats as reckless spendthrifts that want to run the country and the economy into the ground. They can wrap themselves even more snugly in the cloak of the defenders of fiscal prudence and responsibility with the solemn mission of guarding the nation's taxpayer's purse. They can drive a wedge between Obama and Congressional Democrats by forcing him to make concessions for a budget deal that will draw howls from Democrats. The concessions are, of course, putting the Democrats' two sacred cow programs, Medicare and Social Security, on the chopping block.

The GOP ploy played out to predictable perfection. The instant word leaked out that Obama had offered to make a tweak in the cost of living formula for Social Security and raise the age limit on Medicare recipients; a legion of congressional Democrats screamed betrayal and warned that any such deal on the two vital programs would have damaging consequences for Democrats in 2012. They are right. That was the whole point of the GOP forcing Obama to take the drastic steps of offering up Social Security and Medicare as bargaining chips to put him at odds with other Democrats and cause jitters among the Democratic voter base.

Democratic House Minority Leader Steny Hoyer glimpsed that this was indeed a calculated maneuver by the GOP and openly groused that the GOP could politicize the debt ceiling debate. But Hoyer was being far too cautious and generous in saying "could" about the ploy. The only way to make any sense out of the GOP's waging a World War II proportion battle out of something that had been as pro forma as the changing seasons for a half century was politics. The GOP leaders will eventually approve a deal on the budget and that will include raising the debt ceiling for the 75th time. But the GOP won't cut the deal without one more go at scoring a couple more political brownie points at Obama's expense.

They'll loudly proclaim that by waging the fight over the ceiling they thwarted the Democrats from continuing to bloat spending, held the line against any tax increases, and that this in effect prevented retarding the dubious recovery. And if in the process they've managed to sow enough ill will and division among Democrats then this is all the better in improving the prospects of whatever GOP presidential hopeful eventually emerges from the pack to challenge Obama.

President Obama almost certainly had the GOP's cynical scenario in mind when he blasted "professional politicians" for holding the government hostage while they jockey for partisan political gain. This shot at the GOP will fall on deaf ears precisely because the debt ceiling fight was never about debt but about Obama.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. He is an associate editor of New America Media. He is host of the weekly Hutchinson Report Newsmaker Hour on KTYM Radio Los Angeles streamed on ktym.com podcast on blogtalkradio.com and internet TV broadcast on thehutchinsonreportnews.com.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/gops-debt-ceiling-war_b_895731.html

Monday, July 11, 2011

Christians filling Murdoch's pockets...


Why Rupert Murdoch Love$ God: World's Biggest Sleaze Mogul Also Getting Rich from Christian Moralizers
In addition to being a phone-hacking Darth Vader, Rupert Murdoch is also one of the leading religion publishers in the world.
July 10, 2011

Here's what you might not know about Rupert Murdoch: he’s one of the leading religion publishers in the world.
 
Maybe one day soon Murdoch will go to jail as might his son, as will several of their UK editors if many alleged and disgusting and illegal acts of pirate “journalism” are proved true, ranging from bribing the police to hacking the phones of bereaved family members of killed service men and women and child murder victims. Make no mistake: when it comes to the Murdoch media “empire” we're talking about the lowest form of “journalism” as detailed by the Guardian newspaper.
So are religious moralizers and others writing about religious and/or “moral” themes prepared to enrich the Murdoch “ media juggernaut” forever while Rupert Murdoch further corrupts UK, American and Australian politics while his companies trade in human misery for profit by hacking murder victim's phones, paying off the police, elevating smut to a national sport and even hacking the phones of killed soldiers’ families?

You bet!

Rupert Murdoch is one of America’s number one publishers of evangelical and other religious books, including the 33-million seller <em>Purpose Driven Life </em>by mega pastor and anti-gay activist Rick Warren. Murdoch is also publisher of "progressive" Rob Bell’s <em>Love Wins</em>.
Rick Warren, Rob Bell and company helped Murdoch fund his tabloid-topless-women-on-page-3 empire, phone hacking of murdered teens and Fox News' spreading "birther" and "death panel" lies about the president. They helped Murdoch by enriching him. And these weren’t unknown authors just lucky to get published anywhere, they could have picked anybody to sell their books.
Do the religious authors making their fortunes off Murdoch wear gloves when they cash their royalty checks? Do they ever dare look in the mirror?

The authors publishing with Murdoch serve a religious market so fine-tuned to grandstanding hypocrisy and moralizing, that, for instance, my novels about growing up religious (Portofino, Zermatt and Saving Grandma) will never be sold in the thousands of CBA member (Christian Bookseller’s Association) bookstores because – horrors! – my books have profanity and sex in them!
But those same CBA stores gladly sell tens of millions of books -- annually -- published by Murdoch, a man with the moral rectitude of the herpes virus, a man who runs the companies that gave Glenn Beck a megaphone, that hacked a dead girl's phone, that lied about Iraq's involvement in 9/11, and thus contributed to the war-of-choice needless killing of almost 5000 American soldiers by George W Bush.

You see, Murdoch has bought into and now owns a huge chunk of American religion and is suckling from the profitable God-teat along with the likes of Rick Warren and Rob Bell et al.
Murdoch bought the venerable evangelical Zondervan publishing house. I knew the founding Zondervan family, a clan of strict Bible-believing Calvinists who’d have bathed for a week in the Jordan River to purify themselves if they’d ever even brushed up against Murdoch and his minions! Later generations sold out.

Murdoch also bought the all purpose all-religion-is-great-if-it-sells-something “religion” site “Beliefnet” and "Inspirio" - religious “gift production,” specialists making tawdry religion-junk of the one-more-pair-of-praying-hands made of pressed muck kind.

And Murdoch publishes Rob Bell and other so-called progressives evangelical “stars” as well as run of the mill evangelical right winger’s books though Harper One, the "religious" division of Harper Collins, another Murdoch company.

Murdoch knows something I found out way back in the 1970s and 80s, when I was still my founder-of-the-religious-right Dad’s sidekick and a right wing evangelical leader/shill myself: There’s gold in them-thar God hills! James Dobson alone once gave away 150,000 copies of one of my evangelical screeds
So here’s my question to Rob Bell of the God-loves-everybody school of touchy-feely theology and/or to the right wing "family values" crowd who worry about gay marriage between responsible loving adults while they perform financial fellatio on the mightiest and most depraved/pagan media baron to ever walk the earth:

What serious, let alone decent religiously conscious person – left or right, conservative or liberal -- would knowingly work to enrich this dreadful man who will go down in history as the epitome of everything that all religion says its against: lies, greed, criminality, and sheer disgusting exploitation of the defenseless that would shame a sewer rat?

Secular “un-saved” and "godless" and "liberal" authors like Jeff Jarvis have pulled books from Harper Collins because it’s owned by Murdoch as he writes: “[my] next book, Public Parts, was to be published, like my last one, by News Corp.'s HarperCollins. But I pulled the book because in it, I am very critical of the parent company for being so closed. It's now being published by Simon and Schuster.”

Where are the big time religion writers like the "I-give-all-my-royalties-to-the-poor" to be found Rick Warren refusing to publish with Zondervan, Harper One or write another word for Beliefnet? What’s mildly lefty Rob Bell’s defense for enriching Murdoch and helping to finance Fox “News” via publishing with Harper One when he could publish with anyone?

For that matter where are the evangelical/Roman Catholic/Muslim—or just minimally decent -- people, religious or irreligious guests and commentators now refusing to be interviewed by Fox News even if it will help sell their books?

Knowing what we know about the union-busting, slime-spreading Murdoch empire and it's disgusting and criminal actions can a moral person work for or use the products of this all-encompassing web of profit, far right politics and corruption?

I don't think so.

But of course the religion writers have plenty of company.

What about journalists working for Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal?

What about Deepak Chopra?

He publishes with Harper One. Thus Chopra is helping finance Fox News. And so is Desmond Tutu.

He’s also a Harper One author.

And what about all the “progressive” stars, producers and writers doing deals with the Fox movie empire? Such Hollywood moralists used to boycott working in the old apartheid South Africa, but will work for/with Murdoch today as he empowers the far religious racist right through Fox News! Desmond Tutu used to call for boycotts of far right religious nuts in South Africa oppressing blacks in the name of God, and now he’s a Murdoch contributor!

Go figure!

Why should the people – religious leaders, writers, actors, agents, producers et al -- who help Murdoch wreck America and the UK -- remain respectable in our countries?

Okay, they deserve a second chance.

Mea Culpa!

I published two books with Harper Collins some years ago after Murdoch had taken over. I had a deal with the Smithsonian that was tied into Harper Collins for distribution, then the Smithsonian backed out but my books stayed at Harpers. After they were published I thought about – and regretted -- helping Murdoch. I've never published with them again.

I only have one excuse, I didn’t know much about Murdoch then. But who would willingly publish anything with any Murdoch paper, magazine or book publisher now, knowing what we all know?
Post UK meltdown, will Tutu, Bell, Chopra et al – big time authors with a choice
I only have one excuse, I didn’t know much about Murdoch then. But who would willingly publish anything with any Murdoch paper, magazine or book publisher now, knowing what we all know?

Post UK meltdown, will Tutu, Bell, Chopra et al – big time authors with a choice of publishers -- still publish yet more books with Harper One, and/or with Zondervan?

Will liberals in Hollywood<em> still</em> underwrite Murdoch with their lives and continue to work for Fox TV and Fox Films?

It’s time to hold all Murdoch's collaborator’s feet to the fire, especially the big and famous sell outs who can go anywhere with their books or scripts. And why would any decent paper or blog review any book, film or TV show that enriches Murdoch? He should be blacked out before he takes us all down with him.

No more excuses. We all know about Murdoch now.

From here on out it’s time to out those who choose to stay in bed with the sleazy man from down under who elbowed his way into America and the UK, damaged our political systems, perhaps fatally, all the while insulting our intelligence and aiding and abetting our war machine.

We can’t boycott every dubious corporation on earth. But with Murdoch’s sleaze-infested ambition to control the politics of so much of the world a reality a line’s been crossed. It is time to pull an “Arab Spring” on the whole Murdoch empire and overthrow it. And we of the outraged “street” can do it at last because so many political and media leaders, who have sucked up to Murdoch for decades, are running for cover.

I know it’s not considered polite to be judgmental but I’ll say it: to work for any part of News Corp, Murdoch, Fox and/or any or all of his companies, let alone to publish books with him makes you an accomplice to a very bad person.

Frank Schaeffer is a writer his new book is Sex, Mom, and God: How the Bible's Strange Take on Sex Led to Crazy Politics--and How I Learned to Love Women (and Jesus) Anyway </a>

Frank Schaeffer is the author of "Crazy for God: How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~