The Junior Senator from the Trick or Treat State.

John Ensign is apparently only capable of speaking the truth when he thinks he's lying for effect.

John Ensign Scandal: Senate Republicans Decline To Defend Colleague: "'I have a little alert to tell Washington,' Ensign said during the televised hearings. 'The people don't trust us. They don't trust us to make these decisions.'"

It is the usual tranparent appeal to the prejudices of the wingnut social conservative fringe, who can be depended upon to take the assertion as gospel. On the other hand, it's a pretty moronic idea for a Senator be flinging around - because there is no more important thing than having a government that you CAN trust to "make those decisions." That is, after all, the job.

The man often referred to as "the Hairdo" by his critic is not the sort of man that it is wise to allow to take the point on the rather critical issue of the honor, honesty and credibility of the US form of Representative Government. One would think, at any rate, for the sad truth is there is no-one able to make that statement with greater unintended irony than John Ensign of Nevada. Or so I hope.


Nevada is a place where people come to get rich or get lost. It's politicians and business people tend to be of the former sort, but in some particular cases the latter happens - because fast buck artists don't tend to be drawn from the classes of "The Best and the Brightest." It could well be called the "Trick or Treat State;" it gained statehood on Oct. 31, 1864, with the issue of slavery being a trick or a treat, depending on which side you were on. Things pretty much continued in that vein thereafter. The Hairdo Himself tends to underline the importance of a good costume in getting the biggest haul of candy. I think this explains his membership in Promise Keepers®, a conservative Christian movement with the motto, "Men of Integrety."

Central to Promise Keepers® membership is a pledge to keep the Seven Promises, among them:

PROMISE 3: A Promise Keeper is committed to practicing spiritual, moral, ethical, and sexual purity.

PROMISE 4:  A Promise Keeper is committed to building strong marriages and families through love, protection and biblical values.

Why go to all that trouble actually doing the right thing, when you can simply join an organization that says you are above reproach for a modest annual fee?

On both sides of my family tree, the sagas and tales of my axe-flinging ancestors whisper to me that there is no greater offense to Odin Skyfather than the unspilled blood of an Oathbreaker. Me, I do try to keep such intemperate reactions in check - particularly since the only thing Ensign did that would be of concern to my forebears was that he broke an oath - a bond precisely as sacred to them as a gambling debt.

Speaking of Nevada politics.

I advocate no violence; I merely find it hilarious that my ancestral collection of reprobates, raiders and remittance men would be offended by the man's offense, for, in a literary sense, it is exactly the sort of arrogance that the Gods, we are told of in the sagas, hero-tales and morality plays find remarkable enough to correct personally. So beware of doing harm to Ensign and his ilk.

It's imprudent to deprive a Ceiling Cat of it's mousie.

The New York Times published an overview of the sorry tale of presumption, adultery, deceit, deception, corruption and malfeasance that in the end led to the scuttling of John Ensign's presidential ambitions.

Mr. Ensign allowed Senator Tom Coburn, a friend and fellow conservative Christian, to serve as an intermediary with the Hamptons in May in discussing a large financial settlement, to help them rebuild their lives. “John got trapped doing something really stupid and then made a lot of other mistakes afterward,” Mr. Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, said in an interview. “Judgment gets impaired by arrogance, and that’s what’s going on here.”

No doubt that we are supposed to presume that Sen. Coburn - fellow conservative Christian and close friend - was as suprised by this behavior, this abuse of his trust as was the husband of his paramour (and campaign treasurer), close friend Douglas Hampton. Goodness, how could anyone have possibly foreseen such a thing?



But, man, he does look fine in public; the looks of a George Clooney, albiet with the eyes of an inbred Cocker Spaniel.

His capacity for looking good in public, coupled with his inability to avoid causing problems that could indebt him to those who make problems go away for a price made him the perfect candidate to place into high office, from a certain cynical perspective.

It's no wonder at all to me that he was seen as being a likely heir to Ronald Regan.

Whatever the motives of those who knew Ensign of old and supported him for office anyway, they certainly got exactly what they paid for. But like many superficially attractive investments, he depreciated rapidly. There is an axiom referred to as Hanlon's Razor which states that one should never presume malice when stupidity alone is sufficient to explain the situation - but to presume such comprehensive stupidity on the part of his backers is so insulting that I prefer to err on the side of charity.


John is a man who's character is made evident by his behavior. My primary impression comes from constituent correspondence. I wish I had copies - but I shredded them with extreme prejudice.

They revealed a breathtaking arrogance coupled with the complete absence of any thought put into the issue I had raised. Since they were form-letter responses to common questions and he has a staff who are actually paid to be smarter and better-informed than he is, there's simply no excuse for headpatting platitudes as a response to a constituent's concerns - most especially when you wish them to be reassured in their complacent presumption of your competence.

It was not difficult to find an example of the Ensign Style of Communication in the public record. Indeed, he communicated it to the Editors of the New York Times.

Published: October 8, 2007
To the Editor:

Your Sept. 27 editorial “Let the Sunshine In” left your readers in the dark on the issue of transparency in the Senate. I support electronic filing of fund-raising reports in the Senate because, as we probably agree, disclosure leads to more transparency in government. I have never had a secret hold on this bill.

In the same spirit of transparency, I requested a vote on my amendment that would require groups filing ethics complaints against senators to reveal who is financing their efforts. Light needs to shine on this increasingly abused process, but Democrats are clearly afraid of voting on my amendment.

Your editorial compared the House and the Senate, but on this issue there is a big difference. In the House, a member of Congress has to file a complaint. In the Senate, there are no requirements — anyone can do it anonymously, without even a signature. The result of the Democrats’ blocking my amendment is that people can continue to hide in the dark to lob partisan attacks against senators.
John Ensign

U.S. Senator from Nevada
Washington, Sept. 28, 2007

See how it gives the dual impression of impervious arrogance while revealing an inability to comprehend that there might actually be a principle at stake?

It's long been a GOP meme that ANY ethical question directed at a Republican is merely a "partisan attack." And they should know. They'd pioneered that style of political action with their attacks on Bill Clinton. So, we should all understand that when ethics complaints are being made, they aren't really ethics complaints. They are just attempts to replace one sumbitch with another, equally corrupt sumbitch who owes his loyalty to different backers and gets his political support by pandering to a different segment of the credulous public.

But - even if that WERE true - it is still a strange position for a Senator who comes from a state where "none of the above" is one of the options on the ballot.

But the objection to autonomous complaints - well, I do understand that completely. Those who casually cause offense, outrage and harm do like to know if those "little people" are banding together to get themselves some even. The idea that a complaint might be based in some legitimate concern for, say, national security or the rule of law can be dismissed as fantastical.  Concerns about personal safety, or other forms of retaliation? Absurd! Paranoia!

Anyone making a complaint would OF COURSE be employed by or funded by some political action group. That's how things "really work." That is the assumption made when Republicans attack ACORN and the ACLU. Whatever these groups say, or even actually achieve, their only real agenda is to make make it difficult for Republicans to hold on to political power.

As patently absurd as that statement is, I do think those people best placed to influence the Republican party and the Social Conservative Base actually believe that politics is the primary motivation of critics, that their opponents see ethics, law, justice, civil rights, gun laws, health care, global warming, church and state issues, marriage rights and every other issue as simply sharp rocks to pelt the GOP - and that there could not possibly be any larger motivation - like, say, moral indignation, or a sincere appreciation for the economic, social and environmental impact of heedless social, environmental and foreign policy.

That is not because of a fundamental difference in political philosophy. It is because that sort of blindness is required if you are a corrupt sonofabitch belonging to a club of corrupt bastards, for in order to look in the mirror, you must embrace the faith-based doctrine that all persons of your walk and station are no better than you. 

When you offend a large enough number of people over a long enough period of time with the expressed attitude of "whatcha gonna do about it," - well, sooner or later, one of those people will be in a position to do you a grave injury. Meanwhile, even those you helped - well, they probably had to pay a great deal for the help that should have come as a matter of course - so when you lose your ability to deliver the goods there is no bond of loyalty or gratitude, no debt of honor or genuine friendship to presume upon.

Now, I have no idea whether Sen. Ensign's ethics amendment passed, but regardless, it is ironic to note that if we were to trace the source of the funding for the complaint against him - well, it would come from "Ensign, Inc." Literally. But it is reasonable to question the motives and the character of people bringing complaint, as a matter of significant interest that should be independent of the facts of the complaint.

It is a sad fact of human nature that most crimes are solved with the help of other criminals. 

To put up with Ensign, and people like Ensign - you have to take him as being the very model of a modern Statesman. You have to be able to dismiss every hint that he's less than intelligent, less than prudent, less than honest and certainly FAR less than what he seems. You have to somehow continue to accept him at face value and at his word. That makes you either very stupid indeed, or very willing to look the other way in return for some personal benefit. For the latter case, we have Douglas Hampton to illustrate the matter. The Ensigns and the Hamptons were said to be very close, over a very long period of time. It's difficult to credit the idea that people who are so close are truly unaware of the essential nature of their bedfellows. 

When you choose to be friends with someone like John Ensign - well, it's kinda like inviting a loaded skunk into your home. Sooner or later, the damn thing is going to go off. It's in the nature of skunks and narcissists to do that when every little thing fails to go their way.  A narcissist may be charming - may indeed charm your pants off. But if you permit that to happen more than once - it's a consensual relationship with a very predictable story arc leading from "ohgodohgod" to "owfuckOW!"

This story will no doubt be fodder for playwrights and novelists for generations to come. It is a story that in it's improbable degrees of arrogance, theatrical details and breathtaking contempt for the standards of moral behavior may be in all seriousness be compared to great tragedies such as Antigone, Oedipus Rex and Othello. 

But I must confess that there is a distinction between the real-life clusterfuck that is Ensign and a classical morality play. Mark Twain famously observed that the difference between truth and fiction was that fiction had to make sense.

It will take a great deal of literary hagiography to transform Ensign into a plausible vehicle for an actor of stature greater Will Ferrell or Pauly Shore. Othello was not merely a jealous prick. Oedipus was not just a fool who stepped on his own dick. The tragedy of Antigone is that all involved were genuinely mistaken in their attempts to honor Family and Gods.

Ensign - well, if there is a God that would be caught dead in the C-Street church - it's the one that appears every time in the mirror when we brush our teeth. But then, to people like Ensign - no higher power exists.

The Spiders Behind Sarah's Eyes.

It's alleged that Sara's home church, the one she was raised in, is an heretical church. At least, some in the Assemblies would probably say that; similar churches have been so named.

As a person raised in the Anglican High Church Tradition, I'm tempted to say (and I think with more than a little validity, both in the doctrinal and far more essentially, biblical, red-letter sense) "well, takes one to know one," dismissing it as simply a turf dispute between entities of equally questionable parentage.

That would be what you would call a "Grave Sin of Spiritual Arrogance." Or, in a less High-Church Sense - stupid!

Tolerance must end at the point where one is tolerating intentional evil in the name of allowing for "differing interpretations" of spiritual truth. This is not because it's "wrong" to tolerate evil. This is because that which is evil wishes to eat you and use your living corpse as a meat puppet. Friends, that would be one of the better outcomes.

The place where you know you have crossed that line of tolerance is when those you are tolerating publicly state they wish to kill you both spiritually and literally and turn all you have made and treasure into the sort of wasteland in which only that which those such as themselves can live within.

Watch this video. If you don't, what I'm going to say after will seem like raving lunacy. After watching it, I think you will find my conclusions to be stated as moderately as is humanly and decently possible.



One of my claims to special knowledge is the fact that as a child I was exposed to every available form of religion available. My mother was something of a relgious addict and she was always looking for a new high and a new set of simple answers.

I've been in a lot of varieties of Evangelical, Pentecostal and Prosperity Gospel meetings. I've been to many, many churches where people spoke in tongues, and yes, I've felt "The Spirit" move around me. Problem is, in some churches, one is not sure what spirit that might be. At that time - both out of rebellion and as a matter of trying to figure out what was making me feel oogie about it all, I delved into classical magic, shamanism and various ethnological traditions involving voluntary spirit possession and ecstatic trance states.

The Charismatic and Pentecostal ecstatic religious traditions owes a great deal to Afro-Caribbean Religious traditions. Unfortunately, they did not comprehend what it was they were taking, in many ways, and while it's certainly possible to ensure that the Holy Spirit is that which is the only thing moving in a church - bear with me, it's a believe it or don't thing - many pentecostal and evangelical churches don't have the first clue as to why that would be important. I've been in churches where, not only wasn't it consecrated, it would have had to be cleansed before anyone should step foot in it, much less hold any religious service within.

Yes, Virginia, there are things out there that are evil are un-bodied, and would like to sneak into you and look out at the mundane world from behind your eyes. I've seen it enough to know it when I see it - not that I'm about to advice "deliverance sessions." IMHO, if you need that sort of service, consult a Catholic Exorcist, or a well-respected Shaman in the North American aboriginal traditions. I do not know what their precise advice would be in regard to such churches - save that I'm certain that "stay the hell away if you value your soul" would be pretty much the first reaction.

I try to avoid the word "demon" because it's uselessly broad. There's obviously a huge, varied spiritual ecology out there, and from what I can grasp of it (and to the degree I'm interested, beyond not encouraging such creatures in my life,) I see much of what's going on in this church as being something of an opportunistic infection. Is it evil?

If that word is to have any meaning at all, and if you go by the practical advice of the "know them by their fruits" dictum, yeah. It's evil. Worse yet, from my perspective, the evil is not external; whatever this thing or things may be, it's working with what was there all along, and the church seeks out those who wish they had an excuse to be as vile and self-righteous about it as - well, their Poster Child, Sara Palin.

This is not a church that tries to take good people and make them better. This is a church that makes the worst instincts and most hateful tenancies of people into doctrinal mandates, telling them that not only are their hatreds justified by faith, but they are mandated by God.

You don't need to take my word for this. The video above is compiled from public sources - read for yourself, then compare what they say about their doctrine, intents and what they feel Christians should do with the red words in your bible; the words attributed to Christ. See to what degree they differ.

This, of course, assumes that they are truth-tellers in regard to written doctrine. I'd not bet a lot on it, I'd be more inclined to go with video records made by these people and the related "latter rain" cults such as Joel's Army. (Discernment Ministries entry) (Southern Poverty Law Center entry.) It's not at all difficult to find very conservative evangelical sources that are deeply concerned about these heresies, and their stated intentions towards those they deem "unsaved" and "ungodly" is starting to make more secular folk think of them a very present, potentially terroristic danger.

Me, well, I think both tend to underestimate the personal directness of the spiritual and individual threat.

Even in churches where "tongues" are a regular occurrence, even in cases where I've felt the need to ward myself against things that wanted to set up shop in my head, I've never heard or seen anything like what is captured on this tape.

If it looks like an Hieronymus Boch painting, and it sounds just like the screams and shouts of damned souls, knowing what it is, precisely is not really all that important. We know what it is not from the evidence of our own eyes. And if it's not OF Christ and does not act AS Christ, than ... follow me, here, what's the proper prefix for "Against?"

In terms specific to Sarah Palin - Christians, that is to say, Honest to God Christians who take the red letters seriously, and measure all else (particularly later writings by Paul) against those words, that sort of christian is not known for leaving trails of impotent hatred or easy dealings with corrupt people. They do not manage by corrupt means. They do not lie, they do not cheat, they do not abuse their power to gain personal revenge.

By their fruits ye shall know them, and Sarah Palin is a rotten, sour persimmon. This is a tree that should be cast into the fire - metaphorically, of course, but that metaphor should be very hot and pure indeed.

Rocketboom.com video depicts evangelicals and their opinions.

The first two persons speaking, mind you, are ORDAINED, Evangelical ministers.

I usta remember when a paster was kind of expected to have some of that book larnin' that's jus' too dangerous for people like the Huckabees and the Jukes back up in the holler.

Well, 'cept for those things about not screwin' livestock. Lessn' the only other choice was your sister, 'cause, well, cain't hunt squirrels if'n you go blind.

Lots of people are saying it's unfair to pick on folks from Tennissee for such obvious stupidity. Indeed, I grew up with the same sorts in Washington State. They talk just the same (slightly different accent, same casual disregard for grammar and fact) and the wronger they were, the more sure they were right, because, the Good Book Said So.

You'd probably be unsurprised to find out that if you actually looked it up in the good book, and you could even find something vaguely like what they were referring to, it said something completely different. Funny to realize that the Catholics didn't want to give up Latin because then the People would know what the Good Book said. I imagine this sort of counter example is the sort of thing Jesuits use to torment Dominicans with.

But really and for true - these are the exact thirty percent that put Bush into cheating distance of the Presidency. These are the same thirty percent that try and shut down anyone trying to commit any act of decency or common sense in our nation. And they are just as fanatically stupid as they sound.

We have to start taking them seriously - as a serious threat. NOT as people who's faith and opinions deserve respect, (for they are, as they are more than happy to point out to you, one and the same) but as potential terrorists and of course, fomenters and cheerleaders for being terrified and using terror and torture in order to inflict "God's wrath" on unbelievers.

It is, I suppose, an ironic but fortunate truth that a disproportionate share of their offspring will be paying for the sins of their fathers. But then, seven generations ago, they were as well.

At Cemetary Ridge.

read more | digg story

Spiritual Deceptions - My first GraphicTruth.

`Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny - Yahoo! News Annotated

The message flickered into Cindy Fleenor's living room each night: Be faithful in how you live and how you give, the television preachers said, and God will shower you with material riches.

And so the 53-year-old accountant from the Tampa, Fla., area pledged $500 a year to Joyce Meyer, the evangelist whose frank talk about recovering from childhood sexual abuse was so inspirational. She wrote checks to flamboyant faith healer Benny Hinnand a local preacher-made-good, Paula White.

Only the blessings didn't come. Fleenor ended up borrowing money from friends and payday loan companies just to buy groceries. At first she believed the explanation given on television: Her faith wasn't strong enough.

By their fruits you will know them.

• There isn't any reason why a Christian can't be prosperous, of course, but there's nothing in the Bible - or any other spiritual text - that highlights wealth as a special and particular blessing of faith.
  
  As for those preachers who are enjoying the fruits of their ministry to the extent of living lavish lifestyles and hob-nobbing with presidents and powerful business leaders who love to think that their aquissitive nature is a spiritual gift - "Behold, they have their reward."
  
  - post by graphictruth

The probe by Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, has brought new scrutiny to the underlying belief that brings in millions of dollars and fills churches from Atlanta to Los Angeles — the "Gospel of Prosperity," or the notion that God wants to bless the faithful with earthly riches.

This story is very personal to me - and the connection to Oral Roberts is direct.

You see, my mother - a religious addict by any reasonable use of the term - was much taken with Oral Robert's ministry, back when I was ten or twelve, and on days when she didn't feel up to driving the thirty-odd miles it would take to get us to church, she'd watch his show.

And usually, she'd stuff whatever "love offering" he requested for whatever trinket he was selling that day.

Now, our usual church was Episcopal. Being a dutiful and very aspy child, I took my mother's obvious wish that I become "saved" and conversant with the words and works of Jesus very seriously indeed. And as it happened, that church had a very advanced Sunday school, where we really got our teeth into the word, and chewed it with the help of concordances, interlinear bibles, and various translations. I had my own Amplified Bible, which I found very useful.

To make a long story short, I was quite the little deacon at that point, although I had by that time also learned that in regards to my parents, "hiding my light under a bushel" was by far the best course.

However, when Oral Roberts pulled a "prayer cloth" with his holy blessed hand-print upon it, stated that he'd personally prayed over each and every one of these objects, and because of that, they would by some twisted transubstantiation personally connect him to you via the Holy Idiot Box if you placed your hand over his as he prayed with his own hand raised on Teevee...

Well, this little deacon exploded, and while I didn't speak in tongues - as mother really thought any believer should - for once I did not hold it. Nor was it a "word of knowledge." You don't need that when scriptural first principles are being raped before your eyes.

I pointed out that it was idolatry - both of an object and a man, and as graphic an example of a man placing himself before God, as a god-substitute as you would ever see. It still angers me to this day, that a man professing to be a Christian minister could not even get through the FIRST commandment without pissing all over it.

I say that deliberately, as a graphic and visceral illustration of the clear and mindful insult to both his followers and to the God he pretended to serve.

I was actually rather surprised the roof didn't fall in on him right then. It took a few more years, and the "fall" was metaphorical, but rather satisfying, nonetheless.

But in any case, that one time my mother listened to me and did not actually put twenty bucks in an envelope. But it didn't keep her from sending it off to Bob Schuller. Indeed, she sent hundreds, if not thousands to him. One Christmas, my major gift was a window in the Chrystal Cathedral.

Imagine my joy.



As far as I'm concerned, nothing says "transparent fraud" better than the Crystal cathedral. Although these days it's far from the worst such church. Rev. Bob Schuller was a sincere advocate of an inoffensive ministry that was based more on his blandly optimistic self-help pep-talks than on the Bible.

It was a dose of weekly feelgood that came with no strings of personal obligation, other than to buy his books and be optimistic - and all you needed to do in order to progress spiritually was just that - buy his books and be optimistic.

It wasn't nearly as offensive as the "name it - claim it" theology of Oral Roberts, and that is what my mother fell back into later on.

And just like the bitter woman in this article, my mother ended up bitter and unfulfilled, having sacrificed pretty much everything in a futile quest for sanctity and moral superiority without doing the heavy lifting involved involved in discerning Right Action.

Yes, I am informed by other religious traditions. As should you be, if you are moved toward a quest for spiritual insight. If you merely wish to belong to a church that offers a community of belief at a reasonable price, and puts some effort into doing a good job of it, though, I would recommend either a Catholic or Anglican Communion congregation, depending upon your need for governing authorities.

The important thing in my mind is that neither faith is one that encourages self-righteousness and self-involvement to the same degree as the evangelical, "prosperity gospel" mega-churches.

And that, of course, brings us back into the secular world. Indeed, since we are speaking of Oral Roberts and his Mega-church legacy of sanctified greed and the elevation of
moralism
over actual moral virtue, we have never left the secular realm!

If you have not yet grasped the thrust of my words, let me be blunt - I consider none of these televangelists, with their politicalmaneuverings and highly profitable enterprises to be anything other than entirely secular con-men, or, for the very best of a bad lot, no better than any other motivational speaker.

But the worst of them - Benny Hinn leaps to mind - are fully in the tradition of Marjoe Gortner and P.T. Barnum, but blessed with even less conscience than either of those.

Now, I have studied the Bible from front to back and back to front over the years, searching for the context and intent of the words of Christ. For the most part, I consider what I've learned to be highly personal, and not at all something I feel either comfortable or qualified to preach toward - though it would be easy to argue that my scruples are rather unusual in that regard.

One truth is obvious enough to me to share with you in context. In the times of Jesus, sheep were a vital part of the economy, and nobody could possibly have missed the subtext of Christ saying to his Disciples, "feed my sheep."

It's not a complementary metaphor. There are few animals that make a collie or Irish setter seem bright in comparison, and sheep are at the top of the list. They have been bred over thousands and thousands of years to be meek, inoffensive, biddable, stupid creatures who are incapable of finding food for themselves. They NEED to be "led to green pastures" and "to lie beside still waters."

So when Christ said "feed my sheep," nobody thought it was anything other than a thankless chore involving inherently stupid creatures who needed to gently and compassionately cared for. Jesus cared about his stupid, bleating, sheep like followers, who could as easily be led to war against the Romans as "beside the still waters."

What he did NOT say was "fleece my sheep." And that is what these mega-churches do, with their for profit banks that will helpfully accept direct deposits from your place of work and deduct a thirty percent tithe.

Oh yes. Thirty percent. Some actually take that much.

Tax free, for them. Not for you, of course. Since even if you are able to deduct all the thirty percent, you will still be paying the differential on property and other municipal taxes to allow for that corporate monstrosity.

That's not just fleecing the sheep, it's skinning them alive, and then slaughtering their lambs in front of their bleeding, soon to be corpses.

That metaphor applies to the Evangelically sanctified "war on terror."

Meanwhile, these massive edifices exist without paying property tax or any other fees to the "godless" community they take advantage of, even though the impact is similar to a large stadium in terms of traffic and environmental impact.

All of this is in return for a promise that you will get into heaven eventually, and meanwhile, due to your faith, deserve all kinds of rewards in the here and now.

Some of these churches actually take a step toward making that happen, with an entire "grey" economy wherein all the members essentially agree to do business only with other members of that church - so an illusion of prosperity, and even perhaps a little actual prosperity may occur - but of course, only for a few, who are held up as exemplars of Christian virtue, even though scandal after scandal seems to reveal intentional patterns of fraud, abuse and the worst sorts of sexual and political corruption.

I think we have all suffered enough at the hands of such "virtuous" Christian shepherds, and shoveled all the crap left behind them that we need to grasp the point that they cannot be trusted with the lives and prosperity of those foolish enough to take them at their word. We need to "shake the dust from our feet."

Matthew, Chapter Ten is pretty much the definitive instruction set and doctrinal basis for Evangelism. Inasmuch as it contradicts just about everything mega church, prosperity gospel "evangelists" say and do, you can, and SHOULD take it as Gospel.

After all, it IS Gospel. Believe it, or do not, but if you believe the Bible is true, then you must admit that such creatures are false to the core - and how much more obviously true this must be if you consider the gospels to be a variety of fable.

And as this "prosperity gospel" with it's emotional and authoritarian appeals are so deeply entwined with our current administration and it's political appointees that there is effectively no difference, I suggest that no distinction need be made. We should impeach and convict the lot of them. The righteous need to retake the churches, while those who believe in ethical, constitutional, professional and accountable leadership must retake all three branches of government.

Please do what you can to encourage Sen. Grassley toward Right Action in this regard, that in service to this action of cleansing our body politic of the pernicious influence of corrupt and deceptive churches, he should become a co-sponsor of Dennis Kucinich's Impeachment resolution, if he has not already.

After all, it's the same lot of corrupt bastards, all scratching each other's backs, swapping their private planes and fleecing the gullible sheep.

The goats need to take back their flocks.

tag: Sen. Charles Grassley, religious addiction, tax fraud, prosperity gospel, religious fraud, , Christianists, Shadow Economy, Greed, cultural warfare, Corruption, abuse of power, religous abuse, religous fraud, Cindy Fleenor, Benny Hinn