Eminem Gets Out the Vote in "Mosh"

Say what you will about Eminem, but his latest video is powerful, visually and lyrically.



From MSNBC:

Eminem’s new video, “Mosh” is important. It’s Public Enemy important. It’s so important that Eminem’s arch nemesis Moby wants you to see it. “You know Eminem and I have had our differences in the past, but this video is the best thing I’ve seen all year” the techno musician wrote in his October 26, the day after “Mosh” was “leaked” on the Internet. “It’s an amazing song and an even more amazing video,” wrote Moby, who has exchanged barbs with Eminem through the media.

Here is a sampling of the lyrics:

Let the President answer on high anarchy
Strap him with AK-47, let him go
Fight his own war, let him impress daddy that way
No more blood for oil, we got our own battles to fight on our soil
No more psychological warfare to trick us to think that we ain't loyal
If we don't serve our own country we're patronizing a hero
Look in his eyes, it's all lies, the stars and stripes
They've been swiped, washed out and wiped,
And Replaced with his own face, mosh now or die
If I get sniped tonight you'll know why, because I told you to fight

Lie Girls

"You're just a phone call away from hot one-on-one chat with a few Weapons of Mass ... Seduction."

Have a Nice Weekend
Enjoy the show

Prominent among the political axioms apparent since the presidential campaign of 2000 is that no one plays the smear game as brilliantly and effectively as Karl Rove, aka Bush's brain, aka the White House's chief political adviser, aka The Man Behind the Curtain.
More pointedly, no one knows the exact limits of what you can get away with in modern politics, or precisely where the demarcation point of public outrage lies better than Karl Rove.

Next week, the Republican Party's ground game will be out in full force. Karl Rove will unveil his "72-hour plan" to knock on the door of every last uncommitted voter in America leading up to the election.  This will coincide with Sinclair broadcasting of its smearfest on Kerry.
Websites to watch:
http://www.ConservativeHQ.com/
http://www.RightMarch.com/
http://www.Townhall.com/
http://www.freerepublic.com
http://protestwarrior.com/

Blueprint for a coup
NPR's "The World" did an interesting segment about the US role in the revolution in Iran. One section in particular caught my attention, and you'll see how this fits into this topic in a minute.

Kermit Roosevelt organized the overthrow of the government of Iran. He was truly a real life James Bond. Roosevelt started by tapping into the intelligence networks the British and Americans had built up inside Iran. A few key Iranians proved willing to do his bidding. They unleashed a ferocious propaganda campaign against Mossadegh. They bribed newspapers to print slander; they paid clerics to denounce him at Friday prayers. They hired thugs to organize mobs and riots....
In the end the coup came down to four dramatic days in August 1953....He [Roosevelt] would have them surge through the streets of Tehran, break windows, beat up people, shoot their guns into mosques and shout "we love Mossadegh. Up with Mossadegh and communism". And as if that wasn't enough he then hired another mob to attack this mob to show that Tehran was in such chaos that anarchy was threatening and that just to bring Iran back to a measure of stability, Mossadegh had to be overthrown.

Call It a Dress Rehearsal
In March of this year, an odd event occurred. Not "odd" in the sarcastic way (like we didn't see it coming), but "odd" like "what the _??" A bunch of activists protested on Rove's front lawn. Hundreds rallied Sunday outside the home of Karl Rove for no apparent reason

So, get inside the mind of Rove for a minute (oooh, watch you step there). It's the final weekend before your most important campaign ever. You have 3 days to turn the tide and crush your opponent in an audacious turnaround. Short of commissioning another terrorist attack, a way cool bin Laden capture, or a sudden dramatic drop in oil prices, you really have no good cards in your hand to play. There are only a few states that you have to win in to take the match, but there really aren't that many undecided voters left to fight over. Your troops are not terribly enthused; the months of mental gymnastics required to withstand the onslaught of evidence contrary to the beliefs they're trying to defend has taken its toll. The arguments are starting to wear thin, and they're of course, too proud to admit they may have been wrong all along, but they're not real proud of the lies anymore, either. And everyone else is already ready for most of your other tricks. What to do, what to do?

Day 1 - Saturday - Get the loyal minions out to "rally the troops". GOTV and all that nonsense. Not like it matters, but that's not the point. Just wait.

Day 2 - Sunday - The evil enemy suddenly appears to terrorize the helpless law-abidingish Republicans who were simply trying to promote democracy (**snicker**) by helping people to vote. And look how we get treated!!! Victimized and brutalized by evil violent America-hating liberals!

Day 3 - Monday - We have to answer these vicious attacks! We're only defending ourselves! Alert the media to be on the lookout for any dirty evil liberal. They're out to get us!

Of course, the forces will be out on the fateful Tuesday. 
Big G.O.P. Bid to Challenge Voters at Polls in Key State

So think about it. If the Republicans send in thousands of poll watchers to challenge voters' eligibility, they're obviously setting themselves up for accusations of voter intimidation and racism. They would look like the bad guys. [I was actually going to recommend that we systematically challenge the right and authority of the challengers to be there challenging others. Make THEM show their IDs and permits. Inform voters of their rights to tell these bullies to fuck off.] But after a weekend of "vigorous" enforcement of "the law", such dissent and defiance would make liberals look like the bullies.

Oh, now I get it.

Polls and Predicting the Presidential Election

The November issue of National Geographic features the predicitions of political prognosticator Jim Campbell. Two of Campbell's factoids struck me as particularly interesting:

• Four states -- Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, and Tennessee -- have voted for the winner in 13 of the last 14 elections. Since 1948 every candidate who carried at least three of them won.
  
• Since Eisenhower's second election in 1956, candidates who carried the under-30 vote won in all but two (9/11) presidential contests.

Current polls show Bush leading in three of the four states mentioned above, which would make him a shoe-in to win, right? Not exactly. First, although Bush now leads in Missouri (50-45), Nevada (52-45) and Tennessee (60-38), Kerry has led in polls in each of these states during the last six months, even in Tennessee, which was a virtual tie earlier this month, and which Kerry led in July and August. Ohio has been back and forth, but Kerry now leads by 6 points. Whoever does a better job of getting out the vote will win these states.

Second, polls are unreliable. They don't take into account newly registered voters, or voters who didn't vote in the last presidential election. Further, they skew more heavily towards Republican respondents, and are more likely to exclude young voters, which leads to the second point: whoever wins the under-30 vote is likely to win. A recent Harvard study shows that Kerry leads among college students. I suspect this is true among older twenty-somethings, too.

Thank God for the (Conservative) Republicans!
Part 8 in a Series

Guess who The American Conservative has endorsed for President?

Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing president is supposed to be, and his continuation in office will discredit any sort of conservatism for generations. The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S., the doling out of war profits and concessions to politically favored corporations, the financing of the war by ballooning the deficit to be passed on to the nation’s children, the ceaseless drive to cut taxes for those outside the middle class and working poor: it is as if Bush sought to resurrect every false 1960s-era left-wing cliché about predatory imperialism and turn it into administration policy. Add to this his nation-breaking immigration proposal—Bush has laid out a mad scheme to import immigrants to fill any job where the wage is so low that an American can’t be found to do it—and you have a presidency that combines imperialist Right and open-borders Left in a uniquely noxious cocktail.

I've been saying this for three years now: George W Bush is not a conservative. Maybe he was at some time in the distant past, but his presidency has not exemplified conservative political philosophy, what with his unilateral foreign policy and massive deficit spending. More to the point: Bush, Cheney, Rove and the rest of the administration are a bunch of crooks, using politics, religion, and the tools of propaganda at their disposal to reward their benefactors. Bush represents no other ideology than greed, and that's bad for conservatism and for our democracy. Smart conservatives have figured this out.

If Americans were better informed, let alone better educated, we would have run these guys out of the White House by now. Instead, we have to vote them out, which we'll get a chance to do in just 10 days.

"Democrats Signing Up More New Voters"

from Yahoo News:

"By ROBERT TANNER, AP National Writer
The Democrats appear to be gaining the upper hand in the battle to sign up new voters in the all-important swing states, an Associated Press analysis suggests.

The AP analysis of the most up-to-date figures from across the country found that, in every state where complete data is available, the Democrats have registered more new voters than Republicans. They have the edge in Arizona, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada and New Hampshire."

"Pat Robertson says Bush told him there would be no casualties in Iraq war"

Who is delusional here: Pat Robertson, George W Bush or voters who believe Bush should be President?

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson says he warned President Bush before U.S. troops invaded Iraq that the United States would sustain casualties but that Bush responded, "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."

Robertson, in an interview with CNN that aired Tuesday night, said God had told him the war would be messy and a disaster. When he met with Bush in Nashville, Tenn., before the war Bush did not listen to his advice, Robertson said, and believed Saddam Hussein was an evil tyrant who needed to be removed.

"He was just sitting there, like, 'I'm on top of the world,' and I warned him about this war," Robertson said.

"I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, 'Mr. President, you better prepare the American people for casualties.' 'Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties.' 'Well,' I said, 'it's the way it's going to be.' And so, it was messy. The Lord told me it was going to be, A, a disaster and, B, messy."

McSweeney's "Daily Reason to Dispatch Bush"

DAY 139:

In his speech to the Republican National Convention, President Bush announced a $1 billion plan to enroll poor children in government health-insurance programs. But at the end of September, the Bush administration returned $1.1 billion in unspent children's-health funds to the Treasury. As a result, six states participating in the State Children's Health Insurance Program will not be able to meet their budgets in 2005. According to two analyses by advocacy organizations, the federal money could have provided health coverage for 750,000 uninsured children. The National Governors Association and a bipartisan group of legislators had asked for an extension on SCHIP spending, but Bush refused to include such an extension in the budget.

During his speech at the convention, Bush said that "in a new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor children who are eligible but not signed up for the government's health insurance programs. We will not allow a lack of attention, or information, to stand between these children and the health care they need." It is projected that 17 states will run out of SCHIP funds by 2007.

(Source: Ceci Connolly, "Words, Actions at Odds on Children's Health Care," Washington Post, September 25, 2004. See article at: washingtonpost.com.)

Thank God for the (Libertarian) Republicans!
Part 7 in a series

"If Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3.

Just in the past few months, I think a light has gone off for people who've spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do.

This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them ...

This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts. He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence. But you can't run the world on faith."

--Bruce Bartlett, a "53-year-old columnist and self-described libertarian Republican" and "domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush"

CLOSE FIGHT, GOOD NEWS WHERE IT'S IMPORTANT

From the Washington Post:

The latest Post tracking poll continues to show the race deadlocked, with each candidate receiving 48 percent of the vote. Independent Ralph Nader continues to barely register nationally and gets 1 percent of the hypothetical vote.

But the survey also suggests that Kerry continues to claim a large lead in key battleground states. In these 13 states, Kerry held a 53 percent to 43 percent advantage among likely voters.

A total of 1,555 registered voters were interviewed Tuesday through Thursday nights, including 1,203 likely voters. Margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points for the overall results and plus or minus six percentage points for results from the battleground states.

Call it a pre-emptive strike against democracy
That last election thing was actually kinda close. How can we ensure that things won't get so scary this time? Simple - Fuck things up BEFORE the election so it's easier to dispute AFTER the election.
* "Suppress voter registration" - (check)
* "Prevent high voter turnout" - (check)
* "Intimidate voters who dare to show up" - (check)
* "Confuse the voters who want to vote" - (check)
* "Rig the machines when they finally vote" - (check)
* "Avoid the possibility of a recount" - (check)
* "Prepare to negate absentee ballots as necessary" - (check)
* "Maintain the appearance of a really close race so that when massive voter turnout results in wholesale condemnation of the Worst President in the History of the United State, it can be disputed as questionable and claim the Democrats stole it" - (check)

Yes, Helen, it has come to this

Seven American activist groups asked the United Nations on Monday to provide international observers for next month's presidential election.

Registration suppression

Investigation of voter registration fraud (follow link to video)
Employees of a private voter registration company say they saw evidence of fraud. It could mean that hundreds of people who think they are registered, may not be

Republican challenges to the voting eligibility of hundreds of Dartmouth students caused long delays in voting yesterday and angered students and non-students alike, even causing some to direct their votes away from the GOP.

Ohio Secretary of State Blocks New Voter Registrations

GOP dirty tricks in Ohio

Voter intimidation

The Long Shadow of Jim Crow: Voter Intimidation and Suppression in America Today

Bullies at the Voting Booth

Feds to monitor Utah's 3rd District balloting
Responding to a perceived threat to intimidate voters by a group seeking a crackdown on immigration, the U.S. Justice Department said on Friday it will send attorneys to monitor Tuesday's primary election in Utah's 3rd Congressional

Provisional ballots

Backup Voting System Could Cause Problems

Democrats sue state in provisional ballot

Unions Go to Court to Protect Florida Voting Rights

States struggle with provisional balloting - Will they be the 'hanging chads' of Decision 2004?

Ohio's Provisional Ballots May Pose Election Day Issue

Provisional ballots remain controversial

Officials warned not to defy ballot order

Absentee ballots

Reports of problems with absentee vote applications

Republicans Resign Over Questionable Absentee Ballot Applications

Voting machines

A study by the American Civil Liberties Union after the Democratic gubernatorial primary in 2002 concluded that 8 percent of the votes on Miami-Dade County's touchscreen machines in 31 precincts were lost.

Audit logs of ES&S machines deployed in 11 Florida counties were corrupted by a software flaw caused by low batteries. ES&S and state officials issued a software patch this summer and said the mishap wouldn't affect elections.

Precinct relocation

New locations for some voters

Blackwell backs down on ballot ruling State will accept votes cast in wrong precinct

The Bush-Cheney Campaign strategy in a nutshell, as evidenced during the Republican National Convention.

"Bush Comes Back, But Kerry Holds His Ground"

Bush supporters conceded defeat after the first president debate, but haven't been as willing to do the same after Friday's matchup. Why? Was Bush better? Was Kerry worse? It's hard to find a straight answer in the press, as the spinners are busy spinning, fast and hard. If anything, Friday's debate likely left Kerry supporters feeling better about their candidate's chances of getting elected, and Bush supporters feeling relieved that there is just one debate to go before the election.

I have yet to come across a fairer, spin-free analysis than Ron Elving's "Bush Comes Back, But Kerry Holds His Ground":

After the second and final presidential debate between Ronald Reagan and challenger Walter Mondale in 1984, Reagan's chief of staff James A. Baker III was asked if it had been a good idea for the president to debate. "I will not tell you whether it was a good idea to have a debate," Baker said. "But I will tell you it was a good idea to have two."

Back then, Baker was underscoring the general consensus that Reagan had righted himself in the second debate after a shaky outing in the first. Truth was, Reagan was not much different in the second debate, rambling on aimlessly in his last answer. But he did have that one winning line about the age issue, vowing not to exploit Mondale's "youth and inexperience." Most people remembered little else.

In the second presidential debate of 2004, the performance of Baker's current candidate, President Bush, also represented an improvement. And Baker, who had negotiated the debate arrangements for the Republican side this fall, once again had cause to feel relieved.

President Bush had been so widely panned for his repetition, mugging and distracted demeanor in the first debate (Sept. 30 in Coral Gables, Fla.) that he could scarcely help but improve in the second round. He blinked a lot, but he did not grimace or squint when his Democratic challenger, Sen. John Kerry, spoke. The president often gave defensive answers to questions, especially in the early going, but his body language was more confident and effective.

It should also be said that the second debate began with huge pressure on the incumbent. Not only had he let down the side in Coral Gables, he had seen much (or all) of his polling lead disappear. Moreover, the week's news from Iraq was bad, the news about how we got into Iraq was worse, the country was getting caught short of flu vaccine and the last pre-election jobs report was pretty sour.

Still, now that the real pressure was finally on him, the president showed he thrives on it. The live audience interaction seemed to revive him and restore his stage presence.

Freed from the podium style of the first debate, Mr. Bush no longer seemed trapped and stiff. He all but leapt off his seat each time it was his turn to talk. Roaming the stage and addressing the audience members at close range, the president seemed to rediscover his rhythm. He got folksy and even feisty at times. He made a few jokes. He acted as if he knew someone out there liked him.

So if the president will generally win kudos for stepping up, will Kerry see his second debate performance graded down because he was not a clear winner this time? The answer will likely be driven by the polls, which determine so much of how we think about politics now. If Kerry's upward movement of early October ends abruptly or turns downward, his St. Louis outing will be subject to ever-more-critical reviews (much as Bush's Sept. 30 showing was).

But if Kerry holds his own in the polls as well as he did on stage with the president, this debate may be remembered more as a draw or as a close win for Kerry. Once again, the challenger managed to put Mr. Bush on the defensive on Iraq and other elements of foreign policy. That's the crucial element for him if he is to displace the man most people still think of as the more trustworthy commander in chief.

That sets up yet another potential irony. The president in St. Louis did better when the debate moved to domestic issues -- the economy, the deficit, health care, stem cell research, abortion -- than he had on national security. Is it possible that he will have his best night of the debates when the two men meet for the third and last time in Tempe, Ariz., Oct. 13? That's the night the agenda consists entirely of domestic policy, the arena where Kerry was once presumed to do best.

2004 Nobel Peace Prize Winner
Wangari Muta Maathai: Founder of Kenyan Green party

On Friday, Wangari Muta Maathai became the first African woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Maathai, 64, started a tree-planting campaign in her native Kenya in 1976, the centerpiece of a grassroots rebellion among African women asserting their own rights while protesting the environmental degradation of their homeland.

More than 30 million trees have been planted across Africa in the nearly three decades since the Green Belt Movement began. As the effort grew, so did Maathai's stature among environmentalists and champions of human rights in the developing world.

In her lifelong work, Maathai has embodied the pillars of the Green movement: non-violence, social justice, grassroots democracy and ecological wisdom.

In awarding Maathai's work, the Nobel Prize committee expressed what Greens have long known: "Peace on earth depends on our ability to secure our living environment."

"Maathai stands at the front of the fight to promote ecologically viable social, economic and cultural development in Kenya and in Africa. She has taken a holistic approach to sustainable development that embraces democracy, human rights and women's rights in particular. She thinks globally and acts locally."

George Bush: Wired in First Debate

This news shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

Was President Bush literally channeling Karl Rove in his first debate with John Kerry? That's the latest rumor flooding the Internet, unleashed last week in the wake of an image caught by a television camera during the Miami debate. The image shows a large solid object between Bush's shoulder blades as he leans over the lectern and faces moderator Jim Lehrer.

The president is not known to wear a back brace, and it's safe to say he wasn't packing. So was the bulge under his well-tailored jacket a hidden receiver, picking up transmissions from someone offstage feeding the president answers through a hidden earpiece? Did the device explain why the normally ramrod-straight president seemed hunched over during much of the debate?

We all know that George W Bush can't think for himself, at least not effectively, as evidenced by his 7 minutes of frightened paralysis in Florida on September 11, 2001. I wonder who had George's ear during the first debate? Based on his poor performance with the wire, do you think Karl Rove is more or less likely to have George wired for tonight's town hall event?

"You know the character, Mr. Burns from The Simpsons? Didn't Dick Cheney remind you of Mr. Burns?"

--Al Gore, in a speech given at the St. Joseph's Firefighters' Union Hall in Saint Joseph, Missouri

We blew the debate, but now we have a boo-boo
You knew it was coming. Anytime one of Rove's wooden toys goes to a debate, something really bad happens.

Saturday, October 02, 2004
3 computers stolen from Bush's Bellevue campaign office

Does any of this sound vaguely familiar?
* Video tape of Bush debate prepping gets mailed to Al Gore?
* A "lost" campaign plans CD-ROM discovered in Lafayette Park ?
* Anti-Richard Clarke Talking points memo left in a Starbucks?
* Newly recovered National Guard documents leaked to CBS?
* A bug discovered in the office 15 minutes after it was planted?
* Activists from Chicago marching on Rove's lawn in Virginia?

Makes you wonder if the media will swallow and smile on this one, too.

I Now Pronounce You Man and Man

The last rounds of discussion in my conservative part of the world have reiterated the same tired points within a very tired debate on gay marriage and I felt an overwhelming need to respond. The problem as I see it is that many argue from the perspective that their opinions are naturally correct and that they have some moral imperative to legislate morality, even at the expense of constitutional rights.

I did a Google search for "Christian Denominations in America." I count at least 140 different sects or beliefs, all splinters of an infallible Christian faith that conservatives believe they alone belong to. This ethno-Christianity has taken hold of our nation, slowly seeping into the realm of public policy, which in turn affects those who have elected not to participate in religion. The right to choose one’s manner of belief, or lack thereof, is guaranteed to all Americans (not just Christians) by the constitution and affirmed in the Declaration of Independence. It was also an explicit and intentional element conceived by our founders. Yet Christians believe that the most fundamental rights of our Declaration—that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness—do not, in fact, apply to all. Instead, these rights only apply to those who have the great fortune of belonging to the overwhelming voice. What we have, then, is an obvious example of tyranny of the majority.

What is at stake here, however, is a homosexual’s right to marry. God believes that the sin of homosexuality is wrong. With that I will agree. But allow me to introduce the following line of reasoning. It's based on the Bible, but unlike much of the conservative rhetoric, I'm not fusing what I think God believes with my political convictions. I'm going to "stick to the facts."

Sin is sin in the eyes of God; there are no gravities or levels that distinguish bad sins from ok sins (see Galatians 5:19-21 for a partial list). Taking this into consideration, every single one of us sins every day, "For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not" (Ecclesiastes 7:20). The question at hand, then, is how can one sinner condemn another? The answer is clear; this can only happen if there is an assumption on the part of he who condemns that he has no sin. The Bible addresses this; "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1st John 1:8).

The Bible offers an anecdote and a solution to this problem of self righteousness. "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." (Matthew 7:3-5).

Since when have we been allowed to cast judgment on our brothers? When did God cede authority to any man to legislate morality? In fact, God is perfectly clear that there is an inherent separation between civil and religious matters. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's" (Matthew 22:21).

In their religious fervor Christians have failed to see the basic tenets of scripture, tenets that govern our treatment of others. For example, the following passage speaks volumes about Jesus and his love for those who sin. It reads, "And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, they say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst" (John 8:3-9).

Would we be so arrogant to cast a stone when the Lord himself has set a different example? And more importantly, how many of us have followed the example of Jesus by defending gays from those who seek to destroy them? Instead, I know some of you have slandered gays without even knowing their names? This, my most holy brothers and sisters, would be considered baring false witness (Ninth Commandment).

My problem with the argument is that there is much sanctimonious interpretation of the Bible, but scriptures that bare witness to the love of God have been selectively excluded from the debate. We're no longer being presented a God of love (John 3:16). Christians are adamant that God is a God of wrath and punishment until it comes to their own sins; then God is a God of forgiveness, love and mercy. What's happened to the following scriptures and why are we not making them priority in our dealings with others?

• "Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, to speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men. For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving diverse lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercyhe saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life" (Titus 3:1-7). None of us is worthy of God’s love. Every person's condtion understands that we have all been GIVEN mercy, we didn't earn it. Why do we not show that same mercy and love to others?
  
• "For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment" (James 2:13).
  
• "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again" (Matthew 7:1-2).
  
• "Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful. Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven" (Luke 6:36-37).
• "And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you" (Ephesians 4:30-32).
  
• "Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye" (Colossians 3:12-13)
  
• "For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses" (Ecclesiastes 7:14-15). And as to how many times we must forgive; "Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, until seven times: but, until seventy times seven" (Matthew 18:21-22). There is no limit to God's forgiveness of our sins, so why is there a limit to ours?
  

This spirit of love and forgiveness is totally lacking in today's Christianity, which is the main reason I no longer attend church. The spirit of condemnation has caused us to fall short of God's heart. Take for instance the following: "For the whole law can be summed up in this one command: Love others as you love yourself" (Galatians 5:14). If this law is any indication of Christians today, then there must be much self loathing within the body of Christ.

If anyone refutes my stand, it will simply be a refutation of the Word of God. I would like to point out that scripture, like all information in our media driven world, can be manipulated to serve the needs of the manipulator. If a side must be taken however, and if we've debased God's teaching to polar options and checklists, then I choose to follow God's message of love and forgiveness.

God is beyond politics. Unfortunately, that's what Christians in America are using him for. Ultimately, it's not my place to judge the sin of another, or to legislate my idea of morality. We target gays because they wear their sin on their shoulders, but we all harbor sin in our hearts. Which is worse? Denying people liberties because their particular pursuit of happiness does not coincide with our own makes our opinions no better than the ideology of regimes we’re now sending soldiers to topple.