Senator Coburn recently remarked that the recent order by Obama, ordering all employers to offer health insurance that covers birth control, sterilizations and abortion pills, regardless of any religious objections….is not that big a deal:

“This is blown out of proportion,” he said. “It is an important point in terms of religious liberty, but it’s a consequence of having too big of a government.”

I don’t agree that it’s blown out of proportion but I do agree on the reasons why no one should be surprised.

This was what ObamaCare was about in the first place. To place every American under the power of the federal government. To rule every aspect of your life. It’s just another power grab by the federal government, and this Administration, at the expense of the States and the individual.

Daniel Henninger:

The Catholic Church has stumbled into the central battle of the 2012 presidential campaign: What are the limits to Barack Obama’s transformative presidency? The Catholic left has just learned one answer: When Mr. Obama says, “Everyone plays by the same set of rules,” it means they conform to his rules. What else could it mean?

This battle is to repeal ObamaCare, plain and simple.

Oh wait, Romney is going to be our nominee…

Nevermind.

Exit quote:

“We are all familiar with an individual mandate that was authorized by the U.S. Congress and notoriously upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court: the affirmative duty of persons of Japanese descent to report to a Civil Control Station. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1943). The distinction between mere prohibition and command played a large role in the internment cases. . . . Korematsu is a perfectly fine precedent: it has never been overruled. Moreover, it is the feds’ best and only precedent. So why don’t they cite it?”

At last Thursday’s National Prayer Breakfast Obama claimed that his policies are motivated by “God’s command to ‘love thy neighbor as thyself’.” He then conflated this law of love with the golden rule, and made a blatantly dishonest claim about Islam:

I know the version of that Golden Rule is found in every major religion and every set of beliefs — from Hinduism to Islam to Judaism to the writings of Plato

In fact, Islam repeatedly and explicitly rejects the law of love, teaching instead a law of hate.

When Jesus was asked “who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29), he answered (via the parable of the good Samaritan) that everyone is everyone’s neighbor. Islam, in contrast, instructs Muslims to be good only to other Muslims. Koran, verse 48.29:

Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those with him are firm of heart against the unbelievers, compassionate among themselves.

Verse 3.28 says that Muslims can only pretend to befriend infidels:

Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them.

Of course we are very familiar with this in practice, as one revealed terror-plotter after another is described by surprised neighbors and co-workers as the nicest guy.

“That” Golden Rule vs. “The” Golden Rule

I guess Obama can call the law of love “that Golden Rule” if he wants, but there actually is a corollary of the law love (implied by the law of love but not implying it) that is called THE Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Matthew 7:12). There is a hadith in Islam (a reported saying of Muhammad) that is similar in form to the Golden Rule, but opposite in substance. It only calls for goodwill towards other Muslims:

None of you will have faith till he wishes for his (Muslim) brother what he likes for himself.

Bukhari 1.2.13, translated by M. Muhsin Khan.

Preceding hadiths back up Kahn’s non-universalist translation of the Muslim version of the Golden Rule. Bukhari 1.2.10 reads:

The Prophet said, “A Muslim is the one who avoids harming Muslims with his tongue and hands…”

In Islam the principle of reciprocity is extended only between Muslims, which makes it a principle, not of reciprocity at all, but of bigotry and prejudice. Islam is the only religion of any significance that does not embrace a universal principle of reciprocity.

Islam rejects even the idea of cooperation. Koran, verse 9.28:

O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.

i.e. Go broke rather than have dealings with infidels.

Not loving: the Koran’s endless instructions to subjugate and kill infidels

Verse 9.29:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Another murderous verse (Koran 9.5) is the infamous “verse of the sword,” so central to traditional Islamic doctrine:

Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush.

Etcetera ad nauseum.

Well meaning left-wing multiculturalists convince themselves that these verses are no worse, and no more relevant, than God’s Old Testament instructions to the Jews to annihilate one people after another on their mission to conquer the promised land, but those were not universal instructions to conquer everybody. They are framed as specific permissions from God to attack a specific people at a specific place and time. In accordance with this specificity, these Bible verses have rarely if ever been used as a justification for aggressive conquest.

Not all Christians have always heeded the law of love in its properly universal Christian form, but that was no fault of the Bible, while to Christianity’s great credit its various churches have all long since dedicated themselves to understanding and following the law of love as well as flawed human beings are able, and Judaism has done the same.

Decades before Jesus declared that the commandments to love God and to Love your neighbor are all the law and the prophets, Rabbi Hillel had said the same about the golden rule:

“What is hateful to thee, do not unto thy fellow man: this is the whole Law; the rest is mere commentary.”

Orthodox Islam, in contrast, is aggressively carrying its law of hatred and violent aggression to every corner of the globe.

Our taqiyyist president

Obama quite obviously “don’t know much about history,” and “don’t know much about a science book,” but he does know the Koran. He studied it for years as a child and even took classes in “menjaji,” or Koran recitation in Arabic, which is the gold standard of fundamentalist Islamic education.

Hatred of the infidel is not hidden in Islam. It is the essence of it. No one can study Islam at all without comprehending this, and Obama surely does comprehend it. His claim that Islam embraces the law of love can only be a strategic lie, what in Islam is called taqiyya, and the fact that he seems to be engaging in taqiyya is pretty good evidence that Barack Hussein Obama actually is Muslim and is using the Oval Office to promote Islamic supremacism.

Obama’s claim that he is Christian, not Muslim, is not probative because Islam’s very first instruction to converts is that they should lie about their religion. Tabari 8.23 (one of the hadiths, or reported sayings of Muhammad):

en Nu’aym came to the Prophet. ‘I’ve become a Muslim, but my tribe does not know of my Islam; so command me whatever you will.’ Muhammad said, ‘Make them abandon each other if you can so that they will leave us; for war is deception.’

If Obama is Muslim, he would lie about it. Muslims who live amongst Christians are supposed to pretend that they are Christian, if by doing so they can advance the cause of Islamic conquest.

In one set of hadiths, Muhammad asks who will murder a man whose poetry Muhammad finds offensive. He then grants a volunteer (Muhammad bin Maslama) permission to lie to the victim in order to get close enough to do the deed, and the volunteer proceeds to pretend that he has turned against Muhammad (i.e. that he is no longer a Muslim). This is regarded by orthodox Islam as model behavior.

In sum, Obama is certainly lying about Islam, and hence is almost certainly an orthodox Muslim who embraces the Islamic law of hate. So what else is new? Honestly, we knew this before the 2008 election.

(As for the sheer destructiveness of the policies that Obama claims to be required by love, don’t be such a wuss: “You’ve gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet.”)

The gay marriage bill in the Washington State Legislature specifically claims to protect religious freedom. HB 2516/SB 6239 bills itself as:

AN ACT Relating to providing equal protection for all families in Washington by creating equality in civil marriage and changing the domestic partnership laws, while protecting religious freedom…[Emphasis mine]

But, as always, the devil is in the details.

Section 4 (2) of the proposed legislation says that:

No regularly licensed or ordained minister or any priest, imam, rabbi, or similar official of any church or religious denomination is required to solemnize any marriage.

Sounds good, right? The Section goes on to say that:

A refusal to solemnize any marriage under this section by a regularly licensed or ordained minister or priest, imam, rabbi, or similar official of any church or religious denomination does not create a civil claim or cause of action. . . .

It doesn’t create a civil claim or cause of action. A civil claim is when one private person (or group of people) sues another private person or group. Notice that the Section is silent on whether a refusal might create any other kind of legal claim.

Now let’s go to Section 7:

(1) Consistent with the law against discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW, no religious organization is required to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage unless the organization offers admission, occupancy, or use of those accommodations or facilities to the public for a fee, or offers those advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public for sale. [Emphasis mine]

(2) A refusal by any religious organization to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage does not create a civil claim or cause of action unless the organization offers those accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public in transactions governed by law against discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW. [Emphasis mine]

Sounds pretty innocuous, but remember: The devil is in the details.

That little word unless in paragraph (1) is a hole big enough to drive a Mack truck through. Most churches have some procedure whereby at least some people who aren’t parishioners can rent their building and hold a wedding in it. Many churches hold occasional fundraisers on church property. All those churches could be sued under that one “unless.”

But that’s small potatoes compared to the opening clause, which brings all churches in the state for the first time under the purview of Chapter 60 (which deals with the State Human Rights Commission) of Title 49 (Labor Regulations) of the Revised Code of Washington. That’s important, because the Human Rights Commission (HRC)  doesn’t function in the civil law arena. It functions in the arena of public and administrative law. According to the HRC website,

If the Commission finds that there is reasonable cause to believe discrimination occurred, we will seek conciliation of the complaint. Appropriate remedies in the conciliation process may include back pay, reinstatement, rent refunds, or training to eliminate the unfair practice. If conciliation fails, the complaint may be turned over to the Attorney General’s office for hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

So. There’s no ground for a civil claim unless the church offers its facilities, services, etc. to the public in situations over which the HRC has jurisdiction. And the HRC just happens to have jurisdiction over, let’s see, anything having to do with employment (of more than eight people), housing, real estate, places of public assembly, credit and insurance.

Can you think of a church with no connection to any of those things?

Me neither.

The religious freedom the bill claims to give with one hand, it quietly and completely takes away with the other.

Now. Let’s go back to the ministers, priests, imams and rabbis. If one of them refuses to solemnize a marriage, it doesn’t create a civil claim or cause of action.

Fine.

But, just as with the churches, this bill leaves the door wide open for the pastor to be pursued by the Human Rights Commission and the Attorney General. Sure, the next step after the HRC would be the relatively low-level Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)–where, by the way, evidentiary standards are relaxed–but an appeal of an ALJ case goes straight into the mainstream Superior Court system. Bam.

Not only do many pastors refuse as a matter of conscience to marry gay couples. Many also refuse as a matter of conscience to marry couples where one party has been divorced, where one party is of a different faith than the other, and so on.This would leave no conscience clause in any of those cases.

Follow the money. This law would force pastors, rabbis, imams, churches, synagogues and mosques to choose between marrying couples they don’t in good conscience believe their God permits them to marry, or being taken to court and bankrupted.

The couple in question, of course, can always go find another place and another officiant. The pastor and the church, though, have no such easy way out.

So much for protecting religious freedom.

Crossposted from Cry, Beloved Country

On a Mission from God

If one searches for Obama’s position on the separation of church and state, one is repeatedly directed to a speech given by Obama at the Call to Renewal’s Building a Covenant for a New America. A video of a portion of the speech is posted several times on youtube and it is described by one poster this way:

Barack Obama discusses the importance of The Separation of Church and State in a pluralistic society.

Another poster says this:

Obama explains the importance of church-state separation in a variety of ways. What it comes down to is; In a diverse democratic society, any proposed policy must justify itself via the benefits we ALL see, rather than via arguments that only hold true to people who have one certain religious worldview.

Neither is correct and Obama’s speech was not about separation of church and state- but rather how government can take advantage of religion. He pays lip service to the separation of church and state but not so much about keeping religion out of politics as it was keeping politics out of religion:

For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn’t the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn’t want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.

But then makes the argument that religion must bow to government:

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Thus it ought to surprise no one that Barack Obama’s policy has been to intermingle church and state when it to his advantage to do so. He’s on a Mission from God.

During his run for the Presidency Barack Obama gave a campaign speech in the United Church of Christ’s General Synod in Hartford Ct in June of 2007.

The speech caught the interest of the IRS:

NEW YORK — The IRS is investigating the United Church of Christ over a speech Sen. Barack Obama gave at its national meeting last year after he became a candidate for president, the denomination said Tuesday.

Obama, an Illinois Democrat, belongs to the 1.2 million-member Protestant group through his Chicago congregation.

In a letter the denomination received Monday, the IRS said “reasonable belief exists” that the circumstances surrounding the speech violated restrictions on political activity for tax-exempt organizations. The denomination has denied any wrongdoing.

The week before the Hartford speech Obama told an Iowa audience:

‘‘My faith teaches me that I can sit in church and pray all I want, but I won’t be fulfilling God’s will unless I go out and do the Lord’s work,’’

And again in Kentucky the following year:

On the rear of the flyer is a little homily about how Obama visited a local church one Sunday. That day Obama felt a beckoning of the Spirit and accepted Jesus Christ into his life.

On Father’s Day of 2008 Obama again campaigned in a church:

Obama headed to church this Father’s Day Sunday in his hometown of Chicago — the first time he’s been to church since he severed relations with his former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. The Obama family attended services at Chicago’s Apostolic Church of God, one of the city’s largest African American congregations and just six and a half miles from Obama’s former place of worship, Trinity Church of Christ.

Longtime church leader Bishop Arthur Brazier greeted his “good friend” warmly and touchingly noted, “[Obama] has done something [in] this country that I never thought I would live to see.” He continued, “I am filled with emotion because I have lived through some very tough times in America. But the America today is not the America of yesteryear. And I don’t think, I don’t think it behooves us well to keep talking about the past. The Apostle Paul said forgetting the things that are behind and reaching out to the things that are before.”

At the end of his speech, Obama thanked Apostolic for their hospitality and urged them to pray for him and for Michelle. The senator left the sanctuary before the actual sermon to be delivered by Bishop Brazier’s son Byron Brazier and didn’t get a chance to hear Apostolic’s prayer for him.

And thus it ought to come as no surprise that Valerie Jarrett recently took to the pulpit to campaign for Obama.

On the Sunday before the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett visited Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta to give a political speech, in support of her boss (Barack Obama) and congressional Democrats

“We all sleep a little better at night knowing Osama Bin Laden and his lieutenants are not plotting a terrorist attack against the United States,” she said, eliciting applause from the crowd.

There was also a brief jab at Republicans.

“Teachers, and firefighters, and policemen, whose jobs are now in jeopardy because congress, well let me be specific, because the Republicans in congress …”
Before she could finish her sentence, people in the congregation were laughing, and applauding.

And to top it off, the church held a voter registration following her political speech.

It was suggested that Jarrett’s speech might be in violation of IRS law:

Valerie Jarrett’s partisan speech at Atlanta’s Ebenezer Baptist Church may have violated the IRS tax rules for churches’ political activities, said a prominent free speech attorney.

“It is problematic under current regulations,” said Erik Stanley, a senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, which is campaigning to roll back IRS curbs on believers’ speech.

And that’s before the so-called separation of church and state. Obama is abusing religion in the name of politics, not that that matters.

After all, Obama is doing the Lord’s work.

Tim Tebow has this to say about football:

“I think number one is, what my mom and dad preached to me when I was a little kid: Just because you may have athletic ability and you may be able to play a sport doesn’t make you any more special than anybody else,” Tebow said. “Doesn’t mean God loves you more than anybody else.

“We play a sport. It’s a game. At the end of the day, that’s all it is, is a game. It doesn’t make you any better or any worse than anybody else. So by winning a game, you’re no better. By losing a game, you’re no worse. I think by keeping that mentality, it really keeps things in perspective for me to treat everybody the same.”

The Broncos lost to the Patriots. Well, the vermin at Huffington Post took out the long knives for Tim Tebow again. I thought you might find interesting what many had to say.

MSMSucksCom:

Does Tebow have one of them “Jesus Fish” on his car bumper? (Out of respect for Jesus Fish, I capitalize­d it.)

I’d appreciate if TMZ or the National Enquirer could get on that, immediatel­y if not sooner. And while you are investigat­ing this, don’t forget to check inside his car. I suspect he has a Fish stuck to his dashboard too.

gfm975

I despise hypocrisy.­.. and God’s Quarterbac­k is high atop that list

NatTurner1

Sometimes its difficult for me to tell, what exactly Jesus said that today’s republican­s embrace. As a matter of fact, I cant find anything..­yet they “claim” him!

emrogers

Fox News is VERY upset. They just said Tebow lost to Tom Hussein Brady.

Bruce Forbes

Incessant displays of public piety say nothing about a person’s faith and say everything about their awareness of where the cameras are. And if Tebow’s God is so small that He/She cares about football, I want nothing to do with Him/Her.

TaylorB95

Perhaps if he spent his time on the sideline reviewing plays and strategy, instead of asking for divine interventi­on, the Broncos coulda won…

Ktbu Lfu

I guess God likes Tom Brady better.

steelej

Saturday evening, a phone rings in heaven:

(Jesus) “Daddddd!” “Phone!”

(God) “Who is it this time?”

(Jesus) “It’s that Tim guy again – he says he really needs your help.”

(God) “Jesus Christ! – uhhh, sorry son, I mean, “for My sake,” tell him to call back on Monday.”

(Jesus) “He says Monday will be too late. Look, you want me to take care of this?”

(God) “Absolutel­­y not! You know your Mother and I don’t want you performing anymore miracles until you’re at least 2100 – you know what happened last time.”

(Jesus) “Awwwww Dad, come on! I’m almost 2020!”

fapescia

I am relieved that G-d’s team lost. All the signs pointed to victory. The players should have carried a monstrance onto the field. Denver should embrace the red cross of the crusades. Ancient Torah scrolls, relics of the True Cross, the blessing of the Pope, and the prayers of a billion Christians should have guaranteed victory. This is causing me to renounce my faith.

IdeatoEmpire

Enough about a thoroughly mediocre and selfish football player who uses religion the same way the roman church does – to make $$$$.

dtrobert

So that must mean that God doesn’t exist, right? I mean, you can’t have selection bias here: what’s good for the goose must be good for the gander. Or maybe it means that Quetzalcoa­tl or Zeus is just a bigger man in the Great Beyond than bad ol’ Yahweh…

WhatWereTheyThinking

God has a sense of humor – this explains Michele Bachmann as well.

Marco Lanz

God is a patriot.

wilsoncombatgrl

Psst… God, its me, Tebow. I’d really like to see these Yankee sons of beeches get their heads handed to them on a platter next week. Brady’s wife is really hot and I would appreciate it if you would send something like that my way (virginal please…n­ot Katy Perry).

MoscowMoo

Dang, looks like Brady must pray harder than Tebow.

j0hnwi11iams

God’s own quarterbac­k crashes and burns. sniffle.

NevadaLiberal

John 1:36

“He who over useth my name, to further their own petty sporting pursuits and personal gain, will get their comeuppanc­e dealt personally by me.”

Thank you lord. For your loving but firm words. We know that you only do it to better us.

John Toth

Jesus doesn’t like suck-ups.

MoscowMoo

Guess it dawned on him that since the Patriots had completely crushed him, their god was OBVIOUSLY better than his. Or at least stronger.

ellj

Been a bad couple of weeks for God. First, his two annointed candidates­, Bachmann and Perry, get crushed, then Tebow. I’m waiting to hear who he bets on for the Super Bowl so I can take the other team.

OMG1

Let me understand this… the creator of the universe who is busy making planets, exploding supernovas­, creating quasars, busily monitoring the daily activities of billions and billions of people, whipping up fabulous days for some, scaring rednecks with tornadoes, hurricanes­, earthquake­s and other natural phenomena, punishing America for tolerance of gays with nasty weather, ignoring the desperate prayers of millions throughout the world…. has time to watch American football on earth and singles out one quarterbac­k for all his adoration and does miracles to make the football go where he intends to throw it. Hmmmmm. Think about it.

How is this any more bizarre than thinking that if you dress up in feathers and bones, sacrifice a virgin and dance in circles, an invisible being will make it rain or make you victorious in war or you will win a football game? Every study ever done shows that prayers do nothing. They have no effect on the person(s) or thing being prayed for and only makes the one praying feel better about themselves and offers those being prayed for a sense of caring from others. Tebow may have gained increased self-confi­dence from prayer but he could have been praying to anything and felt a renewed sense of purpose because he believes that is what will happen.

Maximo Ugmo

gOd “hates” ALL wanna be gOds…sHe said so.

Maximo Ugmo

I would like TeaBow to avow himself as a transgende­r-ed, homophobic­, catholic expression­istic, theocratic­, sanctimoni­ous, bloatware.­..

ChiBloger

And all is right with the world. The right wing messiah has been neutered for another game thanks to a real Quarterbac­k.

None of these knuckleheads asks why Huffington Post continues to highlight Tim Tebow. They just love to hate him.

As for Tebow- what was his reaction to the loss?

Tim Tebow, the Denver Broncos’ quarterback, said win or lose, the important thing is that he honors the Lord.

The New England Patriots crushed Denver 45-10 in Saturday’s American Football Conference division’s playoff game, which received the highest television ratings for any AFC playoff game in 18 years.

Tebow congratulated the Patriots on their victory.

“Even though you can be dejected, you can still feel hurt. You can be disappointed, but you can still honor the Lord with how you handle things,” the 24-year-old quarterback said.

Ray Lewis was involved in a murder. Plaxico Burress shot himself with an illegally held weapon. Ben Rothlisberger is accused of routinely sexual assaulting women. Then there’s Michael Vick.

A current log of crimes committed by NFL players can be seen here. And who do the inhabitants of Huffington post make the target of their hatred?

Tim Tebow is a great kid with a lot of class. Liberalism really is a mental illness.

Tim Tebow’s devotion to his religious beliefs is nothing new, but you’d never know it based on what the media is doing to him.

At HuffPo:

Brady Slays Tebow

Drudge:

GOD LOVES TOM, TOO…

SI:

Love him. Doubt him. Praise him. Ridicule him. Gape in awe. As the last two months have shown, there are 300 million opinions of the Broncos’ quarterback, and every one of them is right

SNL mocks him for his religious devotion.

And of course there is the incomparably disgusting and idiotic Bill Maher:

A “Tebowing.com” site has been created. The cynic in me has doubts about its intentions, especially based on Jared Kleinstein’s own words:

After the dramatic win, Denver native Jared Kleinstein and several friends snapped a picture of themselves in the same pose that Tebow took after the game. They dubbed the action “Tebowing” and posted their picture on Facebook. After the pic generated an unexpected number of likes and comments, the 24-year-old Kleinstein launching a website dedicated to Tebowing.

The site sells Tebow gear which allegedly supports local charities. I have an email to the site asking exactly how much of their sales actually goes to charity.

One might to be tempted to think Tebow’s acts are unique, but they are not.

Albert Pujols

Cris Carter

Bobby Bonds

Watch carefully during the baseball season and see how many players cross themselves as they come to bat. See how many point skyward after something positive. Watch during a football game and see how many players take a knee after a score.

Tebow speaks openly about his religion, but he does not proselytize. So why is he such a target for liberals?

It is because he is white and Christian. There’s no way Maher or any of the other twits critical of Tebow would cast insults if Tebow was Muslim.

Tim Tebow created a charity foundation that works in part to grant the wishes of children with life-threatening illnesses. He spent his signing bonus on charity donations. He spends the off-season doing charity work in the Philippines. You can get a sense of his other efforts here.

Bill Maher, on the other hand, has spent his time boosting his net worth to $23 million. His good works know no limits. Maher has donated an item for auction to benefit “Save the Chimps.”

Tebow is not to be derided- he is to be admired. By all accounts he is a great person.

So they all ought to get off his back- especially Maher. Maher is a perfect example of what’s wrong with the liberal culture. He’s pompously vulgar and disrespectful while spitting all over the likes of Tim Tebow and all that’s right with America.

Hitchens was right:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Maher fans are morons.

“And it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
- Barack Obama

For twenty years Barack Obama claimed to belong the Trinity Baptist Church where the pastor made grand exclamations:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Then Obama threw both Wright and the church under the bus upon learning of the terrible things Wright had been saying for the past twenty years while Obama had been attending the church and not noticing.

Once they were elected, Bill Clinton and George Bush went to church. Bush went in belief, and Clinton most likely went for contrition. Obama, on the other hand, went to the gym following being elected.

There were more mirrors in the gym than in church.

The Obama’s did not regularly attend church through April 2010, although they did make it to Easter service. Then again, maybe it doesn’t matter as it sure seems that Obama pays no attention to anything anyone in churches says.

But it has been reported that Obama has joined a particular church- that being Our Lady of the Perpetual Blackberry.

Absent traditional services, the president has found a high tech spiritual ritual. He receives a daily devotional on his blackberry.

Obama’s avoidance of church, slips of the tongue:

“my Muslim faith…”

Click here to view the embedded video.

and his bowing to Muslim leaders

have led many to believe that Obama is a Muslim.

Nearly a quarter of Americans think President Obama is a Muslim or a follower of Islam, according to a recent Newsweek poll. The poll, conducted August 25-26, suggests that 24 percent of Americans believe he is a Muslim, compared to 42 percent of respondents who believe he is a Christian.

Ten percent believe he was “something else” and 24 percent don’t know. In April and June of 2008, a similar poll suggested that 13 percent of Americans believed that Obama is a Muslim.

And then there was this:

“the President himself experienced Islam on three continents before he was able to — or before he’s been able to visit, really, the heart of the Islamic world — you know, growing up in Indonesia, having a Muslim father — obviously Muslim Americans (are) a key part of Illinois and Chicago.”

What’s an American to believe?

With the election looming, Obama needs to shore up his Christian bonafides. He’s clinging to religion more tightly than ever.

(CNN) – President Barack Obama delivered an unusually stark Christian message at the White House Christmas tree lighting Thursday night, saying Christ’s message “lies at the heart of my Christian faith and that of millions of Americans.”

“More than 2,000 years ago, a child was born to two faithful travelers who could find rest only in a stable, among the cattle and the sheep,” Obama said at the tree lighting ceremony, a longstanding White House tradition.

“But this was not just any child,” Obama continued. “Christ’s birth made the angels rejoice and attracted shepherds and kings from afar. He was a manifestation of God’s love for us.”

Obama has been more public and specific about his religious beliefs since polls last year showed that only a minority of Americans know he is Christian. Last Easter, Obama got unusually specific about his beliefs on Christ’s resurrection at a White House prayer breakfast.

He’s become almost…..evangelical:

In his remarks at Thursday’s tree lighting, Obama said that Jesus “grew up to become a leader with a servant’s heart who taught us a message as simple as it is powerful: that we should love God, and love our neighbor as ourselves.”

“So long as the gifts and the parties are happening, it’s important for us to keep in mind the central message of this season,” he said, “and keep Christ’s words not only in our thoughts, but also in our deeds.

Peace be upon you. “

OK, I made that last sentence up.

Maybe.

Wanna know how to make Cancer patients feel better? Fire Santa.

It’s not even Thanksgiving yet and Santa Claus was fired then rehired (after a firestorm of “passionate response” from the public) at Hollings Cancer Center in Charleston, South Carolina:

For each of the past two years, hospital volunteer Frank Cloyes spent one day as St. Nick, spreading good cheer and snacks to patients sitting through chemotherapy treatments. The 67-year-old James Island resident, a retired insurance executive who calls himself a “gregarious guy,” paid for his own costume rental.

On Tuesday morning, a volunteer coordinator told Cloyes his services no longer were needed.

“Because of our state affiliation, we decided not to have a Santa presence this year,” Hollings spokeswoman Vicky Agnew said. Hollings is a part of the Medical University of South Carolina.

Decorations will be “more secular and respectful to all beliefs,” Agnew said. “We don’t want to offend a volunteer with good intentions, but we need to think of the bigger picture. People who are Muslim or Jewish or have no religious beliefs come here for treatment,” she said.

You know who’s offended? I, as a non-Christian, am offended by this intolerance for expressions of religious faith. Christmas is a Christian religious holiday; but the national celebration itself, including all the commercial trappings that go along with it, is deeply rooted in American tradition and should be embraced by all Americans of all faiths. It does not mean you have to be Christian to celebrate a universal message of peace and good will to all men. You might not believe in the Savior, Jesus Christ; but why rain on the parade of those who do?

The concept of Santa Claus himself is more commercial than he is Christian. Why should I, as Jew, Muslim, atheist, whatever, be offended by such a jolly ol’ elf? When I was growing up, my parents celebrated Christmas as an American holiday. We handed out cards, decorated a tree, participated in gift-giving; and I was told that when I woke up the next morning, there’d be presents under the tree from Santa so long as I was not a naughty boy. Oh, and by the way: My mom is Buddhist. My dad a staunch atheist.

Bah humbug, said Cloyes, a self- described libertarian with no religious affiliation.

“Santa is a tradition and everyone loves him,” Cloyes said. “It’s just something that makes people happy for a while. Kids liked it, staff liked it. People took pictures.”

What is so harmful about the sight and sounds of a Santa Claus to chemotherapy patience in a hospital ward?

Apparently, though, some did feel exclusion:

In a statement Wednesday, Hollings spokeswoman Agnew said: “When we discussed not having a Santa presence this year, we were actually responding to previous complaints from patients with other holiday beliefs who felt excluded.”

What’s Santa gonna do to a Muslim kid sitting in the cancer ward? Say, “Nah! Nah! No present for you!”

Hospital officials based their decisions on respecting “the different cultures and beliefs of the patients we care for,” Agnew said in the statement. Santa and other holiday traditions now will be allowed “because we recognize the emotional benefit to patients,” she said.

Should non-Christians feel excluded during Eid al-Fitr? Rosh Hashanah? Actually, yes, probably so. But that’s because these are strictly religious celebrations without the secularized, universally accessible traditions that Easter and Christmas enjoy in this country for those outside the religious faith. But if they developed traditions over time that became significant enough to be embraced by society at large, why should I, as an outsider to the faith, be offended or feel excluded? If I feel left out on their special holiday, if I don’t want to help them celebrate, that should be my problem; not theirs. Why do I need my faith represented on their dates?

Yes, Christmastime is a Christian holiday. And it’s a time of the year enjoyed by most Americans, both Christian and non-Christian. I refuse to say “Winter Holiday” and use other politically correct, all-inclusive terminologies that seek to take the Christ out of Christmas.

As for the 1st Amendment, the way I see it remains as one of religious freedom and tolerance; and that although the (federal) government is prohibited from endorsing a single church as the national faith (the Christian Protestant religion was the state religion for 205 yrs up until 1868 with ratification of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution) , it’s not the same thing as divorcing all forms of religious expression in the government square.

;

Hat tip for story: The Dennis Prager Show

With popular sovereignty and populist revolution bringing Islamofascism (or orthodox Islam) to power across the Arab world, it is important to remember that democracy is not the criterion of legitimacy. To be legitimate, government must be republican. That is, it must serve to establish a system of liberty under law. If the majority use democracy to violate the natural liberty rights of the minority, that “tyranny of the majority” is no more legitimate than the “tyranny of the minority” that is exercised by unelected dictators. Such, at least, is the founding ideology of the United States.

The framers of our Constitution were highly suspicious of democracy, which they often denigrated as “mob rule.” To them democracy was a necessary evil. If we must be ruled, let it be by ourselves. But there are many ways in which we are not supposed to be ruled at all, but are supposed to be free, according to natural law (i.e. according to what can be understood about right and wrong on the basis of moral reason, regardless of whether our capacity for moral reason comes from God or from godless nature).

Hence the enumeration of limited federal powers in Article I of our Constitution, and the enumeration of individual rights in the Bill of Rights (explicitly incomplete). Unfortunately, our Democratic Party seems to take its name literally. They have been systematically breaking down constitutional limits on majority power since the New Deal, when FDR tore down the Constitution’s system of limited federal power.

With the Democrats in control of all of our information industries (academia, news and entertainment media, all of our biggest philanthropies, all of our professional organizations), the priority of liberty is no longer widely understood. As a result, democracy is often held up as a first principle, when in our system it’s value is purely instrumental. It is valued as a way to secure liberty, and it is without value if it fails to be advantageous for that purpose.

Our loss of understanding of the priority of liberty leaves the nation standing perplexed as the Arab world falls in a single sweep to popular tyranny. Democracy—our supposed criterion of right—is leading to the most evil outcome: the empowerment of al Qaeda and Iran in country after Middle Eastern country, while America mumbles half a cheer and a lot of quiet fretting.

Daniel Pipes on the disastrous consequences of regarding democracy as principle in the Middle East

Pipes has a nice piece on our state of impotent discombulation. He does not say anything about democracy not being the correct criterion of legitimacy—very likely he does not understand this point himself—but he nicely sums up the confusion that is created when U.S. policy-makers treat democracy as principle in the Arab-Muslim world:

•Democracy pleases us but brings hostile elements to power.
•Tyranny betrays our principles but leaves pliable rulers in power.

“As interest conflicts with principle,” says Pipes, “consistency goes out the window.”

But is inconsistency really the problem? Obama has actually been perfectly consistent. Where dictators are friendly or pliable, he throws them to the wolves (demanding that Ghaddafi and Mubarak leave). Where they are hostile to the U.S. and not at all pliable, he is silent and unmoved when protesters are slaughtered en masse (Iran and Syria).

The obvious explanation is that Obama himself is not just a Muslim, but is an Islamofascist. (The evidence for both is overwhelming.) He skillfully uses the Democratic Party’s immoral priority of democracy over republicanism to advance democracy where the outcome will be anti-republican, and suppress it where republicanism is likely to prevail.

The key is Iran. A democratic Iran would almost certainly embrace liberty/republicanism, but so long as it remains in the hands of the Islamofascists, it can usurp every populist movement in the area to the Islamofascist side. Hence Obama’s determination to see that Iran gets The Bomb.

Assert republicanism over democracy

Faced with a president who is actively making use of the errant principle of democracy to undermine the national interest, it is not enough to advocate some wise balancing of democracy and interest. Instead, it is necessary to clarify and insist that republicanism, not democracy, is our principle, and that democracy should only be advanced where doing so advances the cause of liberty. Until we get regime change in Iran, that means no-where else in the Islamic world should we be pressing yet for democracy. Iran has to come first, or it will usurp every other attempt at democratic reform.

This strategy would expose Obama for what he in fact is doing, using a false principle to advance the Islamofascist cause. Pipes, in contrast, casts Obama as a bumbler, presumably well intentioned. Would that it were the case. Pipes’ suggestions for how to deal with the conflict between democracy and interest are fine as far as they go:

Aim to improve the behavior of tyrants whose lack of ideology or ambition makes them pliable. They will take the easiest road, so join together to pressure them to open up.

Always oppose Islamists, whether Al-Qaeda types as in Yemen or the suave and “moderate” ones in Tunisia. They represent the enemy. When tempted otherwise, ask yourself whether cooperation with “moderate” Nazis in the 1930s would have been a good idea.

Help the liberal, secular, and modern elements, those who in the first place stirred up the upheavals of 2011. Assist them eventually to come to power, so that they can salvage the politically sick Middle East from its predicament and move it in a democratic and free direction.

If Obama was merely a bumbler, he could learn from this advice. Since he is actually an Islamofascist, the only counter is to assert correct moral principle: that our goal is to advance liberty, and that democracy is only on the side of principle where it serves to promote liberty. Otherwise Obama can just continue to pretend to be acting on American values as he helps elevate Islamofascists to power across the Middle East.

Addendum: the New Deal actually ushered in a new (and un-ratified) Constitution

Since everything affects interstate commerce in some way, post-New-Deal Supreme Courts have held that Congress is empowered to regulate anything and everything under its power to regulate interstate commerce. Pre-New-Deal Courts had rejected that interpretation on the grounds that it violated Justice Marshall’s first principle of constitutional interpretation:

It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect; and, therefore, such a construction is inadmissible unless the words require it. [5 U.S. 137, 174 (1803).]

Allowing everything to be regulated under the commerce clause did not just render one clause of the Constitution without effect, it vitiated the entire system of limited enumerated powers.

That system of limited enumerated powers stood in the way of FDR’s desire to implement a Soviet-style command economy, where the government dictates to industry the quantities that it will produce and the prices it will charge. Yes, Roosevelt did actually try to implement such a system, dictating prices and quantities to every major industry in America. That was the job of the NRA (the National Recovery Administration), created by the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA). (See FDR’s Folly, by Jim Powell, chapter 9.)

NIRA was struck down by the Supreme Court, prompting FDR’s infamous court-packing scheme and “the switch in time that saved nine.” Intimidated by a popular president during a time of national agony, the Supremes agreed to abandon the Constitution, and we have never gotten it back.

Crossposted at Error Theory

KING HENRY V
What’s he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin:
If we are mark’d to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God’s will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires:
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England:
God’s peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more, methinks, would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
We would not die in that man’s company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is called the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say ‘To-morrow is Saint Crispian:’
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
And say ‘These wounds I had on Crispin’s day.’
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he’ll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day: then shall our names.
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember’d.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember’d;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.