Divide and Conquer
How the Neo Conservatives like Mike Huckabee, Megyn Kelly, Sean Hannity, Joe Scarborough, Liz Cheney and Elisabeth Hasselbeck offer a double standard to Blacks while pretending to fight against it in order to manipulate Blacks to support the American Troops in Iraq. This article examines how Blacks are given a double standard when it comes to Black Victimization but not without having to overlook the horrible things that have occurred in Iraq and going along with a corrupt economic system in America (explained in AbolishPropertyTaxes.com )
Inflation of the Bubble
We must first look at how the anti-gay bubble was inflated. In the 1960s America made a turn politically in the direction of Liberalism. In 1976 Democrat Jimmy Carter won the South and the Whitehouse against Republican Gerald Ford who was socially liberal/moderate like Republican Barry Goldwater was in 1964 when he lost. The Republicans needed to win the South and social conservatives or it would continue to lose nationwide elections. In the late 70s a coalition was brought together under Ronald Reagan to help the Republicans take control. This coalition claimed to be against the advancement of gay rights as well as advertising itself to be on the Right on many other social issues. The Country Club Republicans joined with the Social Conservatives. America continued to move to the left on homosexuality although one might not of thought so if you were just looking at the success of the Republican Party from 1980 to 2006. In order to bring the Social Conservatives into the Republican Party Evangelical Religious Leaders had to deceive the masses that the Republican Party had their values at the heart of their movement when they really just wanted their votes. Religious Leaders like Jerry Falwell who was hungry for power answered the call of the new party. Falwell crusaded against gays during the late 70s and wasn’t shy to point out that he also just happened to be a Republican. Falwell stated harshly that gays were a vulgar group of people who would just assume kill you rather than look at you. Bob Jones III while at the Whitehouse said that gays should be put to death while mentioning Jimmy Carter was not fit to be President back in 1980. The new Republican Party started winning. The Aids crisis would help empower the anti-gay rights crusade because it weakened the gay community in a major way for a short period of time. It is hard to defend a group that is being wiped out by something that they can prevent through behavior.
Hyper Inflation of the Bubble
In 1992 Bill Clinton won the presidential election. Clinton ended the ban on gays in the military and a huge anti-gay Republican push began. Many Democrats had drifted more liberal over the years. With a Democrat in office it gave the Republicans an opportunity to take back congress using social issues to do it. I explain why this is so bad in AbolishPropertyTaxes.com. I am looking at the gay issue separate in this writing because it was so popular. In 1994 Republicans won big and it appeared that gay rights were a bad issue for many Democrats. The country however continued to move to the left. The success of the Republicans who were against gay rights overshadowed the fact that many Democrats were still inching to the left on gay issues. The anti-gay rhetoric was loud and clear during the 90s and tolerated by society in general. I remember hearing Jerry Falwell working against gay rights during the 90s but toned done from the language he used at first. I noticed Jerry claimed to believe in equality and freedom for gays. I thought he did not and wondered why he didn’t admit it. This was intentional on his part. Anyone working truthfully against gay rights would not claim to believe in freedom or equality for them. That is what you are working against. After all the Old Testament had gays stoned and God turned against Israel when it tolerated sins like that. The people of Israel still sinned a lot when they were in God’s favor. They were blessed in part because they did not tolerate sexual sins like homosexual acts. So gay sins were not equal or free. In the New Testament Romans speaks of gays as being the ones on the fast track when it comes to suppressing the Glory of God. Again this is not equal. Guess what Jerry probably never cared much if gays got rights or not he was more concerned with power. One must be aware that big money that was behind Jerry and much of the money that funded the Moral Majority did not come from those strongly opposed to homosexuality but those who wanted the Republicans to win for financial gain. His coming out so strong against homosexuality and then saying he believed in freedom and equity made it harder for those truthfully working against gay rights to be open and speak their mind. How could one work openly against gay equality when the Religious Right Establishment claimed to be for their equality? You would be crushed and that was no accident. I found that those working against gay rights in powerful political positions rarely spoke much truth on the issue or made much sense but acted like it was an extremely important issue. Their arguments were only good enough to win the next election and then they became worthless. If Jerry had lived to when gay marriage was on the table he no longer could have claimed he was for equality for gays. But he could say that and help Republicans win elections during the 90s and that is what seemed to be most important thing was winning the next election.
This brings us to the time before the 2000 election. The Republicans had just come off of their third major victory in congress in 1998. They won big in 1994, 1996 and 1998. There had been a lot up tough anti-gay talk during the 1990s and if the Republicans wanted to win the big prize of the Whitehouse they needed to tone it down a bit. Jerry was way ahead of them. Right after the Republicans won in 1998 he called a bunch of Gay Christians to Liberty University and apologized to them for his sin of hatred against gays. Jerry never had malice towards gays. Sure he sinned against Ellen when he called her Ellen Degenerate but had said he was sorry for deriding her. Jerry never apologized for deriding Bill Clinton and continued to do so. We now live in a society where it is ok to be openly gay and hold office but if you cheat on your wife you have to apologize to the world on television. We can thank Jerry. Jerry threw his entire ministry under the bus. He became famous off the gay issue. He was now changing course when he had warned everyone for so long. He didn’t step down he stayed in power. Bob Jones III had many famous people speak at his university after his comment about putting gays to death. He has now apologized for wanting to implement Biblical Justice. To who, to the people he apparently deceived in order to get them to vote Republican that helped him gain a name for himself? It would have been acceptable if Evangelical Leaders said it is unfortunate the country has embraced homosexuality and then announced they were going to tone down their rhetoric on the issue. Everyone understands politics but to say you were wrong in past on a Biblical matter and apologize for it after the country has gone in the other direction really makes the Evangelical Church look bad. The problem is Evangelicals have no spiritual leaders like Islam does who stand firm to their beliefs no matter what the political environment in their country is. Evangelicals only have political leaders whose main source to gain power is by helping Republicans win elections no matter if they have to change their views on an issue to do it. The Republicans won in 2000 and even campaigned against gay marriage to win in 2004. This is not were the bubble burst but the harsh tone towards gay was now non-existent in public. Millions of young Americans would grow up without hearing any harsh words for the homosexual community and were raised to believe that language was wrong. Strong feelings against gays were not something to be openly expressed. If young Americans felt that way they needed to stay silent.
Deflation - Release and Burst of the Bubble
This brings us to where the bubble started to release in 2008 before it would burst. The bubble was able to get so large because many Republicans were for more gay rights but remained silent while the coalition was having success. The Republicans had won by winning Middle America where the country was more conservative on gay issues. This was partially because Middle America was liberalizing more slowly than the big cities and rich suburbs(AbolishPropertyTaxes.com) and also the younger generation was more liberal and the older conservatives were dying off. With the country continuing to move to the left on gay issues the anti gay rights piece was not going to help Republicans win nationwide elections for much longer. I explain in detail how the country was guaranteed to move in a liberal direction with the increase in the cost of living and increase in corporate power that Republicans and Democrats both helped promote in AbolishPropertyTaxes.com. Once the coalition was no longer a winner the pro gay right Republicans became more vocal and open. Many of these Republicans would deride others for using the same tough speech or holding strong views against homosexuality when they allowed it in the past. I will provide some examples. Fox News Anchor Julie Banderas derided a person she was interviewing who used the word fag. Jerry Falwell used to use the word fag and so did many others. I didn’t see people on Fox News deriding people for this until the bubble had burst. Of course all of the Religious Right power brokers had stopped using the word at this time. I also saw Republican Strategist Nicole Wallace on the View join in and deride a person she didn’t know for preaching out of the Bible on a subway against gays. She praised a lesbian who got in the face of a person preaching against gays on a New York subway and attacked him as a bigot. Megyn Kelly of Fox News derided Valdimir Putin as a homophob and a racist against blacks. Putin passed some tough anti-gay laws but still allowed gay sex to be legal. Many Republicans were now not only coming out for gay rights but also showing hatred towards those who opposed gay rights more than Religious Right Republicans in power currently did. Of course Rush Limbaugh was allowed to get away with being tougher on gay issues to attract in more Republicans just like he has been able to say things about blacks that others wouldn’t be allowed to say. Deriding is used as a weapon to shut people down. Deriding is a sin. The Religious Right has not come out against this deriding that is now occurring against people who are very conservatives on Gay issues. There is no doubt in my mind it so they can gain political power by helping America become more liberal on homosexuality without having to do anything themselves. There is no doubt much of the praise and respect that people like Mike Huckabee and Tony Perkins receive from others is because they overlook this deriding and act like nothing wrong has occurred. So women like the ones I just mentioned have no problem with Mike Huckabee, Tony Perkins and Rick Warren. They still praised them as great men.
Religious Leaders can see what is happening here. They were the ones who encouraged so many to vote Republican acting like it would move America in a conservative direction. Anyone in tune to politics could see this was never true. The Religious Right deceived people for their own gain. The government hires many people from Evangelical Universities when Republicans are in power. The Country Club Republicans got what they wanted out of the coalition. Many upper Middle Class Evangelicals did too. They live in big houses, send their kids to good colleges and go to big churches. As I explained in AbolishPropertyTaxes.com the “Haves” got more than they should have gotten out of the system and that is the main thing they cared about. Where the country stands on gay rights today is a more honest reflection of whom America really is now that the bubble has burst.
The Religious Right has brought forth poor arguments against gay marriage. They are so bad they have helped promote gay marriage. The Religious Leaders act as if they claim their sins are equal with those of gays they are being humble like Christ. They never say which of their sins are the same. If you don’t go along with what they are saying then you are self-righteous. How one views gays is a perspective. Big money supports poor arguments against gay marriage. With big money supporting poor arguments that the Religious Right uses against gay marriage it makes it impossible for people in society to use the arguments of the Religious Right to defend themselves and their views against gay marriage. This has helped speed up the acceptance of gay marriage across the country. Most of the arguments against gay marriage that come from Religious Leaders make me say if that is the only reason you are against gay marriage then you should just allow it. Allow me to give you some examples. Mike Huckabee is against gay marriage because it might lead to polygamy. Gay marriage is not going to lead to polygamy. Countries that allow for polygamy don’t usually allow gay sex much less gay marriage. Polygamy is not condemned in the Bible. So if that is the reason he opposes gay marriage I say allow it. Other people claim it is because of how marriage is defined in the dictionary and throughout history. That is not a strong and solid reason. To say gay marriage will hurt the institution of marriage is a weak argument. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman is not true. James Dobson says homosexuality is caused by a poor relationship between a father and son. If that is true and that is the root cause of homosexuality I say just let them marry. Like James Dobson Tony Perkins uses environmental factors as the major factor of what causes people to be gay. In my judgment environment is not even significant in the majority of cases. Sure it is in some when a woman goes to prison or a young boy is molested over a long period of time. I have seen cases of young men who were molested as children that had an easier time selling their bodies to men for money as adults. This represents a very small number of cases. You will find this next example of how conservatives work on gay issues as very interesting. A few years ago Bill O’Reilly gave Glenn Beck a hard time for ignoring the fight against gay marriage. Now Bill O’Reilly is for gay marriage. Guess why he is? It is because he claims Tony Perkin’s argument against gay marriage doesn’t convince him. Bill says that is why he and Megyn Kelly are for gay marriage. So why was Bill against it for so many years? I agree Tony’s argument is weak it sure wouldn’t convince me to join with him. Gay rights have been in the news media for decades. Bill O’Reilly is in his 60s and now he changes course because one Religious Leader cannot convince him? It is intentional in my mind that the Religious Right is bringing forward such poor arguments. The only solid argument would include the fact that gays are deviants and of course that would be off the table for Fox News people because it is too bigoted. So the liberal/moderate Republicans don’t like the arguments of the Leaders of the Religious Right but they love the Leaders of the Religious Right because of their poor arguments. Anyone with a solid argument is kept out of the debate. As a result we have seen the number of people against gay marriage decrease drastically. They could not defend themselves. If they had a solid argument against gay marriage they couldn’t use it without being demonized. Liberal Democrats are more than happy to debate Rick Warren, Mike Huckabee and Tony Perkins on gay marriage all day long because they know it will help their cause.
As far as all the warnings against how evil a nation America would become if it accepted homosexuality are concerned. Well those all ended when they also could no longer help win elections. The Republican Party still wants the Religious Right Voters but demands that to share power in the party Religious Leaders promote America as the greatest country on earth in it’s current state. And there are plenty of Religious Leaders greedy for power willing to answer that call.
Let me compare the anti-gay movement to the Pro Life movement. Today we have a Pro-Life movement that remains strong because it has political support. It has political support because of the same reason the anti-gay movement did in that it helps Republicans win. People who are serious about prolife should stay away from the big money that comes when you are helping the Republican Party win elections. The movement will think it is independent when actually it is a slave to political power and how the Republican Machine wants them to operate. Right now many Republicans are respecting the prolife movement even if they disagree with it. What if in the future Pro Choice Republicans started to heavily deride those who are against abortion even in the cases of rape and incest? Now lets say Religious Right Leaders like Mike Huckabee and Tony Perkins all switch over to allowing abortion in cases of rape and incest but not in any other situation. Similar to how Mike switched over from supporting anti-sodomy laws to being against them. Imagine the Pro-Choice Republicans and Democrats all have lots of respect for Mike and Tony but they openly despise anyone who is still opposed to all abortions. Mike and Tony are very friendly with many in the Pro-Choice movement but have no friends who oppose abortion in all cases. Mike and Tony let people know that they still face opposition for their stance on abortion and claim to be suffering for the rights of the unborn even thought they hold political positions that millions would love to have. True pro lifers can no longer defend their arguments against abortion because it values the life of all the unborn. If they use their reasoning they are now considered worse than the most extreme pro-choice advocates even in the eyes of others who identify as pro life. Their hands are tied so they are silenced. The liberals love Mike and Tony for helping silence those who want to stand up for the unborn and they end up rich and powerful. This is good example to show how the Religious Right operates on gay issues currently. A reasonable person would say they are helping the advancement of gay rights.
Videos On Iraq
Read My Article
Divide and Conquer: How the Neo Conservatives like Mike Huckabee, Megyn Kelly, Sean Hannity, Joe Scarborough, Liz Cheney and Elisabeth Hasselbeck offer a double standard to Blacks while pretending to fight against it in order to manipulate Blacks to support the American Troops in Iraq. This article examines how Blacks are given a double standard when it comes to Black Victimization but not without having to overlook the horrible things that have occurred in Iraq and going along with a corrupt economic system in America (explained in AbolishPropertyTaxes.com ) my other website I would love for you to read
I am going to focus on one issue at first and try and link it to many threads throughout American Politics
By Alan M. Boyd 9/28/2015
When the Iraq War was being debated back in 2002 the group that was the most opposed to it was African Americans. So if the war went horribly bad, which it did, one might think African Americans would be at the forefront speaking out against the unjust pain inflicted on the Iraqis who had no voice in America. During slavery African Americans had no voice in America and were being unjustly treated. Blacks in America did not speak out much at all after the war began. If they had it could have empowered others to do so. So Blacks helped increase the leverage the Neo-Cons had in crushing those who were against the war even though it was causing so much suffering in Iraq. It made it much easier for Neo-Cons in America and talk show hosts like Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity to shut the opposition down using fear. One example was the University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill who lost his job for speaking out against the United States. If someone thinks it would be easy to speak out against something like slavery when it was in effect on does not understand how the world works. The slave owners did a lot of business and hired many people so it was not that easy to threaten the main source of their wealth. Today many powerful people in the United States want the United States in the Middle East. So from a political standpoint those opposed to the war stand to receive more political power by toning their voices down, not saying anything or changing sides and supporting the war. This is because the Iraqis don’t have a major voice or lots of power in America and the Neo-Cons do. If one does not understand why so much evil occurs in this world without people being held accountable this article will help you understand why with an example from our own generation.
Neo-Cons already had the system rigged so that Blacks would support America after the war started. With divide and conquer Blacks get things they want like a double standard and more of a stake in the United States while allowing for the Neo-Cons to conquer without interference from Blacks and enjoy an economy that favors the haves. The end result is that Iraqis and Blacks now appear to be divided with Blacks supporting the troops and Iraqis not supporting the American troops. Neo-Cons set this up decades in advance. I will explain how I first became aware of the double standard decades ago but first I must explain how divide and conquer took place in the past and how it is working now in the next two paragraphs.
The Middle East is Sub Saharia Africa’s only neighbor. They were both divided and conquered by the West in a similar fashion. The borders for their countries were drawn up with a majority religion/tribe/sect and a minority religion/tribe/sect. Then the minority group was given power like the Sunnis in Iraq. Because the smaller group had power they were dependent on support from the West to maintain control over the majority. This is huge because these nations that were now officially independent from the West still had to fall inline with Western powers or risk losing the West’s support and being overthrown. Saddam Hussein when he fought our enemy Iran in the 80s could be an example of this. When the Sunnis and Shia began fighting after the current war began the root cause of the fighting was set up in the past to keep the Middle East weak. Many admitted that the best solution was to divide Iraq in 3 parts to end the religious and ethnic violence but that would have made Iran too powerful. The pain being caused today in Iraq is still America’s fault because we put our own interests first inside countries that belong to other human beings. We need to allow the people of Iraq to draw their own borders not us. We are still forcing Iraq to have borders that were set up to hurt them and they are doing a great job of just that. People who act like America had no way of knowing the infighting would occur in Iraq appear to be deceptive. After all George Bush 43 had the Shia attack the Sunnis after the first Iraq war. Over 3000 Shia were killed by Saddam and his troops. The US lied after offering to come to their aid. Neo-cons love to talk about the sons of Ismael in Genesis being the root of terrorism but rarely mention the West using divided and conquer in the Middle East.
Neo-Cons were upset with Iraqis for not being able to govern themselves right after America destroyed their country. They blamed all the violence and problems on them. Yet the same Neo-Cons will pander to Blacks saying we still have a long way to go on race in this country. They allow for Blacks to use their history going way back to account for current struggles but think Iraqis should not blame their problems on us just because we recently destroyed their nation. Blacks allow for this to be stated without challenging it. What annoys me is the question Neo-Cons ask those against the war. Since we do not support the war they ask if we “Support the Troops?”. They do this in an attempt to manipulate us into saying something they want to hear. Many Blacks refuse to say they support the “Men in Blue”. They do this because they believe the police often wrong Blacks while going about their mission of policing. Blacks too often freely say they “Support the Troops”. This makes it look like they think what the troops have done in Iraq is honorable because they refuse to give the same support to the police because they feel many of their actions are dishonorable. Blacks have not used their power in America in a responsible manner and called America out for the evils it has done to the powerless. I remember going to see Louis Farrakan speak at NIU in the early 90s. We were given a Nation of Islam magazine that had a map of the world with a snake traveling out of Europe and controlling the whole world. The snake was the White Devil. That same snake is moving around the Middle East today with the help of most well to do African Americans. They have decided it is better to join “The Man” and partake in the plunder than to defend the weak Iraqis.
Let me explain how I personally became aware of the double standard for Blacks in America. It was the spring of 1992 and I was close to turning 23 when the L.A. Riots broke out. I was listening to an African American radio station cover the events when I was finishing my last year of college at NIU. Corporations in Chicago were sending their employees home early incase rioting started to breakout across the country. The Blacks on the radio where rejoicing that white people had fear in their eyes as they left and raced for the trains. They said that this happening was long over due and the whites deserved it. I couldn’t believe they were allowed to say this. Whites weren’t allowed to talk about blacks in such a hatful way. I was upset but if I spoke my mind in public I would be labeled a racist. In all my years growing up in America I never had a political viewpoint that I did not feel comfortable expressing but now I did. Of course it was easy for me to stomach because I was part of the more successful and powerful majority. I remember later in the decade 3 White teenagers hopped on a train illegally outside of Detroit to get a free ride. They got off at the wrong stop in a black neighborhood. Young black males raped the white women and left the 2 white male teens for dead. How come there was not the same outrage by all Americans like there was for James Byrd? I never even knew one of those victim’s names much less remembered them. Sure Neo-Cons pretend to be outraged when Black leaders do not condemn acts like these. It is all part of the double standard that exists. I wondered why when Blacks complained about poor service at restaurants why their poor tipping was not mentioned as a root cause. Struggling single mothers who work as waitresses have car and rent payments to make from tips. There are many examples of the double standard. It is an unwritten agreement to give Blacks a double standard. If you challenge it you will be crushed.
Now we see that decades before the war in Iraq began Neo-Cons had something in place they could take away if Blacks openly opposed the war after it began. Negativity towards Blacks could increase by a lot if the Neo-Cons stopped protecting the double standard.
What was driving this double standard through out the country and why was it stronger in Illinois than in other states? The Blacks want it and they vote for Democrats who then support it, we know that part. There has to be support among Neo-Cons for such a strong double standard to exist in favor of Black people who did not have much power and money at the time of the L.A. riots. We need to separate the larger reason from the reason I am looking at in this article. The largest part that drove it is that Illinois has a very high percentage of their white population that could be labeled as upper middle class. It is easy for whites in the suburbs to allow blacks to assume a huge victim status. After all it does not hurt them they are enjoying their money and nice neighborhoods. I bet good money that Black radio stations over in Indiana were not openly rejoicing about the LA Riots like in Chicagoland and that is partly due to a higher percentage of whites being part of the working class and not the upper middle class. They would not have put up with it. I have dealt with this issue in detail in my website ( AbolishPropertyTaxes.com ). I suggest you read it along with this article. This article focuses on the smaller piece driving the double standard which is Black support for the troops.
It took me years to come to those conclusions. When I first became aware of the double standard the small taste of powerlessness I got made me want to search for answers. I was just opening my eyes and seeing the basics or the surface of the issue. I was missing the underlying causes. After all it seemed like all whites knew there was a double standard that existed. My first instinct was to blame the Blacks and Liberals. Blacks did not have much power back then so there had to be another driving force. The problem was that driving force was often times Neo- Con whites whom admitted there was a double standard and said it wasn’t fair. They could go along with the double standard secretly and if questioned why they made a comment that furthered the double standard they could claim they were just being politically correct because they had to.
So just how do Neo-Cons like Mike Huckabee, Megyn Kelly, Sean Hannity, Joe Scarborough, Liz Cheney and Elisabeth Hasselbeck help promote a double standard for blacks? It is often times done in very shuttle way where Neo-cons will make statements that White people wouldn’t say in private in order to empower a double standard that exists in our society. Lets begin with Sean Hannity because Sean acknowledges that there is a double standard and claims to oppose it. During one of his shows he argued against two African Americans that the punishment for Whites making racial comments that are politically incorrect is much harsher than it is for Blacks when they say similar things. Sean said that Imus lost his show for a while when Black Leaders had gotten off with a slap on the hand for saying similar things. Many blacks could care less and would love to condemn whites for racism while ignoring similar things that Black Leaders say. They would condemn Sean as a racist if they could for defending Imus getting his show back. But they cannot that is because Sean has Neo-Cons like Mike Huckabee, Megyn Kelly, Joe Scarborough, Liz Cheney and Elisabeth Hasselbeck in his corner. In this instance the Neo-Cons are correct there is a double standard that is wrong. The Neo-Cons will not join in with the Blacks and condemn Sean but they will condemn others when they break the rules of the double standard that exists in our society or they will remain silent while Blacks and Democrats condemn them. Sean is promoting that double standard in other ways. For instance when Dog The Bounty Hunter was taped on the phone using the N-Word Sean had him on his show and asked him didn’t you know you couldn’t use that word? It is currently totally acceptable to condemn someone for using the N-Word in our society. It is not acceptable under God to do that. What can Blacks say that others can condemn them for? You say that is ok because of our history I will show you that is not the motive. Whenever you offer someone like Blacks the right to condemn someone who does not think like them the Devil is in the details. That is clearly what is happening in our nation Blacks don’t like the way white people think who use the N-Word. The Neo-Cons were tougher on Dog because he was now an elite and could take the pressure more than an ordinary person. Dog was honest when he said he did not want to lose all he had worked for when explaining why he apologized.
Where the line is drawn for this double standard is now controlled by the Neo-Cons. The line keeps moving and punishment for using the N-Word gets worse and worse while Blacks say nothing about all the suffering in Iraq. Many Blacks see the movement to eliminate negative attitudes concerning Blacks as a continuation of the movement that stood up against slavery. This is not true they are not related it is ok to have resentment towards others we are trying to form a society with. Unfortunately I feel that today if Blacks had to choose between allowing Iraqis to suffer even more and being allowed to demonize other Americans who do not share their views on race to a greater degree than Blacks are doing right now, they would choose the latter. And that is why we celebrate Black History events that give Blacks a victim status every week but hardly ever put Iraqi suffrage at center stage. If Blacks were given 100 events and had to split them between Black History and current Iraqi suffrage they would have all 100 dedicated to Black History and none for the Iraqis. The Neo-Cons have helped fuel Blacks addiction to an eternal victim status. If Blacks could have watched a video of what was going to happen to the Iraqi people before the war occurred I am sure most would have said they would never stand by silently if their country destroyed lives like that. Neo-Cons are well aware of this selfish side of Blacks and take advantage of it to accomplish their goals. Democrats are also aware of it but allow it to occur and take no responsibility to speak truth. Blacks remaining silent or supporting the troops really hurt the anti war movement and the chances of holding those in power accountable.
Let me share some examples of how other Neo-Cons feed Blacks the double standard they crave. On The View Elisabeth Hasselbeck and others were discussing people not accepting interracial dating. Elisabeth got upset and acted like there was something very wrong with people that had an issue with it. This again is something Blacks would love to hear. Usually when someone is disrespected for not being open to a Black/White relationship it is a White person. All other races are much more free in stating their beliefs because they rarely get condemned. I doubt if a minority male said they would only marry off their daughter to a man of the same race or had an issue with their daughter dating a black man that they would be attacked for it.
Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe mentioned that he went to a mixed race grade school back in the early 70s. He shook his head and said because of this it was impossible for him to understand why anyone would care about the race of the President. Joe went to the University of Alabama in the 80s. Enough said. Again this is something Blacks would want to hear because it is less acceptable for Whites to have an issue with a president being Black than the other way around.
Megyn Kelly harshly condemned the Oklahoma University frat members for a derogatory song and was fully in support of them being kicked out of school. The song was sung in private and she treated them like criminals. A standard like this does not exist for anyone else. The college kids on the bus will some day be the elites like Mike Huckabee, Liz Cheney, Sean Hannity, Joe Scarborough, Megyn Kelly and Elisabeth Hasselbeck. Because of that the current elites went hard on them to make an example. The college kids on that bus knew the rules of our society that you must never say certain things when it comes to blacks. Their own parents probably taught them about the way things work and the benefits you can get for going along with the system. They accepted it and thought they were privately voicing their dissent to political correctness but they got caught. When they sung that song they were showing resentment through joking around. The double standard they had to stomach in college is huge. Blacks enjoy taking a victim status as much as they can. Blacks first said what they heard was pure evil. Then blacks said the students had learned what they were singing from others. Then Blacks forgave the students after they said they were sorry. After Blacks got their forced apology through fear they showed the students the love that is at the heart of the civil rights movement. Blacks did not show any love at all. True love loves those when they say things you do not like. Blacks show resentment towards whites all the time the marchers for Black Lives Matter said incredible things and no one was held accountable by anyone and that was in public. But Blacks understood what drove that resentment so it was ok in their minds. What if someone said Black’s resentment and anger were learned from their parents and they need to be retaught by Whites? Again we see how the double standard has continued to grow here.
Liz Cheney claims to be a true follower of Dr Martin Luther King Jr. because she does not bring up race when Blacks and Democrats do. It is easy for those who want a society that benefits the rich and upper middle class to ignore race and act like that is a good thing to do. There is nothing wrong with Blacks and Latinos in looking at policies from a racial viewpoint. It is natural. Many Latinos have similar goals and a common culture. They are trying to grab hold of the American Dream. If you watch news shows you will see many Republicans claiming to be the real followers of King and that President Obama is not when he brings up race. I will discuss things Mike Huckabee has said when I speak on the Church and it’s role in the Iraq War.
The result of this double standard leaves Blacks wanting to bring everyone to the table to talk about race all the time. They claim we have not dealt with race in this country and it is the elephant or gorilla in the room everyone sees but no one wants to talk about. If Blacks are sure that we have not discussed important issues on race then why don’t they bring them up? They have a big voice in this country. When we discuss race in this country we leave opinions of so called “racists” out of the discussion. A white working class middle aged man from the South very might well have some resentments towards Blacks he would like to address. Right now he knows he cannot say those things in public or he will be labeled a racist. While a Black person who protests with Black Lives Matter is already publically stating opening how they feel about Whites. So when the Blacks demand more discussion on race they want the double standard that is currently in place in America to be there during the discussion. Blacks for instance could bring up a statistic that proves they are struggling in America. They might then try and pin the responsibility for improving that statistic on all of America. Possibly by demanding money be thrown at the issue or else we who oppose this funding are to blame for the problem and not Blacks. The only good counter argument might be one that implies something negative about Blacks. Blacks may not like it and demand that point of view be silenced as racism. Blacks are used to discussions that have rules in their favor and expect it. This is why it appears that Blacks want to talk about race so much and Whites do not. Most Whites view Blacks as fools when it comes to their racial views but no one admits it in public. One should wonder why? Blacks are saying everything they want too concerning race right now. They want to have Whites dialogue with them under set terms that favor Blacks. In reality Blacks do not want to have an open and fair discussion on race like I am having here. The Neo-Cons and Democrats don’t want to either because it exposes their schemes.
Now that we have established there is a double standard we need to understand how it is controlled and why. I want to go over this again even if I am repeating myself sometimes. The Blacks want the double standard and the Democrats have to go along with it to get the support of the Blacks. Neo-Cons give Blacks the double standard but want things in return for it. So Neo-Cons control the double standard. Blacks take the double standard and then always try and take even more. The Michael Brown case was the perfect example of this. To many blacks Michael Brown was just like James Byrd. Few men and women in the other races in American took up the full cause of Michael Brown but the media gave it their full attention. It was a horrible case for Black leaders to take up because he appeared so guilty. In this case the Neo-Cons did not grant Michael Brown a victim status. I can almost guarantee that 20 years from now if a young black man behaves the way Michael Brown did Black Leaders will probably not take up his case because they will not be allowed to by the current political environment. That is because the Neo-Cons will have tightened up on giving out the double standard by then. Since the Iraq war started the double standard has been growing. Who would have thought you could video taped or recorded a bunch of frat brothers on a bus using the N-Word and it would get national attention. When Bill Clinton was in office that would have been considered invasion of privacy. The Neo-Cons approve of this 100%. If they had objected and said going into people’s private lives was going to far the tapes would not have been as big of a deal. Neo-Cons also could have counter attacked by pointing out how much blacks show their resentment. What I am trying to show is that the Neo-Cons are the ones allowing for this huge double standard while pretending that they are against it. As time moves on things are going to change as usual so I doubt it very much that Neo-Cons will support this strong of a double standard in the long term. Once they don’t blacks will be forced away from getting someone like Michael Browns a victim status.
Blacks enjoy taking a victim status in America. As Americans with power they have sat at the table and bargained for a victim status in return for other things weather they are aware of it or not. Not only do they over look the Iraq war they allow for an unjust economic system that has not been friendly towards their lower income families.( abloishpropertytaxes.com ) Hopefully blacks can reassess what they should ask for at the bargaining table. I was never asking they just give up the double standard because it is unfair and that would be the end of the story. Go and ask for something better with your power.
How the Evangelical Church helped promote the Iraq War
In 2002 I was attending an Evangelical Mega Church in Chicagoland. I being a Christian knew that I hated Evangelicals who were hard core unrepentive when it came to greed. I will go more into this in a bit. God had used Evangelicals to have mercy on me when I went to Seminary by providing great teachers of the Word. Evangelicals had been a benefit to me in many ways and that explains why I was in the church.
In late 2002 people were discussing the option of going to war in Iraq. I was against it and people in the church treated me with respect even though they disagreed with me. People outside of the church who disagreed with me did not always treat me so well. It was like they did not want me to end the conversation without agreeing me with them. When the Dixie Chicks made their anti-war comments I wanted to see what young people in the church thought. I spoke with a group of young members and they thought that the Dixie Chicks deserved everything they got for not supporting the idea of war. They did not deserve to be treated with respect as people created in the image of God. Later it would only get worse after the War broke out and we now had Americans being killed over seas. I had a hunch that many in the church supported the behavior of talk show hosts like Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly when they would rip into people for being against the war. After the war started Joe Scarborough got a talk show and ripped into people for saying the War wasn’t going well and they supported him too. These talk show hosts really just represented millions of people who would have had people arrested for speaking out against the war if they could. People in the church acted like they respected my views but really thought I should be silenced by any means necessary. The Senior Pastor of the church announced he thought the war in Iraq met one of the three Biblical criteria for going to war but would not explain how or why. I left the big church for a small church and felt more comfortable. After all I was very opposed to the War and wanted to feel safe in expressing my views.
Evangelicals were bigger supports of the war in Iraq than average Americans. I will tell you flat out that it was because of greed and the oil being there. I will compare Evangelicals during Slavery in America to Evangelicals during the Iraq War. After I completed my Master of Divinity I started on my Masters of Economics so I could be more useful to Jesus. After all they told us in Seminary to keep on going after getting our Theological degrees and study secular history or a social science like psychology or sociology. Economics was a social science and since I was strong in math and weak in English it was a better fit for my talents. After working as a Senior Accountant for nearly three years I took a position as a Senior Internal Auditor and Consultant in order to advance. I had to travel and put school on hold. One of my Professors went to bat for me and found another Professor who could use my Seminary and Economic training. He offered me an independent study course where I would select four great Ministers from the Colonial Era that opposed slavery and write about their economic views. I was amazed at how passionate Evangelicals of that day were in ending slavery. They dedicated much of their time to help stop it traveling back and forth to England and pleading with the leaders to end it. There is no doubt their efforts later would help develop a coalition to end slavery in the North which would later help end slavery in the Union. Before slavery would end Evangelicals as a whole would switch sides on the slavery debate. This was due to the invention of the cotton gin. Big Money had caused the churches in America to support slavery. The oil in Iraq is like the cotton gin. In this case the cotton gin was already in Iraq before we invaded so Evangelicals were always for the war. One needs to understand that when it comes to greed Evangelicals are more evil than the average American. There is no doubt in my mind that if any other country had done what the US did in Iraq that Evangelicals would be demanding justice through punishment and payments. As for me my company outsourced Internal Audit to Ernest and Young and I never had to enroll in the Independent Study Course because my new position required little travel. Before continuing my Economics degree I took a Doctoral level course in American Church History that helped me understand the Colonial period in America even better.
Many Evangelicals who support the Iraq war effort do not want an open debate. They want to rule by fear. There is also a lot of pressure put on Evangelicals to support the war by Neo-Cons. The Religious Right seems addicted to sharing some power in the Republican Party and falls inline accordingly. There is no doubt that when Jerry Falwell took back his comments blaming 911 on American liberalism knowing if he didn’t he could forget about having Republican Presidential nominees speak at Liberty University graduations. It is funny that Evangelicals view themselves as being ones who would have been persecuted under Nazism and Communism for their faith. Many would have just fallen inline based on what I have seen. I am very upset with Evangelicals, Liberals and Blacks for enabling the Iraq war to occur and this country to get away with it.
The values of the Evangelical Church. The difference between Evangelicals, Mainliners and Christians.
I will recap this last section and put the recap in the video and not the entire section. I became a Christian after seeking the Lord for 2 ½ years. During my early years I loved to dream about being rich and famous. I aspired like many to be a professional athlete or a rock star. Greed as mentioned in Proverbs in 28:20 and 12:11 was my greatest vice. When I first started to come to God I thought women was my greatest vice like most men but this was because I was ignorant concerning greed. After coming to God my heart changed. Even though my heart changed I continued to have many greedy thoughts out of habit. Evangelicals did not have greed as a sin. Evangelicals did not have incivility(deride or despise others directly) as a sin either. Many had it as a sin for themselves but not others in the church. So when it came to being above reproach you could be greedy or have a bad temper. Evangelicals also left repentance from these sins out as a requirement for fellowship. Although many in the Evangelical church claim to be against incivility they did not demand the same attitudes from others in the church enabling incivility in the church and society to get worse.
I point out how Evangelicals think they are civil because they did not riot when Piss Christ was displayed in a Government funded art show. I mention that Evangelical’s version of the Koran or Prophet Mohammed is the American Flag or America. Neo-cons and Evangelicals are not so civil when they are attacked. Mike Huckabee claims to be civil. Mike dislikes those who hate America. When Mike spoke about Wikileaks founder Julian Assange he openly despised him as he mentioned he was a double accused racist. I also could not stand how just many in the church freely ripped on President Bill Clinton whenever they felt like it. And in conclusion. What would Jesus do? Work to end minus 2.(Where repentance of greed and poor temperament are excluded from fellowship requirements in an Evangelical church.) behind me. Greed and Civility Proverb verses
***End of Recap*****************
When Jesus was here he did not go to the religious elite and hang out with them. The problem with the religious leaders of Christ’s time was that they were greedy and self righteous. They wanted to be the ones who had it all together and if anyone challenged that as Jesus did they would work to destroy that person. Today many religious people have not changed at all. Growing up I attended what are known as Mainline denominations with loose fellowship standards. I was very involved with both the Congregational and Methodist church before I became a Christian. After I became a Christian I started to attend Evangelical churches also known as Bible believing churches. This was because they gave the Word of God more authority and promoted faith in Christ as the main priority. There is also a difference in how sin is viewed. Evangelicals take a more literal view on some sin but not all sin. We need to look into this to discover what type of people they are striving to be and how this affects their views.
When I was a junior in high school my parents called me in for a talk. They told me now that I was older I could sleep with a girl friend as long as we were in a committed relationship and practiced safe sex. They also said I could drink alcohol with friends as long as I never drove drunk or let anyone drive me who was drunk. I would never be allowed to drink in front of them until I was 21 so they were not promoting it. I was a little shocked to hear this because I had never seen either of my parents drunk and my mom was a virgin when she married as many women were who grew up in the 1950s. The point I am making is that in the Mainline churches members have different views on adult activities. Some Mainline parents raised their kids to stay away from these activities. Over in the Evangelical Churches the entire church was against premarital sex and intoxication. That is a Biblical standard. So it appears from God’s view that Evangelical churches would be more Godly. It is not that simple.
Let me fast forward to when I was 23 and had just become a Christian after seeking God for 2 ½ years and was about to graduate from college in December 1992. I started attending different Evangelical Churches. I could not find any other Christians. How was I to explain to them that they were not saved? The Biblical rules for the church are that if someone claims to be a Christian and abides by the fellowship requirements to join a church you must accept them as a believer. It does not matter if in your mind that person cannot possible be a true believer those are the rules in the Bible. I felt like my hands were tied behind my back. I felt stuck for a time. After a few months I would understand how my ministry was supposed to operate in this case.
During my childhood I loved to dream about being a professional athlete and later a rock star. I was eager to get rich and chase huge dreams and went with those desires. That is considered greed in the Bible. It was my main crutch in life. When I started to come to God at first I thought it was women like most men. Give me a radio and I could dream about getting rich and famous all day long. It was the sin I loved the most. I loved to dream about being worshiped by other human beings is a way to put it. In my dreams I was the hero and everyone else stayed the same as ordinary people. I attended an Amway meeting during college and now that I look back on it I have never had more people tempting me to be greedy than ever before. The people at the Amway meeting were like women trying to get men to lust after them in a strip club they had one thing in mind and that is to make money off of another person. This type of behavior had never crossed my mind as being greedy. I thought you had to cheat someone to be greedy. In the Evangelical churches it was ok to use greed as a crutch or vice to get through life. It was even looked upon as a good thing. What had occurred to me during the 2 ½ years of coming to God is that my heart had been changed. I was now able to see clearly that greed was wrong but the Evangelicals did not. What was interesting is that I was still prone to greed and had greedy thoughts often. So in no way was I claiming I stopped committing a lot of sin or was better than others because they sinned too much. I will not apologize for saying my heart was now in the right place. My heart was changed and that was what was important to God. The ministry God wanted me to have towards Evangelicals was to inform then that to be saved they had to have the right view on greed in their heart. I would do that with hopes they too would come to God.
Another thing I noticed is that when it comes to being uncivil the values of Evangelicals are no different than Mainliners. Both groups are civil during church functions. When I hung out with young Evangelicals they would deride, belittle and despise others to the same degree Mainliners or average humans did. Many did not treat having a poor temper as being a sin so there was no reason to try and stop poor behavior since the heart was not in the right place. Liberty University had Glen Beck and Sean Hannity as graduation speakers. It is like they thought their tempers were being used for good and helped them in their ministries. So people who cope with life by losing their tempers on others are now good? Or oh were sorry but its politics as usual? That is no excuse. Most of the time I saw poor civility among Evangelicals it had nothing to do with religion or politics. Just like with greed there needed to be a change of heart first. On the other hand our society has gotten out of hand with people behaving uncivilly and we need to look at the whole system to try and see what is driving it so we can correct it regardless if hearts change.
When I first heard Rick Warren speak out about civility during the 2008 election I Googled him and Jerry Falwell and found a picture of them together. Jerry was not a civil person but he was a power broker in the church. First of all the National Level Evangelical Leadership was long over due in speaking out against incivility especially in the church considering how they treated Bill Clinton and those opposed to the war. This set off a red flag. Rick is a Southern Baptist and they were the most uncivil towards anti-war protesters like the Dixie Chicks. If Rick had spoken out against the treatment of the Dixie Chicks it probably would have hurt his book sales before he was famous because it was around the time he came out with his Best Seller. The fact is Rick could not really tighten up the Evangelical church standards of fellowship concerning civility. It would cease to exist because that would alienate many of its members. America is not a civil country and he speaks out against that. I already knew there was large numbers of Evangelicals who think the nation is not civil enough. There are also many outside of the church or in the Mainline Church who feel the same. So what was Rick accomplishing outside of mentioning he thought the country was not civil enough? His role as a minister should be to have clear fellowship standards. Just like Evangelicals rate TV shows that glorify sex outside of marriage as being immoral they should do the same for political talk shows. Are conservative talk shows behaving in a civil manner according to the Bible? Most of them are not. Evangelicals would never develop a rating system like that because they would be dividing people who are on the same team. To be as popular as he is Rick is dependent on keeping those conservative talk show hosts saying good things about him. Evangelicals have not added in any needed attitudes towards poor temperaments to their requirements for fellowship like true churches should have. In my mind Rich Warren enabled Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and many others because I do not see their behavior as unacceptable to his core values.
Many people do not notice when people are interacting in an uncivil manner unless it is directed at them. Many in the Evangelical church brag about being disrespected for speaking out against the gay lifestyle and think that they are so civil but do not see all the disrespect that goes on towards those who are anti-America because they are not anti-American. When Muslims riot because someone disrespected the Prophet Mohamed or the Koran Neo-Cons say it is just and excuse because after all no Evangelicals rioted when Piss Christ was shown in a Federally funded art display. That is because Evangelical have something like the Profit Mohamed and the Koran it is America and the American flag but not Jesus Christ. When America or the flag are disrespected Evangelicals are not that civil. An important point to mention is that people who condemn others for disrespecting the Prophet Mohamed or saying something that is not politically correct about Blacks may not actually believe what they are condemning is wrong. They might just be doing it to get others behind them so they can condemn what they really want to. Neo-Cons might condemn someone for a racial comment when their real intention is to gain leverage to condemn those against America.
Since the only difference in attitudes towards sin between Evangelicals and Mainliners is in sex and intoxication this leads to us to look at what type of man Evangelicals believe has it all together. Jerry Falwell had a bad temper and he had a local talk show where he would ripe President Bill Clinton apart over and over again. Jerry was pro greed and Amway. He would refer to Clinton as a liar and a murderer and despise him all the time. He was considered above reproach by millions of Evangelicals. Above reproach means you have your character all together while others do not. You are more qualified to lead. Jerry Falwell would do what I call a Falwell double wammy on Bill Clinton. When Jerry was ripping on him he was gratifying his sinful temper by knocking him down with Clinton deserving his wrath for being so sinful. He was also satisfying his sinful greediness by establishing that he had the character of a great man while Clinton did not. Jerry had also put down Jimmy Carter during his political career. According to Carter Jerry judged him and knocked him down more than anyone. Greed makes you want to be greater than others in all kinds of ways. Many Republicans prided themselves in that character mattered in choosing their leaders. At first when I became a Christian I thought it was a good thing to do until I saw what Evangelicals were really up to. After all it seemed Biblical.
Let me look to the Bible to show were the problem is with the type of character a great man has. In the Bible where it speaks of being above reproach it talks about sins like greed, temper and drunkenness. Evangelicals take out the temper and greed and put in sexual behavior. Their standard differs from the Bible. Greed and poor temper are not only not excluded for being above reproach but also attitudes or repentance concerning them are excluded for basic fellowship in the church too. As a result the Evangelical church draws certain types of people in for membership and they are not always people who tend to be closer to God like many of them think.
Once someone who is unrepentively greedy and/or thrives off a bad temper gains support among Evangelicals he is now expected to attack the characters of their political enemies. Jerry Falwell was friends with Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy and Jessie Jackson. All three of them ran for president. Bill Clinton won so Jerry worked hard to destroy his character while remaining friends with Ted and Jesse who had done similar things as Bill. The demand for this behavior comes from within the Evangelical Church. Many members wanted to see Clinton condemned and despised.
More recently on his show Mike Huckabee almost appeared to feel bad for Arnold Schwarzenegger when discussing his cheating. Mike said Jesse Jackson Jr. was a great man for reaching out to get help from mental health professionals. Sounds so humble of him. Jesse Jr. at the time hadn’t even admitted to doing anything wrong. Jesse and Arnold are both pro-America. Mike does not like those who hate America and has said they should leave the country. When Mike mentioned Wikileaks founder Julian Assange he referred to him as an accused rapist with disgust in his voice. Mike refers to himself as being civil I guess he means the two political parties and not his enemies. Many remember him as adding civility to the 2008 Presidential debates mainly because he was behaving like the Pastor among the politicians. It is fine for him to show his disgust for those who do not like America in general but not directly at people who do not like America. That is not Christian civility. Mike also refers to all who serve in the Military as heroes. Vietnam vets all over the country are outraged and claim in no way are you a hero just for serving. Where was Mike when John Kerry was attacked for his service? The Vietnam vets don’t get that America is doing very immoral things in the Middle East and this is driving why so many are referring to all who serve as heroes. America did not need this type of support during World War 1 and 2 because by our joining those wars we were not engaging in the type if evil we are in Iraq. I do not consider ripping on the dead people a sin. When Osama Bin Laden died Mike condemned him as a hypocrite because pornography was found in the compound he was living in. There was no evidence that Osama watched the porn and it is known that terrorists were hiding messages in porn at the time. Mike only has praises for Martin Luther King Jr. who is also dead. Mike does not mention all his wild partying that he did while he was a minister. Evangelicals will destroy other people for much less. Could this be driven by the fact that blacks are not opposing what America is doing in the Middle East? Then we have the mocking of Bill Clinton on his show for his sex life I guess we are all desensitized to that. Mike has also had Ted Nuggent on his show as the ultimate patriot. Ted said the troops were like a divine manifestation going out from America. Many who support this war think America is like God and can do no wrong. When America kills it is ok but when they are killed it is murder. Mike filled a void in Evangelical leadership that Ted Haggard would have been in if he didn’t lose power. It appears they vetted Mike Huckabee to protect the reputation of Evangelicals and that’s ok. It is not ok to pick leaders who appear to practice good family values to knock others down that are your political enemies. And after all how hard is it to find an Evangelical leader who hasn’t committed adultery? Please there are millions of them.
Now you can hopefully see that when it comes to character Evangelicals attack who they want and when they want to. The fact that womanizing and boozing are weighted higher than other sins is also driven by the fact women are empowered in America and they fair better than men in areas like sex and drunkenness. This makes it look like women have superior characters to men and is untrue. It also makes it look like people sin much more when they are at the age they attend college. This is crazy but it is how many view religion. Another good thing to point out is that grade school children before puberty do not sin much at all. Again this would not be true. I will tell you I am not above reproach and I do not know of anyone who is.
What would Jesus do? “Work to end minus 2”. Minus 2 is were Evangelical Churches remove being greedy and having a poor temper from the list of sins. Beware of Evangelical churches that claim to take sin seriously they probably take sins seriously were they are behaving better than others or think they can hide their sin. However these types of Evangelicals continue to have millions of members. With that kind of political clout others in the political arena will continue to tell Evangelical leaders that they have it all together and give them a pat on the back. They will tell them what they want to hear because of their power and as a result the same type of religious people will remain in leadership roles as during Jesus’s time.
Videos On Iraq
Follow Us On