Obama: His Code Words Reveai a Stealth Socialist!?!

"Economic justice" = Marxist "Redistribution of Wealth"?!?

"Investment" = Hyper-Liberal "Tax and Spend"?!?

Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called "economic justice." He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code — socialist code. [...] "Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism.

[...] Of course, Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the front door. He's disguising the wealth transfers as "investments" — "to make America more competitive," he says, or "that give us a fighting chance," whatever that means.

Say it ain't so, Barry and Michelle!!! (with deepest apologies to Joseph Jefferson “Shoeless Joe” Jackson (3rd highest ML batting av.), the Chicago White Sox, and Major League Baseball)

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From an Investor's Business Daily editorial, Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism:

Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism [/] By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, July 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election '08: Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called "economic justice." He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code — socialist code. [/] [Part of] IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism [/] During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. "I've been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served," he said at the group's 99th annual convention in Cincinnati.

Democrat Barack Obama arrives in Washington on Monday. On the campaign trail, Obama has styled himself a centrist. But a look at those who've served as his advisers and mentors over the years shows a far more left-leaning tilt to his background — and to his politics.

And as president, "we'll ensure that economic justice is served," he asserted. "That's what this election is about." Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn't have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval.

It's the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we're launching this special educational series.

"Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism.

In the past, such rhetoric was just that — rhetoric. But Obama's positioning himself with alarming stealth to put that rhetoric into action on a scale not seen since the birth of the welfare state. [/] In his latest memoir he shares that he'd like to "recast" the welfare net that FDR and LBJ cast while rolling back what he derisively calls the "winner-take-all" market economy that Ronald Reagan reignited (with record gains in living standards for all). [/] Obama also talks about "restoring fairness to the economy," code for soaking the "rich" — a segment of society he fails to understand that includes mom-and-pop businesses filing individual tax returns. [/] It's clear from a close reading of his two books that he's a firm believer in class envy. He assumes the economy is a fixed pie, whereby the successful only get rich at the expense of the poor.

Following this discredited Marxist model, he believes government must step in and redistribute pieces of the pie. That requires massive transfers of wealth through government taxing and spending, a return to the entitlement days of old.

Of course, Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the front door. He's disguising the wealth transfers as "investments" — "to make America more competitive," he says, or "that give us a fighting chance," whatever that means.

Among his proposed "investments": [/] • "Universal," "guaranteed" health care. [/] • "Free" college tuition. [/] • "Universal national service" (a la Havana). [/] • "Universal 401(k)s" (in which the government would match contributions made by "low- and moderate-income families"). [/] • "Free" job training (even for criminals). [/] • "Wage insurance" (to supplement dislocated union workers' old income levels). [/] • "Free" child care and "universal" preschool. [/] • More subsidized public housing. [/] • A fatter earned income tax credit for "working poor." [/] • And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.

His new New Deal also guarantees a "living wage," with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and "fair trade" and "fair labor practices," with breaks for "patriot employers" who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for "nonpatriot" companies that don't.

That's just for starters — first-term stuff. [/] Obama doesn't stop with socialized health care. He wants to socialize your entire human resources department — from payrolls to pensions. His social-microengineering even extends to mandating all employers provide seven paid sick days per year to salary and hourly workers alike.

[...] Yet a recent AP poll found that only 6% of Americans would describe Obama as "liberal," let alone socialist. [/] Public opinion polls usually reflect media opinion, and the media by and large have portrayed Obama as a moderate "outsider"

[...] But too much is at stake in this election to continue mincing words.

[...] Those who care less about looking politically correct than preserving the free-market individualism that's made this country great have to start calling things by their proper name to avert long-term disaster [My ellipses and emphasis]

Obama: Stealth Socialist Background and Upbringing!?!

But could he really be "more left," as McCain recently remarked, than self-described socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (for whom Obama has openly campaigned, even making a special trip to Vermont to rally voters)? [/] Obama's voting record, going back to his days in the Illinois statehouse, says yes[!!!]. His career path — and those who guided it — leads to the same unsettling conclusion[!!!]. [/] The seeds of his far-left ideology were planted in his formative years as a teenager[!!!] in Hawaii — and they were far more radical than any biography or profile in the media has portrayed.[!!!]

Say it ain't so, Barry and Michelle!!! (with deepest apologies to Joseph Jefferson “Shoeless Joe” Jackson (3rd highest ML batting av.), the Chicago White Sox, and Major League Baseball)

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From an Investor's Business Daily editorial, Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism:

Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism [/] By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, July 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT

[...] The seeds of his far-left ideology were planted in his formative years as a teenager in Hawaii — and they were far more radical than any biography or profile in the media has portrayed.

A careful reading of Obama's first memoir, "Dreams From My Father," reveals that his childhood mentor up to age 18 — a man he cryptically refers to as "Frank" — was none other than the late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his "subversive," "un-American activities." [/] As Obama was preparing to head off to college, he sat at Davis' feet in his Waikiki bungalow for nightly bull sessions. Davis plied his impressionable guest with liberal doses of whiskey and advice, including: Never trust the white establishment. [/] "They'll train you so good," he said, "you'll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh**."

After college, where he palled around with Marxist professors and took in socialist conferences "for inspiration," Obama followed in Davis' footsteps, becoming a "community organizer" in Chicago.

His boss there was Gerald Kellman, whose identity Obama also tries to hide in his book. Turns out Kellman's a disciple of the late Saul "The Red" Alinsky, a hard-boiled Chicago socialist who wrote the "Rules for Radicals" and agitated for social revolution in America. [/] The Chicago-based Woods Fund provided Kellman with his original $25,000 to hire Obama. In turn, Obama would later serve on the Woods board with terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground. Ayers was one of Obama's early political supporters. [/] After three years agitating with marginal success for more welfare programs in South Side Chicago, Obama decided he would need to study law to "bring about real change" — on a large scale.

While at Harvard Law School, he still found time to hone his organizing skills. For example, he spent eight days in Los Angeles taking a national training course taught by Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation. With his newly minted law degree, he returned to Chicago to reapply — as well as teach — Alinsky's "agitation" tactics. [/] (A video-streamed bio on Obama's Web site includes a photo of him teaching in a University of Chicago classroom. If you freeze the frame and look closely at the blackboard Obama is writing on, you can make out the words "Power Analysis" and "Relationships Built on Self Interest" — terms right out of Alinsky's rule book.)

Amid all this, Obama reunited with his late father's communist tribe in Kenya, the Luo, during trips to Africa.

As a Nairobi bureaucrat, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Harvard-educated economist, grew to challenge the ruling pro-Western government for not being socialist enough. In an eight-page scholarly paper published in 1965, he argued for eliminating private farming and nationalizing businesses "owned by Asians and Europeans." [/] [...] Obama Sr. wrote. "I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and syphon some of these revenues into savings which can be utilized in investment for future development."

[...] (Voters might also be interested to know that Obama, the supposed straight shooter, does not once mention his father's communist leanings in an entire book dedicated to his memory.)

In Kenya's recent civil unrest, Obama privately phoned the leader of the opposition Luo tribe, Raila Odinga, to voice his support. Odinga is so committed to communism he named his oldest son after Fidel Castro.

With his African identity sewn up, Obama returned to Chicago and fell under the spell of an Afrocentric pastor. It was a natural attraction. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaches a Marxist version of Christianity called "black liberation theology" and has supported the communists in Cuba, Nicaragua and elsewhere. [/] Obama joined Wright's militant church, pledging allegiance to a system of "black values" that demonizes white "middle classness" and other mainstream pursuits. [/] (Obama in his first book, published in 1995, calls such values "sensible." There's no mention of them in his new book.)

With the large church behind him, Obama decided to run for political office, where he could organize for "change" more effectively. "As an elected official," he said, "I could bring church and community leaders together easier than I could as a community organizer or lawyer." [/] He could also exercise real, top-down power, the kind that grass-roots activists lack. Alinsky would be proud.

Throughout his career, Obama has worked closely with a network of stone-cold socialists and full-blown communists striving for "economic justice." [/] He's been traveling in an orbit of collectivism that runs from Nairobi to Honolulu, and on through Chicago to Washington.

Yet a recent AP poll found that only 6% of Americans would describe Obama as "liberal," let alone socialist. [/] Public opinion polls usually reflect media opinion, and the media by and large have portrayed Obama as a moderate "outsider" (the No. 1 term survey respondents associate him with) who will bring a "breath of fresh air" to Washington. [...] [My ellipses and emphasis]

POLL ToK Active Gay Bishop Resign?

From U.S. Episcopal Diocese

See article below, and: Vote! Make your opinion (or lack thereof) count!! Vote at Adult Christian Forum Thread 131408!!!. (Choices and link also given after article below.)

From a Virtue Online .org article, Congolese bishop says Robinson "Causing Pain":

LAMBETH: Congolese bishop says Robinson "Causing Pain" [/] By Hans Zeiger in Canterbury [/] July 28, 2008

CANTERBURY -A bishop of the Anglican Church in the Congo spoke with VirtueOnline on Sunday about his personal opposition to homosexual ordination. The Rt. Rev. Sylvestre Bahati Bali-Busane, Bishop of the Diocese of Bakavu in the Congo , said that the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson, the gay Bishop of New Hampshire, is "causing pain in the church."

Through an interpreter, Bishop Bahati said, "In my opinion, so many bishops are not here because of Gene Robinson. It would have been good to be forthright and also for Gene Robinson to resign. Most bishops are not happy with him continuing to be bishop in a church and he should have stepped down. That is my own opinion."

Hundreds of orthodox Anglican bishops, mostly from Africa, have stayed away from the Lambeth Conference, opting instead to attend the Global Anglican Future Conference in the Holy Land last month. Divisions in the Anglican Communion run deep.

Bishop Bahati reiterated his belief that Bishop Robinson is to blame for the schism. Robinson is "really causing pain in the church," said Bahati. "He should stop it completely. It would be very, very good to stop completely ordination of gay bishops and marriages, because it is evident that this is the biggest problem in the church at the moment."

Bahati then quoted from I Corinthian 8 in Swahili. Given the Scriptural admonition not to cause problems for a brother with a weak conscience, said the bishop, "It would be far better to bring an end to that [gay ordination] and it will bring healing to the church." [My ellipses and emphasis]

First Corinthians 8: KJV:

9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. 10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

Poll Question: Active Gay Bishop Resign? (From U.S. Episcopal Diocese) | Poll choices:

1. Yes. Unity vs. bishops' right to sodomy. / 2. Yes. Embarasing to millions. / 3. Yes. Against canon law. / 4. Yes. Completely unbiblical. / 5. Yes. Offense to all humanity. / 6. Yes. In sackcloth and ashes. / 7. Yes. And change his ways. / 8. Yes. And either Repent or leave church. / 9. Yes. / 10. Possibly. Christian freedom. / 11. Possibly. Tolerate the sinner. / 12. Possibly. / 13. No. / 14. No. Freedom of sexual expression tops other considerations. / 15. No. Make the world safe for sodomy. / 16. No. Next they will be picking on women. / 17. No. Next they will be picking on minorities. / 18. No. Sexual orientation unchangeable. / 19. No opinion. Important issues deserve much study.. / 20. No comment. / 21. No opinion. / 22. This poll is worthless. / 23. This poll is of negative value. / 24. Other.

Vote at Adult Christian Forum Thread 131408! Vote!! Make your opinion (or lack thereof) count!!!

Top Sudanese Episcopal Bishop Rejects Homosexual Practice!!!

"We reject homosexual practice as contrary to biblical teaching and can accept no place for it within ECS [The Episcopal Church of Sudan]. We strongly oppose developments within the Anglican Church in USA and Canada in consecrating a practicing homosexual as bishop and in approving a rite for the blessing of same-sex relationships."

I report and link. You decide. - ToK

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. - 2 Timothy 2:15

From a Virtue Online .org article, Sudanese Episcopal Church Rejects Homosexual Practice:

Exclusives : LAMBETH: Sudanese Episcopal Church Rejects Homosexual Practice [/] Posted by David Virtue on 2008/7/21 15:00:00 (1668 reads) [/] Africans Oppose Episcopal Church for Consecrating a Practicing Homosexual - Condemn Court Actions

The Archbishop and Primate of the Province of the Episcopal Church of the Sudan has issued a statement at the Lambeth Conference [the official gathering of the world's Amglican bishops] condemning homosexual practice as contrary to biblical teaching and saying the consecration of an openly homosexual American bishop has caused divisions within the Anglican Communion and harmed the Church's witness in Africa.

The Most Rev. Dr. Daniel Deng Bul made the statement available through intermediaries to VirtueOnline. In a clear and concise statement said that human sexuality is God's gift to human beings and can only be expressed within a life-long commitment of marriage between one man and one woman.

"We require all those in the ministry of the Church to live according to this standard and cannot accept church leaders whose practice is contrary to this," said the Archbishop.

"We reject homosexual practice as contrary to biblical teaching and can accept no place for it within ECS. We strongly oppose developments within the Anglican Church in USA and Canada in consecrating a practicing homosexual as bishop and in approving a rite for the blessing of same-sex relationships. This has not only caused deep divisions within the Anglican Communion but it has seriously harmed the Church's witness in Africa and elsewhere, opening the church to ridicule and damaging its credibility in a multi-religious environment."

The Archbishop said the unity of the Anglican Communion is of profound importance as an expression of our unity within the Body of Christ. "It is not something we can treat lightly or allow to be fractured easily. Our unity expresses the essential truth of the Gospel that in Christ we are united across different tribes, cultures and nationalities.

"We have come to attend the Lambeth Conference, despite the decision of others to stay away, to appeal to the whole Anglican Communion to uphold our unity and to take the necessary steps to safeguard the precious unity of the Church.

"Out of love for our brothers and sisters in Christ, we appeal to the Anglican Church in the USA and Canada to demonstrate real commitment to the requests arising from the Windsor process. In particular: To refrain from ordaining practicing homosexuals to bishops or priests; To refrain from approving rites of blessing for same-sex relationships; To cease court actions with immediate effect; To comply with Resolution 1:10 of the 1998 Lambeth conference; To respect the authority of the Bible."

"We believe that such steps are essential for bridging the divisions which have opened up within the Communion. "We affirm our commitment to uphold the four instruments of communion of the Anglican Communion: the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth conference, the Primates Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council, and call upon all Provinces of the Communion to respect these for the sake of the unity and well-being of the Church.

"We appeal to this Lambeth conference to rescue the Anglican Communion from being divided. We pray that God will heal us from the spirit of divisions. We pray for God's strength and wisdom so that we might be built up in the unity of the Body of Christ." [My ellipses and emphasis]

Toto of Kansas aka Jim Smiling aka Brother Jonathan

Link to my href="http://people.delphiforums.com/jimsmiling/index.html">
Blogs, Forums & Essays

Spirit Baptism Ended?!?

I report and link. You decide. - ToK

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. - 2 Timothy 2:15

There are many passages that seem to show a great dispensational difference between the New Testament church and the post-apostolic church.

The formation of the nation of Israel during forty years in the desert is strikingly parallel to the formation of the Church in the forty years between Pentecost and the destruction of the Temple.

Paul's exposition of these similarities would seem to define baptism in the Holy Spirit in a way unfamiliar to most.

1 Corinthians 10:1-6 KJV Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; (2) And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; (3) And did all eat the same spiritual meat; (4) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. (5) But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. (6) Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.

"Under the cloud" and "through the sea" would seem to be similar to Spirit baptism and water baptism respectively. And "baptized unto Moses" is parallel to baptized into Christ. The pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night are parallel to baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

One thing that has always puzzled me about Spirit baptism is the exit from immersion. (Baptism is literally a dipping.) I have thought that possibly it was the residue from the immersion that was efficacious.

But this passage suggests that Spirit baptism was of the entire Church. And as the pillar of cloud ceased when the nation of Israel had been formed under Moses, the Church emerged from the baptism of the Spirit when its formation through the special spiritual offices, gifts and manifestations of the apostolic age was complete.

Toto of Kansas aka Jim Smiling aka Brother Jonathan

Link to my href="http://people.delphiforums.com/jimsmiling/index.html">
Blogs, Forums & Essays

Global Economy: Max Danger Is Now!?!

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From a Telegraph [UK] article, The global economy is at the point of maximum danger:

The global economy is at the point of maximum danger [/] By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard [/] Last Updated: 6:53am BST 21/07/2008

It feels like the summer of 1931. The world's two biggest financial institutions have had a heart attack. The global currency system is breaking down. The policy doctrines that got us into this mess are bankrupt. No world leader seems able to discern the problem, let alone forge a solution.

The International Monetary Fund has abdicated into schizophrenia. It has upgraded its 2008 world forecast from 3.7pc to 4.1pc growth, whilst warning of a "chance of a global recession". Plainly, the IMF cannot or will not offer any useful insights. [/] Its "mean-reversion" model misses the entire point of this crisis, which is that central banks have pushed debt to fatal levels by holding interest too low for a generation, and now the chickens have come home to roost. True "mean-reversion" would imply debt deflation on such a scale that would, if abrupt, threaten democracy.

The risk is that these same central banks will commit a fresh error, this time overreacting to the oil spike. The European Central Bank has raised rates, warning of a 1970s wage-price spiral. Fixated on the rear-view mirror, it is not looking through the windscreen.

The eurozone is falling into recession before the US itself. Its level of credit stress is worse, if measured by Euribor or the iTraxx bond indexes. Core inflation has fallen over the last year from 1.9pc to 1.8pc.

The US may soon tip into a second leg of this crisis as the fiscal package runs out and Americans lose jobs in earnest. US bank credit has contracted for three months. Real US wages fell at almost 10pc (annualised) over May and June. This is a ferocious squeeze for an economy already in the grip of the property and debt crunch.

No doubt the rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - $5.3 trillion pillars of America's mortgage market - stinks of moral hazard. The Treasury is to buy shares: the Fed has opened its window yet wider. Risks have been socialised. Any rewards will go to capitalists.

Alas, no Scandinavian discipline for Wall Street. When Norway's banks fell below critical capital levels in the early 1990s, the Storting authorised seizure. Shareholders were stiffed. [/] But Nordic purism in the vast universe of US credit would court fate. The Californian lender IndyMac was indeed seized after depositors panicked on the streets of Encino. The police had to restore order. This was America's Northern Rock moment. [/] IndyMac will deplete a tenth of the $53bn reserve of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The FDIC has some 90 "troubled" lenders on watch. IndyMac was not one of them.

The awful reality is that Washington has its back to the wall. Fed chief Ben Bernanke thought the US could always get out of trouble by monetary stimulus "à l'outrance", and letting the dollar slide. He has learned that the world is a more complicated place.

Oil has queered the pitch. So has America's fatal reliance on foreign debt. The Fannie/Freddie rescue, incidentally, has just lifted the US national debt from German 'AAA' levels to Italian 'AA-' levels.

China, Russia, petro-powers and other foreign states own $985bn of US agency debt, besides holdings of US Treasuries. Purchases of Fannie/Freddie debt covered a third of the US current account deficit of $700bn over the last year. Alex Patelis from Merrill Lynch says America faces the risk of a "financing crisis" within months. Foreigners have a veto over US policy. [/] Japan did not have this problem during its Lost Decade. As the world's supplier of credit, it could let the yen slide. It also had a savings rate of 15pc. Albert Edwards from Société Générale says this has fallen to 3pc today. It has cushioned the slump. Americans are under water before they start.

My view is that a dollar crash will be averted as it becomes clearer that contagion has spread worldwide. But we are now at the point of maximum danger. Britain, Japan, and the Antipodes are stalling. Denmark is in recession. Germany contracted in the second quarter. May industrial output fell 6pc in Holland and 5.5pc in Sweden. [/] The coalitions in Belgium and Austria have just collapsed. Germany's left-right team is fraying. One German banker told me that the doctrines of "left Nazism" (Otto Strasser's group, purged by Hitler) had captured the rising Die Linke party. The Social Democrats are picking up its themes to protect their flank. [/] This is the healthy part of Europe. Further south, we are not far away from civic protest. BNP Paribas has just issued a hurricane alert for Spain. [/] Finance minister Pedro Solbes said Spain is facing the "most complex" economic crisis in its history. Actually, it is very simple. The country was lulled into a trap by giveaway interest rates of 2pc under EMU, leading to a current account deficit of 10pc of GDP. [/] A manic property bubble was funded by foreigners buying covered bonds and securities. This market has dried up. Monetary policy is now being tightened into the crunch by the ECB, hence the bankruptcy last week of Martinsa-Fadesa (€5.1bn). With Franco-era labour markets (70pc of wages are inflation-linked), the adjustment will occur through closure of the job marts.

China, India, East Europe and emerging Asia have all stolen growth from the future by condoning credit excess. To varying degrees, they are now being forced to pay back their own "inter-temporal overdrafts".

If we are lucky, America will start to stabilise before Asia goes down. Should our leaders mismanage affairs, almost every part of the global system will go down together. Then we are in trouble. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Brother Jonathan aka Jim Smiling aka Toto of Kansas

Link to my href="http://people.delphiforums.com/jimsmiling/index.html">
Blogs, Forums & Essays

Anglicans Gone Astray Over Sexuality Issues?!?

As leaders of the third largest Christian communion meet in England, leaders of other communions, larger and smaller, send warnings about what is seen as a dangerous drift from biblical and traditional Christian teachings.

I report and link. You decide. - ToK

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. - 2 Timothy 2:15

From a Virtue Online .org Exclusive, World Ecumenical Leaders Blast Anglican Communion over Sexuality Issues:

Exclusives : LAMBETH: World Ecumenical Leaders Blast Anglican Communion over Sexuality Issues [/] Posted by David Virtue on 2008/7/19 8:10:00 (1768 reads)

World religious leaders including Pope Benedict XVI, the Archbishop of Constantinople, the Russian Patriarchate and numerous church leaders took aim at the Anglican Communion's sexual drift and blasted its leadership saying that they jeopardized present and future relationships.

Speaking on behalf of Pope Benedict XIV, Secretary of State for the Vatican Cardinal Bertrone wrote the Archbishop of Canterbury at the Lambeth conference of Anglican bishops saying that "apostolic faith handed down from the beginning and the 'regula fidei' faithfully transmitted, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, through the ages" is not subject to compromise. [/] "Our different understanding of the divine plan for this ministry in the Church has been addressed for the past forty years. New issues that have arisen in our relationship pose a further and grave challenge to the hope for full and visible unity that has been the longstanding goal of our joint ecumenical endeavour." [/] The Pope concluded his remarks saying "the emerging ecclesiological and ethical factors make (our) journey more difficult and arduous."

The Archbishop of Constantinople and ecumenical Patriarch wrote saying that while Lambeth would be devoting special consideration to the vocation and ministry of the bishop as the symbol and instrument of unity, "we pray that the present Lambeth Conference will prove to be a council of reconciliation and unity, an occasion for speaking the truth in sincerity and without compromise, yet an occasion also for speaking the truth in love." [/] Acknowledging that questions confronting the Bishops of the Anglican Communion are "from one point of view, specifically Anglican questions" they are "at the same time questions that concern the total Christian world." The Archbishop concluded his remarks saying that "your concerns...have a vital relevance also for us."

The Patriarchate of Moscow and All Russia wrote saying that the members of the conference have a very serious task. "They have to choose between the traditional, biblical norms of morality and tendencies which consider sin and general permissiveness as manifestations of love and tolerance. That is why there is laid on members of the conference such a great, historic responsibility." [/] He said the outcome of the Lambeth Conference will be of particular importance for the Russian Orthodox Church, "for the history of our contacts with Anglicans goes back to the sixteenth century. As a rule, it has been marked by warmth and mutual understanding. I sincerely hope it will be possible to maintain such relations." The Patriarch concluded his remarks saying, "It is my heartfelt wish that the work of the conference be governed by the aspiration to remain unshakably faithful to the understanding of the Christian moral ideal which is revealed to us in the Word of God and the centuries-old aposto9lic tradition."

The Holy Archbishopric of Cyprus cautioned that "great care be taken for the realization of the sacramental communication of the Anglicans with the Orthodox." [/] He noted that following the 1988 Lambeth conference, "no substantial progress had been made to "promote relations between the Orthodox and the Anglican Church, no substantial progress has been made in this area though a most fervent desire for our union exists in both churches." He said the church had recognized "Anglican ordainments" since 1923.

In a pointed statement to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of Athens and all Greece suggested that as this is the year of St. Paul, the Anglican Communion might take the opportunity "to examine to what degree the Church has remained faithful or has deviated from the Pauline teaching and principles., given that most of Europe was originally evangelized by the Apostle Paul and has immediate need of re-evangelization "to distinguish between those matters that are essentials and those that are not." [/] He said it was imperative that the "Godless secularism" that threatens to engulf most of today's society should be met with "re-evangelization".

John Barrett, chairperson of The World Methodist Council wrote saying the church must reassert its authority to speak "and resist the temptation to accept uncritically a contemporary world view. It must also not retreat to a simplistic fundamentalism."

The Unity Board of the Moravian Church urged the Archbishop of Canterbury "to distinguish between those matters that are essentials and those that are not. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Toto of Kansas aka Jim Smiling aka Brother Jonathan

Link to my href="http://people.delphiforums.com/jimsmiling/index.html">
Blogs, Forums & Essays

Democrats: Party of No Faith At All?!?

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From a Power Line Blog article, They Had No Faith to Lose, and They Know It:

They Had No Faith to Lose, and They Know It [[by John Hinderaker]] [/] July 15, 2008

I spent some time yesterday with a high-ranking Republican elected official. He noted that more than ever, the Democrats are the party of special interests. On issue after issue, they take perverse policy positions that are dictated by the fact that they are in the pocket of various special interests:

* They want to destroy the secret ballot in union elections, the cornerstone of labor democracy. Why? Because they are owned by the unions.

* They allowed our ability to spy on terrorists to lapse for a period of time, thereby threatening our national security. Why? Because they are owned by the plaintiffs' lawyers who were determined to sue telecoms.

* They try to block energy production, even though they know that the effects on our economy will be disastrous. Why? Because they are owned by the Sierra Club and other "environmentalist" groups.

What is surprising to me is not that the Democrats can be bought, but that they continue to be treated as the home team of American politics by essentially every reporter and editor in the news business. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Brother Jonathan aka Jim Smiling aka Toto of Kansas

Link to my href="http://people.delphiforums.com/jimsmiling/index.html">
Blogs, Forums & Essays

Obama: Dishonest or Irrational on Iraq?!?

Power Line called him egregiously dishonest (see prior thread "Obama: Most Dishonest ...". Now the left leaning Washington Post call his Iraq position irrational:

The message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war's outcome -- that Iraq "distracts us from every threat we face" and thus must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. That's an irrational and ahistorical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East, with some of the world's largest oil reserves. Whether or not the war was a mistake, Iraq's future is a vital U.S. security interest. - from editorial linked and copied below

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our

God. - Psalms 20:7

From a Washington Post Editorial, The Iron Timetable:

The Iron Timetable\Whether the war in Iraq is being lost or won, Barack Obama's strategy remains unchanged.\Wednesday, July 16, 2008; A16

BARACK OBAMA yesterday accused President Bush and Sen. John McCain of rigidity on Iraq: "They said we couldn't leave when violence was up, they say we can't leave when violence is down." Mr. Obama then confirmed his own foolish consistency. Early last year, when the war was at its peak, the Democratic candidate proposed a timetable for withdrawing all U.S. combat forces in slightly more than a year. Yesterday, with bloodshed at its lowest level since the war began, Mr. Obama endorsed the same plan. After hinting earlier this month that he might "refine" his Iraq strategy after visiting the country and listening to commanders, Mr. Obama appears to have decided that sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic changes in Iraq.

Mr. Obama's charge against the Republicans was not entirely fair, since Mr. Bush has overseen the withdrawal of five American brigades from Iraq this year, and Mr. McCain has suggested that he would bring most of the rest of the troops home by early 2013. Mr. Obama's timeline would end in the summer of 2010, a year or two before the earliest dates proposed recently by members of the Iraqi government. The real difference between the various plans is not the dates but the conditions: Both the Iraqis and Mr. McCain say the withdrawal would be linked to the ability of Iraqi forces to take over from U.S. troops, as they have begun to do. Mr. Obama's strategy allows no such linkage -- his logic is that a timetable unilaterally dictated from Washington is necessary to force Iraqis to take responsibility for the country.

At the time he first proposed his timetable, Mr. Obama argued -- wrongly, as it turned out -- that U.S. troops could not stop a sectarian civil war. He conceded that a withdrawal might be accompanied by a "spike" in violence. Now, he describes as "an achievable goal" that "we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future -- a government that prevents sectarian conflict and ensures that the al-Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge." How will that "true success" be achieved? By the same pullout that Mr. Obama proposed when chaos in Iraq appeared to him inevitable.

Mr. Obama reiterated yesterday that he would consult with U.S. commanders and the Iraqi government and "make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy." However, as Mr. McCain quickly pointed out, he delivered his speech before traveling to Iraq -- before his meetings with Gen. David H. Petraeus and the Iraqi leadership. American commanders will probably tell Mr. Obama that from a logistical standpoint, a 16-month withdrawal timetable will be difficult, if not impossible, to fulfill. Iraqis will say that a pullout that is not negotiated with the government and disregards the readiness of Iraqi troops will be a gift to al-Qaeda and other enemies. If Mr. Obama really intends to listen to such advisers, why would he lock in his position in advance?

What's missing in our debate," Mr. Obama said yesterday, "is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq." Indeed: The message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war's outcome -- that Iraq "distracts us from every threat we face" and thus must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. That's an irrational and ahistorical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East, with some of the world's largest oil reserves. Whether or not the war was a mistake, Iraq's future is a vital U.S. security interest. If he is elected president, Mr. Obama sooner or later will have to tailor his Iraq strategy to that reality. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Brother Jonathan aka Jim Smiling aka Toto of Kansas

Link to my href="http://people.delphiforums.com/jimsmiling/index.html">
Blogs, Forums & Essays

Obama: Most Dishonest Major U.S. Politician Ever?!?

It is possible that at some point in American history there may have been a major politician as dishonest as Barack Obama, but I can't offhand think of such a miscreant. - Power Line Blog Post excerpted and linked below

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7

From a Power Line Blog post, Obama's Dishonest Op-Ed:

Obama's Dishonest Op-Ed [/] Power Line [/] July 14, 2008 [/] [[by John Hinderaker]]

In this morning's New York Times, Barack Obama published an op-ed on Iraq that presumably previews his "major speech" on the subject tomorrow. Even by Obama's standards, the piece is breathtakingly dishonest. [/] Obama admits that he opposed the surge, and the attendant change in strategy and tactics, that have brought us close to victory. But he somehow manages to twist his being wrong about the surge--the major foreign policy issue that has arisen during his time in Congress--into vindication:

But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.

Actually, however, Obama opposed the surge not because of those "factors" but because he thought it would fail. He said, on January 10, 2007, on MSNBC:

I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.

On January 14, 2007, on Face the Nation, he said:

We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality -- we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.

On March 19, 2007, on the Larry King show, he said:

[E]ven those who are supporting -- but here's the thing, Larry -- even those who support the escalation have acknowledged that 20,000, 30,000, even 40,000 more troops placed temporarily in places like Baghdad are not going to make a long-term difference.

On May 25, 2007, in a speech to the Coalition Of Black Trade Unionists Convention, Obama said:

And what I know is that what our troops deserve is not just rhetoric, they deserve a new plan. Governor Romney and Senator McCain clearly believe that the course that we're on in Iraq is working, I do not.

On July 18, 2007, on the Today show, he said:

My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.

On November 11, 2007, two months after General David Petraeus told Congress that the surge was working, Obama doubled down, saying that the administration's new strategy was making the situation in Iraq worse:

Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn't withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled them and initiated a surge and at that stage I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we're actually worsening, potentially, a situation there.

In short, Obama bet the farm on his prediction that General Petraeus and the American military would fail. He was as spectacularly wrong as John McCain was spectacularly right. But his op-ed somehow twists this history into vindication on the theory that Afghanistan has deteriorated, the Iraq war has been expensive, and Iraq's political leaders "have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge."

Let's start with the last point. Obama completely fails to acknowledge the remarkable political progress that has resulted from the surge, as manifested by the fact that the country's largest Sunni bloc has rejoined the government, and the U.S. Embassy reports that 15 of the 18 benchmarks of political progress that were set by Congress are now being met. Those benchmarks were set precisely for the purpose of measuring the "political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge," yet Obama fails even to mention them.

Still more dishonest is Obama's failure to acknowledge what would have happened if his policy prescription, precipitate withdrawal regardless of military conditions, had been followed: chaos, sectarian violence, possibly genocide, a resurgent al Qaeda in control of part of Iraq, with Iran possibly in control of other areas of the country. This would have been a foreign policy disaster, yet Obama, with vague references to cost and Afghanistan, claims vindication! [/] As to al Qaeda--the elephant in the room--Obama simply dissimulates:

Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been.

That's not what Osama bin Laden (Iraq is where the "Third World War is raging”) or Ayman al-Zawahiri (Iraq is "the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era”) say. Al Qaeda summoned jihadists from around the Muslim world to go to Iraq to fight American troops, declaring that this effort is the central front in their war against civilization. Those jihadists have been devastated by American armed forces, who have thereby scored what may, with hindsight, turn out to have been the decisive victory in the war against Muslim extremism. Obama denies all of this in a single sentence, without citing any evidence whatsoever.

Finally, Afghanistan: Obama would have us believe that he urged defeat in Iraq because he was so firmly committed to victory in Afghanistan. Once again, he misrepresents the record. [/] In fact, Obama has never supported our troops in Afghanistan. On the contrary, he said on August 14, 2007--less than a year ago--that our forces there are mostly committing war crimes:

We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.

Obama has been so uninterested in Afghanistan that when he went to Iraq and other countries in the Middle East with a Congressional delegation in January 2006, he skipped the opportunity to continue on to Afghanistan, which was taken by others who made the trip with him, including Kit Bond and Harold Ford. And, in an embarrassing gaffe, Obama claimed on May 13, 2008, that we don't have enough "Arabic interpreters, Arab language speakers" in Afghanistan because they are all being used in Iraq. Obama thereby demonstrated the intellectual laziness and incuriosity that characterizes his campaign: they don't speak Arabic in Afghanistan, and, anyway, interpreters are drawn from local populations, not shipped around the world.

Worst of all, far from being committed to victory in Afghanistan, Obama voted to cut off all funding for all of our military efforts in Afghanistan on May 24, 2007 (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181), thereby seeking to bring about defeat there as well as in Iraq. His current effort to portray himself as a wolf in sheep's clothing on Afghanistan is a complete fraud.

It is possible that at some point in American history there may have been a major politician as dishonest as Barack Obama, but I can't offhand think of such a miscreant.

To comment on this post, go here. [/] Posted by John at 6:55 PM [My ellipses and emphasis]

Brother Jonathan aka Jim Smiling aka Toto of Kansas

Link to my href="http://people.delphiforums.com/jimsmiling/index.html">
Blogs, Forums & Essays

Tony Snow: Christian Witness?!?

What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice. - Philippians 1:18

I report and link. You decide. - ToK

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. - 2 Timothy 2:15

From a New York Times article, The Character of Optimism:

The Character of Optimism [/] By WILLIAM KRISTOL [/] July 14, 2008 [/] Op-Ed Columnist

The late Tony Snow — how odd it is to write “late” before Tony’s name, and how sad — was an editorial writer and columnist, the host of “Fox News Sunday” for seven years and of a radio talk show for three, and a speechwriter in the White House of the first president Bush and press secretary for the second. We were twice colleagues (at the first Bush White House and at Fox), and throughout our two decades together in Washington compatriots and friends. [/] I could easily dilate on Tony’s impressive achievements in journalism and government, and on the remarkable abilities and manifold talents that made his professional accomplishments possible.

But I’ll remember Tony Snow more for his character than his career. I’ll especially remember the calm courage and cheerful optimism he displayed in his last three years, in the face of his fatal illness.

For quite a while now, optimism has had a bad reputation in intellectual circles. The fashionable books of my youth — [...] The basic attitude one derived from these works was that pessimism is deeper than optimism, and existential angst more profound than cheerful confidence. This attitude remains powerful, perhaps dominant, among many thoughtful people today — perhaps especially among conservatives, reacting against a facile liberal belief in progress.

Tony Snow was a conservative. But he didn’t have a prejudice in favor of melancholy. His deep Christian faith combined with his natural exuberance to give him an upbeat world view. Watching him, and so admiring his remarkable strength of character in the last phase of his life, I came to wonder: Could it be that a stance of faith-grounded optimism is in fact superior to one of worldly pessimism or sophisticated fatalism?

Tony was one of the nicest guys you’d ever meet — kind, helpful and cheerful. But underlying these seemingly natural qualities was a kind of choice: the choice of gratitude. Tony thought we should be grateful for what life has given us, not bitter or anxious about what it hasn’t.

So he once wrote that “If you think Independence Day is America’s defining holiday, think again. Thanksgiving deserves that title, hands-down.” He believed that gratitude, not self-assertion, was the fundamental human truth, and that a recognition of this was one of the things that made America great.

After Tony’s cancer diagnosis and surgery in 2005, his faith deepened. So, amazingly, did his sense of gratitude. That doesn’t mean he accepted his illness, or the prospect of dying. He fought both. Above all, he didn’t want to leave his wife, Jill, and his three children. [/] Still, he understood the limits of human control. And, perhaps because of his faith, he found dying in a way life-enriching. As he wrote last year, “The mere thought of death somehow makes every blessing vivid, every happiness more luminous and intense.”

Tony once spoke at a dinner for journalists held in conjunction with the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington. Cal Thomas reported on Tony’s remarks: “After his first cancer surgery, Snow said, he had to stay in bed and he began reading the Bible more, ‘learning to pray’ and to ask God to ‘draw me closer, please, [which] develops a hunger that is also a form of joy.’ ” As this last sentence hints, Tony was an avid reader of C. S. Lewis. [/] In July 2001, Tony wrote a beautiful tribute to a friend and former Washington Times colleague, Ken Smith, who had died of cancer at age 44. Seven years later, the piece reads uncannily as if the subject were Tony himself. [/] Tony described his friend’s extraordinary grace as he suffered from a cruel and debilitating form of cancer. Ken “hated fussing over himself, and didn’t want to burden anybody” with his problems. He “accepted calmly the news that his cancer was incurable.” What’s more, “Ken never became bitter or morose. He didn’t milk his plight to elicit pity. He remained himself.” And “when it mattered, his virtues always dominated his vices.” Above all, “He used the light of his faith to dispel shadows of death.”

Tony concluded: “I find myself in the odd position of mourning less than I ought to because I feel so grateful that I got to know him at all. The world doesn’t produce as many nice guys as it should. Ditto for people who possess exemplary courage, strength, decency and faith. Ken got 44 years to show the rest of us how to brighten a life and a world.”
Tony got 53 years to show the rest of us how to brighten a life and a world. We should be grateful. But I can’t help being indignant that he didn’t have longer. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Jim :) Smiling aka Brother Jonathan aka Toto Of Kansas

Link to my Blogs, Forums & Essays

Women Bishops In Church of England!?!

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. - 2 Timothy 2:15

I report and link. You decide. - ToK

Or perhaps now, the new Enlightened Ones will look sternly upon England's ancient spires and regard them as patriarchal, phallic symbols fit to be torn down and replaced by solar panels to the glory of man?

From a Virtue Online .org article,
Church of England Follows Episcopal Church [USA] , more follows::

Church of England Follows Episcopal Church [USA] in Revisionist Stand on Women Bishops & Homosexuality [/] Editorial [/] By David W. Virtue [/] 7/8/2008

Church of England traditionalists got their single biggest wake-up call, yesterday, when the Synod decided to consecrate women bishops, rejecting compromise proposals for new "super bishops" that would have offered a safety net for those opposed to women's ascent to the episcopacy. [/] It was the same "in your face" act as the marriage of two queer priests in St. Bartholomew's Church, London recently, an act as communion breaking as the ordination of women. No discipline has been metered out because there is no discipline left in the CofE, nor is there anyone to exercise it, any more than there is discipline in the Episcopal Church [USA] except, of course, if you are orthodox in faith and morals.

[...] The Church of England now faces schism over the threat of a mass exodus of some 1300 traditionalist clergy because of the actions of Synod. Furthermore, a year ago a petition was sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury by leading Evangelicals saying they no longer wanted to be under liberal CofE bishops. While the petition went nowhere, it indicated the deep fissures that lie just beneath the surface in the CofE, fissures that will, over time, only widen.

As recently as 2005, studies showed a vast see of unbelief lurking beneath the surface of the tranquil CofE. Peter LeRoy, a layman from the diocese of Bath and Wells, said at that time that the definition of an Anglican was someone "who can believe anything they want, as long as it is not (held) too strongly". He said heresy trials were essential to persuade clergy to endorse "sound teaching". Quoting from a survey carried out in 2002 on what the Church of England believed in, he said just 76 per cent of clergy believed Jesus Christ died to take away the sins of the world, 68 per cent believed Jesus rose physically from the dead and 53 per cent believed faith in Jesus was the only way they could be saved. Among women clergy, the figures came in at about 10 per cent lower in each category. Many of these women will now become bishops.

[...] He needs a reminder about what happened with the irregular ordination of women in The Episcopal Church. It began in 1974, when eleven women were ordained to the priesthood in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, by three retired Episcopal Church bishops. Four more women were ordained in 1975 in Washington D.C. These ordinations were ruled "irregular" because they had been done without the authorization of ECUSA's General Convention. Two years later, General Convention authorized the ordination of women to the priesthood and, in time, to the episcopate. [/] First, however it was voluntary upon bishops whether they would ordain a woman or not. Enter Barbara Harris, the Suffragan Bishop of Massachusetts. Within a short time it became mandatory on ALL bishops to ordain a woman or face the wrath of the HOB [House of Bishops]. This set off bizarre ordination arrangements between the Dioceses of Ft. Worth and Dallas to find a way around the problem. But the damage was done. And now, years later, the dioceses of San Joaquin, Ft. worth and Quincy, all of whom oppose women's ordination, are either out the door or ready to leave The Episcopal Church before the end of the year.

[...] He doesn't see that in time the pansexualists will eventually win, breaking down one bishop after another with the notion that homogenital behavior is a "justice" issue and the thinly educated clergy will roll over seeing it as civil or human rights issue? Those that oppose them will be crudely labeled homophobic and fundamentalist. Look what happened to Liverpool Bishop James Jones, once a stalwart evangelical, now a supporter of homoeroticism! [/] Does Wright really believe that with women bishops on the way, that England's moribund parishes will miraculously fill up on Sunday morning with torpid English men and women, filled with coffee, emerging out of the fog to fill near empty pews to hear the Rt. Rev. Eleanor Snodgrass, formerly just the Rev. Snodgrass drone on about the environment, and during the passing of the peace, insist that all the old age pensioners grab their canes go outside and hug a tree? [/] Or perhaps now, the new Enlightened Ones will look sternly upon England's ancient spires and regard them as patriarchal, phallic symbols fit to be torn down and replaced by solar panels to the glory of man?

Wright is wrong. GAFCON is the future. If there weren't a GAFCON, it would have to be invented. The liberals have stormed the final bastions of Church of England orthodoxy. All that is left is a mop up operation. It is only a matter of time. New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson famously opined that if you took all the gay priests out of the CofE it would collapse. He may be right. [/] Orthodox Anglicans have seen the future and it is GAFCON. And neither N. T. Wright, John Sentamu nor Rowan Williams can stop the train. It has left the station and, despite the spin, those 300 bishops who met in Jerusalem represented 70%-80% of the Anglican Communion. Rowan Williams and his Instruments of Unity are presiding over a dying body, who many believe is no longer the Body of Christ, but something altogether different. [My ellipses and emphasis]

Jim :) Smiling aka Brother Jonathan aka Toto Of Kansas

Link to my Blogs, Forums & Essays

Obama: Just Another Chicago Machine Politician?!?

Have the Washington Post and the Boston Globe become part of the new vast right wing conspiracy and attack machine?!?

Say it ain't so, Barry and Michelle and Post and Globe!!! (with deepest apologies to Joseph Jefferson “Shoeless Joe” Jackson (3rd highest ML batting av.), the Chicago White Sox, and Major League Baseball)

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7 KJV

From a Investor's Business Daily article, Obama Pro Quo:

Obama Pro Quo [/] By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, July 02, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Corruption: Yet another Democrat's sweetheart mortgage deal is exposed — and this time it's the party's standard bearer.

What could Sen. Barack Obama do for a lender in exchange for more than $100,000? Plenty.

Obama, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee from Illinois and self-styled man of the people, lives in a mansion described by the Washington Post as featuring "six bedrooms, four fireplaces, a four-car garage and 5 1/2 baths, including a double steam shower and a marble powder room . . . a wine cellar, a music room, a library, a solarium, beveled glass doors and a granite-floored kitchen."

Eyebrows are already raised by the Obamas' purchase of the palatial abode in 2005 for $300,000 under its asking price of $1.95 million. The day that purchase closed, the since-convicted Chicago fraudster and early Obama fundraiser Tony Rezko bought an adjoining lot from the same seller for the full asking price of $625,000, which Obama admitted to the Chicago Sun-Times he then bought from Rezko for "above the appraised value" — "a mistake," he said, giving the impression "that he had done me a favor."

The Boston Globe reported last week that Rezko used federal subsidies Obama supported in the U.S. Senate to rehabilitate more than 1,000 apartments in and near Obama's old state senate district. Rezko then neglected the homes "to the point where many no longer were habitable."

Now the Washington Post reveals the Obamas got a sweetheart deal on their "super super jumbo" $1.32 million mortgage from Chicago's Northern Trust, saving more than $300 a month — about $110,000 over the life of the loan. Add the $71,000 Northern Trust employees have given Obama's campaign and it makes you wonder about quid pro quos.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., by comparison, championed Congress' $400 billion subprime bailout plan after his sweetheart loan from Countrywide. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., who also chairs a subcommittee that oversees taxation and IRS oversight, had to donate $10,700 in loan savings from Countrywide when his deal came to light. Obama's veep vetter James Johnson quit after his Countrywide arrangement became known.

If Obama is animated by high ideals for the future, why are we finding so many lowdown deals in his past? [My ellipses and emphasis]

Jim :) Smiling aka Brother Jonathan aka Toto Of Kansas

Link to my Blogs, Forums & Essays

Rush Worth 4 Big TV Anchors!?!

[[Rush Limbaugh's]] deal represents a stunning triumph over the establishment by an outsider who connected with and captured the spirit of the nation's heartland - Drudge Report FLASH

More information on this development from Radio Equalizer Blog and NY Times Magazine Preview. (Hat tip for links to Lucianne .com.)

I report and link. You decide. - BJon

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God. - Psalms 20:7 KJV

From a Drudge Report FLASH, LIMBAUGH SIGNS THROUGH 2016; $400 MILLION DEAL:

LIMBAUGH SIGNS THROUGH 2016; $400 MILLION DEAL SHATTERS BROADCAST RECORDS [/] Wed Jul 02 2008 09:02:18 ET [/] **Exclusive**

The American broadcast industry is rocked, realigned and blasted into a new orbit, yet again, by Rush Limbaugh, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

In what is being described as an unprecedented radio contract, Limbaugh will keep his syndicated show on-the-air and e-v-e-r-y-w-h-e-r-e through 2016 with CLEAR CHANNEL and PREMIERE RADIO.

Already host of the most lucrative hours since radio's inception, Limbaugh's total package is valued north of $400 million, according to media insiders.

The NEW YORK TIMES will claim this weekend that Limbaugh, marking 20 years this summer as a national host, has secured a 9-figure signing bonus for the new deal, newsroom sources tell DRUDGE.

MORE [/] In its controversial profile, the TIMES reports that Limbaugh is buying a new G550 jet and is making an estimated $38 million a year. [/] [The cover photo of the TIMES Sunday magazine depicts Limbaugh 'dark and sinister' in a theme of THE GODFATHER.]

While newspapers and traditional broadcast media are experiencing declining revenues, Limbaugh's golden microphone has turned diamond-laced:

Earnings now pace him ahead of the annual salaries for network news anchors: Katie Couric, Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson and Diane Sawyer — combined!

MORE [/] The deal represents a stunning triumph over the establishment by an outsider who connected with and captured the spirit of the nation's heartland. [/] Developing... [My ellipses and emphasis]

Jim :) Smiling aka Brother Jonathan aka Toto Of Kansas

Link to my Blogs, Forums & Essays