Hey now, folks! I am a 'Dominionist'. I am sworn to protect this Dominion, literally. I will freely admit we are a Christian Dominion, with both the names 'God' and 'Christ' invoked in the Charters. But, we are also one of the most religiously tolerant places on earth. Maybe the folks at the KOS need to do some homework. I mean, at least Mr Cruz is using his own name. At least his birth and parents are not some sort of state secret. At least we can see his college records.Also, I have to note that it is funny how the 'progressives' have gone all 'birther' and doomsday with Cruz. Wasn't that what they found 'crazy' and 'racist' about the 'right wingers' during the Obama campaigns? That said, I would never vote for a dual citizenship candidate here. He/she would have to give up their US citizenship in order for me to even consider it. Not that I dislike the States, but it is a matter of divided loyalties. I don't think I am alone in that. Mr Ignatieff proved that was even true of our Liberals (party), when he was running to be their front man in our last elections. But, then I hear Mr Cruz is doing exactly that. So... I am not sure where I would stand if I were a republican (small r) and American. He presents a conundrum for the US conservatives in that respect, I suppose. There is also the 'electability' issue. If Mrs Clinton runs for the Dems, will that mean ALL the young women vote for her? Just to 'put a woman in the Whitehouse' an and make 'history'? I mean, it's not like something very similar did not just happen in the last election cycle. Could Mr Cruz compete with that? Could he bring back the 'Latino' vote to the red column? Will he be able to rally the Tea Party folks despite his parentage and birthplace? What about the neocons? I have to admit, I like a lot of what he says - but I am not so sure he could muster the votes needed to beat the progressive juggernaut. What do you folks think?
Here are some more excerpts from that speech. You like the rhetorical flourish. Let's see how you like its substance.
The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe-the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.
To those peoples in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required--not because the communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support--to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective--to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak--and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.
Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.
Now the trumpet summons us again-not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need--not as a call to battle, though embattled we are--but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation"--a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease and war itself.
A very nice speech indeed. The only real gripe I have with it is the naivete of assuming the UN could/would accomplish these ends. The sentiments themselves, I find to be quite noble and open to dialogue. The sad fact is that we will never know if he actually meant these things, or if they we're just political legerdemain. There have been plenty of noble speeches since, if you take my meaning.
We needn't guess. Two of them JFK worked to implement.
One, he pushed for the creation of Medicare. That didn't work out initially. Republicans and Southern Democrats resisted his effort and managed to get 51 votes in the Senate against the program. Nonetheless, Medicare was created by his successor LBJ in 1965.
Two, he established the Peace Corps whose goals included providing technical assistance to developing countries.
Yeah, I read that part. Your comment was a lost puppy meandering in search of a point. Referring me back to the same comment doesn't answer my question.
Egnor's point is that anyone who says that our rights come from God these days is pilloried as a right-wing extremist. I guess that means the JFK was a right-wing extremist.
The Democratic Party used to be as American as apple pie. But then came the late 1960's, when liberals died and leftists assumed their name. Now it's the party of God-hating, baby-killing, censorship, racial entitlement schemes, involuntary servitude, and contempt for our constitutional rights.
A reference to God is a great rhetorical device. In and of itself it is just that, a piece of rhetoric. What matters is the nontrivial content of the speech.
Now go ahead and surprise me with some cogent reply, Ben.
A reference to God is a great rhetorical device. In and of itself it is just that, a piece of rhetoric.
To a Democrat, I suppose it is. And that is why it's so much acceptable for them to do it. No one condemns them for their scary "God talk" because everyone knows they don't believe in that silly nonsense. Just more crap they pretend to believe so they can get elected.
The "context" of his speech was a bunch of boilerplater pap about things that make most people feel good. However, nothing in there contradicts the idea that our rights come from God.
You must live in a bizarro world, Ben. I have pointed out three topics mentioned in the speech on which JFK acted during his short presidency. Clearly it was a program for action, not "boilerplate pap."
And yes, references to God are gratuitous crowd pleasers, but no more than that. They utterly lack substance.
God means something to Catholics. If we are to take JFK at his word on his policy, surely we should do the same with his declared motivations? As you said 'We needn't guess.'
This isn't wholly off-topic -- as the topic of the OP is God-given rights -- some recent examples of the Culture of Death, including yet another recent case (this time from Denmark) of someone in a so-called "permanent vegetative state" inexplicably “waking up” as she was about to be strip-mined for vital organs.
"Crusader, the difference between Obama and Cruz is that Cruz actually was born in another country. The hypocrisy of the right on this issue is stunning, and perfectly illustrates the racist aspect of birtherism. A white guy born in Canada is close enough, but a black guy born in Hawaii is an alien imposter."
What lying hypoctites these leftists are: 1) It was Democrats, Hillary supporters, who first raised the pseudo-issue of where Zero was born being a Constitutional disqualifcation 1a) which just shows how unprincipled -- and stupid -- Democrats tend to be 1a.1) unprincipled because they raised the objection only because he was (finally) presenting a serious challenge to her 1a.2) stupid because it was a pseudo-issuse as raised 1b) not that any of that stood in the way of the Obamanation using it as a red-herring to distract attention from the real issue: 2) The real issue is the Constitution's requirement that the President (and Vice-President) be a natural born US citizen, it doesn't give a damn whether a person is "native born" 2a) conservatives openly acknowledge that neither Cruz nor Obama are natural born US citizens 2b) "liberals" keep trying to muddy the water by talking about where someone was born 3) Ah! Ted Cruz is another "white Hispanic". We're up to two, a 100% increase, in the span of two years ... "white Hispanic" is clearly the fastest-growing demographic (despite being entirely male) 4) NO ONE knows that Zero was born in Hawaii -- the public have never seen *any* evidence of where he was born 4a) for that matter, the public have never seen any evidence that he even is a US citizen 4b) BUT, we do know that he is not, and never can be, a natural born US citizen, for his father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth 5) Obama, the lying Zero, has claimed both that he was born in Kenya and in Hawaii 5a) where he was born is irrelevant: he is not a natural born US citizen, and that is what the Constitution demands 5b> Michelle Obama is herself a "birther"
4) NO ONE knows that Zero was born in Hawaii -- the public have never seen *any* evidence of where he was born
You're running off the rails here. We've seen his long form and short form birth certificates. We've seen birth announcements from two Honolulu newspapers. Where I come from, we call that "evidence."
Ben: "You're running off the rails here. We've seen his long form and short form birth certificates. We've seen birth announcements from two Honolulu newspapers. Where I come from, we call that "evidence.""
You don't know what you're talking about, and worse, you don't want to know. Really, you're not all that different from 'Hoo' and 'KW' and 'Bachfield'
A natural born citizen, according to the language of the constitution (18th century - see 'Law of Nations', 1758), is a person that is born of both parents who are citizens in the nation (or on it's territory). It is a higher standard than normal (native - ie 'birther') or naturalized citizenship. As I understand the clause, it is to prevent divided loyalties. So, as far as I can tell Mr Obama is in direct violation of this clause if we accept his father to be Kenyan. He would be the first president to violate this clause since Chester Arthur (1881-85). His father was a British Subject, and this fact was hidden until after Pre Arthur's death. No attempt has been made to hide the fact Mr Obama's father was Kenyan. No challenge made. Very strange.
Ilion, First off, I don't think Ben is aware of the difference. That does not necessarily mean he does not want to understand it. I did not 'get it' myself, until it was explained to me by a friend who was a Major (essentially purged) in the US military until quite recently. I had understood it to be native. Once explained (and with a little research) the second generation clause makes perfect sense. I wish we had such a rule here. All that said, I agree the 'birther' issue is a distraction from the reality.
"[L]et us go forth to lead the land we love, asking his blessing and his help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.
ReplyDeleteSounds like one of those Dominionists to me.
Skeery.
Scary. Imagine what would happen if people who talked like that were ever elected to public office!
DeleteIt's a chilly thought, isn't it? Why, there's no telling these right-wing Christianists might do!
Delete* obviously, I meant to type "chilling", that being the "libera;" boo-word
DeleteHey now, folks!
DeleteI am a 'Dominionist'. I am sworn to protect this Dominion, literally. I will freely admit we are a Christian Dominion, with both the names 'God' and 'Christ' invoked in the Charters. But, we are also one of the most religiously tolerant places on earth.
Maybe the folks at the KOS need to do some homework. I mean, at least Mr Cruz is using his own name. At least his birth and parents are not some sort of state secret. At least we can see his college records.Also, I have to note that it is funny how the 'progressives' have gone all 'birther' and doomsday with Cruz. Wasn't that what they found 'crazy' and 'racist' about the 'right wingers' during the Obama campaigns?
That said, I would never vote for a dual citizenship candidate here. He/she would have to give up their US citizenship in order for me to even consider it. Not that I dislike the States, but it is a matter of divided loyalties. I don't think I am alone in that. Mr Ignatieff proved that was even true of our Liberals (party), when he was running to be their front man in our last elections. But, then I hear Mr Cruz is doing exactly that. So... I am not sure where I would stand if I were a republican (small r) and American.
He presents a conundrum for the US conservatives in that respect, I suppose.
There is also the 'electability' issue. If Mrs Clinton runs for the Dems, will that mean ALL the young women vote for her? Just to 'put a woman in the Whitehouse' an and make 'history'? I mean, it's not like something very similar did not just happen in the last election cycle. Could Mr Cruz compete with that? Could he bring back the 'Latino' vote to the red column? Will he be able to rally the Tea Party folks despite his parentage and birthplace? What about the neocons?
I have to admit, I like a lot of what he says - but I am not so sure he could muster the votes needed to beat the progressive juggernaut.
What do you folks think?
Here are some more excerpts from that speech. You like the rhetorical flourish. Let's see how you like its substance.
ReplyDeleteThe world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe-the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.
To those peoples in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required--not because the communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support--to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective--to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak--and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.
Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.
Now the trumpet summons us again-not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need--not as a call to battle, though embattled we are--but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation"--a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease and war itself.
Hoo
Hoo,
DeleteA very nice speech indeed. The only real gripe I have with it is the naivete of assuming the UN could/would accomplish these ends.
The sentiments themselves, I find to be quite noble and open to dialogue.
The sad fact is that we will never know if he actually meant these things, or if they we're just political legerdemain. There have been plenty of noble speeches since, if you take my meaning.
were *
DeleteWe needn't guess. Two of them JFK worked to implement.
DeleteOne, he pushed for the creation of Medicare. That didn't work out initially. Republicans and Southern Democrats resisted his effort and managed to get 51 votes in the Senate against the program. Nonetheless, Medicare was created by his successor LBJ in 1965.
Two, he established the Peace Corps whose goals included providing technical assistance to developing countries.
Three, he worked with the Soviets to ban testing of nuclear weapons. See Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
Hoo
Hoo, what is your point? Do you even have one?
DeleteBen
Ben,
DeleteThe point is explained at the very beginning of this comment.
Hoo
Crickets chirping.
DeleteHoo
Yeah, I read that part. Your comment was a lost puppy meandering in search of a point. Referring me back to the same comment doesn't answer my question.
DeleteEgnor's point is that anyone who says that our rights come from God these days is pilloried as a right-wing extremist. I guess that means the JFK was a right-wing extremist.
The Democratic Party used to be as American as apple pie. But then came the late 1960's, when liberals died and leftists assumed their name. Now it's the party of God-hating, baby-killing, censorship, racial entitlement schemes, involuntary servitude, and contempt for our constitutional rights.
Ben
A reference to God is a great rhetorical device. In and of itself it is just that, a piece of rhetoric. What matters is the nontrivial content of the speech.
DeleteNow go ahead and surprise me with some cogent reply, Ben.
Hoo
A reference to God is a great rhetorical device. In and of itself it is just that, a piece of rhetoric.
DeleteTo a Democrat, I suppose it is. And that is why it's so much acceptable for them to do it. No one condemns them for their scary "God talk" because everyone knows they don't believe in that silly nonsense. Just more crap they pretend to believe so they can get elected.
The "context" of his speech was a bunch of boilerplater pap about things that make most people feel good. However, nothing in there contradicts the idea that our rights come from God.
Now, is John F. Kennedy a right-wing extremist?
Ben
i find it amusing that your defense of mr. kennedy is that he obviously didn't mean what he said. that's usually called 'lying.'
Deletenaidoo
Ben:
DeleteYou must live in a bizarro world, Ben. I have pointed out three topics mentioned in the speech on which JFK acted during his short presidency. Clearly it was a program for action, not "boilerplate pap."
And yes, references to God are gratuitous crowd pleasers, but no more than that. They utterly lack substance.
Hoo
Hoo,
DeleteGod means something to Catholics. If we are to take JFK at his word on his policy, surely we should do the same with his declared motivations?
As you said 'We needn't guess.'
This isn't wholly off-topic -- as the topic of the OP is God-given rights -- some recent examples of the Culture of Death, including yet another recent case (this time from Denmark) of someone in a so-called "permanent vegetative state" inexplicably “waking up” as she was about to be strip-mined for vital organs.
ReplyDeleteBrutal, Ilion. Thank God she woke when she she did. I hope they take those quacks to the cleaners.
DeleteYes, but the quacks are just the symptom.
DeleteI could not agree more. Cogs in the machine.
Delete"Crusader, the difference between Obama and Cruz is that Cruz actually was born in another country. The hypocrisy of the right on this issue is stunning, and perfectly illustrates the racist aspect of birtherism. A white guy born in Canada is close enough, but a black guy born in Hawaii is an alien imposter."
ReplyDeleteWhat lying hypoctites these leftists are:
1) It was Democrats, Hillary supporters, who first raised the pseudo-issue of where Zero was born being a Constitutional disqualifcation
1a) which just shows how unprincipled -- and stupid -- Democrats tend to be
1a.1) unprincipled because they raised the objection only because he was (finally) presenting a serious challenge to her
1a.2) stupid because it was a pseudo-issuse as raised
1b) not that any of that stood in the way of the Obamanation using it as a red-herring to distract attention from the real issue:
2) The real issue is the Constitution's requirement that the President (and Vice-President) be a natural born US citizen, it doesn't give a damn whether a person is "native born"
2a) conservatives openly acknowledge that neither Cruz nor Obama are natural born US citizens
2b) "liberals" keep trying to muddy the water by talking about where someone was born
3) Ah! Ted Cruz is another "white Hispanic". We're up to two, a 100% increase, in the span of two years ... "white Hispanic" is clearly the fastest-growing demographic (despite being entirely male)
4) NO ONE knows that Zero was born in Hawaii -- the public have never seen *any* evidence of where he was born
4a) for that matter, the public have never seen any evidence that he even is a US citizen
4b) BUT, we do know that he is not, and never can be, a natural born US citizen, for his father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth
5) Obama, the lying Zero, has claimed both that he was born in Kenya and in Hawaii
5a) where he was born is irrelevant: he is not a natural born US citizen, and that is what the Constitution demands
5b> Michelle Obama is herself a "birther"
4) NO ONE knows that Zero was born in Hawaii -- the public have never seen *any* evidence of where he was born
DeleteYou're running off the rails here. We've seen his long form and short form birth certificates. We've seen birth announcements from two Honolulu newspapers. Where I come from, we call that "evidence."
Ben
Ben: "You're running off the rails here. We've seen his long form and short form birth certificates. We've seen birth announcements from two Honolulu newspapers. Where I come from, we call that "evidence.""
DeleteYou don't know what you're talking about, and worse, you don't want to know. Really, you're not all that different from 'Hoo' and 'KW' and 'Bachfield'
This little nut is angry.
DeleteHoo
A natural born citizen, according to the language of the constitution (18th century - see 'Law of Nations', 1758), is a person that is born of both parents who are citizens in the nation (or on it's territory). It is a higher standard than normal (native - ie 'birther') or naturalized citizenship. As I understand the clause, it is to prevent divided loyalties. So, as far as I can tell Mr Obama is in direct violation of this clause if we accept his father to be Kenyan. He would be the first president to violate this clause since Chester Arthur (1881-85). His father was a British Subject, and this fact was hidden until after Pre Arthur's death.
DeleteNo attempt has been made to hide the fact Mr Obama's father was Kenyan. No challenge made. Very strange.
Ilion,
DeleteFirst off, I don't think Ben is aware of the difference. That does not necessarily mean he does not want to understand it. I did not 'get it' myself, until it was explained to me by a friend who was a Major (essentially purged) in the US military until quite recently. I had understood it to be native. Once explained (and with a little research) the second generation clause makes perfect sense.
I wish we had such a rule here.
All that said, I agree the 'birther' issue is a distraction from the reality.