How much does Barack Obama hate America?

ndm

At a press conference last week President Obama put the lie to Peter Wehner:

-- PRESIDENT OBAMA: I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. I'm enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world. If you think about the site of this summit and what it means, I don't think America should be embarrassed to see evidence of the sacrifices of our troops, the enormous amount of resources that were put into Europe postwar, and our leadership in crafting an Alliance that ultimately led to the unification of Europe. We should take great pride in that.

-- And if you think of our current situation, the United States remains the largest economy in the world. We have unmatched military capability. And I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional.

-- Now, the fact that I am very proud of my country and I think that we've got a whole lot to offer the world does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful qualities of other countries, or recognizing that we're not always going to be right, or that other people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties have to compromise and that includes us.

-- And so I see no contradiction between believing that America has a continued extraordinary role in leading the world towards peace and prosperity and recognizing that that leadership is incumbent, depends on, our ability to create partnerships because we create partnerships because we can't solve these problems alone.

However, I don't know why anyone cares what Peter Wehner thinks. He always strikes me as someone who gives Doug Feith a good run for his money as "stupidest guy on the planet" to quote Tommy Franks.

David Short

Bad misleading headline.

I got completely the wrong impression about the article from it.

Who is responsible?

Alex Massie

David Short: Er, I'm responsible for the title. My little joke... I'm sorry if this troubled you or left you feeling short-changed or whatever...

pp

Massie doesn't get it- in the US, ultra liberals are ashamed of our country. Weird, but true. Obama is very, very liberal and is somewhat ashamed of our country, and elements that have made our country, that is why he went around apologizing so much- he thinks he should and the liberals really, really want him to. (I'd love to see other countries come here an abase themselves in a similar fashion- we'd think the leader was loony.) Rather than truly "respecting" different views, he lies about opponents views that they don't have and attacks them. BTW, he didn't win by a particularly large margin, not like Clinton over Bush or Dole or certainly not like Reagan over the nitwit Carter, so saying things like "so many who voted for him" leaves the impression that a large majority did, while ignoring the fact that SO MANY DIDN'T.

ndm

-- BTW, he didn't win by a particularly large margin, not like Clinton over Bush or Dole or certainly not like Reagan over the nitwit Carter, so saying things like "so many who voted for him" leaves the impression that a large majority did, while ignoring the fact that SO MANY DIDN'T.

Obama's 8.5M vote margin of victory was several times larger than that managed by George W. Bush in two elections. Furthermore, in the election that counted Obama's margin of 192 Electoral College votes was many times larger than the 40 Electoral College votes George W. Bush managed in two elections.

If American ultra-liberals are ashamed of their country it is only because of the moral depravity visited on it by eight years of worthless Republican rule.

David

"leaves the impression that a large majority did, while ignoring the fact that SO MANY DIDN'T."

Amazing how that didn't matter when Bush was in, eh?

porkbelly

There was a telling period during the campaign when Obama was strenuously resisting wearing an American flag lapel pin until the pressure became too great. A little thing, but the symbolism was powerful: for Obama and his leftist followers patriotism itself is suspect, a form of bigotry. These are not people who have ever been proud to be Americans - they are much too superior for that. Associate themselves with those ignorant flag-waving simpletons? Never!

Obama's America, the one he claims to admire, is not the real America but the hypothetical America in his head, the one that has been oppressed for 200 years until His coming. You'll notice that every time he commends his country for something in the next breath he couches and qualifies his compliment - he must maintain his chilly moralizing distance.

And yes, Alex, actually the First Gulf War was indeed fought to liberate Kuwait, and last I checked they aren't Methodists. Or perhaps you'd like to share a favorite conspiracy theory?

But of course for Obama, and his devotees, American military actions must by definition be wrong because the country that directs them is fatally flawed (the very fact of war itself is an admission of guilt and failure). Whatever justification is offered the REAL motivation must be oil, money, ambition, etc. etc.

What was it Obama's spiritual guide Rev. Wright said? "God bless America? No, God damn America!"

deegee

since you asked the question, "And if Obama Hates America why did so many people vote for him?" i'll answer. at least half the people in the world are below average intelligence, and less than half voted for Nobama. no there's a stats overlay i'd like to see. question answered.

Fergus Pickering

pp, it's the same the whole wold over. What you call liberals we call lefties and they are ashamed of our country In my youth they wanted us to join the Soviet bloc and now that there isn't a soviet bloc to join they are keen on the Muslim takeover. What GOOD these things would do them I don't know, but they are all barking mad so it doesn't do to ask.

Conservative Cabbie

Did Kuwaitis (and possibly Saudis) benefit from America's actions in the First Gulf War? Yes!

Did the Kosovans benefit from America's actions against Serbia? Yes!

Do Afghani's now have the vote in Afghanistan? Yes!

Are Iraqi's no longer under the oppresive dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and have the vote for the first time in decades? Yes!

Are almost all those people muslims. Yes!

I'd say America's track record on helping Muslims is damn strong seeing as how all America's wars over the last two decades have benefited Muslims.

To say that that is delusional bullshit is, well, bullshit.

Ronnie

PP, I'm afraid its the 'ultra' nut jobs like you that don't get it.

A little common sense and perspective would do you a lot of good.

Gareth Williams

Alex
Have you come across this piece in the Daily Beast? I don't know where to begin other than to say it confirms what one would like to think are largely unfounded prejudices about the provincialism, bad faith or plain stupidity of parts of the Republican right. It's really quite distressing for a fan of the US:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-08/why-is-obama-apologizing-for-america/

Conservative Cabbie

So let me get this straight. Saying that America is "arrogant", "dismissive" and divisive" demonstrates the love he feels for his country does it? Saying that American troops JUST kill civilians and air-raid villages is feeling the love for the military is it? And let's not even get into Obama's support for that America loving patriot, Rev Wright or the fact that Eric Holder, Obama's AG, called all American's "cowards".

But then when Obama demonstrates the knack for the idiotic over language, perhaps those criticisms are his way of praising America. It's about as perverse as calling terrorism "man-made disasters".

What amazes me is that Alex call's the article "paranoid". Go and read it, there is nothing "paranoid" about it. Sure it's accusatory but is fairly restrained in it's tone. Is this the new world order when it comes to the media, that any article that dares to be critical of Obama is denegrated as paranoia? No wonder Obama had "so many people vote for him" when the media act like useful idiots for him in this way.

Sorry Alex, but that article was "self-serving, delusional bullshit".

Frank Smith

The Americans defended the Muslims of Kuwait, and of Kosovo. They liberated the Muslims of Iraq from a sadistic, war-mongering tyrant, and thereby defended all his Muslim neighbours from further aggression. The Americans did the world a favour, including all Muslims, by attacking the Al Qaeda/Taliban stranglehold on Afghanisation, and giving that country another chance at civilisation. The Americans have also provided massive donations to the Muslims of Egypt, Palestine, and Pakistan, to name but a few. No, you headline is apposite, not ironic as you would wish. President Obama was schooled in anti-American hatred by his preacher of 20 years, and by his association with the terrorist Ayers. His election is nothing less than bizarre and scary for that great country.

Summer

"This is nonsense and anyone with any knowledge of these things must know that this is self-serving, delusional bullshit."

I think that just about sums up your article.

It seems quite obvious to me that Obama is denigrating the US. And of course the left love it - they've been doing it for year. Yet they seem strangly reluctant to shine a light of truth on the evil threat posed by Iran,Gaza, and Pakistan - to name but three.

Whatever side you are on, it is not the side of truth.

Ronnie

Porkbelly, if Kuwait had no oil it would still be part of an Iraq governed by Saddam. Even if they were Methodists.

You must be the only one around here who doesn't realise that.

elixelx

Barry loves America like Guy Fawkes loved Parliament...

Will both forever burn in effigy on Nov. 5th every year and in hell daily until kingdom come...?!

Only true patriots and total fools believe that others can't possibly be traitors...!

By the way, Martin and Alex, why doesn't your neighbour (who drives down property values something awful!) permit comments?

Wilhelm

Mrs Alex Massie

Get a haircut, kid.

dearieme

Look here; Obama thinks so highly of the USA that he pretends to be a natural born citizen of it.

David

If patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, then accusing your political opponent of not being patriotic enough is the last refuge of those without any cogent argument.

Derek BLADES

Well at least your headline generated some comments. Unfortunately most are from Melanie Phillips’ rent-a-crowd ignoramuses who infest her blog-site.

The fortunate thing is that we now have an educated and intelligent President who, having lived outside the United States, has a clear-headed view of how America is seen in the World and a clear-headed vision of how to resolve many of its most pressing problems.

Thank you for a well written article that nails the stupid lie that Obama is anti-American. Keep the good stuff coming. And please don’t cut your hair as something calling itself "Wilhelm" had the impertinence to suggest.

Chris

The unfortunate thing is that none of Derek Blades' assessment of Obama is accurate.

Fergus Pickering

Educated and intelligent? Wow! Blades you are a snob. The best foreign secretary we ever had was a man called Bevin, possibly a bit before your time. And that was the time of a very fine American President called Harry S Truman. Look him up. He did things. Obama hasn't done much that I ever heard of though he can certainly TALK. Was his education actually any better than George Dubbya's. As for intelligent - I can't say I've heard him say anything clever. Quote me a few of him clever sayings. You must know them. He wears a nice suit though.

Bob Miller

First, Obama spent over 750 Million dollars in campaign funding to BUY the American Voters. ACORN a black organizing group funded by the Demoncrats her in America. Went door to door in Black neighborhoods registering and busing black voters to the polls. (94 % of the Black Registered voters voted for Obama.)

Before during and until this day... he has had all academic records, test scores, admission, grants, letters of recommendation since 1980 until he graduated from Harvard) By sealed NO ONE can access these records EXCEPT OBAMA or his representative. On top of that he has 'sealed' his original Birth Certificate.His Black Kenyan Father was a Muslim and a British Citizen. So far he has spent almost 1 Million dollars keeping this out of the legal system. (Campaign Dollars)

The American voter VOTED for him because they believed his flim-flam speeches,or the color of his skin.

De Rigueur

Alex and others,

If you chaps really want to know who BO is I suggest you nip across to this link:

http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=YWRiOTM2OGU1OGFjMzc4ZjMzYmM4MWE1MWQwNTAzYjY=

And get the views of someone who has talked with him, when he was a student at Harvard, and afterwards, and someone who has unimpeachable creds.

Personally, I find BO frightening.

Ned R.

Well, anyone who would rely on the National Review to make up one's mind for one would be frightened by that, so I congratulate De Rigueur for demonstrating self-fulfilling prophecies at work.

WE WON (Ha Ha)!

The best part about our President? I'd say that he is doing what he said he would...Bring big CHANGE!

Obama 2012!

Conservatives idolize Timothy McVeigh

I think the inherent problem is that conservatives in the US literally see only themselves as the only people in the whole world. Other countries are just the guests of planet Conservative America.

To you birth certificate loons, Obama has provided the proof that he's a citizen, you deliberately choose not to believe it.

Stacy St. John

Bob Miller, you are a delusional idiot. Speaking on behalf of all true conservatives, please, please, shut the fuck up. We'll lose every election for the next 40 years if we keep this crap up.

Stacy St. John

"Personally, I find BO frightening."

I find these types of comments WAY more terrifying about the state of our country than I ever have about a President. My party has lost their marbles. Until we start acting serious, we will be trying to climb out of the woods...

ndm

-- By the way, Martin and Alex, why doesn't your neighbour (who drives down property values something awful!) permit comments? (elixelx)

Clive Davis, one of the more interesting bloggers around, has written several times that he doesn't have the patience to wade through the drivel in many of the comments. This drivel is particularly bad whenever Melanie Phillips' fans are on the loose - as evidenced by this thread with people finding Obama "frightening" and warbling
on about birth certificates. Sometimes it seems The Spectator's readers are more aligned with the British National Party than the Conservative party.

porkbelly

These increasingly bitter comments illustrate how divisive Obama (who pledged during the campaign to be "post-partisan") has become. Either you are a true believer or you are a paranoid loony, it seems. Wherever you stand on his policies the fact of this deepening rift reflects badly on him as a leader - you cannot govern the way you campaign, always looking to demonize and marginalize the opposition (a la Brown).

Wilhelm

Im afraid, very afraid of Barak Obimbo. I think he may start World War 3. I really do.

Benoit Was Framed

Porkbelly,

Obama has tried to 'demonize the opposition." ??? This is why conservatives are not taken seriously. You choose to see or believe whatever you want. It is perfectly fine, and acceptable to disagree with Obama's policies. But that is not what's been done. Conservatives have resorted to calling him a socialist, claiming he hates America, and refusing to believe that he's a citizen. So really, Obama is the one being polarizing? You are insane. Good luck in 2010. Idiot.

porkbelly

Benoit - thank you for making my point.

ndm

-- These increasingly bitter comments illustrate how divisive Obama (who pledged during the campaign to be "post-partisan") has become. (porkbelly)

Barack Obama has made good-faith efforts to negotiate with Republicans over legislation. The Republican responded by giving him zero votes for his effort. The Republican response to Obama's budget was the ludicrous April Fool's budget.

Just as it takes two to party it takes two to be post-partisan. Obama can make all the accomodations he likes to his policies but if the Republicans won't join him the responsibility for partisanship lies with them not him.

After only two months of Obama's presidency it is already pretty clear that the Republican Party has chosen to be divisive. It has not yet realized that there is no future for it as a rump good-ole-boy party of the South.

porkbelly

ndm - Obama's budget and stimulus package were drafted by the White House and the Democratic Congressional leadership behind closed doors - the only Republicans whose views were taken into account were the three senators who crossed the aisle. What "good-faith" efforts to negotiate are you referring to then? As far as I know Obama's philosophy has been "we won - get used to it". His only policy accomodations have been to Democratic centrists - the Republicans have been frozen out completely. Unfortunately the tone was set early on by Obama's unprecedented attacks on his predecessor during his inaugural address, and he has not missed a chance since then to heap scorn on "the previous eight years". Which is fine in a candidate, not so fine in a President. To my mind it demonstrates a distinct character deficit.

ndm

-- To my mind it demonstrates a distinct character deficit.

No. What it demonstrates is that you are unaware of the joint role served by the President of the United States as both the leader of the country and the leader of the Party. This may not have been the wisest decision of the founders because I can assure you that President George W. Bush failed to act as President of the country in the months and years following 9/11. President George W. Bush was utterly hostile to democratic voters in a way that President Obama has not been. And at that time, when America needed sound and unified leadeship, the Republican President failed his country.

Philip Avon St. Cyr

Conservative ninnies, IF IF IF you didn't willfully persist in taking the President's words OUT OF CONTEXT, then maybe your arguments would garner more respect. Every time you oversimplify or overgeneralize, you damage not only your individual credibility, but also that of your party and your leaders. It is the height of arrogant stupidity to think that 2/3rds of the electorate is too dumb to recognize and repudiate your "cut and paste" debate tactics.

Augustus

Leaving aside the question of why so many people voted last November for Barack Obama, it's truly disturbing that just days before Easter Obama goes to a Muslim nation and denies the truth about America's Christian identity. It's also disturbing that this President is uttering such lies about a nation he has sworn to lead and protect. Could it be that his long-time mentors such as Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Saual Olinsky, and other godless Americans, have profoundly influenced Obama's opinion of his country? He says
during an address to the Turkish Parliament that "the US has been arrogant, derisive and divisive." But his words and actions leave no doubt that he is mischaracterizing America as a force for good in the world, and that it is he who is being arrogant and derisive.

porkbelly

ndm - actually the President, while he may be the leading light of his party, is not the titular leader. He is expected to generally rise above partisan politics and to serve the country as a whole - the actual party leaders or their congressional surrogates are usually the ones who put the partisan boot in. Bush, to his credit, always tried to maintain cordial relations with the Democratic Congressional leadership (even that witch Pelosi) and I can't recall him ever speaking ill of a former president, even when poor old Jimmy Carter was issuing fatwas from the peanut patch. That doesn't mean Bush was anything exceptional, but he had been governor of Texas (a fair-sized state towards the south of the country) where he had to deal with a Democratic state legislature. Obama has never run anything other than his own campaigns, organizations focussed exclusively on serving him; perhaps he has never had to reign in his autocratic tendencies and learn to compromise and conciliate. The danger will come when his grandiose schemes don't work out exactly as planned and scapegoats are needed. Will he grow more statesman-like in office, or more arbitrary and dictatorial?

ndm

Augustus writes: "it's truly disturbing that just days before Easter Obama goes to a Muslim nation and denies the truth about America's Christian identity."

As Andrew Sullivan pointed out yesterday, the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli explicitly states that the "United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion:"

-- Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Indeed, that is immediately evident from the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which explicitly declares that the United States does not have an established religion and therefore can not be described as having a "Christian identity:"

-- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I realise this is all somewhat displeasing to the Christianist right which would like nothing more than to have their bigotry rule the country. They seek to have the rest of the country chained to the same moral failure they have enslaved themselves to.

Conservative Cabbie

ndm

"As Andrew Sullivan pointed out yesterday, the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli explicitly states that the "United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion:"

Oops. Methinks you should find a better source than that obsessive hatemonger. A later translation of that treaty revealed that Article 11 doesn't even exist.

Money quote: "As even a casual examination of the annotated translation of 1930 shows, the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic; and even as such its defects throughout are obvious and glaring. Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. "

As for America's "christian identity". Your quoting of the constitution is bogus. America has a "christian identity" because the vast majority of its people are Christian. Just because there is no state religion, shouldn't detract from that fact. And by the way, using the phrase "christianist" shows that the only person demonstrating bigotry is you.

Ronnie

You don't think very deeply, do you Wilhelm?

Obama is not exactly at the head of the queue to start WW3.

Ronnie

Porkbelly, no-one is forcing you to become increasingly bitter or to utter the childish nonesense that you do. Yet you appear to be blaming Obama for your decision to go public with your stupidity.

What you are really saying is, 'If the world was exactly as I want and expect it to be, then I wouldn't have to behave like this. There would be no division in the world because everyone would agree with me.'

Feel free to carry on, as your co-conservatives have said, you are only making it worse and further destroying the credibility of your cause.

Ronnie

In support of what Cabbie says, I think we have to remember why the Founding Fathers sailed to America in the first place. To escape religious persecution in Europe and worship God freely in a new land. I don't think that is an oversimplification but others are free to correct me.

The persecution that they were leaving behind was exercised by established churches. So it would have been quite odd if they had set up one of their own. They accepted the many churches and groups in the new land as it was freedom of conscience that drove them there in the first place.

But they were all Christian.

I do not think that any US president could ever credibly claim, up to this point, that the country and its society was not founded in Christianity.

Wilhelm

Let me put it this way, Ronnie , dont mess with the '' Wilhelm ''. Im like the HAL 9000 series The Wilhelm has never made a mistake or distorted information. I am all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error . So there !

ndm

-- Oops. Methinks you should find a better source than that obsessive hatemonger. A later translation of that treaty revealed that Article 11 doesn't even exist.

Curious that, because the link I provided was not to Andrew Sullivan but to a United States Library of Congress scanned image of Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli - as communicated to the Senate by President John Adams in 1797 - in American State Papers, Senate, 5th Congress, 1st Session Foreign Relations: Volume 2 page 19.

Methinks Conservative Cabbie needs to get better sources for his misinformation. My source was the President of the United States and the Library of Congress.

-- Your quoting of the constitution is bogus. America has a "christian identity" because the vast majority of its people are Christian.

You would have a hard time trying to get that through the Supreme Court of the United States.

dearieme

"the Founding Fathers sailed to America in the first place."
You mean, I assume, not the usual Founding Fathers, i.e. the saints who wrote the Constitution and so on, but the chaps who sailed to Massachusetts.

"To escape religious persecution in Europe and worship God freely in a new land." In large measure they sailed because they'd failed to impose their brand of Puritanism on the Church of England so they went off in a huff, hoping to impose it on the Red Indians.

".. it would have been quite odd if they had set up one [an Established Church] of their own." Completely wrong - they did so in Massachusetts and even had executions of heretics. Other colonies too had established churches. Really hopelessly wide of the mark - presumably indoctrinated in elementary school?

Conservative Cabbie

ndm

I suppose it depends on how you view identity, political identity or demographic identity. Personally, I think that a country is made up of it's constituent parts, it's people, and as they are largely Christian, to deny that would be elitist in the extreme. Are you an elitist ndm?

As for the traety, it's true that Congress ratified the wrongly interpreted treaty

Susan Hill

I too was misled by Alex`s headline but let that pass. I know how star-struck young Massie continues to be about Obama, God knows why because he has a brain, (Massie that is.)
So I went to the article itself. It is a good, sound, clear, reasoned piece and it is absolutely true. Obama hates America just as so many Lefties hate their own countries, the places to which they owe everything. I have never understood this but it is so. All the lefties I know here hate our country and everything it stands for and want to bring it down, just as the Burgess/Maclean/Philby/Blunts did. But they still manage to enjoy its liberties and comforts. Obama has a chip on his shoulder the size of a boulder Mrs Obama even bigger - they hate America because of the past, they hate it because they somehow believe people still discriminate against them because their are black, (half-black) - they hate everything from which they have benefitted and are continuing to benefit. And they will go on hating. It`s easy to do that while enjoying the perks.
If Obama was back in poverty in Kenya,like members of his family, he wouldn`t hate America, he would be desperate to get there. And why not ?
But the biting-hand-fed syndrome is part and parcel of the leftist psychological make-up. It is weird and I do not fully understand it but it is so. And the article is perfectly sound.
Do stop being such a star-struck Groupie, Alex. Admire any real achievements Obama has now or in the future - always give a man his due. But stop fawning on him like a puppy until he has indeed got some achievement under his belt. He may. The jury is out. He hasn`t had long.
But he will never love the America that lets him achieve, I promise you.

Wilhelm

Mrs Alex Massie and Ronnie .
Do yourself a favour and buy ''A Slobbering Love Affair: The True And Pathetic Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media by Bernie Goldberg on Amazon.com price $16 . That'll keep you right, kids.

Conservative Cabbie

ndm

I actually agree with you on America's constitutional sanction on organised religion as I do with Ronnie, that the sanction was against different Christian churches, and I agree with Augustus that America is largely (certainly historically) a Christian nation.

Whilst I respect the fact that evangelical Christians see the bible as their moral guide, I cannot see how as strict constitutionalists, they can expect their biblically guided morals to be codified into law. On gay marriage, for example, if their only objection is that the Bible condemns it, they have no recourse to law because of the constitution.

However, I also have an issue with the left in this regard (I know, you're surprised). The left cannot quote the constitution to argue against a state religion on the one hand, but then deny the constitutional right to freedom of speech when it comes to school prayer or the commandments being displayed in public places for example. The constitution is not something that can be cherry picked.

Conservative Cabbie

Dearieme
If you think that the only people who sailed to America were the Puritans to Massachusetts, then it is your knowledge that emanates from elementary school. Quakers, Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans all "sailed to America", largely to escape persecution.

So I'm afraid it is Ronnie that is quite correct and you that is "completely wrong".

ndm

-- The left cannot quote the constitution to argue against a state religion on the one hand, but then deny the constitutional right to freedom of speech when it comes to school prayer or the commandments being displayed in public places for example. The constitution is not something that can be cherry picked. (Conservative Cabbie)

Conservative Cabbie is, of course, being specious in arguing that school prayer and displayed of the ten commandments should be constitutionally guaranteed as free speech under the First Amendment. Americans are absolutely free to pray as often as they like and display as many copies of the Ten Commandments as they like as long as they don't do it using public money and public property.

The US Supreme Court has so thorougly ploughed school prayer into the ground that it seems pointless to rewrite its decisions. Here is an extract of the 1962 decision in Engel et al v. Vitale

-- It has been argued that to apply the Constitution in such a way as to prohibit state laws respecting an [370 U.S. 421, 434] establishment of religious services in public schools is to indicate a hostility toward religion or toward prayer. Nothing, of course, could be more wrong. The history of man is inseparable from the history of religion. And perhaps it is not too much to say that since the beginning of that history many people have devoutly believed that "More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of." It was doubtless largely due to men who believed this that there grew up a sentiment that caused men to leave the cross-currents of officially established state religions and religious persecution in Europe and come to this country filled with the hope that they could find a place in which they could pray when they pleased to the God of their faith in the language they chose. 20 And there were men of this same faith in the [370 U.S. 421, 435] power of prayer who led the fight for adoption of our Constitution and also for our Bill of Rights with the very guarantees of religious freedom that forbid the sort of governmental activity which New York has attempted here. These men knew that the First Amendment, which tried to put an end to governmental control of religion and of prayer, was not written to destroy either. They knew rather that it was written to quiet well-justified fears which nearly all of them felt arising out of an awareness that governments of the past had shackled men's tongues to make them speak only the religious thoughts that government wanted them to speak and to pray only to the God that government wanted them to pray to. It is neither sacrilegious nor antireligious to say that each separate government in this country should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers and leave that purely religious function to the people themselves and to those the people choose to look to for religious guidance. 21 [370 U.S. 421, 436]

And there are plenty more where that paragraph came from.

Ronnie

Gasp...! Wilhelm, you are a robot?

Sent back to our time to chase heretics around Parkhead.

David Bouvier

Alex - while obviously the geo-politics had be in favour, are you in some sense saying that Gulf War I was NOT a liberation of Kuwait, NOT undertaken with the support of the government of Kuwait who fortuitously escaped vSaddam, who were NOT very grateful to those who helped them in that time?

Where they somehow tricked into being liberated and remaining a sovereign nation. How awful.

elixelx

Consider "The Bow".
If it goes to prove anything it shows that Barry has so little respect for his own elected position that he is ready to publicly discredit even defile it.
He hates America and its most visible figurehead, the American President, but he hates the idea of the American PRESIDENCY even more!
Again, consider "The Bow"! Abdallah would NEVER EVER have accepted a kiss on the cheek and holding hands with a "KAFFIR", which, for Abdallah is ALL that Barry could ever be.
He may personally like Barry more than he liked Bush, but it is the liking one feels for the house-slave, often rather more than one feels for the colleague....
So, go figure...Barry must have known that attempting to kiss Abdallah's cheek would only have invited a back-hander, and that is why he chose the lesser of the two public evils, the obsequious humiliating bow rather than the servile slap in the face!
Racist, you say! Well, ask Abdallah! Or better yet, ask ndm!

ndm

-- Racist, you say! Well, ask Abdallah! Or better yet, ask ndm!

I would use "insane" rather than "racist."

Wilhelm

Dont put yourself down ndm

I wouldnt call you an insane racist, nah, I really wouldnt.

Jingo Killah

A semantic argument - the phrase "Christian Nation" is a merger of religion and politics, on the face of it. Christian=religion, Nation=politics. It implies a Very Special Political Unity that we are supposed to accept as powerful and fundamental. However, 'Christians' are not at all a unified political bloc. Yes, the nation is 76% Christian, but many denominations quietly believe that other Christian denominations are either heretical, crazy, or stupid. And when you start talking actual political issues, it only gets more divisive.

So. When I see someone aggresively use the term Christian Nation in a political context, I understand that they are seeking to puff themselves up from a 15-30% marginalized political bloc into a full, fearsome 76% bloc.