Wow! I'm not quite sure what to say or think about Glenn Beck's tirade against the "Birthers" on his radio show yesterday. I find it quite curious that his outburst sounded eerily similar to something Keith Olberdummy would say! I have been reading and commenting at the Citizen Wells blog today. Lots of great commentators, videos, and links there.
The best essay was written by Stephen Pidgeon. I found it posted over at The Steady Drip blog. Here is a copy:
OPEN LETTER TO GLEN BECK
from Stephen Pidgeon
Dear Mr. Beck:
You are ill-informed on the "birther" issue. Barack Obama, by his own admission, was a British subject at birth. He has never denied having a Kenyan father, who himself was a British subject as a Kenyan native. This is easly established under the British Nationality Act of 1948. He is therefore disqualified to run for the office of the President, because the office is not available to subjects of other governments. The issue is very simple, and very obvious. Obama himself admitted that he wasn't a natural born citizen when he debated Alan Keyes in 2004.
Let's see you deal with this one. There is nothing "nutty" about it, and it doesn't depend on whether his maternal grandmother tried to cover up a foreign birth in Hawaii by placing newspaper notices. It is as plain as your face. BHO is a foreign national first, and an American secondarily, if at all. That is why he thinks there are 57 states; why he doesn't understand the constitution; why he wants to give us Britain's health care system (it's all in the teeth, don't you know); why he thinks Interpol should have greater authority in the US than US law enforcement; etc. He is a British subject and has no business holding the office of POTUS.
If you think you can overlook this constitutional crisis as not part of the Rubicon, you are mistaken. One constitutional overlook breeds another and the next thing you know, the financial industry is nationalized, the auto industry is nationalized, the health care industry is about to be nationalized, and the energy industry will soon be nationalized.
Ultimately, it is all going to be okay, because socialism only lasts until other people's money (OPM) runs out, and binge spender BHO has spent all the money we have and all the money we will ever have for the next several generations. He spent all of this before he got his socialist healthcare on the table. He and his wife have partied like Eddie Murphy in The Distinguished Gentleman (1992) since taking office, while he has busied himself with overthrowing the constitutional republic, establishing a new Islamic empire worldwide, disarming and crippling America, and unilaterally dividing Israel and Jerusalem. The only budget constraint for Obama is ink and paper (and he is working his way around that) and his foreign policy advisor appears to be "mirror, mirror on the wall". He has bankrupted the nation, which the sleeping Oprah watchers are now discovering for the very first time. The reality of the bankruptcy will hit home with gusto in 2010. Not only will we suffer with 30% unemployment, a complete collapse of real estate, and a complete collapse of the dollar, we will also suffer the slings and arrows of dramatic military defeats, as we let this foreigner steer the ship of state. Most Americans have no idea how bad it is going to get.
As for Obama: he will be one of history's most reviled figures - on a par with Nero - as a fool who couldn't even understand that when he denigrated the United States, he was destroying the very state upon which his safety and his legacy depended. He will suffer dramatic defeat in Afghanistan and Iraq - it will not be like Viet Nam, and his name will be tarred with it. It will be more like the disastrous defeat of Xerxes at Salamis, or the Ottomans at Sisek, or the Moors at Tours; a game changing defeat that will forever cement the destiny of the republic known as the United States of America. Obama will join the other names in history who suffered cataclysmic losses in the lands of Magog.
His legacy? A communist, collectivist fool, brainwashed by red diaper doper babies haunting the halls of ivy league academia whose agenda was to bring back the failed Bolshevik revolution worldwide, who brought his fully bloomed ignorance to power illegally in the US because of the needs of his narcissistic ego, whose illegitimacy caused the US to go bankrupt and to suffer its worst military setbacks in the history of the nation in just a few short months. History will marvel at the foolishness of Americans, and historians will wonder how we as a people could have allowed this to happen. Then, of course, historians will ultimately conclude that the demise of the greatest nation the world had ever known happened because the watchdogs whose duty it was to warn Americans of such possibilities - the so-called news media - conspired with foreign powers and global financial criminals to destroy America from the inside, as a result of their cowardice, malevolence and silence.
Glen Beck: a media persona who simply could not bring himself to utter the truth about Obama - that he is a usurper, holding the presidency illegally and unconstitutionally, because he is without a legal birthright. Let us never forget who shirked their duty to tell the truth in these last hours, and let us not allow history to forget.
STEPHEN PIDGEON
Here is part of one of my comments over at Citizen Wells blog:
I was disappointed and shocked to hear Glenn Beck disparage people who are questioning Obama’s eligibility. He could have just disagreed that it was a “legitimate” issue. Why did he go so far as to mock those who are questioning a person who has sealed his bona fide documents and followed up with an executive order to keep them sealed? Isn’t that highly suspicious and secretive to do by someone who supposedly has nothing to hide?
Perhaps Beck was trying to get attention for the issue – using a negative way to achieve such an end? Was he being sarcastic the whole time?
If he never mentions all of the angry emails that he is most likely getting from former fans of his, then we must conclude that either he believes the issue is a joke or he is being forced to keep quiet about it.
I recall that O’Reilly brought it up on his show – only to label the idea “ridiculous.”
I wonder. Is this issue only going to get out to more people via any T.V. plus radio pundits (except for Limbaugh and Savage who aren’t under any T.V. network contract) ONLY through mocking the issue? Is that the strategy now? Hmmm…I wonder.
A commentator named "terminu" had this to say:
terminu // January 5, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Why can’t people ignore the BC and just focus on the Constitution?
Obama admits he was born British.
He’s therefore no more than a 14th amendment statutory US citizen, a dual citizen and since the Constitution and Minor state no 14th amendment citizen can be a natural born citizen, he’s therefore ineligible.
Simple!
In my response to him I wrote:
Terminu – you have something there. The BC issue is clouding the real, already-out-in-the-open crime (IMO). It’s the Constitutionality of whether or not a dual, British-born citizen could also be considered a United States of America natural born citizen!
The following is on the sidebar at my blog. It is there to educate visitors on the REAL issue! I wish that there was a way to present a lawsuit that would immediately address this:
THE RELEVANT OBAMA ADMISSION
At Barack Obama’s web site, the following admission:
“FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship
‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “
Read that last line again.
“That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…”
That’s an admission that Great Britain “governed the status” of Barack Obama, Jr. He has chosen to highlight this on his own volition.
And this leads to the relevant question:
HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’S STATUS BE “GOVERNED” BY GREAT BRITAIN?
A natural born citizen’s status should only be governed by the United States.
Hat Tip: Natural Born Citizen blog
The Obama File has archives that prove that the online BC is a forgery:
The Obama File: Obama COLB
Another archived item is even more important. It explains why the Framers of our United States Constitution wrote that the President of the United States must be a Natural Born Citizen and why Obama cannot be one (if his biological father is Obama SR.):
The Obama File: Natural Born Citizen
A blogger by the name of "Don" over at Citizen Wells blog had this to say:
Don in California // January 5, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Christinewjc // January 5, 2010 at 2:35 pm
——————–
Don’t you just know that the Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves, knowing that a British Subject is sitting in the White House as president when we fought a war in 1776 to get rid of the British rulers?
My response:
Christinewjc // January 5, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Yes Don – I know. That is what is so desperately disturbing about it all. How far our nation has drifted from the groundwork (and the protections against enemies foreign and domestic) that was created and written in our Charters of Freedom by our brilliant Founders is so very heartbreaking to witness.
Hat Tips to all links.
Graphic from The Obama File.
*******
Update 1/6/10
Besides the post about Beck's "Birther" comments, The Right Side of Life has two more posts that share much more information regarding the Chrysler plaintiffs vs. Obama lawsuit.
The first post dates back to December 9, 2009. There are 597 comments following it!
I only read through some of them, but left a comment of my own there:
Christinewjc Says:
January 6th, 2010 at 8:24 am
Today’s post about Beck ridiculing the “birthers” led me back to this post. There are 587 comments! I haven’t read them all, but read through some of the back and forth between Qwertyman and Linda. The following comment by Linda caught my attention:Linda says:
December 13, 2009 at 6:21 pm
qwertyman says: Quote mining is not nice.
I did not ‘quote mine’ as you charge me to have, what I did was quote the Edw. III statute that defined what a naturtal born subject was at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
Blackstone himself concurred with this definition in his Commentaries.
Further more, I gave the links for all readers to research for themselves and if anyone is ‘quote mining’ it is you. It is a long and exhastive commentary, as well are the other 2 links that it references to and they all come to the same conclusion,
Native does not equal natural born and as Kent put it, Natives are:
artificial persons created by law
Thus there can be nothing natural about a native born person’s citizenship, they aquire it through naturalization under US laws if they so desire.
This agrees with The Obama File’s archives that recognize the fact that there are actually three kinds of U.S. citizenship – natural born citizen (required for POTUS), native born citizen, and naturalized citizen.
Consider this. If Obama was so sure that “native born citizen” is considered to be, by Constitutional law, the same as “natural born citizen” (required for POTUS), then why on earth would he spend 1.5 million dollars hiding his COLB and other bona fide documents (which would most likely prove that he attended college in the U.S. as a foreign exchange student)?
Why all the secrecy?
Answer: he is hiding something – something BIG! Just like the Dems are hiding what’s in the health care bill. C-span requested recording the discussions and they got a big fat NO. Isn’t this highly disturbing?
This particular case (IMO) has the best chance of succeeding in the courts. God speed Mr. Pidgeon and Mr. Donofrio!
There is an update on the Chrysler case - The Right Side of Life: Chrysler Bankruptcy Motion to Reconsider Filed
Another comment I left over at The Right Side of Life blog:
Christinewjc Says:
January 6th, 2010 at 8:54 am
The following is just my opinion, but from what I can recall about the rare moments that Beck has mentioned the BC issue on his radio show in the past, his reasoning has more to do with the fear of unrest in the nation due to overturning the votes of the majority of the people and what would transpire to “fix the mess” (e.g. Joe Biden becomes president? VERY scary thought) yada, yada, yada. His libertarian views shine through with this issue. Apparently, he doesn’t see that the fraud of Obama claiming he was qualified, and the Dem party being complicit in such deceit – isn’t the best way to defeat Obama’s POLICIES. Beck is more concerned with preventing, and/or overturning (when necessary) the terrible Marxist POLICIES Obama is shoving down the throats of Americans; rather than booting out the Marxist usurper through the COLB issue.
Still, what surprises me today is that he went so far as to mock the “birthers.” He hadn’t done that in the past. Therefore, I am wondering what his motivation is? Perhaps he was just being sarcastic? Maybe he thinks that it’s a lost cause and therefore, wants to discourage people from pursuing it? I doubt that would work. He may have helped inspire people to join the 9.12 Project and the TEA Party movement, but he’s not going to get people to give up on the eligibility issue. It is way too important!
Update 2 on 1/6/10:
In the cause of "Helping to Spread the Word," I include the following explanation from The Birthers.org website as to the extreme importance of why Article II, Section 1 states:
“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”
Quote:
Article II, Section 1
The founders of our Nation wanted a nation for everyone, where ones status of birth would not limit their ability to succeed in almost any task that they could set their hearts and minds too. Yet, they had put pen to paper to set aside only one aspiration from all citizens and to reserve that for a class of citizens whose members are called “a natural born citizen,” the office of the President of the United States of America.
Article II, Section 1
“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”
There are some interesting phrases here that all have significance to the mindset of the Founding Fathers. The key phrase here is, “a natural born citizen,” as opposed to “a native born citizen,” “naturalized” or even “a citizen.” Before we look at what “a natural born citizen” is, let’s look at the other phrases, so the clear meaning of a Natural Born Citizen becomes clear.
Looking at the text of the Constitution there was a small window of opportunity for a class of citizens, who were just simply “a citizen” to become the President. This Grandfather clause expired with the death of the last citizen born before June 22, 1788.
or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,
Considering that all of the Founding Fathers were at least on July 4, 1776, British subjects, they needed to include themselves as possible Presidential candidates. These “original citizen” Presidents included, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson and the last “original citizen” President was William Henry Harrison.
If they had not included themselves, then the age requirement included in the qualifications for President would mean that America would have to wait until July 4, 1811 for the first “natural born citizen” to come of age.
neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years,
Yet, they were not so liberal in just allowing any former British subjects to be President. Note that also the qualifications for President is included a duration of residency.
and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
To understand why they chose 14 years, is to start to understand why they also penned the phrase “a natural born citizen.” Our Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787 and if we subtract 14 years we come to September 17, 1773. Nothing significant happened on this date, but it creates a state where our first “original citizen Presidents” needed to be physically present at the start of and during the War of Independence, unless like Franklin they were overseas engaged in the business of the United States. This is born out in the Journal of the Senate of the United States of America (July 7, 1798), and this is also in many of the debates on ratification.
Because as stated there were no “natural born citizens” ready to be President, the age and duration of residency also created another significant point. Thirty-five minus 14 is also 21, the “age of majority.” This means that these “original citizen” Presidents would have needed to make a conscience adult decision to be an American and would have earned the right to be President, by willingly risking their lives simply by being present in the thirteen States, while this Nation fought for its independence.
Yes, there is a small window of opportunity, when someone could have come to America and became President, without having risked their [life] in a War of Independence. This short period was from February 4, 1783 when Britain formally declared an end to the War of Independence until September 17, 1787. Our Founding Fathers were men of the highest principles and integrity, they said what they meant and meant what they said. In the same Constitution, that holds the qualifications for President, is written Article 1, Section 9, these same men wrote,
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
They were not going to treat this 1783 to 1789 class of “immigrant citizens” guilty of being unfaithful to America by passing a law saying so. A Bill of Attainder is a law that makes a group of citizens guilty of a crime without the benefit of a trial. Ex post facto law is a law passed after the fact to make something illegal or legal, at the time it happened. They chose instead to set a date, September 17, 1787 that allowed anyone who was an original citizen on that date regardless of place of birth to be President. If you became a citizen on September 18, 1787, it would have been too late for you to qualify to be President of the United States of America without being a natural born citizen.
Returning to the phrase “a natural born citizen,” you can now see that the Founding Fathers made a conscience effort to insure that the office of the President of the United States of America would have been held by only those men who were loyal to the cause of the United States of America. They selected as criteria for themselves loyalty above all else. The President of the United States must be above all else loyal to this Nation, and the principles that it was established upon.
As they pondered the Constitutional office of the President, they knew that one day their generation would pass away. Those men who proved their loyalty on the field of battle would eventually sleep under the field. This pool of men with proven loyalty to the Nation would literally die out one day. Sensing this, they knew that they could only trust the power of the office of President to a group of citizens who would have the best chance of being loyal to the country, those who only know America and only knew what it was like to be American.
On July 25, 1787 John Jay wrote to George Washington, “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
The common sense of this was immediately and unanimously incorporated into our Constitution. It cannot be said that this was without debate, there were a few who initially thought that excluding naturalized citizens might limit the number of affluent people with money to come to and invest in the new country. This small minority was afraid that the rich would not immigrate if their opportunities were limited. The fact that there was debate is significant because it signifies that this provision was not slipped into the Constitution, in the late hours of the night.
If they choose as a requirement for President for themselves, proven loyalty, and what they would choose for the next generation of Presidents would be “natural loyalty.” How they determined what natural loyalty is they looked toward nature. They did not need Congressional studies for a definition, as it was self-evident to them. A persons place in life comes from ones parents. This concept is found in nature, it is self-evident. Nature claims kinship, our most primitive and natural form of citizenship, from blood, while nations claim citizens from the soil, or their place of birth. They decided that the best way to protect the integrity of the office of President of the United States was a combination of the two.
The next time the term “natural born” would be used by the first Congress. Chapter III, of the Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that “a natural born citizen” was one whose parents were citizens of the United States, regardless of where they were born.
They used the plural, and not singular. The majority membership of the first Congress was made up of both members from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention. It is obvious that these men, who wrote both the Constitution and first naturalization law [had] seen that it was the parents who instilled a sense of belonging to their children. This sense of belonging would be deemed loyalty.
The fact that they wanted parents, in the plural to be citizens is because they wanted to limit as much as possible any political and emotional attachment to the “old world.” They wanted neither the mother nor the father to influence “a natural born” candidate for President, with a sense of foreign allegiance. They made the requirements for “a natural born citizen” to be from parents who were either born in the United States or made a conscience decision to become “naturalized citizens” of the United States. They observed in the law of nature that a child follows the condition of their parents, and if the parents were split in their loyalties, the child would be split in loyalty to America.
With the Naturalization Act of 1795, they amended the law that allowed a foreign-born child of American citizens to be called “natural born,” not because they believed they were wrong on the premise of the loyalty deriving from the condition of the parents. They were not, because they still granted “naturalized citizenship” at birth to these children. What they realized is that other nations were not following the law of nature, but were instituting feudal laws that were based on Roman law. These laws said, regardless of the parents’ citizenship, that any child born on the soil of the King, the King had the right to claim as a subject of the Crown, forever. Their intention was to insure that “a natural born citizen” would have only one natural loyalty, and could be legally claimed as a citizen of only one country.
No one can deny that it was the intention of the Framers of the Constitution to protect the sanctity of the office of the President of the United States from foreign influence, either natural or legislated. They believed that the parents American citizenship, either natural or by choice would guard against the influence of foreign cultures. That birth within the United States of America by American citizens, made sure no other world power could ever make a claim for the allegiance of our President.
At the end of the war of Independence, England wanted to give Americans dual citizenship. In correspondence between David Hartley an British negotiator for the Treaty of Paris, and Benjamin Franklin, in which Hartley writes, “Neither shall the independence of the United States be construed any further than as independence, absolute and unlimited, in matters of government, as well as commerce. Not into alienation, and therefore the subjects of his Britannic majesty and the citizens of the United States shall mutually be considered as natural born subjects, and enjoy all rights and privileges as such in the respective dominions and territories in the manner heretofore accustomed.” While some may have considered this a good thing, the Founding Fathers reject this “last minute” act of generosity for the Trojan horse it was, that tried to subvert our Nation into a nation of dual citizens, whose citizens were ultimately subjects subservient to the Crown.
Article II, Section 1 is not about simply being born in the USA, it is about having only a complete and total loyalty to the United States of America, and no other. Any President who puts the interests of the United States of America second, has demonstrated that he is not “a natural born citizen” of this Nation, but is merely a puppet of worldly powers. Imperfect as some may believe, it is our legacy. A heritage paid for by the blood of patriots that is ours to either guard and protect or to abandon for the always-changing temporary passions of the multitudes. /quote (bold mine)
Hat tip:
The Birthers.org
*******
Update on 1/8/10:
In a "madder than hell and we're not going to take it anymore" manner, the Citizen Wells blog owner doesn't hold back his blistering anger with Glenn Beck. He has stated that he has tried to contact Mr. Beck (good luck with that) and I have read elsewhere on the blogs that Beck's radio call screeners hang up on anyone who calls in about the "birther" issue; so I doubt that an apology (as requested by CW) to the millions of birthers who follow Beck's shows will be forthcoming.
Here's the link to the post:
Citizen Wells:
Glenn Beck, Insults Americans, Birthers, Beck is uninformed, Glenn Beck can you hear us?, Listen and apologize or else, Glenn Beck insults on video
There are currently 177 comments (as of 1/8/10 at 7:35 a.m.)! Wish I had the time right now to read them all!
P.S. A thought just came to me. Does Beck include Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin (who he once admired greatly) and all the rest of the "famous" political personalities in his disparaging rant against the birthers??
I will be away from my computer for most of the day (after 10:00 a.m.) so be patient regarding comment releasing. Hopefully I will be able to check this blog between 5-6 p.m. to release comments, then again after 9 p.m.
There are SO MANY GREAT BLOG POSTS listed on my sidebar today, so I will just be lazy (time constraints) and post the links here:
Daily Reading List
JammieWearingFool
Pity Poor PETA - Poor, poor PETA. They decided to carry their scare tactic, childhood nightmare inducing show to an elementary school in Savannah, GA in advance of the Ringli...
45 minutes ago
Big Government
Obama Funder ‘Jodie Evans’ In White House Visitor Log days after Code Pink Hamas Trip - [Note: This is the latest segment in an ongoing series about Code Pink and its co-founder Jodie Evans. Click here to read earlier articles.] The name of Ob...
1 hour ago
Gateway Pundit
Obama Disaster Continues… Unemployment Holds at 10.0% - The Obama disaster continues. Unemployment held at a record 10.0% in December following the “unexpected loss” of 85,000 jobs. FOX News reported: The econom...
3 hours ago
Nice Deb
Democrat Rep. Sestak: “Where’s The Transparency”? - Man, even some Dems are now piling on Obama and Dem leaders for their broken promises: “They said it would be transparent. Why isn’t it? At times, I find t...
10 hours ago
The Post & Email
Actively wanting tyranny - ANYONE WHO THINKS THE TOTALITARIAN TEMPTATION LIES BURIED IN LENIN’S MAUSOLEUM WOULD DO WELL TO READ THIS BOOK by Linda Starr, blogging at lgstarr.blogspot...
10 hours ago
The Right Side of Life
13 State AGs Categorically Reject “Nebraska Compromise;” To Litigate if Not Removed - As I had referenced in a previous posting, lots of State-level resistance is brewing against the congressional healthcare plan, HR3590. Now AmericanGrandJu...
11 hours ago
Lame Cherry
Obama Budgets Death - This blog is frankly despondent at this moment in having Gen. Barry McCaffrey, confirm what this blog has been running numbers on in how Obama's Afnamistan...
13 hours ago
The Obama Watch
PC Amateur Hour - The Founding Fathers set up a limited federal government. Statists have turned it into an unlimited one, eager to perform any and all superfluous tasks w...
1 day ago
VotingFemale Speaks!
Sarah Palin has the answers, Obama Does not; Lastest Al Qaeda Recrutment Tool: Janet Incompitano’s Infidel Photo Invasion of Islamic Modesty - When is Obama going to admit his Political Agenda based decisions on homeland defense is a failure and start listening to the common sense advise Sarah Pal...
1 hour ago
Texas for Sarah Palin
Politically-motivated lawsuit against Gov. Palin dismissed - * Another nuisance lawsuit that had been filed against Sarah Palin when she was governor of Alaska has been dismissed. The case was originally was filed in...
1 hour ago
The Steady Drip
Poll: Most say they're conservative - Conservatives outnumbered moderates and liberals across the United States in 2009, Gallup results released Thursday indicated. Forty-percent of people surv...
7 hours ago
Atlas Shrugs
Happy Birthday Elvis! - I loved him. Always. My sisters used to taunt me when I was like 5, because I used to live for when Elvis movies came on the 4:30 movie. As my ma would say, ...
7 hours ago
Wayne's Discernment
Glogal Warmists and scare of rising oceans. - According to the climate alarmists, all low level areas will become part of the ocean. The claim is “when” the ice melts in “2010″ ocean levels will rise. ...
10 hours ago
Founding Bloggers
Is Code Pink Anti-War Or Anti-American? - Glenn Reynolds asks the following question about Code Pink: CODE PINK’S HEAD-SCRATCHING WAR ON DRONES: “Shouldn’t the concept of a less violent war with mi...
11 hours ago
The Right Side of Life
13 State AGs Categorically Reject “Nebraska Compromise;” To Litigate if Not Removed - As I had referenced in a previous posting, lots of State-level resistance is brewing against the congressional healthcare plan, HR3590. Now AmericanGrandJu...
11 hours ago
Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion
More Signs of Coakley Trouble - I previously posted that Martha Coakley's campaign appeared to be overstating its financial strength by hyping its primary fundraising numbers, almost all ...
13 hours ago
Alan Keyes is LOYAL TO LIBERTY
Glenn Beck helps to destroy US Constitution's authority? - ** *I know that by now some of you have seen or heard about Glenn Beck's deceptive tirade on the issue of Obama's constitutional eligibility for the offi...
2 days ago
Constitutionally Speaking
Arguing With Idiots - I am not talking about Glenn Beck’s book, I am talking about Glenn Beck himself. For someone who claims to stand on the side of the Constitution, he sure h...
1 day ago
Thoughts Of A Conservative Christian
The Islamic Roots of Abdulmutallab’s Suicidal Odyssey - The Islamic Roots of Abdulmutallab’s Suicidal Odyssey Posted By Jamie Glazov On January 7, 2010 @ 12:00 am In . Column1 02, . Positioning, Homeland Securit...
1 hour ago
Self Evident Truths
The Snarky Files - Euripides' Views on the Week January 7, 2010 - Senator Harry Reid clutches at his heart, demonstrating how nationalized health-care will give Americans permanent coronary disease, from which we will n...
16 hours ago
Thinking Christian
Strong Links (January 7) - Hume’s Gentle Witness, by Peter Wehner (National Review Online) J. P. Moreland on Human Persons and the Failure of Naturalism (Part One) by Bill Vallicella...
19 hours ago
CultureWatch
The Worldview of Avatar - In terms of amazing techniques, stunning visual imagery, and incredible special effects, Avatar is certainly a winner. While the blockbuster film may be br...
1 day ago
Joel Rosenberg's Weblog
MEDIA COVERS UPCOMING EPICENTER CONFERENCE IN ASIA: Damascus film available in English - >> NOTE: Joel will appear live from Israel on Bill Bennett’s nationally syndicated radio show on the Salem Radio Network on Friday at 6:30am eastern time. ...
1 day ago
4Simpsons Blog - Eternity Matters
Roundup - Here are at least 8 specific video taped promises by President Obama that health care negotiations will take place on C-SPAN. The reality couldn’t be wors...
1 day ago
Gay Christian Movement Watch
[Christian] [Rev] Chuck Currie doesn’t reccomend Christ - Imagine that. A Christian minister who doesn’t recommend Jesus Christ. It should come as no surprise the clerics supporting the gay christian movement are ...
1 day ago
Chester Street
Brit Hume's shining example: the darkness will always hate the Light - Washington Post columnist Tom Shales’ recent article on Brit Hume’s comments is a shining example of exactly what is wrong with a liberal minded culture. ...
1 day ago
EarthFrisk Blog
Citizens Quitting Obama and AARP: Letter of the Year - THIS LADY NOT ONLY HAS A GRASP OF ‘THE SITUATION’ BUT AN INCREIBLE COMMAND OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE! Dear Mr. Rand, Recently you sent us a letter encourag...
20 hours ago
The Canadian Sentinel
Breitbart Debuts 'Big Journalism' - Yep. Another inconvenient-truth website that'll give yet more folks on the Hard Left more big, staggering headaches. Andrew Bretibart continues to wage w...
2 hours ago
The Betrayal
National Precinct Alliance Announces Strategic Alliance with Tax Day Tea Party - TEA-PARTIERS TO RATCHET UP OPPOSITION TO OBAMA REGIME by JB Williams © 2009/2010 (Jan. 7, 2010) — National Precinct Alliance, founded by Phil Glass and Ton...
3 hours ago
The Obama Watch
PC Amateur Hour - The Founding Fathers set up a limited federal government. Statists have turned it into an unlimited one, eager to perform any and all superfluous tasks w...
1 day ago
Sultan Knish
Why Liberalism is a Reactionary Ideology - The narrative that liberal pundits have constructed and continually replayed over the last year is one in which progress minded and enlightened liberals ar...
1 day ago
The NEIN Blog
CAIR Assaults Rifqa Bary's Constitutional Rights - *6 January 2010:* Background: 17-year old Rifqa Bary is a former Muslim who converted to faith in Jesus Christ. Upon learning of Rifqa's decision for Chr...
2 days ago
The JAG HUNTER
Regarding attainder courts-martial for those SEALS…(graphic video warning!) - Marie Woods writes: “I hope that each and everyone of you who get this email will be as outraged and mortified as I am about the treatment of our hero’s an...
4 days ago
The Right Perspective
Obama Gives Interpol Carte Blanche In US - Barack Obama has signed an Executive Order that allows international police outfit Interpol to operate in the United States without any limitations from th...
4 days ago
satire and theology©
A hope versus a wish/hoping versus wishing - Greenwich, England (photo by trekearth.com) In a Biblical context, Browning uses some of the following examples of hope. Old Testament prophets taught tha...
5 hours ago
The Powers That Be
CIA: Climate Idiocy Accomplices - It’s all starting to make sense how people like the SkivvieBomber can slip through the cracks, if you’ll pardon the expression — because the CIA, an agency...
18 hours ago
Scooter's Report
Obama Defines, Defends Transparency - WASHINGTON (SR) - President Barack Obama struck back at the mounting criticism that his administration's secrecy violates his promise on at least eight separ...
21 hours ago
Barack Obama's Teleprompter's Blog
It's the Chicago Way - TSA has been in the news a lot lately, and none of it has been good news from Big Guy's perspective. Last night, in between the champagne, the late night ...
6 days ago
Posts
20 comments:
WHAT??
I'm the first to comment here, 21 hours after your post?
Oh well...Glenn Beck actually said something that made sense. If FOX's ConspiracyMaster can hear the noise from Birthastan and blow it off, calling Queen Orly and her ilk the whackjobs that they are, then...
...I just may have to give this 'God' business another look.
Hau'oli makahiki hou, hostess!
Hi Christine,
Methinks that Stephen Pidgeon is a bit of a drama queen. He states: "As for Obama: he will be one of history's most reviled figures - on a par with Nero." This has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have heard in a long time. Nero burned Christians alive for sport. To compare President Obama with Nero tells me that Stephen Pidgeon should spend a little more time learning history instead of trying to say things just to sensationalize them. He also makes some pretty sensational claims about what will happen in the future. A disaster like Xerxes? Give me a break! (that is directed at him, not you).
I also think that if President Obama is not a natural born citizen, then this would have been taken care of long ago. If it were as obvious as people think, then the Supreme Court would have made him inelegible a long time ago. But they haven't done that. Why not? It can't be a 'liberal media' problem--the Supreme Court is made up of conservative members. If they thought for an instant that Obama should not be the president, my guess is that they would have spoken up. Or the Congress would have spoken up.
Oh GM - sometimes you really crack me up.
Not that I'm a "crack-pot" or anything like that...oh wait! You must be including me in that "whackjob" label!
So...does this mean that you have been following Glenn' T.V. show? He is doing a recap of all the Marxist, Cloward-Piven, Alinsky craziness that Obama and cohorts have inflicted upon our nation over the last 11 months. The WH hasn't responded against his claims so I guess that means he's onto them?
Case closed - at least as far as what Beck has chosen to expose on his show.
P.S. YOU...reconsidering "this God business??" May miracles never cease!
P.S.S. If you still live in Hawaii can you do me a favor? See if you can get a copy of Obama's vault-length COLB? Thanks!
Kevin,
I think that Pidgeon was using a bit of hyperbole in his letter. I found it quite entertaining, actually.
If you recall, the Bible reveals that even Jesus used such a literary device when he was making a point.
You wrote:
I also think that if President Obama is not a natural born citizen, then this would have been taken care of long ago. If it were as obvious as people think, then the Supreme Court would have made him inelegible a long time ago. But they haven't done that. Why not? It can't be a 'liberal media' problem--the Supreme Court is made up of conservative members. If they thought for an instant that Obama should not be the president, my guess is that they would have spoken up. Or the Congress would have spoken up.
My extensive research on the subject has revealed that the Dem majority wouldn't care if Obama turned out to be Osama bin Laden's son! As long as they "got their guy" into office - by any means possible - they are content. A piece of "flawed" paper like the United States Constitution (which is what Obama said about it)isn't going to matter too much to them.
One of the more curious finds was the fact that Nancy Pelosi signed a different paper for the Hawaiian state than for the other 49 states regarding Obama being on the ballot. Do you recall my blog post about that or do you need a link?
What's more, who spends 2 million dollars to hide a $20 COLB from being exposed in a court of law for all the American people to see if Obama has nothing to hide?
Note to "daniel." Your comment was nice but deleted because of the added spam link.
*sigh*
Don't these spammers realize that comment moderation exposes them and leads to deletion every time?
Sure thing, hostess; you call me an 'ObamaBorg' and 'moonbat', I call you a 'birther' and a 'whackjob', we have a few laughs, and the whole thing starts over again.
I watched Becky online--it's easier to run an antivirus program afterwards. But as I said, if HE has doubts, then maybe there's...gee...nothing there. If he can't find a conspiracy, maybe there isn't any. It wouldn't be the first time the nation has had a manufactured ''crisis''.
No, I don't live in Hawaii any more. Even if I did, that wouldn't give me any special access to someone else's legal documents. Doesn't you lawyer friend Orly know that? Oh, wait...she isn't a native-born citizen either. How ironic.
If this God business actually made people better individuals and better citizens, that'd be good cause for consideration. But given the writings of this blog, I've seen no evidence of that.
Guess I'll have to remain as I am.
GM,
"If this God business actually made people better individuals and better citizens, that'd be good cause for consideration. But given the writings of this blog, I've seen no evidence of that.
Guess I'll have to remain as I am."
I guess you haven't been looking or paying attention to any of the positives I've noted, such as how regular church attenders give 70% more than non-attenders, or how it was the action of clergy and Christians, first in Britain and later in the US, that was the motivation for abolishing slavery. Or that every country that makes a conscious effort to exclude God from the citizenry either starts out as or becomes a repressive Republic.
Makes me wonder...are you implying that none of those things were actually improvements? There is a lot of precedent for that, considering that atheists and Darwinists were the driving force behind eugenics, forced sterilizations, re-education and forced labor, etc. I think Stalin averaged more tortures and kills per year than two centuries of the inquisition and the crusades combined.
Kevin,
As for noting that Obama is not on a par with Nero, give him a break. He's doing the best he can.
Hi Christine,
I definitely read your post. But I still don't understand why all the Republicans or at least one Republican in the House and/or Senate won't stand up in Congress to state that President Obama is ineligible for office and call for his immediate resignation? I don't think we can blame the Democrats for pushing the Republicans to keep this a secret.
Hi Gary-o.k., I won't judge President Obama just yet. I'll give him some time to see if he is like Xerxes or Nero.
Hau'oli makahiki hou to you too, Mr. Baker.
I noticed those things you pointed out. I also noticed that those same clergy and Christians also supported slavery--after all, their holy book provided rules for it! ''If Jesus never mentioned (blank), it must be okay'', right?
Japan, I've observed, has excluded God from the citizenry, and six decades after a disastrous war, can still claim fewer than 3% of its population being Christian. I accept that believers contribute more than non-believers, but generosity is not an exclusively Christian trait. Neither is prosperity.
BTW, forced sterilizations were carried out in the USA a century ago; North Dakota and several other states carried out such treatment upon alcoholics, the mentally handicapped, and career criminals as early as 1907. In fact, a certain European nation pointed to us as an example of what they should be doing. Later, they did, and to a greater degree.
Mr. Baker, if nonbelievers were as bad as you're trying to claim, the prisons would be full of us, and the great bus of woe that is human history would have been driven by atheists. Last time I checked, we're greatly underrepresented in both prison statistics and history texts.
I need hardly remind you that Stalin was a seminary student in his youth; it may well explain how he learned to manage power so ruthlessly.
But what's your spin on Beck's comments? That's what has Christine's back up....
(I didn't see the banner; sorry if I repeat this)
GM,
"I also noticed that those same clergy and Christians also supported slavery--after all, their holy book provided rules for it!"
What you fail to notice is that pretty much everyone exception Christians supported it. You said that you didn't find any evidence that it made people better. There certainly is.
"Japan, I've observed, has excluded God from the citizenry, and six decades after a disastrous war, can still claim fewer than 3% of its population being Christian."
Really? Japan's government targets God for elimination in the same way that Russia and China does? No. Didn't think so.
"but generosity is not an exclusively Christian trait. Neither is prosperity."
Which is interesting, but is not the point you made and not what I said. On average, Christians give more than atheists, not just in money but in volunteer time. A lot more. More than twice as much. Christian countries have never claimed to be perfect, but compared to the atheist regimes, they are far superior in economic development and human rights.
"BTW, forced sterilizations were carried out in the USA a century ago; "
True, but again off the point. A lot of Darwinists and atheists have pushed their agendas in countries with a high percentage of Christians. Sanger, for instance, founded Planned Parenthood with the idea of reducing the number of undesirables. Non-Christians goals using non-Christian methods, but perfectly in keeping with atheist philosophy.
"Last time I checked, we're greatly underrepresented in both prison statistics and history texts."
Look under "Mass Murderers." You'll find plenty. Stalin, Mao, any number of southeast Asian dictators. Hitler remained nominally associated with the Christian Church, but he called it a plague on the world, one he blamed the Jews for. It's only when you look for major positive contributions that atheists come up short. Oh, there are certainly bright and talented atheists, but they seldom unite for the common good as Christians do. The most organized effort they seem to make is to oppose religion. I guess that's because they look so bad and stingy by comparison.
"I need hardly remind you that Stalin was a seminary student in his youth;"
And yet he pretty much devoted his rule to exactly the kind of things that Christ condemned so vehemently. On the other hand, his methods, ensuring his own survival, are again perfectly understandable in a world were atheism and Darwinism hold sway.
GM,
Sorry. Don't have time to comment on Christine's stuff at the moment. I'm spending too much time shooting down the contextually dellinquint comments that you insist on repeating no matter how many times I poke holes in them. Maybe this will help:
I have never claimed that Christians were perfect or in any way not subject to all of the frailties of others. What I do maintain is that compared with atheists and other religious groups, they have provided more charitable aid in the form of money, food, hospitals, education, etc., than any other group.
The problem I have with your analysis is that while what you write is usually factual, it seldom if ever provides context. You compare Christians, and to a lesser extent other religions, against an absolute right/wrong scale as opposed to other people groups. When you provide context, the facts are inescapable: Most of the social and economic development that we would term as positive was instituted either by Christians or by groups heavily influenced by Christianity, whereas atheists mainly sit back and complain until they get into power, and then they start filling prisons, labor camps, and grave yards.
Kevin,
That's the spirit! I mean he's already doing everything necessary to make people more dependent on him and the government, so the lad shows real potential.
Like so many others, Mr. Baker, you equate Darwinism with atheism. The two do not necessarily go together, since a great many believers also seem to support evolution.
Yes there are bright and talented atheists. If we do not, as you say, "unite for the common good", it may be because most of us seldom claim to speak for the people--unless, of course, we're scheming to gain power for ourselves. ~_^
"The most organized effort they seem to make is to oppose religion."
Yeah. All it takes to be an atheist is not to oppose religion; it's simply to not believe it. That requires independent thought, which is something religions generally oppose.
You're probably right; Glenn Beck really isn't worth burning so many electrons over. I'll wait until you have commented on something worthwhile here.
Since Christians claim to know THE way to live right, the contrast is much greater when its members fail to live up to it. I have told our hostess that the only way anyone will ever see God is through the actions of his followers. While that has led to much generosity and wondrous works, it has also led to more despicable things. Luther, for example, thought it was a good idea to burn the homes of Jews, and such ideas were well established in society long before Darwin was born. If anything, Darwin's work only gave scientific "respectability" to such biases. It certainly gave ammo to North Dakotans as well as those Europeans...and they can't all have been atheists!
GM,
"Like so many others, Mr. Baker, you equate Darwinism with atheism."
On the contrary. I know that one does not necessarily imply the other. I merely point out that Darwinism reflects the natural philosophy of a world absent God.
"If we do not, as you say, "unite for the common good", it may be because most of us seldom claim to speak for the people"
Bull - If that were the case, atheists would either create their own institutions or be content to leave others alone. Instead, they destroy other institutions while claiming to speak for that same "common good." Christians wanted people to be able to read the Bible, so they organized schools. Rather than organize their own schools, atheists sued to get the Bible out. Christians wanted to teach young men character, so they formed the scouts. Atheists, rather than forming their own scouts, sued to try to get atheism in the existing ones.
"Since Christians claim to know THE way to live right, the contrast is much greater when its members fail to live up to it."
So your argument is that it is better to have no standards than to fail to live up to them. Congratulations on living up to nothing worthwhile.
"Luther, for example, thought it was a good idea to burn the homes of Jews, and such ideas were well established in society long before Darwin was born."
Again, no context. People have been killing others for almost as long as their have been people. It took Christianity to organize forces for good. To the best of my knowledge, there is no corresponding drive on the side of atheists. In a world where lousy is often the norm, Christians try to make things better. Atheists continually whine about Christians, but offer nothing but snark and lawsuits.
Face it - Without Christ, people are worse overall. Worse actors in this world, and so much worse in the next.
Hi Christine, GM and Gary,
I thought I would throw my 2 cents in about your statement, Gary, that "Face it - Without Christ, people are worse overall. Worse actors in this world, and so much worse in the next." It seems to me that the world is no different with Christianity than it was before. People still go to war. They are still hungry. They are still living in poverty. I don't think Christianity has 'tamed' humanity. European history after Christ is really Christian history, and that certainly isn't a peaceful or happy time! The Christians were also not the first to have universities (we can thank the Muslims for that).
Now this isn't to say that the Christians haven't done some really good things. But other religions have also done some really good things.
Oh, and Gary, I was thinking about you the other day. I received a letter from a college I teach at telling me that I had to be a member of their faculty union. I had two choices--to join and be charged union dues, or to not join, and still be charged the dues! I have to admit I wasn't very happy with being forced to join--I don't know what this union does for me, but now that I am being forced to join, I better find out!
Hello all,
Sorry about my absence. I was apartment hunting all day yesterday for my daughter.
GM - (you ObamaBorg you!)
I know that you would not have access to Obama's records. I was being facetious. But it is quite curious that someone who has attained the highest office in the land chooses to hide his COLB. Heck! I needed to show my kids birth certificates just when they wanted to play soccer or softball in our hometown leagues! Don't you think it is strange that Obama is so secretive about it?
You wrote:
"If this God business actually made people better individuals and better citizens, that'd be good cause for consideration. But given the writings of this blog, I've seen no evidence of that.
Guess I'll have to remain as I am."
But Jesus doesn't ask whether or not "this God business" makes people better individuals. He asks YOU - INDIVIDUALLY - "Who do you say that I am?" How you answer that question determines where you will spend eternity. All the goodness you might do on this earth is as "filthy rags" compared to the holiness of God. Thus, the reason why Jesus had to die for our sins was so that we could be reconciled back to God. It's a simple message that even a child can understand. However, it is quite a big step from "being your own spiritual boss" to trusting Christ.
*******
Kevin,
Since you claim to know about what Pelosi did (fraudulently signed two separate DNC forms for Obama's candidacy) I must ask you, doesn't that bother you to know about it?
*******
Gary and GM,
Continue with your bantering!
*******
Kevin,
I am curious about you being forced to join a union. Is this a new development this year at the college you teach at? I wonder if this has something to do with Obama's pro-union philosophy. But being forced to join a union when, for years before, you weren't forced to do so sounds like a freedom of association Constitutional violation to me.
Shifting gears now, I want to ask you something.
Have you ever taken "The Good Test?"
Salvation through the cross of Christ isn't about a person's "goodness." It is about their sin, evil and depravity. Being born again doesn't mean that you are, or will be sinless. We still have that sin nature in us. However, Christ took the place of us on that cross to be punished for the sins that we committed in the face of Holy God. A changed life is very evident in a saved believer. However, no one is perfect. Only Jesus can claim that.
When it comes time to face God the Father in eternity, each person who has ever lived will either face Him with their sins still on their souls, or forgiven and covered by the shed blood of Jesus Christ on the cross so that we can appear blameless before God. It is only Christ's righteousness that saves us - not our own.
Kevin,
"It seems to me that the world is no different with Christianity than it was before."
Same thing I told GM: Context. You see a world with Christianity. Now consider what Christians do accomplish that seldom if ever gets mentioned. As I said before, they donate over twice as much to charities in terms of money and time. Think of how many services you would either be lacking or have to pay extra for without Christians. Christians were the major driving force for abolishing slavery. They were also the major force for civil rights, and if you doubt that, look at the state of civil rights in countries without a strong Christian background overall. There are exceptions, such as Japan, but that was a country heavily influenced by America after it's defeat. I also think you would have trouble finding any group that has contributed more to building of schools, hospitals, and other services. To the best of my knowledge, Jewish law set up the first formalized instructions for care of widows, orphans, and the poor as a duty of the church. In communities across the USA this morning, approximately 300,000 children have a place to play basketball at church's who otherwise would not thanks to the upward program. As the season changes, more children will have opportunities at baseball, football, and cheerleading. Christian emergency ministries are generally the first on the scene for everything from major hurricanes to floods to tornadoes providing food, shelter, and other services.
You may not think of Christianity as anything special, but I have a feeling you'd notice a lot missing if they disappeared, especially considering how homosexuals fare in a lot of non-Christian countries.
Congratulations to the Muslims on their first university, but I'm kind of "what have you done for me lately" guy. It seems that modern countries where Islam holds sway are in various stages of barbarism, where women are little better than property and those outside of royalty and the clergy are often left to poverty with little or no help. From what I understand, they got off to a great start, yet despite controlling much of the world's energy wealth, they remain essentially feudal states.
Sorry to hear about your union problem. I agree with Christine in that I feel that it is unconstitutional to force anyone to join an organization that they do not wish to for the sake of employment. That battle was lost a while ago. I also feel that it is unconstitutional to force people to pay for health insurance that they don't want or use. We'll see how that one goes.
Gary,
What a coincidence that you mention "Islam countries at various stages of barbarism" and that "despite [the fact that Muslim] countries control much of the world's energy wealth, they remain essentially feudal states" because I just created a new post with lots of important links regarding "Muslims in 21st Century America."
It's quite shocking to read what is going on within our beloved nation. If we don't watch out, I'm worried that our current out-of-control government will, unfortunately, make the same huge mistake and ignorantly follow in the same steps (regarding unrestricted open Muslim immigration) as Britain.
Here is the reason the people need to be assured that the President meets the Constitution's natural born citizen requirement:
The President of the United States is one of the three branches of government. He is the Executive branch. The nation speaks to all people through one voice, the President's. The President can make treaties, grant pardons, sign and veto legislation, appoint a Cabinet, as well as Supreme Court Justices. In addition to these duties, the President knows the nation's most important and secure secrets, and as the Commander in Chief of the military, has the military's nuclear launch codes at the ready, and who can arguably, either take steps to weaken the nation, or even destroy it. In the words of Vice President Dick Cheney, "The president of the United States now for 50 years is followed at all times, 24 hours a day, by a military aide carrying a football that contains the nuclear codes that he would use and be authorized to use in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States. He could launch the kind of devastating attack the world has never seen. He doesn't have to check with anybody. He doesn't have to call the Congress. He doesn't have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in."
Mr. Obama claims that he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. As his only evidence that he meets the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a President be a natural born citizen, he produced a document called a "Certification of Live Birth," which he posted on his website under the title: "Barack Obama's Official Birth Certificate."
At first blush, it is case closed. A closer examination of the facts, however, reveals that Mr. Obama failed to point out on his website that his posted "Official Birth Certificate," as he called it, is actually a 2007 computer-generated, laser-printed summary document of his 1961 vital record(s) on file with the Hawaii State Department of Health. What we do not know, however, is what 1961 vital record the Certification of Live Birth is summarizing.
In 1961 there were at least six different procedures available to obtain a vital record (birth certificate) that the Certification of Live Birth could be summarizing. Each one has a different degree of reliability and trustworthiness that warrants scrutiny (Copied with permission from http://birther.com).
Post a Comment