51 Comments

• 1. bagni  |  February 14th, 2008 at 12:48 am

  markbama:
  sadly….your system ‘works’
  that’s why hilary, barack, mccain, romney, giuliani, huckabee, bush, clinton, etc
  all signed up for it
  but as usual…my black hole bewilderment?
  if you’re true to your values
  you’ll vote for who…..ron paul? or dennis k.??
  i don’t get it
  but surely you’ll clarify?

• 2. McLame '08!!!  |  February 14th, 2008 at 5:45 am

  Wait a minute, Mark–Earbama insists, at every lemming rally he holds, that he’s an outsider who doesn’t kowtow to special interests.

  Surely this clean, articulate African American–Biden’s words, not mine–can’t be bamboozling his starry-eyed minions. He’s the messiah; he doesn’t lie.

  Two more issues to support McLame for–health care and taxes. Hillbama will socialize health care, education, and industry. And what will this do to your taxes?

• 3. searp  |  February 14th, 2008 at 6:48 am

  Contrast Obama’s words:

  “I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper – that makes us one people, and one nation.”

  with the words in the post. Now decide who has the better view of the country. The rhetoric of the post is exclusionary, partisan and mean spirited. Fine, you have your views, but I do not think they will convince anyone who isn’t already convinced.

• 4. neocon  |  February 14th, 2008 at 8:49 am

  searp,

  So a raised Muslim and converted Christian is now invoking a reference to an Old Testament passage; Gensis iv, Am I my brothers keeper?, and not a word from our secular liberals?

  Unbelievable!!!!!!!!!

• 5. Some Assembly Required  |  February 14th, 2008 at 8:52 am

  “Barack is my keeper - but I am not a lawyer, not an investment banker, not a school union official, not a government bureaucrat…just where is my seat at my brother’s table?”

  Funny Mark, I seem to remember Obama breaking records for campaign donations from working class people. People who hold down two jobs or more to get by, but still manage to send him money from $10 - $100. Close on $10 million total to date if I’m not mistaken. So much so, Hillary had to inject $5 million of her own money just to keep up.

  I find it funny, you really must be scared of Obama by how you’ve shifted your articles completely on picking him apart. The sad part is most of it is spin, taking something he said and wording it to make him sound bad. I seem to remember you deleting a post and citing the same excuse a few days ago. Like I said, funny.

  I see very little articles on McCain, how great he is or what he can possibly accomplish aside from being the republican candidate. Your objective mindset continues to amaze me.

• 6. neocon  |  February 14th, 2008 at 9:00 am

  SAR,

  You’re hypocritical failure to be concerned about the blatant religious reference and his religious connections really amazes me. Proving that liberals drama queen concern over seperation of church and state is much like their sympathy for loss of innocent life; hollow.

• 7. NeoClown  |  February 14th, 2008 at 9:28 am

  It is only fitting that Obama quote the Bible for he may be the new Black Messiah.

  http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/archives/008679.php

• 8. Some Assembly Required  |  February 14th, 2008 at 9:31 am

  Con,

  I take no stalk in religion, though I respect any persons right to belief. However that being said, many management training seminars and such use Jesus Christ and some scripture. These seminars use it in the form of showing true leadership and how to inspire. Religion and belief have nothing to do with the fact that the man was an excellent example of a leader and motivator.

• 9. neocon  |  February 14th, 2008 at 9:32 am

  Obama, the inexperienced Trinity Christian Taliban candidate who wants to be my keeper vs McCain, the secular, experienced patriotic war hero who wants to keep America safe.

  Good luck.

• 10. neocon  |  February 14th, 2008 at 9:33 am

  Nice spin SAR. Unlike you though, I believe in seperation of church and state. Sorry. You might be more comfortable in a theocratic nation.

• 11. extramedium  |  February 14th, 2008 at 9:41 am

  “Barack is my keeper - but I am not a lawyer, not an investment banker, not a school union official, not a government bureaucrat…”

  Neither am I - so what is your point? Are you waiting for Barack to reach out to Christian Conservatives? And what if he did? You wont vote for him anyway.

  As a committed partisan, your job is to think of 10,000 ways to knock the man down between now and November (assuming he’s nominated). I guess this is just one of them, albeit weak.

• 12. Some Assembly Required  |  February 14th, 2008 at 9:43 am

  Con,

  We agree on something. The seperation of church and state is written in the constitution. I never once implied I’m for a theocratic nation.

• 13. Rana Quijotesca  |  February 14th, 2008 at 10:07 am

  Don’t worry, SOR… He likes to read things that people don’t say into their comments… get used to it.

  I could definitely do without the religious rhetoric, but the fact of the matter is that it is just rhetoric. Who would you trust not to have theocratic tendencies: someone who appeals to a culturally significant book or someone who buddies up to the likes of Jerry Falwell and give speeches at the dominionist Liberty University? More trouble I have with McCain… why would he cozy up to people like Falwell only a few years after calling people like Falwell “agents of intolerance”?

  I rarely vote for people in elections… my views just don’t line up with either of the parties… but I try to look beyond rhetoric when deciding who I vote against.

  Perhaps you should too…

• 14. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche  |  February 14th, 2008 at 10:14 am

  Isn’t it funny how liberals and conservatives read the bible.

  Liberals focus on it’s morals of proactive solution while conservatives seem to favor it’s punitive prohibitions.

  Very interesting…

• 15. Some Assembly Required  |  February 14th, 2008 at 10:29 am

  Rana,

  I’m beginning to notice. I’m just trying to sort through the mess and find which candidate best matches my views. I’m liberal on some issues, but conservative on others. So far I’m leaning towards Obama but if he doesn’t get the nomination I’m really not sure. On the bright side, theres a lot of time between now and the GE to get to know each candidate

• 16. Almiranta  |  February 14th, 2008 at 10:48 am

  SAR says: “The seperation of church and state is written in the constitution. ”

  Where? In the body of the original Constitution itself, in the Bill of Rights, in the other amendments—where?

  My own version says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Doesn’t say a thing about government and religion being “separate”, just that there can’t be anything to interfere with the free exercise of worship as the individual sees fit, and that the State cannot estabish a religion.

  If you extend that last sentence of mine to mean that the State can’t support any religion over any other, I can go along with that. But allowing religion to peacefully co-exist with government, respecting it and its role in life, yet not allowing it to dictate law or the business of government, hardly seems to be unconstitutional—yet it seems to rankle the anti-religionists.

  Naturally there is a little overlap of Christian philsophy and our law—any law has its basic roots in some kind of religious philosophy. Sharia law, for example, is based on a rigid interpetation of Muslim precepts. Aside from the hard-core communists of old, I can’t think of any legal system which is not or has not been based on the religious philsophy of that civilzation. Our legal system is clearly based on the Judeo-Christian model—but it is on an overall philosophy, not on any specific religion.

  I am concerned about the new Liberal focus on “theocracy”—when a word starts popping up here with such regularity, it usually means it is being used extensively in the far-Left indoctrination machinery, a la Airhead America and the Daily Kos.

  But now, as the field narrows, what do we have in that field to concern the anti-religionists regarding the looming threat of a “theocracy”? McCain has never made his religious beliefs a big part of his political identity–as a matter of fact, although I assume his religion is based on the Christian philosophy, I have no idea what it is. Hillary has used religion when and where it was necessary, appearing at church services, piously praying with Bill and his collection of various ministers to seek God’s guidance about how to handle the sex scandals that plagued him and even campaigning in churches, yet she has never seemed to depend on a religious identity.

  That leaves Barack Obama, who has increasingly structured his public speaking to evoke the passion and evangelical fervor of an old-time tent revival, who has openly spoken of his desire to restore “the Kingdom” to America, and whose religious identity calls for far more scrutiny that that of the other two. His entire style is truly Messianic, and that does bother me—as it would if his core political stance was conservative.

  While I want religon to be accepted and respected, while I have no problem with allowing children to pray in school if they want to, or the words “In God We Trust” on our currency, or crosses in public, or creches on public property at CHRISTmas, I don’t want leaders elected BECAUSE of their religion or religious beliefs—-and that includes Mike Huckabee, whose dependence on his ‘evangelical’ identity always bothered me even though I never sensed a desire to impose “theocracy”.

  Furthermore, I am more than a little creeped out by the religious-like fervor of an Obama revival—the weeping, the raising of hands in ecstatic bliss, the sobbing and calling out in response to his programmmed challenges—-he seems to have everything working except speaking in tongues.

  His followers also show a zeal much more like religious fervor than political conviction, and the passionate conversion to Obamaism has a lot more of the belief system (faith) to it than political analysis. It’s all emotion, smoke and mirrors, and Magical Thinking, and like true faith cannot be objectively proved but is taken as truth and made a part of that person’s self.

  Those who are truly concerned about any religion or religious identity intruding too far into government must, if they have any consistency at all, take a hard look at Obama and what he truly represents.

• 17. Mark Noonan  |  February 14th, 2008 at 10:53 am

  extra,

  But it is Barack who says he wants to end the divisions between red America and blue America and be President of the United States of America…it is he, Obama, who is claiming a desire to reach across to me…where is his support among conservative Christian groups? Where is his support among NRA members? Where is his support among the pro-life community?

  Get the picture? He doesn’t want to unite - he wants to be far left in policy, bought-and-paid for by the traditional money of the left and just make noises about unifying the nation. He’s made not even the first step towards reconciling the right to an Obama Administration - and, of course, he doesn’t have to…but he says he wants to. So, what is it? Is he telling the truth about his desire to unite, or is he lying just to secure moderate votes in November?

• 18. Mark Noonan  |  February 14th, 2008 at 11:18 am

  SAR,

  Yeah, whatever you want to believe - according to Open Secrets, Obama has received nearly $10 million from lobbyists and one of his largest “sector” of donations comes from “Finance, Insurance & Real Estate” - these are not traditionally noted for large numbers of working class people. In voting, we find that Obama scores some of his best vote totals amongst rich white people (can you say “liberal guilt”, boys and girls?).

  Now, there’s nothing particularly wrong with where Obama is getting his money and votes from - I’m not someone who says that a certain group (”lobbyists” or “insurance companies” eg) are evil and must be forced out of politics - I’m very much a “come on in!”, sort of guy as far as this goes. But Obama says he’s going to end the influence of lobbyists and he’s going to break the power of money and influence…meanwhile, he’s pocketing checks from lobbyists and other rich groups as if he’s not going to be going to the well in 2011 (supposing he gets elected this year) for the same money…meaning he WILL lend an ear to lobbyist and other rich concerns during a putative Obama Administration.

  We’re beginning to see the outlines of Obama’s “change” - just another liberal who’s going to spend a lot of money and say he’s doing it for the people all the while the money being spent is really going to line the pockets of the well-heeled special interest groups who finanaced the campaign for “change”. That wouldn’t be so bad - we can tolerate another Clinton on that level - but it is bad that Obama has already pledged himself to surrender in the War on Terrorism…given the hypocrisy of his message of “change” and the foolishness of his war policy, we can’t do other than fight against him.

• 19. Almiranta  |  February 14th, 2008 at 11:19 am

  Rana illustrates the quixotic nature of many Leftists—the either/or quality of much of their rhetoric.

  Take Falwell, for example. He can easily have a lot to bring to the table, regarding political acumen, insight, or ideas—-and also be somewhat intolerant. How funny to see such a shining example of intolerance complain about intolerance on the other side. But that’s not the point. The point is, it is not necessarily hypocritical to agree with people on some issues and not on others, to praise people for some positions and criticize them for others. There is no requirement for slavish adherence to total acceptance of anyone’s political or personal views—on the contrary, such rigidity would cripple one whose goal is to lead.

  Nutsy-is-Putzy gives a typically self-serving viewpoint of how his side is GOOD and our side is BAD when he lectures us: “Liberals focus on it’s morals of proactive solution while conservatives seem to favor it’s punitive prohibitions.”

  First, conservatives favor decent education, in which people can actually learn how to use the apostrophe.

  Second, his point of view is simply his point of view, which of course has him and his ilk as the heroes and the Other Guy as the villain. Typically simple-minded pap, but I’ll bet it made him feel really really superior—and isn’t that what it’s all about for some people?

  The Bible (always capitalized) is a very complex compilation of information from widely divergent eras, civilizations, and even religious orientations. It spans early Judaism and goes on into the beginnings of the basis of the Christian philosophy, on which our Christian religions are based.

  A question which arises when pious and self-serving liberals quote the Bible to support some of their goals is—where in the Bible (from any era, from any religion, from any civilzation) does it say to take from others and give to the poor? My own readings–far from comprehensive, I admit—-tell us that WE—individuals—must be generous, must reach out to the less fortunate, must be charitable. I’ve just never found the place where it says that we can, as individuals, feel that we have honored the Word of God merely by taking away what belongs to OTHER PEOPLE and handing THAT out to the poor.

  A lot of us see the Bible as instruction on how to live OUR lives, not as permission to dictate how other people live THEIR lives. What Nutzy refers to as “proactive solutions” seems to have no pressure on any individual to simply live HIS life in a Godly manner, to offer HIS hand in help and friendship and love to whomever needs it, to share HIS goods with the less fortunate. No, Nutzy’s slant is pretty clearly that HIS version of “proactive solutions” is to tell OTHER people what THEY are supposed to do—-to meet Nutzy’s definitions—and to take their property away from them because the Nutzys are somehow better qualified (or more morally superior) to decide how that property should be distributed.

  Religious conservatives (and not all are, not by a long shot..) believe in personal responsiblity, and don’t see how they can take any credit for acts which they do not, themselves, do. Religious conservatives don’t see the Bible as a direction to confiscate the goods of others for redistribution, but as instruction on how they, themselves, as individuals, must live their own lives. Conservatives, religious or not, fail to see the redemptive power of giving away anything that was not theirs to begin with.

  So don’t be quoting the Bible at us, or even referencing it, until you can quote specific passages which contradict the words of Jesus when he told us to give to God what is God’s and to Caesar what is Caesar’s, words that have been traditionally interpreted to mean that men were supposed to do their own religious duty apart from their civic duty.

  Now who is it, again, who seems to be saying that in this case the State is supposed to act as a surrogate for the individual in performing acts of charity?

  I get so confused when the radical Left shuns religion and then out of the other side of its mouth tries to use the Bible to support its confiscatory policies. Aren’t YOU the guys reading “separation of church and state” into a document that doesnt’ include those words?

• 20. Some Assembly Required  |  February 14th, 2008 at 11:38 am

  Alm,

  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

  if congress makes a law defining religion, the state then determines that said religion. Since the state determines it, that said religion then would control the state. This is where separation of church and state is written into the constitution though it is not completely spelled out for you.

• 21. Some Assembly Required  |  February 14th, 2008 at 11:43 am

  Mark,

  I’m not debating the fact he receives money from lobbyist and such, that would be ridiculous. I’m just simply stating that public donations to his campaign have been breaking records. This is something you cannot refute. And so, he receives millions from the general public which also means by your standards he would have to ‘lend an ear’ to the general public as well.

• 22. Mark Noonan  |  February 14th, 2008 at 11:55 am

  SAR,

  If he’s breaking records on common people making donations, then the record he’s breaking is President Bush’s from 2004…and yet the left is convinced that President Bush is tool of Big Oil…so, won’t Obama be a tool of Big Lobby?

• 23. Some Assembly Required  |  February 14th, 2008 at 12:12 pm

  Mark,

  That remains to be seen though it is a valid point. There is no way of confirming or denying it unless he holds office. Though I suspect he will help lobbyist’s where he can but not at the expense of the people. If he were to become a tool of big lobby then I highly doubt he’d hold office for a day more than 4 years.

  Also, you label him very liberal, so by definition he would be more for throwing money into health care and social securities as opposed to further privatization. Which would go against the wishes of big lobby. Assuming of course he is a politician who keeps his word.

• 24. MorrisMajor  |  February 14th, 2008 at 12:13 pm

  Gee, either you are just parroting some pap that some other con fed you or you have some amazing powers of long distance mind reading. How can you say something as stupid as brothers = trial lawyers and lay any claim to any intelligence and integrity?

• 25. Diana Powe  |  February 14th, 2008 at 12:16 pm

  Almiranta,

  Apparently you feel put upon by the legislative back-and-forth over the history of the nation that has led the “promote the general welfare” phrase from the preamble of the Constitution to serve as a rationale for social welfare programs because it appears that you view any and all forms of taxation as simply confiscation of your property. So, you have a point of view. However, that point of view is not the currently ascendant one.

  The same preamble to the Constitution says that it is intended to “provide for the common defence”. So, what is the “strict constructionist” interpretation of that phrase? Does that mean that the Constitution mandates that the United States spend as much on its defense budget as all the rest of the world combined? Personally, I believe that taking my tax money and giving it to Boeing and Lockheed Martin to pay more than $350 million dollars per unit for the F-22 aircraft is completely fiscally irresponsible.

  However, that’s what a representative government does. The idea that somehow defense spending is always good (when was the last time a mainstream candidate ever campaigned for reducing the defense budget) but social welfare is always bad is illogical and inconsistent with the fact that there are always competing interests for money. If you don’t want competing interests then just don’t allow the government to collect any taxes. However, it would be interesting to read an explanation of how a nation would operate solely on donated funds.

• 26. Mark Noonan  |  February 14th, 2008 at 12:18 pm

  Morris,

  Er, because we Christians consider everyone to be our brothers and sisters…Obama is a Christian, as I am, and that means even the lobbyists are his brothers, as they are mine.

• 27. Mark Noonan  |  February 14th, 2008 at 12:20 pm

  SAR,

  Indeed it would remain to be seen - but I’d prefer it not remain to be seen…so, we’ll work on beating him in 2008 so he can run for Governor of Illinois in 2010 and then we can see how he actually does in an executive position before we entrust him with the mightiest office in the world…

• 28. TiredofLibBullShit  |  February 14th, 2008 at 12:27 pm

  SAR,

  the clause was written to protect the church from government not the other way around.

  Read the Essays from our founding fathers. The reason that was explicitly written in the Constitution was the fact that those who came here sought religious freedom. A place where they were not forced to belong to the Church of England - the official religion of the country made so by law.

  Don’t give the first amendment the liberal spin.

• 29. Some Assembly Required  |  February 14th, 2008 at 12:30 pm

  Mark,

  I do believe you and your party maybe able to beat Clinton in 2008. But you’ll really have to pull one out of your hat to beat Obama if he is the dem. nominee. His supporters are like he says ‘Fired up and Ready to go’. Not to mention, he’s already been involved in a scandal which he handled with maturity and Grace. In my opinion, the style of politics which republicans currently take part in will not work against Obama. Clinton tried, and he’s making her look like a fool.

• 30. Some Assembly Required  |  February 14th, 2008 at 12:38 pm

  “the clause was written to protect the church from government not the other way around.”

  In protecting the church from the government you also protect the government from the church. how’s that for spin. Wait, I’ll beat you to it, I’m a Useful Idiot, got it, moving on…

  And sure early settlers moved there because they didn’t want to belong to the church of England which was at the time heavily involved in stately affairs… hmmmm. But you also forget Europe also sent over criminals so they would know longer have to deal with them in their society.

• 31. Tractatus  |  February 14th, 2008 at 12:44 pm

  But it is Bush who said he wants to end the divisions between red America and blue America and be President of the United States of America…it is he, Bush, who claimed a desire to reach across to me…where is his support among anybody who’s not a hardcore conservative Christian?

  Get the picture? He doesn’t want to unite - he wants to be far right in policy, bought-and-paid for by the traditional money of the right and just make noises about unifying the nation.

• 32. extramedium  |  February 14th, 2008 at 1:16 pm

  “Get the picture? He doesn’t want to unite - he wants to be far left in policy…”

  I take him at his word that does want to mend some of the old partisan wounds and bring the nation together, if only just a little. Even so, only a fool would expect him to court the far right during the campaign. Think about it. Did Bush campaign on a strategy of offering amnesty to illegal immigrants during the 2004 campaign? Of course not…but that didn’t stop him from advocating it once he’d been elected.

  Be patient. I’m sure you’ll like something about Obama after he’s elected- just like I appreciated Bush’s moderate stance on immigration.

• 33. Almiranta  |  February 14th, 2008 at 3:08 pm

  The 10th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America:

  “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

  While it is a cherished belief of the Left that the phrase “promote the general welfare” which was part of the original Constitution really means that the State was in charge of the “general welfare” of its citizens, this assignment of such reponsibility and power to the Federal government goes against every writing, every statement, every action of the Founding Fathers.

  And in 1791, not all that long after the original Constitution was ratified, while the Founding Fathers were still tweaking it, the 10th Amendment was ratified—the amendment which clearly states that powers of the federal government have to be clearly delegated, and that anything not so delegated is the purview of the individual states—”OR TO THE PEOPLE”.

  They didn’t even say that the individual states had to do everything—a lot is the responsibility OF THE PEOPLE.

  If we can agree that the Constitution owes much of its structure and content to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, (which I can’t count on, as Diana seems determined to never agree with me on anything….) then perhaps a quick look at some of their own comments might illustrate what they intended.

  Let’s start with comments specific to that very phrase:
  …………………………………….

  “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
  -Thomas Jefferson
  ……………………………………………..

  James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
  “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
  …………………………………………

  But they had more to say on the subject, as it was an important one, and central to the very Constitution they had worked so hard to craft.

  “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
  -Thomas Jefferson, 1816
  ………………………………………………

  “A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
  -Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801
  ………………………………………..

  In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
  -James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)
  ………………………………………………..

  “…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
  -James Madison
  ……………………………………….

  “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.” James Madison, “Letter to Edmund Pendleton,”
  -James Madison, January 21, 1792
  ……………………………………………

  So, Diana the Red, please explain to us your own perception of the phrase “to promote the general good” in relation to the explicitly stated opinions OF THOSE WHO WROTE THE DAMNED THING IN THE FIRST PLACE.

  Sorry to let actual facts and history get in the way of a perfectly good Socialist rant, but that’s the way it goes………..

• 34. Joel  |  February 14th, 2008 at 3:13 pm

  SAR

  And the freedom lovers became Republicans and the criminals became liberals. What is your point?

  What will be the official religion in Obama’s kingdom? Will we berequired to worship God, Jesus, Elihom, Moham, Alah Budah, Ra, Satan, Karl Marx….?

  Is his kingdom of the world, or is it yet to come? Last I heard, in order to have a Kingdom, you need a King. Who will that be? Who will sit at his right hand, the seat of power and might?

  The answer to these and other questions are yet to come.

• 35. Almiranta  |  February 14th, 2008 at 3:18 pm

  SAR, when you say, regarding the first phrase of the 1st Amendment; “if congress makes a law defining religion, the state then determines that said religion. Since the state determines it, that said religion then would control the state. This is where separation of church and state is written into the constitution though it is not completely spelled out for you…” you might be dancing around the meaning.

  Surely the State can “define” anything it chooses to define. The government can define, or determine, something as a religion without granting any control whatsoever to that religion.

  There is a vast chasm between “defining” something and “establishing” something, and an equal gap between acknowledging something and granting it control.

  For example, I “define” radical Liberalism, but I do not “establish” it, nor does my admission that it exists and my definiton of it mean it has the power to govern me in any way.

  I’m curious about your assertion that to “define” or even to “determine” means to cede control or power.

  The first amendment is written to make sure that no religion can control the government.

  It has nothing whatsoever to do with the State acknowledging religion, respecting religion, allowing open displays of religion, or any of the other invented restrictions the radical Left is trying so hard to impose upon us.

  On one hand, it is about preventing religion from controlling the government, and on the other it is about allowing religion to flourish and guaranteeing the right to worship as one chooses.

  And that’s it………….

• 36. Sunny  |  February 14th, 2008 at 3:22 pm

  What will be the official religion in Obama’s kingdom? Will we berequired to worship God, Jesus, Elihom, Moham, Alah Budah, Ra, Satan, Karl Marx….? Joel

  I’m sorry, but you are just an idiot.

• 37. Joel  |  February 14th, 2008 at 3:32 pm

  Sunny,

  I am honored that you would bestow such an enlighted title on me. Bless you.

  Long live the King, High Priest and puppet Obama.

• 38. Some Assembly Required  |  February 14th, 2008 at 3:36 pm

  “The first amendment is written to make sure that no religion can control the government.”

  The Separation of Church and State, Thank you, and that’s it.

• 39. Diana Powe  |  February 14th, 2008 at 5:16 pm

  Almiranta,

  I note with interest your failure to take up my question from the Preamble about the phrase “provide for the common defence”. The question was perfectly straightforward. However, you’re more interested in expressing the fear and envy you feel that somewhere, somehow, someone who isn’t very deserving is receiving tax money in the form of some kind of social welfare program. Well, guess what, they are.

  They are just as corporations and business people and the wealthy and politicians and the middle class all have their own representatives trying to game and cheat the system. If there weren’t cheats among every class and species of human being there would be no need for laws or constitutions. However, in their collective wisdom, as has been noted by many, the founders often used general principles in the Constitution in lieu of lists of prescriptions. The phrase general welfare has been the subject of interpretation and political back-and-forth since the beginning.

  As I said, if you don’t want competing interests in the halls of our representative government in Washington, DC, the answer is simple enough. Repeal the 16th Amendment and abolish all forms of taxation. That’s the logical end result of the “cut taxes” fixation, anyway. So, then the only task left is how to operate the United States of America on donations.

  Since you’re such a fan of the 10th Amendment and the Constitution says nothing about marriage then may I safely assume that you disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in Loving v. Virginia?

• 40. Fmr Marine  |  February 14th, 2008 at 5:58 pm

  >>>>>What will be the official religion in Obama’s kingdom? Will we berequired to worship God, Jesus, Elihom, Moham, Alah Budah, Ra, Satan, Karl Marx….? Joel<<<<<<

  I think it will be the BLACK experience of “being true to their native land”, according to his cult’s mission statement.

  His “pastor and, CLOSE adviser-confidant has ties with screwy lowie farakan.

  Trinity United Church of Christ
  About Us
  We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian… Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain “true to our native land,” the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.
  Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:
  1. Commitment to God
  2. Commitment to the Black Community
  3. Commitment to the Black Family
  4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
  5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
  6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
  7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
  8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
  9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
  10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
  11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
  12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.

• 41. Joe  |  February 14th, 2008 at 6:04 pm

  Marine,
  You’ve posted that list at least a dozen times now. Nobody gives a crap.

• 42. Mark Noonan  |  February 14th, 2008 at 6:07 pm

  Joe,

  You should, though - you see, whatever else Obama might be, he’s never been seriously challenged in a campaign. In his races for State Senate, he was in a friendly district; in his run for US Senate, the Chicago MSM used a dirty trick to wreck Obama’s GOP opposition; in his run for the Democratic nomination, Hillary hasn’t dared attack Obama’s leftwing extremism…come the fall, we GOPers won’t be shy about pointing out the flaws in Obama’s story…including the rather kooky church he belongs to.

• 43. Joe  |  February 14th, 2008 at 6:10 pm

  That’s fine Mark. Keep pointing out things to divide. Dems will keep bringing up things to unite.

  My guess is more people vote for the latter, but only time will tell.

  Seriously… I do enjoy coming here to see what you people bring up next.

• 44. Mark Noonan  |  February 14th, 2008 at 6:13 pm

  Joe,

  I know -

  If the GOPer points out a defect of a Democrat, it is being “divisive”.

  If a Democrat points out a defect of a GOPer, its called being “honest”.

  We know the drill - fortunately, the American people don’t usually fall for such BS.

• 45. Joe  |  February 14th, 2008 at 6:16 pm

  Pointing out someone’s religion and calling it “kooky” is not a defect in a Democrat, it IS divisive.

  But maybe that is splitting hairs.

  Nice talking, but time to go take the wife out for Valentine’s Day.

• 46. Fmr Marine  |  February 14th, 2008 at 6:51 pm

  Pointing out someones affiliation is divisive only if you dont like what is being pointed out.

  The TRUTH is the TRUTH period.
  Im sure if David Duke was running as a “right wing” candidate YOU definitely would feel obliged to point his associations out.
  This would be especially true if it was an identical mission statement with WHITE being inserted where BLACK is now being used.

  when bama started taking off in popularity, his cult re wrote and re posted their mission statement.
  This makes the new statement appear to be a LIE to hide their real intentions.

  YOU bet you have seen this before,and you will see it again, if he wins the nomination.
  He is a WOLF in SHEEPS clothing.

• 47. joel  |  February 14th, 2008 at 7:22 pm

  You know, I am a descendant of a Mississippi slave. I am also a descendant of Henry III. I am also part Indian, Irish and Swedish, not that I care about race.

  Obama is pretty clueless on the world as it is. He thinks we should pull out of Iran and go into Pakistan. If you think what happened in Iraq was bad, try that one.

  He reminds of Kerry, lots of talk no substance. During Kerry’s failed attempt anytime he was asked a question he answer was, “Check that out on my website.” In other words, “I don’t know!” The difference is Obama is never asked any questions. He answer would be something like, “go ask Dick Daley, or the Rod Blagovich, or Dick Turbin.” Notice a theme here.

• 48. searp  |  February 14th, 2008 at 7:56 pm

  Neo: um, I don’t see anything at all that is improper with Obama’s words. You see to me it doesn’t matter that they an English translation of scripture written in Aramaic. I can get beyond that and actually ingest the meaning.

  My post simply contrasted those words, whatever their provenance, with the vapid, mean-spirited nature of original post. If that is the best the Republicans can do, you will lose in a landslide. Deservedly.

• 49. TiredofLibBullSh**  |  February 14th, 2008 at 8:35 pm

  SAR

  you sound as if your brain has not been assembled.

  How do you get “no religion shall control government” from “Congress shall make no law…”.

  The Bill of Rights was written for the people with the purpose of limiting government: “Congress shall make no law….”, “the right of the people to bear arms shall not…..”, etc. etc.

  You are another USELESS IDIOT that has no clue as to the Constitution and the intentions of the founding fathers.

• 50. Some Assembly Required  |  February 14th, 2008 at 8:40 pm

  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  LibBullSh** Read post #35 then read my post #38 again… and then please call me a “USELESS IDIOT”

  You can’t write that any better, I almost fell out of my chair.

• 51. TiredofLibBullShit  |  February 17th, 2008 at 9:21 am

  SAR, you are truly clueless - A USELESS IDIOT. So useless the left doesn’t even want you.

  The Constitution defines and limits the power of the federal government. The federal government cannot create a religion or establish a religion just like England did and force people to recognize that as the only religion. With that said, there is no way the government can create a religious organization to control itself.

  The first amendment was written to protect religion from government, to keep government out of religion and allow citizens to worship as they see fit. Apparently, your government school did not teach you that, but chose to indoctrinate you with leftist propaganda.

  But, in reality we do see government in religion - saying what a citizen can and cannot do. Accoding to the 1st amendment, the government cannot hinder a person’s practice of religion, but in reality that is not the case.

  Again, read the essays and letters from the founding fathers which give details as to the intent of the Constitution and ignore you indoctrination. Until then, you are incapable of addressing this topic, in no danger of falling out of your chair and will move up from USELESS IDIOT to maybe USEFUL IDIOT.

Matt Margolis on Twitter