What Do We Do With Them?

The debate is still going on. Where should those people accused of terrorist acts be tried, in our civilian courts, or by military tribunals? It’s hard to believe that we’re still having this debate, given the facts of the entire situation. In my opinion these defendants should be tried in the civilian courts.

I continuously see and hear these defendants referred to as “enemy combatants.” That term is almost always applied to a person who is officially a member of a recognized military organization. During World War II, German and Japanese soldiers were “enemy combatants.” During the Vietnamese war, soldiers of the North Vietnamese Army were enemy combatants.

To apply this term to suspects like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the others involved in the 9/11 attack is to elevate their status. To have them tried in front of military tribunals recognizes them as being soldiers, part of an army that we are formally at war with. Al Qaeda is not a recognized military organization, it is not the military force for any country. It is a group of demented, idealistic, religious fanatics who engage in criminal activity. Nothing more.

The military has a horrible record in the prosecution of alleged terrorists. According to the latest statistics that I’ve been able to find, since the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, there have been a total of 20 terrorists tried before military tribunals. Of those 20 accused, there have been a total of 3 convictions.I’ve done the math for you conservatives who at this moment are screaming about what a badass way tribunals are to deal with terrorists. The conviction rate of these suspects is 15%.

On the other hand, Since the 9/11 attacks, there have been 593 cases in which terrorist suspects were tried in civilian courts. Of those, 523 resulted in convictions. That is a conviction rate of 88%.

It’s not rocket science. Let’s see, 3 convictions by military tribunals, 523 convictions by civilian courts. Am I the only one here who is left scratching my head, wondering why this debate is still ongoing? The conviction rate in civilian courts is almost 6 times that of military tribunals.

But I’ll admit, it does sound badass to say that we’re going haul them off to be tried before a military tribunal.

Put that aside, though, and go back to my original statements. Do we really want to grant these people the status of recognizing them as some kind of officially sanctioned military organization? Do we want to look at them simply as good soldiers? Really? Is that what we want to do? If we allow them to be tried by a military tribunal, that is exactly what we’re doing – granting them a status that they do not deserve. To treat them as anything more than the scumbag criminals that they are does a disservice to all military personnel everywhere.

And given the record of military tribunals in these cases, we’re also giving them a much better chance of walking free.

But hey, if that’s what Cheney and his cronies want, well… They do know what’s best, always.

Or so they would have us believe.

Read Full Post »

Everything’s Bigger In Texas

At least, that’s what an old Texas Tourism advertising campaign would have us believe. I’m taking exception to that claim. While a lot of things may be bigger in Texas, that description most certainly does not apply to the intelligence level of some of the people who make the laws there.

In fact, the intelligence level of at least two of those folks is quite tiny. Microscopic, actually. Nearly impossible to find. In fact, I would venture that the existence of any intelligence within the minds of these two men is nothing more than a theory, sort of like quantum physics.

Texas is one of those states that has banned same-sex unions. While I completely disagree with that ban, I’m not from Texas (thank God for small favors), and I have no right to tell them what to do. It’s their state, and they get to make up the rules there. Besides, it really is only a matter of time before the U.S. Supreme Court rules that a ban on same-sex unions is unconstitutional. I’m not worried about that.

Ladies and gentlemen, consider the following:

Two Republican state officials who spearheaded Texas’ constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage have filed a court brief opposing a gay divorce in Dallas.

State Rep. Warren Chisum of Pampa and Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples, a former state senator from Palestine, filed the amicus brief in Dallas’ 5th District Court of Appeals on Friday, April 2.

What am I missing here? If you cannot legally get married or joined in a civil union in Texas, if Texas does not recognize same-sex unions that were performed in another state, then why do they need a ban on same-sex divorces? In fact, how can they even entertain the thought of granting such a divorce, since according to Texas, the union does not exist in the first place?

When I first learned of this, I scratched my head for a moment. I thought someone was pulling my leg, but then I checked the source. It’s true. Suddenly, I had a little movie playing out in my head.

{Fade in: The scene is a small, wood paneled room with a spittoon on the floor. Joe Bob and Tex are seated at a small table, chawin’ their ‘baccy, sippin’ rotgut whiskey, and occasionally managing to actually hit the spittoon when they spit.}

Joe Bob: “I dunno, Tex. What’re we gonna do ’bout them filthy dee-vee-ants that’s all tryin’ ta marry people of the same sex? Gals kissin’ gals, boys kissin’ boys… It’s disgustin’!”

Tex: “I hears ya, Joe Bob. We did keep ’em from bein’ able ta get married here, but they’s jest runnin’ off ta Massa… Massa… Massa-sumthin’, whatever the fuck they call that Yankee state up thar. Then they’s comin’ back here and corruptin’ our younguns!”

Joe Bob: “Yep, and sooner or later, them liberals on the Supreme Court is jest gonna make the whole damn country let them perverts get married, ya know. We got ta do sumthin’!”

{Twenty minutes of silence, broken only by the occasional sound of spitting. Joe Bob and Tex put forth a mighty effort to form a train of logical thought which will help them to prevent the Lone Star state from being overrun by queers. Then Joe Bob’s face breaks into a triumphant expression.}

Joe Bob: “Tex, I got it!! I knows what we can do ta stop them fags an’ dykes!”

Tex: “Whatchoo thankin’, Joe Bob?”

Joe Bob: “This is what we do. We finds a way ta put a ban on same-sex dee-vorces. Then, even if the whole dad-blamed country has ta allow them freaks ta get married, they’ll think twice ’bout comin’ ta Texas. We won’t never let ’em get a dee-vorce!!”

Tex: “Joe Bob, you is a right genius!! That’ll fix ’em!”

Okay, look. I’ve known a few people from Texas. Most of them were nice people, and a few of them are actually quite intelligent. To them, and to those few other Texans who don’t fit my stereotype, I apologize.

But come on – these are the people who gave us George W. Bush, for God’s sake! As I recently asked one person I know from the Lone Star state, what did the rest of us ever do to Texas to deserve that?

How can you ban people from obtaining a divorce when you don’t even recognize that their union exists in the first place? But then, I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised, given some of the other comments that have been made by one of these guys:

Chisum said, “If they want to go back to their state, whatever state they came from, and get the marriage — or whatever they call it — dissolved there, that’s OK with us, but it’s not the state of Texas that needs to be doing it.”

Chisum added that he doesn’t believe same-sex divorce is a civil rights issue, because being gay is a choice.

“Everyone has the ability to get married,” Chisum said. “All they have to do is find someone of the opposite sex.”

To say that “being gay is a choice” makes about as much sense as saying that being a Jew in Nazi Germany was a choice. Why on earth would anyone choose to deliberately make their life a living hell by “choosing” to be gay?

I was told recently by a Texan that the Lone Star state sends its worst politicians to Washington, and keeps the best ones within the state government. That’s a frightening thought, given Dubyah, and now this. If Texas keeps her best politicians within the state, and this is what they come up with, then I fear for their future.

The more I hear coming out of the state of Texas, the more I begin to feel as though secession might be a good thing, after all…

Read Full Post »

Racism & Fear of the Antichrist – Part 2

And, we have another one in the ongoing series. This one is actually quite coherent, even if, in my opinion, it’s also quite deluded and ridiculous. This one happens to be a blog that’s pretty much devoted to the idea that Obama is the antichrist.  At the end of this post, there’s a hint as to the direction in which I intend to take this  whole discussion.

Original Site: Barack Obama The Antichrist?

Excerpt:

Barack Obama may be the Antichrist, he has risen up out of no where, he mesmerizes crowds, people are gathering in huge numbers, he is likely becoming the next President of the United States. Do not look only to what I say, but look to your Bibles, to passages in John, Daniel, and Revelations.

Okay, this is nitpicky, I know. I can’t help it, things like this bug me. That particular book of the Bible is titled “Revelation,” not “Revelations.” Singular, not plural. For crying out loud, religious fundamentalists who can’t even remember the correct name of one of the books they are so fond of quoting about this topic. I was raised, though no longer practicing, as one of those heathen, Satan-worshipping, cat-lickers, and even I know this…

Excerpt:

I really had no intention of getting this much attention. I just had a feeling 4 years ago that Obama was the Antichrist, and it looks like I am not alone.

Well, my, my… Aren’t you the prophetic one? Please, spare me the false humility. When someone goes to the trouble of creating as extensive a blog as you have here, the very first thing that you are seeking is attention. Be honest, please, and admit it. People write blogs so that other people will read those blogs. That’s called, uhm… Oh, yeah: Seeking attention.

Excerpt:

…I am glad people are making a stand against abortion which Obama strongly supports (even leaving babies to die that survive an abortion attempt)

The only reason I’m putting this here is because I want to make it clear that this series of posts is not about the platforms upon which either Obama or McCain are running. For the purposes of these posts, I really don’t care what their individual stands are on any given issue. In terms of political issues, the only one that matters to me is this unbelievable campaign to paint Obama as the antichrist, playing to the fears of many people who are very prone to believe this drivel. The particular blog that I’m addressing here provides me with more than enough fodder to make this rant.

Excerpt:

The Wall Street Journal blog follows Barack Obama being compared to the Antichrist in various media forms, including this blog. I am amazed this topic has hit the MSM (mainstream media)… finally.

Why does this amaze you? You and many, many other Obama opponents have been spewing this garbage for some time now. It was inevitable that it would draw attention from the mainstream media. Oh, I forgot… You really had no intention of getting this much attention, did you?

Excerpt:

From one of the groups:
Barack meaning “blessed”

“The debate has been brought up with the question of “Is Barack Obama the Antichrist? Is he too good to be true?” Well I created this group to hear you all’s opinion on this subject. Many prophecies and facts have matched with Barack. The Antichrist is said to come out with a plan of ‘World Peace’ and speaks on kindness and giving to charities to promote goodness. He is said to be a great speaker, loved by all kinds of people, and very charismatic’ well, obama is known for his speeches without notes and his intelligence is to perfection. Please, tell me what you think…Is Barack Hussein Obama too good to be true or is he the real thing?”

From which group? You don’t show the source, not that it matters in this context – I’ll simply make my response to you, since you chose to post it.

Hmmmm… I wonder if I should even attempt to compile a list of past and present public figures who fit this description? I think not – it would be a monumental undertaking, really. People ranging from the Apostles to Ghandi. Damn! There’s been an awful lot of potential antichrists running around the world throughout history, wouldn’t you agree?

Excerpt:

Check out this article, I think its important so I am going to post the whole thing. Also, it appears they mention this site, since it is the only blog dedicated to the topic, and its the number one google result for “obama” and “antichrist”:

But, but… I thought that you really had no intention of getting this much attention…

You simply quoted the entire text of the article, which is fine. But you offered no commentary on the article, other than to mention the fact that it seems to mention your blog, and to bold and colorize the segment of the article that seems to mention your blog. I have read the entire article, and I invite others to do the same at your blog. I wonder if your lack of comment might have anything to do with the fact that it states that, “A new TIME poll finds that the most conservative evangelicals are the least enthusiastic about McCain’s candidacy. Convincing them that Obama does have two horns and a tail might be the best way of getting them to vote.”

Excerpt:

This ad is very funny, [This was a reference to the ad dubbed “The One] but frankly it must mean Obama really has been portraying himself as a messiah to people, and they have been buying it. Mccain has recognized it, and I hope you have too.

First, I know of a great many people whole actually fail to see the humor in this ad, myself included. Be that as it may, please, get real. I don’t think there’s enough fingers and toes among the entire population of my town to count how many politicians have at least some sort of Messianic complex. Ego is something that is a job requirement in some situations. Whether that’s a good thing or not is beside the point. You will not win a presidential election if you truly believe that you can do nothing to change your country and perhaps the world.

Excerpt:

I read somewhere that “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” means he is the one we have been waiting for, because the royal ‘we’ means I.

English class!! English class!! DING, DING, DING!!! (Schoolbell)

If Obama meant that “I” am the one we have been waiting for, the correct phrasing would have been, “We are the one we’ve been waiting for,” or, even more properly, “We are the one you’ve been waiting for.” “One, not “ones.” The “royal “we.” Good Lord, get real, will you?

Excerpt:

…be prepared for Obama’s world wind tour of Europe and the Middle East…

Again, being nitpicky. The phrase is “whirlwind tour,” not “world wind tour.” Geez…

Excerpt:

Dobson accuses Obama of ‘distorting’ Bible

Again, you make no comment about the article, which is probably a good thing. At any rate, since when is distorting the Bible something new? Every single “Christian” denomination interprets the Bible somewhat differently. Every single one. Which means that any Christian denomination other than your own distorts the Bible, right? Your own denomination “interprets” the Bible, everyone else “distorts” it. But somehow, this fits into your accusation that Obama is the antichrist…

Excerpt:

Is there any secret symbolism to the “Obama seal”?

Well, you say nothing in this particular post, other than to question if there is any hidden symbolism in the seal. However, in reading the comments about this particular post of yours, I ran across a couple that are, to say the least, rather telling. The first:

Comments Page Excerpts:

“Vencedor said…

Interesting.”

If one goes on the Web to Barack Obama on the Wikipedia Encyclopedia one will see on the right bottom Obama’s signature.

It has two interesting features. First, the B of Barack looks like three intertwined 6xes making up the B. Second, the O of Obama as written by him looks like an orb with the cross internalized. An orb is a religious symbol consisting of a sphere with a cross on top. It means authority and justice. If one puts the cross inside the sphere is the equivalent of performing a mathematical operation on the orb equivalent to negation of its meaning.

I suppose that by now you know that if one puts Sen Barak H Obama in the Gematria calculator it adds up to 666. So does the name B Richardson. The name of his wife Michelle L Robinson adds up to 1110 . (3/5 or .6 of 1110=666.) Also, that the first five letters of Natasha, the name of one of his daughters, spells SATAN backwards. Also, that Malia, the name of the other daughter, can be written as MAL which means evil + IA which is a suffix meaning derived from or pertaining to. So MALIA means derived from evil.

Vencedor

June 20, 2008 6:40 PM

I suppose that one has to have a couple of characteristics in order see what this reader sees in Obama’s signature. For the life of me, I can’t see any resemblance to three sixes in the first letter of his signature. As for the orb bit… God, Lord… You really have to be looking for these things to “see” them, and it also requires a certain amount of imagination and exaggeration. As for this comment’s last paragraph… Well… Let’s leave it to stand for itself…

Next:

obama_the_antichrist said…

Vencedor—Nice Observation…These are the kinds of strange things I am looking for.

It is even weirder that Natasha is Satan backwards…That surely is a coincidence that not even he could have consciously been aware of.

Or look at it this way, Natasha backwards is

“Ah Satan”

As in a phrase of worship/ adoration for the devil

About the main arcticle,

I do think it is very odd that his seal on his podium has white light in the center of the seal.

Will the symbol on his podium become the

“Seal of the Antichrist of the United States of America”?

Only time will tell.

I am still dying to see if he chooses Hillary Clinton in the end to be his running mate…

Anyone know when he must have his Veep Chosen??

If he does pick her then he is the beast for sure…

Responses?

June 21, 2008 10:46 AM

Now that’s interesting – I find what I want to read about your feelings in the comments section, rather than on the main page of your blog. You know, there are an awful lot of females running around in the world with the given name of “Natasha” or “Natasia.” By your reckoning, all the parents of these girls/women were unconsciously praising Satan. Have you been dropping acid, along with your friend I quoted above? Because the last time I remember getting seriously into looking at words in reverse, or listening to music backwards was back in the day, when I was what we lovingly referred to as a hippie…

See, this is what is so very frightening about people like you. You are fanatics. Fanaticism, hmmmm… Where have I heard that recently? Oh!! Muslim terrorists! Yeah, they’re fanatics, too. The problem is, you prey on people who for whatever reason actually will believe you. It’s just crazy – no, you’re just crazy…

Excerpt:

Obama is better at biblical language and imagery than any Democrat in modern times. He certainly beats Howard Dean, now the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, who once offered Job as his favorite New Testament book. This is cynical manipulation of the devout and it is no better when Democrats do it than when Republicans use religious language for partisan advantage.

Cynical manipulation of the devout… And exactly what is it that you are trying to engage in here? Let’s see… “Obama is probably the antichrist, and if you help to elect him by voting for him, then you will be partly responsible for the antichrist coming into power.” If that ain’t manipulation, I don’t know what is.

Excerpt:

Obama: “I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. When I tuck in my daughters at night and I feel like I’ve been a good father to them, and I see that I am transferring values that I got from my mother and that they’re kind people and that they’re honest people, and they’re curious people, that’s a little piece of heaven.”

Any first-year seminary student could deconstruct such “works salvation” and wishful thinking. Obama either hasn’t read the Bible, or if he has, doesn’t believe it if he embraces such thin theological wisps.

I separated your paragraphs for you – I like neatness and orderliness on my blog…

“Thin theological wisps?” How is anything in the quote above theological in nature? Spiritual, perhaps, but theological? I think it’s you who are tossing out “thin wisps” of something – I just haven’t figured out what to call it yet, other than lunatic idiocy.

Excerpt:

…I am not telling people he IS the Antichrist, I am merely asking the question, and listening to the comments on this site. …This blog is about open opinion, discussion, arguments that cite their sources, and exploring this topic.

Okay, for the moment I’ll take you at your word. But – it seems to me that you tend to side with all those who agree with the assessment that he is indeed the antichrist. And you find evil in every single little facet of his life – down to his signature, his name, the names of his children and his wife, etc., etc., etc.

Excerpt:

Obama is not a (real) Christian – he is a Universalist

Now, this is interesting. Who are *YOU* to judge the merits of his faith? Who are *YOU* to declare who is and is not a Christian? We’re back to this again: If people do not belong to my denomination, and believe exactly what I believe about Christianity, then they are not Christians. All of that would be fine, if you didn’t run around calling these people unbelievers (not (real) Christians) and declaring them to be evil. I thought that you believed that judgement is reserved for God?

Excerpt:

Obama can call himself anything he likes, but there is a clear requirement for one to qualify as a Christian and Obama doesn’t meet that requirement. One cannot deny central tenets of the Christian faith, including the deity and uniqueness of Christ as the sole mediator between God and Man and be a Christian. Such people do have a label applied to them in Scripture. They are called “false prophets.”

Oh, you’d best check your facts, buddy. Did you watch Rick Warren “grill” Obama last night? Obama declared, (paraphrasing) that he believes that Jesus Christ died for his sins, and that the sins that he is guilty of on a daily basis are washed away because of that. He declared his faith in Jesus christ. So, I think that pretty much shoots your argument about his lack of Christianity out of the water, does it not?

And Finally:

How is it possible that in the Unites States of America, the nation that enshrined the meaning of liberty, republic and freedom, is hypnotized by a radical Marxist that promises to “change” this country?

Could it be that this man who stands for everything contrary to our liberties is being revealed because America’s People themselves have fallen away from our culture, heritage, foundations and purpose?

Radical Marxist? Where in the HELL did you come up with that one?? Get a freakin’ life, will you? Geez…

We have fallen away from our culture, heritage, foundations and purpose. It was instigated by George W. Bush, and it came in the form of the USA Patriot Act.

And you sir, the author of this blog, are a blithering, hysterical, radical, fanatical moron catering to the wishes of the Republican right who control your mind…

I don’t believe that I need to make any more commentary about this particular blog. It’s popularity speaks for it. Yes, it’s popular – extremely so. But then, so are some other sites, too, which I may or may not get to in this ongoing series of posts. Some of them I will, some not. But, here’s a list of links to my potential future targets:

Antichrist
People For The American Way
Word Net Daily
Stormfront
American Nazi Party
White Revolution.
Supreme White Power – (Interestingly, this particular site carries this disclaimer when the home page appears: “WARNING!! All information contained in this Pro-White website is for educational purposes only and is protected free speech under the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Not intended for viewers younger than 18 years old.”)

Yeah, there’s no end of maniacs and fanatics out there to target.  And the list just seems to keep on growing every day…

Read Full Post »

Racism & Fear of the Antichrist

Believe it or not I’m really focusing on the U.S. Presidential campaign with next few posts. I decided to do this after having my attention drawn to some pretty disturbing campaign tactics coming from the McCain camp. There’s been some pretty disturbing ads that I’ve seen which, either subtly or not so subtly, play to the religious beliefs of some segments of the American population. So, I’ve been doing some research, and some of the things I’ve found are rather disturbing, to put it mildly. There’s going to be an ongoing theme in my posts here, so if I start to get on your nerves with it, feel free to tell me. Won’t stop me posting about it, but what the heck…

Can you say near-mass hysteria?

What I’ve decided to do is first take a few web pages apart.  Not every single item, but just some of the more mildly insane things that I’m finding. After I’ve run each of these sites through my little process of vivisection, I’ll go ahead and editorialize (read, “rant”) about the site I just took apart. So, without further ado, let’s take a look at this little gem:

I found this site after a Google search of the words “Obama antichrist.” It was the third return on the first page, no less. For all subsequent sites that I address, a link to the site will appear at the top of the discussion:

The Original Site: Obama The Antichrist?

Excerpt:

Could Presidential Candidate
Barack Hussein Obama be the “Anti-Christ?”

This site deals with Biblical Prophecy and some of the “Anti-Christ” characteristics of Barack Hussein Obama.
Barack is the perfect candidate to allow “Full Anti-Christ control of the U.S.”

Points of Interest:

Barry was Obama’s name given to him at birth by this parents. He legally changed his name to Barack.

Well, since Obama’s father goes by the name “Barack Obama, Sr.,” I would venture that unless the elder Obama also legally changed his name at some point to follow his son’s example, there would have been no need for Sen. Obama to legally change his first and last names. In fact, I have heard it stated that because his parents gave him the name “Barack Hussein,” he must be, fundamentally, a Muslim. You are the first mention I have ever seen of Obama having had a different given name than the one he now uses, and you offer absolutely nothing to back this claim up.

Excerpt:

Buraq was the name of Mohammad’s horse!

First, please: The prophet’s name was “Muhammed.” Spell it correctly if you intend to use it.

Uhm, okay. So, it is somehow ominous to you that Obama’s parents, his father being a Muslim, would give Obama the aglicized version of the name of Muhammed’s mount? (Not horse – we’ll get there in a minute.) I’m confused. There is no huge outcry over the fact that many Latino families name their male children “Jesus.” Could it possibly be that it was simply a gesture of respect to his faith that his father, who also carries the same given name, chose to pass that name on to his son?

Excerpt:

Read what Wikipedia says about the definition of Buraq.

Please get your facts straight. From your own source:

“The Buraq (Arabic: al-buraaq, meaning lightning; Turkish: Burak), is according to Islamic tradition a creature from the heavens that carried Muhammad from Mecca to Jerusalem and back during the Isra and Miraj (Night Journey), which is the title of one of the chapters of the Qur’an.”

“An excerpt from a Translation of Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 227 hadith (supplemental tradition to the Qur’an) describes a buraq:

‘I was brought by the Buraq, which is an animal white and long, larger than a donkey but smaller than a mule, who would place its hoof at a distance equal to the range of vision.’ ”

There is an illustration on this same page. It depicts a creature with a body similar to a horse, with wings, and the head and face of a human. This creature was not “Muhammed’s horse.”

Excerpts & Comments:

Supporters of Obama:

1.5 billion Muslims

Your source for this statement? I advise you to run a Google search on this phrase: “1.5 billion muslims support Obama” You’ll find that all of the answers come back as stating that Obama has OFFENDED 1.5 billion Muslims. Not what I call support.

Oprah

Yeah, so what? Oprah, as ridiculous as she may be, is an American citizen and celebrity who has the right to support any candidate she chooses to support. It’s called “American democractic process.”

Louis Farrakanh (Nation of Islam Leader, racist, anti-Semite)

Yeah, so what? (See Oprah.) Further, again learn to spell. (Mamma didn’t do so well with the home schoolin’, did she?) It’s Louis “Farrakhan.”

Jesse Jackson

Yeah, so what? (See Oprah.)

Al Sharpton

Yeah, so what? (See Oprah.)

Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (Islamic Terror Organization)

Finally! You got one right! Well, they certainly don’t want another Republican administration here, do they? Further, who the hell cares if they support him? They aren’t going to be showing up en masse to vote for him, and even if they did, there certainly aren’t enough of them to turn the tide of an election.

Daniel Ortega (Marxist Sandinista Leader, Nicaragua)

He actually made observations that seem to me to be pretty much in line with what the Democratic party, and the vast majority of Americans who support Obama, have to say about him. Again, Ortega ain’t gonna be voting for him, folks.

All American Muslims

Your source for this statement? This is like saying that all Democrats support Obama, or that all Republicans support McCain. You’re so full of it I can smell you from where I’m sitting.

Raul Castro (Hard-line Communist Leader, Cuba)

Uhm, no. It was Fidel Castro, the former president of Cuba, who stated his support for Obama, while at the same time denouncing Obama’s position that he would leave in place the existing U.S. embargos against Cuba. Raul did not state any preference in the U.S. Presidential campaign. Obama stated he would be willing to meet with Raul Castro. Oh, I forgot – diplomacy has no place in the modern world, does it?

Socialist Party USA (Marxist Political Party)

Bullshit. The Socialist Party USA has their own candidates already chosen to run in the presidential election: Brian Moore for president, and Stewart Alexander for vice-president. Get your facts straight.

Daniel Ortega (Marxist Sandinista Leader, Nicaragua)

What, him again? Didn’t we already address this one above? He must really bother you.

The New Black Panther Party (Black Militant Organization)

I can find neither an endorsement nor a repudiation of Obama on the New Black Panther’s web site, but the items that are available there show a decided unhappiness with the way that Obama has conducted his campaign. Hardly glaring support there.

Hamas Terrorist Organization (Islamic Terrorist Organization)

After reading through something like twenty-eight Google pages about HAMAS, I can find nothing that states an official “endorsement” of Obama from this organization.

I notice that you do not link to any of these organizations, or groups of people, nor do you back this with any evidence or citation about these “supporters.”

Excerpt:

Did Jesus Claim Barack Obama is SATAN?

In Luke 10:18 Jesus I beheld Satan as Lightning fall from Heaven. How does a Jewish Rabbi, which Jesus is credited with being (John 1:38), say in HEBREW, that Satan is like LIGHTNING from heaven?

Barack, also transliterated as Baraq in Hebrew, is LIGHTNING (Strongs Hebrew word 1300). Even in Greek, Barak is LIGHTNING (Strongs Greek word 913) for the name of a person!

The ONLY WAY, a Jewish Rabbi can say in Hebrew that SATAN is LIGHTNING is, SATAN BARACK!

Okay, I’m hardly a linguist, but do have a couple of comments. First, let’s take a quick peek At Strong’s Concordance.  From Wikipedia (a site I’m not overly fond of, but hey – the authors of this site started it, so it MUST be authoritative!):

Strong’s Concordance is not a translation of the Bible nor is it intended as a translation tool. The use of Strong’s numbers is not a substitute for professional translation of the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into English by those with formal training in ancient languages and the literature of the cultures in which the Bible was written.

Now, my own, admittedly unscholarly search of the word “lightning” using online translators led to these results:

For the ancient Greek, “lightning” translates to “αστραπή” or in latin spelling, “astrapi.”  Did miss something?  Where is “Barak” in this translation?

For Hebrew, interestingly, I could not find a translator which would translate “Lightning” to any word that is found in the Hebrew texts of the Bible.  What?  Could this mean that the word “lightning” doesn’t even appear in the ancient Hebrew texts?

Rant time.

How many times since the Protestant Reformation has a Pope been labeled by some fringe group as being the antichrist? There have two-hundred-sixteen Popes throughout history, and somewhere, I guarantee you, some group of lunatics was calling every single one of them the antichrist at some point.

I am so fed up with fundamentalist, evangelical people proclaiming to me and the rest of the world that they know who is going to fry in hell, and who is not. That they have the God-given right, no, the God-given duty, to proclaim what is and is not right or wrong for other people to believe. And I’m sick to death of the fundamental evangelical segment of our country’s population literally trying to legislate and politic their own brand of morality and religion down everyone’s throats.

Please don’t take this as an indictment of all people who profess to be Christians. I’m not aiming this page at “Christians.” I’m aiming it at “Evangelicals,” and there is a world of difference, in my experience. Some of the people who are the closest to me in my life are Christians. (Some of my best friends are Christian!). They aren’t the ones I’m talking about.

I’m talking about lunatics like the authors of the web site quoted above.

But honestly, even though some of these people may believe that Obama is the antichrist, to me, it’s all smoke and mirrors.  There is a much more insidious current underlying all of this hoopla about Obama being the antichrist, or about his Muslim background.

We’re going to get there, just bear with me.  I need to get all of this out of my system first.

There’s more to come, so stay tuned…

Read Full Post »