Ads: Obama Mocks Christianity, Lacks Patriotism, and Gains support from Terrorist Groups


I hope these ads get airtime on TV.  These ads were produced by Our Country Deserves Better-PAC.  Goal of the group:

The Our Country Deserves Better PAC has one objective: to defeat Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election.  We won’t be subtle or vague – America’s future is at stake, and it’s time someone stood up to Barack Obama and told the American people why this man cannot, and must not, serve as our next Commander-in-Chief. We are going to give the American people the truth in no uncertain terms because that is what they expect, but haven’t been getting from either the news media or many of our political leaders.

I couldn’t agree more.

The ads point out Obama’s disdain for Christianity, his lack of patriotism and love for this country, his racist pastor, and the questionable support, both monetary and in speech, from terrorist groups.  Watch the ads……

Obama’s snideness in this first one bother’s me the most…can you imagine any President in our history saying something like this?

Obama Mocks Christianity and says, ” We are no longer a Christian nation”

 

Obama’s Patriotism Problem

 

Obama’s Wrong Values:

Advertisements

17 Responses

  1. Oh Blessed Virgin, I’ve said the exact same thing Obama said – but from a church pulpit.

  2. amberpeace,
    Did you also shout your 4-letter word expletives from the pulpit?

    You need to read a little history….because this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles by CHRISTIAN men.

    Just because Obama and a second-rate seminary student from the “Church of Passivism” says something, doesn’t make it so.

  3. There is no such thing as bad words, just bad grammar.
    I have not said “f@$k” (I’ll leave that up to the Vicar’s sermons) but I’ve probably said other words of which you do not approve.
    Someone is starting to lose their temper. If you have read the complete collection of the Federalist Papers and Thomas Jefferson’s Bible, you would know we are founded on Diest principles, at the very best. It is nothing close to the Evangelical principles espoused today.
    I’m Anglican and I follow the pacfist traditions of Tertullian, Origen, Justin Martyr, St Paul, St Stephen, and the countless Anabaptists who were killed for their refusal to comply with the current governments of their time.

  4. amberpeace,

    There are many who disagree with you that the country was founded solely by Deists.
    This is a country founded on Judeo-Christian principles…I didn’t say it was founded on evangelical principles.

    I am sure you are trying to incite some kind of “bad grammar” diatribe from me…..

    Let’s just say I will respectfully disagree with your point of view and move on.

  5. amberpeas,

    You continue to do a fine job demonstrating your ignorance of US history.

    Although a brilliant man in many ways, Jefferson’s beliefs on religion and a great many other things, were a bit off the norm. One could even say that he was a bubble off center…a trait you apparently share.

    Citing one man out of MANY and drawing the conclusion that all were Deists because of Jefferson’s Bible is silly. Many, if not most of the founders were raised in and practiced Christianity in one form or another. John Adams, for example, had just as much impact on the founding of this nation as Jefferson and was a Protestant, descended from the original Puritans that settled New England. That they chose to put more general religious references into the Constitution and other documents of the day reveals their desire to prevent any church in America from having influence similar to the Church of England (at that time).

  6. I also mentioned the Federalist Papers, which are 65 essays by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay on the ratification and interpretation of the Constitution. People wonder how the founders of this country wanted the Constitution to be interpreted; they have not read these essays.
    It should also be noted that some, such as Patrick Henry, were Anti-Federalist. They opposed the ratification of the Constitution due to fear that the president could become too powerful.
    The Federalists, conversely, feared the Bill of Rights which were added. The idea was that the people would believe that those rights are the only rights a citizen would have. The Anti-Federalists feared that not enumerating some rights would mean that a federalized government could, at a whim, change what is a right and what is not.
    Currently, The Federalist Papers have been quoted over 300 times in Supreme Court decisions.

  7. Amberpeas,

    I’ve heard of the “Federalist Papers”. I mentioned something about “the Constitution and other documents of the day”…I was referring to them, among other things.

    Thanks for playing.

  8. The question of Christianity shouldn’t be part of any political campaign anyway since in our very Constitution we have a clause that specifically states that we have a separation of Church and state. To put this more specifically, to separate religion from political function.Whether a government official is Christian, Jewish, or Agnostic is not a reflection on their ability to lead. In fact, Id go as far as to say that an agnostic leader would actually be more effective since religious bias would never works its way into governing the populace or serving in international affairs.

    You cannot and should not lead a country with religion. If you want to see how ” well” this works… then perhaps look at how other countries in the middle east have functioned under theocracies.

    Regardless, here is the definition of Seperation of Church and state:

    “Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other.”

  9. Bob,
    There is no clause in the Constitution for separation of church and state. It is not found in any of our founding documents and was not even a thought until Jefferson penned some words about “Wall of Separation” in the early 1800’s.

    His words were not intended for harassment of Christians (as it has twisted to be now), but he used that phrase to assure pastors that the federal government would not establish a specific denomination of Christianity.

    Further, the founders intended a freedom to exercise your religion…..they never mentioned that a candidate or anyone holding an office couldn’t talk about religion nor be guided by it.
    That is a far cry from declaring absolutely no mention or thought of religion if you are holding a government office, as is the battle cry today.

    In the same light, it also certainly does not declare that governments/countries should be a theocracy….that is what the founders were distancing themselves from. Jefferson’s comments on the Wall of Separation referred to the limit of the federal government from exercising any authority in matters of religion.

    If the founders were not aware of the importance of Christianity in the fabric of the society then how do you explain their words?

    • George Washington: “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”
    • Thomas Jefferson: “The Bible is the cornerstone of liberty;… students perusal of the sacred volume will make us better citizens.”
    • Andrew Jackson: “That book [the Bible], sir, is the Rock on which our republic rests.”
    • Ulysses S. Grant: “Hold fast to the Bible…. To the influence of this Book we are indebted for all the progress made in true civilization, and to this we must look as our guide in the future.”

  10. “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.”

    Read it, Bob…and then try something more sophisticated than the first sentence of a Wikipedia article as your supporting argument.

  11. You need to read up on your history because the first amendment makes it profoundly clear that the US is to be governed without the influence of any relgion. Period.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    Your post seems very much inline with suggesting that religious values are inherently inseparable from political function and thus makes a politician morally superior if he/she holds such religious values dear. Again- making claims that a certain candidate is politically superior in terms of their ability to lead via their religious principals is a clear conflict of interest.

    I’m sure you’re going to keep right on posting unrelated quotes and so forth, but if you want to disagree with the first amendment, then go right ahead. Perhaps you and your party should alter it for your own benefit.

  12. Bob,

    I think SRT’s post is very much in line with suggesting that the vast majority of people in this country profess religious belief, and that a great many, if not the majority, hold that belief as a cornerstone of their lives.

    That those people would desire leaders who share their view on a variety of issues, including religious belief, is hardly surprising, nor is it a “conflict of interest”.

    Back away from the Wikipedia!

  13. Bob,.
    You are just wrong.

    The First Amendment does not prohibit a religious individual from having any influence in the government.
    The First Amendment prohibits a state church like the one the founders fled but it also was meant to secure that individuals should have a free exercise of religion without government intervention.

    To think that every last politician and officer holder must leave religion at the door step and serve with a worldview of atheism is a pipe dream of those of you on the left.

    Further, I never said a candidate was a superior leader if they were religious. Your insecurity about religion is showing.

  14. You obviously need to study English as well because you didn’t comprehend the very basic language in the amendment. I’m not sure how to break it down any more simplistic to you. Its pretty simple, really. But to be sure, I’ll paste some of the context from the above link:

    The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, or religion over non-religion.

    Besides, the post here says that ” Obama mocks Christianity, lacks patrotism”. Oh.. ok, I see… so let me get this straight. Since Obama ( in your eyes) isn’t a Christian, then he must not be patriotic. But the reply to my post above stated that most people are in fact religious, which I agree with and also happen to be. But what if I was Jewish? Would I suddenly not be as wholesome and patriotic as a politician? That would sort of negate the argument that all religions are viewed as positive in the eyes of those who vote for politicians via their religious beliefs because if I were say- Not a Christian and also voted with my religion, then I suppose Mccain would not be acceptable would he? Do you see where I’m coming from?

    You see, there is a very good reason why the first amendment states that separation of Church and state is critical. Because it is all too easy to judge political action through the eyes of religion, be it Christianity, Judaism, or whatever.

  15. It’s no use Bob 🙂
    The only true religion is protestant evangelical. There is no room for my Anglo-Orthodoxy or any one else’s views.

    It’s no wonder England has a holiday celebrating the Puritians leaving. Who the f$%k wants them around!?

    (Edited by SRT)

  16. Bob,

    Your little citation, although accurate, is a non-sequitur. It has NOTHING to do with the discussion. A candidate publicly discussing their religious beliefs in no way tends to establish a “national religion”.

    What SRT is saying is that Obama’s apparent contempt, or at least ambivalence to traditional concepts of patriotism AND Christianity are at odds with those who hold those traditional views. They can’t connect or identify with him. It does not mean that a Jew, or Catholic, or even an Anglican (just as long as it isn’t Amberpeas) couldn’t hold national office. For example, if Sen Joe Lieberman was more of a social conservative, I have NO doubt that he would be McCain’s VP choice and would have been welcomed by the vast majority of so-called religious conservatives.

    Amberpeas…a very intellectual response. I must admit that you are quite the academic. Go take your little potty mouth off a cliff.

  17. GBS,
    Thanks…that is what I was trying to say.

    Sometimes you can’t debate with those who are blinded by their insecurity and/or ignorance.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: