Open Letter to Tom Coburn 4/16/10
The Preceding was written to Tom Coburn
Before Arizona Bill 1070 passed
Before BP
Before Unemployment Insurance had been Filibustered to Death in the Senate
Everything I said to Coburn I say to all of you Republicans in the Senate
You Never Disappoint
Open Letter to Tom Coburn 4/16/10
Mr. Coburn
I understand that you wear a lot of hats. You are a senator. You’ve been a doctor, I’ve even heard that you are also a minister. You’ve also been around awhile. Long enough that your record speaks for itself, so there is no doubt as to where you are coming from. You are the famous “Dr. No.” Fiscal super-conservative. Absolutely against gun control, against abortion, against the separation of church and state, against repeal of the death penalty, against gay rights. A double-barrel believer in the Reaganite creed that the government is not the answer. Government is the problem. You are against nearly all forms of regulation, intervention, or interdiction…unless it involves killing people or some form of nastiness or another (I.e. war, capital punishment, enhanced interrogation, domestic spying.) All that you are kosher with.
No, I don’t think we are in any danger of misunderstanding you.
Most recently, within the past couple of weeks, you had cut off unemployment insurance for a couple of hundred thousand Americans. Following in the footsteps of Bunning, who everybody was quick to excuse as being bizarre and possibly mentally ill, you said that the number you had cut off (again, around 200,000) wasn’t a big enough number to be politically significant - just big enough to make a nice grand gesture.
Now, I understand that there are a lot of Conservatives and Republicans, and even a few Democrats who feel similarly to you on a great host of issues.
Still…among you and your associates, especially those who choose to drape themselves with the cross as well as the flag…I have to wonder. Do you have any idea what you are doing?
Let’s start with just a bit of reality. Bush the Younger started his administration with a budget surplus left over from the Clinton years. Bush starts his administration off with tax cuts all around, which doesn’t mean much to people who don’t make much, but it redistributes wealth up-wards to those who already have more than they need. Engorging the upper classes at the expense of the lower and middle classes. What Reagan called the “trickle down” theory of economics.
Then Sept.11, aught 1.
Very quickly we find ourselves at war in Afghanistan, then quickly another war in Iraq.
Wars are coffer draining affairs in their own right. To deal with the economic stress Bush tries to bolster the economy by…you were there, what did he offer? More tax cuts!
Does the result still mystify you? What else could any low functioning adult could have expected? Regulatory agencies gutted universally. Energy policy written with help by Enron which went toes up under the weight of its own corruption. Rolling black-outs in California, poisoned toothpaste and toys from China. All of which leads up to predatory mortgage lending ( and to blame ACORN for that is a LIE,) busted housing bubble, Three Card Monty and pea and shell games with hedge funds and derivatives in Wall Street which would have made Ken Lay proud threaten to bring the whole house of cards down.
All of this is well before the aught 9 election. Bush finishes his terms with near record unemployment and debt.
How many tax cuts did you demand that we find a way to pay for?
How did we pay for those wars? One of which was just one man’s daddy issues that cost the lives of over 4,000 Americans and countless maimed.
Just how much of this did you try to prevent Mr. Fiscal Responsibility?
Or did it “just happen?”
Earmarks are just a Representative’s way of keeping his promise to his constituents. You could have blocked every single earmark, but by letting the tax cuts and wars pass without comment, the result would have been the same. Its what Christ called “ straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel.”
Incidentally, the distrust that the American people presently have for the government you did your part in earning when you voted against oversight in CIA interrogation, Gitmo, warrantless wiretaps and other forms of domestic spying. In electing a hands off approach to Executive oversight, you participated in the shredding of not just the Constitution, but the Geneva Convention as well. Do you REALLY think that America is any safer without that piece of protection? Obama’s only sin is not walking back the abuses of the previous Administration any quicker than he has.
Don’t get me wrong though. That’s not what or why I’m writing this. I know that your approach to politics and religion isn’t unique. Its just that between all the hats you wear (senator, doctor , minister) they all come with their own cachet of moral authority. Taken in sum, they speak of a desire to lead, officially or unofficially. Mostly though, you’re the man who cut 200,000 struggling people off of assistance in what amounted to a stunt.
Yeah, Reagan would have done it without batting an eye. Great man. Speaking of which… why are Conservatives and Republicans so ass-backwards about Iran? The Iranians loved Reagan so much so gave back the American hostages as soon as he won the election. And he returned that love by selling weapons to Iran. Maybe if we just give them a bunch of bombs and missiles we can get back to how it was in the good ole days. Its what the Gipper would have done.
It goes without saying that according to his philosophy that numbers trump people and that there’s nothing more important than the bottom line. Its clear that the conservative perspective is far more rational that the emotive one witnessed by Rachel Maddow which concerns itself with the human side of the equation. Doing that, just how are the figures ever going to line up? Conversely, rationality is more concerned about what can be counted, measured, or quantified. Rationality is the only way to reach that all important bottom line. Clearly.
It seems there is a commonality among those, yourself included who drape themselves in the flag and the cross. The thought is that welfare has no place in government. If you are hungry, poor, sick, suffering - then you go to the church for assistance. Assuming that your spiritual views are compatible with the church’s. If not then go ahead and die because the world is better off without you.
The argument is made that Republicans and Conservative are more socially responsible because they donate to charity more often, especially churches. One reason is because there is a tax incentive for them to due this. But something odd happens when the church brings its concerns to the state.
A great game is talked about how the state needs to respect the individual's rights and freedoms. But the selfsame speaker, when voicing the opinions and desires of the church…in effect putting the machinery of the state in the service of the goals of the church, the end result is more of a “law and order” society at the expense of individual freedoms and liberties. More pressure toward the subjugation of women and erosion of hard won reproductive choice. Increased legalized persecution of gays and lesbians. The church, through control of the state, decreeing who and how it is legal to love. What you can and can’t ingest -- and Jesus said ”it is not what goes into your mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out.”
And never ever, ever! addressing the police state that black and brown Americans continue to inhabit even 50 years after the civil rights movement - which answers the question of how a race can dominate in sports and athletic endeavors and still generally die early because of poor health. The state and society remains inimical to their existence. [This was before Az 1070, mind!]
In short, when the church takes control of the state, the result is a more totalitarian, one would even say… Fascist, nation. If race were removed from consideration, as well as the names Christ and Allah…if religion were given full reign in America, the differences between our society and the Taliban, and other Sharia nations, would start to disappear.
I know you would deny it, you and your fellow travelers like Sally Kern, Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps if he could drop the American hating diatribe, and all the fellow members of the Family on C Street. You would deny it, but an American Christian Taliban, a Christian Sharia nation, is the vision you all work for.
And in all odds, Reagan would have been down with that too.
Now I know that Baptists, fundamentalists, and Evangelicals all believe that every word of the bible is meant to be taken literally. Personally, I don’t do that much as a rule, though I’m more inclined to with every word that Jesus himself said - though I still take into account that he was a visionary and he meant some of what he said metaphorically.
The things I like best were things that meanings of which were crystal clear.
Which leads me to ask again…do any of you Christians have ANY idea of what you are talking about?
Granted, religion is a powerful tool. There is little that one can do that is so stupid, vicious, or criminal that it can’t be absolved by saying that you did it for God - though there’s always some psychopath who breaks even these bounds.
This is especially true is politics, which leads to some hilarious conclusions.
Do you hate taxes? Christ said “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and render unto God what is God’s.” Caesar = Government. Pay your taxes.
Worried about redistribution of wealth? Do you feel it important to pass cuts to the wealthy, taking from those who have little to give to those who have far more than enough? Listen up. You are a minister, you should know where the verses are.
"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon (or money.)"
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into heaven."
So Tommy baby, read like that…it sounds like our political environment is basically government“ by the damned, for the damned.”
So do you think Christ would share your enthusiasm for Capital Punishment because he himself had been executed? Do you think he’d buy it if you said it was in honor of him?
Too, there’s welfare and universal health care. Just skippin’ down the road to Socialism, yeah? That’s right, gut all social services and let social Darwinism sort it all out.
31
14 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne,
32
and all the nations 15 will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
33
He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34
Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35
For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,
36
naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.'
37
Then the righteous 16 will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?
38
When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?
39
When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?'
40
And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41
17 Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42
For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
43
a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.'
44
18 Then they will answer and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs
………..feed the hungry, clothe the naked, aid those ill or in prison. Present all this as political platform and Glenn Beck would scream blue murder about the death of America and life as we know it. As would you and many others. Just a bit hypocritical for someone who calls himself a Christian…and a physician on top of that!
And if Christ exists, possibly cause for concern as well…
45
He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.'
46
And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
For your willingness to write off 200,000 people as dead wood and cut them off from support in their time of need [now, in fact, millions in their time of need], and arguing not that you weren’t doing them any harm - but that there were so few of them that their hardship didn’t matter…for that you deserve to have your medical license revoked for violating the Hippocratic Oath that you took to get it, much less your hard heartedness in all other matters. The people that you cut off should file a class action lawsuit against you for the hardship you placed them under, for so little cause [they all should.]
And how would Jesus have seen this?
You can call it political theater and that you were just cutting off the dead wood - but every one of those people who you cut off were each sacrifices to Mammon.
If Reagan was a prophet to you, he was a false one - for because you believe that the number and the dollar trumps the individual, you have set up money changing tables in the Temple of the People.
And if Christ were here, just what would he do about that?
Sure you can defend yourself and say much of your adherence to the Old Testament. The Pharisees were also devout followers of the Laws of Moses. You’d have liked them. They were the religious and political leaders of their time. They sacrificed Christ on the Altar of Political Expediency. What with Christ talking about loving your enemy and your neighbor while helping prostitutes, publicans [in this day call 'em migrant farmers, day laborers], lepers and the destitute…don’t blame you for giving the New Testament short shrift. Sounds way too much like Socialism to make good political hay.
Look, you don’t have to claim you do it for Christ when to do the things Christ said you ought to: legislate help for those in need, love your enemy, etc. I think that falls under “don’t pray on a street corner, but in a closet - don’t let your left hand know what your hand is doing.” Christ would love that.
But if you claim Christ’s name while screwing the poor and the needy, absolving women of decisions concerning their own bodies who you don’t know, finding new ways to persecute gays/lesbians, the black and the brown…when you find new ways to throw money at those who already have more than they need…
That’s not Christian. That’s not even unChristian.
That’s Anti-Christian.
And while you may gain the world like the Devil promised Christ in the desert for doing it,
I would not be you for ANYTHING. [None of you!]
Before Arizona Bill 1070 passed
Before BP
Before Unemployment Insurance had been Filibustered to Death in the Senate
Everything I said to Coburn I say to all of you Republicans in the Senate
You Never Disappoint
Open Letter to Tom Coburn 4/16/10
Mr. Coburn
I understand that you wear a lot of hats. You are a senator. You’ve been a doctor, I’ve even heard that you are also a minister. You’ve also been around awhile. Long enough that your record speaks for itself, so there is no doubt as to where you are coming from. You are the famous “Dr. No.” Fiscal super-conservative. Absolutely against gun control, against abortion, against the separation of church and state, against repeal of the death penalty, against gay rights. A double-barrel believer in the Reaganite creed that the government is not the answer. Government is the problem. You are against nearly all forms of regulation, intervention, or interdiction…unless it involves killing people or some form of nastiness or another (I.e. war, capital punishment, enhanced interrogation, domestic spying.) All that you are kosher with.
No, I don’t think we are in any danger of misunderstanding you.
Most recently, within the past couple of weeks, you had cut off unemployment insurance for a couple of hundred thousand Americans. Following in the footsteps of Bunning, who everybody was quick to excuse as being bizarre and possibly mentally ill, you said that the number you had cut off (again, around 200,000) wasn’t a big enough number to be politically significant - just big enough to make a nice grand gesture.
Now, I understand that there are a lot of Conservatives and Republicans, and even a few Democrats who feel similarly to you on a great host of issues.
Still…among you and your associates, especially those who choose to drape themselves with the cross as well as the flag…I have to wonder. Do you have any idea what you are doing?
Let’s start with just a bit of reality. Bush the Younger started his administration with a budget surplus left over from the Clinton years. Bush starts his administration off with tax cuts all around, which doesn’t mean much to people who don’t make much, but it redistributes wealth up-wards to those who already have more than they need. Engorging the upper classes at the expense of the lower and middle classes. What Reagan called the “trickle down” theory of economics.
Then Sept.11, aught 1.
Very quickly we find ourselves at war in Afghanistan, then quickly another war in Iraq.
Wars are coffer draining affairs in their own right. To deal with the economic stress Bush tries to bolster the economy by…you were there, what did he offer? More tax cuts!
Does the result still mystify you? What else could any low functioning adult could have expected? Regulatory agencies gutted universally. Energy policy written with help by Enron which went toes up under the weight of its own corruption. Rolling black-outs in California, poisoned toothpaste and toys from China. All of which leads up to predatory mortgage lending ( and to blame ACORN for that is a LIE,) busted housing bubble, Three Card Monty and pea and shell games with hedge funds and derivatives in Wall Street which would have made Ken Lay proud threaten to bring the whole house of cards down.
All of this is well before the aught 9 election. Bush finishes his terms with near record unemployment and debt.
How many tax cuts did you demand that we find a way to pay for?
How did we pay for those wars? One of which was just one man’s daddy issues that cost the lives of over 4,000 Americans and countless maimed.
Just how much of this did you try to prevent Mr. Fiscal Responsibility?
Or did it “just happen?”
Earmarks are just a Representative’s way of keeping his promise to his constituents. You could have blocked every single earmark, but by letting the tax cuts and wars pass without comment, the result would have been the same. Its what Christ called “ straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel.”
Incidentally, the distrust that the American people presently have for the government you did your part in earning when you voted against oversight in CIA interrogation, Gitmo, warrantless wiretaps and other forms of domestic spying. In electing a hands off approach to Executive oversight, you participated in the shredding of not just the Constitution, but the Geneva Convention as well. Do you REALLY think that America is any safer without that piece of protection? Obama’s only sin is not walking back the abuses of the previous Administration any quicker than he has.
Don’t get me wrong though. That’s not what or why I’m writing this. I know that your approach to politics and religion isn’t unique. Its just that between all the hats you wear (senator, doctor , minister) they all come with their own cachet of moral authority. Taken in sum, they speak of a desire to lead, officially or unofficially. Mostly though, you’re the man who cut 200,000 struggling people off of assistance in what amounted to a stunt.
Yeah, Reagan would have done it without batting an eye. Great man. Speaking of which… why are Conservatives and Republicans so ass-backwards about Iran? The Iranians loved Reagan so much so gave back the American hostages as soon as he won the election. And he returned that love by selling weapons to Iran. Maybe if we just give them a bunch of bombs and missiles we can get back to how it was in the good ole days. Its what the Gipper would have done.
It goes without saying that according to his philosophy that numbers trump people and that there’s nothing more important than the bottom line. Its clear that the conservative perspective is far more rational that the emotive one witnessed by Rachel Maddow which concerns itself with the human side of the equation. Doing that, just how are the figures ever going to line up? Conversely, rationality is more concerned about what can be counted, measured, or quantified. Rationality is the only way to reach that all important bottom line. Clearly.
It seems there is a commonality among those, yourself included who drape themselves in the flag and the cross. The thought is that welfare has no place in government. If you are hungry, poor, sick, suffering - then you go to the church for assistance. Assuming that your spiritual views are compatible with the church’s. If not then go ahead and die because the world is better off without you.
The argument is made that Republicans and Conservative are more socially responsible because they donate to charity more often, especially churches. One reason is because there is a tax incentive for them to due this. But something odd happens when the church brings its concerns to the state.
A great game is talked about how the state needs to respect the individual's rights and freedoms. But the selfsame speaker, when voicing the opinions and desires of the church…in effect putting the machinery of the state in the service of the goals of the church, the end result is more of a “law and order” society at the expense of individual freedoms and liberties. More pressure toward the subjugation of women and erosion of hard won reproductive choice. Increased legalized persecution of gays and lesbians. The church, through control of the state, decreeing who and how it is legal to love. What you can and can’t ingest -- and Jesus said ”it is not what goes into your mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out.”
And never ever, ever! addressing the police state that black and brown Americans continue to inhabit even 50 years after the civil rights movement - which answers the question of how a race can dominate in sports and athletic endeavors and still generally die early because of poor health. The state and society remains inimical to their existence. [This was before Az 1070, mind!]
In short, when the church takes control of the state, the result is a more totalitarian, one would even say… Fascist, nation. If race were removed from consideration, as well as the names Christ and Allah…if religion were given full reign in America, the differences between our society and the Taliban, and other Sharia nations, would start to disappear.
I know you would deny it, you and your fellow travelers like Sally Kern, Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps if he could drop the American hating diatribe, and all the fellow members of the Family on C Street. You would deny it, but an American Christian Taliban, a Christian Sharia nation, is the vision you all work for.
And in all odds, Reagan would have been down with that too.
Now I know that Baptists, fundamentalists, and Evangelicals all believe that every word of the bible is meant to be taken literally. Personally, I don’t do that much as a rule, though I’m more inclined to with every word that Jesus himself said - though I still take into account that he was a visionary and he meant some of what he said metaphorically.
The things I like best were things that meanings of which were crystal clear.
Which leads me to ask again…do any of you Christians have ANY idea of what you are talking about?
Granted, religion is a powerful tool. There is little that one can do that is so stupid, vicious, or criminal that it can’t be absolved by saying that you did it for God - though there’s always some psychopath who breaks even these bounds.
This is especially true is politics, which leads to some hilarious conclusions.
Do you hate taxes? Christ said “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and render unto God what is God’s.” Caesar = Government. Pay your taxes.
Worried about redistribution of wealth? Do you feel it important to pass cuts to the wealthy, taking from those who have little to give to those who have far more than enough? Listen up. You are a minister, you should know where the verses are.
"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon (or money.)"
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into heaven."
So Tommy baby, read like that…it sounds like our political environment is basically government“ by the damned, for the damned.”
So do you think Christ would share your enthusiasm for Capital Punishment because he himself had been executed? Do you think he’d buy it if you said it was in honor of him?
Too, there’s welfare and universal health care. Just skippin’ down the road to Socialism, yeah? That’s right, gut all social services and let social Darwinism sort it all out.
31
14 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne,
32
and all the nations 15 will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
33
He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34
Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35
For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,
36
naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.'
37
Then the righteous 16 will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?
38
When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?
39
When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?'
40
And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41
17 Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42
For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
43
a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.'
44
18 Then they will answer and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs
………..feed the hungry, clothe the naked, aid those ill or in prison. Present all this as political platform and Glenn Beck would scream blue murder about the death of America and life as we know it. As would you and many others. Just a bit hypocritical for someone who calls himself a Christian…and a physician on top of that!
And if Christ exists, possibly cause for concern as well…
45
He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.'
46
And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
For your willingness to write off 200,000 people as dead wood and cut them off from support in their time of need [now, in fact, millions in their time of need], and arguing not that you weren’t doing them any harm - but that there were so few of them that their hardship didn’t matter…for that you deserve to have your medical license revoked for violating the Hippocratic Oath that you took to get it, much less your hard heartedness in all other matters. The people that you cut off should file a class action lawsuit against you for the hardship you placed them under, for so little cause [they all should.]
And how would Jesus have seen this?
You can call it political theater and that you were just cutting off the dead wood - but every one of those people who you cut off were each sacrifices to Mammon.
If Reagan was a prophet to you, he was a false one - for because you believe that the number and the dollar trumps the individual, you have set up money changing tables in the Temple of the People.
And if Christ were here, just what would he do about that?
Sure you can defend yourself and say much of your adherence to the Old Testament. The Pharisees were also devout followers of the Laws of Moses. You’d have liked them. They were the religious and political leaders of their time. They sacrificed Christ on the Altar of Political Expediency. What with Christ talking about loving your enemy and your neighbor while helping prostitutes, publicans [in this day call 'em migrant farmers, day laborers], lepers and the destitute…don’t blame you for giving the New Testament short shrift. Sounds way too much like Socialism to make good political hay.
Look, you don’t have to claim you do it for Christ when to do the things Christ said you ought to: legislate help for those in need, love your enemy, etc. I think that falls under “don’t pray on a street corner, but in a closet - don’t let your left hand know what your hand is doing.” Christ would love that.
But if you claim Christ’s name while screwing the poor and the needy, absolving women of decisions concerning their own bodies who you don’t know, finding new ways to persecute gays/lesbians, the black and the brown…when you find new ways to throw money at those who already have more than they need…
That’s not Christian. That’s not even unChristian.
That’s Anti-Christian.
And while you may gain the world like the Devil promised Christ in the desert for doing it,
I would not be you for ANYTHING. [None of you!]
Comments
Post a Comment