"Do you reject the glamour of evil, and refuse to be mastered by sin? (From the Roman Catholic Rite of Baptism)
Apparently the Catholic folks at Notre Dame University have no more respect for the Baptismal vows they renew every Easter than their invited Commencement Speaker this year has for the Presidential Oath of Office. At this moment in time, Barack Obama is the living incarnation of the glamour of evil. His smiley tones and non-threatening manner mask a studied commitment to the promotion of the most deadly form of evil in the world today- the cult of abortion centered on the ritual of child sacrifice. Obama has moved with impetuous determination to prove his claim to the mantle of High Priest of the Worldwide Abortion cult. With Executive orders he has shifted the resources of the U.S. government behind the global implementation of abortion. He has declared open season on embryonic human life. He has appointed enthusiastic political and judicial acolytes of this cult of death to high positions in the Executive and Judicial branches.
Even before these actions there was no rational basis for pretending to doubt his absolute commitment to the evil of abortion for its own sake. There can be no other explanation for his opposition, while an Illinois state Senator, to the bipartisan effort in the legislature to end the heinous practice of infanticide against innocent babies- delivered in the course of an abortion attempt; wrapped in soiled linens; and left on a cart to languish without medical care or any human comfort until they died. His only real explanation for refusing to support an end to this abominable practice was the cold-blooded logic that any interference with the mother's intention to kill the child would damage so-called abortion rights.
The Catholic Church teaches that abortion is objective evil of the most deadly spiritual kind. Obama embraces this evil for its own sake, without even the specious calculus of cost and benefit to cloak the true nature of his devotion. Except the Notre Dame University community consciously wishes to promote similar devotion in its students, there can be no valid explanation for their willingness to extend a platform to such a man. They cannot plead respect for his supposed High Office, unless they mean to suggest that it is consistent with Catholic teaching or the Lord's example to put such worldly reverence above the reverence for God, and the sacred laws commanding respect for innocent human life. Human honor cannot redeem that which God abhors. It cannot clear away the stain and curse that mars it. Vox Populi, Vox Dei is no maxim for the Body of Christ.
Nor can apologists at Notre Dame point to any positions he takes, or worldly programs he promises that can offset the sacrifice of spiritual integrity his unapologetic support for the cult of child sacrifice entails. It may be that he has gained the whole world's momentary adulation and tinsel honor. But as Christ spoke true, his soul is forfeit in the bargain, and the gain is as nothing compared to the cost.
Neither can they plead respect for the historic breakthrough his election supposedly represents. How can one who withdraws the protection of God's ordained equality of rights from innocent, helpless children claim to represent the triumph of justice over the very evils, born of greed and passion, unleashed by disregard for that equality? The vicious heart of selfish passion that perverted the souls of slave masters or self-worshiping lynch mobs, is the same heart offered in service to the Father of lies and evil in the abortion cult.
In the literal sense therefore, Barack Obama is the incarnation of what the Catholic Church identifies as the epitome of evil in the world today. What Notre Dame has done puts the stamp of Catholicity upon him, as if there is no absolute contradiction between what he advocates and represents and what can honorably be presented from platforms that benefit from the auspices of the Church. A Commencement speech represents a word spoken at the beginning of a new stage of life. In the literal sense it represents a principle for thought and action. Are we seriously to believe that some morally truthful argument can be made that justifies presenting Barack Obama in a Catholic context, as one who speaks for decent moral principle? It is sophomoric to suggest that any good thing he promises, promotes or even implements can compensate for his declared war upon the very principle of goodness, which is nowhere more clearly at stake than in the law of love that shrouds, protects and sanctifies our reverence for innocent human life. What Catholic theology makes good the rationalization that good works somehow supply the deficiency of a spirit and will that in the innocent person of the child, defile and abuse the very image of God Himself?
Given the evil he represents, Notre Dame's invitation to Obama is a slavish capitulation to the glamour of evil. Across America there are people of many different hues and denominations who devote themselves to the protection of innocent life, respect for the God-ordained family, and promotion of social justice in ways that conform with the principle of subsidiarity that respects human responsibility before God for the exercise of freedom His will for us makes possible. The world does not elevate them to platforms of power. Indeed it threatens them with punishment; ridicules and reviles their single-hearted devotion to Christ's example; relegates them to what it believes are the dingy fringes of respectability and esteem. Yet where is Christ to be found more than in those willing to bear with him the cross of human anguish on the long climb toward Calvary and the sacrifice that redeems mankind from the burden of sin? Rather than give an honorable platform to an evil man the world admires, a Catholic institution would do better to offer students a voice that speaks from the depths of this redemptive anguish, with a heart that sees past the glamour and power of evil, to the truth that will someday repel and triumph over it.
In an era when the Catholic Church in America still reels from the damaging effect of leaders who seem to connive at what gives scandal to the faithful, this scandalous gesture of admiration and respect toward the man who best represents the temporary triumph of evil over America's public life is a renewed scandal. As the first reeked of worldly fear and selfish licentiousness, this reeks of death and the prideful embrace of the doctrine that rejects the sovereignty of God in order to make man the master of life and death, right and wrong, hope and salvation. Catholics who abhor such scandal need to speak out. With one voice we should say to Notre Dame what Joshua said to the people of Israel: "If it does not please you to serve the Lord, decide today whom you will serve…" (Josue 24:15)
As a Catholic I earnestly pray to God, and ask of our Church leaders, that they make clear that this invitation cannot stand. If it stands, the scandalous lesson of subservience to human pride and power will lengthen the shadow of spiritual corruption that still haunts the Church. But if it is rebuked and withdrawn, every Catholic and Christian heart submissive to the sovereignty of God, as they bear witness to the affirmation of its truth, will be emboldened to speak and act with courage, even in the teeth of the whole world's scornful power.
This may also be an opportunity to begin the work that may someday turn Obama's heart from evil. Rather than confirm him in his present heedless service to objective evil, confront Him with the truth that there are Christian hearts that honor God above any man or human office. The seed planted by that confrontation will remind him of the true spirit of liberty. And it might someday grow up to impel him to repent of evil, who knows? With God, all things are possible.
UPDATE (March 22): Anyone wishing to help communicate opposition to Notre Dame's action can sign the petition at this site sponsored by the Cardinal Newman society. All who appreciate the sponsorship of evil signified by Notre Dame's invitation are welcome to sign, of course.
Worth considering? Then don't forget to DIGG IT!!!!
Posts
85 comments:
1. It's not open season on embryonic human life. These are embryonic stem cells left over from in vitro fertilization that will otherwise be destroyed. The opposition should be to in vitro fertilization, unless it's somehow more moral to destroy the stem cells than to use them for research, which I have yet to see anyone argue.
2. Repealing Mexico City policy does not imply support for abortion. I have yet to see someone in favor of Mexico City policy who is not for outlawing abortion. Their issue should be with the legality of abortion as they are using it with their own private funds. I have yet to see anyone tell me why their performing/promoting abortions with their own private funds should automatically disqualify them from any family planning aid
3. Many people opposed the initial BAIPA in Illinois and even the author said that nobody who opposed it was in favor of infanticide. The initial bill ascribed full rights to pre-viable fetuses if they showed any vital sign at all and that would have undermined the legality of abortion. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB1082&GA=93&SessionId=3&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=3910&DocNum=1082&GAID=3&Session=
The one that passed after he went to Washington was the only one to contain this provision:
"Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion."
BAIPA was supposed to be a clarification of existing law. Federal law does not regulate abortion, state law does. Unlike the one on the federal level, the state one with identical language would have had a different impact. Defining a a pre-viable fetus born from an abortion as a human could affect abortion at a state level, but not at a federal level. It's fully understandable that he, among many other pro-choice advocates, required the extra protective clause above. He did not support infanticide, he opposed the bills because they were backdoor attempts to undermine the legality of abortion.
Furthermore, and importantly, Illinois already had laws protecting those born even as a result of an abortion. compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 requires that physicians performing abortions to use the method most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus if reasonable likelihood of survival exists, must be attended by another physician who can take control and provide care to any born alive infant, and to "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion."
So Illinois already had laws to protect those born alive as a result of an abortion, and Obama is being attacked for opposing a clarification of existing laws that could have been interpreted to undermine the legality of abortion. I find it fully understandable that he would wait to be sure something like BAIPA was done right, as was in 2005 when it added the provision above.
"O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm."
The fundamental difficulty with any support group is that the members are all alike victims of what they would overcome. As long as all remember and acknowledge their common weakness, this can be a source of community and compassion among them. But when any fall prey to the temptation to overlook their own flaws, it gives their declared enemy a cloak of invisibility with which to ever more effectively waylay all.
Any religious organization is subject to the same principle. Men are not God, and it is folly to substitute their judgment for divine writ. But the problem is hardly new, as even a cursory study of religious history demonstrates. God is said to work in mysterious ways, and one of the greatest of mysteries is that He sometimes chooses men to do His work. There is no greater honor than to do the work of the Lord. But when men reject this honor, God has other ways.
Soon, the earth and sea, sky and stars will commence to carry forward the Master's work. The humble beasts of the field will accept the honor that men, in their arrogance, have decreed beneath their dignity.
"Bring forth therefore fruits ameet for brepentance: And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."
Does not this say all? There is only one meaningful distinction in creation, and only one real choice for any of us. To serve God, or to be cast aside.
spent some in hell
university
i remember how
hard it was
to breathe
down there
like a hot pillow
over my face
in a dark room
business week
minded professors
fraternal saturdays
sacrificial lamb
on sundays
lepers of arrogance
graduate to sit
behind teak
top desks fine
in high back
leather soft
inside buildings
of granite & marble
under the false
pretense that
the ironic pillars
of this new rome
will continue
to protect them
so proud that
their kids
go to hell
university
-tj marz
Re: Silent Consensus
For a first hand account of these matters, I invite readers to listen to the interview with Jill Stanek under "Did You Catch That". Simply parroting the Obama faction's party line leaves one prey to being deceived and therefore deceiving others. Obama's apologists often follow the maxim of the Old Communists: when the truth is against you, lie.
I find it amusing that Silent Consensus should even bother to comment on a topic that is not about public policy at all, but entirely restricted to the concerns of faithful Catholics about the institutions which ought to promote their religious views.
Are Catholics not allowed to express their desire for a community that upholds the morals they regard as being divinely sanctioned?
I am not Catholic, but I at least share enough affinity of belief to feel a sympathetic pang for the feeling of betrayal they may experience due to this. I do not agree with every teaching of the Vatican, but at least I recognize that Catholics have the right to their own beliefs. But liberalism does not recognize any such right. Beliefs contrary to their own ever abundant opinions must be stamped out no matter the context in which they are expressed or even imagined. The religious school, then the church, finally the home and even the heart, they will leave no sanctuary for the least dissent.
That is the face of the enemy we fight.
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92393
The question of Obama's legitimacy to be President is not going away thanks to the persistence of Orly Taitz, bless her heart.
Just keeping it simple for me, if you believe in GOD, you DO NOT have a choice when it comes to murder. Abortion IS murder. God said you will NOT murder, not you may decide or negotiate depending on which level of government you serve in or if you make over $122,000 a year with a qualified degree in blah, blah, blah... (Sounds like the legislation that comes out of our representatives AIDS for many years now. Too bad we pay them to pay someone else with our tax money to write legislation that they get to talk about on TV all over THE WORLD.)
If you do not believe in GOD, or PRETEND you do, then you can come up with all kinds of $30,000 words to "inform" those less intelligent. But just as I have said before, a monkey can be taught memory tricks... hence our current climate in Washington DC and in most state and local governments.
Even among some of my Evangelical friends, they still are sickened by the Catholic Church because of the many sexual abuse cases. Now that the most well known Catholic University in America is asking O'Drama to speak at a commencement I am sure they will have more to say. Things like this cause nasty splits within churches, but maybe the LORD is cleaning house?
I surely hope there is a script for O’Drama, because every time he opens his mouth without his 20 something year old speech writer, he sticks both his feet, up to his sorry behind, into his mouth.
What a telling commentary on those who voted for him, and the Republican Party who purposely took a certain person's name off ballots. And then had the nerve to put old Senator Partisan shoot-himself-in-the-foot McCain as a proposed leader... I guess you do get what you pay for...
All the while I am writing this, Google has an ad to the left for: Abortion Clinic VA MD DC
Responsible and Ethical Abortions. Caring Clinic 1-866-691-4141
H-O-W S-I-C-K? I cannot get over we are so glazed in the brain in this country that advertising murder is legit...
I'm a student at Notre Dame and was absolutely appalled when I read this in our student newspaper. Has our administration lost its mind? I, personally, will be making a concerted effort to make it quite clear to all I can how diametrically opposed to everything decent this man is. Dr. Keyes, what is the title of the piece of legislation in which Obama voted to leave infants to die after a failed abortion? You mentioned this in your debates with him in Illinois. I'm putting together a letter to the newspaper and was hoping to cite this as evidence of his radical stance. Thanks for your help.
This is the first time I've ever been anything but incredibly proud to be at Notre Dame. Hopefully the administration will come to its senses.
Chiu,
Not the case. I respect anyone's right to their religion. I view freedom of religion as a 2 way street. When a Lutheran school in California expelled 2 students for being lesbian, while I didn't personally endorse it, I said the government should stay out of it. Please do not characterize me when you hardly know me. My view is simple: freedom of religion means keeping legislation out of religion and keeping religion out of legislation.
Ambassador Keyes,
As I often say, I believe you are one of the few consistent voices when speaking a pro-life position. Unlike people such as Pat Robertson who, as you said, put party above God in endorsing Giuliani or those such as John McCain who argue it's the taking of a life but somehow it's ok in the case of rape, you have been a consistent pro-life advocate and you are one of the best spokespersons for the pro-life movement. I say this as someone who personally disagrees with the movement but respects your consistency.
I don't need to read Jill Stanek or Barack Obama. If you listen to my podcasts, you will know that I don't protect either side of an issue. I read the bills themselves and FactCheck.org, probably the most unbiased political website we have, Obama and "Infanticide"
This bill is the one in question: SB 1082 and you can see that it died not on Barack Obama's vote, but on a party-line vote. You have previously said that other pro-choice groups and people were fine with the bill, but it's not the case with the bill in question. The comments Jill Stanek cites by him were on bills identical to this, SB 1095 in 2001 and SB 1662 in 2002
which not only was not identical to the federal bill, but had a provision that would undermine the legality of abortion. Don't take my word for it, read it side by side against the federal bill (warning: PDF)
The bill that passed unanimously after Obama left was this one HB 0984 and, it was a different bill. Sections d and e were not included in the previous ones.
Bottom line: BAIPA was not the same bill taken up every year to be killed by him until he was gone. You can compare them all side by side with these links. Even if you would have voted for all of them, I hope you can see how all of them except the last one (which again, was passed unanimously) concerned regular pro-choice folks who do not support infanticide. Even if you don't think they would have undermined the legality of abortion, your disagreement is in the interpretation of the bill, not in opposition to infanticide:
SB 1095 in 2001: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/sbgroups/sb/920SB1095LV.html
SB 1662 in 2002: http://ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/sbgroups/sb/920SB1662LV.html
SB 1082 in 2003: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=50&GA=94&DocTypeId=HB&DocNum=0984&GAID=8&LegID=15648&SpecSess=0&Session=0
and the proposed amendment to it: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB1082sam001&GA=93&SessionId=3&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=3910&DocNum=1082&GAID=3&Session=
HB 0984 in 2005: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=50&GA=94&DocTypeId=HB&DocNum=0984&GAID=8&LegID=15648&SpecSess=0&Session=0
Whatever your links purport to prove, after the Saddleback so-called debate Obama's campaign admitted the he had voted at the state level against a bill worded identically with the Federal bill he claimed he would support. The problem with relying on one of Obama's statements is that it is often contradicted by another when the truth is proven with documentary evidence. See http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/08/obamas-cover-up.html; http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/; also the thorough review of documentary evidence at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2065109/posts . The oft repeated statement by Obama that Illinois law already covered the problem is also a lie, see http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/obamas_culture_of_death_and_th.html; Jill Stanek also did an excellent piece summarizing the facts and the evidence here http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59702. The old Communist tactic of repeating lies until others get tired of refuting them won't work on this site. The reason Obama's supporters go to such lengths is that they know the infanticide position is depraved and indefensible. It reveals who this man really is- therefore the tireless lying to cover up the facts, just as he's doing with the birth certificate issue. My advice to SC: Better to remain silent and admit that Obama is a depraved liar, than to keep speaking and risk being thought one yourself.
Ambassador,
You're damn right the old communist tactic of repeating lies won't work on this site, that's why I am not going to believe the continuous repeating of lies that Obama supports infanticide. I don't know if you actually believe this, or if the case is simply that you are smarter than what you're saying, but you know the stupid people aren't and will swallow it.
Yes, Obama voted against a bill identical to the federal bill. I never covered that up. You are forgetting that the bill would have a different impact at a state level because state law regulates abortion, not federal. This thought was not only his, but was of those who voted against that very bill. This fact is confirmed by the 2005 bill containing the extra provision that those who voted against the "identical" federal bill voted for
"Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion."
Notice that I've been the one citing objective reports, you've been citing hype. As much as I disagree with you on many things, I have always viewed you as integrated. I would hate to be proven wrong.
To quote Winston Churchill, "Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is"
Jill Stanek is wrong. From reading her thing, her mentality was, "I hate Obama, now let's try proving he supports infanticide." She's taking him out of context constantly, and I've already provided you the evidence of that. I can't speak for you, but if I were in your position, I would not only be open to being proven wrong on this, but I'd be glad to be proven wrong.
One more time: Obama did not kill SB 1082 (the "identical" one). It was killed on a party line vote. The very people who voted against it voted for the bill that contained the "Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion" provision. Take a look http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/94/senate/09400HB0984_05182005_019000T.pdf. IF the intent with the bill was never to undermine the legality of abortion, they should have had no problem putting that provision in to begin with. I don't know why it took so long.
I have provided you with objective sources time and time again, and I suggest you read up. And I don't mean making sure your eyes have mechanically scanned it, I mean reading for full comprehension.
And you can even read his remarks on the 2001 and 2002 bills. His stated reasons were with preserving abortion rights, and you can speculate all you want, but it's just that, speculation.
The law already covering it wasn't B.S. I pointed you to the law as it was written. As far as birth certificate, again, the Hawaii Department of Health has confirmed it's legitimate. You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.
You can't disprove what I'm saying by calling me a liar
Silent Consensus:
I have simply pointed readers to posts that provide either texts or links to texts that they can peruse in order to judge for themselves. Harping on language that preserves so-called abortion rights simply proves the point I make in my piece: that his only motive in opposing the effort to end infanticide was a fanatical dedication to the pro-abortion cause.
On the birth certificate issue- The Hawaii government has confirmed nothing that is relevant to the eligibility issue since the COLB does not show any information that establishes his place of birth. Like everyone who tries to defend this cover-up you play with words to avoid the simple truth- he is preventing public scrutiny of the evidence needed to establish his eligibility.
I don't know which is worse- the cover-up or the insult to common sense offered by people who try to justify it.
Ambassador,
You have made clear before that you have substantial differences with Obama on abortion, but that it goes even further in his supporting "infanticide." I have provided readers links where they can judge for themselves and mine involve the simple facts, not anyone's opinion. The wording of the bill in question could have been construed to place restrictions on abortion rights in general, not simply infanticide.
He and many others simply held out to make sure it restricts only infanticide, not abortion. Just like the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. I think D&X is abominable and have no problem supporting a ban on that. Having said that, I understand those who opposed it on the basis that "partial-birth" is not a medical term and could be construed to ban more than just D&X. Those who opposed it were not embracing D&X, they just didn't want to let a ban on it open the door to a ban on other methods.
If he is not a natural born citizen, then you can try to look at the naturalization records and see if his name pops up there. If it does, case closed and you win. If his name doesn't pop up there, then you would have to argue he is not a citizen at all. In that case why didn't you try pushing this case when you ran against him the first time?
That aside, the COLB says his city of birth, island of birth, county of birth, time of birth, and date. The Hawaii Department of Health maintains such records, and said it's "a valid Hawaii state birth certificate." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
Indeed, Obama is a whited sepulcher, full of dead men's bones. He is empty, a willing vehicle for hatred, lies and malice.
His is the living example of pathological narcissism and therefore he is incapable of empathy, but quite capable of lying about it, whenever it suits his purpose.
For anyone to support this man in this time, is to betray our nation, knowingly or ignorantly; and ignorance is no excuse.
Silent Consensus (and how ever more fitting I see that name as being for the kind of "consensus" you really want to create, one born of censorship of all opposing views), I am disinclined to accept your protestations of honesty based on the dishonesty you have displayed here.
I do not attempt to disprove what you say by calling you a liar, I disprove what you are saying, and you continue to say it, thus proving yourself a liar.
I can disagree with Dr. Keyes about the theological implications of abortion without stomping on his right to hold and profess his views. You could at least try to do the same...but you simply do not wish to do so. When he expresses his beliefs, you insist on making counter-factual assertions designed to ridicule him. There was no valid reason whatsoever for you to make the posts you have made on this topic.
I may make bold to suggest that Dr. Keyes should speak to non-Catholics with more consideration for their lack of Catholicism, but I will not accept your implicit contention that he must not be allowed to ever speak to the concerns of Catholics. Nor can I countenance the particular method you have chosen to make virtually all your arguments.
Obama is the perfect Anti-Christ, charming, persuasive, promising Paradise. There is a double tragedy unfolding as not only is our Democracy being destroyed by Obama and his cronies: simultaneously we have been hell bent to destroy the physical earth through our failure to recognize the devastation that was the price that allowed our technological society exist. It is my conviction that the Age of Technology is the last of the ages of civilized man.
Silent Concensus.
Of course we hardly know you. You are anonymous. Anonymity remains the curse of internet communication. It is typically little more than license for vitriol and cowardly denunciation.
Silent concensus:
Your sophistry is evident. You cite as objective facts sources based on the online image of something provided by the Obama campaign. You reject as biased any links that contain or rely on analyses of that image (such as this,http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html, or this http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/12/183955-truth-behind-hawaii-certificate-live-birth.html, or this http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81943) But everyone knows that online images are worthless as evidence for anything until and unless they have been analyzed because they can be easily fabricated or altered from the original. In this case however, even the unaltered original is not good evidence since COLBs have been issued by the State of Hawaii to people not born on US soil. (As I've explained that seems to me the critical fact that Obama has to establish.)
You cite less than conclusive evidence, then try to discourage people from considering the facts and analyses that make it so. You call me biased even though I have refused to draw a conclusion from the available evidence. All I ask is that the best evidence be made available. You on the other hand are willing to accept less than the best existing evidence for your conclusion that Obama is eligible to be President. Your position is the obviously biased one, which you seek to cover-up by discouraging and discrediting those who will not imitate your bias. Nice try, but it won't work here.
chiu_chunling:
I do try by and large to make arguments as to public policy that take their premises from the civic documents of the United States (including of course the Declaration of Independence.) However, since a blog such as this is essentially a record of personal thoughts and observations, it will occasionally include posts written from a perspective that reflects what I am. Some of my observations about Obama have come from my perspective as a Black American, for example. This post obviously comes from the viewpoint of a Catholic layperson commenting on the implications for Catholicism of a scandalous act by an institution widely thought (however inaccurately) to be in the Catholic tradition. I have over the years followed and learned from discussion by people in other denominations or religions about topics that reflect their theological and ethical perspective (e.g., the controversy among Anglicans over homosexual marriage.) I don't object to things they publish, anymore than I feel offended by the public processions or prayers of people of other faiths. Such sensitivities are in my opinion evidence of religious bigotry, and tend to inhibit the vigorous pursuit of truth. I want to hear what others have to say, and even discuss and debate with them.
So thank you for your understanding in this regard, which I value more highly in light of the careful intelligence on display in you posts. I don't always agree with you, but I read your words with respect.
Chiu,
Name one dishonest thing I've said here. Just one. Also, I have never stomped on his right to hold his views, but I'm not going to buy the idea that because it's faith, I can't question the logic of it. I'm going to question it. And I have never argued for censorship. I rarely ever agree with Noam Chomsky, but he was damn right to say you're not in favor of freedom of speech if you pick and choose who you're in favor of it for. I've never questioned your or anyone's right to say what you wish. The 1st Amendment protects you from the government doing anything about what you say, it doesn't protect you from me questioning and countering what you say.
I have every valid reason. To use Obama's comments the way they are being used on BAIPA, and his votes, is like taking what Zell Miller said in 1992 about Bush I and making it out to be his opinion on Bush II. I respect anyone's opinions if they are on firm ground with the facts and logic. The notion that Obama supports infanticide isn't an opinion, it's a falsity. You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. What I've challenged him on is not his opinion, but his assertion of facts.
Ambassador,
So go ahead, sue the Hawaii Department of Health and Obama. They said it's a legitimate certificate of live birth, and that COLB states he was born in Hawaii. My objection has never been with your questioning something.
I've cited many objective facts as evident on this post. I'm tired of trying to explain what is painfully obvious to the casual observer who bothers to read what you and I have written. I don't try discrediting and discouraging them, I have simply pointed out why they are wrong. As I said to Chiu and will say to you, as you know, the 1st Amendment protects you from the government doing anything about what you say. It doesn't protect you from counterarguments and debunking from anyone
Silent Consensus;
I cited the birth certificate controversy because, as the lawyers might say, it indicates a pattern of behavior. You then verified the relevance of my citiation by displaying the pattern. I simply helped readers to understand what they were seeing. Thanks for being a cooperative witness.
Furthermore, I notice you're the one who keeps changing the subject on me. The objective facts I was mostly citing were with regard to BAIPA, and your only response thus far has been to respond with hype contradicted by what I showed you. Somehow my pointing to objective facts on BAIPA got you to go off on the birth certificate.
Another thing, Chiu, if my questioning and countering people's assertions amounts to censorship, then what does that tell us about their own conviction in what say?
You have said that Obama supports infanticide. Every piece of evidence I have seen that attempts to claim it has been a contextomy, fabrication, and a missequencing of events. You are free to believe he opposed BAIPA because he supports infanticide, but the evidence of that is zero. The witnesses you cite all try to pass things off as facts that can be and have been debunked. I can't refute someone who believes something with zero evidence, and in spite of all I've done, it's not really my job to prove it false. I can make a claim that stonehenge was made by aliens, and I have no proof of that, but not you or anyone else has proof it's false. The burden of proof should be on me to prove it's true, not on everyone else to prove it's false.
Aside from dismissing such claim as if it never came up, which is the most sensible choice, one can either say "we don't know if that's the case" thereby saying the groundless is something that needs to be debunked, or go one step further and say "until it's been disproven, we have to believe it's true," which says absence of evidence means evidence of absence.
Until I see evidence that he supports infanticide that hasn't been debunked, I'm going to dismiss such claim as if it never came up
Silent Consensus:
To keep silent in the face of evil in order to avoid what you believe is harm to something else you value makes you complicit in the evil. In the Reconstruction era some people joined the Ku Klux Klan in order to fight against the depredations of carpetbaggers, and what they believed to be the destruction of states' rights. When lynchings against blacks took place, some of these people did not support such murders, so they left the Klan. Others stayed and kept silent because they did not want to harm the cause of states' rights, etc. I suppose you think it wrong to count them as part of the lynch mob. I do not. Others can judge which of us makes more sense. When laws were proposed against such lynchings, some southerners supported them. Others, did not. They voted and spoke out against such laws, as a surrender to outside interference and harmful to solidarity in support of states' rights. I suppose you think it wrong to conclude that they abetted the lynchings. I do not.
Just FYI, in this thinking I keep in mind the Biblical warning, as in Ezekiel 33: 6-9. I do not say that others must, only that I do and think it wise to do so.
Silent Consensus:
re the Birth certificate issue: your out-of-hand rejection of first hand testimony from someone in a position to know (his paternal grandmother) is telling. The COLB that you take so seriously may be based on just such testimony. Using that, you jump to a conclusion, but criticize me and others because we simply ask for further investigation based on the same kind of testimony. You also ignore the fact that the burden of proof is on Obama, just as it falls to other job applicants to prove the qualifications they claim. As a public official Obama has a sworn obligation positively to uphold the Constitution of the United States, so his positive obligation to prove the truth of his claims goes beyond that of a person not so sworn. Why is he refusing to do his sworn duty? Is he somehow above the supreme law of the land?
There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance. ~Goethe
• Shall I tell you the secret of the whole world? It is that we have only known the back of the world. We see everything from behind, and it looks brutal. That is not a tree, but the back of a tree. That is not a cloud, but the back of a cloud. Cannot you see that everything is stooping and hiding a face? If we could only get round in front — The Man Who was Thursday (1908) G.K. Chesterton [What face is Obama hiding?]
At the face of your question (post) is a very revealing truth,…Dr. Keyes. Should Notre Dame have asked Mr. Obama to give the commencement speech and should he be rewarded with a Honorary Degree. At the back of it, you suggested the batismal rite of the Catholic Church to which Notre Dame is a Catholic Institution be the reason for not allowing. These two things being true, then one can only reason “No”. They have every right and I dare say “a sacred obligation” not to invite, President (or not) Obama.
The question of is Obama evil, can again be summorized in another quote from G. K. Chesterton
• Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable. -Illustrated London News 1909
And from the face of it ,… there is either allot of ignorance adrift on some of these comments being posted (the back of it) or alot of what men call excusable (on the face of it).
The question firmly stands; “Should a Catholic Institution have invited Obama to such a prominent position of Ceremony?”
I will leave God to be the judge of that (evil),…for there go I. But judging by Notre Dames defintion and actions it would not be hard to suggest, that they will be offering Mr. Obama with the Eucharist very soon.
He who returns evil for good, Evil will not depart from his house. Proverbs 17:13
And this goes for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) as well.
PS. Nice poem -tj marz
Ambassador,
With regard to your first post, I could not agree with your first sentence more. After that, I find what you say to contain silly comparisons. When it comes to BAIPA, it could have been amended, and it was amended and passed, to address infanticide without harming the legality of abortion. With your KKK comparison, they had to decide which was more important to them: stopping lynchings or preserving states' rights. A dichotomy existed in that case and they had to make a choice. A dichotomy did not exist when it came to BAIPA. They were able to have both and they did. Opposing a reactionary solution to a problem is not "being silent in the face of evil to avoid what is harmful to something else you value." Opposing a reactionary "solution" is realizing that you don't have to kill a fly with an elephant gun
With regard to the second post, the "evidence" of his paternal grandmother is a mistranslation and out of context http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/12/05/birth_certificate/. You can even hear the FULL audio of the conversation with his paternal grandmother here. You can also look at Hawaiian newspapers announcing his birth http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/obama-1961-birth-announcement-from-honolulu-advertiser0000.gif http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/ObamaBirthStarBulletin.jpg
Furthermore, a COLB for Barack Obama's birth would not have been able to be obtained from Hawaii as the provision allowing so was not allowed until 21 years after Obama's birth http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm
The Hawaii government has confirmed Obama was born in Hawaii http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/10/31/20081031obama-birth1031-ON.html
Here's a detailed account of what happened: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/11/born_under_a_bad_sign.cfm
Last point: The certificate has everything the State department requires for proving U.S. citizenship to obtain an U.S. passport http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/100004.pdf
To quote PolitiFact "It is possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the world’s biggest job, involving a vast network of people and government agencies over decades of lies. Anything’s possible. But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of what’s reasonable has to take over."
There are only two plausible reasons that Obama would refuse to produce his birth certificate: either 1) there's something on the certificate damaging to Obama himself and his presidency, or 2) he's trying to keep his opponents occupied chasing after birds' eggs. Neither of which speaks well of Obama, either of which will haunt him the rest of his days irregardless.
Silent Consensus wrote:
To quote PolitiFact "It is possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the world’s biggest job, involving a vast network of people and government agencies over decades of lies. Anything’s possible. But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of what’s reasonable has to take over."
Do you not see how ridiculous you look, Silent Consensus, running about defending Obama when all he has to do to end all the speculation is to produce his long form birth certificate?
Yes, every Tom, Dick, and Harry Obama supporter has latched onto and is using this idiotic argument in his defense. Did you not once stop to think that the argument is founded on a false premise? His rise up the political ladder never required that he be a natural born U.S. citizen. That requirement is reserved to presidents and presidents alone.
Then why must Obama have attorneys trying to stifle inquiry over his credentials? Why has the Supreme Court refused to hear the cases challenging his credentials? Why have his years at Columbia been kept secret? These are valid questions which have not been answered but will be. Of that I am certain.
Evil in our culture has such a Hollywood stigmatization, that something is not considered "evil" unless the imagery is quite barbaric & shocking and accompanied by sinister music. Evil in all reality can come to us in a beautiful song or picture and immorality is in the intent & end result, not how it "appears" on the surface of things. America now kneejerks to superficiality, and Obama rode that to perfection into the Whitehouse. Behind all the "hope & change" is subtle evil poison for America. Its the destruction of the very foundations this Nation was built upon...and what happens when you mess with the foundation of a structure while their remains something built upon it? The whole thing is in danger of collapse. The first two months of the Obama administration has shown us he is willing to mess with the very foundations of our Republic.
"Why has the Supreme Court refused to hear the cases challenging his credentials?"
Probably because they are full of crap.
Terry,
As far as the long form, or could it be because the Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form doesn't give the option of requesting it? Or could it be because the short form already includes the essentials, such as the full name, the full name of the parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records, and the extra information (birth weight, parents' hometowns, etc...) the long form has is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Are you prepared to tell me that what the State Department requires as proof of citizenship isn't enough?
Try talking to the people at FactCheck.org, who have touched, examined, and taken pictures of it. The COLB has the relevant information, the Hawaii government has confirmed it, it could not have been acquired for a foreign born person due to his year, it has everything that it needs to be legitimate. Either you are arguing the Hawaii government has committed fraud in conspiracy to allow Obama to be president, or you have no argument at all.
We must have had people who started out with the conclusion that he wasn't born in the U.S. and set out to prove it. Just like those who start out with the conclusion that "Intelligent Design" is right and Evolution is wrong and then try proving it. Evolution is based on evidence before conclusion. Conclusion before evidence... what a fun game.
The only argument those who think he wasn't a natural born citizen can come up with is that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, as if we really have an absence of evidence and as if that would be evidence of absence anyway. It isn't. Once he shows a long form birth certificate, we'll have speculators arguing it's forged, fake, you name it. Even if we saw a video of him being born in Hawaii, we'll have people trying to pick it apart saying it's fake. The only way it can ever be 100% indisputable is if we had a time machine and could travel back in time to see his birth.
We have plenty of evidence now that he was born in the U.S., and zero evidence to the contrary. Anybody who looks at evidence before coming to a conclusion would conclude Obama was born in the USA. We would need to have a huge conspiracy and cover up for all the evidence we have to be wrong.
Oh, and to your other point about his rise up the political latter. You're right, and that's simply a misunderstanding of what I was saying. If Obama is not a natural born citizen, then he is either a naturalized citizen or not one at all. If he is a naturalized citizen, you can find his name in the naturalization records in D.C. If you can't, then he's not a citizen at all and wouldn't even have been eligible for the U.S. Senate
It occurs to me that the debate over Barack Hussein Obama in this forum has thus far centered around two things, 1) his position on abortion which is a matter of record, and 2) the question surrounding his eligibility to serve as president under the constitution, Article II, section I. Nothing has yet been raised in this forum about his connections to the terrorist William Ayers, and the America-hater Reverend Wright, et al. I imagine Silent Consensus has yet more excuses to offer on Hussein's behalf in these regards. I can hardly wait to see them.
Like I said a while back in a comment to another article, The Silent Consensus is nothing more than an agent in Hussein's campaign of mass deception. Period.
Terry,
What a way to demonize him by calling him Hussein. Are you seriously calling someone Hussein in obvious reference to Saddam and expecting a legitimate response? And on top of that, assuming I have more excuses on OBAMA's behalf with his connection to Ayers and Wright, and then calling me an agent of his deception. How about instead of jumping to such conclusion, ASKING ME FIRST?
Because no, I don't have any excuse for his connections with Ayers and Wright, just as I have no excuse for his taking money from George Soros. I think notions that they accurately show Obama is a terrorist, America-hater, and Israel-hater are wrong and will not entertain them, and that's it.
How effective an imaginary conversation for you was at getting you pissed off at me
As far as the long form, or could it be because the Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form doesn't give the option of requesting it?
Let me get this straight: You're suggesting that BHO doesn't have the option of requesting/acquiring his long form birth certificate from the state of his supposed birth, and that that's why he hasn't released his long form birth certificate? You must be kidding me!
Besides, it took me all of two hours to produce a better forgery of my own birth certificate (or someone's, who knows?) than the one posted at factcheck, et al.
It's not in reference to Saddam that I call him by his middle name, it's in reference to his connections to Islam that I call him by this name. Do you think Islam is in any way compatible with Western society?
Does anyone else feel slightly weary of Silent Consensus' continued demands that "somebody" "cite one example" or "piece of evidence" to refute various claims, despite the many cogent, relevant responses already?
There is a pattern here. Silent Consensus wants to tire us and divert our efforts from more meaningful efforts. This is not a naked exercise of force, but it is an effective form of censorship nonetheless. Go to where the opposition gathers to try and have a rational discussion in peace, then harangue them endlessly to keep them responding to you and not talking to each other. A transparent ploy, but not an ill-considered one, given the repetitive and vociferous tendency of his more recent posts.
On a happier note, I must mention that I heartily respect the intellectual rigor and principles that Dr. Keyes has long represented almost alone in the political realm. Though I sometimes disagree with him, I have never seen any indication that this was due to any flaw in his devotion to seeking and defending the truth. He does me a great honor, which I am generally too indolent to deserve, in complimenting my posts.
Thank you, Dr. Keyes for your service in raising the bar for our public debate and more specifically for giving all of us the opportunity to participate in this forum. The principles that shape a democracy ever take shape in the reasoned discussion of like-minded but diverse individuals as they try to understand what can and must be done for the future of a nation. It is a privilege to post here, and I am grateful for it.
Obama is not a Muslim. He was raised Christian and sworn in on the Bible. But to quote Colin Powell, the real answer is "so what if he is?" I'll take a Muslim friend of mine over a Christian Patriot any day.
1) I didn't say he is a Muslim. I said his middle name is connected to Islam. It is, after all, his middle name. And he himself doesn't deny his connections to Islam. But why do you insist on putting words in my mouth?
Notwithstanding what you or I or any other non-Muslim/infidel thinks, however, there are Muslims out there who think he is in fact a Muslim in spite of his having been raised a Christian. On what do they base this? On the basis that he was conceived a Muslim by his paternal parent (a "natural-conceived" Muslim). Once this happens, say they, the individual in question is always a Muslim. He/she is afforded no personal choice in the matter, which is fundamental to the teaching of Islam. A person can't just opt out of Islam, that's not the way it works. And if it is his misfortune of being conceived a Muslim who objects to this, well...
2) It can't be reiterated enough that while there are moderate Muslims, there is no such thing as a moderate Islam, per Mohammed's life and teachings. A moderate Muslim, though, is someone who doesn't take his religion very seriously, sort of like a "lukewarm" Christian doesn't take his religion very seriously. But whenever Muslims do begin to take their religion seriously, delving into the teachings of Mohammed in the Koran, the hadiths and Sunnah, look out!
Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Western society for any number of reasons. You seem to be completely oblivious to the alarming rate at which the Islamization of Europe is happening as we speak, or more likely you simply don't care or you see it as a good thing. The only reason we don't experience the same problem with Islam in America to the extent that certain European countries do is simply because Muslims make up a much smaller percentage of the population here than they do in Great Britian and France, the Netherlands, etc. But if CAIR, which boasts of its mission to "empower" Muslims in America, has its way about it, that won't be the case for very much longer.
Incidentally, let's think about this: If Muslims in America are "empowered", what does that mean for non-Muslims in America? That's right!, we're disempowered in direct proportion to the extent Muslims are empowered. The whole, as Jefferson so eloquently stated it, "is exactly equal to the sum of its parts." The same applies to Hispanic immigrants, etc. Hussein Obama's election is a direct result of this power shift, which I'm sure you think is a good thing again.
And it goes beyond Muslim honor killings, the beheadings of Muslim wives and daughters, mothers and sisters, the self-flatulation ceremonies during certain Muslim festivals, the weird foot washing rituals that Muslims perform on themselves prior to their ritualistic daily prayers, etc., and the demands from Muslims as they become empowered that we accomodate these, that we're seeing more of on a daily basis in America. Are you going to argue that these things belong in America? On second thought, don't answer that.
Islam is fundamentally incompatible with every aspect of the first amendment and the bill of rights, from the establishment clause to the free exercise clause; from the right of individuals to be secure in their persons and properties, to the retention of rights and priveleges not expressly enumerated in the constitution. In fact, Islam is fundamentally incompatible with every important aspect of the federal constitution which sets it apart from all other documents of its kind. If you can't see this, or refuse to do so when evidence supporting these facts abounds, then I'm afraid you're simply a lost cause that goes about spouting drivel (at least on this particular subject) that no serious person is obliged to pay any attention to. I'm not surprised by it, it's generally the case with most dyed-in-the-wool pure libertarians I've ever had the misfortune of meeting up with.
But thank you for quoting Colin Powell from his Meet the Press interview, and for making it perfectly clear with whom your true allegiances lie. It should save everyone a lot of trouble who was holding out any hope that you are in any way, shape, or form dedicated to the preservation of Western civilization and our European culture and heritage.
Colin Powell effectively declared himself to be an enemy of the historic peoples of America and of historic Americanism when he announced in that interview that it is not America(n) to think there is anything wrong with a Muslim becoming POTUS. Allow me to cut through all the pompous self-righteousness in that statement, and to boil it down to its fundamental meaning:
Colin Powell thinks that Muslims are more American than are non-Muslims who have deep roots in this country and happen to believe that Islam empowered is a particular threat to everything laudable this country has been since its very inception. You seem to be of the same opinion, having a particular disliking for the historic people of America, their culture and mores, and the Biblical-Christian worldview from whence they derived their fundamental rights and liberties and the ideas of government they instituted to secure them to us, their posterity. In other words, you reveal your true motives in quoting and agreeing with Powell, and in declaring that your allegiances lie with a people and a culture alien to liberty and fundamentally at war with Western civilization. You seek the absolute destruction of historic Americanism. That is all. You'll simply have to forgive me for finding that to be extremely objectionable and downright treasonous.
Silent Consensus wrote:
And yes, the Hawaii Department of Health doesn't give the option of requesting the long form. The long form is made by the hospital and the extra information it includes is irrelevant to the situation.
And your point is?
That's not an answer to my simple question, it's a diversion. I'll simplify the question even more:
Are you saying that BHO can't get his hands on a copy of his long form birth certificate, and that that is the reason he hasn't produced it?
If your answer is yes, then I'd simply ask why he doesn't just come out and announce that this is the case?
Chiu,
You're wrong. Everything I said here I can back up. Not the case with everyone else.
Terry,
It's obvious I'm not the one who fails to understand Western society or has allegiance elsewhere. Open the Constitution to Article VI Section 3 and read it:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust
No religious fanaticism is compatible with Western society. Terror is the result of fanaticism, not just Muslim fanaticism.
It is quite possible that Obama is not an Americn citizen. Philip Berg just suggested as much and claimed that he might be an illegal alien and should then be deported.
Also, why does Silent Consensus insist on remaining anonymous? Does he, like Obama, have something to hide as well?
I bet he does!
I love it so!
You're making some pretty big statements. Calling me treasonous, assuming I come from the same background of "knowledge" as you do and have the same information
1. So you are saying Obama is Muslim beyond his control, and because of that, he is inherently unfit to lead America. That is plain and simple, bigoted. No one can choose their parents, but they can choose their loyalty. Your argument would at least have a little ground if he was Muslim by choice, but he's not, he never practiced Islam, he is a Christian.
2. Again, so what. You are insulting many Muslim people who are loyal American citizens. Look at Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, who earned a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart for serving in the Iraq war and dying for America. http://www.newyorker.com/online/2008/09/29/slideshow_080929_platon?slide=16
Just try looking me in the eye with a straight face and telling me he is inherently unAmerican due to his religion. Just try. You are letting the terrorists define the entire Muslim population for you. Way to fall into their trap. You're right, moderate Islam doesn't exist, neither does any moderate religion. All religions have a potential to be taken to their extreme. Your defining them as unable to distance themselves from the most extreme parts of their religion only defines yourself as someone who's unable to do so and therefore applies it to everyone else.
Other people's right to freely exercise their religion is what disallows people from imposing their religion on others or using it to harm others. Every right you and I act on defines the same right in everyone else. If you are suggesting that if we have the free exercise clause protect people who practice Islam that we are protecting their ability to infringe on another shows a need to better understand inalienable rights. They are present in everyone, everywhere, at all times, and my right to life doesn't mean a right to murder you because of your right to life. It's not a compromise, it's a fine line that preserves both people's rights. If one's religion depends on other people not practicing a different one, not only does one not have a right to force it on people anyway, but it says your religion is already on shaky grounds.
I have no love for CAIR. You're attempting to define me and associate me with a lot, yet you barely know me or my views. I am a stalwart defender of Israel and their defending themselves and I've taken flak for it from liberals. It's always the reasonable people which face the most opposition, because both extreme ideologies hate something about them.
Let me say it again: Yes, Islam is incompatible with Western society. So are all religions if we are going to define them the same way. The Old Testament allows slavery, stoning people to death who work on Sabbath, and disallows talking to women on PMS. Everytime I say this I get a "that was the OLD Testament, not the New Testament." Well excuse me for seeing the logical flaw here. If God is all powerful, all knowledgeable and present everywhere, then He doesn't change. To say the Old Testament is inferior to the New Testament is to say God is more accurate at different times, which is logically impossible.
You see the problems in radical Islam, which I have no argument with you on. You have been completely been silent on the the problems with radical Christianity and other religions. Practically all religions when taken to their extreme literal end produce the same problem. If you wish to have a Mr. Freeze type of mindset, at least be consistent.
One other thing, and I want to make sure not to dodge it. The idea that America was founded on Christianity is a myth:
United States Constitution
The First Amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Article VI, Section 3
"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
John Adams (the second President of the United States)
Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli (June 7, 1797). Article 11 states:
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
From a letter to Charles Cushing (October 19, 1756):
"Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, 'this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.'"
From a letter to Thomas Jefferson:
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
Additional quotes from John Adams:
"Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?"
"The Doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."
"...Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."
Thomas Jefferson (the third President of the United States)
Jefferson's interpretation of the first amendment in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (January 1, 1802):
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
From Jefferson's biography:
"...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, 'Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,' which was rejected 'By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.'"
Jefferson's "The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom":
"Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics and geometry....The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
From Thomas Jefferson's Bible:
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
Jefferson's Notes on Virginia:
"Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these free inquiry must be indulged; how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse ourselves? But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same. Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments?"
Additional quotes from Thomas Jefferson:
"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself."
"They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition of their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the alter of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
"In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty; he is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."
"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear....Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue on the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you."
"Christianity...[has become] the most perverted system that ever shone on man....Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."
"...that our civil rights have no dependence on religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics and geometry."
James Madison (the fourth President of the United States)
Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments:
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise....During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."
Additional quote from James Madison:
"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
Benjamin Franklin
From Franklin's autobiography, p. 66:
"My parents had given me betimes religious impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself."
From Franklin's autobiography, p. 66:
"...Some books against Deism fell into my hands....It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quote to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations, in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."
Bottom line: Islam is not compatible with Western society, and neither is any religion. That doesn't mean religious people are not inherently compatible with Western society
All that Philip Berg is pursuing is the question - If Obama was not an American citizen at birth, is he one now? I think that is a legitimate question. Thanks to the perseverence of Orly Taitz we may some day get an answer although I doubt it. I don't believe the Supreme Court has the stomach for a Constitutional crisis. I recommend Robert Bork's "Slouching Towards Gomorrah."
B. Hussein Obama is not unAmerican because of his religion. He has no religion. He is unAmerican because of the influence of a series of America hating insurrectionists beginning with Frank Marshall Davis when Obama was a teenager on the beach at Waikiki to William Ayers, to Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko. His unAmericanism may also have a congenital basis to boot as his mother was an ultraliberal atheist and his father was a womanising arrogant egomaniac who abandoned his wife and child to end his life in alcoholic suicide. Don't take my word for it. Google "Obama's Mama" for verification from another Afro-American and a real Christian.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
Not at all.
Hey, SilentConsensus,
Not to gang up on you, but I've got a couple of little questions?
Didn't BHO promise to have the "most transparent" administration in history? Yes, he did. He emphasized it while criticizing the previous administration.
So, why is he denying us the opportunity to examine his birth certificate? Why does he have a very active legal team denying the American citizenry a simple, transparent act? Why has he spent hundreds of thousands of dollars (possibly more than $1,000,000) to hide this and his college transcripts?
Was he lying when he said he'd be transparent? Or does this deliberate opacity qualify in your mind as sufficiently transparent?
SC, sadly some of the leaders in early America were pagan. i remember reading a quote where JA and his wife called each other by pagan gods. also jefferson was a luciferian and began the misuse of masonic lodges in America.
jadavison,
I have yet to defend his connections with those people, except that 1. They are overblown and 2. They do not accurately demonstrate his views on the issues at question with them
Mau,
He has allowed us the ability to examine his Certificate of Live Birth. I don't know if his long form birth certificate is in his control, and if it is, I don't know why he'd deny us the opportunity.
I will be the first to say he hasn't been as transparent as he said he would be. Whether it be his broken promise on no lobbyists in his White House (it's beyond the waiver and William Lynn, which I understood) or his broken promise allowing 5 days for public comment before signing or vetoing a bill
danl1985,
That's not relevant. Yes, a lot of our founders were Christian, I don't dispute that. I dispute the idea that we are a Judeo-Christian nation when they worked hard to keep religion OUT of the Constitution, as evidenced by the Establishment, Free Exercise, and No Religious Test clauses.
If people want to practice their own religion, they are protected in their ability to do so provided they don't stop others from practicing theirs. We should not be making laws with religion as their foundation. Doing so inherently infringes on those who have a different religion. As mentioned above, I said the Lutheran school did nothing that should be illegal when they expelled 2 lesbians for being lesbian, even though I personally disagreed with their doing it.
One thing I can't emphasize enough is that the very right one acts on defines the same right in everyone else. If one has a right to force a religion on others, either through law or other coercion, then everybody else has a right to force a religion on everybody else, and then no one really has a right to practice their own religion.
SilentConsensus,
He has not let US examine his Birth Certificate or his college records. He provided a dubious electronic version of the former. He has a cadre of lawyers to prevent us from seeing the original. If I let you see a copy of the Declaration of Independence, would you say that I let you examine it?
Silent Consensus:
Speaking of Thomas Jefferson (and John Adams), during his discussions with the Tripolian Ambassador to Great Britian, Ambassador Adja, concerning the source of the unprovoked animus and aggression emanating from the Barbary states directed at the nascent United States, he extracted the following answer/justification and reported it back to the Continental Congress:
… that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.
John Quincy Adams had a clear understanding of the huge differences between the teachings of Christ and those of the false prophet Mohammed, and their respective results:
On Christianity:
"And he [Jesus] declared, that the enjoyment of felicity in the world hereafter, would be reward of the practice of benevolence here. His whole law was resolvable into the precept of love; peace on earth – good will toward man, was the early object of his mission; and the authoritative demonstration of the immortality of man, was that, which constituted the more than earthly tribute of glory to God in the highest… The first conquest of the religion of Jesus, was over the unsocial passions of his disciples. It elevated the standard of the human character in the scale of existence…On the Christian system of morals, man is an immortal spirit, confined for a short space of time, in an earthly tabernacle. Kindness to his fellow mortals embraces the whole compass of his duties upon earth, and the whole promise of happiness to his spirit hereafter. THE ESSENCE OF THIS DOCTRINE IS, TO EXALT THE SPIRITUAL OVER THE BRUTAL PART OF HIS NATURE." (Adam's capital letters)….[pp. 267-268]
On Islam:
“In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE (Adam's capital letters)….Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant…While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.” [p. 269]
As has been said before, we are in a new stage of a very old war, your particular disliking of Christianity and any influence it has in this country, falsely disguised as it is as a loathing for religion in general, or, its influence on a given society and culture, and its form and processes of government notwithstanding. After all, you're the one who takes the side of your "Muslim friends" over Christian Patriots "any day". But anyway...
how many Muslims do you know, or know of, that will outright publicly condemn the violence of jihadists perpetrated against any and all non-Muslims living in this country and elsewhere? While you may be able to point to a few, I suggest to you that they are very few and far between. One reason for this is because Mohammed's religion interdicts them from doing so, the penalties for which are, by Allah via his prophet ... severe. The other reason, of course, is that they support these acts of unprovoked aggression against non-Muslims; that they've internalized their prophet's teachings, in other words. Which, of course, is to be expected, violent jihad war against all non-Muslims being a fundamental tenet of their religion.
Now, you said in another post concerning abortion and the reason for which women choose to end their (early) pregnancies, and in answer to someone else, that there's nothing wrong with someone acting in their own best interests, or something to that effect. I can agree with you on that point to an extent, which is to say that I agree that there's nothing wrong with a person or a group of persons acting in their own self-interest as long as it isn't harmful to someone else. My problem with you, though, is that you don't apply your own rule consistently when it comes to the Muslim question because you don't seem to be capable of grasping the concept that Islam is inherently incompatible with Western civilization, and thus perpetually at war with it, whereas Christianity is not. Indeed, not only is Christianity not an existential threat to Western civilization, it is an integral part of it, which is to say that Western civilization will most certainly collapse without the influence of genuine Christianity, or, when that influence is dominated or overrun by philosophies of God, man, and government foreign to our own.
As John Quincy Adams stated it in his address to the people of Newburyport on July 4th, 1837:
...is it not that the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior of the World?...
And as America's Schoolmaster, Noah Webster wrote:
"Almost all the civil liberty now enjoyed in the world owes its origin to the ... Christian Religion."
Webster further observed that:
"The brief exposition of the Constitution of the United States will unfold to young persons the principles of republican government;" that it was his "sincere desire that our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian Religion."
George Washington observed in his Farewell Address:
...And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion...
and that,
...It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?
What heretics these men were; what fanatical and loathsome Christian Patriots, eh! Were they reading the same constitution that you and I read, a constitution whose principles they were supposed to be intimately familiar with? They must have skipped over the part about no religious tests and all that, or maybe someone slipped it in there without their notice.
Sorry Silent Consensus, but I lend to them a great deal more credence than I ever will to you and your kind. Anything less would be foolishness on my part, and bordering on treason against my own people, their heritage, and their sacred Constitution.
All I can say to you is this, there's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that interdicts my applying an informal religious test (or a worldview test, as it were) to anyone and everyone whom I'm considering to serve in any capacity under the United States, nor to holding them to it once elected. You seem to think that the Constitution's prohibition in this vein extends to individual citizens and what they consider to be the proper qualifications of their rulers, or that it should so extend, as if that were the form of "religious test" the founders were alluding to in the constitution. That is a fundamental mistake on your part, consistent with your view on hate crimes legislation, or thought control.
As a sincere friend to our species of free government, to borrow Washington's words, I cannot, in good conscience, look with indifference upon your attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric. It is irrational of you to expect it of me.
P.S. With regard to your citing of a single, solitary Muslim individual who distinguished himself on the American side of the Iraq war, you're pointing to the extreme example and trying to project it as the rule. I've insulted many Muslims who are "loyal American citizens?" The hatred towards Jews and Christians and anyone otherwise non-Muslim and out of tune with Islam's religio-political ideology, inherent to the religion of Mohammed insults me. If Muslims take that personally, or if you take that personally, then so be it. Try looking you in the eye...? If I could look you in the eye I would reiterate everything I've already said to you on the subject.
Regarding your complaint against me for simply citing Muslims who believe Obama to be a "natural-conceived" Muslim, take your complaint to the people (Muslims) who hold and profess these beliefs as per their religious teachings. I've already acknowledged that he's not a Muslim as far as I can tell. But that doesn't prevent Muslims from believing he is one of them per paternal inheritance. I'm simply reporting to you facts about the religion of Mohammed that you may be unaware of; facts that distinguish it and its threat to Western civilization, from any other religion in the world
SC, they all realized, despite their religious affiliations, that life is a fundamental moral principle. anyone with an ounce of intelligence and goodness could realize this. we can argue about politics all day, but in the end all the founders realized the importance of human life. it just happens that most of the morals set forth from the beginning are also apart of Christian beliefs. so u can twist it any way u want, but it doesn't change the fact that those principles set forth are found in the Bible.
Terry,
Again, you're wrong. I hate telling people that but when they mischaracterize my views, I feel it's deserved. Yes, some of our principles happen to appear in the Bible as well. That means nothing. Some of our principles are from the Magna Carta too, that doesn't mean the Magna Carta is law in the United States, nor is the Bible.
I never said that the No Religious Test clause extends to individual citizens. The Constitution has no bearing on citizen behavior. From what I've gathered from you, Muslim citizens should automatically be disqualified from serving in government posts. Such thing would only be possible through law, and through making them sign pledges they are not Muslim, and such thing would be against the Clause.
All religions reject reason as a means of gaining knowledge. They all rely on a supernatural being (or beings) dictating reality. They all believe in sacrificing a higher virtue for a lower virtue. All of those views are incompatible. You correctly cite the problems with Islam, but ignore all other religions and their incompatibility. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were members of the Christian Patriots. While they committed the most extreme act when it comes to them, their actions were consistent with the Christian Patriots' ideology.
I realize you believe that someone practicing Islam in their own home, mosque, or office somehow infringes on your religion. How dare we allow them to exercise their own freedom. We're not saying they have a right to impose it on you anymore than you have a right to impose it on them. To say that people practicing their religion within their own sphere and realm of authority infringes on yours is not America
Mau,
People have been able to examine it firsthand. You just haven't gone to where you can.
danl1985,
Yes, life is a fundamental moral principle. You just said anyone with an ounce of intelligence and goodness realizes that, so we don't need religion to realize that.
I know this may be a weird concept to some of you, but The Bible is not the law of the land here in America.
SC,
Are you claiming that the Secretaries of States who validate election results in the individual states were presented with his birth certificate?
I find it somewhat disingenuous that you cite factcheck.org, which is run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center. Annenberg, what is that? Oh yeah, they also ran the Chicago Annenberg Challenge that brought together William Ayers and Barack Obama. So, you want us to believe BHO's frends that, yeah, it's real. Sorry. Are you a dupe or a liar?
Mau,
Nice try to imply guilt by association, let alone it not even being accurate in this case. FactCheck.org and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge both receive/received funding from the Annenberg Foundation. They are in no way related. Chicago Annenberg ended long before FactCheck.org came into being. The only similarity is they've both received funding from the Annenberg Foundation.
But actually, let's employ your logic right now. The University of Oregon Library is named after Phil Knight of Nike, as he made a big contribution to it. Because it's called the Knight Library, it must be run by Phil Knight, and so is Nike, therefore they are both run by the same person. Wrong
Oh, and as a kicker, Walter Annenberg was a prominent Republican and his widow was a McCain supporter. As I can only say so many times, you're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. Unlike you, I'm going to give you the luxury of assuming you were uninformed instead of lying
SC,
You have a problem with English. You cannot say, "They are in no way related," and then go on and tell me how they are related. I was accurate in saying that FactCheck and CAC were run by the same foundation. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you don't seem to be making a good faith effort to argue HONESTLY.
Let me correct your false analogy. The University of Oregon has a Physics Department and a Chemistry Department. Am I to assume that they are completely unrelated BECAUSE they are both at the University of Oregon. That is your argument.
I know who started the Annenberg foundation and I know that he was a Republican. These are complete non sequiturs.
Your last sentence again shows your struggle with the English language. I did not assume you were lying; there was the other alternative.
Let me restate the FACTS. FactCheck is run by the Annenberg Foundation, which is the same foundation that gave BHO a big start in politics/community organizing. He was the head of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge at a time when William Ayers was part of the same group. The "people" (your term) who BHO's campaign let "authenticate" his birth certificate were from FactCheck. This is hardly an unbiased organization and only a fool would argue that they were.
Fact: You did not answer the question, "Are you claiming that the Secretaries of States who validate election results in the individual states were presented with his birth certificate?"
No, FactCheck is run by a center (APPC) that received funding from Annenberg, and so is CAC. Annenberg Foundation does not run FactCheck. Simply a demand that since they provided a generous donation, it be named after them. That's it. Annenberg doesn't run and didn't run either of them, they simply sponsored and endowed them. Annenberg has sponsored plenty of educational initiatives, none of them are related. Anyone who thinks the Annenberg Foundation runs such projects doesn't know what the Annenberg Foundation is.
You know, like how the Minnesota Timberwolves play at the Target Center because Target sponsored them in their pursuit of a stadium. By your logic, Target runs the Timberwolves. But, they don't, although they might do a better job than Kevin McHale and his stupid decisions.
FactCheck is very unbiased and anyone who argues otherwise clearly hasn't read enough of their stuff. They've never protected Barack Obama if you look at what they've written.
and to answer your last question, no I am not claiming it and have never implied it. Are you claiming that the Secretaries of States who validate election results are presented with everyone else's birth certificate?
There is legal precedent is California if the candidates qualification is challenged, he must prove it.
Getting back to APPC and CAC, both were funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation throughout their lives, but factcheck is not run by them?
As for them being unbiased, their site has twelve stories on the front page as of today. Every one is pro-democrat or very liberal. But that is a diversion. No Annenberg project is qualified to determine the validity of a birth certificate and hence their qualification for office. Why has BHO not released his birth certificate? Why did his lawyers fight it in California? Why is he fighting it in the Quo Warranto cases brought by service members? For someone who claims to be informed and informative, you don't seem to be very curious.
Correct. Annenberg does not run the various projects. It finds projects it likes and sponsors/endows them. They have given money to over 5,200 projects totaling $8.2 billion. FactCheck also gets money from the Flora Family Foundation, but that's neither here nor there.
I fail to see why a COLB is not enough. Annenberg has examined it firsthand and all the claims challenging its validity (no bumped-up seal, no signature, etc...) have all been shot down.
Ok, I don't think anyone's qualified to determine his eligibility unless they were present at his birth. How much further do you want to go?
Silent Consensus,
By your reasoning no one is qualified to determine the guilt or innocence of someone charged with a crime unless they were there to witness it. And we know how unreliable witnesses can be at times, none of which keeps us from going forward seeking justice whether we have a particular stake in the outcome or not. But as our founders pointed out time and time again, a law or a provision implies the means to enforce it. Otherwise it is of no value to anyone.
SC,
Did you know the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary? I noticed you're no longer claiming that FactCheck and CAC are not related. Now FactCheck just isn't run by Annenberg. I suppose your change of rhetoric is tacit admission that they are related.
Regardless, the COLB, whether it is enough or not, was examined by a non-authority. This just in: No Annenberg related organization has the authority to certify eligibility requirements for candidates. Once again, the lawsuits filed in California have cited legal precedent that candidates eligibility must be established by the Secretaries of State.
Since you're slow on the uptake, I'll repeat that California's Secretary of State is not related to or run by FactCheck or APPC.
Every blog has at least one Silent Consensus. They are invariably anonymous and in all probablity have never contributed anything of note to society in their entire lives. You see, if they had they would be using their real names and presenting their credentials for all to admire.
It is easy to believe isn't it?
Terry,
I realize it's hard to read sarcasm, as I've been fooled at times, but that's what it was. I don't disagree with anything you said
Mau,
They are not related. The only similarity they have is having received money from Annenberg Foundation. Having a similarity =/= are related. It was not a change in rhetoric, I was simply refuting the idea that they are similar because they're both run by Annenberg Foundation. They aren't.
SC,
I guess, according to you, my sister and I aren't related merely because we have the same parents.
Regardless, Annenberg has no authority in this case. The Secreataries of States do. So why has BHO not submitted his birth certificate to them? Why spend upwards of $1,000,000 to prevent authorities from examining a $12.50 piece of paper? BHO has demonstrated a knack for lying as you admit about his obvious lack of transparency. But, yeah, your right -- this completely irrational act is the mark of honesty and integrity.
Mau,
That is a ridiculous comparison and I'm prepared to say I know you are smarter than that but you just know the stupid people aren't and will fall for it.
The only similarity they share is they have gotten sponsored from the same charitable organization. A much better comparison would be to link two entities who have gotten a contribution from the same person. Donald Trump gave money to both the Kerry and Bush campaign, doesn't mean the campaigns were related.
Regardless, Annenberg is not and never was in bed with Obama. They sponsored an educational cause (as part of $500 million in educational grants in 1993, by the way) that Obama coincidentally was a part of way back when, and they sponsored what is now APPC which runs FactCheck.org. This in no way implies any conflict of interest. Neither of them were started by Annenberg. Neither of them have been run by Annenberg. They were started by people with an idea and Annenberg provided money to get it off the ground.
Annenberg has never tried to influence anything FactCheck has written. Even if we assumed they have, I highly doubt Leonore Annenberg would have them write with a bias toward Obama when she supported McCain. Either way the notion that they are in bed with Obama fails.
The fact that McCain, clearly a left-leaning politician, was chosen as the Republican candidate in the first place was nothing more than a scheme to get the far left into office.
Sometimes I'm tempted to think that Silent Consensus is just really too dumb to realize how far left such public institutions as the "official" media and "leading" candidates have swung in the last few decades. There is a certain uncritical bluster in each of his posts that would tend to suggest mental limitations. But I'm pretty sure those limitations are self-imposed. Or, more probably, pretended.
I do need to make a correction.
"The fact that McCain, clearly a left-leaning politician..."
Should read, "The fact that McCain, clearly a left-leaning politician compared to me..."
Yes, McCain is left-leaning compared to Ambassador Keyes and other people on this forum. He is anti-torture, pro-stem cell research, pro-amnesty, pro-combatting global warming, anti-Federal Marriage Amendment, anti-estate tax expiration, and pro-prescription drug importation. Those are positions which happen to overlap with liberalism, some with conservative justification. The only ones I'd say he has liberal justification for is stem cell research, amnesty, and against estate tax expiration. The rest can be justified on conservative grounds, just like Ambassador Keyes and his position on trade overlaps with some liberals, but he's not liberal on trade.
But, if you stop looking at the spectrum from where you are at and start looking at it from outside, you will see that McCain leans to the right.
That aside. I highly doubt that those who supported McCain in the general election did so because they wanted Barack Obama in office. And this is completely irrelevant to the original point anyway: FactCheck.org is not biased toward Obama and especially not due to Annenberg.
And Chiu, I have never attacked you or questioned your sincerity on this forum. If anything leads you to believe otherwise, I apologize. I would appreciate the same standard of civility from you that you can expect from me. And I realize it's hard to find someone with liberal ideology who relies on logic to the extent I do.
Chiu wrote:
Sometimes I'm tempted to think that Silent Consensus is just really too dumb to realize how far left such public institutions as the "official" media and "leading" candidates have swung in the last few decades.
Hear, hear! Recall that Colin Powell was favorably quoted in this discussion from his Meet the Press appearance in which he endorsed Hussein Obama for president. Powell observed in that interview that the Republican party had begun to move too far to the right and that he was disturbed by this.
Anyone that actually believes that the Republican party has moved to the right over the last several years is living in a whole 'nother reality. The truth of the matter is that the republicans have moved steadily to the left while Powell and Co. have moved in the same direction at an accelerated pace. It all boils down to Powell's sense of relative motion. To him the republicans appear to be moving to the right, when in reality they're steadily on pace moving to the left along with him, just more slowly.
Dr. Keyes,
I note that beneath the comments to this entry you've managed to attract the attention of the leftist organization "People for the American way," as well as a left wing blogger who declares your site to be "hate-filled."
What a wonderful all-purpose word the word hate-filled is among leftists. They can barely write down a sentence about anyone to the right of themselves without employing the word hate or some derivative thereof.
Next thing you know your site will be linked up at the "Southern Poverty Law Center," well known and well respected in the leftist world for "keeping an eye on the radical right." It'll be interesting to see how many times they use the word "hate" and its many derivatives in their soon to be published report (I'm sure) referencing this site.
Silent Consensus wrote:
Terry,
I realize it's hard to read sarcasm, as I've been fooled at times, but that's what it was. I don't disagree with anything you said.
Okay, it was sarcasm. I can go along with that. I probably should have paid closer attention to what you were saying and the manner in which you were saying it. But next time give us a wink or a nod or something; some indication that you're intentionally being sarcastic. :-)
And by the way, I should have said in the final sentence of my reply to your statements, instead of "Otherwise it is of no value to anyone," rather "Otherwise it and that from whence it proceeds --in this case the Constitution and the form of government it establishes-- is of no value to anyone.
Now, I'm personally not of the variety who enjoys seeing the overused "unconstitutional" bandied about all of the time from the right or the left. My personal opinion on that is that the constitution can be read and interpreted in any variety of ways, and thus made to seem consistent with virtually any philosophy of government that we can squeeze into the form of a "republic." I personally and generally prefer the term "extra-constitutional", a term which seems to me to generally be a more accurate descriptive.
I mean, the constitution isn't in and of itself the "Supreme law of the land" as many people (wrongly in my opinion) suggest. No; the supreme law of the land, by the very words of the constitution itself is "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States,... (emphasis mine). Which to me is an important distinction to make, because it is in the italicized portion of the statement declaring constitutional supremacy that most of the disagreement between Americans resides, not within the statement that the constitution is the supreme law. What is most important in the statement, in other words (at least to my way of thinking), is what kinds of laws and treaties and so forth We the People think or determine to be consistent with the "pursuance thereof."
You and I, of course, come at that from different points of view.
SC,
Besides your curious denials of affiliation between BHO and Annenberg, only to contradict yourself in the very next sentence ("Annenberg is not and never was in bed with Obama . . . [they just gave the organization he was the chairman of a half billion dollars]"), this is, once again, irrelevant.
Let me repeat: No Annenberg related organization has the authority to certify eligibility requirements for candidates. Once again, the lawsuits filed in California have cited legal precedent that candidates eligibility must be established by the Secretaries of State.
Is it Dr. Keyes or Ambassador Keyes, or either?
SC,
You're stuck on the relationship between BHO, FactCheck and Annenberg. Besides you giving evidence for the relationships between the three (immediately after denying any relationship), you ignore the important point -- Annenberg and FactCheck are not qualified to determine whether his COLB is valid and sufficient.
The individual Secretaries of States (who certify election results) are. So, why has BHO fought tooth-and-nail to prevent the legitimate authorities from ever seeing his birth certificate? Why has he spent upwards of $1,000,000 fighting to prevent any real authority from seeing a piece of paper that costs $12.50 and would end his legal costs in this matter?
Given BHO's promise for transparency and his obvious breaking of that promise (as you've admitted), why would you trust him?
Mau,
Are you misreading what I'm saying or taking me out of context? It's one or the other. I never said they gave CAC a half a billion dollars. I just said they contributed a half a billion dollars to educational causes and CAC was within that. Reread what I said closer and I have no contradiction.
Where is proof that he's fought to prevent authority from seeing his long form? I have yet to see proof from any credible source. As far as trusting vs. not trusting Obama, I don't have full trust in any politician, and he's no exception.
Oh yeah...the Southern Poverty Law Center...you know one time I wrote them asking if they knew any good militias I could join? They never wrote me back, for some reason.
Why aren't there any good militias? It's like one of those basic duties of a patriotic citizen, according to the Founding Fathers. I content myself with going shooting with my brothers and such occasionally, but it seems like a proper militia should be more...regulated, perhaps? The army was fun, but I really understand the basic suspicion of an organization that ultimately answers to the government rather than the people. Of course half the people I ever go shooting with are currently in the military. Even if the organization is controlled by the government, the soldiers are just regular guys.
Well, given that I don't personally own any serious firearms (just a little .22, though it is pretty nice), I suppose I could personally do a bit more...but I'm actually kinda lazy. Also, I hear that the gun-stores are all sold out anyway. Of course that makes me paranoid that maybe everyone else has started a militia and just not invited me.
Or...militias are just so unfashionable that everybody just settles for old army buddies. Unfortunately I was never Reserve or Guard so I don't live near anyone I knew in the Army. Also, being a peacetime army, we were more like co-workers than brothers-in-arms. I guess that I'm lucky to have actual armed brothers, in that case.
SC,
Are you aware that Dr. Keyes is party in at least two lawsuits? You should ask him who's fighting against him in court?
Last I saw there have been at least 19 brought to court, not all of which BHO has had to directly defend. Many were denied on technicalities -- like claiming the suer does not have standing. To prove standing, military personnel are now suing, demanding quo warranto.
Phillip Berg's, a Democrat, has three suits against BHO. I believe the first one was denied due to standing. But it looks like he is demanding quo warranto also.
So, to answer your question, my proof is that BHO's personal attorney, Robert Bauer, is arguing against Phillip Berg's case now. He has also argued some of the other cases (some of which, I'll admit, were poorly reasoned by the plaintiffs). I believe (and if Dr. Keyes is still monitoring this post) that Bauer and the DNC are also the ones fighting him in court.
One very funny thing about your claim to not trust any politician: Boy, you've parroted the BHO party line perfectly throughout this post. It's so obvious that you are a healthy skeptic of BHO that you accept without qualification everything he claims. Typical liberal -- say one thing, do the exact opposite. Once again, why has BHO fought these requests tooth-and-nail?
I don't repeat party lines. You'll notice nearly everything I have said here is fact. I can't speak for why he's fought these requests, because only he knows
Chiu wrote:
Oh yeah...the Southern Poverty Law Center...you know one time I wrote them asking if they knew any good militias I could join? They never wrote me back, for some reason.
That's pretty funny. But speaking of the hate obsessed SPLC, you might be interested in, if you've not seen it yet, the architectural monstrosity that is its headquarters.
My apologies to readers for embedding the wrong link in my preceding post. Here is the right one.
I guess I can sorta see the "Poverty" "Center" part....
ALAN,
THE BARACALDO FAMILY HERE IN MIAMI, FL just love and pray for you.
WE LOVE U AND THANK GOD FOR YOU BEING IN THIS WORLD.
GOD BLESS YOU
Post a Comment
Be advised that this comment section is moderated in order to assure respect for civil proprieties. Posts that use obscenities, scurrilous epithets or that are gratuitously disrespectful of others will be removed ASAP. If you think a comment offensive in this way, report it in an email to alan@loyaltoliberty.com.