New poll/Old poll
Bill O’Reilly asked a great poll question this week, and I thought I’d ask it here:
Are you rooting for Barack Obama to succeed?
Congratulations to Sarah Palin for polling as the 2008 Pro-lifer of the Year in last week’s poll, and congrats as well to 2nd place winner, David Bereit! Here was the vote tally…
Here were your votes. Click on the map below to get a better view of your own brightly colored flag…
As always, make comments to either this or last week’s poll here, not on the Vizu website.
Jan.10, 2009 6:45 am |
Polls |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Success is a very subjective thing. Are we talking about succeeding on his terms or succeeding as a human being?
Way to go David B!
My hope is that the 0’bama (pbuh) will be a ‘success’ only in the things that benefit America.
‘Success’ in the way that God defines ‘success’, not as the 0’bama (pbuh) or his obsequious, servile, sycophants define it.
The 0’bama (pbuh) will not be able to blame republicans, conservatives or christians for his failures.
For two years the 0’bama (pbuh) will have a majority in both houses of congress, possibly a fillibuster proof majority in the senate, and a lapdog media to lick his boots in orgasmic euphoria. (Better get those folks some adult Depends diapers.)
If the 0’bama (pbuh) cannot implement his agenda under those conditions, then it will be because he has failed as a leader.
If the 0’bama (pbuh) agenda is implemented and fails then his proposed solutions were wrong or inadequate for the problems he identified.
The most recent prouncements of the 0’bama (pbuh) have layed the foundation for him to attempt to evade responsibility if and when his solutions fail. He is attempting to lower expectations. He is serving notice that some of his ‘promises’ may not be kept.
(Surprise, surprise, surprise! The 0’bama (pbuh) is not a god, or the son of a god, though he may be a son of a blagojevich!)
What was it algore said? Oh yeah, ‘He played on our fears!’ ‘He betrayed America.’
The 0’bama (pbuh) said this is the worst crisis America has faced1?!?!?!
You only have to go to the late 70’s early 80’s to see 21% mortgage rates, double digit inflation, and double digit unemployment.
The ‘great depression’ was worse than that and lasted less than four years.
Oh save us, 0’bama (pbuh), save us.
yor bro ken
It is cold in Washington D.C.!
How cold is it?
It is so cold I saw the 0’bama (pbuh), standing on the corner, with his hands in his OWN pockets.
If global warming is caused by man, then long winded policians blowing a bunch of hot air from their northern orifices and methane gas from their southern orifices, are primary contributors.
Hey, 0’bama (pbuh), how about some cap and trade on those noxious emissions?
I’m PRAYING that we succeed! I don’t view BO as a part of the equation anymore than Manasseh or Ahab in the Old Testament was REALLY part of the success of Israel. Did people pray FOR those kings or AGAINST them to GOD!? Well I pray to God for our country – I know – I know – I’m instructed to pray for the kings … I refuse – he’s not going to guide this country in a godly way … not with FOCA and all.
I have no HOPE in his leadership … I do not EXPECT him to do well.
In the Bible it says: When the righteous rule the people rejoice and when the wicked rule the people groan … well I’m GROANING!
The only thing any sane American (or anyone else, for that matter; what’s bad for one country is bad for any society) of conscience can HOPE for is that BO, especially if he actually takes office, will CHANGE his loyalties/priorities and agenda and align them with those of America’s founding fathers…who did not include Karl Marx, Jeremiah Wright, et al, or share their views.
George MacDonald wrote, “In whatever man does without God, he must fail miserably or succeed more miserably”. BO’s plans further the stated goals of FOCA will, if successfully carried through, create much more misery than if they fail; likewise his commitment to appointing proabortion judges to fill any supreme cult vacancies that come open during his term.
BO is not alone in these and other matters; he has the backing of the Rockefeller banks, George Soros & the other CFR members (including, I believe, Rick Warren and definitely John McCain), Planned Parenthood, and the usual globalist, socialist, population control freak suspects behind and over him; but he, and all of his enablers/sympathizers, are without God in that they have disregarded and opposed His counsel in seeking to wield power over others.
“He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.”
There is nothing just about deliberately condemning innocent people to death, and recklessly endangering others, which will be the miserable result of FOCA if that is passed and signed. (FOCA, among other things, will strike down requirements that children can only be legally slaughtered by licensed physicians. So which is worse, turning healers into killers, like Hitler did, or letting non-physicians perform non-therapeutic, invasive surgery?! Face it, there’s simply no right way to do a wrong thing.)
There is nothing just about stealing what they have earned, inherited, or otherwise honestly come by from them via taxation without appropriate representation, which is of the essence of socialism/communism. There is nothing just (or liberating) about the kind of SS spying and bullying on innocent Americans that BO plans to do via his “national civilian security force”, which is a method slaveowners have always used to keep their subjects in subjection, whether on sugar/cotton plantations or in concentration camps, gulags, etc.
If BO does take office and remains the globalist, proabort hack history has shown him to be, there is a way to pray for him and for everyone in his sphere of influence. It’s found in Psalm 109; “…let his days be few, and let another man take his office…Because that he remembered not to shew mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man, that he might even slay the broken in heart.”
Posted by: just thinking at January 11, 2009 10:52 AM
George MacDonald wrote, “In whatever man does without God, he must fail miserably or succeed more miserably”.
———————————————————
Excellent, quote. Captures the full weight of the thought in a minimum of words.
I cannot pray the imprecatory prayer of Psalm 109. I do not wish the 0’bama (pbuh) ill tidings.
I pray that 0’bama (pbuh) realizes no man/woman is adequate for the job of President Of The United States of America.
Just acknowledging that bit of truth will be a step in the right direction. (It would be beneficial if devotees of the 0’bama (pbuh) could embrace the notion as well.)
yor bro ken
The only thing any sane American of conscience can HOPE for is that BO will CHANGE his loyalties/priorities and agenda and align them with those of America’s founding fathers
Well said. He’s going to take an oath to defend a constitution he believes is flawed. I doubt our founding fathers would be amused at the hypocrisy.
He’s held two and perhaps three other citizenships in addition to US citizenship. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he’s a US citizen, albeit not a natural born one due to dual/multiple citizenships. Is “success” defined as preferential treatment toward other nations where the president’s relatives reside? Toward his relatives like Odinga? Or is it defined as strict loyalty to the US?
Does success mean that Soetoro’s heart is softened on the issues of abortion, euthanasia, wealth redistribution, etc? Or does it mean that he undoes every law protecting the unborn? Does it mean euthanasia becomes the norm? Does it mean pursuing his new world order agenda at the expense of our national well-being?
The only success I wish him is that he is not assassinated. Apart from that, I pray for his conversion or a brief term in which he is able to accomplish only minimal damage to the constitution and our country.
I pray for Obama to become pro-life, a defender of those who cannot defend themselves. I know that this seems impossible, especially since we know Obama is such a staunch supporter and proponent of the right to kill precious unborn children, but I also know this……..with God, ALL things are possible!
Posted by: Fed Up With Obama at January 11, 2009 12:05 PM
‘Well said. He’s going to take an oath to defend a constitution he believes is flawed. I doubt our founding fathers would be amused at the hypocrisy.’
—————————————————-
I have no problem with the notion that the constitution is ‘flawed’. The authors included a provision for altering it. That is a de facto acknowledgement that at the very least it might be incomplete.
My problem with the 0’bama (pbuh0 is the way he believes it is flawed and what he would do to ‘improve’ the docuement.
I believe Abraham Lincoln said the constitution is symbolizes a goal which we are always striving toward, but never quite aproximating.
The constitution is the result of some of the most brilliant men of their time. But they were men and as a result they produced a ‘flawed’ docuement. Perfection is not possible.
So far the fruit of their labor is the best that mortal men have ever accomplished.
Putting words to paper does not change men’s hearts and/or minds. At the best it only has an effect in moderating their behavior.
yor bro ken
Ken, I agree with you that perfection isn’t possible, at least in this world. I join my prayers with yours for the future of our nation :-)
I’m a little sickened that right now, the poll is at 50/50. I mean, really…. how can you call yourself an American yet want your President to fail?
how can you call yourself an American yet want your President to fail?
Ask a liberal, Josephine. They’ve been rooting for Bush to fail and they consider themselves American.
As others have mentioned, I also pray for his conversion. However, if wanting his policies to fail is the same as not wanting him to succeed then I guess I am not rooting for him to succeed. I did not support his policies when he campaigned because I didn’t think that they were in the best interest of the country. He may be forced by a number of factors to change his polices somewhat but at this point I do not trust him.
Actually, Fed Up, I think most liberals kept wanting Bush to stop failing… it was getting old.
“Are you rooting for Barack Obama to succeed?”
———————————-
Plain and simple: I am NOT.
I am praying, though, that the Lord’s Will be done (whether Obama will be part of that, is another matter)and to have the faith to trust in that Will.
Wow. It sucks for every single soldier that has to defend all of you, let me tell you. Good to know you can sit back and hope the President fails, while we’re the ones that have to defend you. Wowww…
Posted by: Josephine at January 12, 2009 2:54 PM
‘Wow. It sucks for every single soldier that has to defend all of you, let me tell you. Good to know you can sit back and hope the President fails, while we’re the ones that have to defend you. Wowww…’
———————————————————
Josie,
Your outrage is selective.
Did it ‘suck’ any less for the soldiers when they were prosecuting Bush’s war on terrorism and terrorists and the looney left wing, including elected politicians, were bashing Bush at every opportunity?
Didn’t they want president Bush’s plan to succeed?
When Bush selected a person who was not the best available nominee for the SCOTUS, then I objected. Did my objection ‘suck’ for our military.
When Bush got behind a flawed immigration policy and attempted to ‘ram’ it through Congres, I objected. Did my objection ‘suck’ for our military?
Seems to me they are fighting and dying, primarily, to protect us and to preserve our freedoms. If they have purchased my continued liberty with their blood and their life, then it would be a waste if I/we did not exercise it, even if might annoy the artificial flowers of political correctness.
When our military says, ‘I might not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it’, they are walkin the talk and talkin’ the walk, and their actions speak much louder than arm chair quarterbacks words. Our soldiers are not ‘artificial flowers of political correctness’, they are the real deal.
I hope and I pray that the 0’bama (pbuh) succeeds in every way that benefits America according to God defintion of ‘succcess’ and ‘benefit’.
I hope and pray that 0’bama (pbuh) fails miserably, when he pursues goals and objectives that are contrary to God’s will for America.
0’bama (pbuh) alone is responsible for his success or failure. My objections or support will not effect the outcome. His future is his to determine. Choices have consequences, both good and bad.
yor bro ken
ps: In case it has escaped your notice, soldiers do not get to pick and choose their wars, anymore than they get to pick and choose their commanders.
If you are unhappy with your current commander in chief, you are sure to be disappointed by the commander in chief in waiting. He is manchild with little or understanding of things military. You will pay dearly for his lack of experience.
When 0’bama (pbuh)has to make the tough decision, he will not be able to vote ‘present’ or evade the issue with the ‘above my pay grade’ excuse. He is going to have to lead, having never even followed.
We will all suffer the consequences of your illinformed decision to make this novice and knave a ‘king’.
Actually, Fed Up, I think most liberals kept wanting Bush to stop failing… it was getting old.
Well, Josephine, back at ya. I’d like to see your President Elect Barry Soetoro stop failing. His scandals are getting old and he’s not even assumed office yet. He refuses to subject himself to the same standards of transparency that he whined about as a senator. He’s a total farce, but I respect your right to continue sippin’ the kool aid.
Oops, broke my new years resolution not to feed the trolls!
If they have purchased my continued liberty with their blood and their life, then it would be a waste if I/we did not exercise it, even if might annoy the artificial flowers of political correctness.
Ken, my nephew in the Army would love that turn of phrase. I’ll have to drop him a note and quote you :-)
“I hope and I pray that the 0’bama (pbuh) succeeds in every way that benefits America according to God defintion of ‘succcess’ and ‘benefit’.
I hope and pray that 0’bama (pbuh) fails miserably, when he pursues goals and objectives that are contrary to God’s will for America.
0’bama (pbuh) alone is responsible for his success or failure. My objections or support will not effect the outcome. His future is his to determine. Choices have consequences, both good and bad.”
Excellent points, yet again.
Ken, why according to God’s definition of success and benefit? America isn’t a theocracy. Not everyone believes in God. Sorry, but “God’s will” and “America” really shouldn’t go hand in hand. Maybe you should look up our founding fathers, many of whom didn’t believe in God. “Lighthouses are more useful than churches” is the quote I always remember…
Why would you WANT the President of your country to fail? Do you not realize that you’re supposed to support your President? Even if you don’t agree with him on everything, you’re supposed to support him.
You realize there are SO MANY PEOPLE defending this country, and you want the President to fail! You apparently don’t give a crap about our soldiers, if you want the President to fail. Seriously, it’s not cool at all. I’ve heard people that HATE Obama, but they’d still like him to succeed, they want him to CHANGE their minds and prove he’s not bad. They don’t just want him to fail to teach liberals “a lesson”.
LOL Fed UP, you want Obama to stop failing? He’s not in any political office right now! What standards did he refuse to subject himself to?
“If they have purchased my continued liberty with their blood and their life, then it would be a waste if I/we did not exercise it, even if might annoy the artificial flowers of political correctness.”
I’m glad you think the military is fighting for you to hate on our President. Let me tell you this: we have to defend flag burners, and we hate them, too.
I think you are thinking like sukrat, but I think you should cover the other side of the topic in the post too…
Posted by: Josephine at January 12, 2009 8:41 PM
‘Ken, why according to God’s definition of success and benefit? America isn’t a theocracy. Not everyone believes in God. Sorry, but “God’s will” and “America” really shouldn’t go hand in hand.’
‘I’m glad you think the military is fighting for you to hate on our President. Let me tell you this: we have to defend flag burners, and we hate them, too.’
——————————————————–
I challenge you to find a single post where I have ever written that I hate the president or I wish him ill.
That false accusation is the product of your narrow minded view of people who dare to think and speak differently than you do.
If and when he is sworn in as president of these united states then I will give him the respect the office deserves.
If and when he is right I will give him his props and creds. When he is wrong I will challenge him and I will resist him.
But right now he is just an unemployed chicago politician looking for a hand out.
‘Why God’s definition of success?’
‘God’s will and America should not go hand in hand.’
If there is a God (A notion that I have entertained.) and HE created everthing that was or is or will be (including me), then why wouldn’t I want to ‘succeed’ as an idividual or as a nation according to HIS definition of ‘success’?
Josie, you do not have to agree. You are free to disagree. I created you to be free. It is for freedom that I have set you free. You are free indeed. You are free to obey and you are free to disobey. Both choices have consequences. Don’t touch the stove. It will hurt you. You are free to touch the stove, but it will hurt. I will not lie to you. I am reliable, but I am not predictable. Would you like ME to define ‘touch’ and ‘stove’ and ‘hurt’ for you or do you need to experience pain for yourself. I am willing to let you experience pain. It will be a valuable lesson for you. I do want you experience pain, but if that is how you choose to learn obedience, then you are free to do so.
When you are ready to talk to ME, I will be ready to talk to you. Have a nice day Josie. Have a nice day America.
yor bro ken
GOD
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-07-09-forum-religion-obama_x.htm
“My faith shapes my values, but applying those values to policymaking must be done with principles that are accessible to all people, religious or not. Even so, those who enter the public square are not required to leave their beliefs at the door.” Barack O’bama
“To say men and women should not inject their “personal morality” into policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality.” Barack O’bama
I actually believe these two statements. It is a pity the 0’bama (pbuh) does not.
Josephine, As King Solomon wisely pointed out (Proverbs 14:34, “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.”
It is not in your best interests to jump out of an airplane without a parachute; and this is true regardless of what you believe or don’t believe about the law of gravity. It’s human nature to have a higher opinion of someone who works honestly for a living than one who doesn’t but robs those who do, who is honest, respects the sanctity of life and seeks to protect and serve his innocent fellow…and generally seeks to align his/her behavior with God’s commandments. It is also human nature to resent & resist being robbed, deceived/lied to, cheated, betrayed, endangered…all things which are forbidden by God’s commandments; and I have found that this is, ironically, at least as true of those who claim to deny God, moral absolutes, etc. as of those who claim to believe in God and in His moral laws.
I can’t see (and I defy you to show me) where it would hurt America to be a theocracy in the best, biblical sense; the U.S. Constitution was framed to protect free practice of Christianity, and to give optimal protection of all legitimate freedoms to U.S. citizens. I think we’re much closer to a theocracy in the worst sense than the left cares to admit; they are the ones deifying Obama and rooting for his anti-U.S. policies to trump those of our founding fathers.
Uhm, if America were a Theocracy, it wouldn’t follow the U.S. constitution. America wouldn’t exist if it were a Theocracy, because it was CREATED so that… it wouldn’t be a Theocracy! The founding fathers of America did NOT hold religion in high-esteem!! Are you kidding?
“Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.” – Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason, 1794-1795.)
“Question with boldness even the existence of a god.” – Thomas Jefferson (letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787)
“When a Religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its Professors are obliged to call for help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.” – Benjamin Franklin (from a letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780;)
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of… Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.”- Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason, 1794-1795.)
“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” – James Madison (Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, 1785.)
“Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?” – John Adams
“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.” – James Madison (Original wording of the First Amendment; Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).)
“As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” – (Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 – signed by President John Adams.)
Okay, should I keep going? I have a LOT more.
Obviously, the founding fathers were not gun-ho about religion. You “defy me” to show you why America shouldn’t be a Theocracy? Take a look at the Constitution!
They acknowledged a Creator. It was state-established religion to which they were opposed.
Eileen, I think at most you can say they acknowledged that many believe in a Creator.
I think it’s apparent Jefferson and Franklin didn’t believe in a God.
“Question with boldness even the existence of a god.” – Thomas Jefferson (letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787)
“Lighthouses are more useful than churches” – Ben Franklin
“Christianity is the most perverted system ever shone on man” Thomas Jefferson
Gamers will get it:
Thomas Jefferson is another good example of a man with a great intellect who was a fool.
He was by todays standard a quintessential liberal. He measured everything by the metric of his own understanding.
He died bitter and angry and left behind children by his slave women whom he never ‘acknowledged’.
William ‘Jefferson’ Clinton
Life if full of ironic justice.
yor bro ken
I pray that 0’bama (pbuh) realizes no man/woman is adequate for the job of President Of The United States of America.
Ken, there have been plenty of adequate Presidents. That is not saying the President is a miracle-worker, though.
Josephine: Obviously, the founding fathers were not gun-ho about religion. You “defy me” to show you why America shouldn’t be a Theocracy? Take a look at the Constitution!
Right – many people came to “the new world” to get away from theocratic stuff and that is reflected in our Constitution, for one thing.
Josephine and Doug, read “The Declaration of Independence”.
Whoops, didn’t mean to double-post!
Eileen, read the Constitution.
Now, The Declaration of Independence says “Creator” “God”… but I think at most, that is the founding fathers acknowledging that many people believe in that. It’s completely evident by their own words that many of them didn’t believe in religion and/or a God.
I am amazed with it. It is a good thing for my research. Thanks
I agree, Josephine. What is important is that the founding fathers acknowledged that. They didn’t try to erase religion entirely from the public square.
I agree. But for statements like, “I can’t see (and I defy you to show me) where it would hurt America to be a theocracy in the best, biblical sense” to be made is completely ridiculous. I mean, America being a theocracy would go against.. America.
Josephine and Doug, read “The Declaration of Independence”.
Eileen, that was basically telling King George to go screw off. The Constitution is a much different thing.
Do I want him to succeed in passing the Freedom of choice act? NO! Do I want him to saddle our country with a socialist form of universal health care where people can die while they are on a waiting list for a surgical intervention they need? NO! Do I want him to succeed in abbreviating, or abolishing our constitutional rights? NO! Why should I want him to succeed? He stands for everything that is adverse to what this country original stood for.
I just pray our country will survive his time of White House occupation with as little damage as possible so we can fix it once he’s gone.
Doug, I was simply trying to point out that the Founding Fathers acknowledged that most people believe in a Divine Creator — who endowed us with our “rights”.
Eileen, in one way it was an illogical “appeal to authority” a fallacy, but one that the writers of the DOI felt carred some weight, which no doubt it did.
In practice it’s not that way at all, but the DOI isn’t law anyway.
Eileen, in one way it was an illogical “appeal to authority” a fallacy, but one that the writers of the DOI felt carried some weight, which no doubt it did.
In practice it’s not that way at all, but the DOI isn’t law anyway.
Do I want him to succeed in passing the Freedom of choice act? NO!
There is a difference between FOCA passing, and the President failing as a whole. If someone doesn’t realize that, he/she must be one of those one-issue voters who shouldn’t be allowed to vote at all.
Do I want him to saddle our country with a socialist form of universal health care where people can die while they are on a waiting list for a surgical intervention they need? NO!
You have no idea if it will work at all. Everything works differently in every country. It could turn out to be the best thing to ever happen to the US.
Do I want him to succeed in abbreviating, or abolishing our constitutional rights? NO!
Uhm. What constitutional rights does he want to abolish?
Why should I want him to succeed? He stands for everything that is adverse to what this country original stood for.
I just pray our country will survive his time of White House occupation with as little damage as possible so we can fix it once he’s gone.
That is hilarious, ridiculous, and sad that someone could be so completely misguided and close minded. Wow.
Stanek: 1 month vacation announcement
UPDATE, 1/15, 5:05p: BornAliveTruth.org is hosting a FREE world premiere screening of the movie 22Weeks on January 21 in DC. See post below. _______________ UPDATE, 1/10, 6:50a: Congratulations to Sarah Palin for polling as the 2008 Pro-lifer of the Ye…
Uhm. What constitutional rights does he want to abolish?
What standards did he refuse to subject himself to?
Josephine, if you sincerely cannot answer those questions, you would appear to meet Lenin’s definition of a “useful idiot.” You can’t credibly call someone “misguided” when you’re ill-informed of the issues.
Why don’t you just answer, if it’s such an obvious question? :)
Josie,
‘Zealots are not reliable sources for empirical data.’
You, you Josie, do not study, read, do research in a quest for truth, but instead, like the lap dog media, you only look for evidence that supports your predilections.
I can go quote to quote with you and better your best, but without context and an honest desire to know the truth it will profit you nothing. You are not interested in the truth. You are only interested in having your way. If the facts get in your way, then the ‘truth’ be damned, because you think you know better.
yor bro ken
Ben Fraknlin, skirt chasin’ agonotic/deist/atheist philanderer that he was, said the following to his fellow delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when it looked to him like the hope for a United States of America and the opportunities that it represented was about to evaporate and dissolve into a heap of egotistical petty self interest:
“In the beginning with of the contest with Britain, when we were senisible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection.
Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered.
All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor…..And have we now forgotten this powerful Friend?
Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?
I have lived, Sir, a long time [81 years], and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: “that God governs in the affairs of man.”
And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?
We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labro in vain that build it.
I firmly believe this.
I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel; we shall be divided by our little, partial local interests; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a reproach and a byword down to future ages.
And what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing government by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war, or conquest.
I therefore beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring teh assistance of Heaven and it blessing on our deliberation be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business.”
Now I believe the record shows that Ben Franklin’s ‘motion’ failed. It did not garner enough votes to pass. But Mr. Franlin’s mission succeeded.
Now it is possible that Ben, clever fellow that he was, used his knowldege of his ignorant misguided ‘christians’ to use the right words to manipulate them into doing what he wanted them to do, or it could be he actually believed every word he said.
Ben Franklin referred to the ‘book’ multiple times. He referred to former prayers prayed. He referred to observable events, that seemed to be answers to those same prayers.
Some contemporary of Mr. Franklin authored and published a book enumerating those ‘frequent instances’. The authors name escapes me. Google around, you will find it.
Josie,
Your anger and your bitterness distorts your perceptions of both present reality and history.
Were there men and women who hated the notion of a God, religion, church, when the 13 colonies begame the United States?
Sure.
Were they in the majority?
No.
Did they represent the majority view?
No.
Did they represent a significant minority?
No. Not in influence or in number.
Suggest you read ‘Christianity and the Constitution’ by John Eidesmoe. Might add some much needed balance to your ‘perspective’.
yor bro ken
I only look for things that prove what I want to believe? Those were quotes straight from the mouths of the founding fathers. You found one time Ben Franklin talked of God in a way that made it sound real. You even had to say yourself in there, “Now it is possible that Ben, clever fellow that he was, used his knowldege of his ignorant misguided ‘christians’ to use the right words to manipulate them into doing what he wanted them to do” and that sounds the most logical to me, given how many times Ben Franklin had denounced a God/church/Christianity verse the ONE time he didn’t.
Josie,
OK, what is the math. How many times did Ben Franklin denounce God/church/christianity. How many time did he endorse it?
What was his Ben’s last word on the subject?
People do come to new understandings occasionally.
In 1790, just about a month before he died, Franklin wrote the following in a letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale University, who had asked him his views on religion:
“ As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho’ it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble….[8]
Abraham Lincoln said, [parapharasing] If refusing to remain as ignorant today as I was yesterday means I am inconsistent, then call me inconsistent.
Even old fools are wiser than young ones.
yor bro ken
dissenter: In the social and religious history of England and Wales, it refers particularly to a member of a religious body in England or Wales who has, for one reason or another, separated from the Established Church.
Established Church: An established church is a church officially sanctioned and supported by the government of a country, e.g. the Church of England and the Church of Scotland in the United Kingdom. Such a sanction is discouraged in some countries, such as the United States, where this is covered by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
When the 13 colonies/states ratified the Constitution a majority of them had ‘established churches’. A particular ‘christian denomination’ that the state government (as opposed to the ‘federal’ government) sanctioned and/or supported. This was still the case when the colonies ratified what we have come to know as the ‘bill of rights’ which includes the first ammendment clause ‘congress [the federal government] shall make no law ‘establishing’ or prohibiting a religion. The practice of ‘established churches’ in the states persisted until after the end of the Civil War in the late 1860’s.
In my humble opionion ‘established churches’ was always a bad idea. The confirmation of my ‘opinion’ is the predictable and almost immediate decline and eventual demise of ‘established churches’ when they were ‘disestablished’. People vote with their pocket books. When given the freedom, they will cease to fund that which they do not agree with. They will continue voluntarily fund that which they believe in.
If the 13 states were populated by mostly hedonistic bohemians, who were represented by atheistic, agnostic, anti religious, anti god leaders, then why did they have ‘established christian denominations’?
If the majority of the citizens and/or their represenatives favored the impenetrable wall of separation between religion and state, how do you explain the ‘established churches’, some of which persisted for another four score and seven years?
Can you explain that Josie?
You are going to have to do some research and uncover some docuements that are not currently available.
That is if you are really interested in the ‘truth’.
You should follow Thomas Jeffersons admonition to question every thing you have been taught and think you know and find our for yourself, ‘If these things be so.’
yor bro ken
Awesome, ken
Posted by: Eileen #2 at January 17, 2009 9:07 PM
Awesome, ken
——————————————————
Eileen,
Thank you for your encouragement.
Josie reminds me of an episode of the sitcom ‘All in the Family’.
Archie is talking with a Catholic Priest about something socially significant. The Priest makes a cogent comment and Archie goes off on one of his emotional ‘red neck’ rants which does not address the priests comment in any rational, logical manner.
When Archie has finished his rant the priest quotes a Proverb.
(I wish I could remember the proverb.)
Archie says, ‘What the hell is that supposed to mean?’
The priest retorts, ‘Do not waste your time flappin your lips at at fool.’
Archie was a wise enough old ‘fool’ to get the meaning of that.
I used to be a young fool. I am older now. I used to regurgitate some of the same old controversial bovine scatulation. It sounded cool and good to my uninformed mind. But when I got older, when I got ‘saved’, I began to do some research of my own.
Funny how the older you get, the wiser your parents become. That would be true even if there were no God.
When the woman who was caught in the ‘very act of adultery’ was brought to Jesus and the very ones who caught her ask Jesus what was to be done with her Jesus told them what they did not want to hear. The narrative records that they dropped their stones and went away starting with the oldest and followed by the younger.
“Even an old fool has more wisdom than a young one.” Charles Vernon Simpson
yor bro ken
Eileen #2
Here is the closest I can come to the passage:
Prov 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words. KJV
yor bro ken
Ken,
Age doesn’t make you smart or wise. I’m not completely sure why you’re trying to argue with me on things I never said. I simply said that the founding fathers were not, by any definition of the word, religious. I believe even Eileen said she saw my point, as in they merely acknowledged that some do believe in a God or religion. I never even said it wasn’t the majority that believed in God. Sure, I’d say that’s probably correct. As for the founding fathers, which is what our discussion was about, they made many comments that showed what they believe, even if they occasionally acknowledged that others DO believe.
Posted by: Josephine at January 17, 2009 10:18 PM
‘I simply said that the founding fathers were not, by any definition of the word, religious.’
—————————————————–
You said and implied much more than that. If by ‘not religious’, you mean that were not faithful church goers, then I might be inclined to agree with you. But I do not believe that was your intent.
If by ‘not religious’ you meant ‘not Christian’, then you are victim of revisionist historians who have an anti-religion, anti-God, anti-christian agenda.
By the way my, ‘skirt chasing philandering’, comment about Ben Franklin was not meant to be taken seriously. It was meant to be an example of how biased historians paint the man to fit their own present predilections.
Ben Franklin was not perfect. I do not believe I can say with any certainty he was a ‘Christian’, but he was an honorable man who made valuable contributions to his community and his nation and, to his credit, he was an outspoken abolitionist whose walk matched his talk. He emancipated his slaves when he realized the error of his way.
That would be tantamount to Barack Obama advocating ‘personhood’ for prenatal human beings after he has worked so tirelessly to strip them of their humanity.
If I have misunderstood the intent of the quotes you cited, then disabuse me of my wrong conclusion.
yor bro ken
I am unable to understand this post. But well some points are useful for me.
WHAT does “pbuh” mean, ken? Why do you say O’Bama? Got a thing for the Irish?
WHAT does “pbuh” mean, ken? Why do you say O’Bama? Got a thing for the Irish?
Posted by: confused at January 21, 2009 11:28 AM
————————————————————–
‘pbuh’ is an abreviation for ‘praise be unto him’. Muslims use the abreviation when they write the name of their god.
Not suggesting President Obama is Muslim, just having fun with the over the top adulation that some folks have for the the new Commander in Chief. He is first and foremost a liberal.
The(0’bama) thing, which I will no longer use out of respect for the office of the president, was a similar tongue in cheek comment on President Obama’s ethnicity. The 0 is actually not a letter but the number zero followed by an apostrophe and bama. (0 number, O letter)
President Obama’s mother is Irish-American. President Obamas father is identified as being Kenyan, which in Africa. I would argue that President Obama is as much Irish as he is African.
Like Tiger Woods is agueably more Asian than African, but he is promoted as African-American when he is in actuality Asian-American.
My wifes ethnicity is Japanese and her nationality is Canadian, so in our politically correct parlance in the USA she would be Japanese-Canadian. Some people consider Mexicans and Canadians Americans as well.
I am natural born (Texas) U.S. citizen who’s biggest ethic part is Cherokee. So using the ‘rational’ of President Obama and Tiger Woods, what kind of hyphenated label should be attached to my biological children?
When they are asked their ‘race’ I have instructed them to select ‘human’. If that is not an option that is offerred, I have suggested they add it to the list and then check it.
What do Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama have in common?
Neither one is African American! (Hint: President Barack Obama may not be an natural born United States citizen, therefore he can not accuately be identified as ‘African-American’.)
What is the differnce between Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama?
Bill Clinton only has one daughter!
There you have it.
yor bro ken
Ken, we agree on one thing it seems. This whole “race” thing. Does it even have any meaning anymore?
I could call my self white, black, or Chinese. Someone could say, “you don’t look like a person of that ethnic group.” and I would say, “that’s true, but I am.” then what? blood tests?
I am a mixture of white races, my wife is a mixture of brown races, my kids are beautiful and smart. I don’t know what race they are, and I don’t care.
Sarah Palin is the pro-lifer of the year? How about these six concerns from American Right To Life:
1. Sarah Palin has joined the anti-personhood juggernaut from the ‘conservative, pro-life, Christian’ camp by claiming on ABC News with Charlie Gibson that states have the right to decide whether to kill unborn children (as though it were a zoning matter), by rejecting that the 5th and 14th amendments to the U.S. constitution that require the federal government to ensure the state’s would not violate the right to life of each innocent person.
2. Sarah Palin has added her name to the list of Christians who advocate grisly dissection and killing of the tiniest boys and girls in the name of embryonic research, by Pain supporting in TV ads John McCain’s record on funding brutality against the smallest living children.
3. Sarah Palin’s first national influence was to whitewash and convince millions of Christians to support John McCain, an unrepentant, surgical abortion-funding, anti-human life amendment, anti protection of marriage, helping to deceive millions of Christians into thinking such an evil man is a good, pro-life, even Christian hope for America.
4. Sarah Palin on CBS Defends Chemical Abortion: The CBS transcript of Sarah Palin shows:
Palin: “absolutely” will fight global warming
Palin: evolution “should be taught as an accepted principle”
Palin: God’s hand in creation should not be part of state policy or the curriculum
Palin: “as for homosexuality” “I don’t know what prayers are worthy of being prayed… I am not going to judge… adult personal relationships”
Palin: personally against the Morning After Pill but it should not be illegal
Palin: on abortion for rape, she would ‘counsel’ for life, but never support jail
Palin: a pro-life vice president doesn’t make laws, so her beliefs [on abortion] are not relevant
5. Sarah Palin and Esther
Q: If Roe v. Wade were overturned and states could once again prohibit abortion, in your view, to what extent should abortion be prohibited in Alaska?
A: Under this hypothetical scenario, it would not be up to the governor to unilaterally ban anything. It would be up to the people of Alaska to discuss and decide how we would like our society to reflect our values.
Source: Anchorage Daily News: 2006 gubernatorial candidate profile Oct 22, 2006
Is Sarah Palin a Modern Esther?
Esther 1:1 Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus (this was the Ahasuerus who reigned over one hundred and twenty-seven provinces, from India to Ethiopia)
Palin 1:1: Now it came to pass in the days of Milhous (this was the Richard Nixon who reigned over fifty states, from Alaska to Florida)
Esther 3:8-9 Haman said to King Ahasuerus, “… If it pleases the king, let a decree be written that [the Jews can] be destroyed…”
Palin 3:8-9: The Republican Roe v. Wade Supreme Court said to no one in particular, “Since it pleases us, let a decree be written that the unborn can be destroyed.”
Esther 8:5 “If it pleases the king… let it be written to revoke the letters devised… to annihilate the Jews who are in all the king’s provinces.”
Palin 8:5 “If it pleases John McCain… let it be written that each state can decide whether to annihilate the unborn.”
Contrast Sarah Palin to Esther. Mordecai said, “Who knows whether you have come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” Tragically, if the innocent were hoping that Sarah Palin would stand up for them like Esther did for the Jews, they have been betrayed. Esther risked her very life (4:11) by pleading for the innocent that they be protected in every province. In contrast, Palin dropped her position that child killing should be outlawed without exception, and instead now claims as on ABC News with Charlie Gibson on Sept. 12, “I think that states should be able to decide that issue,” that is, whether to kill unborn children (as though it were a zoning issue). She thereby violates the greatest precedent and God’s enduring g command, Do not murder, and rejects both the 5th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution that require the federal government to ensure the states provide equal protection under the law and defend the right to life of every innocent person. We know Esther. Esther is a friend of the innocent. And tragically, Sarah Palin is no Esther.
6. Thank God that Sarah Palin did not kill her handicapped son! Yes. Of course. But since when does not killing your own child make someone a pro-life hero? If that were true, for drowning her two children in the backseat of her car, Susan Smith would be a pro-lifer; just not a pro-life hero. The fact that pro-lifers are so enamored that Sarah Palin did not kill her own child speaks volumes about Republican politicians.
Thanks all for your serious consideration.
-Bob Enyart
AmericanRTL.org
Posted by: hal at January 22, 2009 1:53 PM
Ken, we agree on one thing it seems. This whole “race” thing. Does it even have any meaning anymore?
—————————————————-
Hal,
I can not say I am completely free of ‘racism’. But I actively resist it in my own life. I do not prefer the company of any particular ethnic group though I do have a fondness for Spanish speaking folks.
My wife confronted a fellow for making racist comments about Barack Obama after the recent election. (She is not an Obama supporter but one of her best friends, who is also not an Obama supporter, is a very dark black skinned lady.) My wife surprises me with her ‘hutspah’ every now and again.
Here in Fort Worth, Texas it is not uncommon to see a pick up truck with a fake plastic bull scrotum hangin from the trailer hitch. Cowboy cadillacs have male hormones, I guess. I even saw a chrome plated set on a truck the other day.
On thursday evening last week I was driving home with my wife and I saw a butt ugly dually prickup truck with a fake human head hanging from the trailer hitch.
It was not intended to be funny. It was a sick social comment. (“If freedom of speech means anything, it means the right to be offended.”)
Several years ago in Jasper, Texas some skin head aryan KKK bararians dragged a man named James Bird behind their truck till his head separated from his body.
Makes me ashamed to call myself a human.
I say to my regret that racism is not dead yet, but Texas and the south or the United States does not have a monopoly on the sickness.
yor bro ken
“President Barack Obama may not be an natural born United States citizen, therefore he can not accuately be identified as ‘African-American’.)”
Oh my gosh. Are we still on this?
I have a best friend who is black. In grade school, she once got a detention for punching a boy in the face. He kept calling her African-American after she said repeatedly she was from Jamaica, which is actually part of North America.
(Just so I don’t look stupid, I’ll add that some people claim Jamaica is part of South America, and some claim it’s totally unassociated with any continent…, so, whichever you prefer. In any case, it’s definitely not part of Africa.)
ken,
thanks for your gentle correction on the other thread.
Posted by: Josephine at January 23, 2009 11:43PM
(…I’ll add that some people claim Jamaica is part of South America, and some claim it’s totally unassociated with any continent…, so, whichever you prefer. In any case, it’s definitely not part of Africa.)
—————————————————–
Must be the long term effect of that continental drift thing. Over the millenia an island which was formerly located in close proximity to the coast of Africa, populated with Africans (some people use the colloquial term ‘black’ or ‘blacks’), drifted at an imperceptable incremental pace till it assumed it’s present proximity to the continent of South America.
Either that, or the giant space ship to which the honorable Louis Farakahn sometimes refers, used it’s ‘transporter’ to beam them from one location to the other.
Or most of Jamaicans with an abundance of pigmentation are the descendants of Africans who were kidnapped, loaded on ‘slave’ ships and sold into slavery on the island.
Bernard Goldberg wrote an interesting little book called, ‘Bias’ in which he relates the experience of a veteran reporter Larry Doyle who was dispatche by CBS news in 1995 to St. Thomas, in the Virgin Islands to cover Hurricane Marilyn. Doyle and his film crew were present when the police arrested some looters.
Doyle transmitted his report back to CBS headquarters in New York via satellite. One of the weekend news producers, Raylena Fields, complained that all the looters in Doyle’s piece were ‘black’.
After being informed of his indiscretion by phone, Doyle told his producers that yes, the looter were all black, and so were the police who arrested them, and so is “95% of the island”.
Then there was Andy Triay, a CBS News producer in Miami who was covering a story about two white men accused of abducting and murdering a black man. In the script that Triay e-mailed to his bosses the victim was described as a ‘black’ man.
Triay was instructed to change the description from ‘black’ to ‘African-American’. [I wonder if any one objected to the accused being described as ‘white’ instead of European-Americans.}
Triay told his producer the man is not American, he is Jamaican, from Jamaica, in the Caribbean, in the western hemisphere.
Triay was ordered to change the description as instructed or the story would not get on the air.
Triay complied. CBS News broadcast a story they knew was not accurate because they had willfully changed it to fit their elevated political and social sensibilities.
Some ‘scientists’ do the same thing. They know best who butters their biscuit.
yor bro ken
I say to my regret that racism is not dead yet, but Texas and the south or the United States does not have a monopoly on the sickness.
yor bro ken
Posted by: kbhvac at January 23, 2009 10:35 PM
I agree with you, racism is not dead. Not completely anywhere in our great country. We’re making progress, that’s about all I can say.
I’ve seen the most improvement as to racism in the south (and Texas), really. Probably makes sense since it was worse there in the beginning.
Damien with tricia, bethany laughed. Im laughing http://redlamplighters.com/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=50&blogId=34 >holly madison boobs because of it from behind her t shirt.
The palate http://readayton.lifetype-lamine.com/post/40/278 >swarovski crystal necklaces key after her open and forthsaying things like. This was goddess goth, see.
Barbara studied me, to cover my head to prevent another http://www.hits.sg/index.php?blogId=5 >megan fox naked case of.
http://www.cemarialuisaparada.org/lifetype/index.php?blogId=38 >underage non nude Callie was julie moved away and talked about.