Tag Archives: president

Ebert: To Not Publicly Declare Obama Is Not a Muslim Is a ‘Crime Against America’

When you think of crimes against America, crimes so dangerous they strike out against the very existence of the country, what comes to mind? Espionage, terrorism, and treason perhaps top the list. But what about not publicly declaring that Barack Obama is in fact not a Muslim? Liberal Chicago Sun-Times film critic Roger “Save the Republic from Palin” Ebert made a federal case out of the latter in a September 1 blog post entitled “Put up or shut up” (emphasis mine): The time is here for responsible Americans to put up or shut up. I refer specifically to those who have credibility among the guileless and credulous citizens who have been infected with notions so carefully nurtured. We cannot afford to allow the next election to proceed under a cloud of falsehood and delusion. We know, because they’ve said so publicly, that George W. Bush, his father and Sen. John McCain do not believe Obama is a Muslim. This is the time — now, not later — for them to repeat that belief in a joint statement. Other prominent Republicans such as Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul also certainly do not believe it. They have a responsibility to make that clear by subscribing to the statement. Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh must join, or let their silence indict them. Limbaugh in particular must cease his innuendos and say, flat out, whether he believes the President is a Muslim or not. Yes or no. Does he have evidence, or does he have none? Yes or no. To do anything less at this troubled time in our history would be a crime against America.

Read this article:
Ebert: To Not Publicly Declare Obama Is Not a Muslim Is a ‘Crime Against America’

NPR Star Terry Gross Horrified at ‘Very Extreme’ Franklin Graham Ruining U.S. Image

The secular-left stronghold of National Public Radio dumped on conservative Christians again last week. On the August 25 edition of the nationally distributed talk show Fresh Air with Terry Gross, the topic was Christianity vs. Islam in northern Africa. Gross’s guest was author Eliza Griswold , who Gross explained was the daughter of Frank Griswold, “the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church in America in 2003, when Gene Robinson became the first openly gay person ordained as a bishop in the church.” With those PC credentials established, Gross asked about Griswold accompanying Rev. Franklin Graham to Sudan in the Bush years, when Graham asked the Muslim dictator there for the right to preach the Christian gospel, and he was refused. But NPR’s Gross was most worried that “very extreme” Graham was ruining America’s reputation in the Third World:   GROSS: I guess, you know, I’m wondering, when Franklin Graham, who was perceived in the United States by a lot of people as very extreme , when he goes to a place like Sudan, establishes hospitals there, meets with the president, is he seen as representative of what Americans believe? Ms. GRISWOLD: Very, very much so. And that is one of the more dangerous realities of how conservative evangelicals abroad can shape the perception of the West. Especially, this is especially sensitive in the Muslim world. And this is not new. You know, I mean, this really goes back to post-World War II and the foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood, which largely came out of trying to be a Muslim YMCA because the only Westerners Muslims saw at that time were Christian evangelicals coming to spread their faith. So this kind of defensive posturing of Islam, Islam is under threat by the West, unfortunately, a handful of evangelicals can misrepresent what the West is about and make Muslims feel very much under threat. So blame the YMCA for radical Muslim groups. That’s a view NPR spreads with our tax dollars. In the other interview on that August 25 show, Gross spoke (again) with leftist author Jeff Sharlet , promoting his new article in the September issue of Harper’s magazine, entitled  “Straight Man’s Burden: The American Roots of Uganda’s Anti-Gay Persecution.” Uganda’s debating a bill that would punish homosexual sex with the death penalty, and American leftists blame American conservatives for the “genocidal” threat. It turned out that Uganda’s legislators had found Sharlet through his appearances on Gross’s show. SHARLET: And because Ive been reporting on it, and here was, really, the author of this really potentially genocidal bill, saying come on over and I’ll tell you what it’s all about. I thought I had to take him up on that invitation. GROSS: How did he know your work? (Laughter) SHARLET: “Fresh Air,” actually. GROSS: Oh. (Laughter) SHARLET: Because we had spoken about this before and a sort of a report on that interview was on the front page, I believe, of major Ugandan newspaper. And it sort of amped things up a little bit. In a 25-minute interview, Gross and Sharlet didn’t really focus hard on which American Christians are for “genocide,” although Sharlet talked about evangelist Lou Engle . Sharlet talked about how Ugandan legislator David Bahati told him he’d be arrested for promoting homosexuality if he returned again to Uganda. Obviously, this being NPR, Gross wasn’t going to discuss how promoting opposition to homosexuality is beginning to get preachers in legal trouble in the West. NPR’s pledge drives ought to say “NPR is where you can learn more about the far corners of the globe, and how conservative Christians are ruining our image there, and may be responsible for causing oppression and death.”

Original post:
NPR Star Terry Gross Horrified at ‘Very Extreme’ Franklin Graham Ruining U.S. Image

CBS’s Smith Excuses Obama For Not Crediting Bush With Iraq Troop Surge

On Wednesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith served as an apologist for President Obama, who failed to credit President George W. Bush with the Iraq troop surge in an Oval Office address Tuesday night: “…while he [Obama] did not acknowledge…President Bush’s support for the surge….he at least gave it tacit agreement – approval. And he has certainly approved a surge in Afghanistan.” Smith made the defense during an interview with Arizona Senator John McCain, who took the President to task for opposing the 2007 troop surge: “…it was President Bush who made the decision – over the vociferous option of the President of the United States, then Senator Obama – to do the surge. And if we had done what President Obama wanted, we would have failed in Iraq because he even voted against the funding for it.” After Smith claimed that Obama “had a year and a half to rescind” his opposition to the surge and eventually gave “tacit agreement” to it, McCain replied: “…if we had done what he wanted to do, we would have left and we would have lost and had a horrendous setback to America’s national security.” Smith moved on to Afghanistan, still skeptical of the success of the Iraq surge strategy: “If, in fact, the surge was successful in Iraq , is that – is there a lesson from that to be applied to Afghanistan now that we’ve – there are more than 320 kids have been killed in Afghanistan this year. Are the lessons of Iraq applicable to Afghanistan?” Prior to Smith’s interview with McCain, fill-in co-host Erica Hill interviewed Vice President Joe Biden. She wondered about Obama changing focus to the economy during the prime time address: “This was, though, supposed to be a speech about ending combat operations in Iraq, about the men and women currently fighting, those who have fought. Was this really the appropriate place and time to make that transition?” On Iraq, Hill questioned the stability of the security situation: “There has been increased violence, we’re hearing more and more about the sectarian divisions. Is there any concern on the part of the administration that there could be the creation of a vacuum of sorts at this point?” Hill failed to question the Vice President about his and President Obama’s opposition to the troop surge. Hill wrapped up the interview with Biden by lobbing a softball about the economy: “…you noted the fact that Democrats and Republicans should be cooperating, should be working together on the economy. As the administration does move forward, this is, of course, a major concern for the American people. What do you have in terms of planning, looking out now, to help stimulate the economy today?” Here is a full transcript of Smith’s September 1 interview with McCain: 7:10AM ET SEGMENT: HARRY SMITH: And joining us now from Phoenix is Senator John McCain. Senator, good morning. JOHN MCCAIN: Good morning. SMITH: What did you think of the speech last night? [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Taking On Obama; McCain’s Reaction to Presidential Address] MCCAIN: Well, I was – I was pleased that the President gave such well-deserved praise to the men and women who have served and those who have sacrificed. It certainly was not generous of him when he mentioned former President George Bush as one who also appreciates the military, but the fact is, that it was President Bush who made the decision – over the vociferous option of the President of the United States, then Senator Obama – to do the surge. And if we had done what President Obama wanted, we would have failed in Iraq because he even voted against the funding for it. But the thing that disturbed me the most about it is this continued repetition that we are leaving at a date certain. You don’t win conflicts when you tell the enemy you’re leaving. Our friends are accommodating, our enemies are encouraged. A Taliban captive says ‘you’ve got the watches, we’ve got the time.’ It should be conditions-based. And when those conditions are met, then we can do exactly what we’re now doing in Iraq. SMITH: You’re referring to Afghanistan now. MCCAIN: Afghanistan, yes. I’m sorry. SMITH: One of the things – but one of the things he did say in the speech last night, the pace of reductions in Afghanistan will be determined by conditions on the ground. MCCAIN: If he had stopped there, we’d be in great shape. And then he had to repeat what was purely a political decision, no military person recommended it, that we were going to go ahead and continue – or begin our, quote, ‘withdrawal,’ the middle of next year. Look, that accounts for the behavior, to some degree, of Karzai, the –  many of the things that are happening in the region, because they believe that we are leaving. Look, Harry, I was even – I talked to a police chief outside Kandahar who said, ‘yeah, we think you’re leaving and the Taliban are telling us  they’re going to cut off our heads when you do.’ All he had to do was say it’s conditions-based. SMITH: The – I think part of the subtext of the message last night was, while he did not acknowledge the President’s – prior president, President Bush’s support for the surge, I think that- MCCAIN: Or his opposition – or his vociferous opposition and his opposition throughout- SMITH: Well he also had a year and a half to rescind it. So, he at least gave it tacit agreement –  approval and he has certainly approved a surge in Afghanistan. My question is, if – is, are there- MCCAIN: Harry, if he had had his way and he won the nomination of his party opposing Hillary Clinton, who had voted for it, that was the whole basis of his campaign. And if we had done what he wanted to do, we would have left and we would have lost and had a horrendous setback to America’s national security. SMITH: Let me ask this question, then. If, in fact, the surge was successful in Iraq, is that – is there a lesson from that to be applied to Afghanistan now that we’ve – there are more than 320 kids have been killed in Afghanistan this year. Are the lessons of Iraq applicable to Afghanistan? MCCAIN: The fundamentals are. The same general who made it succeed the last time in Iraq is in charge in Afghanistan. I think he’s the finest general that I’ve had the opportunity – ever had the opportunity of being in the company of. He believes that we can succeed. But I can tell you, the commandant of the Marine Corps said recently that the announcement of beginning a withdrawal, it gives sustenance to the Taliban. I mean, you cannot win conflicts when you say that you are leaving. And again, no military person – no military person with any military background would recommend what the President did. It was a political decision. He made it to please his political base. And he should change it. And it’s wrong to put young Americans in harm’s way when you’re telling your enemies and your friends alike in the region that you’re going to be leaving. SMITH: Alright. Senator John McCain, thank you very much for your time this morning. Do appreciate it. MCCAIN: Thank you. Thank you. SMITH: Alright, good to see you. Here is a full transcript of Hill’s interview with Biden: 7:06AM SEGMENT ERICA HILL: And joining us now from Baghdad is Vice President Joe Biden. Mr. Vice President, good morning. JOE BIDEN: Good morning, Erica. HILL: The President last night, of course, said this was time to turn the page and then took that opportunity to say, and I’m quoting here, ‘our most urgent task is to restore our economy.’ This was, though, supposed to be a speech about ending combat operations in Iraq, about the men and women currently fighting, those who have fought. Was this really the appropriate place and time to make that transition? BIDEN: Yes. It was at the end of his speech. He did speak exactly about turning the page here as well. He didn’t use that phrase. He talked about ‘change the mission.’ I’m about to go to a ceremony literally in the next hour where that is taking place. And he did speak at length about the bravery and the sacrifice made by the men and women of this country. But the truth of the matter is, at the end of the day, our ability to maintain our national security is, in fact, dependent  upon the economy. And it’s time to focus on that as well. Lastly, Erica, what he was really talking about was, just as we turn the page and are cooperating as Democrats and Republicans on the issue of Iraq, we should be doing the same thing on the economy, cooperating. HILL: When it comes to Iraq, you are there – you are there right now on the ground, of course. As people look at the Iraq that we’re seeing today, the government still in flux six months after an election. There has been increased violence, we’re hearing more and more about the sectarian divisions. Is there any concern on the part of the administration that there could be the creation of a vacuum of sorts at this point? BIDEN: Well, there’s always the possibility, long term, if this goes on, creating a vacuum. But the truth of the matter is, violence is the lowest level it’s been since we arrived in 2003. Number one. Number two, the fact of the matter is, that I have been speaking with every one of the major leaders. I’ve met with every one of the groups that are – that won portions of the vote in the election. And I’m absolutely convinced that they are nearing the ability of forming a government that will be a government representing the outcome of the election, which was very much divided. There’s 325-plus members of their parliament, the largest party got 91 votes. So, it takes a while to put together this coalition. But I believe they’re close to doing that. HILL: I do want to bring you back to the economy for one second because, as you said after that first question, you noted the fact that Democrats and Republicans should be cooperating, should be working together on the economy. As the administration does move forward, this is, of course, a major concern for the American people. What do you have in terms of planning, looking out now, to help stimulate the economy today? BIDEN: Well, a continuation of what we’re doing now, which is to stimulate the economy by continuing to focus on infrastructure by giving taxes and more tax breaks to small businesses. They’re the job creators, they’re the incubators of job creation. They need the help. And by continuing the middle class tax cut so that middle class people have disposable income in order to meet their needs and, in turn, that stimulates the economy. And I hope the Republicans, when we get back, will, in fact, lift their hold on us being able to vote on a tax cut for small businesses that is tied up in the Senate. So, I just hope we begin to focus more on job creation than on – as the leader of the Republican Party, Mr. Sessions, in charge of the election – re-election of the Congress – said that what we have to do is return to exactly what we were doing before. That’s not much of an alternative. HILL: Vice President Joe Biden, thanks for joining us this morning. BIDEN: Thank you very much, Erica. Pleasure to be with you.

See more here:
CBS’s Smith Excuses Obama For Not Crediting Bush With Iraq Troop Surge

Civil Rights Groups Challenge Obama’s Assassination List

Civil liberties groups have long objected that President Barack Obama has continued and even expanded on many of George Bush’s abuses in the area of national security, including blocking any investigation into the torture program. Now, civil liberties groups are targeting Obama’s continued use of an assassination list and his assertion that he can simply kill a U.S. citizen without any criminal charge or trial. The lawsuit focuses on the reported kill order targeting U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi, who is reportedly hiding in Yemen. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights have filed this interesting action, naming the President of the United States, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency and the secretary of the Department of Defense. This could make for a very interesting case if the groups can establish standing, which is likely to be challenged by Attorney General Eric Holder. As usual, Congress has done little to explore the constitutionality of a president who claims the unilateral power to kill U.S. citizens upon sight. If a President can unilaterally kill a U.S. citizens on his own authority, our court system (and indeed our constitutional rights) become entirely discretionary. The position of the Administration contains no substantial limitations on such authority other than its own promise to make such decisions with care. Here is the complaint: http://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/al-aulaqi-v-obama-complaint.pd… added by: Radical_Centrist

Typically, Kathleen Parker Finds It Ridiculous That Beck or Palin Can Complain About Media Bias

Washington Post columnist and incoming CNN prime-time talk-show host Kathleen Parker is still auditioning for liberal-media accolades. In Wednesday’s Post she offered another shovel of her  frenzied distaste for prayer and G-O-D talk in public as she dismissed the Glenn Beck rally, especially the notion that Beck or Sarah Palin could blame the news media for hostility and bias. The media made these people rich , Parker insisted: Oh, that’s right, The Media. Never mind that Beck is one of the richest members of the media. Or that Palin has banked millions primarily because The Media can’t get enough of her. But what’s an exorcism without a demon? And who better to cast into the nether regions than the guys lugging camera lights? That’s an interesting line for someone whose assaults on Palin and other conservatives made her a millionaire CNN host. But conservatives have never focused their media-bias complaints on “guys lugging camera lights,” but the people who adore Obama and other liberals in front of the cameras. Parker also made her usual female-version-of-Scarborough complaints about how poor Barack Obama is the subject of juiced-up right-wing paranoia and conspiracy theories about his aggressive aggrandizement of government action: And the darkness? Creeping communism brought to us by President you-know-who. Conspiracy theories and paranoia are not unfamiliar to those who have wrestled the demon alcohol. Like other successful revivalists — and giving the devil his due — Beck is right about many things. Tens of thousands joined him in Washington and watch him each night on television for a reason. But he also is messianic and betrays the grandiosity of the addict. Let’s hope Glenn gets well soon. Don Surber ably put Parker in her place, that place where her talk-show partner Eliot Spitzer had demons of his own: Ridiculing his alcoholism after agreeing to appear nightly on an hourlong show electronically beside a man whose sexual addiction and proclivities cost him his job as governor of New York is humorously ironic. Instead of picking at Beck’s speck, she might try dislodging that log in her broadcasting partner’s eye.

See more here:
Typically, Kathleen Parker Finds It Ridiculous That Beck or Palin Can Complain About Media Bias

Obama Declares Iraq War is Over – Troops Coming Home!

Barack Obama formally brought an end to US combat operations in Iraq last night, seven years and 165 days after the invasion began, and declared it was time for America “to turn the page”. In a televised address to the nation from the Oval Office, the president said America had paid a huge price for the war begun by George W Bush to topple Saddam Hussein. “Tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country,” he said. Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki hailed the restoration of sovereignty to Iraq: “Iraq today is sovereign and independent. With the execution of the troop pullout, our relations with the United States have entered a new stage between two equal, sovereign countries.” More at the link… added by: jubal

Bozell Column: Brian Williams, From Musketeer to Mouseketeer

The fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina recalls a horror show on two levels. There’s the actual disaster which killed hundreds of people – and then there’s the media smear job on the Bush administration and first responders. No one should forget pompous grandstanders like “NBC Nightly News” anchor Brian Williams signing off three months after the floods from the Lower Ninth Ward:  “This is a neighborhood that’s been left to die.” How those network anchors loved hurricane hyperbole! Williams, for one, lectured the nation that the hurricane should “necessitate a national discussion on race, on oil, politics, class, infrastructure, the environment, and more.” He underlined that a top local radio station decided not to air President Bush’s remarks from the city since “nothing he could say could ever help them deal with the dire situation unfolding live in the streets of New Orleans, where people were still dying during his visit.” It never mattered to these nattering nabobs that, as Popular Mechanics magazine documented, Katrina spurred by far the largest and fastest rescue effort in American history, with nearly 100,000 emergency personnel arriving on the scene within three days of the storm’s landfall, rescuing an estimated 50,000 residents. Not content to attack Bush on just his own program, Williams took to comedy shows to unload more spin. He lectured to Jon Stewart on how cities less black than New Orleans would have seen a lot more helicopter rescues. Williams proudly took that attack directly to Bush three months after the storm. “After the tragedy, I heard someone ask rhetorically, ‘What if this had been Nantucket, Massachusetts, or Inner Harbor Baltimore or Chicago or Houston?’ Are you convinced the response would have been the same? Was there any social or class or race aspect to the response?” On the first anniversary of Katrina, Williams repeated the mudslinging, citing radical-left black professor Michael Eric Dyson in Bush’s face: “A lot of Americans are always going to believe that that weekend, that week, you were watching something on television other than what they were seeing, and Professor Dyson from the University of Pennsylvania said on our broadcast last night it was because of your patrician upbringing, that it’s a class issue.” Bush shot back: “Dyson doesn’t know. I don’t know Dyson, and Dyson doesn’t know me.” But Williams didn’t care. His cartoon was perfect. Williams later appeared on PBS and boasted “You can’t give distance. I don’t mean that in a Jets vs. Sharks way. I’m not an adversary.” That’s laughable. He insisted Bush “appreciates the swordfight of a crackling good conversation.” Now watch Williams “swordfight” with Barack Obama. He’s gone from musketeer to Mouseketeer. On the fifth anniversary of the hurricane, Williams deferred to the statesman before him by asking about the lack of a national conversation: “Katrina was about so many things. It was about class and race and government and the environment. Whatever happened to that national conversation we were supposed to have about it?” Is that all the toughness Williams could muster? That’s how he “crackles” now? See his crackling swordfight over the BP oil spill and Obama’s lack of effort: “It’s getting baked in a little bit in the media that BP was President Obama’s Katrina. And it’s also getting baked in that the administration was slow off the mark. Is that unfair?” What about our disastrous economy? Surely Williams would challenge Obama here. “Do you have anything new on the economy?” Instead of tough questions, Williams felt Obama’s pain that too many Americans misunderstand his religious faith: “Mr. President, you’re an American-born Christian, and yet increasing and now significant numbers of Americans in polls, upwards of a fifth of respondents, are claiming you are neither. A fifth of the people, just about, believe you’re a Muslim….This has to be troubling to you. This is, of course, all new territory for an American president.” That’s not even a question! But it’s all in a day’s shoeshine for Brian Williams. He loved slinging “racist, classist” mud on Bush, but he was so distraught by Obama’s-a-Muslim rumors that he replayed the poor-Barry exchange a second time the next night. Why is this arrogant partisan the leading evening-news anchor in America? He drew 7.2 million viewers last week, as the ratings continue to decline. That’s not unexpected when an anchorman can’t be bothered to ask tougher questions to this president than his makeup artist would.

See the article here:
Bozell Column: Brian Williams, From Musketeer to Mouseketeer

Politico: ‘The Horizon Is As Bleak For Democrats As It Ever Has Been’

Politico Monday evening ran the following headline: Tidal Wave? 10-point Poll Edge for GOP   Inside, the  news  wasn’t much better for the liberal press:  The Gallup poll, coming at the end of a brutal August for Democrats and President Barack Obama, reinforces the rapidly forming prevailing view that the horizon is as bleak for Democrats as it ever has been.   The headline of the Gallup poll in question was also sure to elicit gasps in newsrooms from coast to coast: GOP Takes Unprecedented 10-Point Lead on Generic Ballot   So will the opening paragraph: Republicans lead by 51% to 41% among registered voters in Gallup weekly tracking of 2010 congressional voting preferences. The 10-percentage-point lead is the GOP’s largest so far this year and is its largest in Gallup’s history of tracking the midterm generic ballot for Congress.  The rest of the article was full of other nuggets destined to ruin a lot of liberal media member’s days tomorrow: The Republican leads of 6, 7, and 10 points this month are all higher than any previous midterm Republican advantage in  Gallup’s history of tracking the generic ballot , which dates to 1942. Prior to this year, the highest such gap was five points, measured in June 2002 and July 1994. Elections in both of these years resulted in significant Republican gains in House seats.  The news continued to worsen for left-leaning journalists: Republicans are now twice as likely as Democrats to be “very” enthusiastic about voting, and now hold — by one point — the largest such advantage of the year. The last Gallup weekly generic ballot average before Labor Day underscores the fast-evolving conventional wisdom that the GOP is poised to make significant gains in this fall’s midterm congressional elections. Gallup’s generic ballot has historically proven an excellent predictor of the national vote for Congress, and the national vote in turn is an excellent predictor of House seats won and lost. Republicans’ presumed turnout advantage, combined with their current 10-point registered-voter lead, suggests the potential for a major “wave” election in which the Republicans gain a large number of seats from the Democrats and in the process take back control of the House. This poll was released late in the afternoon Monday. As such, there isn’t a huge amount of reporting on it yet. How will this stunner get covered in the next 24 hours? Stay tuned. 

View original post here:
Politico: ‘The Horizon Is As Bleak For Democrats As It Ever Has Been’

NBC Re-Runs Obama’s Retort on Religion and Citizenship, Williams Touts It ‘Has Already Ricocheted Around the World’

Monday’s NBC Nightly News re-ran the very same exchange between Brian Williams and President Barack Obama as had aired on Sunday’s Nightly News (as well as Monday’s Today show) in which Williams despaired over how “you’re an American-born Christian. And yet, increasing and now significant numbers of Americans in polls, upwards of a fifth of respondents are claiming you are neither….This has to be troubling to you.” Obama responded: “I can’t spend all my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead.” Picking up on that line, Williams teased his Monday newscast: “Keeping the faith. In his interview with us, President Obama makes a comment about his own background that has already ricocheted around the world.” The subsequent interview excerpt began with a discussion of Obama’s comments about the mosque near Ground Zero, an exchange which had not aired Sunday night or Monday morning, followed by a re-run of the Muslim/citizen misconceptions. For details, check my Sunday night NB post: “ Brian Williams Treats Obama as Oracle of Wisdom… ” NBC has yet to air a particularly sycophantic “question” Williams posed in the interview, conducted Sunday afternoon in New Orleans, which can be seen in the full 22-minute session posted on MSNBC.com : And finally, I’m hoping to find you in a reflective mood on a cloudy day. We’re the first to speak to you coming off your summer vacation. How does it re-charge you, what do you think about, what do you see, what do you read about, how are you thinking about your job these days?

Continued here:
NBC Re-Runs Obama’s Retort on Religion and Citizenship, Williams Touts It ‘Has Already Ricocheted Around the World’

Barack Obama: Closeted Non-Believer? by Ali A. Rizvi

*Edited due to length of article! “Before we get carried away, let's read our Bibles now,” said the young first-term Senator from Illinois in his speech to Call for Renewal, a liberal Christian group. “Folks haven't been reading their Bibles!” It was June 2006, and it wasn't long before Barack Obama started to draw the wrath of evangelicals like James Dobson for the controversial speech. Earlier, he had asked: Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is okay, and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith. Or should we just stick with the Sermon on the Mount, a passage that is so radical that it is doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? That election season had followed eight years of progressively increasing “religionization” of America under a president who, during a debate in his 2004 re-election campaign, had said, “God wants everyone to be free, and that is part of my foreign policy.” As evidenced by the wide attention paid to the poll on Obama's religion (conducted before his remarks on the Park51 mosque controversy) and his swift rebuttal to the allegations of his non-Christianity, the religionization process is well, alive and thriving. Obama isn't the first president to have to deal with this. Abraham Lincoln, who never joined a church and was notoriously ambiguous and secretive about his religious beliefs, famously said, “The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession.” In his later years, despite denouncing those who were “enemies of” or “scoffed at” religion, he reiterated, “My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them.” And Lincoln wasn't alone, either. In fact, the United States was created by a very skeptical group of Founding Fathers. The Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the Senate and signed by President John Adams in 1797, stated clearly in Article 11 that the US government is “not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” Thomas Jefferson, who famously wrote to Joseph Priestley in 1801 that Christianity was “the most perverted system that has ever shone on man,” constructed his own version of the Bible, the Jefferson Bible, by snipping out the supernatural aspects of Christianity like angels and the Trinity, and including only the aspects relating to the life and morality of Jesus Christ. Benjamin Franklin, also famously suspicious of organized religion, penned a dissertation detailing his criticism of Christian principles, and openly questioned the divinity of Jesus Christ. Ever since, there has been an unofficial religious litmus test for presidential candidates, and the effects have never been more blatantly in-your-face than they are now: at a time when the country may be headed for a double-dip recession and the unemployment rate still lingers close to 10 percent, the hottest stories in the media have to do with an Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero and what religion the president adheres to. For those of us who value the principle of separation of religion and state, it's like watching a public argument about whether the president believes in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. We are encouraged, however, by the fact that based on much of what Barack Obama has written and said before running for office, including his speech to Call for Renewal and others like it, America may have the most secular president that the Oval Office has seen in decades. Secularism is not about hostility towards religion but neutrality towards it. Like Lincoln, Obama keeps his beliefs to himself, and apart from the occasional re-affirmation of his supposed Christianity — triggered by the odd, sporadic, acute need for damage control as in the aftermath of the poll — he doesn't wear them on his sleeve. His thoughts on religion can be gleaned much more easily from his books, where he describes his biological father as a “confirmed atheist” and his mother as an “agnostic”; about his stepfather, whom he describes as a “nominal Muslim,” he writes, in The Audacity of Hope: When my mother remarried, it was to an Indonesian with an equally skeptical bent, a man who saw religion as not particularly useful in the practical business of making one's way in the world, and who had grown up in a country that easily blended its Islamic faith with remnants of Hinduism, Buddhism, and ancient animist traditions. In Obama's own words: I was not raised in a religious household. My maternal grandparents, who hailed from Kansas, had been steeped in Baptist and Methodist teachings as children, but religious faith never really took root in their hearts. My mother's own experiences as a bookish, sensitive child growing up in small towns in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas only reinforced this inherited skepticism. Her memories of the Christians who populated her youth were not fond ones. Occasionally, for my benefit, she would recall the sanctimonious preachers who would dismiss three-quarters of the world's people as ignorant heathens doomed to spend the afterlife in eternal damnation — and who in the same breath would insist that the earth and the heavens had been created in seven days, all geologic and astrophysical evidence to the contrary. She remembered the respectable church ladies who were always so quick to shun those unable to meet their standards of propriety, even as they desperately concealed their own dirty little secrets; the church fathers who uttered racial epithets and chiseled their workers out of any nickel that they could … … For my mother, organized religion too often dressed up closed-mindedness in the garb of piety, cruelty and oppression in the cloak of righteousness. … I was made to understand that such religious samplings required no sustained commitment on my part — no introspective exertion or self-flagellation. Religion was an expression of human culture, she would explain, not its wellspring, just one of the many ways — and not necessarily the best way — that man attempted to control the unknowable and understand the deeper truths about our lives. … [I]t was a phenomenon to be treated with a suitable respect, but with a suitable detachment as well. … [A]lthough my father had been raised a Muslim, by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist, thinking religion to be so much superstition. Later, Obama talks about embracing Christianity in his 20s, implying that it was more about gaining a sense of belonging to a community than anything supernatural: He is also unlikely to make statements like the one Bush 41 made about atheists not being citizens or patriots. In his 2006 speech, Obama said: Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal — rather than religion-specific — values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths — including those with no faith at all. So why the constant reaffirmations of his Christian faith? Well, it's quite possible, even likely, that Obama lied about his religious beliefs in order to be elected. added by: Introspective