Something Silly and Something Serious

Today I bring you two videos. One is silly, silly as the candidate that it mocks. The other is serious.

First the silly one. Christine O’Donnell never sounded better.

Now the serious one. Sesame Street has a grand tradition of taking on subject matter that is tough for kids and maybe even tough for adults to discuss with kids. I remember years ago when actor Will Lee died, the producers of Sesame Street killed off his character Mr. Hooper. It was left to everyone in the neighborhood to explain this death to Big Bird and in the process introduce the concept to pre-schoolers who were watching.

One of the things that many little black girls do once they meet little white girls is wonder why their hair isn’t straight like that of their friends. Some get the idea very early that they have the “wrong” hair. In fact, comedian Chris Rock devoted an entire documentary, Good Hair, to what grown women go through to deal with their hair. My own daughter had her hair mocked by a classmate and was then told it was bad to be black. So I got a major kick when the Sesame Workshop decided to tackle this subject with a black girl Muppet who sings about how happy she is with her hair.

I’m pleased to say that my daughter has survived the mocking and takes great interest in her own hair-do’s, fully accepting that it is not straight (or “flat” as my kid would say). Still it’s nice to see videos like this help kids with their self-esteem.

You know it’s silly season when more social commentary can be gleaned from a Muppet video than the current crop of political ads (and the spoofs they inspire).

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Advertisements

101 thoughts on “Something Silly and Something Serious

  1. I see MSLSD pushing the false notion that O’Donnell didn’t get the Constitution. Actually, her problem was that she expected everyone else to understand it- her only failing in this instance.

    What the 1st Amendment says:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    She asked Coons what were the five freedoms enumerated in the 1st Amendment. He couldn’t answer the question.

    The phrase, ‘separation of church and state’ is nowhere in our founding documents- it came from a letter to the Danburry Baptists by Thomas Jefferson. This is yet another instance in which we have the left gleefully ignoring the context of our founding because it is inconvenient to their narrative.

    I’m curious, at what point do you expect the media to challenge Coons? Or are you hoping he gets the same kiddy gloves that Obama got/gets?

    I’m glad Sesame street provide you with moral fortitude, I think they’re neat too.

  2. I’m surprised R didn’t jump all over this:

    Of course, his procrastination likely saved his ass from complete humiliation- and you know, we would have humiliated you.

    This is what the left has given us; a complete and total lack of knowledge and understanding of our history.

    The first to point out the fallacy was Cuffy at Perfunction, and of course Malkin had to weigh in.

    Bottom line, the left thought they had a gottcha moment, and instead, exposed themselves as complete fucking morons.

    Blackberry= $150
    Web supported cell account= $139
    DailyKos founder exposing his ignorance= Priceless

  3. Big government on trial – progressivism/liberalism’s testament to abysmal failure – so let’s give them health care. You can see why Graychin thinks the Post Office does beautiful work. This is why Dimocrats should summarily be tossed out on their ass. Great article…

    It took 410 days to build the Empire State Building; four years to erect the Golden Gate Bridge. The Pentagon took two years; the Alaska Highway just nine months. These days it takes longer to build an overpass.

    For instance, planning for Boston’s “Big Dig” officially began in the early 1980s with a budget of $2.6 billion, but ground wasn’t broken until 1991 and the last ramp wasn’t opened until 2006. The final estimated cost: $22 billion. According to the Boston Globe, it won’t be paid off until 2038.

    Meanwhile, the “race” to rebuild the World Trade Center as some kind of remorse theme park approaches its second decade.

    Read the rest…

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg-nobuild-20101019,0,4277222.column?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fopinion%2Fcommentary+%28L.A.+Times+-+Commentary%29

  4. Gorilla, I may take the rest of the day to get over the willful ignorance you displayed in your first comment. O’Donnell was not willful. She was just plain ignorant. You know better.

    An organization defines in its charter “this organization shall not dictate the dietary practices of its members.” Someone short-hands that as “separation of policy and diet”. Some dingbat says “no where in the charter are there the words ‘separation of policy and diet'” And what do you do Gorilla? Unless you’ve lost your mind, you laugh out loud (as O’Donnell’s audience did) and call the person a total boob.

    It is a sad day indeed when this country’s most noble principle, the principle that has saved this country far more grief than it has already endured, is now being questioned by history revisionists and in some cases just outright liars.

    The only thing O’Donnell proved is that she can read. Should we be thankful for that? When Coons then offered a near perfect quote of the amendment, she persisted “that’s in the first amendment?”

    Where in the video that you posted does O’Donnell mention the five freedoms? I didn’t see that.

    O’Donnell is a party girl having the time of her life. I love her. But I won’t defend her ignorance. And neither should you.

  5. I can’t stand to listen to dimbulb Palin so I’m not likely to go all nitpicky on her. The Tea Party movement’s base analogy is so devoid of intelligence it is no wonder they are constantly mocked. A 1773 revolt against a monarchy overtaxing is not comparable to an elected representative government overtaxing. The latter gets solved by the electoral process … which according to you will happen on November 2.

    That was the dumb-asses one good line at the end of her Henny Youngman routine … “I can see Nov 2 from my house.”

  6. How does the rebuild of the WTC have anything to do with big government?

    I’m certified in the Project Management discipline (OK Tex start your mocking). Do you know a good 75% of all projects fail? Failure is defined as either not meeting schedule, cost or quality targets. 75%.

    Big gov’t has little to do with it. We Americans for reasons I cannot pin-point are devolving. We just ain’t as smart as we used to be and our incompetence is well in evidence in both the private and public sector.

  7. It is a sad day indeed when this country’s most noble principle, the principle that has saved this country far more grief than it has already endured, is now being questioned by history revisionists and in some cases just outright liars.” – R

    I invite you to read my latest post, in which I discuss what you just proved- the need for the left to remove God from the public square.

    Further, where was I wrong? Do you contend that the Founding Fathers intended for us to have a Godless state?

    A 1773 revolt against a monarchy overtaxing is not comparable to an elected representative government overtaxing. The latter gets solved by the electoral process … which according to you will happen on November 2.” – R

    I encourage you to do a little more rational thinking and a whole lot more reading.

    The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed in April contains a provision that requires citizens to buy health insurance. Virginia’s lawsuit argues that the mandate is beyond the powers of the federal government, as defined in the Constitution. (A Massachusetts state measure, championed by former governor and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, requires everyone in the state to have insurance.)

    In 1774, the American colonists signed onto a document that notified King George III that Americans would boycott British goods until the so-called “Intolerable Acts” were lifted. Speaking like a history professor, Cuccinelli told the story of how American colonists boycotted British products in response to the Acts more than 200 years ago.

    “The King’s own lawyer, his solicitor general, advised him that the boycott was legal under British law and that Americans could not be forced to buy British goods,” Cuccinelli said. “Yet in 2010 we have a Congress and a president that have enacted a law that compels Americans for the first time in history under the guise of regulating commerce, that they must buy a private product even when the King of England and the parliament that we rebelled against acknowledged that they should not have the authority to compel us to do that when we were their subjects.

    Tell me where he is wrong.

  8. The wall of separation between church and state is such a ruse, even reasonably smart people like Rutherford have bought off on it hook, line and sinker.

    For the one quadrillionth time, I will provide the history of the supposed wall of separation – for a country and a Congress that opens with prayer and has throughout its founding.

    The letter to the Danbury Baptist Church is about as simple as it gets – read it closely this time Rutherford and pass the word to your brain-dead colleagues.

    Gentlemen

    The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

    Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

    I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

    Th Jefferson
    Jan. 1. 1802.

    Thomas Jefferson would be the ACLU’s worst nightmare.

    Let’s review why America was formed in the first place: taxation without representation; the Church of England, whose ministers were bound by oath to support the King. Rutherford, you concern yourself with theocracy? There you have it – Britain, circa mid to late 1700s. And what we have now couldn’t be further from a theocracy unless you can point me to a Church of America.

    The letter to the Danbury Baptist Church is simply and clearly the attempt to provide assurances to the elders of the Danbury Baptist Church that there would be no repeat of King George, that rights are ordained by God, and that government would not interfere. The entire Bill of Rights is a restriction of Gov’t powers period.

    In 1947, a very liberal SCOTUS under the direction of Hugo Black and all ‘New Deal’ liberals, took the phrase “separation of church and state”, ran it up the flag pole, and proclaimed that Jefferson’s words meant there would be no proclamation of anything religious in the public square or public schools. And that is about as perverse an interpretation of Jefferson’s real words as one can get, since it is obvious from Jefferson’s letters than the burden of non interference rests with the representative Congress.

    No matter how dumb Rutherford may wish for all of us to believe Christine O’Donnell, and that’s the popular lib mantra still representing a small but vocal part of America as we witness here daily, in this particular case Christine O’Donnell is absolutely right.

    The fact that the 1st Amendment is even disputed in its interpretation proves one thing and one thing only – the Left when considered as a whole is godless, hostile to religion, hostile to the idea of Creator, humanistic, and secular. More so, as indicated by their singling out their hostility towards Christianity while never making issue of Islam, demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that their real argument is not with the 1st Amendment, but their absolution of anything of the True Living God.

    And this folks is exactly why liberalism is an abject disaster. It has never succeeded, is not succeeding now, and will never succeed. It’s entire premise is based on the most insidious of lies.

  9. Not Seeing the Forest for the Trees

    Conservatives have questioned for some time now the strange love affair between the Left and Islam. These two make very strange bedfellows indeed considering the enormity of the gap that exists between them ideologically.

    Some similarities can be found between the two, but frankly, there are similarities between all ideologies at some level. No, this relationship is more basic, more tactical in nature– the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

    While I don’t expect any car bombs, I see the left making a similar choice, in this case, the near enemy. But who, or what, is the near enemy? Capitalism, or more accurately, Conservative America. A society built on individual accomplishment and self ownership, which was based on and supported by a Christian faith in God. America is a Christian nation, not through state sanction, but through societal belief, which is why the Left has focused so hard, and so long on it. The Left needs to replace the pillar of faith that strengthens so many with the pillar of government dependence. This is no more evident than any American inner city where the Left has focused on destroying the family unit and individual accountability. If we are to stand any chance of defeating Islamic terror, we have to come to the realization that the Left is a willing and witting accomplice.” – Gorilla

  10. “Do you contend that the Founding Fathers intended for us to have a Godless state?”

    Yes. That is EXACTLY what they intended. A non-theistic state.

    Although most (if not all) of the founders believed in some form of God, they absolutely wanted the state to be neutral on the subject of religion – neither establishing it within government nor prohibiting its free exercise. They had plenty of experience in both European and North American history with rulers imposing their religious beliefs on their subjects through government coercion. It wasn’t a pretty sight. They wanted that kind of tyranny banished from these shores forever and ever.

    So they separated church and state by means of the wording in the First Amendment.

    That isn’t the same thing at all as “removing God from the public square.” No one is attempting that – it’s one of your many straw men. Freedom of speech keeps everyone’s version of God in the “public square.” Separation of church and state means removing anyone’s particular interpretation of God and God’s Will from from the laws that govern the rest of us.

    If you want to live in a Christian theocracy, I suggest that you relocate to the Vatican. It’s the last remaining Christian theocracy on Planet Earth that I can think of.

    There are plenty of Islamic theocracies available also.

  11. It’s amazing – people who proclaim such extreme reverence for the Constitution, at the same time calling separation of church and state a “myth” and a “ruse.”

    You can’t hope to have a meaningful discussion with willful ignorance.

  12. (CNSNews.com) – A federal appeals court in New York ruled it’s okay for New York City Public Schools to ban the display of Christian nativity scenes during the Christmas season, even though displays of the Jewish menorah and Islamic star and crescent are permitted during Hanukkah and Ramadan.

  13. – neither establishing it within government nor prohibiting its free exercise.” – Chin

    Plenty of examples of how you on the left have done all you can to prohibit its free exercise.

    But lets look at what you said, Freud. Establishing it within government. That does not mean that there cannot be an ackwoledgement of faith or religion, nor does it mean that it must be hidden from the public eye. O’Donnell was talking about how Intelligent Design should be taught just as much as Evolution- they’re both theories. I say this as someone who believes in evolution. Unlike you, I’m not afraid to put my theories up for challenge.

  14. A 1773 revolt against a monarchy overtaxing is not comparable to an elected representative government overtaxing.

    Well now, that analogy depends largely on who those representatives are representing, and the manner in which they do it, now doesn’t it? A question I recently wrote on…

  15. Gray, your strawman is dead on target. There is this foolish twisting of the liberal position by conservatives that we are saying the Constitution prohibits the free expression of religion. On the contrary it guarantees that expression by keeping government out of it!

    I’ll pick apart the Jefferson quote later. I think it’s funny how O’Donnell has been fed this nonsense by revisionists. Here is the problem my friends, you see your world slipping away and you don’t know how to adjust.

    Oh …. and banning the Nativity scene while allowing a menorah or Islamic symbols is unconstitutional and should be addressed via lawsuit. Note … NOT to sue for display of the Nativity but to sue for no display of religious symbolism in any government financed school.

  16. NOT to sue for display of the Nativity but to sue for no display of religious symbolism in any government financed school.

    Ah but then we’d be called anti-Semitic which is 100 times worse than being anti-Christian or anti-Muslim. 👿

  17. Although most (if not all) of the founders believed in some form of God, they absolutely wanted the state to be neutral on the subject of religion

    I suppose before I take the time to address your spittle-flecked nonsense, it might be helpful for you to define what you mean when you use the word “religion”, Chin.

  18. they absolutely wanted the state to be neutral on the subject of religion – neither establishing it within government

    So that’s why they open each session of Congress with a prayer, hey? Got it… And provide chaplains in the military service? Got it. And Jefferson himself provided the means for a military band to use during the largest religious service of its day in the Congressional Building? Got it.

    A straw man? Is that why they banned any generic school prayer, even though Congress gets to open with one? Or have insisted upon removing crosses from emblems that predate the ACLU by 100 years or object to Christian symbols on War Memorials? What’s next? Renaming Corpus Cristy? How about we insist on renaming any town with Nazareth, Galilee, Bethlehem, Calvary, St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, St. John, or any reference to Christian saint for that matter? Mohammed, Minnesota more palatable with you Libs? Make the Cordoba mosque a little more quaint?

    You’re right, it is impossible to have a discussion with any two-faced, hypocrite from the Left concerning religion.

    I just wanted to set the record straight about “wall of separation.” And Coons is certainly correct, as long as you discard wall, separation, church, or state from the discussion, being none of those are listed.

  19. That’s a great point BiC, being Libs use Progressive Politics, Obama, Liberalism, Rachel Maddow, and religion interchangeably.

    You know Libs love strict definition – except words wall, separation, church, state.

  20. If you want to live in a Christian theocracy, I suggest that you relocate to the Vatican. It’s the last remaining Christian theocracy on Planet Earth that I can think of.

    And if you wish to live without the restriction of theocracy and restricted to the form of your government theocracy you apparently espouse, may I suggest North Korea, China or Russia?

    Europe has removed its last vestiges of religion (except the pretty churches) as the churches now sit empty (except for being pretty) and the people worship at the altar of government entitlements.

    But then again, Europe still isn’t a pretty site. From the history of Lenin, Stalin and Hitler, France riots on the streets for the 6th day. Greece, Belgium or Spain aren’t looking too good either. And well, Britain just this week canned about 1/2 a million “public worshiping workers” the last two days. Did I mention Chancellor Angela Merkel called the lib wet dream of secularism under the euphemism multiculturalism a failure this week too?

    Why sure. Let’s be secularists like Obama!

  21. Chin? I’m waiting for your definitions….

    Patience. It takes time to dig through and retrieve ACLU, Media Matters, and KKKos archives for the politically correct answer.

  22. Re: #12. (CNS News? Good grief! They are the paranoid leadership in the defense against the alleged “War on Christmas.”

    (And Rutherford @ #15 – not so fast there! )

    From the same CNS website, here is the policy:

    “The display of secular holiday symbols decorations is permitted. Such symbols include, but are not limited to, Christmas trees, Menorahs, and the Star and the Crescent.

    “Holiday displays shall not appear to promote or celebrate any single religion or holiday. Therefore, any symbol or decoration which may be used must be displayed simultaneously with other symbols or decorations reflecting different beliefs or customs.

    All holiday displays should be temporary in nature. “The primary purpose of all displays shall be to promote the goal of fostering understanding and respect for the rights of all individuals regarding their beliefs, values and customs.”

    So what’s the answer of a “constitutionalist” to this? A constitutional amendment?

  23. Ape, wait until hell freezes over if you like. Or learn to use a dictionary.

    Clean the dust off your glasses, Chin, I asked for them, not G, and I’m simply trying to narrow the scope of rebuttal so we don’t waste a lot of time with you walking backwards with the goal posts saying “No, this what I meant.”

  24. Oh, come on. Irrelevant and argumentative.

    The founders were educated men who were well aware of non-Abrahamiic religions like Buddhism and Hinduism. I don’t think they meant “religion” in the same narrow sense that you understand it.

    Surely you don’t understand “free exercise” of religion to be limited to Abrahamic religions.

  25. I have more comments to read through but at this rate and speed, this thread is becoming the most idiotic semantic debate ever conducted on The Rutherford Lawson Blog.

    Bob: “I ate beans and they made me fart.”
    Ted: “Bob said, ‘I consumed beans and they made me pass gas.”
    Christine O’Donnell: “Where exactly did Bob say that?”

    Absorb that exchange gentlemen, and perhaps you’ll see how ridiculous both you and your new heroine O’Donnell look.

    Aside to Gray: Can you believe this nonsense?? 😯

  26. By “religion,” I mean the same thing that it meant to the authors of the First Amendment.

    Oh Gray … don’t you know by now that only G, BiW and Tex know the true meaning of the authors of the First Amendment? We are just ignoramuses fooled by 12 years of Communist public education. 😉

  27. Were you seriously asking me if the founding fathers included the Abrahamic faiths in their definition of ‘”religion.” Seriously?

    If so, no wonder I didn’t catch your meaning. I didn’t think that even you were stupid enough to ask a dumb question like that. Apparently I was wrong about you.

    If that is what you were asking, then stop being such an argumentative asshole and make your point if you have one.

    Rutherford – sad to say, this kind of discussion is what I have come to expect from your pathetic regulars. I enjoy your blog posts. They are insightful and clever. But they are definitely pearls before swine.

  28. Fine, it will be more fun to watch the Chin spin and backpedal,

    Although most (if not all) of the founders believed in some form of God, they absolutely wanted the state to be neutral on the subject of religion – neither establishing it within government nor prohibiting its free exercise.

    *digs in pocket, pulls out a quarter, a dime, a nickel, and a penny*

    Oh look! the phrase “In God We Trust” appears on each one. What a curious thing to find on currency issued under the auspices of a government that “the founders intended to be neutal on the subject of religion”.

    “God Save This Honorable Court!” Whoa! Don’t the justices know that “founders” intended for government to be neutral on the subject of religion??? In fact, why are they conducting the government’s business in a building paid for by the taxpayers that has walls adorned with the Ten Commandments??? Someone better exhume William Howard Taft and scold him mightily for this impermissable mixing of church and state!!!!

    In fact, it seems that most of the government’s buildings in Washington DC are adorned with some reference to God!!!
    Quick! Call Keef Olberdouche so he can call them the WORST BUILDINGS IN THE WORLD!!!!

    Surely Jefferson, who clearly understood what the Framers meant, as he was the…I mean as he was in France at the time it was written would never invoke God when he was in office?

    I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land, and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with his providence, and our riper years with his wisdom and power; and to whose goodness I ask you to join with me in supplications, that he will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures, that whatsoever they do, shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations.

    -Jefferson’s Second Inagural Address

    OMG! No he dinit! He actually used a an official speech to ask for the prayers of citizens to the God of Israel? Maybe he was just confused, you know, since he wasn’t actually part of the proceedings that hammered out the Constitution. Maybe we should look to the people who were actually there? How about the noted deist/agnostic Dr. Franklin? I believe it was his notably “neutral” view on religion that helped to break a stalemate at the Constitutional Convention when he said the following:
    Mr. President—The slow progress we have made, after four or five weeks’ close attendance and continual reasoning with each other—our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many nays as yeas—is, methinks, a melancholy proof of the imperfection of human understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of government, and examined the different forms of those republics which, having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution, now no longer exist. And we have viewed modern states all round Europe, but find none of their consititutions suitable to our circumstances.
    In this situation of this assembly, groping as it were, in thedark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understanding? In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for the Divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that Except the Lord build the house they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our little, partial, local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves become a reproach and by-word down to future ages. And, what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate circumstance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest. I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.

    Oh, I guess that wasn’t it. Maybe the President of the Convention got it right when he later served in one of the offices that the Constitution created:

    A Proclamation

    WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”

    NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and assign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed;– for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish Constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;– for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge;– and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

    And also, that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions;– to enable us all, whether in publick or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wife, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us); and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

    GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.
    (signed) G. Washington

    Damn. Et tu, George? Don’t you know that you could not possibly have ANY idea what you’re talking about on this matter?

    Yes. That is EXACTLY what they intended. A non-theistic state.

    Which is why they all worked so hard to make sure that this exclusion of religion from government would apply to the states, as well, so that when they went back home, they wouldn’t suffer under the tyranny of official religions in the various states, either. Except, that isn’t really what happened….

    http://undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000069

    And for the record, I’m not in favor of the states actively endorsing individual religions, as that is more detrimental to religion than it is the state, but I also believe that it is a matter for the states to decide individually. I point this out as a counterpoint to Chin’s silly contention.

  29. Rutherford – sad to say, this kind of discussion is what I have come to expect from your pathetic regulars. I enjoy your blog posts. They are insightful and clever. But they are definitely pearls before swine.

    Chin, when you, or any other self-declared cogniscenti start flapping your jaws (or in your case, typing), and announcing your profound ignorance to the world, the phrase “miles across and inches deep comes to mind to describe your stultifying intellect.

  30. I thought that you, of all people, would be aware that the Bill of Rights did not originally apply to the various state governments. You may be surprised that it was not extended to the states until shortly after the Civil War. That’s why your link to “undergod.procon.com” is less than surprising. (Where in the heck do you guys FIND this stuff?)

    You can quote founding fathers making reference to their vague deistic “God” until the cows come home, but you will find references to Jesus to be much harder to come by. Which pretty much torpedoes the nonsense of “Christian nation.” Predominantly Christian? Maybe. But Christian? Never. Not even close.

    I still have no idea if there was a POINT in all that verbiage. It reads like an exercise in “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” I think that they teach that technique in law school, if you don’t test out of the curriculum.

  31. Here’s what really is ridiculous about Mr. Squirt and Mr. Pragmatic.

    Each December 25th and probably the 24th, all Americans will celebrate a public holiday called “CHRIST”mas. It has been a federal holiday exactly 140 years this year. That’s exactly 140 years closer to the formations of our country than Mr. Squirt’s and Mr. Pragmatic’s opinion, making the opinion far more valid. And Graychin’s “efficient” post office will be closed for a federal holiday named after the Christian God – they haven’t invoked an Obama god holiday yet, but men like Graychin are working on it.. And Rutherford the unbeliever might even attend a Christmas service with his wife and daughter and will exchange presents – why he is attending a service to worship something that doesn’t exist is unclear.

    But perhaps the most ridiculous thing I’ve read today is from Mr. Pragmatic, Graychin Van Lumberjack, criticizing the sources of anybody, being as recently as two weeks ago he felt he was unfairly criticized because of the site of his sourcing. In addition, Graychin Van Lumberjack uses a parable from the Jesus – the Jesus whose divinity he denies. I don’t know why Graychin doesn’t find something from the Koran to quote to relay to Rutherford the Unbeliever and mocker of Christianity. Now that is a paradox.

    But I’ll tell you what Graychin. And I don’t want Rutherford to answer this because it would put him in an uncomfortable situation of having to choose. Here’s betting if Rutherford had to choose between his “pathetic regulars” and you, the decision would be an easy one. Because in perusing the Two Useful Idiots Blog last week that you created, I noticed the only “regular” traffic you have is you and the Yeller Dawg – the equally incompetent administrator.

    And if you had any clue of how repugnant you really are in any forum, you might put two and two together that nobody likes you. 😉

  32. I thought that you, of all people, would be aware that the Bill of Rights did not originally apply to the various state governments. You may be surprised that it was not extended to the states until shortly after the Civil War.

    Chin, I do understand it. The point is that the position you and much of the Left advocate is nonsense. Religion was part and parcel of their lives, and they mentioned it in the course of the official duties, and it informed their thinking in everything that they did, including making laws. The current “you cant’t use government money and have any mention of God or religion as part of the exercise without violating the Constitution” is some of the purest grade A manure that the Left has ever spread.

    You can quote founding fathers making reference to their vague deistic “God” until the cows come home, but you will find references to Jesus to be much harder to come by. Which pretty much torpedoes the nonsense of “Christian nation.” Predominantly Christian? Maybe. But Christian? Never. Not even close.

    Keep telling yourself that if it comforts you, but the fact is Christianity was the lens through which they all viewed the subject when they referred to “Creator”, “Divine Providence”, “God”, and others. Even Jefferson, who had issue with the supernatural aspect of Jesus didn’t completely deny him. Your assertion might have a bit more to it if the parties involved represented a varied religious tradition, including Jews, Mohammadeans, Hindus, Shintoists, Bhuddists, Sihks, and Zoroastrians.

    The religious strife that they were trying to prevent was that between the various sects of Christianity. If you were as well read as you pretend to be, you’d know that, as the Federalist Papers were very clear on the subject.

    Geez. Next you’ll be trying to tell me that secualrism isn’t a religion.

    I still have no idea if there was a POINT in all that verbiage.

    Given the difficulty you seem to be having today with reading comprehension, that doesn’t suprise me. Maybe if you printed it off and took it to a neighbor so they could help you with the bigger words?

    It reads like an exercise in “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” I think that they teach that technique in law school, if you don’t test out of the curriculum.

    I realize that you probably aren’t used to being challenged when you speak your inanities on this subject, let alone being bested when you do so, but all those words constitute proof that your “interpretation” leaves much to be desired.

  33. I don’t think anybody here is saying America is a Christian nation. I’m certainly not.

    I am saying that America is a nation founded by men and women that would have overwhelmingly self-identified as Protestant Christians.

    And since neither of you two Christian, I’ll let you in on a secret.

    Anybody calling themselves Christian is first guided by a higher power, whether referred to as Divine Providence or Creator in our legal documents. For any “CHRISTian”, there is a higher authority than even our beloved Founding Fathers and Constitution.

    And there is absolutely no way that our predominately Christian Founding Fathers ever, ever, ever intended or agreed for our nation to be completely secular in nature, free from religion and public worship, with all precepts of worship removed from the public arena, that irreligious folk like you two preach, and the LIBERAL wing of the Democratic party uses as a club, and the Anti Christian Litigation Unit (ACLU) enforces under judicial threat.

    It’s the biggest sham you two try and sell – even more than Obama being qualified to be President. And the next time we have another national tragedy, maybe you will notice that the ceremony or service will take place in a Christian Church, led by a Christian pastor, under the auspices of Christian worship where its congregants are not threatened by the presence of some Mullah to wail to his congregants. OKC, 9/11, Pearl Harbor, people flock to the Christian churches all across this nation to seek comfort, solace, and guidance.

    And if America was really in danger of a Christian theocracy, you two and millions of imbeciles like you would be rolled in a minute. So you can cut the bullshit of theocratic threat, because if we really were intending like you two blowhards like to propose/accuse, you’d be in some real serious trouble. Stick around long enough and maybe the Mohammedans, that you give your undying support not because you believe in the Koran but you hate Christianity, will give you a first class lesson in submission.

    And you can walk through any of the original thirteen colonies, Philadelphia and D.C. and see even before the formations of our great land, including the very basis for the arrival of the Pilgrims and Puritans, that Christian symbolism dominates all walks of historical life.

    And so you two might no and remove your veil of ignorance, our Founding Fathers, when they referenced the Creator, weren’t referring to Buddha, or Confucius, or Mohammad, Baal, or Obama. Of that much, I’m absolutely, positively sure.

  34. For any “CHRISTian”, there is a higher authority than even our beloved Founding Fathers[, Declaration of Independence] and Constitution.

    Fixed it for you.

    And if America was really in danger of a Christian theocracy, you two and millions of imbeciles like you would be rolled in a minute.

    I really have a difficult time picturing such a thing. While I can easily countenance a government of Christians (and not a Christian-led government….the idea sends shudders down the spine of this believer) standing in opposition to evil practices, such as abortion, and seeking to outlaw it on the state level, where jurisdiction actually rests, the idea of snuffing opposition neither respects the way in which Jesus conducted his father’s business (by allowing people to reject him), nor displays any confidence in the ability of God to create conditions that allow people to re-examine the nature of his existence and come to him.

    The Left, on the other hand, has a long history of violence towards those who oppose it, and that might be one of the reasons for their handwringing histrionics whenever a discussion of a national Christian Heritage is raised.

  35. “you cant’t use government money and have any mention of God or religion as part of the exercise without violating the Constitution”

    Who on earth are you quoting? I don’t know anyone who believes that, and you don’t either. That’s a silly caricature. I’m not going to defend your straw men.

    I still have no idea what your point is. Do you?

    I think that the Ape kicked off this discussion with a mention of a controversy over a nativity scene. Nothing religious about that. Nothing at all.

    You think “secularism” is a religion? Secularism is NO religion. If you believe that “no religion” = “religion,” then you probably believe that black = white.

    Oh wait – that’s your very screen name!

    Yes, I believe that the intent of the First Amendment was to establish a secular state, one with no established religion and neutral towards all religions.

  36. “The Left, on the other hand, has a long history of violence towards those who oppose it, and that might be one of the reasons for their handwringing histrionics whenever a discussion of a national Christian Heritage is raised.”

    That’s right. Those agnostics are notorious for burning question marks on the lawns of people like you.

  37. Yes, I believe that the intent of the First Amendment was to establish a secular state, one with no established religion and neutral towards all religions.

    And the currency, opening to Supreme Court proceedings, witnesses oaths, Congressional and Military Chaplins and the buildings all over DC erected after the ratification of the Constitution meet that criteria?

    BTW, you do know that secularism is itself a religion, don’t you?

  38. Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U. S. App. D. C. 371, 249 F. 2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P. 2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.

    Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 US 481

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17484916405561277413&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

    But I’m sure that Justice Black gets it wrong in this case, even though you would seem to believe that he got it right in Everson when he brought that “wall of separation between church and state” from Jefferson’s private correspondence in our jurisprudence, right?

    Then there is the niggling little problem of how those secular humanists first laid out their beliefs:

    http://www.americanhumanist.org/Who_We_Are/About_Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I

    That’s an awful lot of mention of religion for it not being a religion…

  39. “The Left, on the other hand, has a long history of violence towards those who oppose it, and that might be one of the reasons for their handwringing histrionics whenever a discussion of a national Christian Heritage is raised.”

    That’s right. Those agnostics are notorious for burning question marks on the lawns of people like you.

    No, actually I was referring to how leftists like the National Socialist Party , and all the different flavors of communism and marxism tended/tend to be brutally repressive towards anyone who challenges their immense” intellectual” authority.

  40. Religion was part and parcel of their lives, and they mentioned it in the course of the official duties, and it informed their thinking in everything that they did, including making laws.

    BiW, all this proves is the incredible wisdom (perhaps divinely inspired 😉 ) of the founding fathers. While guided by their religious backgrounds, they knew better than to create a society in which government forced those beliefs on other people. How you can not give them credit for that …. that feature which distinguishes us as a world power and makes this the most tolerant country on the globe is totally beyond me.

  41. You take me way to literally BiC…tedious, in fact.

    I really have a difficult time picturing such a thing. While I can easily countenance a government of Christians (and not a Christian-led government….the idea sends shudders down the spine of this believer) standing in opposition to evil practices, such as abortion, and seeking to outlaw it on the state level, where jurisdiction actually rests, the idea of snuffing opposition neither respects the way in which Jesus conducted his father’s business (by allowing people to reject him), nor displays any confidence in the ability of God to create conditions that allow people to re-examine the nature of his existence and come to him.

    That content was a play on Rutherford’s projection of “radical” Christian theocracy. This is still a predominately Christian nation and what you’ve listed is a partial list of the reasons Rutherford and the millions of lost souls like him aren’t steamrolled. Christianity is absolutely no threat to Rutherford’s irreligious nature. He knows it. The contradiction in Rutherford’s standards and judgment of Islam makes his arguments hollow and cowardly. All of not lib recognize it.

    Unlike the Mohammedans, Christians have enough confidence in our faith that it is unnecessary to coerce anybody into faith. Christ himself said narrow is the gate and few will find it. The very nature of our faith is after all free-will.

    That is not what this debate is about and you know it BiC. It’s about Graychin and his ilk making the attempt to run roughshod over the Christian religion – complete freedom from religion, driven totally by politics because a majority of Christians don’t “vote right.” It what drives their support of the Cordoba mosque – it has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of choice or religion, and everything to do with political ammunition. There’s nothing righteous in their reasoning – their supposed premise of the right to build the mosque completely phony.

    If guys like you and me were pulling the straight Dim lever like they do, they and their legal henchmen from the ACLU would sit in stone cold silence about the building of a mosque 600ft from the towers. The ACLU is terrified of Islam. The Left is terrified of Islam. If it weren’t, they would hold Islam to the same set of rules and criticisms – more so for their insidious actions of not only 9/11, but previous to 9/11, and Ft. Hood, and Times Square, and shoe bombers, and underwear bombers, etc..etc..etc… And they obviously don’t.

  42. BiW, all this proves is the incredible wisdom (perhaps divinely inspired ) of the founding fathers. While guided by their religious backgrounds, they knew better than to create a society in which government forced those beliefs on other people

    Rutherford,

    Did I not say that the Federalist Papers were very clear that they were trying to avoid the sectarianism that having an official relationship with one sect invariably creates?

    Go back and re-read what I’ve written. I’m not advocating a church run government, but I know that you, and Chin, and other “progressives” misapprehend their the Framers’ real aims, and have been happy to take it to extremes, and as a result, while Congress still opens with a prayer, players at a football game at a state (not federal school) who want to open the game the same way cannot, and the members of the orchestra cannot perform an instrumental version of “Ave Maria” in their own programs because it has been deemed an unconstitutional mixing of church and state. That’s to say nothing of the other ridiculous rulings that deny students to pray silently during a moment of silence. The Bible was a school textbook in much of this country for decades after the ratification of the Constitution, R. Hell, Congress even had it printed for use in the schools. But by ignoring nearly a century of very clearly articulated jurisprudence and governmental action, we find ourselves in a place where people look to some of these results as correct, yet do not bat an eye at the inconsitencies it creates, especially when schools inculcate secular views without understanding that in so doing, they are “forcing” their religion on students, many of whom still come from families that do no agree with the practice.

  43. Justice Black’s famous footnote! Ah yes… You guys love to cuddle up with it at night to keep warm.

    You can make a halfway reasonable case that “secular humanism” is a “religion.” The case is not terribly persuasive, but it’s halfway reasonable.

    Secularism is not secular humanism. Secularism is NO religion.

  44. “…leftists like the National Socialist Party…”

    How have I lived to be this old and never once heard Nazis referred to before as “leftists”? Not even once?

    First time for everything.

    You are truly delusional.

  45. I just think that it does the belief a disservice when you talk like that…especially since R and Chin both have hard-ons for screaming theocracy in such conversations already.

    My point was BiC if Christians were really like Rutherford tries to project, madmen with pitchforks and thumping heads with Bibles running wild over the populace, he would have been rolled by now.

    What does provide a disservice to Christianity is Christians who follow the libs playbook and go looking to be offended with a profound sense of their own piety. 😉

  46. Gray,

    I’ve noticed on several occasions recently, you’ve ignored my question of the “successes of socialism lite” found across western Europe, and how their “enlightenment” apparently is falling apart..

    Do you remember our first conversation that started our entire brouhaha of you following me over here when I challenged you at your feckless blog?

    As you will recall, you and your Obama thought the secular, progressive model of the current European Union as one we should closely duplicate – “free” health care, big entitlements, a little sharing the wealth (as long as it is not yours). 🙂

    But I’m just wondering if you have had a change of heart watching the activity across the Atlantic as recently as this week? Between the war zone called Southside Chicago and say France, your political estimation appears a little twisted this week.

    You still hold to that theory about how we need to be more like Europe?

  47. “That’s to say nothing of the other ridiculous rulings that deny students to pray silently during a moment of silence.”

    That is so ridiculous on its face that it isn’t even worth arguing with, or calling BULLSHIT on.

    I only quote it to memorialize it for posterity, that all may see how truly delusional some of our “conservative” brethren have become over this “liberals are hostile to religion” delusion.

  48. That’s the best you have, Chin? I give you example after example running contrary to what you “think”, and you want claim that secularism as it is practiced is different from secular humanism? Why? Because they say it is? That’s as convincing as Andrew Sullivan claiming he’s a conservative.

    You can’t even work up to making yourself a joke, can you?

  49. Anti Christian Litigation Unit (ACLU)

    Very clever … you make that one up or steal it from somewhere? I like it!

    Borrowed that from one of my favorite pastors, now passed, named D. James Kennedy. I thought it pretty good too.

    Saw a bumper sticker today I thought pretty funny “R” that I almost purchased. Maybe I’ll pick you up one too for your 50th.

    When I was a younger, all I wanted was a nice BMW. Now, I don’t care about the ‘W’. 😆 😆

  50. Secular humanism is a definable movement in response to the religious or spiritual or scientific impulses of a few people who have strong feelings on the subject. Some secular humanists may well be hostile to what you define narrowly as “real” religion, just as some “religious” people are hostile to secular humanists.

    One could debate whether secular humanism is an alternative “faith” or religious movement, or not. Secularism, on the other hand, is just an absence of religion. Secularists may be agnostics, unchurched, or just completely indifferent to religion. Members of “the Church of the Utterly Indifferent,” as a friend of mine once put it.

    It is you who is claiming that the secular humanist movement includes even people who just don’t have any interest in religion, and may never have even heard of “secular humanism.” Those latter may well outnumber people who actually darken the door of a house of worship occasionally. Equating secular humanism as defined in the sources you named to simple secularism is nonsense. Complete, utter nonsense. It’s as silly as black = white.

    Government should be indifferent to religion, i.e. secular.

    I would really like to have a citation for a case in which students were not allowed to pray during a moment of silence. How would such a rule be enforced? 😀

    Tex would certainly have been fond of the lying sack known as D. James Kennedy. It all fits.

  51. “The display of secular holiday symbols decorations is permitted. Such symbols include, but are not limited to, Christmas trees, Menorahs, and the Star and the Crescent.” – Chin

    Please tell me how a menorah, star of David and Islamic crescent are secular. Lets think about this for one damn second- a nativity scene celebrating Christmas, a federal holiday celebrating the birth of Christ, is a violation of church and state, but a menorah during hanakah or an Islamic crescent during Ramadan- neither of which are federal holidays and both purely religious- is ok.

    You are a fucking moron. I’ve missed most of this thread since this morning, but I see BiW carried things along nicely, which I knew he would once he got wind of the topic. The man has a gift.

    R has been the only one intellectually consistent in that he thinks they should all be banned. Wrong, but at least he isn’t a hypocrite like you Chin.

    Don’t have the time now, but it was on R’s very own blog that we schooled him, HP and No-Nuts-Dan on the simple fact that yes, the Nazi’s were/are on the left side of the isle. Sorry Chin, but yes, you own the ideologies that have murdered well over a 100 million people. Congrats…

  52. Government should be indifferent to religion, i.e. secular.” – Chin

    A little fucking consistency please.

    Secular:

    3. Of or pertaining to this present world, or to things not spiritual or holy; relating to temporal as distinguished from eternal interests; not immediately or primarily respecting the soul, but the body; worldly. [1913 Webster]

    4. (Eccl.) Not regular; not bound by monastic vows or rules; not confined to a monastery, or subject to the rules of a religious community; as, a secular priest. [1913 Webster]

    Not focused on the soul and not bound to any specific religious tenets. This is far and away, very different than what you foolishly pretend the word to mean.

  53. Tex would certainly have been fond of the lying sack known as D. James Kennedy. It all fits.

    Well, of course. It does all fit – you hate real Christianity, Christians and Christ. And D. James Kennedy was one of the best and most brilliant Christians around before he passed. With you worshiping at the altar of Baal Obama and self, I could have certainly guessed you two would be diametrically opposed, just like we are.

    But out of curiosity, what did Dr. Kennedy lie about Mr. Pragmatic? That he was a student of history and called you on your own lying? That he was about 100 times more credentialed in this particular sphere we are discussing than you could possibly dream?

    Because frankly, anybody that has one lying sack for a friend going by the handle named Yeller Dawg (PH. D. in Physical Chemistry 😆 ), lives in a town with zero blacks but preaches to all of us about our prejudice, avoids responses that call into question his own intelligence and knowledge, always slinking off for days when caught, and has a Brownshirt blog that would make Goebbels proud doesn’t carry a lot of weight in my book about deciding what’s true and what is not.

    But I would dearly love to know what egregious lies you caught Dr. Kennedy in Graychin. Can you provide a few examples, or is this another subject where you disappear or give the silent treatment?

  54. I would really like to have a citation for a case in which students were not allowed to pray during a moment of silence.

    Sure, just as soon as you tell me how it is that your interpretation is reconciled with “In God We Trust” on our currency, The Ten Commandments/”God Save This Honorable Court!” with the SCOTUS, Congressional and Military Chaplins, and U.S. Presidents who were Founders/Framers invoking God, talking about the duties that nations and their people have to him, and or asking for citizens to pray to him for wisdom and guidance in official speaches.

    I have to go take care of some business right now. I’m sure you’ll have some fantastical excuse set and waiting for me when I return in a few hours.

  55. That is so ridiculous on its face that it isn’t even worth arguing with, or calling BULLSHIT on.

    Except your forgetting just as recently as last year, the Texas courts had to confirm the right to a moment of silence because the school board had been sued by scumbags like you.

    http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090317/court-upholds-texas-moment-of-silence-law-as-constitutional/

    Don’t give us this horseshit about your being innocent in declaring war on Christianity. It’s your sorry ilk that exactly who all us “pathetic regulars” are referring.

    You’re “religious” alright Graychin. So is Lucifer.

  56. you are. Rutherford, did you ever convince WordPress of a “Preview” button?

    Hard to believe they provide a service like this without that built in mechanism. Guess you get what you pay for? Is it still free?

    I’m curious. If it is free, how does WordPress generate revenue?

  57. Hey Rutherford,

    Did a little investigative research tonight for you Rachel Madcow groupies and you’ll be happy to know that the carpet muncher skank dyke hag nastiness Rhodes scholar is on top of the MSNBC ratings.

    Kind of like being the tallest midget, hey?. 😈

  58. Man, my good buddy shelled out 14 grand to get his wife pregnant. He found out today that its a no go. He also found out that chemotherapy is no longer working for his Dad.

    Fucking sucks, man.

    I request you believers put that old time religion to good use and try to talk to the big guy for my buddy.

    Where did this country go so wrong that we work our mothers like dogs outside of the house while it takes a man 8 years to get established? And when he does, he is riddled with debt BEFORE he buys a home. No wonder our fertility rates are so fucked up.

    Feminism and materialism have skewed the family to the point where many of my generation have become empty shells, void of what I feel is the only true joy in life: being a true family man.

    I don’t fall prey to class warfare. But I’d be lying if I said I don’t have a healthy dose of rage against the boomers.

    Everything they touched tripled in value, at the very least. College was practically free. Of course, you didn’t need the degree in the first place. Your pensions way heavy on my back. Your unions decided to eat your own off spring.

    You boomers had it made. And when you fuckers finally get burned, what do you do? Pass the buck to my son.

  59. I blame it on men like Graychin Rabbit.

    Scumbags like him have been milking the bennies for years, then claiming the ‘middle class’ is getting burned while he and his cronies give themselves some more. Tax haven here and there, launders a little here and there. Think I’m incorrect, ask Graychin to donate he and his wife’s Social Security check to charity, means test their Medicare. He’d screech like a frolicking hyena about his rights.

    Somebody brings a dozen donuts to the office? Graychin counts six people, including him, and takes seven donuts and castigates the others for their greed and their radical politics. 😉

  60. Ape @ 63:

    The dictionary definition of “secular” that you quoted is exactly the way I understand and have been using that word. It’s the kind of government that I want and that the founding fathers wanted when they drafted the First Amendment.

    What is your problem?

    Black = white thinks that “secular” is a religion. Or something. I know. It doesn’t make sense to me either.

  61. Black = white @ 66:

    Your examples have demonstrated that there is no liberal conspiracy to banish God from the “public square.” There never was. If there was, where is the clamor to remover God from our money and prayers from Congress?

    You are being manipulated by a right-wing fable intended to rile up gullible self-identified “Christians” of the “persecuted minority” mentality. It’s a psychiatric issue. Welcome to this not-so-exclusive club.

    The First Amendment does not forbid religion in government. It forbids an “establishment of religion.” I can’t believe you don’t understand that. But obviously you do not. You really should know better. Your blind ideology has run over your faculties of discernment like a steamroller.

  62. My evening got away from me so I have to save more commenting for tomorrow.

    The one standout issue worth addressing is all this reference to God in our currency, and prayers in Congress, etc. I am quite sure that at various times there have been failed movements to have these references taken off our currency. I find it odd quite frankly that they are there. But I would say they acknowledge the existence of a higher power while not promoting any one religion so they meet the standard of the First Amendment.

    If our currency said “In Christ we trust” then the whole “Christian nation” argument might have some legs. (I think Gray alluded to this earlier.)

  63. Gray, in 73 I think you run the risk of a distinction without a difference. Quite frankly I AM uncomfortable with Congress starting with a prayer and I’m not all that happy with God references on currency either. Does it keep me up at night? No. Not high at all on my list of gripes. But I do believe that a belief in God involves religion and therefore Congress opening with a prayer promotes religion over no religion, which is in my mind the establishment of religion … in this case just an unspecified one.

    If our Congressmen need to pray, there are churches for that. Clearly their prayers within the government chambers are not being heard. Our country is screwed six ways to Sunday. 👿

  64. Rabbit, Rabbit, Rabbit….

    Class warfare: bad. Generational warfare: good.

    It’s all the fault of the “boomers,” eh? But there are lots of boomers out there of all shapes, sizes and ideologies. Blaming “the boomers” is just as silly as blaming ethnic minorities when good, hard-working patriots can’t get ahead. We should know where that road leads. At least one knows if he doesn’t have his head up his ass.

    Those jobs you don’t have were taken by a minority, according to Jesse Helms via Lee Atwater. Or by women! Dang FEMINISTS! Shoulda kept ’em in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant like God intended. Right?

    Technically I’m not a boomer. I’m pre-boomer. I didn’t have it so easy. I paid for my own tuition with money that I earned by working. I chose to study and get qualified in a field in which there were jobs and opportunity. (Duh!) Sometimes I think that the post-boomer generations whine just a bit too much about their fates, while taking responsibility for their own choices a bit too little.

    We support and vote for policies that create greater concentration of wealth in just a few hands while shrinking the middle class, and then we wonder why a guy can’t make it into the middle class any more. Amazing.

    Isn’t this the same Rabbit who stays in teaching because he likes the three months off in the summer? No sympathy here, pal. None.

  65. Rutherford, I think that 200+ years of history and custom in America have set a precedent that vague God-talk without specifying which God or whose God or the nature of God does not constitute an “establishment of religion.”

    I agree with the logic of your comment. Those practices do favor religion over no religion. But in my opinion, they do not constitute an “establishment” of religion. Most importantly, the precedent does not include or justify government coercion of non-religious people to practice religion.

    It can be really ridiculous when a Congressman who takes his oath on a Koran instead of a Christian bible causes a big flap. That’s one extreme position, and it’s the natural consequence of God in Congress. The other extreme is your position. Pragmatist that I am, I’m willing to tolerate all the empty God-talk that we have in pro-forma public praying, on our money, and in “God save this honorable court.”

    It ain’t worth fighting over.

  66. Hitler was an intellectual descendant of Charles Darwin.

    Children aren’t allowed to pray during a moment of silence.

    Liberals are fighting a War on God.

    Feminism ruined the family.

    No religion is the same thing as religion.

    Up is down.

    War is peace.

    Ignorance is strength.

    Black is white.

    I’m checking out of this parallel universe, this alternate reality, until Rutherford’s next post.

    Good night, Rutherford. The rest of you…

    Nah – you’re not worth it.

  67. The First Amendment does not forbid religion in government. It forbids an “establishment of religion.” I can’t believe you don’t understand that. But obviously you do not.

    Really?

    I guess you should tell that US District Court Judge William Steele. I don’t think that he understands this, and like you, I don’t think he can reconcile why this is ok in Justice Moore’s court but SCOTUS can keep theirs.

    Rutherford, I think that 200+ years of history and custom in America have set a precedent that vague God-talk without specifying which God or whose God or the nature of God does not constitute an “establishment of religion.”

    Chin, once again, you imply something ignorant of history.
    They didn’t think that they were referring to Allah, or Bhudda, or honored ancestors, or Krishna. The fact that nearly all were members of Christian faiths, and all were well-versed in the Bible, the founders and framers all had SAME common frame of reference, and there was no doubting “which” capital “G” God or “whose” capital “G” God to whom they referred.

    You might not be the dumbest person to comment here (that honor would be a tie between Senselessco and the Dawg), but you’re damn close.

  68. SEASON’S GREETINGS

    T’was the night before elections
    And all through the town
    Tempers were flaring
    Emotions all up and down

    I, in my bathrobe
    With a cat in my lap
    Had cut off the TV
    tired of political crap

    When all of a sudden
    There arose such a noise
    I peered out my window
    Saw Obama and his boys

    They had come for my wallet
    They wanted my pay
    To give to the others
    Who had not worked a day!

    He snatched up my money
    And quick as a wink
    Jumped back on his bandwagon
    As I gagged from the stink

    He then rallied his henchmen
    Who were pulling his cart
    I could tell they were out
    To tear my country apart!

    ‘On Fannie, on Freddie,
    On Biden and Ayers!
    On Acorn, On Pelosi’
    He screamed at the pairs!
    They took off for his cause
    And as they flew out of sight
    I heard him laugh at the nation
    Who wouldn’t stand up and fight!

    So I leave you to think
    On this one final note—
    If you don’t want SOCIALISM
    GET OUT AND VOTE !!!!

  69. Looks like the cheating has already started.

    We’ve already got more proof of Dig Up the Vote and taking seniors out of school, feeding them, and giving them the day off so they can pull the early Dim Lever. We’ve got mass emails encouraging students and staffers to get out and vote Dimocratic using state equipment and networks. Then there are more ACORN scams in Houston, and disenfranchising our military in Illinois and New York. And this is before the national vote takes place.

    I’ve always contended that supporters of the Dimocratic party are so corrupt throughout this nation, that the opposing party will have to win by 7-10% to eke out a victory.

    I’m really glad Jim Dougan isn’t here to read me say this. Higher education has gone to the dogs and become a cesspool of liberal politics. They’ve ruined much of it.. I think the Republican party, where it wins, should make a considerable effort to squeeze the shit out of public funding. Cut public funding to the bone.

  70. Greychin, you are a boomer in my book. You were the first generation born post WW2.

    You boomers all romantically brag how you paid your own way through college. Dude, your tuition was peanuts. A paper route was all it took, bad ass.

    Sure, it can be done now too. The difference? You graduate when your 28 or 30 or possibly a hundred thousand dollars in debt.

    I’m not blaming boomers as much as I’m pointing out that someone your age actually had to work hard NOT to be successful. Everything your soft hands touched turned to gold. Everything I have touched turned to shit.

    Let me at least have my pity party, cake eater.

  71. Rabbit,

    This won’t console you much in your struggle, but I worked under the Graychin types for 20 years before I said, “To hell with this.” They are self-serving politicians in their own accord. The only respect they garner is with the boot and with threat. They fell into the positions not by merit, but by birthright, legacy or ample opportunity. This was the 60s generation. They are the most miserable SOBs on the planet. And they will die that way.

    And don’t think for a moment all of them die with dignity. They’ve lived so large, many are now struggling, so they’ve got to milk the system a little more. And when they leave the corporate world, anybody that worked under them has nothing to do with them.

  72. After reading Graychin and Rutherford’s comments defending a religion that has about 20,000 terrorist acts to it’s name since 1998, the fact they excuse Islam’s egregious sins and their moral equivalence, and believing they represent perfectly the leftist idealogues…

    Then throw in the politically correctness required from the left even about the left like Juan Williams from Barackee and Jolting Joe Biden types…considering the Butch Madcow, Joy Behar and Whoopie Goldberg goosesteppers that dominate lefty news, I think it now appropriate for the Graychin and Rutherford types to designate:

    Islam the defacto state religion of the United States. 😉

  73. I understand via Stephen Hayes that Corporation for Public Broadcasting, who oversees NPR, has requested a $495MM advance from the Office of Management and Budget for 2014.

    As a American taxpayer, I vote that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting receive absolutely zero funding for 2014, or 2010, or any other year for that matter.

  74. NPR needs Rutherford Lawson to take over. That way, they can still have their text book liberal at the helm but at least they will have a motherfucker who’s not afraid of an open forum.

    As for my bitching about Greychin and the rest of the worst generation, I think I need to clear some things up.

    My family income might be halved and my house, after 6 years, worth 50 percent less, but I was more or less speaking for my contemporaries.

    Note to Greychin. You aren’t fooling any of us. Gen X, Gen Y and those unfortunate souls Tex and Rutherford’s age who had to spend most their lives intimately working as your underlings: We are aware, man. Just be advised people tend to claw and bite when they are being drowned. Whether it be your pensions, your unions, your government welfare, your generation’s boot is on our neck.

    Us 30 somethings would love just a simple acknowledgment from you lot of cake eaters. Your life fell into your lap, yet you still chose an inverse pyramid, the weight falling on your children.

  75. Rabbit,

    I’ve said before, people like Dingy Harry and San Fran Nan may be alarmed at the hostility from people our age, but they should out and out FEAR our children, because when they come of age and realize everything that has been stolen from them by our self-appointed betters and their contemporaries, there won’t be a saft place for them to hide.

  76. but they should out and out FEAR our children, because when they come of age and realize everything that has been stolen from them by our self-appointed betters and their contemporaries, there won’t be a saft place for them to hide.

    Unfortunately Harry, Nancy, and other progressives who’ve been stealing from the system for years will be long dead by the time the bill comes due for our kids. They don’t give a shit who gets hurt as long as they retain power now. That’s why important we set the record straight about who is benefiting from the stealing, because the current crop of liars and thieves are trying desperately to rewrite history to save their sorry legacy.

    I want their children and grandchildren to suffer the consequences and the pain. That will be the current crop of thieves legacy – their own family will be punished for their sins. When the time comes, we will divvy up their assets. 😉

  77. Hey Rutherford? Why don’t you invite that spineless Wickle over here tonight to preach to me about my suppose intolerance about the “balance” about NPR? Kind of like he did several months back before he ran back to where he can censor comments on his pitiful blog like Graychin does?

    Where’s that coward now that NPR has been exposed as a bunch of leftist shrews with the progressive bent – just like I said last year – and now we find out sponsored by Juan Williams.

    Good for Juan Williams for exposing these shills – and he called National Progressive Radio (NPR) a bunch of leftist ideologues Rutherford. Unfortunately, talk about being “hoisted with your own petard.” Juan set the stage back in Crossfire days with his own bunch of trumped up racist charges, which has led to our ignorant and incredibly damaging political correctness today.

  78. fuck NPR. I’m done with them. I’ll just read the Economist to see whats up in Kyrgyzstan. Plus, their music blows. Yank the purse strings, this long time listener can live with out ‘um.

  79. “but they should out and out FEAR our children”-BiC

    I hope I live long enough to be a neighborhood Ben Franklin when it all goes down. 80 years old, my knees riddled with of gout, bragging about my nasty raging boner for the ladies while reciting John Locke.

  80. The Chin avoids, as usual.

    Indifferent is not the same as prohibitive. You are not indifferent to religion, you want it prohibited in anything close to the public square. Let me rephrase that, you want Christianity removed from the public square- Islam is OK.

    Secular doesn’t mean religion is not allowed, it means that religion doesn’t dictate. This is indeed how the Founders saw the nation, with the premise of secular being that the government not draft a national religion, and thus tying itself to religious tenets, invariably at the expense of others. We can recognize, accept and be proud of the fact that we are a Christian nation and still be secular.

  81. The Chin avoids, as usual.

    Standard fare. And old Gray’s feelings are hurt right now. When you can’t control the narrative through tyranny or censor and edit like he does at the Two Useful Idiot’s blog, Graychin gets a little rattled. He still hasn’t answered my European questions either.

    Of course, Gray may be out celebrating Juan Williams firing. That action was Graychin in spades. He and this Vivian Skiller hag are kindred spirits. I’m not kidding – Graychin is first and foremost a fascist. A powerless one, but a fascist none the less.

  82. they can still have their text book liberal at the helm but at least they will have a motherfucker who’s not afraid of an open forum.

    No, it’s not being afraid of an open forum that would get me fired. 😉 I wouldn’t last nearly as long as Juan did.

What's on your mind?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s