White, American, Christian Terrorists Are Still Terrorists… Aren't They?

Bundy

Self-delusion is not an American ideal—or at least it shouldn’t be.

Someone really needs to inform the men hunkered down in a Oregon wildlife preserve that because it seems they missed the memo.

The standoff isn’t about good men being courageous in the face of evil.
It isn’t about righting a wrong.
It isn’t about standing up to a corrupt government.
It isn’t about defending the freedoms our country was built upon or about championing the Constitution.
It’s not an accurate reflection of Jesus either.

This is grown men angry playing dress-up.
This is weekend warrior fantasizing, using live ammo.
It’s a Wild West daydream come to life in a way that only white men could get away with.
It is petulance and tough guy bullying wrapped in nationalism and covered with the flag.

All of the threats and the taunts to the President and the “cold dead hand” posturing of these men reveal the truth. What we have here is little more than a bunch of dudes doing Civil War reenactments on Saturday afternoons, only the war they’re commemorating is the one they’re trying to create. It’s a future hero story they’re dying to write for themselves, and so they stand in the town square now with their hands at their sides amid bouncing tumbleweeds and swinging saloon doors, hoping for a chance to draw their weapons, take out the bad guys, and ride off both virtuous and victorious.

If these gentlemen were truly interested in confronting the Government and in speaking truth to Power and in defending innocent, marginalized people against unmerited violence, they would have already assembled months ago in Ferguson or Baltimore or Cleveland to say that black lives really do matter—but that is not the agenda here.

These men aren’t about justice, they’re about preference. The only thing they’re truly interested in defending is their own fragile sense of comfort and control.

The sad truth is that if a group of black folks or Muslims or gays or Latinos pulled anything like this, these very men would be the ones most loudly, vehemently, and continually calling for bombs and airstrikes and decisive police intervention.

This is about spoiled caucasian guys who believe they are above the law and beyond reproach and that they get to make the rules whenever they want to, simply because that has so often been their American reality.

This is a manufactured battle with Freedom of the highest order and we need to say it. That is the true beauty of this country: that we get to call BS on stuff that stinks, wherever it comes from and whoever doesn’t want to hear it. This does.

The Bundy Militia is what happens when your desired victim narrative doesn’t become reality.

You see, if you keep on screaming that the sky is falling long enough without it actually falling, you take matters into your own hands and try to bring it down yourself. (In this case you threaten to shoot it down from a Federal building bunker).

When all of the oppression you’ve predicted doesn’t come to pass, you need to invite or generate some or you can’t live in that fantasy anymore.

It’s sad that in a time when people of color, when Muslims, when the LGBTQ community still face a daunting, daily battle just to get some semblance of civil equality in this country, their efforts to do so (even peaceful, legal endeavors) are treated as contemptible troublemaking.

But perhaps the saddest thing about Ammon Bundy and his defiant posse of self-appointed patriots, is that some will blindly paint them as the national heroes and would-be martyrs they so desire to be, instead of calling them what they are: home-grown terrorists.

They are ISIS with Levi’s; equally dangerous, just as insidious, but with different costumes and more familiar accents and shorter commutes. They are still a growing danger to the vast majority of decent Americans who live well outside of their volatile extremism and who want no part of it.

Thankfully many good people see through it all for what it is.

We see that there is nothing noble about a group of paranoid, privileged white guys with gunlust and a power jones, trying to force their self-fulfilling prophecy of their own persecution and oppression.

We know that there is nothing worth applauding when already powerful people make a stand for even more power, or when they champion only the most narrow and selective brand of justice; the kind that serves them exclusively.

We recognize that there is nothing Godly or Christlike in aggression that so desires a fight enough to incite one, and that the heart of Christianity isn’t a brazen, armed standoff but a sacrificial lifestyle of humility and compassion.

Friends, there are all kinds of good, decent, courageous hardworking people out there to aspire to and look toward. They are parents and teachers and police officers and social workers and ministers and sales clerks and waiters; ordinary people getting up every day and doing their best to live and love well and to be a productive part of the global community.

There are all sorts of folks to emulate and celebrate and support with your passion and your words and your dollars right now. This may not be a good place to find them.

Any violence assaults all of us.

Don’t glorify terrorists, no matter where they live or what color they are or what language they speak.

 

59 thoughts on “White, American, Christian Terrorists Are Still Terrorists… Aren't They?

  1. Yep! From here in the UK we are amazed that`the authorities have not called them out yet. But interestingly, I read a Right Wing blogger who was hoping that the government agencies wouldn’t move in and try to storm these people because if there was a violent outcome, it would be the government’s fault! I have read a lot of this kind of nonesense over the last 48 hours.

    If these guys were Muslim Americans or Black Americans, you would have half the US army in there before you could say Donald Trump! Good luck America with this one.

    • All revolutionaries are terrorists first. They have to be to effect the change they want to see in the world. Without terror, there is no change. Do you imagine that the Zealots of Christ’s time were not terrorists? Or the early Catholic martyrs?

      • i think i understand the concept— but not the delivery; maybe it’s my own definition of “terrorist” that is askew – just can’t buy “without terror there is no change”. i understand ‘terrorism’ as defined by Webster: ‘the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes’. i don’t see Christ’s followers ever using threats to intimidate or coerce…

      • This is threading wrong, and I owe three replies, so-
        Kevin, yes, it is. After all, John started with a huge generality, so I thought I’d match him.

        Marcus- without the threat of violence of some sort, political and spiritual change never occurs. The case in point of the Christian Martyrs was to point out that the violence threatened need not be initiated by the terrorist to terrorize- the Roman world was rocked by the actions of the martyrs, they were killed precisely because Christians were terrifying.

        wilsahli- Don’t confuse John with the facts- in his black and white world, heteronormative rednecks are always wrong.

      • They’re not revolutionaries, Theodore.

        They have no noble cause, they are not seeking any justice or change that would benefit us all.

        They are racist hicks who are pissed off because they perceive that the time where being white meant being treated better than everyone else is over.

        And funny..do you really think Jesus Christ would defend terror in the name of change?

      • Privatization of the BLM would benefit everybody west of the Rockies.

        And the Crucifixion of Christ- which He gave every indication of going to willingly- was a violent act that changed the world. Martyrdom works, and if the feds in this case are foolish enough to create martyrs, then are you prepared to play the role of Pontius Pilate?

  2. Wow. This is an amazing post. You’re a pastor right? An east coast pastor? Do I have that right? Okay, pastor, this is an amazing post. Oh, wait, I said that already.

    Let’s look at some of what you have said, shall we?
    Are really aware of the situation or do you know just what you’ve read or seen on the news? These are men trying to protect their families and way of life. It’s about massive over reach by the federal government. Did you know that the federal government controls only 4% of the land east of the Mississippi river? They control 47% of the land west of the river. That the government decided to revoke grazing without any reason or explanation?

    Grown men playing dress-up? Oh, you mean the cowboy boots, jeans, and hats? You mean the clothes that many ranchers wear in the west? You mean the clothes that many out west wear daily? Dress-up like so many on the east coast wear loafers, kakis, and polo shirts? Just because they wear different clothing they’re playing dress-up? You do know that a number of the men there are actual working ranchers, right? Or maybe you don’t.
    You really don’t know the definition of terrorist, either. Oh, and about Black Lives Matter, which you hint at by saying Ferguson, Baltimore, and Cleveland, that’s a political movement. You know that of all the police related deaths in 2013 that only 4% were white cops killing black men.

    Pastor, you seem to be very judgmental and oh so very wrong about your facts. But you’re an east coast pastor, and like the rest of the people you see people out west in a light cast by your own prejudices. The saddest part of all this is you represent a body of Christians, and, really you are clueless.

    • Willsali: So what you are saying is that, in spite of the fact that these men are armed and threatening to shoot law enforcement, because they have a “good reason” in your opinion, it’s ok?

      • I think it is more “bigotry takes many forms- some of them a bit unexpected”. Especially given the fact that these protestors have shot nobody, and their intent is occupation, not violence. The threats have been more of the “attack us and we cannot be held responsible for the consequences” type. If the national guard doesn’t get violent, the protesters will not fire the first shot.

      • pjstone1030, don’t recall saying it’s okay. I think their cause would be better served by unarmed civil disobedience. The situation as it stands in not an act of terror and to call it that diminishes the meaning of the word. I have an issue with the whole dress-up insult. I’m from Texas and I wear cowboy boots, jeans, and cowboy hat. It’s what I grew up with and what I wear daily. I don’t feel like I’m playing dress-up. For me to wear khakis, loafers, and a polo shirt would be an act of “dress-up” since I would be wearing clothes that are outside my norm. If you were to suddenly start wearing a kilt I would say you’re playing dress-up.
        My original point was and still is that John Pavlovitz is writing about something he really knows nothing about.

    • I have concluded that Mr. Pavlovitz is what I call a preacher of self-liberty. By self-liberty I mean he leans toward championing self-indulgence, decadence, pleasure, luxury, pleasure-seeking, and intemperance, compared to someone who champions self-control, self-discipline, willpower, and restraint. That’s why he and many of his followers lack peace of mind.

      • Taking over a federal facility with guns is “self-control, self-discipline, willpower, and restraint.” Just which side of your head did you hit when your delivery doctor dropped you? Geez!!!!

      • If you look at what I wrote you’ll see that my comment was directed at Mr. Pavlovi. and the self-indulgent nature of those, such as yourself who worship at his feet.

      • I have a great idea Terry. Read the legal brief posted below on a post by another person. Do you know what your problem is—and the problem with the people occupying the NWR building in Oregon? They define “American freedom” as the right to do anything you want, any time you want, and any place you want—no matter who or what gets hurt in the process. That is not freedom. That is the essence of the definition of original sin in the Bible. Those of you who want it are never going to get in this country because people live too close together nowadays and the only way to get it is to take away someone else’s legitimate rights. It ain’t gonna happen Terry. I do not give damn how many guns you or these other bozos have.

    • I would ask how much you have actually looked into the situation, Will.

      They are not trying to “protect their way of life.” nor is the government acting to destroy it.

      Do you know how much the government charges a rancher to graze their cows on federal land? It’s approximately $1.35 a month per cow. That is roughly 90 percent LESS than the going rate that private landowners charge. Curious how you right wingers don’t care about that welfare and that “entitlement.”

      To quote: That the government decided to revoke grazing without any reason or explanation?

      Actually..no. In the case of the Bundy’s, Will, the government revoked it because the Bundy’s refused to pay the fees that they agreed to pay. In other words..they wanted to graze their cows on our land without paying for it..since when is that not theft, Will? And the Hammond’s committed arson on federal land. Since when is that not a crime? But thank you for proving that the right wing loves them their welfare when it involves a bunch of self entitled white grifters like the Bundy’s.

      As for the bullshit you spouted about the federal government controlling land in the west..yeah.that would be land that can’t be developed for one reason or another or land that should be protected because of the environment. Sorry..not everything needs to be strippedmined or destroyed in the name of profit.

      oh there is one other reason that the federal government is in control of that land. Because in the early 1940’s ranchers like the Bundy’s were severely overgrazing the land. It was so bad that cows were simply dropping dead for a lack of food. It was so bad that the ranchers themselves went to Congress and asked for help. In effort to help these ranchers, the government created The U.S. Grazing Service, which cut up our public rangelands into allotments that could be allocated or “permitted” to individual ranchers who would then have that allotment all to themselves and not have to worry about his cows having to compete for grazing with that of his neighbors cows. The grazing system was set up so that each individual rancher would have his own grazing area on our public lands. Fees for public land grazing were set and remain set to this day,..at way under market value. Today, the U.S. Grazing Service is called the Bureau of Land Management, and only about 18 – 20,000 ranchers hold grazing permits across all of our western lands. Most permit holders today are not really ranchers at all,.. but Big Corporations like Del Webb or Hilton, or other Investment Companies some foreign (UAE)or by already wealthy individuals like Ted Turner.

      The simple and blunt truth is, Will, that were it not for the government..there would be no ranchers in the West at all…because the ranchers themselves would have destroyed ranching in the West. Were it not for the government they so love to hate..the beef industry and the ranchers in the United States would have withered and died due to the ranchers short sighted greed.

      In fact since the market bottomed out of the beef industry a lot of the grazing permits aren’t even used for grazing anymore. Still, the permit holders hold onto them because said permits means that the banks are very interested in making loans to them because the permits increase the value of the holdings of the holders base property. And those holders trade those permits like a commodity.

      As for the Bundy’s themselves and their hatred of the government. Funny..that doesn’t stop them from using the government for their loans via the SBA. Nor does it stop them and other ranchers from milking the emergency feed program in non drought years. Nor does it stop them from using the federal government to keep animals that are threats to cattle under control.

      If the Bundy’s really wanted the independence from the government they claim to want their ranch would be underwater financially. THe only reason the Bundy’s are still ranching is because the US federal government and we the taxpayers subsdize their self entitled white asses. See what the Bundy’s want is to suck at the government’s teat without having to pay for it.

      As for the Bundy’s supposed desire that the land be turned over to the states..if the federal government turned over administration of all that federal land over to the states..it would break every state’s budget. None of the states, with the possible exception of california and even then it’s doubtful, has the financial wherewithal to administer that land. And the ranchers themselves wouldn’t be able to financially absorb all that land being given to them either. And the simple and blunt matter is that the ranchers have no actual claim to that land. They simply want it to be given to them free of charge. And they would turn around and sell that land to the highest bidder and the land and the environment would be destroyed in the name of greed and profit.

      Ignorant children like you, Will, who have never ranched or farmed in your life are living this delusion that the government is to blame because it’s easier for people like you to believe in anti government hysteria than to actually face reality. Sorry..no. It isn’t the government forcing ranchers or farmers out of business..it’s the free market. Simply and bluntly put..the free market isn’t willing to pay enough to keep family farms or small ranchers in business. If the free market paid enough to keep a dairy farmer in business a gallon of milk would cost over 10 times what it costs in the grocery store.

      My family farmed from the 1840’s through the mid 1990’s. We were very good at it. We had one of the best run family farms in the country and one of the largest family farms in our state. So well run that in the 1970s Ford used our farm for magazine advertisements. And in the 1980s Land O’Lakes used our farm for tv commercials. Hell, when Bob Dylan wanted to show his then young son Jacob what a farm was..they visited our farm to do it. My family busted their asses, busted their backs and destroyed their bodies for 150 years running that farm but in the end we sold it. Not because the government forced us to. But because there is no money to be made in it. Because the free market wasn’t willing to pay us, or other farmers, enough money to live on..certainly not enough money to make up for the back and body breaking work my family was doing. Farming had become what my mother charitably described as an economic waste of time though I more likened it to a form of slavery.

      And my dad and his two brothers were getting old and their bodies were being broken down because of that farm. SInce my dad was 18 he’s had three hip replacements and 2 back surgeries because of that farm. And the health problems..the stroke his one brother had and the parkinsons his other brother had were contributed..that their father had as well to, at least, by that farm. And none of their sons, including myself, wanted to shackle our families to that particular ball and chain any longer because we understood the price..that our health would be destroyed by it, that our families would never be financially secure if we kept on farming because the free market was never going to pay us in any way shape or form commensurate to the back breaking work we were going to have to endure. That the only way our families would be financially secure was to sell the farms we owned.

      And yet there you sit, Will, engaging in the delusion that the bundy’s have some noble cause. No, WIll, they don’t. They are thieves and grifters and conmen looking for a free ride. But I find it curious how the right wing’s supposed hatred of welfare disappears when it involves white people that scream anti-government hysterical nonsense.

      http://usuncut.com/news/5-government-handouts-bundys-receive/

      • ” It’s approximately $1.35 a month per cow. That is roughly 90 percent LESS than the going rate that private landowners charge. Curious how you right wingers don’t care about that welfare and that “entitlement.””

        I do care- and that’s why I want this land privatized. Give it to the homeless, let them earn the $100/month/cow of the private rate.

      • The Bundys have been grazing on “BLM managed” land. That land should have been given back to the state, the same with all the federally controlled land in the west. Do you know how much land the federal government controls east of the Mississippi? They own or control 4%. Very small percentage. In the 11 coterminus states out west of the Mississippi the federal government owns or controls 47%. I don’t see a Consitituional mandate for federal control of state land. Could you show that to me?

        Actually, Kirien, the BLM revoked grazing leases to the Hammonds and neighboring ranches without giving any reason. And as far as the Hammonds committing arson, the facts seem to be that they set a backfire on their land to stop a large prairie fire on BLM land. That is sound firefighting technique for fires of that size. US Forest Service Smoke Jumpers employ that very technique every year.

        So, it’s okay for the federal government to mandate how state land be used? And I still want to know where in the Constitution it says the federal government should have control of state’s land?

        I’ll skip down to the part where you call me a child, okay? I’m 62 years old and did, in my youth work as a ranch hand in Texas. I know about the hard work and little income ranchers earn. I’m not an ignorant anti-government fool. I think that there is too much bureaucracy and too many agencies that you can’t find in the Constitution. I know government has a role to play, I just think that role should be less and restricted to the enumerated power given to the federal government.

        Truly am sorry for your families health and the difficulties you’ve encountered. I’m sure it wasn’t an easy decision to make to sell your farms.

        As far as my entertaining and indulging in a delusion regarding the Bundys, nothing could be farther from the truth. I’m sorry I didn’t make it clearer, I don’t like the Bundys, don’t support them. I was and am talking about the Hammonds and the situation with federal control of so much of the land in the west. Where do you live? Would you like having the federal government tell you how your state should control it’s own natural resources? I highly doubt it.

      • Well Willsahli. I have to tell you honestly. If Texas secedes as if often threatens to do, I am in favor of sending the 101st Airborne and 84th Division down Texas-way to kill off every last one of you nullificationist whackos. Keep on nursing FOX News delusions. I can assure you that they are going nowhere, and if General Andrew Jackson was here right now, he would tell you the same right to your face.

    • He doesnt represent Christians at all, other than saying they should be Christlike, so to speak. To classify Christians as terrorist, shame on you!!!!!

      • The people occupying the buildings in Oregon are domestic terrorists and should be dealt with as such. The Hammonds are just nitwit criminals who got in a little deeper than they figured possible.

  3. Reblogged this on darren's thinking and commented:
    “These men aren’t about justice, but about preference. The only thing they’re truly interested in defending is their own sense of comfort and control.” John Pavlovitz

    “Are we about ‘justice’ or ‘just use’?” paraphrased Marian Wright Edelman

  4. Thanks so much for another sharp post, John Pavlovitz. “Any violence assaults all of us.” I love reading your blog because you say the things that I’m too tired and despairing to say. Thank you.

  5. The definition of “terrorist” I use is “any person or non-governmental group – regardless of their race, religion, or politics – who seeks to use violence to make a political, religious, or racial point or to achieve some political, religious or racial goal”. According to this definition, these guys are terrorists.

  6. Basically, Americans of all ages, political persuasions, and geographic locations are upset with the unjust practices of our government. When rural folks protest government injustice and abuse of power they are likened to Muslim terrorists and their cause is impugned by those who wildly support the civil disobedience of liberals. That is, when inner-city people like those in the occupy wall street movement, the black lives matter movement, and wildcat union strikes protest, they are celebrated as freedom fighters. Remember the Baltimore protests with looting and burning, or the whole sections of town taken over by the occupy movement, or the mammoth union protests in Wisconsin and Chicago? Who can forget the Ferguson riots. At least the people in Oregon are targeting an empty government building and not busy neighborhoods, airports, business districts, shopping malls, school systems, or innocent bystanders. Yes, if these were angry democrats in the inner-city you would applaud them for their courage. In truth, more people of all backgrounds should be protesting the unjust actions and systemic corruption that dominates our federal government. Think of the IRS scandal in which conservatives were illegally targeted by their government as one example. Or the constant double standards in which crimes committed by government officials are excused and/or ignored. Now back to the point; these angry farmers who are protesting government abuse have not hurt anyone. Furthermore, they have not rioted, burned any buildings, looted, assaulted anyone, destroyed occupied sky rises, or massacred innocent people. There’s is a peaceful protest in the tradition of American patriots like those at the Boston Tea Party.

    • If you have time, I would like to see you list some examples of the “unjust actions and systemic corruption that dominates our federal government.” I suppose your first one would be giving gay people permission to marry. What are the other ones?

      • My first one is how Native Americans have been treated- first those whose ancestors have lived here more than 2000 years, second how Native Born Citizens are treated by our federal govvernment. The federal government is supposed to be based in subsidiarity, but throughout its history it has been more based in tyranny.

  7. You probably shouldn’t write such a scathing indictment of these men without knowing all the facts or attempting to walk in their shoes… Not doubt you would have been critical of Rosa Parks… those were gov’t rules and policies then too… but not right!
    Bob S.

  8. Note, no one in the Oregon group self-identified as a white Christian. Why does this author call them that? How is their faith or lack of faith relevant to their protest? Did he interview them and ask them their faith? Are they saying that they are Jesus protesters? If black ranchers lived in that community, would they want to be in the protest? It seems clear that the author wants to identify them as “evangelical, White, males” because that is a political identity marker that he and the entire democratic party want to rant against. However, it is the epitome of bad form to stereotype people based on race and religious preference, especially when the people involved have not said anything about those categories. It also show that this author is bigoted, Christophobic, and racist. Also, since the Oregon protesters have not hurt anyone, how do they qualify as terrorists? Certainly, the black lives matter protest movement has blocked interstates, airports, and shopping malls. In Baltimore and in Ferguson they used violence to include arson, looting, vandalism, gun shots, threats, and physical assault. In the Ferguson case, the incident that triggered the mayhem revolved around two violent thugs who robbed a store and threatened police before one was awfully shot. Yes, that is what the courts determined. The civil rights commission had to acknowledge the facts when the investigation proved it despite the fact that many black leaders affirmed the perjured testimony of the co-conspirator who lied to escape culpability. So, this author supports the misplaced rage filled violence in Ferguson and calls it justified but does not support the peaceful protest in Oregon. Finally, has he considered the religion of the black lives matter protesters. Would he label them as “Black Christian male terrorists?” No. His hypocrisy and bigotry are so egregious that they invalidate any value that any point that this sad blog attempts to make.

    • Because Bill. This militia nonsense is what old, white, racist, evangelical protestants do in the United States these days. If I had my way, I would create your own Liberia for you, ship you all there, and let you start your own Hitler-style government so you could finally find some happiness.

  9. Oh and then there is the fact that the claim that most westerners want the federal government to give up control of public land to be utter BS:

    http://westernpriorities.org/2015/10/21/reporter-fact-sheet-public-lands-public-opinion/

    To quote:

    Question: Who do public lands belong to?

    68% say public lands are more American places that belong to everyone in the country.
    24% say public lands are more state places that belong to residents of each states.

    Priorities for public lands (percent of voters responding very important)
    16% are more likely to back a candidate who supports selling public lands
    40% making sure oil & gas, minerals or coal are available for development and mining
    72% are more likely to support a candidate who wants to promote wind and solar power
    82% protecting and conserving natural areas for future generations
    75% protecting and conserving wildlife habitat

    So would someone like to explain why we should listen to a small minority group of antigovernment whackjobs? What benefit does the country and the people of the United States get from doing so?.

    • They don’t want it- but they would benefit from it, is my argument. If nothing else, we could grant rangeland to homeless people to give them a home and an income.

  10. I have enjoyed most of your comments and the convictions; the Gospel shines clearly. However, you missed the mark this time. This issue is worthy of the front page on the local newspaper. Right along with the whiney college students who needed “safe” space on their campus. I loved how they became so angry over the Paris attack because it relegated them back into the dorm where they belong.
    Love and peace Brother

  11. Terrorists? ISIS? I have not seen any of them kill children or cut the heads off the reporters! Have they shot up a movie theatre? placed bombs on planes? killed any one? Stop this nonsense moral equivalence fallacy– Did they rush an officer try to take his gun and try to kill him? Balderdash! They have a valid complaint about government land grab and the government power structure in this country. I do not agree with their tactics; but the under riding concern that the federal government is out of ouch with rural America is valid… beside they aren’t occupying a busy intersection in a major city. “Sidner and her crew are logistically unable to drive into the park where the headquarters are located. The building looks like a place you’d stop to grab a bite and use the bathroom on a long roadtrip, she said. It’s away from the road, and in every direction there’s tremendous empty expanse.”

  12. I was wondering something. Many historians believe that the current distrust of American government began on November 22, 1963 when a great many Americans chose to believe that Vice President LBJ and the CIA secretly planned and carried out the assassination of President John F. Kennedy—and then everything spiraled downward from there for American conservatives. From my perspective, I think it began earlier when President Harry Truman—I have to say this just right to pander to American white conservative Christians—sold out to the niggers by officially integrating the U.S. Armed Forces.

    All you conservatives who posted above—when did your seething hatred of the United States and the government established by our beloved founding fathers begin? Did it begin with President Kennedy’s death or did it begin with the niggers begin treated like humans?

    • I wasn’t alive. I was born during Nixon’s reign. Every President in my lifetime has been measurably worse than the previous one. I do not expect Obama to be the end of that trend- especially with Hillary and The Donald as early front runners in the campaign.

      I have *NEVER* experienced a pro-Catholic government. Arguable whether the Kennedy Administration was one, even though he was a Knight of Columbus, he seems to have lost the lessons of the degrees sometime before he was president. But that was seven years before I was born.

      Ford pardoned Nixon, Carter had battles with killer rabbits and ordered soldiers to try to fly through a dust storm, Reagan was an old man who napped through cabinet meetings and had memory issues, Bush I protected his Bank of the Americas Kwaiti Cronies, Clinton with his sexual escapades, Bush II returning to Iraq to “finsih what Daddy started” in a huge failure, Obama with his love of the genocide of the unborn and hatred of heterosexuals. It all just gets worse and worse, and it will never get any better.

      • “Hatred of the heterosexuals” – where do you find that? I have had the right to marry since I became of age to do so. Giving my gay brother the same rights as I have does not mean that anyone hates me. I don’t get it. Can you explain this statement?

  13. Thank you for an excellent post. These men are terrorists by definition and as you said, their motives are selfish. They stand for themselves and their tribe, nothing more.

  14. Pingback: Everybody is At Fault in Oregon | Justin DaMetz

Comments are closed.