RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Sweet Jesus! Obama Proclaims Faith in Faith-Based Initiatives?

Some of our Founding Fathers had a colorful way of speaking.  Thomas Paine, for example, said this about the separation of church and state:

"Soon after I had published the pamphlet `Common Sense’ in America I saw the exceeding probability that a revolution in the system of government would be followed by a revolution in the system of religion.   

"The adulterous connection of church and state, wherever it had taken place, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, had so effectually prohibited by pains and penalties every discussion upon established creeds, and upon first principles of religion, that until the system of government should be changed those subjects could not be."

That said, I’m more than a bit surprised that Sen. Barack Obama seems to be proposing less (rather than more) separation between church and state.  Yesterday, the God-O-Meter blog reported:

"Faith without works, they say, is dead–and that faith without
conservative social positions shouldn’t be enough to win the hearts of values voters.

"That’s why Obama’s announcement today about wanting to expand President Bush’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives into what he’s calling a President’s Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, is so significant. Not only is Obama showing how faith would shape policy in his administration, he’s being so bold as to criticize Bush’s faith-based program for not going far enough in opening the federal social services spigot to
churches and other faith-based groups.

"In effect, he’s out-Bushing George W. Bush in one of the President’s specialty areas–connecting faith and public policy." (God-O-Meter)

Well, Sen. Obama did promise "change," and outspending President Bush on faith-based initiatives technically would constitute a change.

But is this the type of change that most Obama supporters can truly get behind and believe in — especially on the heels of Sen. Obama’s reversal on NAFTA and FISA?

Claims that Sen. Obama has taken a sudden leap to the faith-based-initiative path would be too bizarre for me to believe, if the Associated Press hadn’t run a similar story.  But the AP did run such a story yesterday. 

I’m not quoting it or linking to it, because the AP has publicly stated that it doesn’t like being quoted by bloggers who don’t pay for the privilege.  Fine.  The AP will, as a result of my respecting its preferences, get less traffic.

Back to my point: for years, Sen. Obama has taught constitutional law.  Presumably, he  understands our Constitution’s First Amendment, which is where our Founding Fathers inserted the “The Establishment Clause” — what we now shorthand as "The Separation of Church and State."

Trackback URL

RSS Feed for This Post132 Comments »

Comment by obamanation | 2008-07-02 23:29:42

I love my church and faith we don’t want the government
Involved thank you.

Comment by let them eat change | 2008-07-02 23:34:33

That’s why the church doesn’t pay taxes.

Comment by let them eat change | 2008-07-02 23:37:11

Actually, that’s a really good point on my part: Why doesn’t the church pay taxes? Oh, oh, so they can get our tax money for free. I guess I can claim to the lord almighty jesus, that I really was tithing.

Comment by standard | 2008-07-02 23:42:42

What’s scary is reading the cover up and rationalization at Big Orange Urinal.
They’re in total denial – because Sugardaddy Soros doesn’t want his Obambi dissed.

 
 

Comment by HARP | 2008-07-02 23:46:05

Taxation: how the sheep are shorn.

Comment by let them eat change | 2008-07-02 23:48:26

“Let them march all the want, as long as they pay their taxes.”

Comment by let them eat change | 2008-07-02 23:49:06

Oh, I meant, as long as they tithe.

 
 
 
 

Comment by Lucinda | 2008-07-03 06:21:23

I’m a lifelong Methodist, and I’ve pastored a church. I can tell you right now that those people don’t want the government messing around in their business. We already have a government called the United Methodist Conference. We don’t pay taxes, but we pay apportionments to the Conference that are 25% of the church’s total annual budget. The United Methodist church doesn’t need help from the government in carrying out faith-based initiatives. They’ve been doing just fine without the U.S. government to mess it up.
I think that Jesus actually made a clear definition of church and state when he said, “Render unto the Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and render unto God the things that are God’s.” That was in response, by the way, to the question of whether Jews should have to obey the laws of the Roman government, including paying taxes.

 
 

Comment by Kat5 | 2008-07-02 23:30:28

I. Absolutely. Despise. Obama.

And that’s the polite version.

Comment by Medusa | 2008-07-03 00:07:59

BO is prostituting himself again. All he wants to do is win. He doesn’t care about faith-based initiatives anymore than he cared about filibustering the FISA bill or renouncing Fat Cat campaign donations.

BO = insincerity.

Comment by jwrjr | 2008-07-03 01:15:26

Do we want the hypothetical Obama administration subsidizing Black Liberation Theology? Doesn’t sound like a good idea to me.

 

Comment by elise | 2008-07-03 03:30:46

I just despise all of this. This is outrageous. One of the people involved with the Bush programs resigned after the 2004 election saying they had used the programs to set up political bases during the election and to increase turn out among the Religious Right.

How can agent orange or any other group of so called liberals excuse this kind of duplicity. And where is the Democratic Party? Too busy moving to Chicago, I guess to pay attention. If I had ever entertained any idea about supporting him, it would have died a horrifying death in the last two weeks.

Did you see his speech? I know nothing about body language, but it looked as if he were hanging onto the podium so tight he was afraid he might float away. Someone needs to call a halt to this and I personally dare any superdelegate to have the guts to withdraw support from this faux Democrat.

I like the quote from Thomas Paine. I’ve been doing a little reading myself from Henry David Thoreau’s essay, Civil Disobedience. I really believe the delegates can create enough choas to take the party back if they were so inclined. Use their precious rules against them and the whole thing comes to a grinding halt.

Comment by John | 2008-07-03 06:49:19

The simplistic answer from McCain and Obama and Bush (interchangeable on this issue ) is that “faith-based organizations can do things better than government, so why not give them the money and let them keep doing it?”

Anyone with a brain would answer “because the moment you give one organization money and not another, you are breaking the First Amendment.” Seems pretty simple to me.

Here’s a better idea: Improve the way Government does things. Don’t OUTSOURCE RESPONSIBILITIES TO PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS, religious or otherwise.

 
 

Comment by BernieO | 2008-07-03 07:24:50

I don’t know about that. I bet he is sincere. Remember he belonged to a church that was big on community outreach so I would bet he is envisioning helping black liberation churches, Nation of Islam programs, etc. by expanding the amount of government funds available to them. (Something that we have had for years by the way. There used to be stringent rules to make sure programs – such as Catholic charities – that take public funds did not preach but Bush’s faith based intiative weakened that.)

Comment by katmandu | 2008-07-03 07:48:21

There’s a website that discusses the legal challenges to faith-based initiatives (can I call it FBI?) and it had this comment by law professors examining the ability to control the programs (h/t to strongerthandirt over at MyDD):

Here’s a BIG problem is Barack starts handing out money, according to
http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/interviews/interview.cfm?id=172&pageMode=featured

The law professors there are experts in faith-based initiative litigation.

There has been a significant amount of litigation about faith-based social services since 2001 – much more than there has been in the prior 100 years before that. We didn’t see litigation – or we saw very little – about social services; the action was always about schools, and typically elementary and secondary schools, not colleges, before the last ten years or so. Since the Faith-Based and Community Initiative, this is a legal and political flash point for controversy, and there has been a great deal of litigation challenging these programs the government has run involving religious providers.

But there have been special rules for about 40 years that say when you are complaining that your tax money is being unlawfully spent in support of religion, the courts will listen to those complaints.

The Hein case cut that back in a significant way. It did not eliminate the doctrine of taxpayer standing in Establishment Clause cases, but it cut it back to cases in which the plaintiff can show that a legislature – not a government executive, like the President, a governor, or executive branch agency, but a legislature like Congress or a state legislature – had in some way specifically authorized the expenditure of money in the direction of religious organizations or activities.*** In the last twelve months, in the wake of Hein, lower courts have actually been rather aggressive in jumping on the Hein decision and really insisting on some very careful showing of specific legislative authorization for expenditures in order to support taxpayer lawsuits. A number of cases have been dropped or thrown out by the courts, because taxpayers couldn’t show that specific legislative authorization. The result is there are going to be fewer decisions about these kinds of programs, and eventually fewer lawsuits about these kinds of programs because the courts won’t hear them – taxpayers won’t be able to bring them and the courts will throw them out. This is going to change the dynamic of funding these kinds of enterprises and the litigation that follows from it.

As others have suggested, are you comfortable with Chicago churches getting tons of money by order of Obama?

Comment by Annie Oakley | 2008-07-03 10:01:26

This is a variation on the Unitary Executive. BO or BHO or however we are supposed to refer to His Majesty is going to have a new influence rathole that can’t be touched by mere tax payers. I am getting kind of bitter about the Left.

Faith-based taxes go to TUCC for, oh say, after school programs. Personally, I think taxes should only go to programs like Head Start, but theoretically the expenditure is justified because TUCC can deliver the service better. Yet, TUCC also believes that middleclassness is a bad thing, and builds a mansion for Rev. Wright. How do I know that money TUCC saved/received from their after-school program didn’t go to stamp out middleclassness? Wouldn’t we need audits? Don’t we need transparency? And, as Lucinda pointed out above, aren’t these churches in danger of damaging what they stand for by involving it with taxes and the politicians who earmark them?

 
 
 

Comment by fran | 2008-07-03 09:16:56

Or the Constitution. Does this man have ANY principles that he won’t pitch for votes?

 

Comment by moi61537 | 2008-07-03 10:24:42

Nah, he’s setting up Islamofascist “faith-based” initiatives.

 
 

Comment by Just a Thought | 2008-07-03 02:52:16

I agree, I despise Obama, and all associated with him.

Obama’s stance on faith based initiatives, has changed as all of his positions change almost daily, then the minions come out and tell us how we are dumb to even question Obama’s lies, deception, and flip-flops.

My take on Obama’s two-faced stand on faith based initiatives:

Then: “Such programs are wrong and should be brought to a halt, I firmly believe in the separation of church and state.”

Now: “However, I am going to expand and increase funding for that thing where George Bush has been giving money to religious groups, whatever it is called. I need the votes, and a little religion is good for everybody, especially those that make their living off it.

 
 

Comment by B from Bloomington | 2008-07-02 23:30:46

Remember when he said:

“I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution.”

Seems like he would rather shred it than respect it.
(Oh and he was a “senior lecturer” and never a professor.)

Comment by let them eat change | 2008-07-02 23:40:31

I was a constitutional law professor before I was against it.

Comment by Amabo Kcarab | 2008-07-03 00:03:48

This is not the constitutional law professor I knew.

Comment by let them eat change | 2008-07-03 00:06:54

The last time I saw the constitution, it was under the bus.

Comment by josgirl | 2008-07-03 00:09:43

Constitutional law is a distraction.

 
 

Comment by Zeke | 2008-07-03 01:05:30

dam you Amabo! Beat me to it! :)

 
 
 

Comment by fran | 2008-07-03 09:19:36

“I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution.”

Just in the last 2 weeks, I guess that doesn’t apply to wiretapping, the 2nd amendment, or separation of church and state, since he’s changed his position on all of these issues. 2 weeks?!

Maybe he’ll start changing his name like Prince and his fan P.Diddy. Oh wait, he already has!

 
 

Comment by mi5 | 2008-07-02 23:31:40

I’ve got the whitey tape. Michele calls David Blaine a whitey also.

Comment by typical.white.person | 2008-07-03 00:49:10

Well, David Blaine (AKA David Blaine White), was born in Brooklyn to a father of Puerto Rican-Catholic descent and a mother of Russian-Jewish descent.

Maybe she was being hostile about his Russian-Jewish heritage?

If you really have the whitey tape, put it on youtube.

Comment by Zeke | 2008-07-03 01:13:02

COMING TO A TV NEAR YOU IN LATE AUGUST

She’s New! She’s Fresh! She’s Passed Her ColorBlind Test!

Michelle Obama!

In the role Rev. Wright created solely for Her!

“WHAT’S WRONG WITH WHITEY!”

Rated: who cares

“Two thumbs up our butts” say the critical dudes

Comment by elise | 2008-07-03 03:35:33

Very funny, but it’s hard to smile when I’m screaming things in my head.

 
 

Comment by fran | 2008-07-03 09:21:17

LISTEN CAREFULLY: YOU-ARE-A-MORON.

Larry has REPEATEDLY stated that HE DOES NOT HAVE THE TAPE!! Are you THAT dense?!

Apparently so.

 
 
 

Comment by blkmn(real) HRC supporter | 2008-07-02 23:34:02

This is like watching a BAD movie(Attack of the Flip Flopping Pander)!!!! ONLY difference is its for REAL!!!!! NObama08

 

Comment by Mr.Murder | 2008-07-02 23:34:37

Obamachrist, Superstar, who do you think you are?

He’s the One!
We can weld Church and State into a unified being with him as POTUS.

Not to mention the wonderful idea of your tax dollars supporting the nearest medrassa?

Comment by Ann On | 2008-07-02 23:38:39

“Not to mention the wonderful idea of your tax dollars supporting the nearest medrassa?”

With the bonus of outfits like TUCC having their faces down in the trough.

Comment by Teakwood | 2008-07-03 00:47:51

OBama’s little piggies?

Comment by Zeke | 2008-07-03 01:15:33

If it happens, the little piggies will also have little wingies!

 
 
 

Comment by Johnny at Work | 2008-07-03 00:39:20

That school is here in Fairfax, VA.

http://www.news8.net/news/stories/0608/528950.html
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/391680.aspx

Just a 20 minute drive from the White House.

Or, just 5 minutes if using Marine 1.

 
 

Comment by Joe Smith | 2008-07-02 23:36:15

The way this guy is going he will be pro-life by the end of the month. He has to make up somewhere for all the votes he looses every time he opens his mouth.

I decided after May that I would not contribute to any of the candidates or PACs but this development has me strongly considering not only giving money but actually helping out to defeat Obama.

How could anyone get behind this guy who is all over the place on everything issue that comes up.

Only thing I can remember that this guy took a stand on is not giving people a break on the gas tax. I heard some pundits claiming that to be a major conviction.

This guy is unbelievable!

Comment by A.Citizen | 2008-07-02 23:43:10

Indeed, and as we move forward to the Convention we need to keep hammering that fact home.

He can’t beat McSame.

 
 

Comment by Jason | 2008-07-02 23:38:44

I find extremely troubling Obama’s new found religion in courting the far right evangelical vote. Not only is he proposing that Bush’s faith based initiatives should be maintained, but expanded! Now I see evangelicals swooning. But as all those late night TV commercials hawking the latest and latest worthless gadget say, “Wait, that’s not all!”

Of course Obama mumbles under his breadth that all this new federal money going to faith groups has a catch, there can not discrimination in your staffing or expenditure of money as to ideology for secular functions. Sounds reasonable but deeper down there is something more sinister.

What better way to gain federal control over faith groups than shower them with federal money. Faith will sell its soul to the federal government and lose its faith. Faith groups will be reduced to no more than federal funded community organizations since they will not be able to proselytize or promote their own faith. Anyway, with federal entitlement spending already eating up 65% of the federal budget and projected to grow in proportion, we do not need expansion into this area.

But wait there’s more. Private religious schools, especially the Catholic school system, are recognized as providing some of the most rigorous education in this country. With federal money controlling the curriculum, the private religious school system will be brought down to the lowered standards of the public school system to comply with the new federal regulations. This appears to be just another radical far left attempt to dumb the electorate down even further.

Evangelicals beware of the Pharisee in your midst.

Comment by Zeke | 2008-07-03 01:25:04

Anyone want to bet the Evangelicals will fall for Barry’s horse apples? C’mon, I could use the money.
Evangelicals have very simple tests to see if Barry’s up to snuff. Bear in mind, they never were infected with an overdose of political correctness so they have stuck to their beliefs as intact credos. Barry has said too many Humanistic things which he can’t slip past them. Additionally, this is one group which he cannot use double-talk to placate.
Example: His envoy in Canada telling them NAFTA stuff was just words will not translate to the Evangelicals perspective.

Comment by memyself&i | 2008-07-03 02:23:10

He lost them when he opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Hillary Clinton supported it.

Comment by Zeke | 2008-07-03 02:49:07

Valid point! That cannot sit well at all.

 
 
 
 

Comment by BJ | 2008-07-02 23:41:56

This is insane and scary. I KNOW a lot of Dems would not admit it because they support this kook so emphatically, but something like this on any normal given day would anger the h’ll out of them. It angers me beyond words that he’d go this route but then again everything about this guy either scares me or angers me.

Someone above posted their disdain for the obie-one. I understand completely. I loathe him with my every breath.

Comment by let them eat change | 2008-07-02 23:46:14

I have loathed him since the first time I heard him speak. My loathing for him was on equal par to my loathing of bush the first time I heard him laugh.

 
 

Comment by standard | 2008-07-02 23:47:36

And now a refreshing pause that we haven’t had in weeks. The sound of level headed intelligence:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07u6uffKvpA&border=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&hl=en]

Comment by standard | 2008-07-02 23:50:30

Bah humbug. Couldn’t embed a Youtube.
Here is the link, just replace COLON and DOT with the real thing.
Well worth the effort:

httpCOLON//wwwDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=07u6uffKvpA&eurl=http://hillbuzz.blogspotDOTcom/

 

Comment by jbjd | 2008-07-02 23:56:58

The correct link is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07u6uffKvpA&border=1&color1=0%D72b405b&color2=0%D76b8ab6&hl=en
Thank you for this. Thank you so very much. Fabulous!

Comment by Zeke | 2008-07-03 02:51:49

Never saw her more REAL than right there.

 

Comment by elise | 2008-07-03 03:52:11

What have we wrought? This is the person we need and how stupid to let her go and end up with a straw man. I am so angry with the DNC. They sold us all out.

 

Comment by fran | 2008-07-03 09:28:26

She is so kick a*s! Can’t believe they selected such a jellyfish, when we have such a fierce advocate available. It’s such a waste.

 
 

Comment by karen for Clinton | 2008-07-03 06:43:39

That’s our girl. That is a painful reminder, eh?

Dammit all. Here come those tears again.

Tell me to get over it, no way, no how.

I want change, the kind that Hillary delivers.

No, I will never get over it.

btw – in North East PA there were two letters to the editor yesterday highly critical of ob regarding live birth abortions. Everyday there are critical letters, radio and local TV shows with the sole purpose of outting ob for the sham he is.

The locals are never going to get over it.

Clinton country is already strong McCain country.

Little solace for what could have been had this crook and liar not appeared on the national scene, but nevertheless some comfort.

Comment by Tuppence 411 | 2008-07-03 07:48:41

I am glad to hear about the editorials. I can’t even think of a word for Obama anymore- pandering is too weak. Flip-flop and shift-shaft don’t cut it. On Father’s Day he preached to young men that fatherhood begins at conception. But then voted that life doesn’t even begin after birth when he was instrumental in the defeat of the Defense of Life Birth Protection Act! His word doesn’t match his actions. The Holy-Rollers will expose him.

 
 
 

Comment by yttik | 2008-07-02 23:50:14

This “unity” candidate is managing to unite everyone in disgust against him. He’s not fooling the pro-life religious right and he’s alienating everybody else that wants a strong separation between church and state.

Comment by HARP | 2008-07-02 23:53:09

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

Comment by let them eat change | 2008-07-02 23:57:26

Well then, throw some of your tax dollars my way.

Comment by Zeke | 2008-07-03 01:27:02

Too much loft on that one HARP… it cleared him by inches.

 
 

Comment by mahaska | 2008-07-03 02:48:30

 
 
 

Comment by tampagurl | 2008-07-02 23:50:40

Obama is trying to buy this election with our money!!Every time he talks to a group he offers them our tax dollars. This man has to be stopped.

Comment by let them eat change | 2008-07-03 00:28:46

Oh, now, now, tampagurl, he refused to take public financing.

Comment by tampagurl | 2008-07-03 00:38:49

that’s pocket change compared to the Federal treasure chest he’s trying to get his hands on.

 

Comment by elise | 2008-07-03 03:57:22

I can certainly see why. The dollar i donated when I got my drivers licence is the quid and I want my pro quo. I wonder what’s happened to that money? No one ever uses it?

 
 
 

Comment by blankscreenobama | 2008-07-03 00:04:49

Before I wanted to join Puma because I was so proud of you. but I am a con. but puma was made for you. I am going to find a group from the right to hit Obama.
We all Americans right or left. we have to wake up people from the MLM

GOD BLESS AMERICA

Comment by tampagurl | 2008-07-03 00:13:10

blankscreenobama, we have the same goal which is to keep BO from becoming POTUS. I don’t know why you keep telling us you’re a con, what does that mean exactly? I say on the internet you can be anything you want to be. Sometimes I’m the Queen of England :)

Comment by HARP | 2008-07-03 00:21:23

Comment by tampagurl | 2008-07-03 00:27:10

 
 

Comment by Zeke | 2008-07-03 01:29:32

Your Majesty…
We didn’t see your tiara..

Welcome

 
 

Comment by Jeremiah Wright | 2008-07-03 00:21:09

GOD BLESS AMERICA?

NO! NO! NO!

I SAY GOD DAMN AMERICA!

 

Comment by fran | 2008-07-03 09:32:00

See–Obama HAS united Dems & Republicans:

AGAINST HIM!

 
 

Comment by sonia | 2008-07-03 00:05:45

LARRY

This is one of my favorite blogs and one of very few who did not jump on the bandwagon of MR WAFFLES..

I do have a idea or suggestion …

1.OPEN THREAD (sometimes or twice a day )

2.SHARING A PAST STORY OF HILLARY (u know something -she did or bill did ,OR some great utube viseos)

3.BLOG ON SOME OTHER THINGS TOO —-like have everyone comment on gas prices,share housing stories ,or ur own personal experiences )

and ofcourse –u r keeping all of us informed on MR EMPTY SUIT.

Comment by elise | 2008-07-03 04:02:15

I have a wonderful idea for ya Larry. A manisfesto on anarchy and chaos at the Democratic Convention along with instructions sent to delegates.

 
 

Comment by angry centrist | 2008-07-03 00:07:50

If God needs money, he can go get another job, or at least he could do better at the job he has. This planet is a mess.

 

Comment by AnnieCarmel | 2008-07-03 00:12:51

Obama is willing to promise anything to anyone if they’ll vote for him but what is most horrifying is the amount he’ll funnel to BLT…or to his Muslim friends/cousin in Kenya. He is 100% corrupt.

 

Comment by sonia | 2008-07-03 00:13:35

1. WHO is Obama?

He is a empty suit,sexist,racist,opportunist,liar,snob,arrogant ,elitist,phony,and same old politician

2. WHO is his real BASE?

Frauds,lawyers.lobbists,barely 18-19 yr olds kid .people with jedi effect and people who believe “obama or die“and people who vote based on color rather whats best for our country.

and, perhaps most importantly,

3. HOW will we be able to tell?

The whole world knows but most are color blinded -meaning all they see is thier color ,some are -stuck in past slavery guilty,some are too dumb to know,some actually like the idea of having a stupid as in oval office so they can push thier agenda,some are just under jedi effectand on koolaid ,and some just get tingles in thier legs and forget to report the truth .

Comment by let them eat change | 2008-07-03 00:18:51

I agree with the “stupid” in the oval office. I agree because it has gotten us where we are in the last 8 years. Oh well, what the heck, let’s give it a try again!!

 
 

Comment by btintaos | 2008-07-03 00:20:35

Well? Where are all of the trolls? I bet they’re too mortified to type. I’d like to see them justify this.
This is not the pandering I knew.

Comment by sonia | 2008-07-03 00:22:52

they r paid $7/hr
and thier shift ended or may be they r giving report to the new shift bloggers …

 

Comment by let them eat change | 2008-07-03 00:24:37

It is night, night time. They were read their fairytale in the last blog and are off to visions of magical thinking in their heads.

 
 

Comment by sonia | 2008-07-03 00:21:26

What has obama done for americans lately?

he has used race to win primaries

he has trashed clintons.

he has divided the dems.

he has insulted women“sweetie“

he has showed us “what arrogant means=obama“

he has told us true meanings of SNOB,ELITIST,S*XIST,RACIST,SAME OLD POLITCIAN with brand new copied speeches

he has shown us that its okay to copy speeches

he has shown us “how to flip flop effectively

he has shown us “how to make MSM his pet and keep them in his pocket `where his phone vibrates

ha has shown us “why some americans r bitter “

he has shown us what `a typical white person looks like

he has shown us his greatest racist ever priests and friends

he has shown us ——NO MORALS,NO VALUES,NO PRINCIPLES,NO CHARACTER,NO CLASS……

 

Comment by Johnny at Work | 2008-07-03 00:23:27

Obama will send your tax dollars to churches, but no money will be going to the Bible Belt.

Here is the Religious Organization that Obama will send your tax dollars to.
http://www.news8.net/news/stories/0608/528950.html
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/391680.aspx

And of course Obama will not turn his back on the institution that spawned him. “I um, don’t umm think there is ummm anything particularly ummmm controversial about my ummmm church”
http://www.tucc.org

Comment by Mr. Natural | 2008-07-03 08:32:41

FYI:

Trinity (TUCC) has received over $15,000,000 in federal grants over the past fifteen years – according to a FOX News story of a few weeks ago.

Here’s a reference to the story:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/02/fox-news-wright-trinity-received-15m-in-taxpayer-money-from-gddamn-america/

Comment by Annie Oakley | 2008-07-03 10:33:31

The taxes to TUCC didn’t end in 2001. I don’t have a link handy, but last time I checked into the faith-based office of wasting your money, TUCC and assorted versions of it where listed as recipients in 2003, the last year I could find info on.

 
 
 

Comment by JAY in Los Angeles | 2008-07-03 00:23:31

We can officially state that this candidate is DANGEROUS now.

We’ve been saying it from the start. And he’s delivering — in abundance.

Comment by let them eat change | 2008-07-03 00:26:02

 
 

Comment by joeysky | 2008-07-03 00:26:21

I’m not for it or against it. I just want to be president. – Backtrack Obama.

Comment by Johnny at Work | 2008-07-03 00:40:45

That is a promotion from his days in Illinois where he was just “Present”.

 
 

Comment by Johnny at Work | 2008-07-03 00:28:58

Obama made a huge stategic mistake by going goo goo for Faith Based initiatives. His FAITH and CHURCH are the two biggest drags on his candidacy, and he just put them on stage with multiple spotlights.

I can’t wait to see the Repubs play that over and over, showing your tax dollars flowing to TUCC, Jeremiah Wright, and Lois Farrakhan so he can “rehabilitate” criminals.

Oh yeah every voter, especially EVANGELICALS are going to love O’boy for that… NOT.

 

Comment by Dakinikat | 2008-07-03 00:33:43

Unbelievable! The Wall Street Journal says that Obama is running for Bush’s third term!

http://dakiniland.wordpress.com/2008/07/03/send-in-the-greyhound-fleet-wsj-obama-is-bushs-third-term/

How much more proof do we need that this guy is an opportunist extraordinaire with NO moral grounding?

Comment by elise | 2008-07-03 04:15:21

Good article Dankinikat. Next week you will be able to add another instalment.

 
 

Comment by sonia | 2008-07-03 00:33:52

Barack Hussien Obama should change his name to

1.BlankscreenObama

2.57 Waffles

3.Barack Damn America

4.God Damn Hussien Obama

Comment by let them eat change | 2008-07-03 00:38:15

Oh thank god, they woke up from their slumber of sugar plums in their heads.

 
 

Comment by HARP | 2008-07-03 00:34:54

When Obama said the Democrats would no longer take lobbyist money, the DCCC ignored him. The DNC itself is using lobbyist money to pay for its convention in total defiance of Barack Obama’s orders.

Therefore, in this case, we are left with only two conclusions. Either this effort to diminish John McCain’s service in the military is an intentional, willful strategy of the Obama campaign using surrogates while purportedly giving Obama plausible deniability, or Obama cannot tell them to stop because he is too weak and ineffectual for anyone in his party to take him seriously enough to listen to him.

The first is a disgusting trait of his character that should give one pause if they wish to vote for him. It is also, given what we already know about Obama, the most likely conclusion.

The second is a sign that in office, Obama would be a figurehead unable to stop or influence the leftists he would no doubt bring into office with him. The claims of moderate policy he wants would be ignored in favor of the radical advancement of liberalism his core supporters demand.

Comment by Teakwood | 2008-07-03 01:10:18

A pot to piss in …yup that is Obama.

When you define yourself as a “blank slate upon which people project” other people will use you like a “rented mule”.

 
 

Comment by prabhata | 2008-07-03 00:40:32

I know someone who is from AZ, very right wing Christian, and though he knows I’m not in that group, I’m in his email list. I just got what these people think of his pandering:

About the only thing he does well about “change” is change his positions to what you want to hear but the most amazing part is that there are people out there that takes him as a serious “candidate.”

Faith-Based Feint?

It’s an axiom in politics that what a politician says in public is meant to please, but what he says in private is meant to pledge. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is rhapsodizing in public on the nation’s hunger for a leader who shares their homegrown priorities–a love of country, faith in God, and loyalty to family. To prove his sincerity on the issues, Obama says that if elected he’ll overhaul President Bush’s faith-based initiative and expand it. In a speech today in Zanesville, Ohio, he said that church and religious organizations should play a bigger role in meeting our country’s social needs. He would even support the right of federally-funded programs “to hire and fire based on faith.” Of course, this statement stands in stark contrast to his policy position on ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act), which would trample on the religious and moral convictions of employers, including non-profits and certain church ministries. Nevertheless, Obama’s camp insists that their candidate will “elevate” the program to the “moral center” of his administration. It sounds appealing, but what exactly would a faith-based initiative under Obama look like? His latest statements on the California marriage amendment over the weekend provide a frightening glimpse. In a less-than-public letter to a Sunday breakfast of the LGBT Democratic Club in San Francisco, he scorned man-woman marriage, saying , “…I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution [to protect marriage], and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of any other states.” While telling the world he will up hold the faith-based initiative as the cornerstone of his administration, Obama says that a cornerstone of society – heterosexual marriage — is “divisive and discriminatory.” Doesn’t this mean that faith-based organizations that support marriage will be disqualified from federal funding under an Obama presidency? It would be next to impossible for ministries that promote traditional marriage to participate in a Healthy Marriage project funded through an Obama faith-based initiative. There is no doubt that Sen. Obama is polished on the issue of faith, but it’s his record–not his rhetoric–that speaks louder. Gaps like this leave Senator McCain with a huge opening: as with his letter last week supporting the marriage amendment in California, McCain can send message after message that his definition of faith is traditional and strong, not the High Church of Secular Liberalism that believes in a “faith-based” way to destroy marriage and family.

Comment by prabhata | 2008-07-03 00:42:12

I messed up, the whole text should have been in quote.

 

Comment by Zeke | 2008-07-03 01:45:12

Ah good, people are getting it. Obama’s efforts toward faith based support are seated solidly in Marxism.
To take over a group, first become a member, then become indispensable, then control the money, then its yours. OR CONTROL THE ONE DOING IT!
Was I the only one the military taught how to do this? I woulda sworn there were other guys in pickle suits sitting there with me….
I’m sure the Feebs of the seventies were doing this actively.
Its a basic procedure to subvert an opposition group.
Larry knows this stuff far, far better than I, but he makes people pay him to tell them this stuff.
Separation Of Church and State was created so Nobody could do what that sonofabitch wants to do.

 
 

Comment by tampagurl | 2008-07-03 00:42:43

I say all of the above HARP.

 

Comment by LadyLee | 2008-07-03 00:46:52

He IS seeming more and more like Bush. And the community blogs on the official O website has Evangelicals for Obama with some ridiculous stuff. http://whatsuddenly.blogspot.com/2008/07/bush-for-change.html

Comment by let them eat change | 2008-07-03 00:53:28

“While pro-choice, his policies will do more to reduce abortion than any policies presented by pro-life candidates in recent years…”

That’s my favorite line. Just a back up or back door in case he looses this election.

Comment by Roger De Bris | 2008-07-03 01:09:18

Wait until the evangelicals see the record of his lone vote in the IL legislature against the bill that banned partial birth abortion.

Comment by Teakwood | 2008-07-03 01:18:50

Or voting against keeping porn shops away from schools. Got to LOVE that one.

 
 
 
 

Comment by HARP | 2008-07-03 00:57:06

Mr. Obama’s ads show he’s aware of his vulnerability on two fronts: his liberal values and his meager achievements. Yet he should be more cautious with these weaknesses. His bio ad says he was raised with “values straight from the Kansas heartland,” though he grew up in Hawaii. He claims to have passed three bills, but fails to mention that two were in the Illinois state Senate and that he didn’t vote on the third in the U.S. Senate. His new ad praises welfare reform, yet he opposed the legislation when a Republican Congress passed and President Clinton signed it.

Comment by memyself&i | 2008-07-03 02:45:16

I am confused. I thought his grandmother was a typical white racist. Now he is saying she raised him with values from the heartland.

Comment by Annie Oakley | 2008-07-03 11:06:29

Not THAT heartland. This one from His Speech at the Convention:

The one in which he gets Lincoln, into the first paragraph, moseys through some cornflake fields about goat herders and how unlikely it is that he’d be here addressing all you racists, and yet crams all of the following icons into one paragraph to convince you he’s from Kansas, the good Kansas.

While studying here, my father met my mother. She was born in a town on the other side of the world, in Kansas. Her father worked on oil rigs and farms through most of the Depression. The day after Pearl Harbor my grandfather signed up for duty; joined Patton’s army, marched across Europe.

No wonder you’re confused, and no wonder I’ve heard Obie referred to as Forest Gump.

He could have introduced his own history, but he chose his grandparents’ instead.

 
 
 

Comment by tampagurl | 2008-07-03 01:09:11

When I was growing up people like Obama were called jive asses.

Comment by Zeke | 2008-07-03 01:49:13

 
 

Comment by tampagurl | 2008-07-03 01:11:48

As a pro choice advocate…even I think partial birth abortion is sick.

Comment by jwrjr | 2008-07-03 01:23:52

It should not be done unless medically there is no alternative.

 
 

Comment by jm | 2008-07-03 02:00:40

Mention is made early in thread of Islamic school in VA. There also is a large one in MI growing so fast that they are in the midst of a major expanded facility. It is affilatied with the mosque of Qazwini, who is best buds with the Shiite behind the Shariah re-instatement in Iran. This MI group is known to be central US based fundraiser for HEZBOLLA, which Sec. of Homeland Security says makes Al Queda look like boy scouts.

So if anyone is really wondering where most of the faith-based $$$$ would go to, they need to pay more attention to bozo’s relationships, familial and social and political with Islamics- who USE religion as a FRONT for propagandizing violence against US – and laugh when we let them.

Now he’s promising to give tax dollars to HELP their aims – in the guise of religion and faith based funding. This is BEYOND A NIGHTMARE.

We need to organize and build a new 3rd party that is truly representative of the foundation of this country – while we still have one!!!

Comment by Frau Fabrissina | 2008-07-03 02:24:55

Islam should not even be recognized as a protected religion in liberal Western governments that guarantee freedom of worship. The canonical texts of Islam establish a basic tenet of Islam is not a religion but a complete way of life, a set of laws handed down that does not recognize the separation of religion and state.

This is a statement made by the Muslim Student Association (MSA) at the University of Southern California:

Islam is the name of a way of life which the Creator wants us to follow. We avoid the word religion because in many non-Islamic societies, there is a separation of “religion and state.” This separation is not recognized at all in Islam: the Creator is very much concerned with all that we do, including the political, social, economic, and other aspects of our society. Hence, Islam is a complete way of life.”

“The Qur’an and Sunnah are the only two mediums by which Allah has directly taught us about Islam. This leads us to the following simple but critical principle: If any man or woman engages in a belief or action which clearly contradicts the Qur’an or Sunnah, then that belief or action cannot be thought of as `Islamic’ This rule applies whether the man or woman is Muslim or non-Muslim.

Islam is a complete way of life. Given this, it is not surprising that the Creator is concerned with the method which we choose to govern ourselves. The preeminent rule which the Islamic state must observe is stated in the Qur’an (translation follows): [4:59] O you who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If you differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you do believe in Allah and the Last Day; That is best, and most suitable for final determination.

From this verse, it is clear that the state’s obligation of obedience to the Creator is as important as the obedience of the individual. Hence, the state must derive its law from the Qur’an and Sunnah. This principle excludes certain choices from the state’s options for political and economic systems, such as a pure democracy, unrestricted capitalism, communism, socialism, etc. For example, a pure democracy places the people above the Qur’an and Sunnah, and this is disobedience to the Creator.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/notislam/misconceptions.html

Muslims of the MSA, which has chapters at many US Universities, themselves say that Islam is not a religion but a political ideology. As the MSA is sanctioned by these universities it may therefore be deemed to be representative of mainstream Islamic thought which asserts the primacy of Islam over the Constitution of the United States as the highest law of the land.

Comment by Mr. Natural | 2008-07-03 12:40:05

The word you’re looking for: sedition.

 
 
 

Comment by typical.white.person | 2008-07-03 03:43:29

WOW! The following statement is from Jeralyn:

Good on Obama. He’s not afraid to change his mind.

How f*cking profound.

I am really glad that Jeralyn was finally able to figure out what we all knew weeks ago.

 

Comment by Gary McGowan | 2008-07-03 03:44:21

Obama is a puppet being used to knock aside Clinton who is the ONLY candidate (including whatever trash they come up with as a surprise at conventions) who might employ FDR type policies and solutions to this huge mess people hardly see happening.

I’m not a “Clinton-lover.” She’s just the only one on the political horizon who is a candidate to turn the tide and protect THE PEOPLE from hyperinflation, homelessness, joblessness and orchestrated totally unnecessary devastating beyond imagination wars.

 

Comment by BostonianT | 2008-07-03 03:52:49

Great hyperbole… except inflation and joblessness was substantially higher in the US during the Carter administration, plus the economy was in a recession which is defined as economic contraction for two consecutive quarters. Currently the economy is still expanded but in low growth, but that is not a recession. The devastating beyond imagination war is consuming less than 1% of our annual GDP, Iraq and Afghanistan combined. The Iraqi parliament has been more effective in the last year than our own Congress and the country has an economy growing at a rate of almost 10%.

 

Comment by Thomas | 2008-07-03 05:51:19

What the hell? I take one day off and all hell break loose.

Obama wants to conflate Church and State; not on my watch.

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”

Not one nickel of my church donations to the state and not one dime of my taxes to the church.

Hillary in August. Nothing less.

 

Comment by Peg | 2008-07-03 05:55:04

Here’s a good piece:

http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/2008/06/11/so-whats-obama-going-to-give-away-to-conservative-religious-leaders/

I always suspected that a lot of the ‘Obama kids’ are evangelicals who were raised in households where trashing the Clintons was their idea of fun.

Comment by katmandu | 2008-07-03 07:21:08

It is a good piece and I also recommend it. Thanks for the referral.

There’s a good diary thread starting over at MyDD.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/3/8718/19388#1

The writer looks at how Obama views the Bill of Rights, section by section, and it ain’t purty.

Comment by Peg | 2008-07-03 07:46:27

Here’s another piece in todays Wash. Post about the young evangelicals and Obama:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/georgetown/2008/06/faith_and_values_20082nd_quart.html?tid=informbox

“And Barack saw that it was good: The Senator from Illinois is the greatest beneficiary of the aforementioned maturation. He is also the politician who can best cultivate its continued development. The Obama/Evangelical synergy of the past few months suggests a variety of forthcoming storylines. For starters, Progressives will not only vote but get out the vote for him. Their electoral good works should raise the overall percentage of Evangelicals who go Democrat from the anemic 22% of John Kerry to numbers like 30, 35 and possibly even 40%. Further, many of those Evangelicals who don’t like Obama, don’t necessarily hate him either. Given that McCain has yet to persuade them, some may forego the ballot box on November 4.”

There is also this article which suggests that McCain will get the most right wing religious’ support:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/02/AR2008070202775.html?hpid=sec-religion

 
 
 

Comment by Aaron | 2008-07-03 06:27:27

The merging of church and state leads to a dangerous codependency. If Obama succeeds in moving this idea forward than e will have serious problems. When churches rely on the state for funding they become arms of the state.

Comment by Thomas | 2008-07-03 06:35:21

I don’t want to live under a theocracy, do you?

 
 

Comment by katmandu | 2008-07-03 07:09:56

Here’s a lesson for those who would mix religion with government. Patrick Henry wanted Virginia to have a state religion (Jefferson, correctly, thought Henry was tetched in the head). That religion would have been Episcopalian. It’s a fine sect–I was confirmed as an adult in the Episcopal church because I admired it’s intellectual openness and tolerance (except for the small group of right wing churches that are breaking away). And that’s the irony. The Episcopalian main church in America is very liberal. It’s gay-friendly, for example. Virginia is still a conservative state. Can you imagine the fuss if it was Virginia’s state religion? (Note to readers — the Episcopal Church was too “conservative” for me and I’m now a UUer, as were many of our Founding Fathers. And yes, Obamaphiles, one can be ultra liberal and think Obama is wrong for the country.)

 

Comment by Mar | 2008-07-03 07:48:51

What has obama done for americans lately?
he has used race to win primaries
he has trashed clintons.
he has divided the dems.
he has insulted women“sweetie“
he has showed us “what arrogant means=obama“
he has told us true meanings of SNOB,ELITIST,S*XIST,RACIST,SAME OLD POLITCIAN with brand new copied speeches
he has shown us that its okay to copy speeches
he has shown us “how to flip flop effectively
he has shown us “how to make MSM his pet and keep them in his pocket `where his phone vibrates
ha has shown us “why some americans r bitter “
he has shown us what `a typical white person looks like
he has shown us his greatest racist ever priests and friends
he has shown us ——NO MORALS,NO VALUES,NO PRINCIPLES,NO CHARACTER,NO CLASS……

 

Comment by Judy | 2008-07-03 07:49:39

I have said it before, are the churches selling their souls to the devil?

Very scary stuff.

 

Comment by hootnannie | 2008-07-03 08:06:59

Don’t worry. Obama will never get into the Oval Office to push faith-based initiatives or anything else. He lives in a fairy-tale world in which wands are waved and dust is sprinkled. MSM like MSNBC tell their fairy tales every day, and black pols like Harold Ford are so intimidated that Hal claimed BO has a good chance to sweep the South(!). Most people are just waiting until August or November for all the madness to be over.

 

Comment by C.S. | 2008-07-03 08:47:11

Maybe next time a candidate proselytizes CHANGE voters will ask him to define what he means before they buy another pig in a poke.

 

Comment by DancingOpossum | 2008-07-03 09:00:14

Ruh-Roh. Looks like we are not the only ones noticing the Bush-Obama similarities. That, or the Wall Street Journal is reading our posts:

We’re beginning to understand why Barack Obama keeps protesting so vigorously against the prospect of “George Bush’s third term.” Maybe he’s worried that someone will notice that he’s the candidate who’s running for it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121495450490321133.html

Comment by Annie Oakley | 2008-07-03 11:21:51

We’ve noticed. He says McCain is Bush’s third term when really he is. He says he’s for change, when he’s for keeping the same policies. He says he’s about a new politics while he plays the dirty old politics quite well. He says he’s a uniter even as he divides. He says he’s a post-racial as he race baits. He says he’s a Republican when he really is one – oops, sorry about that one! Bummer, where are you going to go?

His words are like the tail on a weathervane. They point away from who he is.

 
 

Comment by Andy | 2008-07-03 09:14:49

Deb:

What’s the truth about all this? Talk Left now says the AP story and the NYT story were “wrong” and that the BO campaign deniedthose stories….

What do you think is the deal? Thanks !!

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/7/2/113310/2926

 

Comment by Nobama | 2008-07-03 09:44:35

Obama makes Bush look like an Atheist. Such blatant disregard for separation of church and state… at the least, he is pandering… but make no mistake, this guy s as self-righteous and arrogant a born again christian as any of’em… i guarantee he thinks he is chosen by god… please, please, manic Obama cult followers… explain to us why this is true progress… this guys has similar qualities to Jim Jones… so many kool aid drinkers it is frightening.

 

Comment by DancingOpossum | 2008-07-03 10:20:24

As a pro choice advocate…even I think partial birth abortion is sick.

Bzzt. Not a medical term. Religious whackazoids invented it to make it sound oh-so-awful. The proper term is late-term abortion and it is ONLY done to save the life of the mother. That’s the part the anti-choice fundies leave out because they don’t care about dead women, only fetuses (and only before they become actual children that someone has to raise). If you’re pro-choice you should know this and you shouldn’t fall for extreme fundie messaging.

 

Comment by xax | 2008-07-03 12:51:33

Wait, I’m confused, since when did you have to pay for quoting a news organization? I thought as long as it’s in the efforts of accurate reporting and information, and you give them credit, it should be fine.

 

Comment by Donald Woods | 2009-02-05 18:50:28

There is little difference between organized religions and organized crime. They’re both running scams. Exploiting the irrational passions of the gullible fools in order to filch power and wealth unto the elites and priests!

All Religions are as one, and derived of the poetic genius. Google Plato’s Noble Lie or america’s manifest destiny doctrine.

There has not been a seperation of church and state since Constantine declared the one monothestic God and Christianity the state religion at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. And bribed all the warring priests in the different sects and killed off all the pagans that didn’t convert to that barbarian christianity, that Thomas Jefferson called a perversion of pure morality, that constitutes the symbolic anti-christ…

I’m a 66 year old Seventh Son of a Seventh Son, retired businessman in Boss Hogg Knoxville Tennessee, and I’m mad as hell, cuz Obama just raised my taxes on my tobacco I smoke for that commie pinko puke SCHIP health care program for heathen kiddies of irresponsible girls and boys, who couldn’t keep away from sexual intercourse nor wear protection….This insult to my intelligence, will add another 75.00 per month to my three pounds of tobacco I order to stuff my smokes and get around all these sin taxes….and he says, he wants to give us old middle class geezers a tax break eh? Hell, I’m existing on my social security check 1150 dollars a month, and I’ve smoked for 62 years, that strawmans arguement about smokers costing the health care system is a bald faced lie!!! lol

 

RSS Feed for This PostPost a Comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)