Rattlings of Pots and Kettles

Jesse Jackson is chiming in about Pat Robertson's vocal on~air musings about the positive aspects of potentially assassinating the President of Peru.

Sigh.

Two pots screaming about the proverbial black kettle. That's productive.

Thanks for clearing up the mis-representation of Christians, guys. Neither of you is qualified to be chucking such hefty stones at one another. Jackson, fresh from that reprehensible, startling display of inciteful hate~mongering in Atlanta under the false guise of a cause, continues to teeter on a toothpick-thin foundation of credibility for ANY cause to which he lends his voice. That each of these characters actually made legitimate bids for the office of President of the United States at a not~so~distant point in our past makes me ever so newly grateful to the American people for successfully dodging a couple of rather nasty bullets.

These two loose cannons do demonstrate something in common here. Robertson and Jackson can say any old thing they wish, as long as each realizes his audience dwindles with each divisive word each utters. What a sad commentary on the perceived Christian leadership of our nation. Surely we can do a better job of wiping the soot off the truth, and manage to put Jesus ahead of our personal ambitions. Since that is the point of our shared faith, is it not? I personally don't subscribe to either man's rank brand of Christianity, which I find heavily steeped in money and seasoned with broadcast makeup, with liberal doses of ego~fueled hate speech added to taste.

And for the record, Robertson does not represent ANYONE, other than himself, and certainly not our government or our collective in any way, shape, or form. Criticism of President Bush for apparently not using forceful enough language or measures to address Robertson's comments by various representatives strikes me as bizarre. Since when is Robertson an elected official that should be politically censured? Since when is the President aligned with Robertson in any way save from sharing the basic tenets of their religious faith? Since when should a President be held accountable for the inflammatory comments of a person he has no hierarchical political authority over? What would be the more correct action of a sitting President, in this situation, beyond clearly damning the lunatic's comments and moving on. The President did not call for an assassination of anyone. The President did not authorize an assassination of anyone. He openly and without hesitation condemned a pseudo-celebrity's incindiary public statement and that should suffice.

Personally, I defer to the chilling, but smack~on~target words of Joseph Farah on this one, though I, like he, do so lament the rancid tainting of the source that inalterably stains the truth.