Is Christian Hypocrisy Destroying The World & U.S.?

Before Pope Francis addresses America, I thought I
would offer this great nation a religious address of my own.

Gay marriage, or the war to stop it, is a religious one.

The war against aborted babies that may or may not be kicking on a table while clinging to life that is ironically, only being sustained for the proper harvesting of the brain from this particularly described- unwilling research donor- is a religious war as well, even if Carly Fiorina tells you its about the decency of all Americans.

Marijuana? Religious, even among  Catholics (Mexican, Irish, Italian...etc.) who drink for sport but abhor dope heads and question marijuana's medicinal value over that prescribed medicine waiting to potentially be recalled or over prescribed to a depressed PTSD soldier who is likely to die from the depression or the pill addiction but not the weed.

God knows that those hooded folks used religious justification to terrorize long before Dylann Roof thought it could kick off that religious race riot that way too many so-called religious folks promised was sitting on the edge of inevitability 20 years ago or more.

Religiously conservative Jews are now promising us all that Iran is the worlds great Satan while religious Iranians say similar things about Israel and America.  Regardless of who might be right, the mere references are a tug at the heart strings of religious folks who understand man's historical journey towards a manifest anti-Christ destiny, and the unwitting preemptive strikes from all sides that only help to prepare the necessary smokescreen for his comfortable arrival.

I could have titled this post, "Religious Hypocrisy" but that's not an accurate depiction of America's reality or my particular grievance.

Jews are already on record as describing JESUS AS A HOAX while anxiously waiting for the REAL Christ to please stand up and prove that previous Jewish rabble rouser a liar.

Love 'em or hate 'em, the Muslims are too deeply engaged in their own religious disagreement as a tenant of religion itself.  Sharia law could never come to exist without a faction of Muslims insistent on this caliphate mission. How gracious can Islamic Sharia Law pursuant's possibly be towards other religions while struggling to be tolerant towards the very people that they pray with every day and in the same way.

Although Muslims don't quibble with one another over the day, the necessity and quantity of prayer, worship and fellowship, they are at war over the importance of their religions founding prophet, Muhammad, whose family lineage and rebellious life journey pointed one direction for some Muslims, a different direction of thought and behavior from other Muslims, and that inevitable "third" group who can empathize with both sides of this war.

Islam and Judaism are Exempt from Grace

These two confused and thus confusing religions are actually free from the unequivocal call of Grace that asks but one thing from each and every Christian;

Exercise your faith in the gift of Grace by exercising your giving of Grace.

It puts Christians in the cat bird seat of religious pecking order relative to who and whom God expects to be the most gracious.

Might that be religious piety for a Christian (Me) to place a higher expectation upon the behavior of Christianity over every other religion?

I dare any Muslim or Jew (or atheist and agnostic for that matter) to battle EVERY Christian in a war to be gracious. I'll bring my crew and you bring yours, and we'll battle it out near the performance stage at Denver City Park next weekend.

As it stands, American Christian lawmakers, and the people they think they represent, aren't necessarily kicking butt in the battle to be gracious, especially towards desperate middle eastern refugees and migrants praying to God for a little American Christian Grace.

Long before Ben Carson's recent stupidity towards Muslims, Muslims questioned the full divinity of the prophet who inspires Christians to be gracious. Yet, this historically tolerant capacity of people inspired by Grace must have influenced a few of these refugees and migrants into death tempting sea voyages towards western/Christian refuge instead of more Islamic disagreement and violence.

For times like these.

At times like these, I often find myself confident that God needed black slaves in America.  Not so much for the reason that whites found valuable, but for value that would manifest itself in years and days after the scars solidified their shape on our backs.

The necessity of blacks in America and the necessity for America in the world is similarly linked, ordered and scarred to achieve tenacity and temperance when a balance is needed from both powerful forces. Insensitivity and intolerance on a macro or micro level is an entirely understandable human policy for the selfish, the weary or the scarred.

It's just not gracious.

For the Grace of God, trees made to nourish a nation have to grow up and take their place in the forest. Not only to realize the value of their purpose, but to stave off the proliferation of the selfish trees that evil uses to overtake the landscape and swallow up the rain and the sun from the rest of US.

If that analogy doesn't quite make sense to you, its likely because I'm talking to a different kind of Christian.

Better Deal's, Or Treaties Only Come After War.

IRAN NEGOTIATIONS REWIND AND REVIEW

Obama forged an unprecedented coalition of nations to accomplish NO NUKE negotiations. Mission Accomplished....the coalition even more so than the negotiations if you ask me. History might agree when we are soon at deeper odds with China and Russia who freely do lots of business in Iran and could soon force the U.S. to check Iran and it's enabler's long before this deal is done. 

Iran did not have to agree to peaceful nukes during the period of sanctions nor did they. RETURNING TO SANCTIONS IS A RETURN TO THE STATUS QUO = Iran does whatever they choose as America and allies (not China or Russia) fight via economic choke holds. Whichever potential status quo you find most effective (American/Allies sanctions only or G5+1 sanctions) could limit the access to nuke building money. But it instantly gives Iran more reason, more passion and more room to function UN-MONITORED; a nation that the opponents of the deal don't trust WITH monitoring would be much less trustworthy UN-MONITORED.

TO THE NATION UNDER THEM, ECONOMIC SANCTIONS ARE AN ACT OF WAR.

Un-monitored nuke behavior AND MORE SANCTIONS ARE THE SAME THING and is why war, or the serious threat of war, would be the right thing to do next if our hostile sanctions didn't create a more docile and agreeable Iran. Are those of us who support the deal suppose to assume that war would be avoided even if sanctioned Iran continued to create nukes during sanctions? (and why wouldn't they if you really think about it?)

#2016 will be an election determined by women and Hispanic and Hillary
could help herself with an Hispanic running mate on her ticket.  Did  Bob
Menendez disqualify himself by vocally opposing the Iran deal?
Is Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro someone to watch?

Maybe war is not the ONLY alternative, however, opponents of the deal hardly offer another realistic alternative outside of more sanctions and A BETTER (nondescript) DEAL. 

Why a better deal instead of the best deal in the land/world/universe/galaxy? We call them deal's because each side has to give up something to make it happen. What opponents seem to want is called a nuclear treaty- and those only happen after you win a war.

Up Next?  If Marco Rubio has moved out front before his time, who will be
the Hispanic hopeful (and maybe Hillary's running mate) to fill that void?

Bob Menendez and Chuck Schumer are playing re-election politics and have calculated that opposing helps more than it hurts politically. These men have never endeavored to describe what a better deal looks like or how sanctions alone can encourage Iran to be kinder towards its enemies?

If No Iran Deal Now Netanyahu, Then When?

Regardless of what the talking heads in Washington will tell you, this Iran deal is good for America, good for the next president and good for society. The last four  countries with similar nuclear deals cheated the deal and arrived through back door maneuvers, and eventually the same thing could happen with Iran, but that is a right to bear arms debate for another blog. 

Isolation and further sanctions are options with certain outcomes because economic war or real war have anticipated results.  Economic war worked miserably in Cuba, and even Netanyahu and his republican colleagues in America are afraid of real war with Iran.

Unconditional negotiations were promised by Obama the Senator candidate for president, and unconditional negotiations; combined with strong worldwide support with sanctions, created an Iran willing to talk.

If you follow history's script, Iran's hate for Israel and America has created a segment of the population in Iran that publicly preach US hate.  If you turn history back a few pages, you will find state sponsorship of the Confederate flag in America and white hooded men who were allowed to burn crosses and speak hate towards blacks, Jews, gays and even America by waving the flag of the losing army.

Actually, that segment of America just created Dylann Roof so no need to flip the page at all. It also pushed the South Carolina legislature to get their Confederate flag down quickly because the white hooded guys still ride, still speak hate, and had a date to rally around that South Carolina flag one more time.

Hate groups in America have risen during the Obama years but Iran never used it as a reason to not negotiate; though it could be impacting those hate rallies we see televised from Iran. The entire world community stands at the ready for war with Russia over Ukraine, yet no one imagined accomplishing the sanctions or these negotiations without Russia- no pre-conditions on Putin.

China is China. The fact that we do business in China given the nature of the Cold War rhetoric that I grew up hearing is remarkable, although capitalism made the marriage of these nations inevitable. The Iran deal included China's involvement........China!!

Iran has American hostages, we have Guantanamo Bay and nobody loves Russia or China except China and Russia. There will always be elements of perception that each of the six nations negatively hold towards one another- but business is business.

Capitalism now demands that Iran not only get involved in the suppression of ISIS and nuclear weapons, but get involved with the proliferation of the TPP since Iran, and Cuba by the way, fall along the pathway of TPP commerce.  Normalized relationships might look like legacy points for Obama, but they need to go in the column of economic successes before they will ever be accepted as the diplomatic achievements that are mostly debatable right now, especially if Iran cheats like all the others have.

The bigger question for the Iran deal is still Netanyahu. What will he do given the fact that Congress needs too many Democrats to avoid the veto strength of the president? When pressed hard during a recent NPR interview (Morning Edition), Netanyahu admitted that this deal or no deal actually changes nothing. Israel will have to protect themselves from any perception of aggression from Iran whether we have access to monitor their nuclear program or not.

Which makes any opposition to monitoring downright idiotic. A nation that can never be trusted does not become more trustworthy after anger and frustration persist through sanctions. In fact, a nation that gets pulled deeply into the proliferation of capitalism cannot be trusted either. Iran will soon be seeking to kill US with trade deals instead of car bombs.

Just ask Donald.

Postscript: My brother Obama is late...again, to the announcement of the historic nuclear deal with Iran.

Keep it real my ninja...keep it real.

Israeli, Palestinian Conflict Proving America's Influence Has Eroded

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/charlie-rose-battles-hamas-leader-over-whether-hell-recognize-israel/

Whether or not Hamas shall be the final negotiator for the future (or lack thereof) of Palestinian's seems to be the last question remaining. As it stands, Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal has answered quite definitively.

No.

Hamas will not recognize a Jewish nation.  At least that is what Meshaal confessed to Charlie Rose in an interview where Meshaal attempted to side step the question before his definitive, one word answer of Rose.  No! Hamas does not intend to recognize a Jewish nation, but that does not mean they will act as an occupier or in an aggressive manner if each nation decides to observe the autonomy of the other nation. The problem with the peaceful coexistence concept is that enemy nations can not share indistinguishable borders. Russia and Ukraine must resolve their differences just as Palestine and Israel must. The US and Mexico maintain an unspoken agreement masquerading as a border war, but even our two nations must maintain civility between us so that we might avoid building up walls and pointing bombs in the direction of each other.

The biblical demand for man to love thy neighbor as thyself is not a haphazard instruction. It doesn't take long for life to teach us that our family is more or less optional, whereas your neighbors are a vital aspect of your life.  Bad neighborly relations could mean a difficult existence on a daily basis, while bad family relations only materialize during holiday parties.  Regardless of the misconception of the famous, Hatfield and McCoy family feud, even their legendary dispute was exacerbated by the proximity of these two families.

When neighboring disputes escalate into hostile wars, it is beyond valuable for an intercessor to play a role.  Law enforcement provide genuine incentive for peaceful behavior, but for several years now, we have asked and prayed for Israel and Palestine to police their own activities.  The United States used to be an influence over this region because of our undying loyalty towards Israel. Today things are much different.  Today we are the examples of what aggression in the middle east should look like.  In the aftermath of two wars with marginal evidence of any lasting reason for these engagements, Iraq and Afghanistan have eroded our credibility to even speak on middle eastern aggression.  Dismantling the power structure of an enemy combatant is the methodology for how we removed Saddam Hussein from power, and for how we sent Al Qaeda on the run, even though the secret CIA operation that killed Osama Bin Laden ultimately lead to the only measure of success that we take away from all of our post 9-11 retaliatory behaviors. So why lose so much credibility worldwide trying to rectify the vulnerability of the 9-11 attack?  Because we were pissed, that's why.

I used to know firmly where I stood on this ongoing war of nations. From my perspective, Israel never appeared interested in establishing or respecting the sovereignty of Palestine and its people.  Some will even tell you that such a place (Palestine) and its people do not exist as an established nation.  None of them would be the multitude who call the land home, or the many more who fled this region of constant unrest for nations across the world.  Palestinians are weary of the lack of acceptance of a people with a history and a collective purpose, but they also find Hamas significantly necessary to confront Israeli aggression.  What the Palestinian people are missing is the catch 22 of Hamas and Israeli aggression.

Without Israeli aggression, Hamas loses an element of necessity and legitimacy.  Whether their is a cease fire in the works or not, military leaders are defined by their willingness to lead the fight.  As more Palestinian than Israeli casualties line the streets, it is my hunch that ignoring a cease fire could be a great way to embolden yourself before a nation of people desperate for fearless fighters to avenge the blood that remains on their streets.  Either Hamas hasn't the ability to control its angered military leaders, or it has no desire to as several cease fire agreements have been breached by an Hamas rocket attack.  Either perspective should draw the ire of anyone paying attention, especially since the question of "who launched the first attack" still remains a debate.

Much like the ignored cease fire requests in the Ukraine, the idea of setting down your arms while fighting back and protecting your homeland from a stronger enemy lends itself to losing the biggest element necessary in these types of skirmishes....support.  The only necessary element for any war to go on is the support of those involved, and right now polling data supports the notion that neither Israel or Palestine seem eager to allow this conflict to resolve itself through diplomacy.  War is war for a reason, and it typically requires an exacting blow to provide access to victory.  Both sides are looking for a way to perform this essential strike to the enemy in order to maintain a lasting peace (says Israel), or autonomous respect (says Palestine).

I don't expect that anyone will ultimately like the conclusion that lies in store for these neighbors who refuse to get along, but eventually this war needs a conclusion.  When your kids are young, the old axiom of 'do what I say, not what I do' can actually work for a while, but as they grow up they will either reject your words or mimic your behavior.  Palestine has rejected our words while Israel has mimicked our behavior.  As a result, someone with a more influential voice and less of a spotted past will have to take the lead on this matter. America is simply not qualified anymore.