« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Obama, Rush, Hammurabi and the precepts of Jesus Christ

Rushing to challenge Obama theology results in less than excellent broadcasting

No one has been more eager than a certain Southern Baptist rooster to discredit the confession of Jeremiah Wright’s Hate America Church whose pews parked Obama butts for twenty years. Rush Limbaugh has been invaluable in this regard since we first witnessed Trinity United’s proud display tapes of the President’s former congregation rising in unison to affirm the hate. America’s greatest conservative has also, rightly, often reminded EIB listeners of Barack Obama’s own confessions in his two autobiographies, one of which was named for a Reverend Wright sermon on the “Audacity of Hope”. Moreover, Rush was right to point out that Obama’s response to a question this past week concerning why he is a Christian, failed to mention his mentor of two decades and his own musings on the same question from his books.

But Rush was wrong in his theology on what constitutes “Christian precepts” and wrong in some of his attempts to draw conclusions about what Obama meant with respect to political applications. With regard to the former, consider the following exchange:

Anyway, one of the audience members said to Obama, “Why are you a Christian?”

OBAMA:  I’m a Christian, uh, by choice. Um, you know, my family didn’t — frankly, they weren’t, uh, folks who went to church every — every week. Um, my mother was one of the most spiritual people I knew, but she didn’t, uh, raise me in the church. Uh, so I came to, to, uh, my Christian faith later in life, uh, and it was because the, the, the, precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead — being my brother’s and sister’s keeper, treating others as they would treat me. - (Full quote recited and discussed further below with the selective editing also not flattering to Rush)

RUSH:  Now, ladies and gentlemen, you have to forgive me here, but — and not disputing — President Obama says he’s a Christian, that’s good enough for me. And there’s a lot of people who do not know details of their own religious belief.  But the Golden Rule is not a precept of Christianity. (subscription may be required)

That last sentence would be news to Jesus, the 12, every Baptist since John the-, and every Christian since A.D. 33, given Christ’s directly-on-point-”Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you” declarations in the Gospels of Matthew (7:12) and Luke (6:31), as well as his Greatest Commandment, “love thy neighbor”, Deuteronomic (6:5) recitation in Luke 10.

The whole Bible defines Christian precepts

Rush seeks to justify his renunciations of Obama’s supposed theological musings by limiting Christian precepts to those that had not previously appeared in the Code of Hammurabi, and possibly, by implication, to those that had not previously been uttered in the Old Testament.

Rush was wrong.

That someone had previously advocated love of others, whether in Babylon or elsewhere, does not prevent same from being a precept of another. Moreover, Jesus Christ came to fulfill all Scripture and accepted the Old Testament writings as authoritative.

Later on, in his zeal to discredit Obama’s confession, Rush continues his ”Thomas Jefferson Bible-like” editing of Scripture with more Hammurabi-centric musing of his father and brother on the Golden Rule, also adding the liberal concept of proportionate “eye for an eye” punishment and the story of Cain and Abel, into the mix:

The code of Hammurabi is from ancient Babylon.  Many people’s first experience to the Golden Rule is actually… like my brother, David, told me that he first heard of the Golden Rule when he opened up a fortune cookie at the Purple Crackle Club in East Cape Girardeau, Illinois, and the fortune cookie had the Golden Rule in there as a fortune.  How many of you have you seen the Golden Rule as a fortune in the fortune cookie?  Now, the code of Hammurabi is from ancient Babylon, which is modern Iraq.  Ancient Babylon is modern Iraq.  You could even find the story of Cain and Abel in the Koran — sorry — the Holy Koran, as Mrs. Clinton points out.  And so was the Golden Rule.

Rush and David Limbaugh were raised Methodist in Missouri and I’m doubtful that fortune cookie theology preceded Sunday School teachings of the Golden Rule. This was not Rush’s finest hour, and a hint of the possible reason for same is found in a dismissive aside after coming back from commercial:

I’m getting a lot of e-mails that the Golden Rule is in the Old Testament, that it’s in the New Testament, but it’s the Code of Hammurabi, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, do unto others.  But the point is, I am my brother’s keeper.  There is an effort — the reason why this is important, there’s an effort by the left to say that Jesus was a socialist, and they are using this to turn many evangelical people into global warming people.  We are the stewards of the planet and so forth.

Not a complete sentence from the broadcasting master in that segment, so eager is he to dismiss reminders of his inaccuracy. Rush has a great point to make about how many liberal Christians misuse Scripture to justify Big Government. The problem is that the occasion of the President’s backyard utterances this past week do not provide the ammunition.

Moreover, no matter what “the point” is for Rush, it does not justify misstatements regarding what is or is not a Christian precept, nor does it justify leaps of logic from statements related to one’s personal confession as if the statements were being used at the time to justify policy or make theological points.

Brothers’ Keepers and selective editing

Consider Obama’s more complete answer to the “why he became a Christian” question, with those portions edited out by Rush in bold:

“I’m a Christian by choice,” the president said. “My family, frankly, they weren’t folks who went to church every week. My mother was one of the most spiritual people I knew but she didn’t raise me in the church, so I came to my Christian faith later in life and it was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead. Being my brothers and sisters’ keeper, treating others as they would treat me, and I think also understanding that Jesus Christ dying for my sins spoke to the humility we all have to have as human beings, that we’re sinful and we’re flawed and we make mistakes and we achieve salvation through the grace of God.”

Mr. Obama went on: “But what we can do, as flawed as we are, is still see God in other people, and do our best to help them find their own grace. That’s what I strive to do, that’s what I pray to do every day.’’

Rush would have been wise to have left criticism of that beautiful testimony alone, and instead shouted Hallelujah! All of the valid political and other significant “points” made with reference to the above were better made with quotes from Obama’s books, Rev. Wright, and Obama’s actual failed record. Instead, Rush edits out the portions that any regular ole’ conservative Christian makes in describing their conversion (see bold above), and goes off on a tangent with regard to one’s “brother’s keeper” that is not justified by Obama’s actual words.

Obama does not cite Cain’s post-murder delay tactic line to God when asked about his slain brother’s whereabouts.  Moreover, numerous precepts of Jesus do admonish his followers to keep one’s brother in many ways, some level of which informs Reagan’s endorsement of an American federal government safety net for the truly  needy.

Yes, the Founders, Buckley, Reagan and modern American conservatism finds much in the precepts of Christianity to justify smaller government and an aggressive national defense. And yes, liberals and Christians like Obama do often selectively misapply the teachings of Jesus, but the fact is that the philosophy behind Judeo-Christian principles of tolerance and compassion are part of what has made America the Shining City and some of those principles are liberal.

Modern day liberals have taken them too far (and have since at least the late 60s and arguably much sooner), but the better conservative argument against the political policies of the Left and Democrats is that their policies FAIL to better keep brothers because they squelch wealth creation thru denials of Liberty.

Conservatives should also point out to those on the left that argue for pacifism based on Jesus’s teachings on turning the other cheek, that Christ also endorsed the nation-state via rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s.

What Rush got right

Rush was right to make clear he was not questioning Obama’s faith and heart. Good thing, because we have no soul meter and eternity is not reserved for correct theologians. Rush was right to point out Obama’s earlier answers to the faith question with reference to his own statements in his books and to the heretical and cultish, Marxist, Black Liberation Theology sermons of Rev. Wright and his church that honored Louis Farrakhan.

I suspect Rush just got lazy. He just got married too.

P.S. His brother David needs to explain his AWOL status during Methodist Sunday School teachings on The Golden Rule.

Mike DeVine

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Charlotte ObserverThe Minority Report and Examiner.com archives

www.devinelawvista.com

COMMENTS

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    .is this: Nowhere in the bible will the “golden rule” be spelled out, and delineated as such. The closest thing is in Mark 12:30-31. When asked which of the commandments was the greatest, Christ simply pointed out that he was part of an emerging new covenant: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your strength and with all your soul. And, love your neighbor as you love yourself. There are no greater commandment than these.”

    This is “Golden Rule”-esque, but it is not the verbatim “Golden Rule”, and in that sense, Rush was right. But, I also think he would demure to your critique, as well, because, to my knowledge, he’s never claimed to be a Theologian.

  • aesthete

    The horrible misuse use of the phrase “brother’s keeper” in popular culture is sufficiently appalling to address. In addition, the injunctions that the Bible gives the church are not to be delegated to government, nor is government or society made holier or more righteous by government usurping the role of the believer in carrying out the commands to “love one’s neighbor” by providing a safety net. Forcing or “encouraging” a believer to carry out the feeding of the orphans and widows through threat of arms is not at all what the point conveyed by those passages, so in that sense, Rush is 100% correct.

  • cordpt

    “Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets.”

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    it was first recorded in the Code of Hammurabi. Rush was wrong. That the concept was previously in another text is irrelevant on the subject of what is or is not a Christian precept and it was a petty attempt to take advantage of recent Obama utterances to make otherwise valid points, as descibed.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    However, as Rush partially illustrated there are plenty of quotes out there to make the case against the Left’s selective and misinterpreted use of Scripture and Christ. Its just sad, as a Christian myself, to see Rush, also a publicly declared believer, twisted Obama’s testimony on personal faith in such an incompetent and lazy way. And as i assume you know, there is no bigger defender and lover of Rush at this site than this 20 year ditto head, half of which was as a Democrat.

  • nivlem

    the truth is…..I would not ant to be taken care of by the government the way
    so many of our citizens that live in poverty are caught up in.

    I have worked with many of the homeless trying to educate them on ways to
    handle simple things…like balancing your checkbook.

    This is where I have a problem with liberals. Matthew 7:12, to me, does not
    mean we take from others to give to those in need. It means that we treat each other with the same respect, and honor we would espect. We share with them God’s love as we would expect it from others. And it is not the gifts the liberals think it is.

    Verse 11addresses a parent , being evil, giving gifts to their children in comparison to God’s gifts. However, in my study of the bible, God never promised me gifts of housing or money or a “free kitchen”. He promises me peace with him and in myself and his love to give to others. His gift is knowing that our eternity is safe even though our time on earth may not be.
    Matthew 7:12 in my bible reads “therefore, (which follows 7:11) whatever you want man to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets”.
    When you put the both verse 7:11 and 7:12 together, my understanding is we
    want to give others the gifts of God our father – not the gifts of the evil one.

    I do not want to give to my Brothers and Sisters what the liberals want to give. I want to have the ability to give them the love directly from my heart at God gives me.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • nivlem

    of Jesus Christ, and that is why he became a Christian. Precepts are laws. I don’t know any Christians that became Christians by Precepts. They became
    christians because of God’s love and Mercy and the death of his only son, Jesus Christ. His becoming man and dying a painful death, and rising again
    to give testimony for us in our sin is why most of us are Christians.

    Many of the precepts of Jesus Christ are found in most religions. I believe Obama answered the question first addressing the precepts, and then the
    death of Jesus Christ for our sins. Most Christians would not answer in that way.

    If his answer was not in that order, I stand corrected.

  • nivlem

    the mysteries of God’s word are slow to be revealed to me, but fortunately,
    the light sometimes shines through.

    This one was a slow one. The heart so wants to give people all the earthly things they need. And it isn’t what is needed at all. So against our fleshly nature.

    Oh, well, probably a little to deep for a “One Nation Under God” march day, huh???

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    I don’t know. I was listening to the segment to which you refer, and I was struck by a couple of things: First, that President Obama did give voice to a rather (what seemed to me) heartfelt conviction about the Sacrifice of Christ, and what it meant to him, and to all of humanity.

    And, second, I was struck also by how dismissive Rush seemed of this conviction, but I also think I quickly understood his broader and more important point: Liberals all too often claim Christian Righteousness only when it’s election time, and nobody delves beneath the surface of their claim.

    But, I don’t believe Rush even brought up the lineage of the “Golden Rule” until sometime later in the discussion, and thus was not dismissing Obama’s use of the “Golden Rule” cliche crutch BY VIRTUE OF it’s roots in antiquity, but rather because there is no place specifically in the New Testament that says, “Here Follows the Golden Rule”…

    I will say Rush let his voice get ahead of his thoughts (a bit of slack I am willing to cut him as a guy who’s had a microphone and three hours of air to fill for 20-some-odd years), something that frankly doesn’t happen very often. Remember: Rush’s show is completely a stream-of-consciousness, extemporaneous sort of thing: Not a scripted, ongoing lecture series.

  • nivlem

    I had to look it up in my Funk and Wagnalls (yup, still have and use one). I think this word will come in handy.

    Funny thing, as I read the definition, liberal faces flashed in front of me…first was Alan Grayson, The next wa””’,…well, I will leave it up to your own “face flashes” when you read the F&W definition:

    1. Of small value, paltry, contemptible. 2. Petty, niggling: mean.

    Niggling was also new to me, but that is better left for another image. I am still trying to get the pronunciation of the “P” word to roll off my tongue.

    Thanks for the edumacation.

  • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

    Great finish GC.

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    ..But, “Picayune” IS a good word. “Pick-A-Yoon”. So is sequipedalian, as far as that goes… Good grief! I’ve done boxed myself in!

    And, now that I’ve seen the official definition, you are correct. Seems to pretty much sum up the Democrat party…

  • GregInFla

    They think of it that the government needs to help (witness Obama/Biden’s dismal charity giving and promotion of government programs) instead of the individual’s responsibility to directly help others (through churches and orgs like World Vision. Compassion, and even United Way and Big Bs & Ss. I wish I was in New Mexico to call Obama out on that one, as a followup question. Jesus never said the government had a role in it.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    so many testimonies over the years, I didn’t find this particular testimony in any way out of the mainstream, with respect to the particular words used. The fact that Obama did mention the spiritual parts is what is significant. Can you imagine what would have been said if he hadn’t mentioned same in any order? Moreover, many Christian’s journey begins in many ways, and certainly many in the NT, most significantly Paul himself, began his spiritual journey as Pharisee committed to precepts and laws. Again nivlim, God doesn’t require theological expertise or well-structured essays. And we can’t read hearts…

  • cwilson

    The Code of Hammurabi limited vendettas for injury or damages to be no more than equivalent (if both victim and aggressor were of the same social status; as always, a higher caste perpetrator could “get away with murder”). Prior to this, if somebody hurt me without cause, I was allowed to inflict much greater harm on them. The Code is the original “eye for an eye” type justice; while brutal to modern eyes, it was actually a fairly “soft on crime” approach, in comparison to most existing cultures. But, the rule is stated in a negative way: basically, if somebody does something bad to you, you can go ahead and do something just as bad to them — but no worse.

    Old Testament/Torah: The main innovation here was twofold: first, authority for dispensing the punishment on the aggressor was taken away from the victim; the “state” (in this early form, prior to the modern concept of a nation-state, this meant the priesthood generally or other local court system) had the sole authority to do so. (Lev 19:18) There were certain exceptions, having to do with murder, manslaughter, and “Cities of Refuge” but that’s not really germane here. However, the second innovation is more on point to this discussion: the Old Testament actually repudiates reciprocal justice: the phrase “eye for an eye” doesn’t actually appear in the Old Testament. In Jesus’ statement, “You have heard it said, ‘An eye for an eye…’” he was referring a minority sect among his contemporaries, the Saducees, who WERE arguing for such an interpretation of Old Testament verses. However, the mainstream understanding of those verses (supported by discussions in the Talmud) was that all injuries should be recompensed, not that they must be recompensed in kind. IOW, verses such as Exodus 21:23-24 are better translated (and were understood by most Jewish scholars) as: “If any harm follows, then you shall give [the value of a] life for [each and every] life, 24 [the value of an] eye for [each and every] eye, [the value of a] tooth for [each and every] tooth, ….” Otherwise, how should we interpret all the monetary damages listed for various injuries in other parts of the Torah?

    New Testament: Jesus’ statement of the Golden Rule in Matt 7:12 and Luke 6:31 (“And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise”) was an innovation in that it stated reciprocity in a POSITIVE, rather than a negative sense. The Code, and Hebrew law — and as was common in greek philosophy — were basically NEGATIVE: “Do not do to your neighbor what you would take ill from him” (Pittacus, ~600 BC). And, of course, it was implied — in its negative form — by the “reciprocal” legal codes above: Hey, if you do bad stuff to people, they (or the courts) can do exactly the same thing right back at you, or assess equivalent monetary damages. So don’t be a dope; the law guarantees you won’t like the results

    It’s interesting that at the time of Christ, one of the foremost Jewish rabbis, Hillel, stated the following: “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.” (Shabbat 31a) . That is, this scholar summed up the entire Torah as the Golden Rule, in negative form.

    So, Jesus’ statement as a positive, active command was innovative (e.g. different from preceding moral understandings): You want people to treat you well, then you must — as a command of Christ — treat others that way. So, in that sense, Rush was very wrong. While many ethical systems and religions include something like the Golden Rule — and many younger ones adopt it exactly — Jesus’ (re)statement of it was NEW. In contrast to Rabbi Hillel, when Jesus was asked to “sum up” the Torah, and state the “greatest commandment”, he gave two:

    ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matt 22:37-40)

    That second commandment is another form of the Golden Rule, in Jesus’ novel positive form. (Actually, it’s an even stronger statement: you can easily treat someone “well” — as you would want to be treated — out of duty or honor or obligation. 22:39 says you MUST, as a command, do so out of love.)

    Now THAT’s a novel idea — even 2000 years later.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • cwilson

    was called the “Bloom Picayune”. Of small value, paltry, contemptible, petty, mean…sound like any newspapers and reporters YOU know?

  • nivlem

    I did not understand that Paul considered himself a Christian and was on his “journey”. I understood it was the opposite. He was killing all Christians.

    Anyway, I still pray for Obama. Much in the same way I would have prayed for Paul prior to his conversion.

    His actions concern me far more than his words.,,,whether it be healthcare,
    jobs, his anti-Israel position, or being a Christian.

    Truth is, there is a pattern of deception. This is what causes us to doubt him,
    and why we do not believe his statement of being a Christian. We would believe many, many other people were on their “journey” – just as I am……
    but this one – I am not so sure. I realize it is not mine to judge, however,
    we are given the protection of discernment, and as far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on this one.

    Oh, yeah! I can’t find “mudgeon” in my F&W. (it is a little old) I will have to hold off on that education for another day.

  • cwilson

    reverts almost 4000 years of ethical progress: “If he comes at you with a knife you come at him with a gun. If he puts one of your men in the hospital you put one of his in the morgue. That’s the Chicago way.”

    Civilization is really a very very thin veneer over the depravity of man…

  • Remington_Steele

    I love it when Rush is on the mark, but you’re right GC, he missed the mark this time and you did a nice job explaining why. Thanks for the analysis.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    after his conversion, he was THE CHRISTIAN Apostle and missionary. Yes, I pray for Obama for many reasons and yes, we don’t have a soul meter that can read his heart nor yours and mine.

    “mudgeon is a shortening of the name of a commenter above.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    is heresy. I also think that Mormonism and any other confession that adds to the Canon technically qualifies as a cult or heresy. But I supported Romney for president because he shared the same Judeo-Christian values that inform our Funding and shares conservative political views. Not sure Obama shares those values personally.

    One other thing. While the confessions fo churches can be flawed, that does not prevent anyone directly from accepting Christ. Romney says he accepted Jesus as his savior. I believe him..

    Obama comes close to that in his ramblings, but hasn’t quite convinced me.

    One definition of Christian is that they are saved. That is God’s business ultimately.

    But another definition of Christian is that one declares the same, joins a Church, etc. Obama controls that, and by that definition, he is one.

  • penguin2

    Liberals think in terms of things, tangibles – thus housing, cars, free cell phones. Ironically, we don’t see them talking about spiritual gifts – and why don’t they? Because then they would have to acknowledge there are gifts not of this earthly realm. Ones that are tied to a Creator, One greater than ourselves.

    God offers us the intangibles of His Love, a spiritual armor, looking to Him for sustenance, not man, and I believe by following such a foundation, man is far better off and successful.

  • texasgalt

    if only just once, that he would endorse the Marxism that many think he supports. I bet he would love to come clean, but politically he obviously can’t. If he is a closet Marxist, then that would make him a very conflicted Christian.

    In light of O’s recent comments, he should extend a hand-up to his half-brother in Kenya and his impoverished aunt who lives illegally in the U.S. Assuming he believes what he said . . . It’s not like he can’t afford it, being the literary giant of a best-selling author that he is.

  • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

    Thanks for clearing it up, plus, as you can see, providing s platform for some even more interesting discussions. At Los, they’re not allowed to take Marx apart that way.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    like cap-and-trade etc, all of which is more of a disaster on its own merits than what the word Marxism would mean to the average voter. I am for branding Obama Dems as Liberal Democrats and letting that brand be the shorthand for making the GOP the new default party for average voters going forward.

    I don’t have enough information to know whether Obama should bail out his half brother or not, aunts or cousins.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    conflicts between what Christ/God requires and all economic and political systems since Eve bit the apple. America didn’t exist until 1776, and Christ didn’t demand that Rome enact the US Constitution.

  • texasgalt

    to the wisdom of the Rooster. Well reasoned.

  • aurelv

    Is he trying to out-Hannity Hannity? Perhaps Rush can apply his exegetical talents with an exposition on the Biblical teachings of divorce.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • runner12

    I agree with you. As a Christian, I think liberals often prey on our sense of compassion and generousity and use it against us to keep us supporting social programs. Christians should be about giving someone a hand-up, not a hand-out. A hand-out is easy, it requires nothing of you to give other than money. You don’t have to invest in someone or a group of people. A hand-up takes time, effort, and true selflessness. You are looking at the big picture, the future of someone’s life, not what will buy you a vote. It is important for Christians to realize that government programs actually keep the poor in their cycle of poverty. After all, if there are no government programs, the people who administer the programs are out of a job. Ask anyone who works with people in government housing and they will tell you that one of the greatest hinderances to people moving out of the projects are the people who run them. We miust be people of true charity. We must help people escape the cycle of poverty and not remain in it. Most importantly, we must point them to the God who loves them and has a plan for their life that is so much better.

  • runner12

    That would be must without the “i”

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • ceili_dancer

    Also, have you finished you RINO Manifesto diary? I know it’s hard, especially when there is no hill to die for as a moderate. You can just negotiate anything to the other side. Except maybe, backstabbing conservatives, which is the only way to keep your bipartisan bonifides.

  • ceili_dancer

    /snark. minimally

  • aurelv

    I’m waiting to post my agitprop right after the election. As fate would have it, a couple of the Tea Partiers are going to lose seats we should have otherwise won – e.g., Delaware, Nevada. And since I never want to waste an opportunity to kick someone while their down, I will post my manifesto henceforth… kind of adding insult to injury I guess.

  • aurelv

    So I went too far with my criticism by comparing Rush to Hannity? Or was it the divorce thing?

  • daledor

    I believe that Rush did go overzealous and lost some objectivity but that he was right in certain points. The more Obama speaks in detail of his beliefs the more I feel the need to pray for him. I will not judge whether he is a Christian or not – I am not God. I have and will judge actions and words because God’s truth must prevail.

    I believe that Obama is probably saved but he has had such influences around him all of his life that the ones he should call as being wrong are viewed as right and right-wrong. The thread of what he has read in the Bible is what keeps him wanting to do what is right. Like an adolescent Christian he has not matured in the faith.

    Why do I say this? Consider his testimony about Christ saving him and that we are all sinners and flawed and God wants us saved (the gist of what he said). Rush stepped into manure when he overanalyzed what Obama said – easy to do when Obama is surrounded by so many socialists. We do and should observe the need to surround ourselves with godly people rather than pseudo godly people that twist God’s Word. Oppose the wrong and pray that God will raise up godly leaders.
    God send him a wise counselor so that his doctrine can be in line with the Bible and God protect him as he grows in God and starts to reject some of his socialist friends.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    Sorry, I couldn’t resist. My inner jerk just takes over sometimes….

  • lineholder

    submission to authority, manipulating it by trying to make us feel guilty or to make us feel ashamed of it when we do try to stand up for what is right.

    They play on our moral and ethical beliefs, knowing that we won’t go out of our way to be deceitful like they are. And they can’t for the life of them understand why we would see a misuse and/or abuse of power and control as a temptation that should resisted or why we would set resisting that temptation as a goal to strive to accomplish and achieve.

    They don’t comprehend the reality of the character of God, so they can’t comprehend why we choose to hold to our moral standards, come what may come.

    I’m more than happy to be involved in teaching someone how to fish. I’ll buy them a fishing rod. I’ll help them find the bait they need to use. I’ll even drive them to a fishing pond if that is what it takes.

    But I don’t see it as being right and I don’t see it as being what God would have me to do to act as another human beings enabler that prevents them from developing the kind of strengths in their character that will let them fish all on their own.

  • realskinny

    This dishonest man promotes Marxism….The most evil ideology in history. Only Islam comes close in it’s pernicious effects upon humanity. No Marxist can be a Christian. Thou shalt not covet….Thou shalt not kill. Marxism is based on theft, enabled through tyranny and enforced by murder. If there is a God, there is a special place in Hell reserved for Marxists.

    How on Earth can this poseur talk of being his brother’s keeper? He has been a millionaire for a half dozen years. He has brothers and an aunt in abject poverty. A hundred dollars would double his Kenyan brother’s annual income for 8 and a half years. According to the public record he has never given one cent to any of them, leaving it up to the taxpayers to care for his relatives. He’s never even visited his aunt though he’s known her situation for years. My dog has more human feeling and Christian charity than this lying lowlife phony POS.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    you couldn’t present enough evidence to a court to convict them of being one!

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • runner12

    The mispelling of words is really gets on my nerves and when I see it in myself it drives me even more crazy. Just my inner type A personality coming out…..