and it’s from West Virginia…
According to the poll, which was conducted by GfK for the Associated Press on Friday, 18 percent of respondents said Obama is Jewish, while 10 percent said he is Muslim.
Despite the president’s repeated self-identification as a Christian, only a third of respondents to this year’s survey correctly identified him as such, while slightly more, 35 percent, said he had ‘no religion’.
This is, um, sad and fun. Mainly sad. But a little funny.
HT. The Rabbi on FB
So, Donald is withholding charitable money until the President satisfies his desire – and listen to the words very carefully.
Seems to me that this will backfire.
This post was originally one of the spate coming out when Osama was killed. Now, in the midst of more turmoil directed towards the United States, I feel like they are needed once more.
Temper the Psalms with the Gospels, just saying, but when you are done with that, read this one:
And this one:
If it’s our ideals and not our origins that make us countrymen, Romney’s tactics suggest that he’s the one whose Americanness should come under question.
True Americanness is about fidelity to a creed that by design transcends color or place of family origin. Yes, we as a nation have often subverted that creed, or averted our gaze, but it still stands in timeless judgment, measuring our willingness to deliver on the promise of equal citizenship. True Americans see in a sea of colored faces a chance to bring everyone into the fold, so that the team is stronger and the creed redeemed. Mitt Romney can prance all he wants but his words today were those of a second-rate American. (here)
Actually, the article is about Romney…
Isn’t this the same thing we slammed Sarah Palin for in 2008 about Real Americans, Real Virginia, etc… Who says what “real Americans” are? I do believe the Constitution does, and at no point does it require a set of ideals.
Let’s not get carried away, shall we? Else we are just as likely as David Barton to gloss over our troubled history in determining who is a real American and who is not. Yes, the birther comments were disingenuous, but Americans are not under the same rules as Christians when speaking ill, gossip, or the such about others. Plus, look at it this way, most Protestants and Catholics do not consider Romney’s faith Christian as well as denying that the President is sincere about his acceptance of Jesus and the Christian faith.
Oh… and most “Americanistic” statements contain some form of “regardless of race, creed, color…”
“He’s going to try to hand over the sovereignty of the United States to the U.N., and what is going to happen when that happens?” Head asked. “I’m thinking the worst. Civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war maybe. And we’re not just talking a few riots here and demonstrations, we’re talking Lexington, Concord, take up arms and get rid of the guy.”
Head continued, delving deeper into his hypothesis and claiming that he was prepared to join the hypothetical resistance.
“Now what’s going to happen if we do that, if the public decides to do that? He’s going to send in U.N. troops. I don’t want ‘em in Lubbock County. OK. So I’m going to stand in front of their armored personnel carrier and say, ‘You’re not coming in here,’” the judge said. “And the sheriff, I’ve already asked him, I said, ‘You gonna back me?’ He said, ‘Yeah, I’ll back you.’ Well, I don’t want a bunch of rookies back there. I want trained, equipped, seasoned veteran officers to back me.”
For those unfamiliar with the antebellum South, Nat Turner led a slave rebellion in 1831. He killed upwards to 70 whites, but the rebellion ended after just a few days. However, the fear of another rebellion lurked for the next few decades, and quite possibly prolonged the South’s desire to protect slavery. It was feared that more rebellions would take place, spurred by the abolitionists, causing black men to rape white women after killing the white men.
In the past few years, we’ve seen a return of what I call the Nat Turner syndrome among many politicians and in segments of the populace.
Anyway, just thought I’d post on it a bit. Good luck.
Under the agreement currently being advocated by the Obama administration, American corporations would continue to be subject to domestic laws and regulations on the environment, banking and other issues. But foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal. That international tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law and impose trade sanctions on the United States for failing to abide by its rulings. (here)
Is a neo-con at heart:
Is more conservative than Ronald Reagan:
Obama’s approach to the financial markets reveals this same combination of free market fundamentalism and an anti-government rejection of regulation. During the initial bank bailout, instead of taking over the banks and imposing new restrictions on exotic instruments, the administration turned to private capital to stabilize the banks. In his many interviews on this subject, Timothy Geithner stressed that they did not want the government to interfere with the free market. (here)
I don’t want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what’s different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.
Maintains a stricter view of the drug laws than George W. Bush,
Don’t forget the bending over backwards to work with the GOP. I mean, even the health reform act favored the insurance companies.
You know, I admire anyone with political courage these days, especially when they are in the foxhole about to be overrun with Republicans, but it got me to thinking.
Regardless of how you feel about it, hear me out.
I don’t think we’ll move on as a society, or a country, until love is no longer an issue to be used by politicians for appeal and gain. Can I get a #holla?
The fact is, is that both parties have used marriage, family, love, and children for their own political game. Our personal lives are nothing more than serfs on their campaign fiefdoms. If you think that even Republicans really care about ‘traditional family values’ then you have lost your mind. Or Democrats for the working poor. This is not to say that groups who align themselves with these parties do not – so don’t get me wrong – but the Party bosses only pay attention to these groups around campaign season.
Now, I could be wrong, but I don’t think I am.
Study, for a while, propaganda. God has been used since time began to start wars, crown kings, and murder. The South was under the suspicion that the slave intended to rape white women and break apart families (ironically, it is was the slave owner who actually did those things to the slaves). We use what people hold dear to them the most to rally the troops, so to speak.
I hope that the President is sincere – and no, I don’t think Mitt is in his beliefs (why? because he opposes same-sex marriages and yet supports gay couples adopting children) – but I equally hope that love, marriage, and God will at some point in the near future stopped being used as a campaign poster and fodder for pandering.
Go, love. Go, vote. But, don’t go vote for someone who uses your love (or your God) for their political gain.
“It is only because Jesus conquered His own anguish, conquered His fear, that we’re able to celebrate the resurrection. It’s only because He endured unimaginable pain that wracked His body and bore the sins of the world that burdened His soul that we are able to proclaim, ‘He is Risen!’”
That no good dirty Muslim….
When pressed about the President’s Christianity (honestly, which is that line of reasoning going to stop…) Graham says that he can’t answer for anyone… and they he is asked about Rick Santorum, and suddenly, he is the Magisterium:
“All I know is I’m a sinner, and God has forgiven me of my sins… you have to ask every person,” he said about whether he could say for sure that Obama is indeed of the Christian faith.
However, when asked about GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s religion, Graham gave a much more concrete answer.
“I think so,” Graham said when asked if he believes Santorum is a Christian. “His values are so clear on moral issues. No question about it… I think he’s a man of faith.”
And then, about Newt:
But Graham was more willing to label Newt Gingrich’s faith. “Newt’s been married several times… but he could make a good candidate,” Graham said. “I think Newt is a Christian. At least he told me he is.”
I really wish Franklin would need the words of his father,
Yes, of course. I’d spend more time at home with my family, and I’d study more and preach less. I wouldn’t have taken so many speaking engagements, including some of the things I did over the years that I probably didn’t really need to do—weddings and funerals and building dedications, things like that. Whenever I counsel someone who feels called to be an evangelist, I always urge them to guard their time and not feel like they have to do everything.
I also would have steered clear of politics. I’m grateful for the opportunities God gave me to minister to people in high places; people in power have spiritual and personal needs like everyone else, and often they have no one to talk to. But looking back I know I sometimes crossed the line, and I wouldn’t do that now.
The issue, of course, is not that Santorum believes this, but that so many actually do. Rick is what we may call a fundamentalist Catholic… I wonder if he likes Vatican II. Anyway, the Presidential candidate made a statement yesterday as to the idea that political agendas and policies should be dictated by Scripture:
Obama’s agenda is “not about you. It’s not about your quality of life. It’s not about your jobs. It’s about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology,” Santorum told supporters of the conservative Tea Party movement at a Columbus hotel. (here)
Santorum has established himself a judge of what Christianity means, of course. I have to admit, however, that I admire him for being consistent in this regard. He simply seems to disregard anyone who is not of his stripe of Christianity (very conservative Roman Catholic), as being part of Christianity. In 2008, he made a statement about Mainline Christianity,
And so what we saw this domino effect, once the colleges fell and those who were being education in our institutions, the next was the church. Now you’d say, ‘wait, the Catholic Church’? No. We all know that this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic but the Judeo-Christian ethic was a Protestant Judeo-Christian ethic, sure the Catholics had some influence, but this was a Protestant country and the Protestant ethic, mainstream, mainline Protestantism, and of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it. So they attacked mainline Protestantism, they attacked the Church, and what better way to go after smart people who also believe they’re pious to use both vanity and pride to also go after the Church. (here)
It is the same cry told by others, especially the Evangelicals.
Man, this is going to be awesome if he is the nominee…
HT Dr. Cargill and Christian