Well That Escalated Quickly
The American Taliban Lash Out
at the Inclusion of the Tea Party at Rallies
One of our stories last week was more hopeful that accurate it seems. The article about the Trump rally last Saturday remarked on the skills needed to pull off an event with a diversity of speakers including political pariahs such as the Ekklesia/abolitionists groups, far right religious groups like OCPAC/John Birch Society, and more moderate conservative groups and individuals like the Sooner Tea Party and elected officials like Oklahoma County Clerk David Hooten.
Perhaps the story jinked the entire effort because despite the conciliatory article expressing hope and good will both OCPAC and the Ekklesia/abolitionist leaders quickly turned on both Mayor Hobbs and the Sooner Tea party. That doesn't mean it was a mistake to cooperate at a rally with these types, it does mean that rarely will the radical groups like OCPAC, the John Birch Society, the abolitionists, and Ekklesia play well with others.
Now this story is told not to place blame or castigate, it is told to educate those new to Oklahoma politics. There is a common perception that all groups ought to get along when working on an issue or defending Trump. This story will provide some clues as to why that is so difficult and why some groups have sadly become pariahs in the Republican Party. It will also discuss the danger to both Trump's agenda in Oklahoma and the danger to the Republican Party itself by being taken over by far right religious radicals.
Now back to the story, particularly the Tea Party found itself attacked for mentioning homosexuals or gays, not in a positive light, but simply acknowledging their use of political tactics effectively. Mayor Hobbs reported that he received viciously angry phone calls from Ekklesia/abolitionist leader David Navejas complaining that he was “treated like a piece of sh*t” and calls from OCPAC leaders complaining about the mention of gays at the rally.
Sadly Mayor Hobbs sided with the religious radicals, stating that he was stabbed in the back by the Tea Party. Betrayal, sabotage, Judas Iscariot indeed! Or simply bat sh*t crazy people that cannot get along with others?
Below is a discussion of what we are facing when attempting to deal with radical groups in politics and why they have historically all failed and have become social and political pariahs..
Sociopaths, Psychopaths, and Politics
The difference between the two types is that a psychopath doesn’t have a conscience but a sociopath does but it is a very weak conscience and it doesn't stop them from doing evil. And politics is rife with both kinds.
Psychopath refers to a person with a personality disorder that exhibits antisocial behavior, a lack of empathy and remorse, coupled with boldness, a lack of inhibition, and egotistical traits. There will be 4% or more in any given society and sometimes they are darned useful and other times they are intolerable.
In life there are just some people that need killing. For all our laws and customs and religion saying otherwise, in life and in society there will always be those that must be taken out in order to protect society. Some say there are sheep, sheep dogs, and predators. In reality there are sheep, sheep dogs, predators, and those who seek out and kill the predators. I call the latter the wolf killers or predator controllers. Sociopathic behavior will exist on a spectrum, the sheep dog, predator, and predator killer will all have some place on that spectrum with the predator at the top or least empathetic, the sheep dog charged with protecting the flock in the center, and the predator killer or more commonly known as a soldier being at the 75% mark. They can do what is needed without harming society.
Those that must defeat evil must do so from a position of honor and decency, using teamwork versus individual action in order to maintain their sense of proportion and balance and even human decency. Then there is a huge need for teamwork. One man sent out to do battle and defeat eight adversaries before falling is of less value to the effort as a team of twelve focusing on on a threat, eliminating the threat, and turning to other threats in turn and returning unscathed. Sociopaths and psychopaths tend not to work well in groups or armies as both organization types tend to be bureaucracies that require order, comradery, and a definitive hierarchy.
There there is this. Most of the heinous acts done in life are not done by monsters but by ordinary people who believe they are doing good.
Sociopaths are drawn to certain types of work, here is a list ranked by popularity.
-
CEO
-
Lawyer
-
Media (TV/radio)
-
Salesperson or Politician
-
Surgeon
-
Journalist
-
Police officer
-
Clergy
-
Chef
-
Civil servant
The common thread is self control, being at the top of the food chain, and being able to control others.
Of particularly concern are the preachers and the politicians. Oscar Wilde once wrote that charity creates a multitude of sins. I believe that Ann Rand was also trying to get this across in her writings. The theory of moral licensing explains this, when humans are good, moral licensing says we give license to be bad.
Two distinct types of moral licensing exist. The first is the moral credentials approach which is rationalized by stating that someone has done some good, so they can exhibit some ambiguity because they believe they are more good than evil. The second type is the moral credits approach, where morality is like a bank account where you make deposits of good behavior and withdrawals when you do bad things. The person doesn't need to rationalize the bad behavior, as long as they do more good than evil they are comfortable with and feel entitled to commit some evil.
Two Examples of Moral Licensing
Meet Daniel Navejas of Ekklesia and Bob Linn of OCPAC. Both work hard to claim to be religious by nature and leaders of religious organization yet their behavior is anything but Christian like when it comes to interpersonal conflicts and political conflicts. Both claim the high moral ground by denouncing any opposition to be driven by Satan or by Godless liberals and both are intolerant of constructive criticism. The basis we believe is in a warped and twisted form of Christian faith.
I have met true Christians that are amazing and sincere, walking the walk but seldom preaching and insulting others. They tend to lead by example and there is no doubt that a Christian leader of this nature brings in a thousand times more converts than an entitled and arrogant preacher.
Then there are the David McLain's, the Daniel Navejas's, and the Bob Linn's of the world. They appear to be eaten up with a sense of entitlement because of a warped belief that they are the “chosen” ones, the elite members of the family of God, conferring the absolute right to look down upon those that are not one with their ideology
Some of it is our theology. Many Christians develop a sense of entitlement because they believe they are the “chosen ones”, the “elite”, the members of the family of God. Some feel this gives us the right to look down upon others who are not one of us. Part of it might be their understanding of God's grace and forgiveness, thinking that if God can forgive them for all their sins that gives them the right to be horrible people to those they feel are “unequal” or those that would be “unequally yoked” with them if they attempted to cooperate for a political or social cause. They cannot empathize with those they consider below them or unequal to them. I do not think they realize that God's grace isn't a license to shamelessly abuse others.
Then there is the attitude of these types, being critical and judgmental of others using what they consider to be lawful statutes; passages from the Bible that provide an almost legal justification for bad behavior as they believe they and they alone are capable of discerning the truth and thus always be right. This in their minds give them license, if not a moral duty, to point out other's failings and sins. As you can imagine this is not well received by those that can see the obvious hypocrisy from those that are visibly loaded up with sins of their own and failings in life of their own.
Then there is the behavior that the rest of the world sees as massive hypocrisy which leads to return criticism against Christianity for unjustified criticism, the ability of these kinds of “Christians” to decide which sins are worse than the others, ignoring greed, pride and gluttonous sins that are abundant in our own churches while singling out homosexuality and murder. Which is easily understood in that standing at a pulpit facing hundreds of overweight people that revel in a sermon that denigrates others or attacks the gays when in fact a number of the audience are likely addicted to p*rn and even gay p*rn.
Look no further than recent Christian preacher scandals, Jim Baker, or Jerry Falwell and his wife who are alleged to have carried on a sexual relationship with a young man they met when he was a pool boy with the pool boy and wife having sex while Falwell sat and watched, Bishop Eddie Long for multiple accusations of homosexual relationships with young men in Georgia, Pastor John Paulk caught in a D.C. gay bar flirting with men, Ted Haggard who was the president of the National Association of Evangelicals who admitted to hiring gay prostitutes for sex and drugs and an affair with a male member of his church, Southern Baptist Convention Board Member Lonnie Latham who faced criminal charges in 2006 for soliciting an undercover Tulsa police officer posing as a male prostitute, Tony Alamo who is spending 175 years in prison for transporting boys and girls for prostitution and child p*rn, or Jimmy Swaggart who was caught once in 2008 and again in 2011 with prostitutes and the last time telling his church that "The Lord told me it's flat none of your business."
There are dozens of examples that those that are preaching from the pulpit are just as likely to be terrified of homosexuality for personal reasons than for their son or daughter being led astray. Are they worried about losing the culture war or worried about being exposed?
The Sooner Tea Party is anything other than a LGBTQ or whatever they call them supporter. We believe in freedom and liberty and Constitutional rights which give these poor folks license to live life as they wish as long as they do not demand special rights and keep sexual behavior private. Don't like what they do but we will defend their right to live freely. So Bob Linn claiming that STP is supporting LGBTQ rights is simply ludicrous. What was said was that the gays were effective in organizing and raising resources to achieve political goals and that like Trump we ought to join with anyone that believes in Trump's agenda including the gays.
I wonder if Bob Linn and Daniel Navejas would scream and abuse Mayor Hobbs if Trump showed up and spoke at a rally? Trump is known for being the most openly supportive President towards gay rights and gay people, appointing an openly gay ambassador, appointing an openly gay Filipino man to the 9th Circuit Court, actively courting the gays by advancing plans for supporting AIDS research, and announcing an effort to decriminalize homosexuality world wide. Trump did this and peeled about 20% of the gays away from the Democrats in the 2020 election. Smart man.
These Navejas and Linn's behavior reminds me of a verse I learned in Lutheran Sunday school:
Isaiah 28:15
Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
The verse was explained to us older teenagers as Judea making a deal with a local ruler, tribute and support in exchange for safety of their community, the overflowing scourge being an army headed to Egypt if I remember correctly from nearly five decades ago. BTW that didn't work out well for them. Loudly proclaiming morality and attacking others in order to insulate oneself from homosexual desire or for demonizing one sin while ignoring the dozen other sins rampant in the congregation might do well for collecting donations while passing the plate but it isn't stopping a preacher addicted to sex.
Mayor Hobbs for his part took the side of the abolitionists against the Tea Party. In our defense we were invited to a Trump Rally, not an evangelical or abolitionist rally and comments were prepared accordingly.
The idea that mentioning gays in anything other than a negative light would be objectionable never crossed our imaginations. Lin and the pastor that he brought to speak had plenty to say, one and I forget which, railed about living in sin before marriage or cohabitation, and a opening prayer that lasted about eight minutes long certainly were not appreciated by the average attendee. I mean, half or more of the attendees likely had cohabited or had sex outside of marriage or certainly knew most of their friends and family would be guilty of doing so. And any prayer than lasts longer than a half minute to one minute tops isn't about God. The first 30 seconds were, the rest were about the preacher.
Mathews 6:1-34 has plenty to say about public prayer:
“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.”
“Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”
“And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.” ...
Daniel Navejas complaining about being treated like....McDugle... was as inexplicable. Navejas introduced himself and the fact that STP had hit him more than once was discussed with Navejas stating that he was wanting a good relationship with the Tea Party. That was unexpected on his part, but any repentance is a welcome thing so we laid out the issues that had caused his problem; attacking and picketing churches including Rep. George Faught's own church, picketing the homes of politicians, and the disenfranchising of Republican Party members in Logan County, which the abolitionists had seized in 2018. Navejas either agreed to stop the behaviors or denied having a part in them, and the two sides shook hands and on our part we thought there was a good outcome. Apparently Navejas had second thoughts and rather than behaving as a Christian, much less as a Christian pastor, Navejas ignored what scripture says:
Mathew 18:15-17
“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.”
But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”
Mayor Hobbs for his part also has forgotten the wisdom of scripture. Hobbs felt betrayed and said so loudly in a phone call later in the week. Now the Bible dealt harshly with betrayal, it is not a trivial charge to lay as a Christian:
Acts 1:18
Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
This scripture concerns Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve disciples of Jesus. Judas betrayed Jesus by identifying him by kissing him when Roman soldiers arrived, AKA the Judas kiss, leading to the crucifixion and death of Jesus, in exchange for 30 pieces of silver. Afterward, Judas was remorseful, tried to return the money, and hanged himself.
But if you read the different translations of the Bible you get as many versions of the story as there are translations of the Bible. One states that after learning that Jesus was to be crucified Judas gave the 30 pieces of silver to the priests, who couldn't accept the blood money, so Judas flung the money on the ground and left and hanged himself. Afterwards the priests used the money to purchase some land that was used for burying foreigners, a sort of potters field.
Another story also mentioned in the Bible was that Judas used the money to purchase the field but upon his first visit he was in an accident, falling down and bursting his abdomen. Was this portrayed as an accident or the vengeance of an angry God for not showing remorse?
Another account written in the second century A.D. Claims that Judas was stricken by God's wrath, bloating up so that he couldn't fit down a city street, so swelled that his eyes couldn't be seen, his genitals enormously swollen and filled with pus and worms. The story claims that Judas killed himself on that land by pouring out his innards onto the ground which stank so bad that a century later people still held their noses when passing the property.
Another story told of Judas overcome with remorse, going home to tell his wife what he had done. The wife was roasting a chicken over a fire while Judas said he was going to kill himself before Jesus rose from the dead and punished him. The wife laughed and said that Jesus could no more rise from the dead than he could resurrect the chicken she was roasting. Immediately the chicken was restored to life and started crowing, causing poor Judas to run away in fear and hang himself.
Other stories such as the Gospel of Judas had Judas dreaming a vision of the other disciples persecuting him and stoning him to death.
But these stories were of a disciple betraying someone above him, leading the soldiers to him, identifying him by kissing him, and receiving a substantial sum of silver. Is mentioning in passing the effectiveness of the gay's political tactics worthy of charges of betrayal? Is talking with a fellow speaker quietly to attempt to resolve a conflict also betrayal?
Of course not. The problem is that Mayor Hobbs has spent much time infiltrating the groups and gaining their trust and attempting to build a power base by getting the various factions to get along. And there are no boundaries it seems, Rep. Kevin McDugle brought up on stage with decent men and women. If you don't know the guy search on Duckduckgo.com for Kevin McDugle Oklahoma. The top results were being convicted of wasting marital assets in divorce court and sex scandals/allegations from his wife and from one of the many court hearings, one of which had McDugle admitting under oath that he was a sex addict.
Now that goes different on Google with big tech protecting liberals and persecuting conservatives. But the same appears if you dig a few pages deep.
When you attempt to put cats and dogs together will you be surprised if they fight? Is that betrayal?
But were this tactic to be successful, what good can come out of dealing with wild eyed religious fanatics? In fact
this article covers the abolitionist/Ekklesia effort to take over the GOP which would be a complete and utter disaster if it were possible. What would be possible is that the group could interfere and sabotage other efforts to put Trump supporters in charge of the GOP.
Interestingly enough Pastor Blair of Fairview Baptist Church denied that his church was part of the network of 300 Oklahoma churches that were part of Navejas's abolitionist movement and denied there being such a large coalition of churches behind Navejas. Charlie Meadows of OCPAC denied anything nefarious was going on and denied attending church at and Nevejas's home.
Another story covers the voter fraud that was alleged to have been used in the takeover of the Logan County GOP. These are Democrat tactics, the very tactics that have been used against our President Trump. The local election board reported those registered to vote in the home, with as many as a dozen registered voters and up to ten kids, fourteen total adults in all, 24 individuals living in a four bedroom home....The state election board directed the Logan County Election Board to turn it over to the local D.A. who turned out to have a personal relationship with the owner of the home. So no investigation.
Of the 13 candidates that the abolitionists had put up last summer only one made it into office, Senator Hamilton who defeated Senator Boggs. This is the problem of the abolitionists, their support among voters is in the 8 to 10% range at most as they consider a mother that has a tubal pregnancy to be guilty of murder if she aborts the fetus. A tubal pregnancy is where the fetus attaches outside of the uterus. The fetus cannot grow or survive and infection sets in leading to the death of the mother if the body doesn't miscarry or if an abortion isn't performed.
Some abolitionists have promoted monitoring miscarriages and referring a miscarriage to the local D.A. for investigation for possible murder.
And if this wasn't enough of a poo production, the newly elected abolitionist senator Warren Hamilton has allegedly refiled Senator Silk's abolitionist bill from 2019. If there is no exception carved out for exceptions for women that face serious danger to their reproductive system or their life then the bill will be dead on arrival, pardon the pun. If that happens can Hamilton control the abolitionist crazies or will we see a repeat of 2019 where abolitionists were picketing churches calling pastors baby killers for being “only” pro life and picketing Senator's homes and terrifying their families? If this happens Hamilton will be forced to denounce his own base or risk becoming Joseph Silk 2.0.
The saddest part of all of this is the damage to Mayor Hobb's reputation and as an indictment of his judgment for attempting to bring together religious fanatics with decent, law abiding, Trump supporting, fed up Oklahomans. By making himself the public face of the abolitionists and the John Birch Society/AKA/OCPAC he basically loses a vast amount of public support as the Republican conservatives and RINOs both agree that radical religious groups have no place in GOP leadership decisions. Hobb's only chance is to refute the abolitionist groups to avoid becoming tainted.
And even worse, Mayor Hobbs is a long time outspoken supporter of the anti vaccine and the Epic Charter School system issues. If this abolitionist bill gets heard and fails, will the abolitionists go crazy once again and slash and burn those that vote against the aboltionist bill? Will families be terrorized again at home and at church? Will any of this bleed into support for the other issues?
We also have to remember the City Elder/John Birch Society/OCPAC coalition last year that proclaimed they were taking over the GOP and imposing a religious litmus test up on all candidates. That imploded dramatically, some say over the disaster of a conference where the John Birch Society learned that there was little support for far right radical religious groups from taking over society.
The previous year the John Birch Society/OCPAC group had backed far right pastor Dan Fisher in a failed bid for Governor and then spearheaded the abolitionists attacks against House and Senate leadership. That ended only when a Sooner Tea Party story outed T Russell Hunter with a video of a drunk driving arrest that ended with the cop pointing out that Hunter had pissed in his pants. With their leader taken out the sheep did scatter, ending the massive ill will at the Capitol over the abolitionist bill ran by former Senator Joseph Silk. The attacks ended Silk's political career, he was persona non grata in the senate thanks to the vicious attacks by the abolitionists and he didn't re file for office.
And one thing we know for sure, Americans tend to be tolerant but they also have common sense. As an example, Trump supported the gays but he drew the line at allowing transgenders into the military. We support the First Amendment and honor our religious leaders and Churches yet we abhor bigotry from radical religious cults. We might not care for gay marriage but we draw the line at demonizing others. We fully understand why these groups have earned the nickname of American Taliban and believe that until they learn to respect others they have no right to be part of civil discourse.
