In support of Obama -

[BuzzKill]

The following is an Obama supporter's blog.  I ran across it looking to see if the whitehouse insider had anything new up. I found this interesting.

http://newsflavor.com/politics/us-polit ... -god-rise/

Many times in the history different scientists, historians, theologists, politicians and philosophers were talking about "the coming of a new age"…

White House Insider: Obama’s New Age? The Sun God Rise!

White House Insider: Obama’s New Age? The Sun God Rise!



Image via Wikipedia

After long terrible rule of George Walker Bush the times have changed significantly.

Many times in the history different scientists, historians, theologists, politicians and philosophers were talking about “the coming of a new age”…

Now it’s year 2011. and we can say that the time of the new Aeon has come!

Recent events in the USA and in the rest of the world all point to the same conclusion;

We are approaching New Age, New Aeon.

Biblical scholars together with Jewish, Muslim and other theologists all agree that universal time of peace and brotherhood; new age without crime, disease and poverty is approaching and that Obama (Sun God) is to play key role in the political and scientific transition from the age of pain to the age of Peace.

First time in history we have a President who is more than just a president of a USA, he is a leader of the world and he will probably unite the world in the never ending fight against evil tyranny of powerful corporations and interest group.

Yes, Barack Obama is just a servant, he is not the all powerful ruler of the planet Earth… For now…

Husein Obama will break his chains eventually, like Horus, he will rise beyond the simple comprehension and help the world to accept new values, new rules for the new Aeon.

What do you think, is US President Barack Obama the leader who will introduce New World Order to the Nations of the Earth?


Read more: http://newsflavor.com/politics/us-polit ... z1Q0kUWYit

From a Christian perspective this kind of language is extremely concerning - but it ought to be concerning to anyone with any understanding of history.  Why does the left tend so strongly to creating "messiahs"?  

I recently read Ann Colters newest book b/c I understood it was well researched and footnoted and dealt with a good deal of history which I have always found interesting. I didn't agree with all she had to say and I wish she was less snarky, but she did in fact make several very valid points. This blog is a perfect example of one of her major points: Democrats like to create god-like personas for their political leaders and often use worshipful language in describing them and will become enraged at moderate and fully truthful criticism of them. You simply don't see anything like this from the right.

[Shadyacres]

Are you kidding?  Who has been worshipping our late senile toady to the Bush family, Ronald Reagan, at every opportunity?  In fact that crazy mormon woman reminds me of Nancy Reagan.  The democratic party certainly has no monopoly on wacko mormons, most of whom I believe are in the other camp.  This looks like a hoax to me, created by the right to discredit the left.  We've all heard it before, Obama is the antichrist and wants to rule over the "New World Order".  And destroy Christianity by removing prayer from schools and allowing them to teach evolution.  This woman's blog conforms to the way the right frequently sees the left, but not to how the left actually presents itself, in general.

[Wh??ter]

Take it easy, Shady, we're just having a dialog.  Try not to get too upset just because Buzzkill disagrees with you.



...

[BuzzKill]

I can't figure out what your talking about when going on about a crazy mormon woman.  I will say this does have the smell of satire about it and this might be what it is; however, I have read bits of this person's blog over the past few months and they do not generally seem to be using satire - they seem to greatly despise all Obama critics and to greatly admire the man themselves; That said - this could be someone pretending to be them, just as they sometimes attempt to pretend to be the whitehouse insider.  Still, the point that the left makes gods of a sort out of their leaders, (FDR, JFK, O) where as by contrast, the right might like and respect theirs, they do not view them as infallible or god-like is an apt and valid observation.

[Wh??ter]

I can't figure out what your talking about when going on about a crazy mormon woman.  I will say this does have the smell of satire about it and this might be what it is; however, I have read bits of this person's blog over the past few months and they do not generally seem to be using satire - they seem to greatly despise all Obama critics and to greatly admire the man themselves; That said - this could be someone pretending to be them, just as they sometimes attempt to pretend to be the whitehouse insider.  Still, the point that the left makes gods of a sort out of their leaders, (FDR, JFK, O) where as by contrast, the right might like and respect theirs, they do not view them as infallible or god-like is an apt and valid observation.

Shady is more than a little "disorganized" shall we say.



...

[BuzzKill]

I think I figured out the mormon woman comment. Your talking about the picture of the woman that says something about being a mormon under it? That is an add of some kind. I see these on FB and some of the blogs. I have never clicked on it to see just what they are advertising but I imagine it is the LDS in general or maybe a mormon match-making service or something like that. But anyway, it has nothing to do with the content of the blog.

[Shadyacres]

I think I figured out the mormon woman comment. Your talking about the picture of the woman that says something about being a mormon under it? That is an add of some kind. I see these on FB and some of the blogs. I have never clicked on it to see just what they are advertising but I imagine it is the LDS in general or maybe a mormon match-making service or something like that. But anyway, it has nothing to do with the content of the blog.

Yeah, my mistake about the mormon woman, it was just an add.  9:30 am is early for me.  Comment about Reagan still applies though.

[BuzzKill]

I think I figured out the mormon woman comment. Your talking about the picture of the woman that says something about being a mormon under it? That is an add of some kind. I see these on FB and some of the blogs. I have never clicked on it to see just what they are advertising but I imagine it is the LDS in general or maybe a mormon match-making service or something like that. But anyway, it has nothing to do with the content of the blog.

Yeah, my mistake about the mormon woman, it was just an add.  9:30 am is early for me.  Comment about Reagan still applies though.

I understand why you'd make this argument. I expected someone would. It is true that the conservative voter remembers Ron with gratitude and respect. But really, this goes to my point better than you'd first think. As much as the man was admired and appreciated you never saw conservative commentators speaking of a thrill running up their legs (or anywhere else) when listening to him speak - and he did give some darn good speeches.  You'll never find any video of people crying and swooning in his presence. There were no parents or "educators" teaching children to sing songs to his glory, marching to his name, or evoking his name in prayer.  You can find all of this with alarming frequency involving Obama. In his case, the liberal tendency to deify their leaders has come to an excessive and disturbing extreme - and comparisons to the rise of various totalitarian dictators is very apt.  I am not trying to argue that we are on the edge of some sort of government melt down and take over (not at this time anyway) but I am saying this is alarming and needs to be honestly considered in light of all other such liberal love affairs in history. Blind devotion is dangerous.

Google Obama+worship

http://youtu.be/jp2VFN-w9d0  *

http://youtu.be/SVmf1F5wmt8

http://youtu.be/gXB_rSBfCEU

Slightly related but something all should be aware of: http://youtu.be/RtW0G1akjXA  

Now, I understand most 'roun here are more liberal than conservative. I realize most vote democratic if they vote at all. I understand your natural bias and sympathies. I hope that this will not keep most from understanding that there is no way republicans would respond this way to even one as respected as Regan. And if Dubya had been hanging out with rapid race baters and haters the republicans would have risen up in outrage.

* while marching in they are chanting: Alpha, Omega.  This is how Jesus refers to Himself in Revelation 22:13

[Anne Bonney]

I recently read Ann Colters newest book

There's your first mistake.  She's nothing but a fading attention whore who exists entirely to fan the flames of true believers, such as yourself (NOT meant in a derogatory sense - at all!)  It's disgusting that she preys on the fears of good people, such as yourself.  Stop listening to or reading her.

Democrats like to create god-like personas for their political leaders and often use worshipful language in describing them and will become enraged at moderate and fully truthful criticism of them. You simply don't see anything like this from the right.

Sorry, but................................BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!!!!!!!

[deep breath]


BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!!!!!!!

Surely you can't be serious!!!

Projection is a wonderful thing.

***edited to add:  I'm not saying that there isn't valid criticism of Obama because there sure as hell is, but......wow.

[BuzzKill]

I'm very serious.

Find me a tape of a crowd of people (or even a hand full) in tears at the site of Dubya, (or any conservative leader) speaking of thrills coursing along their body parts when he speaks, singing worshipful songs of praise to him, using Messianic titles to reference him and lifting up prayer to him, and I might think you have a point.

Colter is not one of my favorite commentators. I don't have the low opinion you do, but she is not a favorite. I have never before read anything she wrote. I wanted to read this one because of the history she was said to have included and how well research it was said to be. All true enough; She did make a number of very valid and interesting points. I simply don't enjoy her snarky sniping. I think it is more degrading to the overall message than in any way clever or witty.  There is another book of similar theme I liked much better. It has a more scholarly tone with enough true wit to make it an enjoyable read: Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning by Jonah Goldberg

[Anne Bonney]

I'm very serious.

Find me a tape of a crowd of people (or even a hand full) in tears at the site of Dubya, (or any conservative leader) speaking of thrills coursing along their body parts when he speaks, singing worshipful songs of praise to him, using Messianic titles to reference him and lifting up prayer to him, and I might think you have a point.

Well that was easy.  I bring you the Bush Youth, unedited version and one of the scariest things I have ever seen....

http://http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2c7_1173547096

Fun Fact:  the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge wasn't even added until 1954, under pressure from The Knights of Columbus (see below).  It was not there in the original version, so no one is trying to "remove God" from the Pledge.  Merely trying to restore it to as it was written and intended, by a dirty socialist by the way (see below).

Now, the admittedly slightly audio edited but (I maintain a more accurate depiction) here...

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbkjw__Phz4

That was a snippet.  There was MUCH more.

Colter is not one of my favorite commentators. I don't have the low opinion you do, but she is not a favorite. I have never before read anything she wrote. I wanted to read this one because of the history she was said to have included and how well research it was said to be. All true enough; She did make a number of very valid and interesting points. I simply don't enjoy her snarky sniping. I think it is more degrading to the overall message than in any way clever or witty.  There is another book of similar theme I liked much better. It has a more scholarly tone with enough true wit to make it an enjoyable read: Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning by Jonah Goldberg

ugghhh.........Jonah Goldberg.  You're right, he's not the attention whore that Coulter is, but he's just as off base in his assertions.  And playing on the same fears.


http://http://oldtimeislands.org/pledge/pledge.htm

Emphasis and red comments, mine.

The Pledge of Allegiance
A Short History
by Dr. John W. Baer

Copyright 1992 by Dr. John W. Baer

Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).

Francis Bellamy in his sermons and lectures and Edward Bellamy in his novels and articles described in detail how the middle class could create a planned economy with political, social and economic equality for all. The government would run a peace time economy similar to our present military industrial complex.

The Pledge was published in the September 8th issue of The Youth's Companion, the leading family magazine and the Reader's Digest of its day. Its owner and editor, Daniel Ford, had hired Francis in 1891 as his assistant when Francis was pressured into leaving his baptist church in Boston because of his socialist sermons. As a member of his congregation, Ford had enjoyed Francis's sermons. Ford later founded the liberal and often controversial Ford Hall Forum, located in downtown Boston.

In 1892 Francis Bellamy was also a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association. As its chairman, he prepared the program for the public schools' quadricentennial celebration for Columbus Day in 1892. He structured this public school program around a flag raising ceremony and a flag salute - his 'Pledge of Allegiance.'

His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans.  (the horror!!) [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]

Dr. Mortimer Adler, American philosopher and last living founder of the Great Books program at Saint John's College, has analyzed these ideas in his book, The Six Great Ideas. He argues that the three great ideas of the American political tradition are 'equality, liberty and justice for all.' 'Justice' mediates between the often conflicting goals of 'liberty' and 'equality.'

In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.

In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.   (A no-no according to the Constitution)

Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.

What follows is Bellamy's own account of some of the thoughts that went through his mind in August, 1892, as he picked the words of his Pledge:

    "It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...

    The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?

    Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity.' No, that would be too fanciful  (or in current terms too much "intellectialism", which really confounds me.  Why is intelligence seen as something to be feared and derided now?  Could it be that the more education and intelligence one gains, the more they see that the Emperor has no clothes?), too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all...

If the Pledge's historical pattern repeats, its words will be modified during this decade. Below are two possible changes.

Some prolife advocates recite the following slightly revised Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, born and unborn.'

A few liberals recite a slightly revised version of Bellamy's original Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.'

[BuzzKill]

Anne - this is serious now - there is a huge and very important difference in praying For the president, and praying TO him!

Christians are instructed to pray for their national leaders (and their enemies too BTW) but to offer prayer to none but God in Jesus' name.  Now, clearly those praying to Obama and using Messianic titles to refer to him are not Christian - but this is not the point. The point is, there are people who respond to him in a spiritual way - they cry and swoon at his public appearances; they sing anthems to him and pray to him; they not only fail to see any fault in him they become very agitated and even outraged if anyone else does . . . All this is very dangerous.  And you can not find an example of conservative voters responding like this to even their most respected persons.

I have no idea why you have the pledge of aligence thing posted here - if it relates to the topic you'll need to school me on how so. I will say tho, that nothing in the US Constitution says there can be no public prayer. Clearly the prohibition against the establishment of a church state has nothing to do with prayer in public places or government offices as until very resent history (my own life time) prayer in school was common and congress had prayer before every session. In our early history school children were taught to read using the Holy Bible.  What the Constitution forbids is establishing a state church - Congress can not pass a law declaring the United States a Catholic or a Protestant nation. It was never intended to strike God from the public discourse or reverence to Him from public life, but rather in recognition that Congress should never force a national religion on the states.

[Froderik]

Anne - this is serious now - there is a huge and very important difference in praying For the president, and praying TO him!

 :notworthy:  :tup:

[Froderik]

Christians are instructed to pray for their national leaders (and their enemies too BTW) but to offer prayer to none but God in Jesus' name.  Now, clearly those praying to Obama and using Messianic titles to refer to him are not Christian - but this is not the point. The point is, there are people who respond to him in a spiritual way - they cry and swoon at his public appearances; they sing anthems to him and pray to him; they not only fail to see any fault in him they become very agitated and even outraged if anyone else does . . .  

 ::puke::

[Froderik]

I have no idea why you have the pledge of aligence thing posted here - if it relates to the topic you'll need to school me on how so. I will say tho, that nothing in the US Constitution says there can be no public prayer. Clearly the prohibition against the establishment of a church state has nothing to do with prayer in public places or government offices as until very resent history (my own life time) prayer in school was common and congress had prayer before every session. In our early history school children were taught to read using the Holy Bible. What the Constitution forbids is establishing a state church - Congress can not pass a law declaring the United States a Catholic or a Protestant nation. It was never intended to strike God from the public discourse or reverence to Him from public life, but rather in recognition that Congress should never force a national religion on the states.

I didn't want to say the pledge when I was in public school (for what I saw as political reasons). They didn't throw me out of class for not saying it, but said I had to stand up. I kind of thought that was bullshit, but whatever...at least they didn't try and force me to say it.