Gee, Senator Obama, that's too bad.

Comments

[Doug]

So then, this begs the question: If Bill's thesis is true, and journalists are totally clueless/woefully biased in this election season/out to lunch, where can I turn for "good" (reasonable, at least *attempting* to be objective, not totally on one side all the time) news coverage? Not CNN, and not Fox News (biased on the other side, I am guessing), and not MSNBC, and not the news organizations of the big three TV networks... Where can I get any news that even remotely approaches some sense of objectivity? (As you might guess, I am despairing over this just a bit.) Any advice would be welcome, at this point.

[Gina Dalfonzo]

Elections -- especially this one -- tend to remind me of the classic C. S. Lewis quote from "That Hideous Strength": "They have an engine called the Press whereby the people are deceived."

I would say, look for news sources that deal thoughtfully and critically with both sides. Alternatively, if you can find nothing but biased sources, watch some of each and weigh them against each other. As I tell the bloggers, check out stories online and look at the backup evidence, the sources listed, the number of other sources that agree with the story, and what kind of sources those are. (Sometimes what gets published is based solely on party line, and there's nothing one can do about that, but at least one can look for and get familiar with the most reliable sources on a particular side.)

And I would advise against dismissing a news source out of hand just because you're guessing it would be biased. Check it out for yourself before you make up your mind.

[labrialumn]

Can a candidate honestly swear the oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic if he believes that the Constitution is fundamentally wrong at a belief-system level (rather than a detail which can be altered by the ammendation process)?

Or would such a candidate *be* one of those domestic enemies that all "constitutional officers" (including the military) are required to defend the Constitution from?

[Doug]

Thanks, Gina!

[Robert Van de Water]

As a person who is not voting for either candidate in this election, watching the back and forth on these kinds of questions is rather fascinating. In order to understand what Mr. Obama is saying, you need to understand the black community that he was a part of when he joined Reverend Jeremiah Wright's church.

One hundred and fifty years ago, black people were bought and sold as property in the United States. They were beaten with whips, chained with iron manacles, separated from family and friends at the whim of their owners, sold at auction and denied even the most basic rights that we believe that we as Americans are entitled to. Now some people think that all this ended with President Lincoln's Emancipation. This is not true.

After slavery, black people were not allowed to purchase property or start a business (because nobody would lend them money), not allowed to vote and not allowed to educate their children. They were forced to sit at the back of the bus, refused promotion when their service and skills warranted it and subjected to physical violence and verbal harassment.

Do you understand that the only progress that has been possible for black people over the course of American history has come about through government mandate? Billy Graham didn't end segregation and even preached in segregated venues. The Democratic congress ended segregation and forced schools to integrate at the point of the guns carried by the National Guard.

So when black people look at an unfair distribution of wealth (decried by the Bible, by the way, when the Apostle Paul points out that God says we are not to "muzzle the ox") where white people make a great deal more money than black people have been allowed to make, what do they think is the solution? Count on the generosity of white people? Appeal to the Christian morals that were (at the time) interpreted to be consistent with slavery? No. They conclude that their only shot at attaining their fair share of wealth is by using the Federal government to redistribute it. That was the method that ended the practice of selling black people, that was the method that allowed black people to vote, that was the method that allowed black people to share public facilities with white people, that was the method that allowed black people to educate their children. It is the only way black people have ever made progress in this country and they naturally turn to it for every problem.

I am not saying that Mr. Obama is right about redistributing wealth using the Federal Government, I am just saying that it is not a "radical" thing for a person who has lived in the black community for many years to think. He is not some believer in Marx and Engels, he just agrees with the black community that the only way they are ever going to get their fair share is to get the government to give it to them. Given the history of the abuse of black people in this country, it is not an unreasonable thing to think.

As a side note, when I look at the fact that the average CEO of an American company makes hundreds of times what the company's average employee makes by shipping American jobs overseas, I get a little angry myself. If thinking that CEOs make way too much money and that corporate greed is out of control in America makes me a socialist, then maybe a little socialism would be good for our country.

[Gina Dalfonzo]

Doug, here's another publication to add to your list of untrustworthies: the "L. A. Times."

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/confirmed-msm-holds-video-of-barack.html

[LeeQuod]

Robert Van de Water wrote: "So when black people look at an unfair distribution of wealth (decried by the Bible, by the way, when the Apostle Paul points out that God says we are not to "muzzle the ox")"

Yet Jesus told us that we would always have poor people with us. So redistribution of wealth is trying to get the government to do what God said isn't going to happen.

And the same Apostle Paul gave a rule "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." In fact, in that same 2 Thess. 3 passage, Paul insists that everyone should avoid being a burden to others. This does not occur under wealth redistribution, and is made worse when a government bureaucracy is empowered to decide who's worthy and who isn't, but is understaffed for the investigations.

Your point about African Americans looking to the government as the source of their hope is well taken. However, the effect on those who look to the government instead of to themselves is not good. I firmly believe that charity should not be administered by bureaucracy but by community, where the network of personal relationships would discourage cheating and encourage productivity. And that charity should be voluntary and cheerful rather than forced and bitter.

And a Supreme Court that sees the U.S. Constitution as mere "guidelines" is a fearsome thing. Roe v. Wade was created /ex nihilo/, and the liberal Supreme Court justices look pragmatically toward Europe for guidance when our Founding Fathers specifically repudiated European folly. When the foundation of the law is removed, anarchy is the natural result.

What socialist countries have been successful in our time - economically, militarily, scientifically, and culturally? Why would we want to trade our success for theirs?

[Jason Ibrahim]

Robert,
I have to say that your story is a compelling one, and one that I believed wholeheartedly up until a few years ago. As more and more facts mounted in opposition to that perspective, I was forced--kicking and screaming--to reject it.

"After slavery, black people were not allowed to purchase property or start a business (because nobody would lend them money), not allowed to vote and not allowed to educate their children."

It's true that, in the South, black codes imposed a de facto second-class citizenship on African Americans. For starters, I should ask: Do you really think a loan is required to start a business? The Bible also says that "the borrower is slave to the lender", and if I were black, the last thing I'd want to do is look for more forms of enslavement. Secondly, I guess I'm confused because most business owners I know are characterized by ingenuity and resourcefulness. Wasn't there anyone that would give them a loan? If not, couldn't they move north to give life to their dreams? If someone's not asking these questions in that situation, how dedicated are they?

"The Democratic congress ended segregation and forced schools to integrate at the point of the guns carried by the National Guard."

While there's some truth to that, it was also Democrats who imposed segregation on African Americans, all the way from Jefferson Davis in the 1860's until George Wallace and Robert Byrd in the twentieth century (George Wallace was a Democratic delegate from Alabama, ran numerous times as a Dixiecrat, and sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 1972 until he was the victim of an assassination attempt). You'll also find similar histories for famous Democrats such as Bull Connor and Ross Barnett, both of whom were on the frontlines in the civil rights debate--for the segregationists.

"So when black people look at an unfair distribution of wealth (decried by the Bible, by the way, when the Apostle Paul points out that God says we are not to 'muzzle the ox')..."

I think Paul is saying that an employer has a moral responsibility to pay his workers fairly. That's a far cry from saying government has a civic responsibility to pay its citizens simply for existing. You'll have to look elsewhere for that justification (remember that this is the same Paul who says, "whoever does not work does not eat").

"He is not some believer in Marx and Engels, he just agrees with the black community that the only way they are ever going to get their fair share is to get the government to give it to them."

When Marx says, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," that bears no significant difference from Obama's "spread the wealth". Obama injects his entitlement-society-class-warfare language, which is the only semantic difference.

[labrialumn]

First I would like to point out that Paul does *not* say "he who does not work, shall not eat" He says "he who *will not* work, shall not eat". That is, it isn't the person who hasn't got a job, but the person who *refuses* to work, who doesn't get to eat.

Secondly, Mr. de Water's understanding of American history is mighty peculiar.

The Republican Party was founded for the purpose of liberating the slaves. I have relatives on both sides who put their lives on the line in that great cause. During Reconstruction, the freed slaves had all the rights of citizens. When those conquered territories were admitted as States, the Democrats immediately seized power, passed the first gun control laws in this country since the Battle of Lexington-Concord, and started segregation and the Jim Crow laws. It was the GOP who pushed for the Civil Rights laws in the 1960s.

[Robert Van de Water]

Lee,

Please understand my position. I am not political. God is on the throne today and he will be on the throne after the election regardless of what happens. My view is that the answer to problems from abortion to greedy corporate CEOs are the spiritual weapons of prayer and fasting. Spiritual weapons can make those who would commit abortion repent and Wall Street what Screwtape called "a veritable hotbed of charity and humility".

I agree with your concerns about a welfare state and a Supreme Court that has no regard for precedent, but I cannot buy into the "Obama is the antiChrist" (and yes I have had people tell me that) hysteria that seems to be running amok in the Republican party.

In my commments, I was trying to explain the Genesis of Obama's views so that people can understand them and not be so fearful. Imagine that you and I were having communion in a culture that never heard of Christ. They hear that we are going to eat the body and blood of someone and they panic and hide their children from us. If they understood that we are really eating a cracker and some grape juice as a way of remembering the sacrifice of our Lord they wouldn't be so afraid. I thought that if Republicans could see Obama as the product of an intellectual environment which has traditionally focused on the dark side of America, (for good reason) they would be more understanding and less fearful.

[Robert Van de Water]

Jason,

"Wasn't there anyone that would give them a loan? If not, couldn't they move north to give life to their dreams? If someone's not asking these questions in that situation, how dedicated are they?"

As the child of a humanist liberal who has received numerous awards from the NAACP, I rebelled against my father and thought very much as you seem to. "A few black people were lynched and they make such a big deal out of it? They act as if they have been continuously held back? What a bunch of garbage! They are just making excuses because they don't want to work." When I became a Christian, my perspective changed.

After I became a Christian, I realized that I had been a horrible brother. As a teenager, I had beaten up my younger brother on a number of occasions. I had previously thought, "Why is my brother such a whiner? I only beat him a handful of times." The Holy Spirit, however, would not let me get away with that. I gradually came to understand that even though I only beat my brother up a few times, I put him in a continual state of fear and intimidation. He was a smart guy and learned after only a few beatings that he had to do what I wanted or else.

Do you see? White people kept black people living in a state of perpetual fear. Open up a business that successfully competes with a white business and what happens? Your business is burned down and you are lynched. People then fear to start their own businesses and the effects of the violence is vastly multiplied.

***When Marx says, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," that bears no significant difference from Obama's "spread the wealth". Obama injects his entitlement-society-class-warfare language, which is the only semantic difference.***

Marx believed in the state ownership of virtually everything and that the individual's interests were subservient to those of the state. This is very different from what Obama has proposed.

Now I agree with you that the idea that the state owes the individual a subsitence existence is contrary to the Bible, but I don't think that the Democrat's believe this. (As a person who knows many Democrats.) I believe the flaw in their philosophy is different.

The fundamental flaw in the philosoph of the Democratic party is that they believe in the goodness of humanity. Given the opportunity to work and the access to education, everyone would work equally hard for their own benefit and the benefit of those around them. Nobody would take advantage of the system by being lazy and living off of the work of others. Who would want to do that? If someone is doing that, it ***must*** be because they don't have equal access to education or equal opportunity as these are the only causes of inequality of outcome.

[Robert Van de Water]

labrialumn,

I just looked up the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on Wikipedia and saw that the voting (by party) was as follows:

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

Frankly, this surprises me as this is not consistent with what I have been taught. Thank you for correcting me and I am glad that Republicans have a better record in this regard than I had previously thought.

Of course, my Democratic friends would argue that it was LBJ who got the measure passed . . .

Whatever the facts, Democrats have enjoyed overwhelming support from African-American voters over the last forty years, so the point of my post ("this is how African Americans view the world") is still valid.

[labrialumn]

By both sides, I mean maternal and paternal, not Slave and Free.

[Jason Ibrahim]

Robert,
I want to say first that nothing I said above, or say below, is intended to justify segregation, injustice or racism of any kind. I already talked about black codes in the South and the problem that created, but I'm restating for clarity's sake.

"...I put him in a continual state of fear and intimidation. He was a smart guy and learned after only a few beatings that he had to do what I wanted or else."

I have a problem with the above statement, namely, that what your brother learned to do is fear man before God. What if you had said if he didn't smoke pot, you would beat him up? I'm not suggesting this ever occurred, but if it did, he may have chosen to follow your orders because your law took precedence in his mind over God's, according to what you said above. I'm not saying I'm above this mentality; I've adopted that attitude and, sadly, still do sometimes. I just don't want to see that mindset justified in black America simply because of the hardships their race has had to endure.

Why is this such a toxic mindset? Because pretty soon, now that God's law is no longer absolute, we start swapping in anything that sounds good. It goes from "the white man is oppressing me" to "the white man won't give me a job" to "the white man made me an alcoholic" and on down the slippery slope. I think the antidote to this, besides meditating on the Bible, is to read stories of people that did make it, in spite of hardships, people who refuse to give into the "state of perpetual fear". If the racists' grip is so complete, the careers of men and women like Frederick Douglass, George Washington Carver, Condoleezza Rice, Booker T. Washington and Clarence Thomas make no sense. How could they succeed when, often in the South, they had to endure the sting of racism and bigotry on a daily basis? I would submit that their passion to succeed no matter the cost, and in spite of any obstacle, is a refreshing alternative to the blame game being played out in much of black America (Bill Cosby had some fantastic things to say about this a few years ago).

Now don't get me wrong, after the Civil War, black Southerners had to endure decades of systemic segregation, but as the times changed, that system was slowly dismantled, and segregation moved from being a systemic problem to an individual one. Ironically, this was a problem for the civil rights industry (formerly "movement"), which had to find a way to stay relevant. Enter affirmative action (again, signed into law by a Republican), the campus diversity movements, speech codes, and many other Orwellian measures.

[Matthew Shaffer]

forgive my spelling I'm dislectic

I say what I say to make a point, of what kind of affect this weak argument
has on poeple that are slow to action, show to anger and quick to listion.

Mc cain lost my vote along time ago and my respect when he started down the road that has lead is campain to distuction

Take the logs out of your eyes befor you seek to take the specks out of your brothrs eye.

I tell you the truth judge Not less you be judged, For with the same measure you judge that will be measured to you.

Right!

Sarha palin is governor of Alaska is she or is she not?

Alaska taxes Oil companys to transfer welth from the oil companys to every man women and child, right $2000 per person right.

Alaska says the oil blongs to the people of Alaska bcause it's on public land leased to the Oil comanys Right.

Oil colectively owned by the people by brith right.

so we have a transfer of welth and a oil colective by birth right.

sounds like soclisum and communisum to me.

on top of that the state of Alsaka rewareds babies haveing babies ,
the oil colective will give you $2000 of taxpayer money just for liveing. Then $2000 for every kid in wedlock or out, land is chep so low rent add 5 or 10 kids at $2000 per head and it's an oil colective welfare state

I am Not part of any colition. I am part of a company that Not man can Number, that will be gathered together around the thron and aruond the lamb.

more over christens are not to be the known for what the have become known for.
redicover him in his word in all his fullness remeber the Lord know no party
speek on issuses the Republican party dosn't like you have the others down
the fact if the republican and outside the holy moral law of God they need rebukeing the fact is becuase they have wondered so fare is why they are going to get there political heads handed to them agin if they had been rebuked along time ago they wouldn't be in the mess the now find them seleves, no liberal meida conspersiy can the blam, only the multitiude of there transgreshions for they fell by they own countcel

all I can say all of you don't contine to think in seculer way instened pery Obama picks judges that will do God's will remeber All things are posilabe in christ Jesus