(2007-01-31) — Under the terms of a bill proposed today by Sen. Arlen Specter, R-PA, the presidentâs role as commander-in-chief would be “redefined for the postmodern era as collaborator in chief.”
The measure comes just a day after Sen. Specter respectfully rejected President George Bushâs claim to be “the decider” on the issue of a troop surge in Iraq, saying “the decider is a shared and joint responsibility.”
“The antiquated Constitutional notion that the president is in charge of the armed forces has become obsolete if ever it was true,” the senator said. “A 21st century president isnât the sole decider when it comes to military leadership. Heâs the facilitator, the bridge builder, the conciliator, the suggester.”
Mr. Bushâs idea that he bears responsibility for troop deployments, Sen. Specter said, “is an artifact of an era long gone when people thought leadership consisted of bold principled vision, decisive action and unshakable perseverance.”
“We now know,” he added, “that true leadership in time of war means finding the least offensive, politically-expedient middle ground to allow all members of Congress to claim credit for achieving the Defense Departmentâs primary goal of keeping our armed forces out of harmâs way.”
The Pennsylvania senator said his bill will “clarify” Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution which says, “The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States…”
“President Bush has taken advantage of the gray areas and vague language of this text to bolster his own opinion that heâs in charge of the military,” Sen. Specter said. “But most legal scholars now agree that thereâs a vast difference between what the Constitution says, and what it actually means.”
77 responses so far ↓
1 camojack // Jan 31, 2007 at 7:40 am
Arlen Specter is the RINO-in-chief…
2 camojack // Jan 31, 2007 at 7:42 am
…and I actually mean that.
3 Scott Ott // Jan 31, 2007 at 7:43 am
Specter Bill to Clarify Commander-in-Chief Role…
by Scott Ott(2007-01-31) â Under the terms of a bill proposed today by Sen. Arlen Specter, R-PA, the presidentâs role as commander-in-chief would be âredefined for the postmodern era as collaborator in chief.âThe measure comes just a day after …
4 azredneck // Jan 31, 2007 at 8:00 am
And to think that GWB actually supported this idiot during his last election!!
5 Ms RightWing, Ink // Jan 31, 2007 at 8:15 am
Why donât they just place a bunch of marbles in a box and whover amongst them draws a black one gets to make the decisions that day.
It makes just as much sense as anything Arlan has to say.
6 upnorthlurkin // Jan 31, 2007 at 8:20 am
Um Yeah, with friends like olâ Arlen, who needs enemies?! In my mind this all started with the hero John McCain and his gang of 14. Let the undermining begin!
7 Darthmeister // Jan 31, 2007 at 8:22 am
Of course in Specterâs and the DimDonkâs world, when a Republican is in the White House, it would be unconstitutional if the Congress wasnât the Commander in Chief.
Naturally Congress would love the power but not the responsibility.
8 lighthorseman // Jan 31, 2007 at 8:51 am
Mr. Specter wants to trample our Constitution and there is not one Republican politician there to stop him. I donât believe there are many conservatives left in the Republican party. I stopped all of my contrubutions to the Republicans when GWB called the Minutemen vigilantes. At this rate weâll have Sharia Law classes sponsored by Arlen Specter coming to a YMCA near you soon.
9 Maggie // Jan 31, 2007 at 9:09 am
Iâm just waiting for Newt to put his hat in the ring.
Gingrich/Rice ticket anyone?
10 nylecoj // Jan 31, 2007 at 9:12 am
The buck stops…..where was that again?
11 RedPepper // Jan 31, 2007 at 9:16 am
Gee guys, you are way harsh! Whatâs the problem? I mean, the Constitution is a living document! Living, breathing … burping, occasionally …
itâs almost deserving of its own spot on the “Tree of Life” … somewhere between Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes, maybe …
12 Darthmeister // Jan 31, 2007 at 9:41 am
lighthorseman, donât you mean the YMWGLTCA … Young Men Women Gay Lesbian Transgender Christian Association?
Less emphasis on Christian, I think.
13 Darthmeister // Jan 31, 2007 at 9:44 am
RedPepper,
Youâre right, the Constitution is a living document and it can be made to say anything a generation wants. The problem is the unintended consequences of the flatulence it produces. Specterâs bloviating is a case in point.
14 Just Ranting // Jan 31, 2007 at 9:49 am
Once upon a time there was a little girl walking by a river in the winter. She saw a poisonous snake nearly frozen to death along the bank. The serpent pleaded with the little girl for help. âPlease, I need to cross the river so I can care for my little ones. The river current carried me here, and now Iâm separated from them. Please help me before I die.â
The little girl was frightened and began to turn away. âPlease, I promise not to hurt you.â Being a trusting little girl she took pity on the snake. She picked him up and placed him inside her coat and began crossing the swift and frigid river. The cold blooded snake began to warm as she made her way across. Through chattering teeth she asked, âAre you okay?â âIâm feeling much better nowâ was the cozy serpentâs reply.
As she neared the distant bank the snake turned and bit little girl, injecting his paralyzing venom into her. He slithered to the shoreline as the little girl began to sink beneath the water. âWhy would you do this? I trusted you!â âYou knew I was a snake when you picked me upâ, was the vipers only reply.
President Bush, you should have backed Pat Toomey over Arlen Specter in the primaries. You knew Specter he was a snake all along.
15 Darthmeister // Jan 31, 2007 at 9:57 am
Godfrey, crickets still chirping on those Deist quotes.
16 Maggie // Jan 31, 2007 at 9:58 am
Just Ranting…re #14……Great Analog
You always say what I would like to say if I were clever enough.
17 Chris Broe // Jan 31, 2007 at 10:01 am
The Surge is Bushâs “battle of the bulge” style gamble. Itâs late in the war and itâs all or nothing at all. The surge will be spectacularly successful in the neighborhoods where US troops clear and hold. The surge will be useless for the rest of the 99% of Iraq.
Our recent victory over the shia ambushers planning to massacre pilgrims was the first good news and on a par with our victory at Midway in ww2. Someone came forward and pointed out where and when the bad guys were staging. Thatâs amazing. One person can make a difference, even in Iraq.
I have no data to support my blog. I know nothing about Iraq, or the fighting there. None of us do. We just blog whatever makes us feel better.
Our only chance for peace in Iraq is the possibility that W has intel that he cant reveal and once peace is achieved and he tells us what he knew and when he knew it, and we all go, as a nation, “Ohhhh, so THATâS why he said this and did that and tried that.”
Then, as Iâve said all along, Bush may go down as the greatest prez since Lincoln. Iâm open minded enough to admit that. ANd of course hoping for success in Iraq.
I dont know why I post negative Iraq scenarios when I have no idea what Iâm talking about. An american thing or an [deleted] thing?
18 Maggie // Jan 31, 2007 at 10:04 am
#14…see what I mean?
Even with the live preview,I still miss a word.
Analogy not analog.
19 SassaFrassin.com » Arloon Spectre Speaks Out // Jan 31, 2007 at 10:08 am
[…] Scrappleface: Specter Bill to Clarify Commander-in-Chief Role […]
20 Just Ranting // Jan 31, 2007 at 10:17 am
Maggie,
Thanks!
JR
21 Shelly // Jan 31, 2007 at 10:27 am
“I have no data to support my blog. I know nothing about Iraq, or the fighting there. None of us do. We just blog whatever makes us feel better. ”
Finally, this admission. When it comes to war, itâs best not to go on feelings. The 99% of Iraq that you spoke of is pretty much under control. If you ever do pay attention to what is actually going on in the country, during a brief break from Bush-bashing, youâll find that the majority of the fighting is limited to a few provinces of that country. The majority of Iraqis are living better lives than they were before we liberated them, much like most Afghanis.
So sorry that your country, itâs military, and your president, are not perfect. Perhaps youâre asking for a bit much when you admittedly wonât even seek the truth.
22 Specter To Clarify Commander In Chief Role | PAWaterCooler.com // Jan 31, 2007 at 10:39 am
[…] Scrappleface… Mr. Bushâs idea that he bears responsibility for troop deployments, Sen. Specter said, âis an artifact of an era long gone when people thought leadership consisted of bold principled vision, decisive action and unshakable perseverance.â […]
23 Darthmeister // Jan 31, 2007 at 10:44 am
A-Chord, quit obssessing over the “surge”. You canât see the forest because of the trees. Like Iâve said before, the most important thing is the change in the rules of engagement. Quit handcuffing our troops … and our troops have been saying this to their commanders for a long time in Iraq. Already the change of ROE is bearing fruit now that al Maliki has removed his protective hand from the Shia militias.
BTW, just so Iâll be on record. Despite whatever victories may be won in Iraq over the next two years, the DimDonks and trolls will continue clucking their tongues saying we are losing because the effort doesnât met THEIR standard of victory. If sectarian violence is the only measure of victory in Iraq, then Spain still hasnât been victorious over the Basque Separatist terrorists who continue troubling to this day.
Consider for a moment that what constitutes peace in a Muslim countries, whose people are committed to the failing “religion of peace” ,may be far different than how westerners define “peace”. Iâm not saying Iâm satisfied with the level of violence in Iraq where Shiite cultists seem more than willing to kill their own Shiite leaders in hopes of continuing their jihad in Iraq.
Even in America there are gangs in virtually every major urban area that are creating mayhem and death EVERY DAY, yet we consider ourselves “at peace” within our own borders. Using the leftâs own past arguments about “multi-culturalism”, how arrogant of anti-war leftists to impose their western values of “peace” on the Muslim world. Isnât it apparent there is killing and maiming in Muslim countries that our armed forces arenât even in! Oh, I forgot, itâs all “Bushâs Faultâą” anyway.
BTW, the Bush Administration never ever said that we would be establishing a Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq. Weâll leave it to the Iraqi people to determine their fate now theyâve been given a free opportunity to do so. I just heard this from some lying left-wing talking head the other day. What a partisan canard.
If the Iraqi people want to follow the example of the Palestianian people in electing thugs to rule over them, than they are stupider than I thought in flushing their opportunity for freedom down the collective Islamic toilet.
24 Darthmeister // Jan 31, 2007 at 10:47 am
Ooops, a confusing read:
BTW, the Bush Administration never ever said that we would be establishing a Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq. I just heard this from some lying left-wing talking head the other day. What a partisan canard.
Weâll leave it to the Iraqi people to determine their fate now theyâve been given a free opportunity to do so. If the Iraqi people want to follow the example of the Palestianian people in electing thugs to rule over them, than they are stupider than I thought in flushing their opportunity for freedom down the collective Islamic toilet.
25 Fred Sinclair // Jan 31, 2007 at 11:40 am
That sign there on the corner is so silly, It reads “STOP” but since Iâm a good leftist member of the Democrat Party, Iâm aware (in my elitist, superior knowledge) that the sign is a real, living, breathing suggestion that has to be read in consideration of our modern, changing times.
Europe has a sign that reads “HALT” and of course the consensus of European nations, in conjunction with the United Nations, have deemed the suggestion to be an admonition to be weighed in relation to what the Middle East countries think of it and how it may or may not be found by them to be a reflection on Mohammed.
So having taken into account Europeâs opinion of our “STOP” sign laws, we certainly must run this by The Speaker of the House, Representative Nancy Pelosi and Presidential aspirant, Senator Hillary Clinton and get their imput on whether or not “STOP” signs may be part of President Bushâs Right Wing Conspiracy to impose his will on unsuspecting Americans. But, while we support our Police, we cannot in good faith, support their mission.
It should be up to Congress and the Supreme Court to rule on whether or not Bush - Hitler can impose his will, since “STOP” signs are nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. We must unite in a demonstration march and demand that there should be a gradual withdrawal of “STOP” signs, and vote to “PULL OUT” these inconvenient signs and replace all of them with “YIELD (if you feel like it)” signs.
PULL OUT, NOW!!!!
Heirborn Ranger
26 Ms RightWing, Ink // Jan 31, 2007 at 11:42 am
Once upon a time I was able to get audio for the podcast…now I canât. What am I missing here?
27 Darthmeister // Jan 31, 2007 at 11:54 am
Senator Joseph Biden in interview regarding Barack “Osama” Obama: ‘I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guyâ…
Awwww, but olâ Joeâs not a racist, SINCE HEâS A DEMOCRAT! And one has to wonder what Robert “KKK” Byrd really thinks. Forget it, I donât want to know because heâll only talk about “white n!&&#^$.”
I bet if the truth be told a lot of liberals think the same way in the darkened labyrinths of their minds. They patronize
colored, negro, Afro-, black,African-Americans because deep down inside every liberal is that little voice which says if it wasnât for guilt-ridden white liberals making it easy for black Americans, theyâd never make it on their own!Yep, keep them on the liberal plantation pulling that lever for Democrats who will SAY they will lead black Americans out of Egypt and to water but never let them drink as their true equals. Just like the Northern abolitionists during the War Between The States, all noise about slavery but rarely a one who believed the black man was truly their equal.
Iâm speaking truth to liberal morons here. Thank you Mr. Biden for showing the true colors of a “progressive” Democrat.
28 Fred Sinclair // Jan 31, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Anyone who remembers anything about World War II, or has studied anything about World War II, will understand and remember that during World War II, the Japanese developed a way to demoralize the American forces. The Japanese psychological warfare experts developed a message they felt would work.
They gave their psychological warfare script to their famous broadcaster “Tokyo Rose” and every day she would broadcast this same message packaged in different ways, hoping it would have a negative impact on American an GIâs morale.
What was that demoralizing message? It had three main points:
1. Your President is lying to you.
2. This war is illegal.
3. You cannot win the war.
Does this sound familiar? Is it because Tokyo Hillary, Tokyo Harry, Tokyo Teddy, Tokyo Nancy, Tokyo Durbin, Tokyo Kerry, TOKYO MURTHA, etc. have all learned from the former enemies of our country and have picked up the same message and are broadcasting it on: Tokyo CNN, Tokyo ABC, Tokyo CBS, Tokyo NBC, etc. to our troops.
The only difference is that they claim to support our troops before they try to demoralize them. Come to think of it… Tokyo Rose told the American troops she was on their side, also. (Author unknown)
Heirborn Ranger
29 gafisher // Jan 31, 2007 at 12:12 pm
We need a new way to designate RINOs.
I suggest the Russian “Yah,” as in “Arlen Specter, (ĐŻ)-PA.”
30 Shelly // Jan 31, 2007 at 12:32 pm
I second gafisherâs suggestion. Specter definitely has it backwards.
31 JamesonLewis3rd // Jan 31, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Good one, Scott.
That last paragraph is a slam-dunk.
I suspect there are many who actually think that way. The bogus “separation of church and state” canard comes to mind.
I donât like ____ (pick your least favorite food/person), therefore, they are _____ (pick your favorite version of crap/a liar) and, if you donât agree with me, youâre stupid because Iâm so much smarter than you. And, if you donât agree with me, Iâll call you names and whine incessantly.
32 da Bunny // Jan 31, 2007 at 12:58 pm
The spectre of Specter is a scary sight, indeed!
specter-[n.] A phantom of the dead or of a disembodied spirit; especially, one of a grisly or horrible nature; ghost; apparition.
33 Bill's Bites // Jan 31, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Specter Bill to Clarify Command-in-Chief Role…
Specter Bill to Clarify Command-in-Chief Role (2007-01-31) â Under the terms of a bill proposed today by Sen. Arlen Specter, R-PA, the presidentâs role as commander-in-chief would be âredefined for the postmodern era as collaborator in chief.â …
34 Fred Sinclair // Jan 31, 2007 at 1:37 pm
A link for:
non - Christians
Leftists
Liberals
Democrats
Socialists
Communists
“Mainstream Media” types
Most “Hollywood” types
Terrorists
Ding-bats in general
All ScrappleFace “trolls”
RINOs - (both in and out of Congress)
and “intelligent elitists” who are ‘coolâ.
http://www.elks590.org/main/cooltest.htm
Courtesy of: The Heirborn Ranger
35 onlineanalyst // Jan 31, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Sen. Specter needs to go back to school. The Constitution specifies a separation of powers for the three branches of government and defines the limits of each.
We do not need to have poll-sniffing legislators micromanaging our efforts in Iraq. Ultimately, decisions and accountability for the execution of the war fall on the Chief Executive.
Senator Specter has always relied on the World Court of opinion. He forgets to what nation and document he made his oath.
(Good one (#25), Fred!)
36 GnuCarSmell // Jan 31, 2007 at 2:32 pm
The Arlen Specter Oath of Office:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States as I wish it had been written, and various European Constitutions…”
This is also the oath that liberal judges take.
37 RedPepper // Jan 31, 2007 at 2:45 pm
gafisher #29: I love it! Just one question - how do you code that thing with HTML?
Darthmeister #27: ” … you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy … ” - Senator Joseph Biden, referring to Barack Obama.
Gee. What was wrong with Edward William Brooke III ?
Main-stream - check.
Articulate - check.
Bright - check.
Clean - check.
Nice-looking guy - check.
Not only an African-American - an African-American who was elected to the United States Senate(!) - from Massachusetts(!?!) - in 1966 !.!.!.!
Oh … wait …
He was a Republican (gasp!).
Well, I guess that explains it! We all know black Republicans canât really be black!
38 tomg // Jan 31, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Hoping our Commander of the navy can arrange for Sen. Specter to be shipped to Venezuela to strip a few powers away from Chavez. They need him much more than we do. Electing a dictator? Sheesh.
Then again, when Norway declared independence from Sweden, they turned around and asked Denmark for a prince.
So many ways to squander freedom.
39 Godfrey // Jan 31, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Hank: Godfrey, crickets still chirping on those Deist quotes.
Some of us have to work for a living, man!
Iâve responded in the appropriate thread.
Fred: God deliberately made it almost impossible for the âlearned and educated.â
Um…so you have to be stupid to be a Christian? I disagree…and I know a lot of learned, educated Christians who would also.
Ignorance is not something to be embraced, Fred. Let it go.
40 Godfrey // Jan 31, 2007 at 4:27 pm
JL3: âThe bogus âseparation of church and stateâ canard comes to mind.â (from previous thread).
ââŠthe government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religionâŠthe United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation.â
âTreaty of Tripoli, 1797 - signed by founding father John Adams and unanimously approved by the Senate.
I know, I knowâŠthe founders really wanted a theocracy but forgot to mention it in the Constitution. They must have been in a hurry.
Rewrite any history lately?
41 Hawkeye // Jan 31, 2007 at 4:34 pm
OLA #35,
“poll-sniffing legislators micromanaging our efforts in Iraq”…
I donât know why, but that phrase conjures up a comedic picture in my mind.
(:D) Regards…
42 Harry Daschle // Jan 31, 2007 at 4:42 pm
One wonders how the 453 candidates who will be running for POTUS will vote on this issue?
Iâm betting Hillary will think she is the ONE AND ONLY AUTHORITY, should she become POTUS!
43 Harry Daschle // Jan 31, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Godfree (re:41): Let me ask you one question. If you are to have someone provide a service for you, (car repair, home repair, etc), would you rather have it be a Christian, who believes they have a deity watching them and therefore will probably do a good job, or a secular humanist, who answers only to himself and his best judgement?
I will take the Christian ANYDAY!
Also, please show me the EXACT WORDS, separation of churh and state in the Constitution.
You sound like Rosie OâDonnell.
If the Fore Fathers didnât believe in God, why did they allow MOST of the buildings in Washington to include HIS name IN STONE?
44 Hawkeye // Jan 31, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Godfrey,
JL3: âThe bogus âseparation of church and stateâ canard comes to mind.â (from previous thread).
Seems I read that in #31 of this thread… Anyway, it IS bogus and your quote referring to the Treaty of Tripoli offers nothing to dispute that.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution says:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. This quite literally means that the Congress should never establish a “state religion”. The Treaty of Tripoli simply reinforces that idea.
But there is a big difference between not establishing a “state religion” and trying to eradicate all vestiges of faith from the public square. The move by some to do so, goes well beyond the meaning of Jeffersonâs “wall of separation”. In fact, it blatantly runs roughshod over the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment which says… “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.
In other words, “Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion”. The prohibition of crosses, statues, texts, emblems, etc. which bear a reference to religion is indeed a violation of the Free Exercise Clause.
Jeffersonâs “wall of separation” was meant to protect the individual and to protect religion from the government… not the other way round.
45 boberinyetagain // Jan 31, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Yâall are as funny as ever!
Scott is still, of course, the “funnier in chief” but most of the rest give me the giggles as well. (special mention to my buddy Hank)
Good to see little, if anything, ever changes, gives me the warm fuzzies for some reason.
46 Darthmeister // Jan 31, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Boy, you really are reaching Godfrey. I wonder when youâd float this one out there. The real intent of the Treaty of Tripoli” is analyzed here and placed in its proper historical context.
Though hyper-separationists downplay the significance of Article 11 appearing only in the English version of the treaty, not in the Arabic version, Iâm amazing at how they pounce on this singular document to the virtual exclusion of all other documentary evidence.
The Arabic version was translated by Joel Barlow who himself may have been a deist. Iâll give you that. It is almost certain that he authored Article 11 in the English version. We can never know his mind about his translation gloss, but apparently he and others who were anxious for peace in the “Moslem” shipping lanes and must have believed this would have helped the cause by declaring America (that is, the federal government the Muslims were dealing with) was not overtly Christian. Obviously this was an effort on Barlowâs part and that of the U.S. Congress, and to some degree John Adams (whose personal sentiments are well documented and run contrary to the interpretation hyper-seculars today try to force regarding that singular phrase) trying allay any suspicions on the part of “Musselmen” that the United States of America was engaged in or would engage in a Christian Crusade against Muslim nations on the high seas.
Put another way, it is entirely possible the phrase was inserted to placate the fears of Muslims negotiating said treaty by reaffirming that the federal government of America wasnât under the ecclesiastical control of the Christian religion (which is absolutely true, unlike Muslim governments) even though the character of Americaâs leaders, her culture, her institutions of liberty and her citizenry were emphatically Christian.
It would be wise not to ignore the sentiments expressed in the 1783 Paris Peace Treaty which ended the war between the US and Britain. The treaty was authored and ratified by John Adams, John Jay, and Ben Franklin. It begins:
In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.
It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts ….
Historical context, Godfrey. Also note, “Divine Providence” equals “most holy undivided Trinity”. Not very deistic is it?
As it was, the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli was made null and void by the Pasha of Tripoli and renegotiated as the 1805 Treaty of Tripoli after the First Barbary War, at which time the less than truthful sentiments of Article 11 was glaringly absent in both the Arab and English versions.
BTW, how many secular/atheist websites did you go through to find this “proof” on the Internet, Godfrey? Actually I find it disquieting that seculars have gone to great lengths to ignore very real historical nuances and complexities in order to ramrod their dogmatic contention that America wasnât really founded in large part by Bible believing Christians.
One treaty, the 1896 Treaty of Tripoli, which was subsequently rendered null and void, does not undue everything the American Founders have clearly proclaimed about their Christian faith and their personal belief in a Creator God Who blessed America with his Providential Hand. I find it amusing the palpable veneration seculars and atheists have for the Treaty of Tripoli is little different than what Christians have for their Bible. Think about it.
47 everthink // Jan 31, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Hey Tom Delay, aka Harry Daschle,
“MOST of the buildings in Washington to include HIS name IN STONE?”
Name one; but but donât include the Washington Monument! It wasnât built by the government, it was privately funded, and donated to the government. The Masons were the biggest contributers.
That little metal pyramid on top has four sides, whatâs on the other three?
Is it Holy Scripture, or what?
ET
48 everthink // Jan 31, 2007 at 6:47 pm
exposed
49 Hawkeye // Jan 31, 2007 at 7:26 pm
everthink #47,
“Name one”
Better yet. Check this out…
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=2441
50 Darthmeister // Jan 31, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Videoclip of Danish soldiers taking on Islamofascist Taliban in Afghanistan
neverthink: … but donât include the Washington Monument! It wasnât built by the government, it was privately funded, and donated to the government.
From Wikipedia:
Both the Washington National Monument Society and Congress held discussions about how the monument should be finished …
Construction resumed in 1879 under the direction of Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Lincoln Casey of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Casey redesigned the foundation, strengthening it so it could support a structure that ultimately weighed more than 40,000 tons …
The building of the Monument proceeded quickly now that Congress had provided sufficient funding. In four years it was finally completed.
Youâre such a obfuscating liar, neverthink. Also I have every confidence youâll try to squirm your way from beneath the following proofs of Godâs name being carved in stone on the various federal buildings in D.C.. Youâll probably claim you never explicitly said that Godâs name wasnât carved in stone in D.C., but rather you were merely challenging us to prove it.
Note: Why do Scrapplers always find themselves having to correct the twisted history embraced by atheists, seculars, and liberal trolls?
FACTS ABOUT REFERENCES TO GOD IN OUR NATIONâS CAPITAL
In the Capitol Building, in the Cox Corridor a line from âAmerica the Beautifulâ is carved in the wall: âAmerica! God shed His grace on thee, and crown thy good with brotherhood, from sea to shining sea!â
In the House chamber is the inscription, âIn God We Trust.â
At the east entrance to the Senate chamber are the words Annuit Coeptis which is Latin for âGod has favored our undertakings.â The words âIn God We Trustâ are also written over the southern entrance.
In the Capitolâs Chapel is a stained glass window depicting George Washington in prayer under the inscription âIn God We Trust.â Also, a prayer is inscribed in the window which says, âPreserve me, God, for in Thee do I put my trust.â
On the right side of the Lincoln Memorial is Lincolnâs second inaugural address. It mentions God fourteen times and quotes the Bible twice. He reflected on the fact that the Civil War was not controlled by man, but by God.
Lincoln concludes with a lament over the destruction caused by the Civil War, and appeals to charity in healing the wounds of the war. âWith malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right…â
At the Jefferson Memorial On the first panel is the famous passage from the Declaration of Independence: âWe hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.â
The third panel is taken from Jeffersonâs 1785 âNotes on the State of Virginia.â It reads: âGod who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever…â
[Sorry for the length of my last two posts, fellow Scrapplers. I tipped Scottâs jar this morning … as I have in the past.]
51 The Great Santini // Jan 31, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Darthmeister:
Your fisking of everstinkâs asinine assertions (no. 50) was well done and worth reading. Bravo!
But you donât get style points because heâs adopted the Buster Douglas boxing strategy—leading with his chin-and because, in a battle of wits with a Sicilian, your opponent must have wits, rather than being a halfwit like everstink. Sorry for the mark-down.
everstink? Accuracy? Principled, good-faith discussion, minus deceit, rants, and ad hominems?
Inconceivable!!
52 Darthmeister // Jan 31, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Dang, The Great Santini, you mean you donât grade on a curve? The ACLU will hear about this!
Insincerely yours,
Darthmeister
53 onlineanalyst // Jan 31, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Well done, Darth.
In other news (that the LSM will bury), the economy is doing very well, and powerlineblog has lots of evidence with charts to support the data.
Larry Kudlow at NROâs “The Corner” had this to say about President Bushâs visit today at the stock exchange:
On a day when the GDP report came in strong, and the Federal Reserve backed off a bit from its inflation worries to proclaim a balanced economy with growth and contained prices, President George W. Bush became only the 2nd sitting American president to visit the floor of the New York Stock Exchange.
As he moved from trading post to trading post, all the floor brokers and their assistants stopped work and started cheering and applauding.
And I mean loud applause and huge cheers.
This is a guy the mainstream media just loves to kick around. This is a guy still battling it out over Iraqi freedom, but subject to sinking polls.
But this is a guy with more character and more faith than almost anyone else in public life.
The last time he was in downtown New York was just after September 11th, when everything was devastated, including the NYSE. Now, more than five years later, Mr. Bush went back to downtown New York with a record-breaking stock market and a strong economic recovery.
Thatâs why there was loud cheering and strong applause.
54 gafisher // Jan 31, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Darthmeister #50: “Note: Why do Scrapplers always find themselves having to correct the twisted history embraced by atheists, seculars, and liberal trolls?”
Flames are said to ask much the same about moths.
55 Godfrey // Jan 31, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Harry: Iâd prefer the services of whomever was most competent. Do you ask your mechanic if he believes in God before giving him your car?
Hawkeye: “This quite literally means that the Congress should never establish a âstate religionâ.
I beg to differ: it means what it says; that religion is to be left up to the people completely, that government should not interfere. As I told Hank a few threads back: the religious framers wanted to protect religion from government while the freethinking framers wanted to protect government from religion. They came up with an admirable solution, donât you think? Why mess with it?
The Treaty of Tripoli simply reinforces that idea.
Again, we differ. The Treaty of Tripoli says nothing about establishing a state religion. Ratified by the full senate and signed by framer/president John Adams a short nine years after the Constitution itself was written, it said very clearly that the United States is not, “in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”.
These words are really quite unambiguous.
The prohibition of crosses, statues, texts, emblems, etc. which bear a reference to religion is indeed a violation of the Free Exercise Clause.
Crosses etc. are not prohibited. They are left to the people. It is only when some people try to impose their religious views on everyone else that the law intercedes, just as the law would intercede if a Muslim tried to have “Praise Allah!” inscribed on the entryway above city hall.
Our founders had good reason for keeping government out of religion and religion out of government, and so do we…whether you realize it or not.
Hank: The real intent of the Treaty of Tripoliâ is analyzed here and placed in its proper historical context.
Um…analyzed? By whom…David Barton, the amateur historian and evangelist extraordinaire?
This might be where you get a lot of your misinformation, Hank: you really should be more discerning, my friend.
the Treaty of Tripoli…does not undue everything the American Founders have clearly proclaimed about their Christian faith and their personal belief in a Creator God etc.
Of course it doesnât…why would it? No, Hank, it merely shows the mindset of the founders with regard to the separate spheres of government and religion.
Christian or deist, they cherished their religion. They also cherished democracy.
And coming from England they were all too aware that in order to keep both their religion and their democracy pure they had to keep them completely separate.
It would have been SO easy for them to add a sentence to the Constitution proclaiming the United States a Christian nation.
Youâll notice they didnât.
56 JamesonLewis3rd // Jan 31, 2007 at 8:49 pm
It never ceases to amaze me that people, who think they are so much smarter-more enlightened-than everyone else, donât see that their exaggerated revulsion at the very mention of Almighty God (or even the mere sight of His Name) is due to a deep-seated emptiness rooted in a profound sense of guilt for their inability to get beyond their foolish pride and acknowledge there is Someone greater than them, that they are, in fact, the created and not the Creator.
57 JamesonLewis3rd // Jan 31, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Itâs okay to assume what the founding fathers were thinking 250 years ago, but itâs not okay to speak of what they actually said. Convoluted logic reigns supreme.
58 Godfrey // Jan 31, 2007 at 9:32 pm
JL3: It never ceases to amaze me that people…donât see that their exaggerated revulsion at the very mention of Almighty God…
I have no revulsion at the mention of God…in fact I mention him all the time. I just donât believe in him.
But I do cherish the Constitution and Iâd hate to see it trampled just to satisfy someoneâs religious inclinations.
Itâs okay to assume what the founding fathers were thinking 250 years ago, but itâs not okay to speak of what they actually said. Convoluted logic reigns supreme.
I assume youâre talking about Bartonâs sketchy “analysis” of the Treaty of Tripoli…and I agree with you completely. The language is very clear.
59 Godfrey // Jan 31, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Hank: riveting video. I have no idea what the Danes are saying but I have a feeling the Taliban ainât gonna like it…
60 Darthmeister // Jan 31, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Of course you and other seculars think David Barton is an “amateur historian”, he used historical documentation to challenge hyper-secular dogmatism. His analysis, as well as my own are just as legitimate as the stuff which passes for “history” in secular echo chambers today. At least I come by my own understanding of founding history through personal study of source documents. Not saying my study is comprehensive, but itâs far more transparent than the cut-and-paste “scholarship” Iâm finding at most secular humanist/atheist websites. Is there an original thought at those sites, it all the same erroneous dronings?
My post #46 stand on its own merit and Iâve yet to hear of any newly discovered historical documents over the last twenty or so years which contradicts my present view of the founding era as well as the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli.
Christian or deist, they cherished their religion. They also cherished democracy.
Yes indeed that did. And in case it excaped your notice, I made that point on the D.C. Rally thread. Thatâs precisely why I posted what John Adams (an eyewitness to the founding era who has far more credibility than any secular historian today) witnessed:
âWho composed that army of fine young fellows that was then before my eyes? There were among them Roman Catholics, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anabaptists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists, Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socianians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists and Protestants who believe nothing. Very few, however of several of these latter species; nevertheless, all educated in the general principles of Christianity, and the general principles of English and American liberty ⊠And what were these general principles? I answer, the general principles of Christianity in which all those sects were united ⊠in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence. Now I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system ⊠I believed they would never make discoveries in contradiction to these general principles.â Adams reminding Thomas Jefferson in a letter dated June 28, 1813:
“…all educated in the general principles of Christianity, and the general principles of English and American liberty”. Why do you continue to deny the former while enthusiastically embracing the latter. In Adams mind, as well as many other founders, the two are inseparable here in America.
Crickets still chirping.
61 Darthmeister // Jan 31, 2007 at 9:50 pm
It almost sounded German at times, Godfrey. I think the terms “kicking Islamofascist arse” and “die you Taliban pigs” may have cropped up a few times.
62 Godfrey // Jan 31, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Hank: Of course you and other seculars think David Barton is an âamateur historianâ, he used historical documentation to challenge hyper-secular dogmatism.
No…it has more to do with the fact that heâs, well…an amateur historian. I.e. he doesnât have any sort of degree in history. Heâs earned a BA in religious education but that seems to be about it. He has “no academic qualifications in history”, according to his Wikipedia entry. He is, therefore, an amateur historian.
Is there an original thought at those sites, it all the same erroneous dronings?
I canât speak to the sites without knowing which ones you visited. Naturally I surf the web to research topics of interest to me (as Iâm sure you do) but I tend to get my information from books.
…I made that point on the D.C. Rally thread. Thatâs precisely why I posted what John Adams etc.
Please also note that I never said John Adams was a deist..only that he had some interesting quotes on religion. I only quoted him because you brought him up.
In fact folks seem to be ascribing a lot to me that I didnât say…up to and including the idea that the founding fathers were atheists (someone else said that, not you). So let me state my position clearly. It is this and only this:
The founders, mostly religious men, nonetheless saw the need to keep religion and government completely separate.
The only question you and I should be debating here is the degree to which that has been/should be carried out. I think it should be carried out to the letter. Why? One of the reasons is that we can see from numerous examples elsewhere in the world and throughout history that religion in public life has a very insidious creep factor. Today it may be your version of Christianity, tomorrow it may be someone elseâs. Religion and government have a way of becoming authoritarian.
Everyone as the constitutional right to affirm his faith as often and as loudly as he likes. Contrary to JL3âs little straw man above, I wouldnât have it any other way. Sing it from the rooftops. I mean that; itâs your right, and a hard-won right at that.
I also understand why some religious folks feel like their religion is being attacked and I understand the inclination to fight against any perceived attack. But trying to mix government and religion is not the right way to do that.
As the founders knew all too well, the government should never in any way address religion or religious speech, whether to prohibit it or encourage it. It is simply a bad idea.
The framers left religion as a private matter, as it should be.
63 Darthmeister // Jan 31, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Feeling the way you do about strict separationism, then letâs get atheistic fundamentalism out public life since to me it “has a very insidious creep factor.” I think many other Scrapplers here would agree.
As history attests to, in less than one century the cult of atheism (cloaked as Marxism/secular socialism) has been far more inimical to the cause of life and liberty than just about any other philosophy of life.
Donât weasel out of it. I already know your excuses and denials. It wonât work, particularly if you insist on playing this game in the manner that you have. Creep factor indeed. You are blind to the fact that youâve been scrupulously religious in advancing your world view. Every person is “religious”, the difference is some people are honest enough to admit it. And paaahlease donât bore me with an outdated dictionary definition.
64 everthink // Jan 31, 2007 at 11:00 pm
âI go away for supper, and return to find that Henry, the perpetual hand waiver has answered a question I asked Harry Daschle, an individual who has trouble not parroting half-truths that the religious right, neo-cons, and other right-wing fringe groups are so widely known for trafficking. My hope was to encourage simple Harry to check the facts before he speaks, instead of just blurting out stupid stuff like so many here.
Of course, the âusual suspectsâ are doing âhigh fivesâ and hand stands because being both, dim-witted and mischievous, the think a great victory has be achieved for morons everywhere, especially in this time of their greatest need.
Harry, I canât give you a good grade if you let somebody else do your assignments. Henry, please, wait until your turn to answer, you are ruining it for all those who truly want to learn!
Henry, did I ask Harry to Google his answer? No, I did not!
Having been stationed for three years at Ft. Belvoir, VA with duties previously described I have spent a good deal of time in DC, so of course I knew that engravings of the type to which Harry referred.
If you recall, I have told you all previously, I flown in Army One over the Washington Monument, I have seen the metal pyramid on its top.
I was, however, apparently incorrect, when I said the Washington Monument was privately funded. Even though that was the way it was intended.
Santini, hold onto that motor vehicles deal you have. I can see you have a significant problem with contract law.
So, I will conclude this matter by recalling my inspiration Thomas Payne (The Medal of Honor recipient; not, Thomas Paine the pamphleteer)
Your for truth and justice,
ET
65 everthink // Jan 31, 2007 at 11:07 pm
âChristian or deist, they cherished their religion.â
Henry, what religion does a deist cherish?
See what I mean Harry; donât just follow Henry into the darthness.
ET
66 Darthmeister // Jan 31, 2007 at 11:09 pm
And lest you are tempted to play the semantics game, let me put it this way: You advocate even more secular government, but it is precisely the most secular governments in recent history that have proven to be the most murderous and the most threatening to the rights of man. Or are you going to claim the Soviet Union, Cambodia, China and other secular regimes were actually religious fundamentalist governments? Yep, there is some serious “creep factor” in light of this self-evident truth.
And even more secular American government would pose even more threats to the American way of life. You think the U.S. Constitution is going to stand in the way of a liberal atheist or a secular progressive government if it wants to impose its utopia “for the greater good”? Let the bloodletting begin!
67 everthink // Jan 31, 2007 at 11:18 pm
I do so hope you will forgive a few omissions here and there. Even though I do have a tenancy to do that, I was particularly rushed tonight.
68 RedPepper // Jan 31, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Godfrey: Even though I no longer work for a living, I still have a few things that I need to pay attention to occasionally besides the debates (and other happenings) on Scrappleface. That being the case, I canât devote the requisite time to fully discuss the subject of the U.S. Constitutionâs guarantees with respect to religion, and how they have been interpreted. At least, at this point.
However. I would like to make one or two brief observations.
First: if you think that the Supreme Courtâs repeated, obsessive picking at this issue for over half a century has resulted in keeping “religion and government separate”, I advise you to drop that gnat before you choke on it! Help yourself to another camel instead!
Or perhaps, in your view, SCOTUS is not a part of our government?
Second: the Constitution does not give the Supreme Court ultimate, unquestionable authority over every aspect of our existence (even if they do tell us, and themselves, that it does!). This is a problem that extends to many more issues than religion (no disrespect to, or trivialization of, religion intended).
Third (and last): FWIW, I have not been a practicing member of any organized religion since my teens … which I mention only because you might otherwise think that my opinion is colored by personal concerns of that nature.
Somewhere down the road, perhaps Iâll have more to say.
69 everthink // Jan 31, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Henry, thatâs why we have a federal court system. If anyone tries to bypass that system, they will be in violation of the constitution!
Constitutional issues are now being raised in congressional committees. Soon, I expect, we will see how it is supposed to work.
70 R.A.M. // Feb 1, 2007 at 12:54 am
everstink: Let me answer for Harry, since he and I are the same person :lol:. I have been to Washington at least 4 times in the last 9 years. I have seen the buildings myself. I guess you want me to apoligize for Hank and Hawkeye beating me to the answer(s), it is just I have other things to do in life than live on the computer as you do.
I have also been to Philly twice in the last several years. On one ocassion I met with Camojack. The second trip I was to meet with Camo again and Hawkeye, but was too sick on that occasion.
I mention Philly as there are signs there as well of the founders belief in God. I was also in the Army, 1972-1978. I only mention that because you seem to talk about your service CONSTANTLY, and if you are like most libs, (and we all know you are), I must let you know I served or my opinion is moot,—right?
As for Godfree: I do not have to ask my mechanic if he believes in God, I KNOW he does! That is why I use him! I try to give ALL my business to believers in JESUS! I KNOW God has lead me to them!
Godfree, you still didnât tell me where the words, “Separation of Church and State” is in the Constitution. Thatâs alright though, I already know—-they are NOT there!
BTW, the reason for the “Harry Daschle” moniker is, I have done something to my laptop PC that, several weeks back will not let me sign on as R.A.M., so I resubscribed to Scrappleface and used that name. I can sign in as R.A.M. fine on this desktop—-go figure?
Now, since I explained myself to the troll and Godfree, (NO, I donât consider you a troll Godfree, just misguilded), I am through answering the lesbian, nazi, troll. I just donât have time for “stumbling blocks”!
71 R.A.M. // Feb 1, 2007 at 1:09 am
One last thing troll: re:64, You said your hope was to encourage me to check out the facts before spounting stupid stuff,——what, like the stupid thing you said about the Washington Monument being privately funded?
Sounds like you are calling yourself stupid—you arenât John Kerry-are you?
I guess there is truth to the adage of when you point a finger, there are three others pointing back at you!
The most amazing thing though is you made both comments on the same thought—#64!!!!
Stuck on stupid—are we?
72 Darthmeister // Feb 1, 2007 at 5:43 am
The founders, mostly religious men, nonetheless saw the need to keep religion and government completely separate.
Wrong. The founders, mostly Christian men, nonetheless saw the need to keep Congress from passing laws establishing a religious sect as the official state religion.
Anything beyond that is unconstitutional and much of what the Supreme Court has ruled in this regard is a tyrannical affront to free religious thought. A branch of the federal government has despotically set itself up as the arbiter of public expressions by incrementally excluding one philosophy of life (Christianity) while embracing another (atheism).
Secularism is not neutral with respect to the question of what constitutes religious thought or how much influence that kind of thought should have on our public institutions since secularism itself is a component of more virulent forms of atheism. The more secular the institutions of a government becomes, by definition the more atheistic it becomes.
How else do you get the ridiculously twisted Supreme Court ruling in the Santa Fe v Doe case where our esteemed and brilliant jurists determined itâs unconstitutional for a voluntary, student-led prayer to be given before a football game because the PA system was purchased in part with federal money? What laughable insanity and so typical of secular despots. If the 20th Century taught us anything, these are the people we must fear here in America, maybe even more than Islamofascists, secular despots.
73 Darthmeister // Feb 1, 2007 at 6:05 am
San Francisco Mayor Gavin “Homosexual Marriage” Newsomâs re-election campaign manager resigned Wednesday after confronting the mayor about an affair Newsom had with his wife while she worked in the mayorâs office, City Hall sources said.
Alex Tourk, 39, who served as Newsomâs deputy chief of staff before becoming his campaign manager in September, confronted the mayor after his wife, Ruby Rippey-Tourk, told him of the affair as part of a rehabilitation program she had been undergoing for substance abuse, said the sources, who had direct knowledge of Wednesdayâs meeting.
Whatâs this got to do with anything? Clearly Newsome is a progressive Democrat. Heâs a misunderstood pioneer merely acting out the 2016 Democratic Party Platform. Besides, who really got hurt in all this, except for the feelings of some thin-skinned husband who canât trust his own wife? Bunch of Victorian prudes. Sheesh.
74 RedPepper // Feb 1, 2007 at 7:31 am
Good Morning, everyone!
While the case itself is a farce, the larger context is a tragedy.
The current self-destructive misdirection of energies in black ghettoes cannot be explained by a “legacy of slavery” or “racism.” … a virtually identical pattern of self-destructive attitudes and behavior has been found among British lower-class whites … What the two self-destructive communities on opposite sides of the Atlantic have in common is hearing a steady diet of propaganda blaming all their problems on others, and depicting “society” as determined to keep them down, regardless of anything they might do to try to lift themselves up.
- by Thomas Sowell .
75 Darthmeister // Feb 1, 2007 at 7:57 am
SUNDAY HERALD SUN
A ROW has erupted over Muslim-only washrooms at La Trobe University, Australia, that can be accessed only with a secret push-button code.
Muslim students have exclusive access to male and female washrooms on campus, sparking claims of bias and discrimination. The university and Islamic leaders have defended the washrooms as vital to Muslim studentsâ prayer rituals.
Australian Family Council spokesman Bill Muehlenberg said concerns over the exclusive facilities were valid. âDo we have a Christian washroom or an atheist washroom?â he said. âThe whole thing is madness.â
Mr Muehlenberg said the separate facilities were divisive. âIf Muslims are saying âwe are good Australians and want to integrateâ, why are they insisting on separate washrooms?â he said.
Indeed, what maddening insanity is occuring in the name of multiculturalism. Typical liberal dhimmie behavior, kowtow to apartheid Muslim demands lest they bomb your house or torch your car.
76 everthink // Feb 1, 2007 at 11:18 am
RAM,
You say: âI am through answering the lesbian, nazi, troll. I just donât have time for âstumbling blocksâ!â And, you ask me: “Stuck on stupidâare we?”
Oh, but RAM, you ARE a âstumbling blockâ to both Godfrey, and me. “What a hateful heart you have. Where is your âFruit of the Spiritâ? Your witness is destroyed!
II Tim 3:1-5.-âThis know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their ownselves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce- breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.â
If I was really a Nazi I think we would have much less disagreement. I have no idea why you would refer to me as âlesbianâ; but you can feel free to call me troll, and I in the same spirit will call you wacko. Deal?
Maybe to avoid confusion in the future, I hope you will take this as I mean it, why donât you just RAM it?
ET
77 Darthmeister // Feb 1, 2007 at 4:36 pm
II Tim 3:1-5.-âThis know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their ownselves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce- breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.â
This verse is clearly describing rebellious liberal to me. I canât believe you posted it, neverthink. Particularly the parts about covetous, lovers of self, blasphemers, unholy, without natural affection, false accusers, traitors, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof.
Yep, definitely Islamofascists, pagans, liberal seculars … and a few bad apple conservatives who debase themselves like liberals.
You must log in to post a comment.