Sunday, November 11, 2012

Christian Pest Tries to Brain Fart His Way to Explaining Reepos' Loss - To BAJANS!

It's no secret that a certain contingent of Americans inhabits Barbados, and they continually attempt to brainwash the island nation's citizens - mainly concerning things political and religious in the US of A. (Especially the basis or cause of electoral outcomes) One of these gadflies - or pests, as I call them -  is a "Paul Kokoski" who also had a letter featured in today's Barbados Sunday Advocate trying to explain the Republicans' loss last Tuesday.

Kokoski's letter is also instructive because, like many other Reepos, it discloses the level of disinformation that they will resort to in order to twist susceptible minds - especially those not as au fait with American politics. Let's then consider some of Kokoski's claims in his letter, starting with his first paragraph:

"The Republicans did not lose the US election because of constituencies or demographics. Neither is Barack Obama the problem. We are! Abortion is. Public schools are. A rotting pop culture is. Modernism in the Catholic Church is. Divorce and homosexual “marriage” are. Obama has been re-elected simply because America, like any nation, will always only get the leaders she deserves. We told God to go to hell a long time ago, and God is now allowing us to see what life is like without Him."

Now, notice he makes no connection whatsoever to the fact that 99% of Reeps are against abortion, and indeed wish Roe v. Wade to be overturned! In other words, to say the Reeps "did not lose the election because of constituencies or demographics"  is to be too blind by half (see, e.g. the previous blog).  The claim that "Americans get the leaders they deserve" is also a snide implication that Mitt Romney would have been  superior to the one (Obama) we "deserved", although, given Kokoski is Roman Catholic, he may well have preferred Rick Santorum, since in later paragraphs he disses Romney as being as "liberal as JFK". But I get ahead of myself.  Btw, the Vatican's assholes are reportedly moaning and groaning about the results of our election. As reported in today's Denver Post, the Vatican hack "newspaper" L'Osservatore Romano "sought to frame itself as the lone voice of courage in opposing the initiatives" voted on in the U.S. Hey you holier-than-thou fuckers, where was your vaunted courage when children were being raped by your pedophile priests?

The claim that Americans or anyone can "tell God to go to Hell" is simply daft and insane, if one assumes: a) a functional God does exist, and b) is a transcendent entity and immaterial. In fact, in such a case, one can't "tell" God anything! The real question Kokoski avoids, as do so many pseudo-Xtian numbnuts, is why God as they postulate him (or It) fails to act when most called upon. This absence of action is the most devastating evidence for arguing (along Victor Stenger's lines) that either a) this God does not exist, or b) it doesn't exist in the fashion Xtians claim.

Case in point: the 6-month old infant (Julian Adams Lacas) whose short life was detailed in today's Denver Post (p. 1A) covering the deaths of more than 72 foster and other children in Colorado over the past several years. In the case of this particular infant, he was born with a cleft palate and severe brain problems and left one day in the care of his father by mom, Krista - who went out looking for work. When she returned she found the infant barely conscious and only able to make squeaking sounds - as its windpipe had been partially crushed and his head turned into a punctured melon after his father flew into a rage and kicked him like a soccer ball. WHERE was the great all powerful God when this was going on? If people like Kokoski are going to insist he was there, but "looking on" then he's useless! But in the same vein, this uselessness also translates into the colossal stupidity of statements such as those made by Kokoski - to wit, we "told God to go to Hell" a long time ago. How can we if he's not paying attention to anything? 

Do these dopes even comprehend any of this? Doubtful! Meanwhile, the innocents, like little Justin or those two unfortunate Connecticut girls (Hayley and Michaela Petit) raped by intruders in their own home several years ago, then set on fire while tied to their beds - are left without anything to help them in greatest time of need. So, why get "saved" if there's nothing there anyway? Any idiot can make pseudo- threats about unseen bogeys, but if you have no evidence to back it up you really belong on a funny farm, fastened into a straightjacket and on a diet of thorazine. Oh, and interspersed with steady amperes of ECT!

However, as Stenger does note, and all atheists need to take note: not all god concepts are excluded. To quote Stenger :

"Certainly the deist god who does not interfere in the world is difficult to rule out. However, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, whom I identify with an uppercase G, is believed to play such an active role in the universe that his actions should have been detected, thus confirming his existence.”

Here, Stenger is conceding that some God-concepts can’t be ruled out as possible transcendent realties. He names the Deist concept, but one surely can also include any pantheistic, or impersonal variant, say like Bohm’s  “Holomovement” (elevated to God –concept status).

The Deist deity is important, however, because THAT is exactly the one the Founders (Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, etc.) accepted. To remind people: this deity is responsible for creating the universe, but then it effectively "walks away" - leaving creation to itself. It doesn't personally involve itself in anything. Hence, Kokoski's next claim:

"America is a Christian nation, and our help is in the name of the Lord – not electoral politics."

is total rubbish! Because Deists are NOT Christians! They don't accept a personal God or a personal "savior" a la Jesus Christ.  Hence, Kokoski is trying to feed his readers non-historical BS. To make sure people understand this, and emphasize the distinction, I refer readers to the key passage in the Treaty Of Tripoli, e.g.

""As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Now, there will be those who assert this isn't evidence, but we must categorize them as imbeciles and move on. They aren't worth wasting time on.

Kokoski's next bit of insane hyperbole reads as follows:

"Out of fear and sheer desperation, most Americans threw their hats in the ring for a Mormon, big government-backing, sometimes pro-life, moderately pro-gay rights candidate. Even by John F. Kennedy’s standards, Mitt Romney is a rabid liberal who would not have altered the course for America."

This shows the man has no clue, not one, concerning who John F. Kennedy was, and certainly not Mitt Romney either! In fact, by John F. Kennedy's standards Romney would be the next thing to Attila the Hun! Bear in mind that unlike Romney's promised $5 trillion tax cuts for the wealthiest, JFK actually sought to severely limit ANY tax breaks for the rich. This is why he was widely castigated by the financial press of the time! (E.g. WSJ, 8/6/62 'No Cause for Celebration'; p. 6;  WSJ, 3/26/63 'Too Much Money, Too Little Thought', p. 18; WSJ, 8/15/63 'When Friends Become Foes', p. 8 )

If Kennedy were really a Romney double (or vice versa), why the hell would the Wall Street Journal attack him so often (the preceding was just a sampling) while praising Romney for his tax cut plan? Clearly Kokoski doesn't know jack shit or diddly.  Meanwhile, Henry Hazlitt, contributing editor at Newsweek (The Washington Post's then sister publication, now defunct as a print publication) was airing many of the same complaints against JFK. These polemics, appearing regularly in Hazlitt's 'Business Tides', included taking JFK to task for his tax policies - including the proposed tax on U.S. business earnings abroad. Romney meanwhile has taken advantage of tax loopholes to parlay assets into hundreds of billion of bucks from tax avoidance, stashed in the Caymans and Swiss banks.

As for "big government backing" - well, any halfway intelligent person who ever took a real American History course would know Kennedy followed a genuinely liberal tack, but NOT Mitt Romney. For example, JFK established and promoted the "Alliance for Progress' to enable low-interest loans for Latin American American nations, thereby outraging the 'Street" and the other capitalist bastions of thought. He also (in June, 1963) issued Executive Order 11,110  to challenge Fed control of the money supply. (Which under the Constitution authorizes only Congress to create paper money not a private entity) This EO authorized the creation of some $4.2 billion in U.S. Notes - to replace Federal Reserve Notes. These U.S. Notes were issued by Treasury Secretary Douglas Dillon, and bore his signature.

Beyond that, JFK was into deficit spending for the public good, see, e.g.  while the Mittster wanted to rein in deficit spending for any public benefit but expand it exponentially for tax cuts and the military ($2 trillion without any offsets).

Also, in regard to the latter, Romney not only wanted to plow another $2 trillion into the Pentagon's already overflowing coffers, but he hired on warmonger advisors like Gen. Tommy Franks and John Bolton - former Bushies with hard ons for a war with Iran. Meanwhile, JFK actually issued a National Security Action Memorandum (263) to PULL OUT of Vietnam by calendar year 1965. (When LBJ ascended to power, he issued NSAM 273 to cancel out JFK's NSAM).

Again, Kokoski plays the role of either an ignorant stooge, or maybe a disinformationist. Who knows? In either case he's a pest, like another rabid bible puncher I know who shall remain nameless, but whose rants can perhaps better be explained by appeal to mental illness.

Fortunately, most clever Bajans appear to be on to those like Paul Kokoski, but we have to expect the Kokoskis of the world will never quit trying to push bollocks and baloney down the throats of those who may not know as much about American history as the rest of us! It is up to those of us who know better to expose them and their game!

No comments: