In the earlier article today, I mentioned the Drudge headline on Santourm and SATAN. I have often praised Drudge hedlines, but I have also often noted that it is hit or miss. As i do with this lbog, Drudge tries to be deliberately provocative with his headlines. And they are all about AGENDA (even as Drudge gives you more variety in his overall cited articles than you get fromt he mainstream media).
In this case, the headline was a BAD msitss. No, the "news' was hardly wrothy of a headline at all. Santroum's veiws on Satan are IRRELEVANT to this election. A "banner headline' on this subject is absurd, and can only be explained by AGENDA. Dubt me? Never do that. There was an eqully strange Drudge headlien a day or two ago linked to an aritlce with the headline: "Santourm aide makes gaffe, criticizing Obama's 'radical Islamic policie'. " I assure you that was an anti-Santourm headline, and again not worht a "banner headline". ARe we now gong to start maknig banere headlines out of every "gafffe" of any ADE to political candidates? It boggles the mind, especially in a case like this. It is OBVIOUS that even th e aide (much less Santorum) merely meant to say that Obama polices are HELPING radical Isllamists. Tat is the ositin of EVErY GOP candidate, with the possible exceptin of Ron Paul It is Mitt Roney's positn. It is newt Gingrich's position. No sane person would believe that Santorum, or even an aide, thought that Obama plicies themselves were "radical Islamic plicies". Jsut a verbal mistake. But Drudge POUNCED on it, more than CNN This means that Drudge is now into ROMNEY PROPAGANDA. I had knot known that Drudge was part of the GOP establishment, but it appears taht he is. I had known that the unfari and unbalanced network is part of the GOP estalbishment, and THEy are definitely "all in" for Romeny(algouth acitng nervous aobut it as Romney stumbles). .
Oh. Where did Drugdge get his SMEAR of Santorum? He got it from Politico--a FAR LEFT website that this lbog has criticized several times as disonest political hacks (correclty criticized). No, that headline was a SMER job by Drudge, in aid of Romney (or possibly Gingrich, although that would be stupid, as Gingrich cannot make it now). It is not jsut the "news" stories, but the ten pont banner headlines. That signals PROPAGANDA. Sure, that is true of some Drudge headlines on Obama and the Democrats, but those headlines are sometimes clever. These headlines were merely embarrassing.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Obama Questioni: Do You Believe, as a Christian, That Non-Christians Go to Hell?
"He that believeth not is damned." No, I am not "quoting scripture"--at least not directgly. I am quoting a fictional minister from the movvie "Life with Fahter" (William Powell, with my rating of 76 on my scale off 100, where 60 is worth seeing). I can't cite you to the Biblical verse cited, if it is real. It sounded real in the movie, but it was supposed to. The "belief", of coure, is in a Christian God. Whehter I have quoted scripture right or not, that is my understanding of CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE: Non-believers go to Hell, and that includes non-believers in Jesus Christ (like Jews). Now even I--who knows almost everything--am confused by the question of whether most Christian chuuches officially believe that OTHER CHRISTIANS (not of the same chruch) go to Hell. Very definitely,, most churches imply--for obvious reasons--taht their chruch is the BEST way to salvation. If you, as a church, don't believe thaqt, why claim to be a separate church at all? What is your rationale for existing?But I am confident that almost EVERY Christian chruch has the OFFICIAL positoin that "non-believers" go to Hell.
Thus, a secretary of mine (in my former life as a lawyer) once said: "You are gong to Hell." She had just found out (from me) that I am an agnostic. She was--probably still is--a Caholic. No, she was laughing as she said it, and did not really "mean" it as an assault/insult. Around 1970-71, I had a letter published in the El Paso Times in which I said I was an "anti-religious agnostic". I was in the United States Army at the time, stationed at Ft. Bliss. A year or so thereafter, i told a law school class at The University of Texas School of Law that I could not accept that a woman had the "right" to PLAY GOD on a matter of life and death (abortion). I mentioned that I don't even believe in God. Why should I think it right to give a woman the power of God, just because she is pregnant with a genetically distinct life withoin her. And I have often said that I don't understand how ANY "Christian" can accept the pro-abortion "argument" that we con't know when a soul comes into existence as an argument FOR abortion. You mean you Christians0-some of you--are willing to accept the POSSIBILITY that yoiu are murdering a human being with a soul? This has always struck me as an especailly absurd ro-abortion aargument, although almsot all pro-abortion arguments are absurd (generally equally applicable to obvius infanticide, as this one is: exactly HOW do you know taht a human infant has a soul?).
What is the point of the above paragraph? No, the pont is not that I go around annuncing that I am an agnostic, just as I don't see any reason for omosexuals to announce that. Howwever, I have never HIDDEN it, when it was relevant to soemthing. I don't thhik I bothered to mention it when I wrote a published letter to the Denver Post DEFENDING the right of right wing CHRISTIAN radio broadcasters not to have their license taken away for broadcasting according to their beliefs. (by the FCC, because of that ridiculous "Fairness Doctrine"). i did say that I did NOT endorse the views of those broadcasters, but that I actually believe in fre speech. Leftists, as lyou know, do not. Again, the point is taht, over a peeirod of some 50 years (I am notw 64), I have never pretended to believe in any religon. Yet, never--in all of that time--has someone who believes like Rick Santourm, or any BELIEVING Christian, called me names or said ANYTHING (the jokig reference to me gong to Hell does not count) insulting to me because of my beliefs. That is NOT true of myu CONSERVATIVE beliefs. I have referred this week to my brother remembering how VILLIFIED I was on the campus of The University of Texas, druing the days of teh Vietnam War and George McGovern, because of my conservative letters/articles in The Daily Texan. That was also true as I posted material on AOL and Newsvine (MSNBC site) in recent years. No, I got NO grief in the army for calling myself an "anti-religious agnostic", even though my sergeant did mentin it (sort of approvingly--certainly not in condemnation), although I think he was probably a Christian.
If the OFFICIAL position of Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich is that I am going to Hell, which I thik it MUST be if they claim to be real Christians, then why shuld I CARE whether they are truly "religous" or not. And why should THEY care about what I think ON RELIGION, so long as I don't interfere with their beliefs and their right to express and practice them? Really, they can't say anything worse than what the Christian religion tells me: taht I am gong to Hell. Now I appreciate that some Christians may feel a DUTY to "save" me. But time will tell, won't it (which is what is wrong with the Catholic Inquisitin and the present views of most Muslms on PERSECUTING otehr religions). If your opponents are going to Hell, exactly what is it that you can do to them that is WORSE than that? That is why POLITICAL arguments on the DETAILS of religon are insane and EVIL. Yep, I jsut called the people of CNN--Wolf Blitzer and all of teh rest--INSANE and EVIL. The headline should give you an idea of the kind of POLITICAL campaigns people like those on CNN are creating for us--much MORE than any believing Christian out there tha I know about. Elections should be about POLICY, and not religious beliefs 9including you opiion on whether "mainline" Christian chruches are truly "Christian" or not. Nope. You, as a voer, should not CARE about any of that. It is a RELIGIOIUS argument, as ts the argument of whether the Mromon religioin is really Christian (as is the argument of whether peole who do not belong to your religiion are really going to hell). What should matter to you, as a voter, is POLICY (including policy as to allowng people freedomm to practice their relgion without being hasssled by government). No, it is NOT a "hassle" from government to have the President talk about having a different religion than you. That is leftist INTOLERANCE at work. In this countgry, you shuld be PREPARED to encounger different religions than yours, and IT SHOULD NOT BOTHER YOU. No, it should not even bother you if shcools, or government officials, seem to prefer another religoin over yours, so long as they don't try to limmit your right to pracitece YOURS. Nope. It NEVER bothered me to say "unde God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, or hear an "invocation" at a graducation. Why should it? The words oare smply meaningless to me. Why should I deny other peole the COMFORT of the meaing that THEY get from such words?
That is why I wuld NEVER use the term "anti-religious" today to describe my agnosticism. that is the term that has been coopted by Bill Maher and CNN as a inadequate way to describe their ANTI-CHRISTIAN postioins. I think it is also a term you can apply to Barack Obam. Wht I meant by the term--probably not the term I should have used even then--was that I doon't believe in the CONCEPT of faith and religon. Even if God exists, in other words, I don't concede Him the "right' to demand worship, or tell me how to think. Now I am a SKEPTIC, and so I am fully prepared to admit I amy be WRONG about that. Mabye the failure to see the value of "faith" is due to a LACK in me that makes it impossible for God to "communicate" with me. I accept the possibiity. If there is a Christian God, however, I dearly hope there is also a HELL. Think of the SACRIFICE I am willng to make!!!! I am willng to HOPE there is a HELL jsut to have the pleasrue of MEETING Wolf Bitzer, Anderson Coopr, ALL of Planned Parenthood and the ACLU, and all of the rest of those "journalists" there. No, i am not "iwshing" them to Hell. I am just totally confident that is where they will end up, if Hell exists.
Yes, this OBSESSION of CNN, and the rest of the mainstream media, with religion (the religuos aspects of religon) is turly an EVIL thing, and it is maknig our political campaigns a nightmare. No, it is NOT ture that "religious canddiates--meaning candidates like Rick Santorum, who make it ovius they really believe in their religion--are CAMPAIGNING on relgion. Barack Obama DOES want to "impose" his religion (leftist ideology) on us all. NO "religgious" canddiate (in the Untied Staes) has ever given me the im mpression that he or seh wants to imose his or her RELIGION one me. No, this is a dliberate LIE on the left. It is NOT 'imposing your religoin" on me to make abortin illegal, or imposing that religion on a woamn who does not agree with you. Infanticide is a SEcuLAR CRIME. Agian ,the OFFICIAL DOCTRINE of the Christina Chruhc (essentiall all Christian chruches) is that ALL MORALITY originates with God--the source of al goodness in the universe. This means that, technicaly, the Christian postioni against outright adult MURDER is a RELIGIUS position. But that is absurd. There is nothin gwrong with a RELKIGIOUS person trying to have his society reflect his or her religious VALUES on SECULAR policy questions. Whether abortion is right or wrong is a SECULAR questin, even if a person's religious beliefs may affect how she or he feels about the question. Homosexual conduct, and whether socieyt APPROVES it on the same basis as heterosexual cnduct, including marriage, is a SEcULAR questin--not a religous question. The left DELIBERATELY confuses this matter to make opponents SHUT UP. Did I tell you that the left does not believe i either free speech or democracty for peole who disgaree with them? I know I have--repeatedly.
It is religion as religon that should not be part of political campaigns, and that is exaclty what media people like those of CNN are trying to do: to make RELIGION , and especailly a person's religious views, a baiss for SMEARS in political campaigns. Thus, it makes NO DIFFERENCE whether Rick Santorum thinks homosexuality is a "sin" (as the eVIL piers Morgan asked him) . The relevant POLITICAL questin, and the ONLY relevant political question, is whether Rick Santorum faovros same sex marriage, an t things like open homosexuals in the military. If you don't liek Santorum's POLICY psotions on thsoe thigs, fine. Wheteher he has a religous basis for those PLICY positions is irreelevatn, unless he makes the RELIGON ITSELF an issue. But it is NOT Santorum who wants to do that. It is CN, and the rest of the mainstream media, who want to SMER Santourm as totally a "religous" candidate, no matter what he says about Iran, energy, the economy, and all of the other issues we fac.e Does Rick Santroum personally believe in the Caholic Church's positon on contraception? So what. Rick Santourm is NOT tring to say that insurance companies cnnot provide health policies that cover contraception. It is OBAMA who wants to FORCE emplyers, and insurance companies, to provide FREE contraception and abortion pills (which offends MY conscience, and I am an agnostic). No I don't have any problem with pre-conception contraceptin. But I have a problem with "morning after" abrotin inducing pills, and I ahve a BIG problem with Obama attacking FFEEDOM. Waht buiness is if of Obama to ORDER emlyers and insurance comanies--Cahtolic or not--to prefer contraception to, ay, CANCER TREATMENT? the clueless GOP, as usual makes a MISTAKE to make this all about religon. It is, as Rush Limbaugh corrrectly stated and this blog correctly stated, a mater of FREEDOM. The "religious conscience" aspect is ony a subset of the bigger issue--a subseet that does illustreate that Obama has NO CLUE as to what a "religious conscience" is.
You know that paragraph above where I basically say that I am too ARROGANT to let God dictate to me what to do and what to believe? You think that is too "extreme"? Well, Nancy Pelosi made it clear in an interview that such is EXACLTY her position. "God gave me free will, and he must have expected me to use it.". I sumit that is is also the position of Braack Obama, and every leftist I know antything about (whether they claim to be a member of a religion or not) . I KNOW my own positin when I seen and hear it. yep. I DO think it is really the ositin of most "mainline" Protestant religions, who have long agon sort of keyed their relgions to "modern thought" rather than to the Bible. You might also remember, when you consider really apying any attentin to CNN trying to make an issue out of RELIGIN (and comments on religino), that the REFORAMTION was all about the Catholic Chruch no longer being "really" Christian--hainvg lsot its way from the original Christian religin. These are RELIGIUS questons that mean NOTHING--or shouuld mean nothng--in a POLITICAL campaign. The left does not want Barack Obama to be saddle d with reverend Wright's religous veiws, but those are the ONLY SPECIFIC religioius views that we can say Brack Obama ever gve any evidence of having. Yes, I understand that SOME conservatives wanted to make an "issue" of the RELIGIOUS THEOLOGY of REverend Wright's church. I correclty called this WrONG. We jsut, again, cant havepolitical campaigns on that baseis. Yet, that THOLOGY in which Obama suposedly believed is MORE OUTSIDE MAINSTEREAM CHRISTIANITY than any thing in the religons of Sarah Palinn, Rick Santourm, Herman Cain, or even Mitt Romney. It turned out, of course, that the "chruch" of REverend Wright was more of a cruseade agaisnt "white, European America" than abut a true Christian religion. Now Obama does nto even have a SPECIFIC religion, and the media is actually trying to make that a VIRTUE. Theese truly are the most dishonest hypocrites to ever walk the Earth.
You don't want our political campaings to be about the kind of questin s I raise above, and in recent articles posted on this blog? then you msut rEJECT the attempt by CNN, and the rest of the mainstream media to make the Santourm campaign all about RELIGION and "social issues", rahter than abut the full sepctrum of what Santourm is saying. Message to Karl Rove: BITE ME, you dishonest, sanctimonius, political hack. Oh, and you are stupid as well. Rove is jsut unable to say a single honest thing, or a single intelligetn thing. Sortty, this is my personal war with Karl Rove, but I heard a little of Rove on Santourm, and it was jsut as bad as anything CNN is saing. the man is a piece of work (and I mwnt that in the WORST possible way). Again, if you don't want our political campaigns to be turned into the kind of stupid arugments over religin like are indicartted by my articles, then you need to IGNORE these SMEARS of Santrum. Nope. It does NOT matter if Rick Santurm thinks you are gong to Hell. What difference does it make to you or to me (and I KNOW he thinks that about me, as does Barakc Obama,if he is really a Christian). I am not worried abut Rick Stantourm helpng me into Heaven, or condemning me to Hell. I don't think he has that power. What I am worried aobut is the POLICIES of the person who will be the next President of the United States, and Rick Santourm is the BEST of the current candidates (including Obama) on his overall policies. No, he is NOT "perfect". I don't agree with this "manufacturing" complication to the tax code. dBut I have confidence Santroum has actual PRIINCIPLES on Iran, energy, the economy, taes, adn al of the rest (yes, including "social issues") that make him the best overall candidate running. I say that even if Richk Santorum does think I am going to Hell!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I actually prefer peole who think I am going to Hell to people without principles.
P.S No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight). Now you may think the above is not that coherent. It is difficult to craft this knd of article, basically touching on the entire philosphy of both religoin and politics, "on the fly", wthout even the ability to proofread it. I did so anyway, knowing this problem The reason is that I wanted to try to give you a GUT geeling of how BAD it wil be for this country if CNN has its way, and our political campaigns become all about these kinds of quesiotns. I actually heard the absolutely DESPICABLE Karl Rove suggest taht CNN will ASK Rick Santoruum about all of this stuff, including his passing comments that maybe mainline Protestnat churches are no longe truly Chistian (something this blog said YEARS AGO to expalin why churches hwo really BELIEVE are gainging people, while mainline Protestatn churches are generally dying out. As staed, it was the osition of the REFORMATINO taht the Catholic Chruch was no longer really, truly "Christian" (with its saints, relics, etc.). You might say I was RAISED with a distrust of the Catholic Chruch, because I was raised Presbyterian (before "evangelical churches really existed on any large scale). Thus, yo might say a distrust of teh Caholic Church was virtually brainwashed into me, which is why I fully nderstand the criticism of Sir Walter Scott of the Catholic Chruch (evident in his novels). Nevertheless, I have NO problem voting for Satorum, because RELIGON IS RELIGON, and pretty much irrelevant (as religon) on political issues. If only our EvIL mainstream media, such as the antiChristian CNN, ageed with me. For them, ATTAcKING the GOP on religion is the way to aovid confronting actual issues. And it is insane to take the Karl Rove viewt hat you just need to "keep a ow profile". That is like appeasing Iran. Santourm needs to STAND UP to these peole, Gingrich style by saying tat THEY are the ones talikng religin. He should make clear he wants to talk ISSUES.
Thus, a secretary of mine (in my former life as a lawyer) once said: "You are gong to Hell." She had just found out (from me) that I am an agnostic. She was--probably still is--a Caholic. No, she was laughing as she said it, and did not really "mean" it as an assault/insult. Around 1970-71, I had a letter published in the El Paso Times in which I said I was an "anti-religious agnostic". I was in the United States Army at the time, stationed at Ft. Bliss. A year or so thereafter, i told a law school class at The University of Texas School of Law that I could not accept that a woman had the "right" to PLAY GOD on a matter of life and death (abortion). I mentioned that I don't even believe in God. Why should I think it right to give a woman the power of God, just because she is pregnant with a genetically distinct life withoin her. And I have often said that I don't understand how ANY "Christian" can accept the pro-abortion "argument" that we con't know when a soul comes into existence as an argument FOR abortion. You mean you Christians0-some of you--are willing to accept the POSSIBILITY that yoiu are murdering a human being with a soul? This has always struck me as an especailly absurd ro-abortion aargument, although almsot all pro-abortion arguments are absurd (generally equally applicable to obvius infanticide, as this one is: exactly HOW do you know taht a human infant has a soul?).
What is the point of the above paragraph? No, the pont is not that I go around annuncing that I am an agnostic, just as I don't see any reason for omosexuals to announce that. Howwever, I have never HIDDEN it, when it was relevant to soemthing. I don't thhik I bothered to mention it when I wrote a published letter to the Denver Post DEFENDING the right of right wing CHRISTIAN radio broadcasters not to have their license taken away for broadcasting according to their beliefs. (by the FCC, because of that ridiculous "Fairness Doctrine"). i did say that I did NOT endorse the views of those broadcasters, but that I actually believe in fre speech. Leftists, as lyou know, do not. Again, the point is taht, over a peeirod of some 50 years (I am notw 64), I have never pretended to believe in any religon. Yet, never--in all of that time--has someone who believes like Rick Santourm, or any BELIEVING Christian, called me names or said ANYTHING (the jokig reference to me gong to Hell does not count) insulting to me because of my beliefs. That is NOT true of myu CONSERVATIVE beliefs. I have referred this week to my brother remembering how VILLIFIED I was on the campus of The University of Texas, druing the days of teh Vietnam War and George McGovern, because of my conservative letters/articles in The Daily Texan. That was also true as I posted material on AOL and Newsvine (MSNBC site) in recent years. No, I got NO grief in the army for calling myself an "anti-religious agnostic", even though my sergeant did mentin it (sort of approvingly--certainly not in condemnation), although I think he was probably a Christian.
If the OFFICIAL position of Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich is that I am going to Hell, which I thik it MUST be if they claim to be real Christians, then why shuld I CARE whether they are truly "religous" or not. And why should THEY care about what I think ON RELIGION, so long as I don't interfere with their beliefs and their right to express and practice them? Really, they can't say anything worse than what the Christian religion tells me: taht I am gong to Hell. Now I appreciate that some Christians may feel a DUTY to "save" me. But time will tell, won't it (which is what is wrong with the Catholic Inquisitin and the present views of most Muslms on PERSECUTING otehr religions). If your opponents are going to Hell, exactly what is it that you can do to them that is WORSE than that? That is why POLITICAL arguments on the DETAILS of religon are insane and EVIL. Yep, I jsut called the people of CNN--Wolf Blitzer and all of teh rest--INSANE and EVIL. The headline should give you an idea of the kind of POLITICAL campaigns people like those on CNN are creating for us--much MORE than any believing Christian out there tha I know about. Elections should be about POLICY, and not religious beliefs 9including you opiion on whether "mainline" Christian chruches are truly "Christian" or not. Nope. You, as a voer, should not CARE about any of that. It is a RELIGIOIUS argument, as ts the argument of whether the Mromon religioin is really Christian (as is the argument of whether peole who do not belong to your religiion are really going to hell). What should matter to you, as a voter, is POLICY (including policy as to allowng people freedomm to practice their relgion without being hasssled by government). No, it is NOT a "hassle" from government to have the President talk about having a different religion than you. That is leftist INTOLERANCE at work. In this countgry, you shuld be PREPARED to encounger different religions than yours, and IT SHOULD NOT BOTHER YOU. No, it should not even bother you if shcools, or government officials, seem to prefer another religoin over yours, so long as they don't try to limmit your right to pracitece YOURS. Nope. It NEVER bothered me to say "unde God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, or hear an "invocation" at a graducation. Why should it? The words oare smply meaningless to me. Why should I deny other peole the COMFORT of the meaing that THEY get from such words?
That is why I wuld NEVER use the term "anti-religious" today to describe my agnosticism. that is the term that has been coopted by Bill Maher and CNN as a inadequate way to describe their ANTI-CHRISTIAN postioins. I think it is also a term you can apply to Barack Obam. Wht I meant by the term--probably not the term I should have used even then--was that I doon't believe in the CONCEPT of faith and religon. Even if God exists, in other words, I don't concede Him the "right' to demand worship, or tell me how to think. Now I am a SKEPTIC, and so I am fully prepared to admit I amy be WRONG about that. Mabye the failure to see the value of "faith" is due to a LACK in me that makes it impossible for God to "communicate" with me. I accept the possibiity. If there is a Christian God, however, I dearly hope there is also a HELL. Think of the SACRIFICE I am willng to make!!!! I am willng to HOPE there is a HELL jsut to have the pleasrue of MEETING Wolf Bitzer, Anderson Coopr, ALL of Planned Parenthood and the ACLU, and all of the rest of those "journalists" there. No, i am not "iwshing" them to Hell. I am just totally confident that is where they will end up, if Hell exists.
Yes, this OBSESSION of CNN, and the rest of the mainstream media, with religion (the religuos aspects of religon) is turly an EVIL thing, and it is maknig our political campaigns a nightmare. No, it is NOT ture that "religious canddiates--meaning candidates like Rick Santorum, who make it ovius they really believe in their religion--are CAMPAIGNING on relgion. Barack Obama DOES want to "impose" his religion (leftist ideology) on us all. NO "religgious" canddiate (in the Untied Staes) has ever given me the im mpression that he or seh wants to imose his or her RELIGION one me. No, this is a dliberate LIE on the left. It is NOT 'imposing your religoin" on me to make abortin illegal, or imposing that religion on a woamn who does not agree with you. Infanticide is a SEcuLAR CRIME. Agian ,the OFFICIAL DOCTRINE of the Christina Chruhc (essentiall all Christian chruches) is that ALL MORALITY originates with God--the source of al goodness in the universe. This means that, technicaly, the Christian postioni against outright adult MURDER is a RELIGIUS position. But that is absurd. There is nothin gwrong with a RELKIGIOUS person trying to have his society reflect his or her religious VALUES on SECULAR policy questions. Whether abortion is right or wrong is a SECULAR questin, even if a person's religious beliefs may affect how she or he feels about the question. Homosexual conduct, and whether socieyt APPROVES it on the same basis as heterosexual cnduct, including marriage, is a SEcULAR questin--not a religous question. The left DELIBERATELY confuses this matter to make opponents SHUT UP. Did I tell you that the left does not believe i either free speech or democracty for peole who disgaree with them? I know I have--repeatedly.
It is religion as religon that should not be part of political campaigns, and that is exaclty what media people like those of CNN are trying to do: to make RELIGION , and especailly a person's religious views, a baiss for SMEARS in political campaigns. Thus, it makes NO DIFFERENCE whether Rick Santorum thinks homosexuality is a "sin" (as the eVIL piers Morgan asked him) . The relevant POLITICAL questin, and the ONLY relevant political question, is whether Rick Santorum faovros same sex marriage, an t things like open homosexuals in the military. If you don't liek Santorum's POLICY psotions on thsoe thigs, fine. Wheteher he has a religous basis for those PLICY positions is irreelevatn, unless he makes the RELIGON ITSELF an issue. But it is NOT Santorum who wants to do that. It is CN, and the rest of the mainstream media, who want to SMER Santourm as totally a "religous" candidate, no matter what he says about Iran, energy, the economy, and all of the other issues we fac.e Does Rick Santroum personally believe in the Caholic Church's positon on contraception? So what. Rick Santourm is NOT tring to say that insurance companies cnnot provide health policies that cover contraception. It is OBAMA who wants to FORCE emplyers, and insurance companies, to provide FREE contraception and abortion pills (which offends MY conscience, and I am an agnostic). No I don't have any problem with pre-conception contraceptin. But I have a problem with "morning after" abrotin inducing pills, and I ahve a BIG problem with Obama attacking FFEEDOM. Waht buiness is if of Obama to ORDER emlyers and insurance comanies--Cahtolic or not--to prefer contraception to, ay, CANCER TREATMENT? the clueless GOP, as usual makes a MISTAKE to make this all about religon. It is, as Rush Limbaugh corrrectly stated and this blog correctly stated, a mater of FREEDOM. The "religious conscience" aspect is ony a subset of the bigger issue--a subseet that does illustreate that Obama has NO CLUE as to what a "religious conscience" is.
You know that paragraph above where I basically say that I am too ARROGANT to let God dictate to me what to do and what to believe? You think that is too "extreme"? Well, Nancy Pelosi made it clear in an interview that such is EXACLTY her position. "God gave me free will, and he must have expected me to use it.". I sumit that is is also the position of Braack Obama, and every leftist I know antything about (whether they claim to be a member of a religion or not) . I KNOW my own positin when I seen and hear it. yep. I DO think it is really the ositin of most "mainline" Protestant religions, who have long agon sort of keyed their relgions to "modern thought" rather than to the Bible. You might also remember, when you consider really apying any attentin to CNN trying to make an issue out of RELIGIN (and comments on religino), that the REFORAMTION was all about the Catholic Chruch no longer being "really" Christian--hainvg lsot its way from the original Christian religin. These are RELIGIUS questons that mean NOTHING--or shouuld mean nothng--in a POLITICAL campaign. The left does not want Barack Obama to be saddle d with reverend Wright's religous veiws, but those are the ONLY SPECIFIC religioius views that we can say Brack Obama ever gve any evidence of having. Yes, I understand that SOME conservatives wanted to make an "issue" of the RELIGIOUS THEOLOGY of REverend Wright's church. I correclty called this WrONG. We jsut, again, cant havepolitical campaigns on that baseis. Yet, that THOLOGY in which Obama suposedly believed is MORE OUTSIDE MAINSTEREAM CHRISTIANITY than any thing in the religons of Sarah Palinn, Rick Santourm, Herman Cain, or even Mitt Romney. It turned out, of course, that the "chruch" of REverend Wright was more of a cruseade agaisnt "white, European America" than abut a true Christian religion. Now Obama does nto even have a SPECIFIC religion, and the media is actually trying to make that a VIRTUE. Theese truly are the most dishonest hypocrites to ever walk the Earth.
You don't want our political campaings to be about the kind of questin s I raise above, and in recent articles posted on this blog? then you msut rEJECT the attempt by CNN, and the rest of the mainstream media to make the Santourm campaign all about RELIGION and "social issues", rahter than abut the full sepctrum of what Santourm is saying. Message to Karl Rove: BITE ME, you dishonest, sanctimonius, political hack. Oh, and you are stupid as well. Rove is jsut unable to say a single honest thing, or a single intelligetn thing. Sortty, this is my personal war with Karl Rove, but I heard a little of Rove on Santourm, and it was jsut as bad as anything CNN is saing. the man is a piece of work (and I mwnt that in the WORST possible way). Again, if you don't want our political campaigns to be turned into the kind of stupid arugments over religin like are indicartted by my articles, then you need to IGNORE these SMEARS of Santrum. Nope. It does NOT matter if Rick Santurm thinks you are gong to Hell. What difference does it make to you or to me (and I KNOW he thinks that about me, as does Barakc Obama,if he is really a Christian). I am not worried abut Rick Stantourm helpng me into Heaven, or condemning me to Hell. I don't think he has that power. What I am worried aobut is the POLICIES of the person who will be the next President of the United States, and Rick Santourm is the BEST of the current candidates (including Obama) on his overall policies. No, he is NOT "perfect". I don't agree with this "manufacturing" complication to the tax code. dBut I have confidence Santroum has actual PRIINCIPLES on Iran, energy, the economy, taes, adn al of the rest (yes, including "social issues") that make him the best overall candidate running. I say that even if Richk Santorum does think I am going to Hell!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I actually prefer peole who think I am going to Hell to people without principles.
P.S No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight). Now you may think the above is not that coherent. It is difficult to craft this knd of article, basically touching on the entire philosphy of both religoin and politics, "on the fly", wthout even the ability to proofread it. I did so anyway, knowing this problem The reason is that I wanted to try to give you a GUT geeling of how BAD it wil be for this country if CNN has its way, and our political campaigns become all about these kinds of quesiotns. I actually heard the absolutely DESPICABLE Karl Rove suggest taht CNN will ASK Rick Santoruum about all of this stuff, including his passing comments that maybe mainline Protestnat churches are no longe truly Chistian (something this blog said YEARS AGO to expalin why churches hwo really BELIEVE are gainging people, while mainline Protestatn churches are generally dying out. As staed, it was the osition of the REFORMATINO taht the Catholic Chruch was no longer really, truly "Christian" (with its saints, relics, etc.). You might say I was RAISED with a distrust of the Catholic Chruch, because I was raised Presbyterian (before "evangelical churches really existed on any large scale). Thus, yo might say a distrust of teh Caholic Church was virtually brainwashed into me, which is why I fully nderstand the criticism of Sir Walter Scott of the Catholic Chruch (evident in his novels). Nevertheless, I have NO problem voting for Satorum, because RELIGON IS RELIGON, and pretty much irrelevant (as religon) on political issues. If only our EvIL mainstream media, such as the antiChristian CNN, ageed with me. For them, ATTAcKING the GOP on religion is the way to aovid confronting actual issues. And it is insane to take the Karl Rove viewt hat you just need to "keep a ow profile". That is like appeasing Iran. Santourm needs to STAND UP to these peole, Gingrich style by saying tat THEY are the ones talikng religin. He should make clear he wants to talk ISSUES.
CNN, Anti-Christian Hypocrites: Wolf Blitzer is Not a Christian (Rick Santorum: Guet Hero; Drudge,: Guest Villain)
I happened to be surfing Wolf Blitzer's CNN program this afternoon (never a good idea for my mental health, but always a good idea for moaterial for this blog). Blizer again proved, as this blog has stated before, that CNN is the anti=Dhristian network, and that Bliter himself is not a Christian (partly exlaining why he defends Obama so vehemently on the accusation that Obama is not a Christian, which Blitzer BEWLIEVES to be true in the sense of believing that Obama does not realy believe in all of that religious hogwash). This particular surfing expeditoin again KPROVED this blog's FORESIGHT assertion that CNN would ATTACK Rick Santorum as if RELIGOIN and "social issues' are what Rick Santorum is ALL about. This is PROPAGANDA--partisan propaganda from people who are NOT Christians--pure and simple.
Is RickSantoru runing a campaign saying Obama is Satan, or talking abut Romneyh's Mormnism? Nope. Sure, it is clear Santorum actually BELIEVES in his stated religion, as Obama does nto, and that Santorum believes faith is imortant in America, but Santourm has NOT made this POLITICAL campaign about religion. Contgrst that with the anti-Christian HYPOCRITES of CN, including the despicable Blitzer, who want to DESTROY Santorum by "labeling" him as merely a "Christian" candidate. Wil this BACKFIRE? it hould. It has NO EFFECT on ME--an AGNOSTIC.--becaue I know EViL PROPAGANDA when I see it. And Christians (those of you who actually believe in your religon)? It seems obvius to me that you should VOTE FOR SANTORUM, as a person who actually BELIEVES in this Christian religion (while NOT running a campaign based on voting for him BECAUSE he is a Christian, and his oponensts are nto, as my evangelist barber insists Romney is not--and we know Obama is not a Christian).
What is this all about? It is about the anti-Christian HPOCRISY of Blitzer and CNN. When is the last time you saw CN made a DRUDGE headline aMAJOR story, WITH APPORVAL? The present Drudge banner headline is something like: "SANTORUM GIVES SATAN WRNING". More abut Drudge later, as Drudge seems "all in" for Romney. More about Romney later, as well, as I am coming to DSPISE Romney (who I supported in 2008, to my shame). There arapear to be NO lenghts to which Romney and his supporters will not go, including ATTAcKING SANTORUM NO HIS REILIGIN (eseentailly what this is about). It turns out that Santorum gave a speech to a CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY (Santorum being a Catholic) some four years ago. NO, although CNN mentins it as an afterthought, Santourm did NOT do this as part of a political campaign. Santorum wass NOT running for anything in 2008. As part of that speech, Santorum WARNED his listeners that Satan is always on the attack. He warned that Satan especailly targets the good, decent and powerful, which is how Santorum described the United Staes of America (HORRORS!!!!--my sarcasm disease recurring). President Obama would never describe the United States of America in those terms--to his shame (if he had any).
Let me be as lunt as I possibly can: Santorum mrely was stating CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE (not jsut Caholic doctrine) to a RELIGIOUS AUDIENCE. It is CHRISTRIAN DOCTRINE that Satan is always on the attack, and that a person always has to guard against the indisiouis blandishments of Satan. Sure, you can say that the New Testament is more about love and redemption, but this is still CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. What is WRONG with waht Santorum said? NOTHING. Wolf Blitzer: You are an EVIL man on an EVIL nwetwork. To the extent rreligon is entering polics DIRECTLY it is because of YOU, "journalists" like you, and networks like yours. The PLAN here is not to convince peole Satan does not exist. The plan here is to make people UNCOMFORATABLE voting for Rick Santorum because they don't hear oliticians talk about 'Satan" much. It is like the CNN attempt to make people uncomfortablie with Sarah Palin by uusggesting she beloonged to a congregation what believed in "speaking in tongues". It is even like the CNN/mainstream media attempt to make people uncomforatable in voting for mitt Romney, because he is a Mormon (religion which is not only supsect to many Christians, but which is STRANGE to peole). Make no mistake. Wolf Blitzer is an EVIL man on an EvIL network (work of Satan?), and this is a SMER. That is also how Drudge meant it (wil be the subject of another article, as wil my own "no believf in turning the otehr cheek" attack on Romney.
Question you will NEVER hear asked of Obama, but WILL probably hear asked of Santorum: "Do you believe in Satan?" No, these dishonest "journalists" do NOT CARE about the answer. The idea is just to be TALING about something that people are uncomfortable hearing in a political campaing. You may even get this quesiton (for Santourm, and NOT for Obama): "Do ou believe Obama is an agent of Satan?" Once you hear that questin, you know that our media has LOST it. But I thought that when Mitt Romney was asked whether he had premarital sex WITH HIS WIFE, and when Huckabee was asked wheether he believes the Bible sets for thh the literal Word of God. These are EVIL peole (today's "journalists") spreading EVIL. They are dong their best to make this electin about RELIGION, n orer to potect Barack Obama (their guy, anda person who they blieve has no real belief in any reliioion himself). I, of coure, do NOT "turn the other cheek", because I ham not a Christian. Therefore, I am willing to call these people ("journalists") what they are: EVIL. I am also willing to fight on THEIR ground, and take it to Obama (and even Romney) on the issue of religin. Does Obama believe that the Bible i the word of God? Does OBAMA believe that the Theory of Evolution fully explains the devlopment of human beings on this planet? Does OBAMA believ vve that Rick Santourm is an agent of Satan? (Obama certainly talks like he regards the GOP as agents of Satan.) Does OBAMA believe that people have to be constantly on guard against Satan.
You say you would be HORRIFIED if our PLITICAL campaigns became all about questins like I have posed above. So would I. But that is EXACTLY what Wolf Blitzer and CNN are trying to do, while leaving Obama out of it: make this al about RELIGION and "social issues' for the GOP. No, it does not matter waht Rick Santourm says on the econmy or Iran. Blitzer and CNN are ONLY interested in what Santourm has said on "'social issues" and in a religious speech four years ago. The whole PROPAGANDA mission of CNN, and the entire mainstream meida, is to marginalize Santorum as being ONLY abut religon and social issues. In other words, cNN wants to disqualify a person who really believes in his religoin from running for President. Cannot Santorum belive ni his religin, and--at the same time--believe in the right answers for our econmy? Of course he can. Indeed, as this blog has pontedout, say that Santorum makes ou a little uncomfortable with some of his religiuos convinctions, or even on some of his positions on s"social issues". Does that mean you should automatically vote against Santrum. CNN belives it does. But CNN is compowsed of lying hypocrites, like Blitzer and Dihonest Jack Cafferty. CNN believes you should SELL OUT your country rather than vote for a believing Christian, even if you believe that believeing Christian will SAVE this country from ECONOMIC RUIN. CNN simply refuses to consider the WHILE MAN, when "valuating" someone like Santorum. The hypocrites at CNN will tell eple that they should not be "ideological" to the oint of voting against a person jsut because of a few disagreements on ideological positoins, but then CNN will turn around and TELL you that you cant vote for someone who disagrees with you (or CN) on some social issue--even if Santourm is the BEST choice on the economyh. There is jsut no objective doubt here: It is CNN which is OBSESSED with "social issues' and religoin, and NOT Rick Santorum, Rick Santourm merely BELIEVES. CNN does NTO "believe", but CNN wants to USE relgion and "social issues" as the ULTIMATE OLITICAL WEAPON: the "nuclear bomb" of politics. Aain, this is EVIL stuff, and you should BLAME DNN (nto Rick Santorum), along with media peole who pursue the same agenada as CNN, for turnign our politcal campaings into these terrible cesspools of irrelevancies and SMERS.
Maybe we should evaluate our candidates based on ALL of their positns, and nto try to run only SMEAR cmapaigns (both the candidates and,especially, the media) . Maybe we, as voters, should IGNORE this SMEAR stuff, and evluate Rick Santourm based on actuall LISTENING to his WHOLE message, rather than paying any attentino to the MEDIA NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN agaisnt Santorum.
This blog still endorses Rick Santroum. As my borther told me on the phone the other night (mmy borther not being a religioous person either): I have ALWAYS thought Rick Santourm was the best of them (GOP candidates). I jstu had not thought he could win the nominatin. I expect to votge for him.".
My brotehr got it right. My borther, of course, would vote for itt Romney against Obama, while I wouuld not. But that is a CLOSE questin, on which I undestand my brother's positoin (even if I can't agree with it).
P.S No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight). no, by the way, it is NOT a proer subject for a POLITICAL campaign whether Obama is an 'agent of Satan". But CNN, and the media, are almost FORCING us in to political campiangs where that kind of totally RELIGIOUS "issue" beomces an integral part of our olitical campaings. Tath will be a gragedy for this coutnry. However, as I have said, I do ont turn the other cheek As Newt Gingrich said on negative ads: I do not belive in unilatreral disarmament. that means that this blog will ARGUE RELIGIN, if it comes downt o that, and do so as a matter of POLITICS.
Is RickSantoru runing a campaign saying Obama is Satan, or talking abut Romneyh's Mormnism? Nope. Sure, it is clear Santorum actually BELIEVES in his stated religion, as Obama does nto, and that Santorum believes faith is imortant in America, but Santourm has NOT made this POLITICAL campaign about religion. Contgrst that with the anti-Christian HYPOCRITES of CN, including the despicable Blitzer, who want to DESTROY Santorum by "labeling" him as merely a "Christian" candidate. Wil this BACKFIRE? it hould. It has NO EFFECT on ME--an AGNOSTIC.--becaue I know EViL PROPAGANDA when I see it. And Christians (those of you who actually believe in your religon)? It seems obvius to me that you should VOTE FOR SANTORUM, as a person who actually BELIEVES in this Christian religion (while NOT running a campaign based on voting for him BECAUSE he is a Christian, and his oponensts are nto, as my evangelist barber insists Romney is not--and we know Obama is not a Christian).
What is this all about? It is about the anti-Christian HPOCRISY of Blitzer and CNN. When is the last time you saw CN made a DRUDGE headline aMAJOR story, WITH APPORVAL? The present Drudge banner headline is something like: "SANTORUM GIVES SATAN WRNING". More abut Drudge later, as Drudge seems "all in" for Romney. More about Romney later, as well, as I am coming to DSPISE Romney (who I supported in 2008, to my shame). There arapear to be NO lenghts to which Romney and his supporters will not go, including ATTAcKING SANTORUM NO HIS REILIGIN (eseentailly what this is about). It turns out that Santorum gave a speech to a CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY (Santorum being a Catholic) some four years ago. NO, although CNN mentins it as an afterthought, Santourm did NOT do this as part of a political campaign. Santorum wass NOT running for anything in 2008. As part of that speech, Santorum WARNED his listeners that Satan is always on the attack. He warned that Satan especailly targets the good, decent and powerful, which is how Santorum described the United Staes of America (HORRORS!!!!--my sarcasm disease recurring). President Obama would never describe the United States of America in those terms--to his shame (if he had any).
Let me be as lunt as I possibly can: Santorum mrely was stating CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE (not jsut Caholic doctrine) to a RELIGIOUS AUDIENCE. It is CHRISTRIAN DOCTRINE that Satan is always on the attack, and that a person always has to guard against the indisiouis blandishments of Satan. Sure, you can say that the New Testament is more about love and redemption, but this is still CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. What is WRONG with waht Santorum said? NOTHING. Wolf Blitzer: You are an EVIL man on an EVIL nwetwork. To the extent rreligon is entering polics DIRECTLY it is because of YOU, "journalists" like you, and networks like yours. The PLAN here is not to convince peole Satan does not exist. The plan here is to make people UNCOMFORATABLE voting for Rick Santorum because they don't hear oliticians talk about 'Satan" much. It is like the CNN attempt to make people uncomfortablie with Sarah Palin by uusggesting she beloonged to a congregation what believed in "speaking in tongues". It is even like the CNN/mainstream media attempt to make people uncomforatable in voting for mitt Romney, because he is a Mormon (religion which is not only supsect to many Christians, but which is STRANGE to peole). Make no mistake. Wolf Blitzer is an EVIL man on an EvIL network (work of Satan?), and this is a SMER. That is also how Drudge meant it (wil be the subject of another article, as wil my own "no believf in turning the otehr cheek" attack on Romney.
Question you will NEVER hear asked of Obama, but WILL probably hear asked of Santorum: "Do you believe in Satan?" No, these dishonest "journalists" do NOT CARE about the answer. The idea is just to be TALING about something that people are uncomfortable hearing in a political campaing. You may even get this quesiton (for Santourm, and NOT for Obama): "Do ou believe Obama is an agent of Satan?" Once you hear that questin, you know that our media has LOST it. But I thought that when Mitt Romney was asked whether he had premarital sex WITH HIS WIFE, and when Huckabee was asked wheether he believes the Bible sets for thh the literal Word of God. These are EVIL peole (today's "journalists") spreading EVIL. They are dong their best to make this electin about RELIGION, n orer to potect Barack Obama (their guy, anda person who they blieve has no real belief in any reliioion himself). I, of coure, do NOT "turn the other cheek", because I ham not a Christian. Therefore, I am willing to call these people ("journalists") what they are: EVIL. I am also willing to fight on THEIR ground, and take it to Obama (and even Romney) on the issue of religin. Does Obama believe that the Bible i the word of God? Does OBAMA believe that the Theory of Evolution fully explains the devlopment of human beings on this planet? Does OBAMA believ vve that Rick Santourm is an agent of Satan? (Obama certainly talks like he regards the GOP as agents of Satan.) Does OBAMA believe that people have to be constantly on guard against Satan.
You say you would be HORRIFIED if our PLITICAL campaigns became all about questins like I have posed above. So would I. But that is EXACTLY what Wolf Blitzer and CNN are trying to do, while leaving Obama out of it: make this al about RELIGION and "social issues' for the GOP. No, it does not matter waht Rick Santourm says on the econmy or Iran. Blitzer and CNN are ONLY interested in what Santourm has said on "'social issues" and in a religious speech four years ago. The whole PROPAGANDA mission of CNN, and the entire mainstream meida, is to marginalize Santorum as being ONLY abut religon and social issues. In other words, cNN wants to disqualify a person who really believes in his religoin from running for President. Cannot Santorum belive ni his religin, and--at the same time--believe in the right answers for our econmy? Of course he can. Indeed, as this blog has pontedout, say that Santorum makes ou a little uncomfortable with some of his religiuos convinctions, or even on some of his positions on s"social issues". Does that mean you should automatically vote against Santrum. CNN belives it does. But CNN is compowsed of lying hypocrites, like Blitzer and Dihonest Jack Cafferty. CNN believes you should SELL OUT your country rather than vote for a believing Christian, even if you believe that believeing Christian will SAVE this country from ECONOMIC RUIN. CNN simply refuses to consider the WHILE MAN, when "valuating" someone like Santorum. The hypocrites at CNN will tell eple that they should not be "ideological" to the oint of voting against a person jsut because of a few disagreements on ideological positoins, but then CNN will turn around and TELL you that you cant vote for someone who disagrees with you (or CN) on some social issue--even if Santourm is the BEST choice on the economyh. There is jsut no objective doubt here: It is CNN which is OBSESSED with "social issues' and religoin, and NOT Rick Santorum, Rick Santourm merely BELIEVES. CNN does NTO "believe", but CNN wants to USE relgion and "social issues" as the ULTIMATE OLITICAL WEAPON: the "nuclear bomb" of politics. Aain, this is EVIL stuff, and you should BLAME DNN (nto Rick Santorum), along with media peole who pursue the same agenada as CNN, for turnign our politcal campaings into these terrible cesspools of irrelevancies and SMERS.
Maybe we should evaluate our candidates based on ALL of their positns, and nto try to run only SMEAR cmapaigns (both the candidates and,especially, the media) . Maybe we, as voters, should IGNORE this SMEAR stuff, and evluate Rick Santourm based on actuall LISTENING to his WHOLE message, rather than paying any attentino to the MEDIA NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN agaisnt Santorum.
This blog still endorses Rick Santroum. As my borther told me on the phone the other night (mmy borther not being a religioous person either): I have ALWAYS thought Rick Santourm was the best of them (GOP candidates). I jstu had not thought he could win the nominatin. I expect to votge for him.".
My brotehr got it right. My borther, of course, would vote for itt Romney against Obama, while I wouuld not. But that is a CLOSE questin, on which I undestand my brother's positoin (even if I can't agree with it).
P.S No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight). no, by the way, it is NOT a proer subject for a POLITICAL campaign whether Obama is an 'agent of Satan". But CNN, and the media, are almost FORCING us in to political campiangs where that kind of totally RELIGIOUS "issue" beomces an integral part of our olitical campaings. Tath will be a gragedy for this coutnry. However, as I have said, I do ont turn the other cheek As Newt Gingrich said on negative ads: I do not belive in unilatreral disarmament. that means that this blog will ARGUE RELIGIN, if it comes downt o that, and do so as a matter of POLITICS.
Insanity: Our World Has Gone Insane (Red Cross Insanity)
"Red Cross urges daily two hour halt in Syrian clashes"
The above is a current "featured" hadline on Yahoo "News" (possibly fromt he AP, although I did not bother to note the original source). I am sorry This is INSANE.
What is the Red Cross saying? That they want two hours a day to go in and drag out the dead and dying? Nope. Agian, this is INSANE. I don't care how "god" our intentions are, you HAVE tp dp better tjan this. Do you really expect ANHONE to be able to rely upon a two hour "daily truce", even if the two "sides" are willing to agre to one? INSANEE. Sure, in our Civil War, you had short-term truces to collect the dead and wounded. But that was "civilized" warfare (oxymoron though that is). Even then, there wsa not a DAILY "two hour" halt to fighting.
Sorry, Red Cross. If you cant' do better than this, you have no reason to exist (which my ;89 year old other, who was once a health department nurse when she ws oung, in Mt. Ida, Arkansas, insists is ture: she hates the Red Cross, and believes there is no reason for them to exist, in the form that organizatin has taken).
The above is a current "featured" hadline on Yahoo "News" (possibly fromt he AP, although I did not bother to note the original source). I am sorry This is INSANE.
What is the Red Cross saying? That they want two hours a day to go in and drag out the dead and dying? Nope. Agian, this is INSANE. I don't care how "god" our intentions are, you HAVE tp dp better tjan this. Do you really expect ANHONE to be able to rely upon a two hour "daily truce", even if the two "sides" are willing to agre to one? INSANEE. Sure, in our Civil War, you had short-term truces to collect the dead and wounded. But that was "civilized" warfare (oxymoron though that is). Even then, there wsa not a DAILY "two hour" halt to fighting.
Sorry, Red Cross. If you cant' do better than this, you have no reason to exist (which my ;89 year old other, who was once a health department nurse when she ws oung, in Mt. Ida, Arkansas, insists is ture: she hates the Red Cross, and believes there is no reason for them to exist, in the form that organizatin has taken).
Religion, Communism and Leftist Theology: Lysenko
Despite this blog's articles, did lyou ever doubt that there is such a thing as leftist theology? Never doubt taht. For an example that killed MILLONS (maybe tens of millions) of people (as the religoin of "global warming" threatens to do today, to the extent it has not already done so), we again have to look at Joseph Stalin and Lysenko.
You remember Charles Darwin, who leftists often PRETEND to love because he developed the Theory of Evoluton. Leftists believe that the Theory of Evolutoin can be USED against religious conservatives, e en though the idea that the evolutoin of human beings cannot be fully explained by the Theory of Evolutoin is hardly radical 9and has never doe ANY HARM). Well, Stalkn--from a Commmunist point of view--did not like the Theory of Evolution eihter, but not just with regard to whether it explains how human beings came to be. From a leftist point of view, the problem with Darwin is the concept of NATURAL SELECTION. It sounds, and is, a lot like the theory of free market capitalishm, as aplied to bioilogy. The theory of free market capitlism--the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith-is based on the idea that tkhe self-interested decisions of millions of peole can BETTER allocate economic resources--over the long haul--than any government that ever existed. The correctness of this theory has really never been challenged, except to argue it is too 'harsh". Sarwin's Theory of Evolutoni similarly says that there is an "invisible hand" ALLOCATING BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --not basedon central planning (which would mean God, or the equivalent--but based on "natural selectoin'. This was distorted into "survival of the fittest" (as has been the theory of free market capitalism). But that is not the fundamental concept. The fundamental concept is that living creatures, without the intervention of any Big Government agent, "evolve" by simply trying to live their lives, as biological resources are ALLOCATED by the "invisible hand" of natural selection causing the biological characteristics hat are needed to be FAVORED (in reporductoni) over those bioilogical resources (characteristics) that are counterproductive to survival. Similarly, the "invisible hand" of AdamSmith allocates ECONOMIC resources without the intervention of any fallible human agent. That is actually what made Salin's application of Couumnist theology WORSE than the idea of an INFALLIBLE Christian God either directing or bypassing evoluton (which undoubtedly occurs). Stalin, as is true of Obama and today's central planners, was a mere falible human being.
Enter Lysenko, Soviet biiologist with a cmpeting theory to Darwin's. Lysenko's ida was that biological entities can be TRAINED to have desirable characteristics, and that those ACQURIED CHARACTRERISTICS (through what amounts to Big Government TRAINING) could be passed on to the succeeding generations (vilating not only Darwin's Theory of Evoluion, but Mendel's theory of genetics). You can see how Lysenko's "theory" FIT Commmunist THEOLOGY. As a Communist, Stalin believed that peole could be TRAINED-educated to be good Communists. Darwin was a HRETIC ( to the Communist "ideal"--the Communist THEOLOGY). This is sstill the leftist theology: all you have to do is "educate" (brainwash) people the right way, and you get a perfect world. None of this "survival of the fittest crap", where resources are allocated by COMPETITION.
But look at the DISASTER this means/meant for AGRICULTURE. Stalin, for theological reasons, made Lysenko the "god" of Soviet biology, including agriculture. It was basically a CRIME AGAINST THE STATE to oppose Lysenkoism, as it is a crime against Obama's theology to oppose the RELIGOIN of "global warming". Lysenko was in charge of Soviet agriculture, and tried to put his ideas into effect (ignoring Darwin, genetics and natural selection). The result was as you wouuld expect. Soviet agriculture FAILED, and millns of people DIED of starvation (not that distressing to Stalin, as Stalin made sure the "right' peole DIED--sort of like Syria using agriculutare to kill peole instead of guns). Lysenkoism is a perfect exampleof what hapens when leftist theology takes over. It happes to be true of economics as well as biology.
Rick Santorum is right. There IS an "ideal" in leftist theology which is a matter of FAITH. But it is not a faith that has anything to do with the Bible, or leading a moreal life. It is much more DANGEROUS. It is a FANTASY idea of how the world SHOULD work. It is not based on reason, and it dESTROYS cocieties and people. Yes, it often KILLS people.
P.S. No proofreading or spel checking (bad eyesight).
You remember Charles Darwin, who leftists often PRETEND to love because he developed the Theory of Evoluton. Leftists believe that the Theory of Evolutoin can be USED against religious conservatives, e en though the idea that the evolutoin of human beings cannot be fully explained by the Theory of Evolutoin is hardly radical 9and has never doe ANY HARM). Well, Stalkn--from a Commmunist point of view--did not like the Theory of Evolution eihter, but not just with regard to whether it explains how human beings came to be. From a leftist point of view, the problem with Darwin is the concept of NATURAL SELECTION. It sounds, and is, a lot like the theory of free market capitalishm, as aplied to bioilogy. The theory of free market capitlism--the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith-is based on the idea that tkhe self-interested decisions of millions of peole can BETTER allocate economic resources--over the long haul--than any government that ever existed. The correctness of this theory has really never been challenged, except to argue it is too 'harsh". Sarwin's Theory of Evolutoni similarly says that there is an "invisible hand" ALLOCATING BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --not basedon central planning (which would mean God, or the equivalent--but based on "natural selectoin'. This was distorted into "survival of the fittest" (as has been the theory of free market capitalism). But that is not the fundamental concept. The fundamental concept is that living creatures, without the intervention of any Big Government agent, "evolve" by simply trying to live their lives, as biological resources are ALLOCATED by the "invisible hand" of natural selection causing the biological characteristics hat are needed to be FAVORED (in reporductoni) over those bioilogical resources (characteristics) that are counterproductive to survival. Similarly, the "invisible hand" of AdamSmith allocates ECONOMIC resources without the intervention of any fallible human agent. That is actually what made Salin's application of Couumnist theology WORSE than the idea of an INFALLIBLE Christian God either directing or bypassing evoluton (which undoubtedly occurs). Stalin, as is true of Obama and today's central planners, was a mere falible human being.
Enter Lysenko, Soviet biiologist with a cmpeting theory to Darwin's. Lysenko's ida was that biological entities can be TRAINED to have desirable characteristics, and that those ACQURIED CHARACTRERISTICS (through what amounts to Big Government TRAINING) could be passed on to the succeeding generations (vilating not only Darwin's Theory of Evoluion, but Mendel's theory of genetics). You can see how Lysenko's "theory" FIT Commmunist THEOLOGY. As a Communist, Stalin believed that peole could be TRAINED-educated to be good Communists. Darwin was a HRETIC ( to the Communist "ideal"--the Communist THEOLOGY). This is sstill the leftist theology: all you have to do is "educate" (brainwash) people the right way, and you get a perfect world. None of this "survival of the fittest crap", where resources are allocated by COMPETITION.
But look at the DISASTER this means/meant for AGRICULTURE. Stalin, for theological reasons, made Lysenko the "god" of Soviet biology, including agriculture. It was basically a CRIME AGAINST THE STATE to oppose Lysenkoism, as it is a crime against Obama's theology to oppose the RELIGOIN of "global warming". Lysenko was in charge of Soviet agriculture, and tried to put his ideas into effect (ignoring Darwin, genetics and natural selection). The result was as you wouuld expect. Soviet agriculture FAILED, and millns of people DIED of starvation (not that distressing to Stalin, as Stalin made sure the "right' peole DIED--sort of like Syria using agriculutare to kill peole instead of guns). Lysenkoism is a perfect exampleof what hapens when leftist theology takes over. It happes to be true of economics as well as biology.
Rick Santorum is right. There IS an "ideal" in leftist theology which is a matter of FAITH. But it is not a faith that has anything to do with the Bible, or leading a moreal life. It is much more DANGEROUS. It is a FANTASY idea of how the world SHOULD work. It is not based on reason, and it dESTROYS cocieties and people. Yes, it often KILLS people.
P.S. No proofreading or spel checking (bad eyesight).
Monday, February 20, 2012
Obama's Theology of Leftist Ideology: Obama Is Not a Christian (Rick Santorum: Guest Hero--for Calling Leftist Ideology a Religion)
"Global warming' is a RELIGON (with a THEOLOGY--ee Al Gore). This blog has explained why for the entire tieme this blog has been in existence (8 years or so, in one placce or another). The "global warming" religion is complete with HERESY, and teh equivalent of burning witches at the stake for going against the orthodoxy of that religion. It is no accident that Al Gore called "global warming" not just a scientific issue, but a MORAL and SPIRITUAL issue. You may not blieve he said that, but I posted a blog article IMMEDIATELY (because I really could not believe it), and I can assure you he did say it. What more evidence do ou need that there is a THEOLOGY on the left, and that President Obama is one of its high priests. Yes, this article is about the mainstream media DISTORTION (deliberate--being the lying hypocrites that they are) of the perfectly reasonable assertion by Rick Santorum that leftist ideology is a kid of theology--a theology totaly independent of the great religions of tehe world. Again, this blog has told ou that for years. I am an agnostic. I outght to know. No, Santorum did NOT say that Obama is not a Christian, and this blog has talked about leftist theology long before I came to the conclusin that Obama is not a Chrisitan. That is MY conclusion, and what Santorum said cannot reasonably be construed that way.
I have a B.S. in physics from New Mexico State University--although I never really worked as a physicist, outside of a "go-op" semester at Sandia Labs in Albuquerque. My actual career wsa in law, with a J.D. degree from The University of Texas School of Law (with high nonors, which was also true of my undergraduate degree in physics). I mention the degree in physics, because I want you to understand that I am fully aware of what "science" is all about (the HARD sciences, and not the social sciences infested with the RELIGION of leftist idology), "Science" is a PROCESS--not a body of "knowledge" ruled by a priesthood. Science is all about SKEPTICISM, which means CHALLENGING "orthodoxy" at every opportunity, to TEST the validity of hypotheses and theories. That is the exact OPPOSITE of the RELILGION of "global warming". Is there some element of "science" lurking in the RELIGION of "global warming"? Sure there is. IT si POSSIBLE that such a thing as "man-made global warming" exists, on some relatively small scale, but every PREDICTION of the RELIGION of "global warming" has proved FALSE (the death knell for a true scientific theory). By now, the ice caps were supposed to have MELTED. Sea levels were suposed to be on their way to rising 12 feet, and flooding coastal areas around the world. The Himalayn glaciers were supposed to be melting to noting. Ski resorts in the U.S were supposed to be going broke. Ever more powerful hurricanes were supposed to be devastating the U.S. EVERY YEAR (there not being a turly bad year since Katrina, hich itself was not that powerful a storm, with the main damage coming from teh levee failure around New Orleans). Yet, any HINT of SKEPTICISM about the outrageous claims of the RELIGION of "global warning" has been met with cries of HERETIC (in effect). Cotton Mather could not have been much worse in his sermons on witchcraft, and scientists who have had the nerve to question the religious orthodoxy of "global warming" have suffered the equivalent of being burned at the stake (figuratively speaking, without intending to eqate attmepted creer assassination with physical torture and murder). And "global waming" high priests have been CAUGHT fudging their dataa, with their claims turning out to be vastly exaggerated (if not tottally false).
Nevertheless, this RELIGION of "global warming", which has nothing to do with "sicence"--being the very OPPOSITE of "science--has been used by high priests like Gore and Obama to try to DESTROY our industrial civliation. Obama has conducted a WAR ON OIL, as he has conducted a war on religions who do not advance his leftist ideology/theology,. Obama, as Liarl-in-Chief has said what absolutely everyone knows is false: that he has encourged lthe production of more oil in and around this country. The Keystone Pipeline is only the most obvious item in this Obama war on oil, along with that ridiculous MORATORIUM on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, even in the face of Federal court orders. Even now, it is like uling teeth to get an aCTUAL PERMIT for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Then you have things like ethanol, the subsidy of whcih has taken FOOD out of the mouths of the poor and hungry. Did I just telly you that Obama and environmentalists have KILLED losts of people with their RELIGION of "global warming"? yep. that is exactly lwhat I just told you. The present skyrocketing price of FOOD (and BEER) is solely the result of Obama policies---especially the policies resulting from the RELIGION of "blobal warming".
Notice taht all of the above has NOTHING to do--aside from the singel reference to my own correct conclusoin that Obama is not a Christian--with "social issues'. You would not know it from CNN (The Liar Network),, or even the unfair and unbalanced network. I saw CNN run a clip of Santorum talking aobut the THEOLOGY of leftist ideology as if that ewere an example of how Santorum is all about "social issues'> Hogwash. This RELIGION/THEOLOGY of "global warmign" is threatening to DESTROY the economyhy of this country , If you can't pay for gasoline this summer, it will be largely because of this RELIGION/THEOLOGY. CN LIED. They said this had nothing to do with the eocnomy (Santorum's assertion that leftist ideology is a religin, when it does not have the foundation of the great religions of the world based on personal and spiritual conduct. Contrary to Al Gore, and probably Obama, "globla warming" has NOTHING to do with "spiritual" and "morral' issues. The core of religion is reliance on FAITH, and not REASON. However, FAITH is not appropriate for things that are supposed to be gased on REASON (such as science, and the SKEPTICISM of the scientific method). Leftist Ideology is all about EMOTHION and FAITH in the gods of the left, like Big Government). What is the invariable response to the latest failure of CENTRAL PLANNING? Right. MORE CENTRAL PLANNEING by ever bitgter and more powerful government. As this blog has repeatedly told--and shown--you, the idea that you can "run' the econmy with CENTRAL PLANNING has been proven false in BOTH theory and practice. When you ingore that, you are in the realm of RELIGION/THEOLOGY. This has NOTHING to do with "social issues", and CNN LIED when it tried to assert that Santorum was proving himself all aboutg social issues. What CNN is doing, of course, is what this blog PREDICTED it would do (along with the rest of the left, including the rest of the mainstream media): Ignore whatever Santorum says on the economy, and eve DISTORT things like this reference to leftist theology, and quote ONLY those things Santorum says which relate--in CNN's view--to "social issues'. This, itself, is a kind of LIE--appropriate for The Liear Network.
Oh, is abortin a RELIGION for Planned Parenthood? How can you doubt it? Palnned Parenthood has always supported NO RESTRICTIOS on aboriton UP TO THE MOMENT OF BIRTH (as is also true of high priest Obama). Even my FEMINST older daugher, who voted for Obama, cannot stomach this positin There is NO scientific or moral doubt that the SAME creature exists one second berfore and one second after the cutting of the umbilical cord. Did I jsut say that Planned Parenthood favors LEGAL INFANTICIDE> Of course I did, and so does Barack Obama. What do ou think "partial birth abortion" was all about? Note that this is apart from abortion in general. My older daughter wants to go to the idea thqat it depends on how old the fetus is--ignoring that there is NO point on the lifeline of a human being, before birth, at which you can say that there is a DIFFERENT creature on one side onf that point than on the other side. But that is why my own position, agnostic though I am, is that ALL abortions are the moral equivalent of infanticide. That is NOt what I am referring to when I say that Planned Parenthood is a RELIGIIOUS/THEOLOGICAL organization. When you are willing to ignore the obvious scientific fact that the cuttin of an umbilical cord does NOT change the nature of the creature you are dealing with, you are a RELIGIONS, FANATIC organization with no interest in reasoned argument. Yep. That is true of Barack Obama, as well, who has been on the same page with Planned Parenthood all of his career. You might argue that this, alone, means that Barack Obama is NOT a "Christian", as most people understand that eterm, but Santorum does not make that asssertion. I DO make that assertion, but not based on abortoin alone.
Obama is NOT a Christian. Here, I have left Santorum, who has consistently said that Obama is a Christian, in favor of telling you the TRUTH. Now I have said--as I must, since I am an agnostic and can hardly tell ou that such a qulity "disqualifies" someone from being Preisdent--that the details of a person's religoin should NOT be a "political issue" (short of a belief in human sacrifice or the like). But the anti-Christian hypocrites of CNN, and Obama himself, are lperfectly willing to make religoin an issue in politics. For example, the HYPOCRITGES--the worst hypocrites to ever waalk the Earth, on towo legs or four--at CNN were perfectly wiling to make an ISSUE of Sarah Palin having once been a member of a church which is part of that Christian sect that sometimes" speaks in tongues' (despite no evidence that Paline ever did that, but he EFIL here from the eFIL peole at CNN is that it is an "issue' if Palin HAD olled on the floor and spoken in tongues). I tis CNN, and the rest of the media, who have made an ISSUE out of Romney's Mormon faith. It is really CNN, and the rest of the mainstream media, who want to make an ISSUE out of Santorum's faith (the DETAILS of this faith, and how he really eblieves it--which they DO NOT, and do not believe that Obama believes his faith, whatever he ven professes it to be). Notice the PASS that Obama gets here, DELIBERATELY (liears and hypocrites all). Obama has NO specific religion. His ONLY specific religion has been the DISCERDITED "religion" of Revernd Wright. Obama simply claims to be a "generic Christian", without having to "defend" ANY specific "beliefs" (even the specific beliefs that might be expected of a generic Christian, such as--dare I say--the qquestin of whether the Theory of Evolutin FULLY EXPLAINS the development of human beings on this planet). CNN, and the rest of the mainstream media, are perfectly willing to make relgion an ISSUE for the GOP. That is EVIL. No, it is NOT TURE thant Santorum, and other GOP candidates, ordinarily make the DETAILS of religon an "issue'. It is NOT Santorum how has made Romney's Mormonism an issue. That is mainly people in the media, such as the aP write--in 2008--who put out that EVIL story about how Romney's great-grandfather was a POLYGAMIST (as was, probalby, Obama's grandfatherJ). Sure., Santorum, and GOP candidates, will emphasie their FAITH, but that is exactly the point. OBAMA is emphasizing HIS FAITH, when he thinks it is to his advantage to do so. And the mainstream media is doing so, as well, even though they would not--almsot all of them--know a "Christina" if one bit them on the ass. Waht they see in Obama is a person LIKE THEM, who does not really beieve in any religion at all. What business is it of the media whether Rick Santorum, Netw Gingrich, or an other GOP olitician "blelives" Barack Obama is a "Christian". Why should they have an opinion, one way or another. This, again, is an EviL attempt to suggest that it is up to GOP candidates to TELL peoople what Obama's faith is. A person's faith should NOT be an "issue' in a political campaign, but neither should a person's "opnion" of ANTHER CANDIDATE'S faith be a factor in a political campaign. That is what I wuld say, if I were a candidate. However, I agree--for once--that Santorum cnnot say that. Free advice to Santorum: Do NOT get in the positin of calling people who do NOT blelive Obama is a Chisrtian--like me--names. Simply say that eveyrone is entitle dto their own opinion, and tit is really imossible to know fully wat a person really believes. The details of a person's religious beliefs simply should not be an issue in campaigns, BUT a person's POLICY toward religin SHUOLD be an issue in political campaigns. That is what Santourm should say, and he should segue from that into a criticism of Obama's WAR ON THE CRHISTIAN RELIGION (or parts of it). Santorum should say this; I don't care if Preisdent Obama is the most devout Christian, in his heart, who ever lieved. His POLICIES aer what matter, and his polcies (as is true of his policies on non-religious issues) are ANTAGONISTIC to religions with whom Obama does not agree.
Bill Maher and I agree that Obama is a "scular humanist" (although I am still interested in someone telling me whether Merh has ever BAKCKED off of his comment that Obama is nto a Christian, as I suspect he has, since I don't follow Bill Maher and the media is not interested in pusing him on this issue). For Bill Maher, "secular humanism" is definitely a RELIGION. Bill Maher makes a RELGION aout of being anti-religioius (as I do not). Did I not say above it is an EvIL thing to make the details of a person's religon, or lack of religoin, an "issue' in a political campaign (wich is NOT the same thing as saying that a voter is perfectly free to vote for a person who he or she thinks shares his religioous beliefs, and that a canddiate is free to talk about his personal faith, without attacking the faith of other candidates)? Yes, I said that. But WHO is making Obama's relgion specifically an ISSUE in this campaign? Right. It is the MAINSTREAM MEDIA, and Obama himself, who are EMPHASIZING the LIE that Obama is a believing Christian. I am not a Christian. I don not turn the other cheek. Thus, if CNN and the rest are gong to MAKE religion an issue, I am perfectly willing to DISCUSS my conclsuions on Obama's relgion (or lack thereof).
Can a person leave "by their Creator" otu of his qutoing of the Declaration of Independence, TWIOCE, and still be religious at all> I don't thinks to. Can a person say, as Obama did in San Francisco, that small town America "clings to their guns and their relgion, while takng out their frustratins on people different from themselves" (paraphrase, but pretty much Obama's wrods), and seill be a Christian? I don't think so. Can a religious person, much less a Christian, firtst issue REGULALTINS telling Cathlics lthat they canot folow their religioin on providing health care to employees, and then announce that the problem of "consicence' is "sovled" because teh ORDER (so much for freedom) will be to insurance companeis and not to the religgious employers themselves, and still be a Christina. I KNOW that you cannot even be religious and take that kind of positni. YOu don't UNDERSTAND religius "conscienece" (as Nancy Pelosie said, but this lbog PROVED long ago that Nacy Pelosi is a THEOLOGICAL leftist who does not beliecvve in any religon). Obama has NO understanding of a ture religious conscience (See "A Man for all Seasons"--obviously not about the GOP). That is because Obama does nto have one. As Bill Maher and I agree, Obama is NOT A CHRISTIAN, but a secular humanist. Both Maher and I should know, since neither of us believe in religion (although I am a SKEPTIC of my own non-belief, while Maher is INTOLLERANT of other views, like Obama).
Okay. Obama is not a Christian. The assertin he is is an orchestrated lie by both Obama and the mainstream media. But you want to know what I mean when I say I am a TRUE SKEPTIC. I am of the school of the Roman philosopher Lucian (see Will Duran'ts "Caesar and Christ"). Lucian was a SKEPTIC, but a skeptic not only of religion but of his own skepticism. To me, that is the only TRUE skepticism. Readers of this blog know that I hav estrong opinions, and that I am smarter than the average bear. Further, this blog has an audited accuracy reating of 99.9%. It has been FOREVER since this blog was shown to be wrong about any material thing. Still, I am open to the POSSIBILITY that I can be WRONG, even about my skepticism. Is ti POSSIBLE that there is a Christian God who is the SOURCE of all goodness in the universe, and that there is a LACK in me that prevents me from opening my heart to that God? Of course it is possible. It is entirely possible that believing Christians (not Obama) are right and that my very skepticism is wrong because it prevents me from opening my mind and heart to the Goodness behind the whole universe. That is why I respect people who TRULY BELIEVE in a religion. I don't much respect peole who jsut profess to "believe" for covenience, or self-interst (see Obama and the fictional Elmer Gantry). By the way, "journalists"should STOP askng religiouis questions--whether of GOPP candidates or Democratic cnadidates. Nothing about the "Theory of Evolution". Nothing aobut whether "homosexuality is a sin". Nothing aobut whether even abortin is a SIN (the questin being whether it is INFANTICIDE, however ou arrrive at that conclusion). Nothing about whehter Mormonism is a Christian religin. Nothing aobut whehter OTHER candidates beliecvve Obama is a Christian, or whehtr Mormonism is a Chrisitan religin. Notnig about whether the Bible is the literal Wordof God. Nothing aobut whether you enganged in premarital sex, in violation of your religin (as Sixty Minutes asked Mitt Romney, in another EVIL moment in a mainstream media recent history full o fthem).
But what does a cndidate do about INTERNET attacks? My own advice is to IGNORE them. I am perfectly fine with a candidate. like either Romney or Obama OR Santorum, gong out and saiing that a POLITICAL campaign should not be about the DETAILS of a person's religin, or lack of one, but about POLICY (including policy toward eligion, such as on the issue of religious conscience). Obama has NO BUSINESS going out trying to PROVE he is a "Christian" (especailly since it is surely a LIE). The media has no business PUSHING the idea that Obama is definitely a Christian. Wo says? Obama? the Meida, of course, wantst to BOLSTER this with INTIMIDATIN---"making" GOP politicans DEFEND OBAMA'S RELGION, and even trying to make them attack their own voters. GOP politicians should NOT fal into this trap. STAND UP to the media, for once. It is NONE OF OYYOUR BUSINESS WHETHER OBAMA IS A CHRISITAN, or whether people believe he is noot a Christian or not. There is no infallible "test" fasto whether Obama really believes in a "real" Christian religin. It is absurd to ask the opinion of OTHERS on a subject that can NEVER be conclusevely proven one way or another (absent another "private" tape where Obama admits he is NOT a Christian--it NEVER being possible to "prove" he IS a "Christian".
You can see I am perfectly willing to discuss religin, and you can expect this headline to recur until November (alnog with many other headlines about relign): Obama is NOT a Christian. 95% certain. Bill Maher and I should know.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). No, there was NOTHING wrong with what Snantorum said, which had nothing to do with whether Obama is a Christian, and I hpe Santorum does not get too defensive about it. I am TIRED of GOP/conservative candidates being INTIMIDATED by the PROPAGANDISTS of CNN and the rest of the mainstream media. Waht, by the way, if Newt Gingrich said something like what I say in this article, and actually came out and said that-kn his opinion--Obama is NOT a Christian. I would love it. I mention Gingrich because he has little to lose. Santourm will never do it, and for god reason. I really don't think Gingrich will. Bt it is one of those things that woululd make my year: for gingrich to say what he has ALREADY said aobut Obama's war on the Christina religin, and folow it up with the statement that he does not see how such a person., with such olitices, can be a Christian (unless, maybe, he jsut hass no understanding of what being a Christian is all aobut). Oh, do I believe that BELIEVING Christians should vote for Obama? Nota chance. But that has nothing to do with whether Obama is a Christian, and everyything to do with the POLICY ANTAGONISM Obama has shown toward Chrisitan religions. I do think Christians would be well advised to vote for ME. Tis last statment--the idea that I might ever run for office--is enough to cause heart attacks and screams of horror. That is why I like to throw it in from time to time. My brother--the pharmacist in the Dallas area-still remembers the leftist students at the University of Texas at Austin FOAMING AT THE MUTH because of letters/articles ublished in The Daily Texan abkc around 1971. My younter brother and I were there at the same tie (he in pharmacy school and me in the School of Law).
I have a B.S. in physics from New Mexico State University--although I never really worked as a physicist, outside of a "go-op" semester at Sandia Labs in Albuquerque. My actual career wsa in law, with a J.D. degree from The University of Texas School of Law (with high nonors, which was also true of my undergraduate degree in physics). I mention the degree in physics, because I want you to understand that I am fully aware of what "science" is all about (the HARD sciences, and not the social sciences infested with the RELIGION of leftist idology), "Science" is a PROCESS--not a body of "knowledge" ruled by a priesthood. Science is all about SKEPTICISM, which means CHALLENGING "orthodoxy" at every opportunity, to TEST the validity of hypotheses and theories. That is the exact OPPOSITE of the RELILGION of "global warming". Is there some element of "science" lurking in the RELIGION of "global warming"? Sure there is. IT si POSSIBLE that such a thing as "man-made global warming" exists, on some relatively small scale, but every PREDICTION of the RELIGION of "global warming" has proved FALSE (the death knell for a true scientific theory). By now, the ice caps were supposed to have MELTED. Sea levels were suposed to be on their way to rising 12 feet, and flooding coastal areas around the world. The Himalayn glaciers were supposed to be melting to noting. Ski resorts in the U.S were supposed to be going broke. Ever more powerful hurricanes were supposed to be devastating the U.S. EVERY YEAR (there not being a turly bad year since Katrina, hich itself was not that powerful a storm, with the main damage coming from teh levee failure around New Orleans). Yet, any HINT of SKEPTICISM about the outrageous claims of the RELIGION of "global warning" has been met with cries of HERETIC (in effect). Cotton Mather could not have been much worse in his sermons on witchcraft, and scientists who have had the nerve to question the religious orthodoxy of "global warming" have suffered the equivalent of being burned at the stake (figuratively speaking, without intending to eqate attmepted creer assassination with physical torture and murder). And "global waming" high priests have been CAUGHT fudging their dataa, with their claims turning out to be vastly exaggerated (if not tottally false).
Nevertheless, this RELIGION of "global warming", which has nothing to do with "sicence"--being the very OPPOSITE of "science--has been used by high priests like Gore and Obama to try to DESTROY our industrial civliation. Obama has conducted a WAR ON OIL, as he has conducted a war on religions who do not advance his leftist ideology/theology,. Obama, as Liarl-in-Chief has said what absolutely everyone knows is false: that he has encourged lthe production of more oil in and around this country. The Keystone Pipeline is only the most obvious item in this Obama war on oil, along with that ridiculous MORATORIUM on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, even in the face of Federal court orders. Even now, it is like uling teeth to get an aCTUAL PERMIT for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Then you have things like ethanol, the subsidy of whcih has taken FOOD out of the mouths of the poor and hungry. Did I just telly you that Obama and environmentalists have KILLED losts of people with their RELIGION of "global warming"? yep. that is exactly lwhat I just told you. The present skyrocketing price of FOOD (and BEER) is solely the result of Obama policies---especially the policies resulting from the RELIGION of "blobal warming".
Notice taht all of the above has NOTHING to do--aside from the singel reference to my own correct conclusoin that Obama is not a Christian--with "social issues'. You would not know it from CNN (The Liar Network),, or even the unfair and unbalanced network. I saw CNN run a clip of Santorum talking aobut the THEOLOGY of leftist ideology as if that ewere an example of how Santorum is all about "social issues'> Hogwash. This RELIGION/THEOLOGY of "global warmign" is threatening to DESTROY the economyhy of this country , If you can't pay for gasoline this summer, it will be largely because of this RELIGION/THEOLOGY. CN LIED. They said this had nothing to do with the eocnomy (Santorum's assertion that leftist ideology is a religin, when it does not have the foundation of the great religions of the world based on personal and spiritual conduct. Contrary to Al Gore, and probably Obama, "globla warming" has NOTHING to do with "spiritual" and "morral' issues. The core of religion is reliance on FAITH, and not REASON. However, FAITH is not appropriate for things that are supposed to be gased on REASON (such as science, and the SKEPTICISM of the scientific method). Leftist Ideology is all about EMOTHION and FAITH in the gods of the left, like Big Government). What is the invariable response to the latest failure of CENTRAL PLANNING? Right. MORE CENTRAL PLANNEING by ever bitgter and more powerful government. As this blog has repeatedly told--and shown--you, the idea that you can "run' the econmy with CENTRAL PLANNING has been proven false in BOTH theory and practice. When you ingore that, you are in the realm of RELIGION/THEOLOGY. This has NOTHING to do with "social issues", and CNN LIED when it tried to assert that Santorum was proving himself all aboutg social issues. What CNN is doing, of course, is what this blog PREDICTED it would do (along with the rest of the left, including the rest of the mainstream media): Ignore whatever Santorum says on the economy, and eve DISTORT things like this reference to leftist theology, and quote ONLY those things Santorum says which relate--in CNN's view--to "social issues'. This, itself, is a kind of LIE--appropriate for The Liear Network.
Oh, is abortin a RELIGION for Planned Parenthood? How can you doubt it? Palnned Parenthood has always supported NO RESTRICTIOS on aboriton UP TO THE MOMENT OF BIRTH (as is also true of high priest Obama). Even my FEMINST older daugher, who voted for Obama, cannot stomach this positin There is NO scientific or moral doubt that the SAME creature exists one second berfore and one second after the cutting of the umbilical cord. Did I jsut say that Planned Parenthood favors LEGAL INFANTICIDE> Of course I did, and so does Barack Obama. What do ou think "partial birth abortion" was all about? Note that this is apart from abortion in general. My older daughter wants to go to the idea thqat it depends on how old the fetus is--ignoring that there is NO point on the lifeline of a human being, before birth, at which you can say that there is a DIFFERENT creature on one side onf that point than on the other side. But that is why my own position, agnostic though I am, is that ALL abortions are the moral equivalent of infanticide. That is NOt what I am referring to when I say that Planned Parenthood is a RELIGIIOUS/THEOLOGICAL organization. When you are willing to ignore the obvious scientific fact that the cuttin of an umbilical cord does NOT change the nature of the creature you are dealing with, you are a RELIGIONS, FANATIC organization with no interest in reasoned argument. Yep. That is true of Barack Obama, as well, who has been on the same page with Planned Parenthood all of his career. You might argue that this, alone, means that Barack Obama is NOT a "Christian", as most people understand that eterm, but Santorum does not make that asssertion. I DO make that assertion, but not based on abortoin alone.
Obama is NOT a Christian. Here, I have left Santorum, who has consistently said that Obama is a Christian, in favor of telling you the TRUTH. Now I have said--as I must, since I am an agnostic and can hardly tell ou that such a qulity "disqualifies" someone from being Preisdent--that the details of a person's religoin should NOT be a "political issue" (short of a belief in human sacrifice or the like). But the anti-Christian hypocrites of CNN, and Obama himself, are lperfectly willing to make religoin an issue in politics. For example, the HYPOCRITGES--the worst hypocrites to ever waalk the Earth, on towo legs or four--at CNN were perfectly wiling to make an ISSUE of Sarah Palin having once been a member of a church which is part of that Christian sect that sometimes" speaks in tongues' (despite no evidence that Paline ever did that, but he EFIL here from the eFIL peole at CNN is that it is an "issue' if Palin HAD olled on the floor and spoken in tongues). I tis CNN, and the rest of the media, who have made an ISSUE out of Romney's Mormon faith. It is really CNN, and the rest of the mainstream media, who want to make an ISSUE out of Santorum's faith (the DETAILS of this faith, and how he really eblieves it--which they DO NOT, and do not believe that Obama believes his faith, whatever he ven professes it to be). Notice the PASS that Obama gets here, DELIBERATELY (liears and hypocrites all). Obama has NO specific religion. His ONLY specific religion has been the DISCERDITED "religion" of Revernd Wright. Obama simply claims to be a "generic Christian", without having to "defend" ANY specific "beliefs" (even the specific beliefs that might be expected of a generic Christian, such as--dare I say--the qquestin of whether the Theory of Evolutin FULLY EXPLAINS the development of human beings on this planet). CNN, and the rest of the mainstream media, are perfectly willing to make relgion an ISSUE for the GOP. That is EVIL. No, it is NOT TURE thant Santorum, and other GOP candidates, ordinarily make the DETAILS of religon an "issue'. It is NOT Santorum how has made Romney's Mormonism an issue. That is mainly people in the media, such as the aP write--in 2008--who put out that EVIL story about how Romney's great-grandfather was a POLYGAMIST (as was, probalby, Obama's grandfatherJ). Sure., Santorum, and GOP candidates, will emphasie their FAITH, but that is exactly the point. OBAMA is emphasizing HIS FAITH, when he thinks it is to his advantage to do so. And the mainstream media is doing so, as well, even though they would not--almsot all of them--know a "Christina" if one bit them on the ass. Waht they see in Obama is a person LIKE THEM, who does not really beieve in any religion at all. What business is it of the media whether Rick Santorum, Netw Gingrich, or an other GOP olitician "blelives" Barack Obama is a "Christian". Why should they have an opinion, one way or another. This, again, is an EviL attempt to suggest that it is up to GOP candidates to TELL peoople what Obama's faith is. A person's faith should NOT be an "issue' in a political campaign, but neither should a person's "opnion" of ANTHER CANDIDATE'S faith be a factor in a political campaign. That is what I wuld say, if I were a candidate. However, I agree--for once--that Santorum cnnot say that. Free advice to Santorum: Do NOT get in the positin of calling people who do NOT blelive Obama is a Chisrtian--like me--names. Simply say that eveyrone is entitle dto their own opinion, and tit is really imossible to know fully wat a person really believes. The details of a person's religious beliefs simply should not be an issue in campaigns, BUT a person's POLICY toward religin SHUOLD be an issue in political campaigns. That is what Santourm should say, and he should segue from that into a criticism of Obama's WAR ON THE CRHISTIAN RELIGION (or parts of it). Santorum should say this; I don't care if Preisdent Obama is the most devout Christian, in his heart, who ever lieved. His POLICIES aer what matter, and his polcies (as is true of his policies on non-religious issues) are ANTAGONISTIC to religions with whom Obama does not agree.
Bill Maher and I agree that Obama is a "scular humanist" (although I am still interested in someone telling me whether Merh has ever BAKCKED off of his comment that Obama is nto a Christian, as I suspect he has, since I don't follow Bill Maher and the media is not interested in pusing him on this issue). For Bill Maher, "secular humanism" is definitely a RELIGION. Bill Maher makes a RELGION aout of being anti-religioius (as I do not). Did I not say above it is an EvIL thing to make the details of a person's religon, or lack of religoin, an "issue' in a political campaign (wich is NOT the same thing as saying that a voter is perfectly free to vote for a person who he or she thinks shares his religioous beliefs, and that a canddiate is free to talk about his personal faith, without attacking the faith of other candidates)? Yes, I said that. But WHO is making Obama's relgion specifically an ISSUE in this campaign? Right. It is the MAINSTREAM MEDIA, and Obama himself, who are EMPHASIZING the LIE that Obama is a believing Christian. I am not a Christian. I don not turn the other cheek. Thus, if CNN and the rest are gong to MAKE religion an issue, I am perfectly willing to DISCUSS my conclsuions on Obama's relgion (or lack thereof).
Can a person leave "by their Creator" otu of his qutoing of the Declaration of Independence, TWIOCE, and still be religious at all> I don't thinks to. Can a person say, as Obama did in San Francisco, that small town America "clings to their guns and their relgion, while takng out their frustratins on people different from themselves" (paraphrase, but pretty much Obama's wrods), and seill be a Christian? I don't think so. Can a religious person, much less a Christian, firtst issue REGULALTINS telling Cathlics lthat they canot folow their religioin on providing health care to employees, and then announce that the problem of "consicence' is "sovled" because teh ORDER (so much for freedom) will be to insurance companeis and not to the religgious employers themselves, and still be a Christina. I KNOW that you cannot even be religious and take that kind of positni. YOu don't UNDERSTAND religius "conscienece" (as Nancy Pelosie said, but this lbog PROVED long ago that Nacy Pelosi is a THEOLOGICAL leftist who does not beliecvve in any religon). Obama has NO understanding of a ture religious conscience (See "A Man for all Seasons"--obviously not about the GOP). That is because Obama does nto have one. As Bill Maher and I agree, Obama is NOT A CHRISTIAN, but a secular humanist. Both Maher and I should know, since neither of us believe in religion (although I am a SKEPTIC of my own non-belief, while Maher is INTOLLERANT of other views, like Obama).
Okay. Obama is not a Christian. The assertin he is is an orchestrated lie by both Obama and the mainstream media. But you want to know what I mean when I say I am a TRUE SKEPTIC. I am of the school of the Roman philosopher Lucian (see Will Duran'ts "Caesar and Christ"). Lucian was a SKEPTIC, but a skeptic not only of religion but of his own skepticism. To me, that is the only TRUE skepticism. Readers of this blog know that I hav estrong opinions, and that I am smarter than the average bear. Further, this blog has an audited accuracy reating of 99.9%. It has been FOREVER since this blog was shown to be wrong about any material thing. Still, I am open to the POSSIBILITY that I can be WRONG, even about my skepticism. Is ti POSSIBLE that there is a Christian God who is the SOURCE of all goodness in the universe, and that there is a LACK in me that prevents me from opening my heart to that God? Of course it is possible. It is entirely possible that believing Christians (not Obama) are right and that my very skepticism is wrong because it prevents me from opening my mind and heart to the Goodness behind the whole universe. That is why I respect people who TRULY BELIEVE in a religion. I don't much respect peole who jsut profess to "believe" for covenience, or self-interst (see Obama and the fictional Elmer Gantry). By the way, "journalists"should STOP askng religiouis questions--whether of GOPP candidates or Democratic cnadidates. Nothing about the "Theory of Evolution". Nothing aobut whether "homosexuality is a sin". Nothing aobut whether even abortin is a SIN (the questin being whether it is INFANTICIDE, however ou arrrive at that conclusion). Nothing about whehter Mormonism is a Christian religin. Nothing aobut whehter OTHER candidates beliecvve Obama is a Christian, or whehtr Mormonism is a Chrisitan religin. Notnig about whether the Bible is the literal Wordof God. Nothing aobut whether you enganged in premarital sex, in violation of your religin (as Sixty Minutes asked Mitt Romney, in another EVIL moment in a mainstream media recent history full o fthem).
But what does a cndidate do about INTERNET attacks? My own advice is to IGNORE them. I am perfectly fine with a candidate. like either Romney or Obama OR Santorum, gong out and saiing that a POLITICAL campaign should not be about the DETAILS of a person's religin, or lack of one, but about POLICY (including policy toward eligion, such as on the issue of religious conscience). Obama has NO BUSINESS going out trying to PROVE he is a "Christian" (especailly since it is surely a LIE). The media has no business PUSHING the idea that Obama is definitely a Christian. Wo says? Obama? the Meida, of course, wantst to BOLSTER this with INTIMIDATIN---"making" GOP politicans DEFEND OBAMA'S RELGION, and even trying to make them attack their own voters. GOP politicians should NOT fal into this trap. STAND UP to the media, for once. It is NONE OF OYYOUR BUSINESS WHETHER OBAMA IS A CHRISITAN, or whether people believe he is noot a Christian or not. There is no infallible "test" fasto whether Obama really believes in a "real" Christian religin. It is absurd to ask the opinion of OTHERS on a subject that can NEVER be conclusevely proven one way or another (absent another "private" tape where Obama admits he is NOT a Christian--it NEVER being possible to "prove" he IS a "Christian".
You can see I am perfectly willing to discuss religin, and you can expect this headline to recur until November (alnog with many other headlines about relign): Obama is NOT a Christian. 95% certain. Bill Maher and I should know.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). No, there was NOTHING wrong with what Snantorum said, which had nothing to do with whether Obama is a Christian, and I hpe Santorum does not get too defensive about it. I am TIRED of GOP/conservative candidates being INTIMIDATED by the PROPAGANDISTS of CNN and the rest of the mainstream media. Waht, by the way, if Newt Gingrich said something like what I say in this article, and actually came out and said that-kn his opinion--Obama is NOT a Christian. I would love it. I mention Gingrich because he has little to lose. Santourm will never do it, and for god reason. I really don't think Gingrich will. Bt it is one of those things that woululd make my year: for gingrich to say what he has ALREADY said aobut Obama's war on the Christina religin, and folow it up with the statement that he does not see how such a person., with such olitices, can be a Christian (unless, maybe, he jsut hass no understanding of what being a Christian is all aobut). Oh, do I believe that BELIEVING Christians should vote for Obama? Nota chance. But that has nothing to do with whether Obama is a Christian, and everyything to do with the POLICY ANTAGONISM Obama has shown toward Chrisitan religions. I do think Christians would be well advised to vote for ME. Tis last statment--the idea that I might ever run for office--is enough to cause heart attacks and screams of horror. That is why I like to throw it in from time to time. My brother--the pharmacist in the Dallas area-still remembers the leftist students at the University of Texas at Austin FOAMING AT THE MUTH because of letters/articles ublished in The Daily Texan abkc around 1971. My younter brother and I were there at the same tie (he in pharmacy school and me in the School of Law).
Americans, Including GOP and Media, Sell Their Soul for $15 a Week: Media Lies and Our Liar-in-Chief
I still can't get over the blatant LIES regarding this fraudulent payroll "tax cut" bill. You should know th e Orwellian Big Lie by now: 160 millioin Americans will receive an extra $40 per week in their paycheck. This was not only a LIE, but an OBVIOUS lie. Do the arithmetic yurself: $52 per week is (appproximately) $2000 per year. Multiply $2000 times 160 million Amiercans. Yoiu get a total of MORE than 320 BILLION dollars, and that does not even represent the full cot of this bill (with unemployment insurance and Medicare "fixes" adding tens of billions more--NOT "kapid for" in that same year (as if we did not need any "pay for" to cover the fact we are SPEWNDING more than 1 TRILLION dollars more than we are taking in). Yep. if ou listen to the PROPAGANDA, this payroll "tax cut" will ADD a wh;opping 320 BILLION dollars to our defict/debt in ONE YEAR. It tells you a lot about the GOP that the GOP did NOT CARE how much it adds to the deficit/debt. That is because they have no principles, other than reelection, and thought that this "deal with thedevil" was essential to the GOP election prospects (showing how truly stupid the GOP is). This is the ONLY "principle a GOP Congressman has : REELECTION.
You did not hear our media say that this payroll "tax cut" bill will add 320 BILLION dollars to the deficit over one year? You did not hear the unfair and unbalanced network tell you that? Well, you hardly heard the media even talk about the ADDITION to the debt/deficit represented by this bill, over ONE YEAR--about how that ADDITNO is MORE than the GOP will have "cut" from spending over the two years htat the GOP House has had a VETO power over spending. Indeed, the GOP has "cut" NOT ONE THINK DIME, and will not have done so going into the 2012 eleciton. Our media are LIEARS. However, it is ture that the payroll "tax cut" bill did NOT cost (add to the deficit and debt) 320 billion dollars. The LIE here is that 160 millioni Ameri cans will receive an extra $40 per week in thie weekly check. The yearly cost of this bill is probably around 120 BILLION dollars. It is hard to know for sure, because it is not a certain figure and because the media is UNINTERESTED in giving you the facts. Then there was that ridiculous "two month extensin", which the GOP FASLSELY claimed was "paid for' (mainly out of HOUSING--a fee on mortgage transactions). Anyway, let us take 120 billion dollars as the figure we are ADDING to the deficit/debt over one year. That is not far off, and lets us CALCULATE how much the AVERAGE American gets "extra" in his or her weekly paycheck.
160 million Americans. That does NOT include the very poor, or most of the elderly, who do not receive a substantial paycheck. I have said, in previous articles,that the AVERAGE person, in that 160 millioin, will receive LESS than $20 per week. Unilike th eLIEARS of the unfair and unbalanced network, and the rest of the media, what I tell ou is absoutely correct (and verifiable). Miltiple $1000 times 160 million. You get a result of 160 BILLION dollars. Again, this is much MORE than the yearly addition to the debt asserted in the PROPAGANDA (when the propaganda is not ignoring the issue entirely, which is most of the time). We have accepted 120 billiion as being close to a correct estimate. of how mcuh this "tax cut" GIMMICK will add to the defict/debt over one year. Okay, this means that mere arithmetice leads us to the conclusion that this is NOT even $20 a month ($1000 a year) for those 160 million Americans. That number (1000 times 160 million) would be 40 billion more than our accepted cost of 120 billion (the simple multiplication totalling 160 billion).
In this article, I will not be content with leaving it at that: "less than" $20 per weeek being added to 160 million paychecks. Let us get closer to an EXACT number. What will get us close to 120 billin dolllars (120 more dollars than the GOP has "cut" from spending for 2011 and 2012--you might as well add 2013 right now)? $750 a year, for 160 million Americans, brings you close (unlike the liars in the media, I refkuse to pretend these are exact numbers). $750 times 160 millioin gets you to 120 billioin. Even if you are too lazy to do this multiplication on paper, you can see this is true (in your head). We have already established taht $1000 times 160 million is 160 billion (too high). Half of $1000 is $500. Half of 160 billion is 80 billioni (too low). 750 is exactly twtwen 500 and 1000. 120 billion is exactly between 160 billion and 80 billion. Q.E.D. $15 is the AVERAGE amount (give or take a dollar or two) that 160 million Americans will get, extra, in their pachecks. As this blog has told you, this will COST those 160 millon Americans at least that miuch in HIGHER gasoline prices and food prices alone, and in extra inflation. That is not to mention the damage to Social Security funding, eventual higher intereste rates (unless the econmy collapses), and all of the other costs involved with adding hundreds of billions to the deficit/debt. This is the SECOND year we have done this, and it DID NOT HELP the econmy the first year.
You say that Obama and the Democrats fed this propaganda to the media, and that therefore they can't be blamed (when the cowards in the GOP refused to bring out these FACTS)? As the headline says, Obama is our Liar-in-Chief, and tells these lies routinely. BUT, this is NOT a matter of opinio!!!! It is NOT HARD. This is obvius stuff. The media cannot "report"the LIE of $40 per week without making themselves LIARS, if they don't point out the obvious lie.
As a grammatical matter, my headline is not correct. The media are not sellling their soul for $15 per week. They are selling their soul for AGENDA. The GOP politiicians are not selling their soul for $15 per week. They are selling their soul for ELECTION (wich they expect to be wroth many times more than $15 per week).
However, look at the PRICE both the media and the GOP are putting on YOUR soul!!!!! KYpe. They are confident that YOU are willing to sell your soulf for $15 per week (not even real, as you lose money in the end, whihc is always true of deals with the devil). Now you know. You now know what the media and GOP--not to mention Obama and the Democrats--think your soul can be "bought" for: $15 per week.
The more I think about this payroll "tax cut", the more angry I get. I think most Americans do not want to sell their soul for $15 per week, and recognize this is all a SCAM that will destroy us. But where do they go? The GOP has AGAIN shown they have no principles--certainly not this one: to stand by your principles onf debts and deficits rather than make deals with the devil. Obama is Liar-in-Chief, and will surely destroy this country if he gets another frou years (as another one of my brothers--the pharmacist in the Dallas area--again told me last night, when I said I could never vote for Romney). My borther, by the way, agreees that Santorum is the choice for the GOP nomination, and I WILL vote for Santorum, despite the handicap he has being part of the GOPP (and being somewhat of a politician type from all of his years in Washington). I understqand people who think like myu brother(s). It is a hard choice. But I have made my choice (really in 2006). I simply cannot vote for truly DISHONEST people any ore--not to mention total COWARDS--which means I cannot vote for Romney, OR any of the current GOP members of Congress. It may not be the right choice, but how else tdo you EVER stop the lies? In any event, it is the only chioice I can stand to make. I can't stand to let these GOP frauds continue to get away with it, assuming I have "no placde to go". I DO have a place to go: anywhere away from you.
P.S. No profreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
You did not hear our media say that this payroll "tax cut" bill will add 320 BILLION dollars to the deficit over one year? You did not hear the unfair and unbalanced network tell you that? Well, you hardly heard the media even talk about the ADDITION to the debt/deficit represented by this bill, over ONE YEAR--about how that ADDITNO is MORE than the GOP will have "cut" from spending over the two years htat the GOP House has had a VETO power over spending. Indeed, the GOP has "cut" NOT ONE THINK DIME, and will not have done so going into the 2012 eleciton. Our media are LIEARS. However, it is ture that the payroll "tax cut" bill did NOT cost (add to the deficit and debt) 320 billion dollars. The LIE here is that 160 millioni Ameri cans will receive an extra $40 per week in thie weekly check. The yearly cost of this bill is probably around 120 BILLION dollars. It is hard to know for sure, because it is not a certain figure and because the media is UNINTERESTED in giving you the facts. Then there was that ridiculous "two month extensin", which the GOP FASLSELY claimed was "paid for' (mainly out of HOUSING--a fee on mortgage transactions). Anyway, let us take 120 billion dollars as the figure we are ADDING to the deficit/debt over one year. That is not far off, and lets us CALCULATE how much the AVERAGE American gets "extra" in his or her weekly paycheck.
160 million Americans. That does NOT include the very poor, or most of the elderly, who do not receive a substantial paycheck. I have said, in previous articles,that the AVERAGE person, in that 160 millioin, will receive LESS than $20 per week. Unilike th eLIEARS of the unfair and unbalanced network, and the rest of the media, what I tell ou is absoutely correct (and verifiable). Miltiple $1000 times 160 million. You get a result of 160 BILLION dollars. Again, this is much MORE than the yearly addition to the debt asserted in the PROPAGANDA (when the propaganda is not ignoring the issue entirely, which is most of the time). We have accepted 120 billiion as being close to a correct estimate. of how mcuh this "tax cut" GIMMICK will add to the defict/debt over one year. Okay, this means that mere arithmetice leads us to the conclusion that this is NOT even $20 a month ($1000 a year) for those 160 million Americans. That number (1000 times 160 million) would be 40 billion more than our accepted cost of 120 billion (the simple multiplication totalling 160 billion).
In this article, I will not be content with leaving it at that: "less than" $20 per weeek being added to 160 million paychecks. Let us get closer to an EXACT number. What will get us close to 120 billin dolllars (120 more dollars than the GOP has "cut" from spending for 2011 and 2012--you might as well add 2013 right now)? $750 a year, for 160 million Americans, brings you close (unlike the liars in the media, I refkuse to pretend these are exact numbers). $750 times 160 millioin gets you to 120 billioin. Even if you are too lazy to do this multiplication on paper, you can see this is true (in your head). We have already established taht $1000 times 160 million is 160 billion (too high). Half of $1000 is $500. Half of 160 billion is 80 billioni (too low). 750 is exactly twtwen 500 and 1000. 120 billion is exactly between 160 billion and 80 billion. Q.E.D. $15 is the AVERAGE amount (give or take a dollar or two) that 160 million Americans will get, extra, in their pachecks. As this blog has told you, this will COST those 160 millon Americans at least that miuch in HIGHER gasoline prices and food prices alone, and in extra inflation. That is not to mention the damage to Social Security funding, eventual higher intereste rates (unless the econmy collapses), and all of the other costs involved with adding hundreds of billions to the deficit/debt. This is the SECOND year we have done this, and it DID NOT HELP the econmy the first year.
You say that Obama and the Democrats fed this propaganda to the media, and that therefore they can't be blamed (when the cowards in the GOP refused to bring out these FACTS)? As the headline says, Obama is our Liar-in-Chief, and tells these lies routinely. BUT, this is NOT a matter of opinio!!!! It is NOT HARD. This is obvius stuff. The media cannot "report"the LIE of $40 per week without making themselves LIARS, if they don't point out the obvious lie.
As a grammatical matter, my headline is not correct. The media are not sellling their soul for $15 per week. They are selling their soul for AGENDA. The GOP politiicians are not selling their soul for $15 per week. They are selling their soul for ELECTION (wich they expect to be wroth many times more than $15 per week).
However, look at the PRICE both the media and the GOP are putting on YOUR soul!!!!! KYpe. They are confident that YOU are willing to sell your soulf for $15 per week (not even real, as you lose money in the end, whihc is always true of deals with the devil). Now you know. You now know what the media and GOP--not to mention Obama and the Democrats--think your soul can be "bought" for: $15 per week.
The more I think about this payroll "tax cut", the more angry I get. I think most Americans do not want to sell their soul for $15 per week, and recognize this is all a SCAM that will destroy us. But where do they go? The GOP has AGAIN shown they have no principles--certainly not this one: to stand by your principles onf debts and deficits rather than make deals with the devil. Obama is Liar-in-Chief, and will surely destroy this country if he gets another frou years (as another one of my brothers--the pharmacist in the Dallas area--again told me last night, when I said I could never vote for Romney). My borther, by the way, agreees that Santorum is the choice for the GOP nomination, and I WILL vote for Santorum, despite the handicap he has being part of the GOPP (and being somewhat of a politician type from all of his years in Washington). I understqand people who think like myu brother(s). It is a hard choice. But I have made my choice (really in 2006). I simply cannot vote for truly DISHONEST people any ore--not to mention total COWARDS--which means I cannot vote for Romney, OR any of the current GOP members of Congress. It may not be the right choice, but how else tdo you EVER stop the lies? In any event, it is the only chioice I can stand to make. I can't stand to let these GOP frauds continue to get away with it, assuming I have "no placde to go". I DO have a place to go: anywhere away from you.
P.S. No profreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)