Archive for January 23, 2011

Hillbuzz has come out with an interesting theory as to why president Obama’s doesn’t authorize the release of his birth certificate.

As in, start asking WHY Obama won’t show his birth certificate — which is a ridiculous thing to refuse to show — and instantly the media calls you a “Birther!” and accuses you of buying into the conspiracy that Obama was born in Africa or maybe Vancouver. It was a great strategy on Axelrod’s part that kept the truth from being revealed for over three years now.

All of those conspiracy theories about Obama not being naturally born were ginned up to keep people from ever focusing on the more mundane, less sexy truth: that Obama failed to change his name BACK to Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. after it was changed to Barry Soetoro in the 1970s.

He tried gaming the system by applying for college and all of his financial aid and special treatment with an Indonesian name, but then also wanted to use the blacker sounding “Barack Hussein Obama” name when that suited him to.

An interesting theory, it is certainly possible that there is some embarrassing thing on the official doc that could be there, but in terms of the constitutional question that doesn’t matter. As long as he is born in the US it doesn’t matter if his legal name is Merlin the happy pig. Born in the US, that ends the debate.

Now Granted Abercrombie has pretty much made himself look a fool, to wit:

Abercrombie said on Tuesday that an investigation had unearthed papers proving Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.

He told Honolulu’s Star-Advertiser: ‘It actually exists in the archives, written down,’ he said.

But it became apparent that what had been discovered was an unspecified listing or notation of Obama’s birth that someone had made in the state archives and not a birth certificate.

And in the same interview Abercrombie suggested that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.

He said efforts were still being made to track down definitive vital records that would prove Obama was born in Hawaii. emphasis mine

Excuse me? You’re the Governor of the state, President Obama is likely the most famous person ever to be born in the state and “efforts are being made”? I’m sorry that just sounds like nonsense, either he was born there or he wasn’t and either the papers exist or they don’t. It makes one look a fool to say “efforts are being made”. This isn’t raising the U.S.S. Arizona or rebuilding ground zero. It is getting a piece of paper (that has already been seen by Director of Health for the State of Hawaii) out of storage.

Bottom line if he wanted the paper out there it would be out there, bottom line 2 if the White House wanted the paper out there it would be out there.

A privacy law that shields birth certificates has prompted Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie to abandon efforts to dispel claims that President Barack Obama was born outside Hawaii, his office says.

State Attorney General David Louie told the governor that privacy laws bar him from disclosing an individual’s birth documentation without the person’s consent, Abercrombie spokeswoman Donalyn Dela Cruz said Friday.

Well then the Governor can make a formal public request to the president to release the document and the White House can say “Yes” or “No”.

Will this happen? No.

Why? Because it is to the administration advantage to continue use this issue to discredit people who oppose the president. It continues to be a club that they can use against foes. As long as that is true the form will not be released.

As for “embarrassing the president” count me uninterested.

First of all I see no reason to embarrass any person based on something that happened when they were a kid.

Second of all I can’t see how any nonsense about his parents can be any more embarrassing than the last two years. I mean c’mon how stupid do you have to be to fall for something like this:

The song Lang Lang played describes how beautiful China is and then near the end has this verse, “When friends are here, there is fine wine /But if the jackal comes /What greets it is the hunting rifle.” The “jackal” in the song is the United States.

The name of the song is “My Motherland,” originally titled “Big River.” In an interview broadcast on Phoenix TV, the first thing Lang Lang is quoted as saying is that he chose the piece.

He then said, “I thought to play ‘My Motherland’ because I think playing the tune at the White House banquet can help us, as Chinese people, feel extremely proud of ourselves and express our feelings through the song. I think it’s especially good. Also, I like the tune in and of itself, every time I hear it I feel extremely moved.”

Because nothing says “I’m a competent president of the US ” like having a song referring to the US as a “jackal” played at a state dinner honoring the man holding the winner of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize prisoner.

So I’m going to file this under “interesting but who cares”

Oh and one final thing. There was one laugh out loud line in the Hillbuzz post.

He tried gaming the system by applying for college and all of his financial aid and special treatment with an Indonesian name, but then also wanted to use the blacker sounding “Barack Hussein Obama” name when that suited him to.

And look where it got him.

Look where it got him? Look where it got him? HE’S PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!

Words fail me.

P. S. I have tagged this post with the tag “birthers” A friend of mind considers this an insulting title and at her request I’ve made a deliberate effort not to use that word to describe people who believe the president is not born in the US by that title. In terms of the wordpress search it is the most relevant tag for the post.

Advertisements

It was a few years ago when I first saw Katrina Vanden Heuvel on panel shows. I was shocked. Considering how far left the Nation and Vanden Heuvel I thought was rather disgraceful that they were given attention as if they were a source of anything resembling mainstream thought.

But has time has gone on I’ve seen that the Democratic party has become more and more left it Vanden Heuvel opinions have become more and more typical within the party. Yet to the great public, the true nature of their beliefs were obscured hidden by quiet and reasoned words and the comments of friends in the MSM.

Which brings us to Francis Fox Piven.

Francis Fox Piven has for decades preached a far left and dare we say revolutionary agenda in Vanden Heuvel’s magazine. As a person of the left, she clearly and unabashedly proclaimed a desire to see what has happened in England and Greece happen here, to wit:

Local protests have to accumulate and spread—and become more disruptive—to create serious pressures on national politicians. An effective movement of the unemployed will have to look something like the strikes and riots that have spread across Greece in response to the austerity measures forced on the Greek government by the European Union, or like the student protests that recently spread with lightning speed across England in response to the prospect of greatly increased school fees.

Now the riots in Greece resulted in blood as the Blaze pointed out. The further took the liberty of showing Piven on TV condoning violence. Glenn Beck took the trouble of pointing out Piven philosophy as a Marxist and her willingness to condone violence. The public not caring for this has been outraged, and the NYT being the NYT is angry at the reaction and blames…Beck:

The Center for Constitutional Rights said it took exception to the sheer quantity of negative attention to Ms. Piven.

“We are vigorous defenders of the First Amendment,” the center said in its letter to Fox. “However, there comes a point when constant intentional repetition of provocative, incendiary, emotional misinformation and falsehoods about a person can put that person in actual physical danger of a violent response.” Mr. Beck is at that point, they said.

The irony level here is earth shattering as Powerline notes:

Glenn Beck has pulled back the curtain on this disgraceful specimen by quoting her accurately. No one has identified any statements he has made about Piven that are incorrect, or claims that he has in any way threatened her. Unlike Piven, Beck is a staunch opponent of political violence. But the mis-named Center for Constitutional Rights–another Orwellian touch–thinks there is such a thing as too much free speech. They want Fox News to shut Beck up because of the “sheer quantity” of Beck’s references to Piven.

Just as a lot of American’s projected their beliefs on the president I think the radical left looked at the election and deceived themselves concluding that their time had come with one of their own in the White House to openly advocate what they’ve said all along. This week on ABC and Morning Joe seeing the president’s numbers and the apparent power of the left included these their voices that they

When speaking to and among their own the left do not restrain their true feelings. Anyone paying attention to any ANSWER march or can tell you this. When I covered the Mayday march in Boston the 300 marchers there, when asked directly did not hide the fact that they wanted open borders, supported socialism and opposed capitalism.

Piven and their crowd have no cause to object, they have expressed these opinions for years, the only difference now is that the public at large is now exposed to them and doesn’t like the view.

So in the end I was wrong. Put the Nation and its editor out there. Let her defend every word she publishes. It is a visible and unapologetic left that we need, not hidden in obscure magazines and only excerpted by their friends, but out in the open for all the world to see their true colors melt in daylight.

A person my age or older would be familiar with the term “Shotgun Wedding”. The idea being that a man who got a girl pregnant would be forced by the father of the girl, Shotgun in hand to the altar for the wedding. That line of thinking is in keeping with the idea Stacy McCain advanced about the the economics of love. Roxeanne DeLuca in comments also advanced this very Judeao-Christian idea:

These days, men think there’s just women you sleep with, that’s it. And pardon me if I think that, as a WOMAN, I should have the grounds to say, “If this isn’t emotional for you, if you could do this with any woman, or any woman with the right equipment and the right attitude, then I don’t want it from you.”

As it is, though, we’re expected to act like prostitutes, without the benefits and without the emotional reserve. When sexually loose women are “nice girls”, or tell you that they are, men WILL expect ALL nice women to be sexually loose.

The 60’s revolution ended this bigtime and some are still paying the price but there is one thing about this way of thinking that needs to be pointed out.

The entire idea of the shotgun wedding or the threat of the shotgun wedding is to protect the women and restrain the man. The idea being the man might think twice before trying to be a player if he know that it means he will have to follow through.

In this age of contraception and abortion those restraints are gone and the feminists of the left cheer this abandonment of the traditional Judeao-Christian meme as a triumph for women no matter the result.

There is however another side of the coin that the feminist left isn’t too loud in condemning.

Afshan Azad, 21, who played Padma Patil, a classmate of the teenage wizard, in the blockbuster Hollywood films based on JK Rowling’s children’s books, feared for her life during the three-hour ordeal, Manchester Crown Court heard.

She was punched, dragged around by her hair and strangled by her brother Ashraf Azad, 28, who threatened to kill her after he caught her talking on the phone to her Hindu boyfriend on May 21 last year, the court was told.

During the row at the family home in Longsight, Manchester, which also involved her mother and father, she was branded a ”slag” and a ”prostitute” and told: ”Marry a Muslim or you die!”

Note the cultural difference here. The threats are not against the man, they are against the woman. The threat of violence is not against the man for the advances, it is against the woman. Either way the Judge hearing the case decided to make a statement about violence against women:

Judge Thomas added: ”This is a sentence that is designed to punish you for what you did and also to send out a clear message to others that domestic violence involving circumstances such as have arisen here cannot be tolerated.”

And so he sentenced the guy to….for six months after he pleaded guilty to the assault.

As Cubachi points out:

This is attempted murder, and he’s only getting six months? Azad’s case is well known throughout the world due to her celebrity status, however, this is occurring to young Muslim girls throughout the world who are deemed too “Westernized” or a betrayer to Islam.

Some on the right have highlighted this kind of thing, the left…not so much. Why the difference in reaction to the Judeao-Christian cultural norm and not the Islamic one? Why is one a sign of repressive patriarchy and the other just a cultural difference and any objection Islamaphobia?

It’s a good question and I’d love to hear the answer.

In response to my post concerning my neighbor the Jehovah’s Witness Lisa Graas wrote an interesting post:

For two millenia, the Catholic Church has named countless saints. These are people we know to be in Heaven. It is important to note, though, that the Church has never once named any individual to be in Hell. There is a reason for that. God saves whom He will.

The saints are people who lived lives of heroic virtue. DaTechGuy’s neighbor demonstrated an act of virtue. He did something that was ‘saintly’. Is he going to Hell because he is a Jehovah Witness? I have no idea. Having said that, I also don’t know if Attila the Hun is in Hell. I do know that St. Augustine is in Heaven. I know that St. Ambrose is in Heaven. I know that St. Jerome is in Heaven. St. Maria Goretti, the Martyrs of Cordoba, St. Joan of Arc, and St. Gemma Galgani are all in heaven ….and so on, and so on, and so on. They were all Catholic. Even Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha was Catholic.

That’s what we know for sure.

That is certainly true, it is also true by definition a Saint is a person who is in fact in heaven. There are a large amount of saints that we have never heard of or may never hear of.

She is also quite correct in the doctrinal errors of the Witnesses. I have regularly debated these errors with them when they come to the door and I let them in as I do with all the Millerite religions.

One must remember however that one of the requirement for Mortal Sin is an understanding of the sin, there is a difference between not knowing the truth and denying it. There is also the question of Baptism of intent as I wrote before:

The final method of baptism is called Baptism of desire and is explained here:

1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.”62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity. emphasis mine

Thus a Muslim, a Hindu a Jew or a person of any denomination who does not know the Gospel of Christ or a native of Tahiti before the time of Captain Cook would all qualify assuming that they, seek the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it so in the eyes of the Catholic church anyone who does this IS a considered a baptized member of the church (although not in full communion with the Catholic Church).

Many non Catholics and non Christians are offended by this (as are some Catholics) then again some are offended by the teachings on adultery or on celibacy or holy communion or whatever. The church doesn’t change its doctrine based on feelings or polling..

Thus my friend across the street (assuming his Baptism is not considered valid) may in fact qualify as Baptized via this method.

All of this doesn’t change what I have said over and over: There is only one reason to be a Christian in general and/or a Catholic in particular. Because it is true and on that note there is no compromise, there is no equivocation.

This is an excellent opportunity to bring up my pastor’s excellent message from the Jan 16th bulletin on the subject:

Dear Friends,
John the Baptist makes a claim about Jesus which every Christian must affirm: “Now I have seen and testified that He is the Son of God.” Jesus is categorically different from any other great religious teacher because He claims for Himself Divinity, to be the fully divine incarnation of God on earth. Either He is delusional or we have to take Him at His word.

There is no middle ground. We cannot say He was mistaken in His core beliefs about who He was while at the same time assert that He is a great teacher. You can’t have it both ways.

There is a very important difference between saying all religions should be respected and all religions are the same. As Catholic Christians, we insist on complete freedom of conscience and religious freedom for all. That is not the same thing as saying all religion is the same. All religions have the same rights, but as Christians, we must assert that Jesus Christ is the unique Savior of the entire human race. In a world of intellectual relativity, where nothing is fact and all is opinion, that seems to be the height of arrogance. But there is also such a thing as Truth. Truth cannot be imposed or forced on anyone. We are called to be witnesses to the truth with love. We are called to affirm our faith in Jesus Christ and to make Him known.

It is the duty of every Catholic in particular and every Christian in general to proclaim the gospel of Christ. As St. Francis of Assisi said:

Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words

Works for me.