Monday, January 14, 2013

Lawrence O'Donnell has a point

Lawrence O'Donnell is outraged-- outraged-- that a Christian pastor who holds views uncongenial to the LGBT movement was asked to speak at the upcoming Presidential Inaugural.



I share O'Donnell's concern about giving fringe wackos a platform to speak at the Inaugural. While of course I don't agree with O'Donnell that Pastor Giglio is a fringe wacko-- after all, his views are clearly right and are those of the majority of Americans-- there are other wackos who should be denied a forum for their views at this historic ceremony.

We should deny to opportunity to speak at the Presidential Inaugural anyone who pretended to share mainstream American beliefs against gay "marriage" in order to get his current job, and then repudiated those beliefs when it became advantageous to do so, who has a lifetime intimate association with a flaming far-left American-hating anti-Semitic hate-mongering preacher, and anyone who began their current career with a fund-raiser in the living room of admitted serial terrorists who feel they "didn't do enough" bombings, and who lied to 300 million people about the death of a subordinate in a foreign country in order to deflect criticism from his own gross mismanagement.

We need to be careful of who we let speak at the President's Inauguration.   

16 comments:

  1. his views are clearly right and are those of the majority of Americans

    Not true.

    By the way, bit of an effeminate type, the good pastor Giglio. How long before a male prostitute outs him? Let the betting begin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJanuary 14, 2013 at 8:07 AM

      You must have the squelch turned off on your gaydar, Troy.

      Delete
    2. 'His views are clearly right and are those of a majority of Americans'. Very true, if you define Americans to consist just of Republicans, churches and the deeply religious.

      Michael is still upset that the majority of voters selected Barack Obama. He did get 51% of the vote. He will be speaking at his inauguration. Nothing is going to stop it.

      Remind me again of Michael's confident prediction the day before the election.

      Delete
    3. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJanuary 14, 2013 at 8:38 AM

      Johann, we know whose voice will be heard at the Inauguration:

      "'For the White House is throwing open the gates of largesse for supporters to contribute as much as $1 million for special access. The money could buy much more than a coveted seat near the president as he takes the oath of office.

      'This is an avenue for special interests, especially wealthy corporations, to get their last chance to throw money at the feet of the president,' Craig Holman, an expert on campaign finance reform, told AFP.

      'The real intent is for the corporations to buy access and influence with the White House,' added Holman, from consumer advocacy group Public Citizen." (AFP, 1/13/2013)

      Delete
    4. I hate it when Obama acts like a Republican.

      -KW

      Delete
    5. 'Admiral G Boggs, Glenbeckistan Navy',

      Have you gone crazy with your new title? Anyway, I've told you before - it's PDQ, not Johann. Get it into your thick skull please.

      Delete
  2. Liberals are bigots toward bigots, what hypocrites. Don’t they realize that to be a non-bigot you must tolerate, celebrate, and reward all forms of bigotry?

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wish you understood how you sound, KW.

      Actually, that's the biggest problem with you so-called liberals. You fight "hate" with hate, "bigotry" with bigotry, and "intolerance" with intolerance. You are like the jackbooted thugs of niceness and decorum. You start with the assumption that you are good and nice people and that people who disagree must not be. And then you attack and belittle those people, going even so far as to strip others of their rights.

      I wish you could see that from our point of view, YOU are the intolerant bigot. Just look at your comment below: "A mute passter would be good, but no pastor at all would be even better." How can I perceive that as anything but a swipe at Christians? Let me translate that, if I may. It would be nice if Obama would invite a pastor who would shut up, but even better if he invited no pastor at all.

      TRISH

      Delete
    2. Thank you, TRISH. You said it so succinctly.

      Ben

      Delete
    3. I am intolerant of Christians always trying to use government functions to legitimize there bigoted preachers and spread their religious ideology.
      For me and many of my peers, when someone professes strong religious belief, they might as well have a sign that says “I’m an idiot”. Christian self-identification makes easily manipulated superstitious fools easy to spot, and I don’t suffer fools and idiots when they arrogantly spout bullshit. Does that make me a bigot? I don’t think so.

      -KW

      Delete
    4. Yes, actually it does make you a bigot, KW. You're the most bigoted human being I've ever met in my life. So I would watch out when it comes to speech restrictions, even if you think that they will only be applied to "asshole bigot provocateurs." You might wake up one day and find out that you're one of them.

      TRISH

      Delete
  3. I don't get it?
    The pastor was not invited to speak on the topic of sin, was he? President Obama seems by all appearances to be solidly heterosexual.
    I just don't see the connection.
    I thought it was supposed to be some sort of blessing or speech about the next term of the president?
    Of course he believes in sin! Of course he believe the biblical definition of sin (including certain sexually deviant behaviours).
    What Christian pastor (or any form of clergy) doesn't?
    Does reverend Wright think homosexuality was NOT a sin?
    Does Mr Obama HIMSELF?
    What a load of PC cobblers.
    If it was an issue of sensitivity about who says what at the WH, how on Earth did Mr Obama get into office in the first place when his beliefs are clearly offensive to a large portion of the populace - far more than any gay lobby or group?
    Perhaps they should find a mute pastor for the ceremony? Maybe a monk sworn to silence? That way they can rest assured they have never voiced their opinion on the subject - at least so far.
    Idiots.
    But hey... It's up to them who they want to speak. Frankly, I am surprised they have ANY sort of faith group present. Perhaps that's the idea? Generate faux outrage to change the format... who knows.
    They could select Pewee Herman for all I care.
    The guy was RE elected. Only politicians, media and school kids would give a damn about attending.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A mute passter would be good, but no pastor at all would be even better.

      -KW

      Delete
  4. "We need to be careful of who we let speak at the President's Inauguration."

    Now, now, now! Simply everyone knows that it's Bad Form to apply the "logic" of "liberals" in such a consistent way that its inherent illogic is exposed for God and all the angels to see.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Obama's relationship with Ayers goes beyond simply launching his political career in his home. Obama is Ayers' "family friend."

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/13/bill-ayers-calls-obama-a_n_143654.html

    He said so himself in the foreword to his book.

    TRISH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The ridiculously biased Wikipedia will not tolerate anyone to mention Ayers on Obama's page. They will scrub it and put the editor on a three day probation.

      http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/03/08/wikipedia-scrubs-ayers-wright-obama-biography

      Little John

      Delete