Something I don’t Understand: Please Help Me Senator Obama!!


Here I will confess my ignorance. In this story from Christian Post, I learned that presidential hopeful, Barak Hussein Obama worshipped today at the Apostolic Church of God in (I guess) Chicago.

CHICAGO (AP) – Barack Obama celebrated Father’s Day by calling on black fathers, who he said are “missing from too many lives and too many homes,” to become active in raising their children.

“They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it,” the Democratic presidential candidate said Sunday at a largely black church in his hometown.

OK, here’s my ignorance shining brightly. First, shouldn’t Barak Hussein Obama, impartial presidential candidate that he is, remind all men of their responsibility to be fathers to the children they sire? Why is this only an issue for ‘black fathers’? As a white man, I’m a little hurt that this message was not shared with people in general. Although I am not one of them, there are plenty of white men who desperately need to hear Barak Hussein Obama’s message of how to ‘break the cycle’ of merely being someone’s ‘baby’s daddy.’ Certainly the good senator is not suggesting that white folk don’t have this problem.

Second, how is it that this ‘speech’ he gave at a church on a Sunday morning is not a violation of the so-called ‘separation of church and state’? But as it is, I’m not upset that Barak Hussein Obama preached at this church (gotta do what you gotta do) as much as I am appalled that this church welcomed in a political candidate to ‘speak’ on a Sunday morning. Shouldn’t this church’s tax-exempt status be examined? (Does anyone know if Barak Hussein Obama has ‘spoke’ in any predominantly ‘white churches’ while on the campaign trail?)

I wonder if this church will give an equal opportunity for senator McCain to ‘speak’ at their church on a Sunday morning?  They ought be ashamed of themselves welcoming Caesar in to speak in a place where only Jesus is Lord. And if they don’t welcome in senator McCain, I will seriously question whether or not they are clear minded on issues of race. “In Christ there is neither…”

Third, can you imagine the outpouring of cries of racism if a white presidential candidate said something like, “They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men” with reference to the parenting skills of black men? Can you imagine what would happen if this were John McCain’s Sunday morning sermon at, say, John Hagee’s church? (I Know McCain has disavowed any relationship with Hagee.) Can you imagine if this was Bill Cosby saying these things?

I needed an Obama rant because I cannot imagine a worse candidate for president. Frankly, I cannot imagine a worse president. I know there are plenty of people with ‘Obama is the New Messiah’, but from my perspective, this is a man who is seriously out of touch. He knows absolutely nothing about my point of view.

This election is going to be tough because neither am I a fan of McCain. Senator McCain has a lot of convincing to do if he is going to get my conservative vote and right now McCain seems too bent on getting the liberal vote.

It’s like we are having a rematch of Dole v. Clinton. Aggh!!



23 thoughts on “Something I don’t Understand: Please Help Me Senator Obama!!

  1. how is it that this ’speech’ he gave at a church on a Sunday morning is not a violation of the so-called ’separation of church and state’?

    I asked the same question during the last election when Kerry and Bill Clinton spoke at a few churches on sunday mornings…but got no answer Jerry.AHA

    I don’t understand the fine print of that law…its confusing.

  2. PJ,

    This stuff will never make sense to me from a legal point of view. But, and what I think is worse, is why churches engage in this sort of activity. And it really seems to be taking center stage in this election cycle. Politicians, especially those of the liberal democrat persuasion, always feel the need to convince people of their ‘christianity’ around election time. Then, after the elections are over, their ‘christianity’ seems to be forgotten. Thanks for stopping by.


  3. You cannot imagine a worse candidate for president, while I have never seen a better one. Must be because I’m an “angry atheist.”

    Amongst much typical white, pseudo-hypothetical pap (“can you imagine the outpouring of cries of racism if a white presidential candidate blahdy, blah, blah, blah, blah …..”), you ask the question of why he’s addressing this speech to black fathers and not white ones. It’s a question that sounds, may I say, “out of touch” with reality, but it’s actually just you trying to be all “post-Jim Crow white man” about the issue of race.

    If you’d look at the facts, you’d see that approximately 65% of black children are raised in a fatherless home, while that number is just 23% in the white community. People who are not being intentionally dense will realize this is a tremendous problem for blacks and needs to be corrected. Obviously, Obama (your continued misspelling of his name – It’s Barack – along with emphasizing his middle name multiple times is hateful and suggests an ugly, bigoted nature beneath your Christian veneer) is not saying this doesn’t occur with whites; because he is, in fact, black, he is in a unique position to address these concerns directly to the black community. Why can’t a white person say the same things? I’ll ask this: How would Christians feel about an atheist telling them about the problems in their church? Bad news is always easier coming from someone who shares in the plight. You know that, but you’re clearly extremely biased against Obama.

    Now, at the end, you do ask a legitimate question: should the church lose its tax-exempt status for hosting this speech? Well, simply having a politician speak at your church does not necessarily mean you are endorsing that candidate or engaging in the political process. Especially when he’s not talking about his candidacy but addressing a social issue that is extremely relevant to the people of your congregation. There’s no point in them giving “an equal opportunity for senator McCain to speak” because this was not a political speech. Obama did not address McCain even once. He didn’t ask for their vote, and he didn’t contrast his record with his opponent’s. I do, in fact, think it’s a legit issue to ask whether churches should host speeches by presidential candidates, though, because it could be seen as tacit approval of his candidacy. However, as of now, that is not the way the law works. Of course, I don’t see any reason churches should be tax-exempt at all. The temples I see along the sides of the road around here don’t look like they came from any “non-profit” I’m aware of, but this is the country in which we live. I’m not going to raise a big stink about it. I just wish (and did so when I regularly went to church as well) that the churches would use this windfall of cash for something more useful to the community than a new gym or a gold-plated confessional.

  4. Jeff,

    I’m going to take the time to respond carefully to your reply because you have taken the time to make several accusations against me that are based on your presumption of my ignorance and not on the merits of the post itself. By the way, I notice your last several replies have not been in accord with your generally good nature and humor. Maybe you are an ‘angry atheist.’ To the point.

    0) If Obama is the best candidate you have seen then I dare say you have not paid very close attention to the politics you claim to be a junky of. Hilary Clinton was a better candidate than Obama, John Kerry was a better candidate than Obama, Al Gore was a better candidate than Obama. Obama is a rock star politician with no plans for anything except the raising of my taxes, and yours, and every other American’s. He is a fake, a phony, and if his 20 year membership in Jeremiah Wright’s church is an indication of anything, well, use your imagination. He thinks he is owed the presidency. I think it is laughable that he is anything remotely close to ready for such a responsibility.

    1) I am not out of touch with anything. I know perfectly well what I was saying and I know perfectly well what Obama was saying. A white man could stand up, quote the statistics, say those things in a predominantly black church and he would be decried as a racist; only the truly dense would deny that. But further, he (the white candidate) would likely not get the invite to a predominantly black church if he were a conservative candidate (Liberal, Democrat candidates get those sort invites all the time). Here, then, I am not out of touch. I am commenting on what is reality.

    2) Are you daring to comment to me about facts?!? Do you think I am unaware of what the ‘facts’ are? Surely you jest. Fact is, if there is one man, white, black, purple, yellow, green who is not being a father to his child it is a problem. This is not a ‘black’ problem any more than racism is a ‘white’ problem. It is a human problem–THAT WAS MY POINT. By suggesting it is ‘only a black problem’ you are highlighting a divide that I was trying to bridge. ‘Bad’ (I’ll avoid theological terms like ‘sin’ since that offends you) is the problem of all human beings not merely a select few. Obama says what he wants to say to whom he wants to say it. It depends on the direction of the wind. People who are not being intentionally dense realize that every child, regardless of the color of their skin, needs a father and it matters not if the ratio is 65/23. But Barack has to decide if he will, “because he is, in fact, black, [and] in a unique position to address these concerns directly to the black community,” represent ALL Americans because he is American. The president is in a unique position to address the concerns of AMERICANS–white or black or orange–not just those of his particular racial profile. Your statement defies logic and expresses an extreme position on the nature of who the president represents.

    3) You wrote: “Obviously, Obama (your continued misspelling of his name – It’s Barack – along with emphasizing his middle name multiple times is hateful and suggests an ugly, bigoted nature beneath your Christian veneer)…” My misspelling of his last name was inadvertent. I did not know there was a ‘C’ in the name. And, my inclusion of his middle name, there is not one bold face or italic around his middle name so I don’t know how you have concluded that I continually emphasized it, is no different than the popular emphasis on George Bush’s middle initial or the emphasis on William Jefferson Clinton or FDR or JFK or Harry S Truman. I included it because it is his name. If you are offended by his middle name then perhaps you should ask senator Obama why he excludes it. Tell me Jeff, why are you offended that senator Obama’s middle name is Hussein? I’m not offended by it. I think it is a nice reflection of his father’s ancestry and heritage; something he should be proud of I would think. He is the one trying to distance himself from his heritage; not me. So please spare me the bullshit about being ugly and bigoted. That has nothing to do whatsoever with why I think senator Obama is a lousy presidential candidate. For example, I happen to think that Colin Powell or Condaleeza Rice would make outstanding presidential candidates. I think Tiger Woods would make a great presidential candidate. Please, Jeff, don’t throw your insecurities about race back on me.

    4) To your point about an ‘atheist telling the church what is wrong with it’ well, haven’t people like ‘the friendly atheist’, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, et al, made a living out of telling the church what is wrong with it? Hasn’t your own blog been the beneficiary of many hits due to your pointing out all that is wrong with the church? I wouldn’t feel one way or another about an atheist telling the church what is wrong with the church because the atheists opinion of the church doesn’t matter to me. The atheist will not judge the church; Jesus will. But the great thing about living in America is that I have the freedom to talk, and so do you. Say what you will about the church. I suppose every now and again you might actually say something that is helpful to the church.

    5) On your last paragraph you and I do not disagree. I would add this though. Most churches in America (here we are dealing with facts too!) are small–that is, under 100 people; usually between 50-80 or so. What windfall of cash are you talking about? After a church collects the offering here’s what happens: Gas bill, light bill, water, sewage, phone, internet (if lucky enough to have it), maintence of property, local benevolence, and if the church is fortunate enough to have a full time preacher, then his salary must be paid as well. I agree that some churches have such windfalls, but they are few and far between. My congregation operates on a budget of under 80k per year.

    Besides, what right do you have, as a not-member of the church, of any church, to complain about what the church does with its own money? It belongs to them and it is their right to spend it as they see fit. And if a church has a gym, I’ll bet they use it for community functions (weddings, funerals, basketball, etc). Again, churches are not tax exempt because they are churches but because they are non-profit.

    To my point, this is not about whether a political candidate should speak at a church. Like I said in the original post, ‘Gotta do what you gotta do.’ My point is why a church would host one. There is simply no way for a church to remain politically neutral when they host a candidate in their pulpit. It can never be perceived that way.

    The reason you think Obama is the best candidate you’ve seen is because you said yourself you are a social liberal and he represents your standard of social conduct. I think he is a fake. He sticks a finger in the wind to see what direction it is blowing and then speaks. He has nothing substantial to offer this country in the way of direction, progress, or relief for the poor. He is another Bill Clinton: Raised by his mother, in the midwest, rising out of the ashes to seize upon the mantle that he was destined to wear, to speak valiantly of his troubled life, to inspire hope for the masses because he understands, and then, when it is all done, to have accomplished nothing.

    Everyone thinks he is the new messiah, our savior, our modern Jesus. I think he is a fake. You like him; I don’t. And I think you owe me an apology for the accusations you have made against my character, but I won’t hold my breath. Still, one of my questions was ‘Can you imagine if a white presidential candidate said these things’. Well, we don’t need to imagine what your response would be. I said these things and look how you responded to me. That tells me all I need to know about how you would respond if McCain or any other white man said such things.

    Thanks for proving my point.

  5. I owe you no apologies and made no accusations against your character. To claim your using Obama’s middle name multiple times “is no different than the popular emphasis on George Bush’s middle initial or the emphasis on William Jefferson Clinton or FDR or JFK or Harry S Truman” is disingenuous beyond belief. The emphasis on the W in Bush’s name is for clarity’s sake since his father was also a president. There is no reason to repeatedly refer to Obama’s middle name other than to fear monger and try to slyly suggest he is a terrorist sympathizer, or something of that ilk. The great thing is, you can then deny it like you did here (“I’m just saying his name!”). It’s mean-spirited and smacks of either race-baiting or a sort of warning to “Beware of the guy with the suspicious name!” I’m not calling you a bigot; I’m simply saying your words here suggest a form of bigotry. It’s not your “character;” it’s the words you use.

    As I said before, you stating that there are white fathers who abandon their families along with black ones is pointless because we all know it’s true. I said so in my reply. Same with your statement that a white person saying what Obama did would elicit a different reaction. I already addressed both of those points, and I answered your final question. The decline of the nuclear black family is one of the most pervasive problems facing this country. What Obama is telling blacks to do is to take responsibility for this problem and attempt to fix it. Your statements decrying this smack, as I said, of the “post-Jim Crow white man” bellowing, which is to say you make statements that suggest there is nothing but racial harmony in this country now that racial segregation is no longer government-sanctioned.

    I’m sure most churches in America are small. I think that’s great. They all should be, in my opinion. But an enormous number aren’t. I see them every day, just in the vicinity of my neighborhood. Any organization that takes in the kind of money that they do without having to pay any taxes is getting a pretty nice windfall. I can look at my meager paycheck and see how much of a chunk the government takes out.

    And you make my point for me when you complain about me talking about what the church does when I’m a non-member of one. This is exactly what I’m talking about. If I were a member of the church, you’d be more accepting of my advice. Since I’m from an outside group and don’t share in your plight, you bristle at it. As I said, bad news is much easier to take from those in your circle, largely because they’re also criticizing themselves. They share in the plight.

    I don’t like Obama because he’s a social liberal. After all, he’s an economic liberal too, and it seems like that should balance things out. I didn’t say he was an OK candidate. I said he’s the best I’ve ever seen. Hillary would have been secretive, combative with the media and insular in her decision-making. Kerry was a terrible candidate, as he was a wooden speaker who pandered to anyone who he could find. Gore wouldn’t let his personality shine through and couldn’t even win his home state. He lost an election he absolutely should have won. Not a good candidate at all.

    We could do worse than another Bill Clinton, if that’s what he was, but we could do better. Especially at this time, when our economy is in a shambles and our popularity in the world is at all-time lows, we need someone who can be a statesman. We need a president who can show that we will move forward as a country, who belies our national history and shows a willingness to change our direction from one of saber-rattling, war-mongering and excessive nationalism to one of diplomacy and respect for those who don’t look like us or have a name that scares us so we repeat it ad nauseam to remind people why they should also be frightened.

    I don’t agree with Obama on plenty, but I shouldn’t be president. I’m voting in the best interest of the country, not in my own best interest or for the person who looks, acts or thinks like me. I’m not voting for the guy who has the most American-sounding name. I’m voting for the guy who will be best for America. That guy is Obama, by far, unless he puts Hillary on the ticket. Then it’s Bob Barr, though I have the same chance of winning as him, and we all know an “angry atheist” can’t get elected in this country.

  6. Jeff,

    ‘Angry atheists’ can get elected in this country. Jefferson was a fine example of this. Not every President of the USA has been a card carrying member of the Church of Christ. Many of them had no church affiliation at all or were, at best, nominal members for the sake of votes. With the exception of James Garfield, I cannot speak of many who have been remotely interested in matters of Christian faith. Even the blessed Lincoln was not strictly orthodox in his beliefs and there may be hints he rejected Christianity altogether.

    Jeff, honestly, the only thing you have to go on here is what I state to be my intentions. I used senator Obama’s name because it is his name. You have no capability to read back into my statements a purpose other than my stated purpose. You cannot read my mind or my heart. That, my friend, is disingenuous because you have no idea what I am thinking unless I tell you what I’m thinking; that I have done. I use his name because it is his name. End of discussion. You are free, if you choose, to ignore his name and not use it. I have chosen, in this post, to use it. First ammendment friend. PS–it’s not a ‘word I use’; it is the middle name of someone campaigning to be the president of the USA. My use is valid. And for the record, there are hundreds of other reasons to ‘fear’ a Barack Hussein Obama presidency and his name does not register a whisper on that list.

    I have no such utopian ideas about race in America but I don’t need to apologize for that either, nor do I sit around feeling particularly guilty, since I have neither participated in racial segregation, profiling, or discrimination, nor perpetuated it’s progress and have, as far as I am and have been able, worked to repair ‘race relations’ in my own community. In other words, the only ones who have to fear your so-called ‘post jim crow’ whatever you are talking about are those who participate, perpetuate or have something to lose or gain by doing so. Since I have no idea what you are talking about, and since I have no particular guilt for being a white man, I cannot say that I share your angst in that regard.

    There is no hint whatsoever in my use of senator Obama’s name of ‘race baiting’. It is his name, not mine. And as an American with the right to free speech, I can choose to address senator Barack Hussein Obama in any manner I choose. I am not the one ashamed of his name; he is or he would use it; you are since you take offense that I do use it.

    Finally, I’ll say this. Senator Obama is not going to be the catalyst to solve the racial problems that exist in America. His 20 year membership in Jeremiah Wright’s congregation demonstrates this adequately enough.

    I always appreciate your point of view even if I happen to disagree with you at nearly every point on the map. I am glad we can disagree and still be friends.


  7. Phf. There is zero reason to use his middle name other than to hint at something nefarious with him. I find it distasteful that you engage in such demagoguery and even moreso that you try to call me disingenuous for calling you on what you’re doing. There is no other Barack Obama to which you could be referring. He does not refer to himself this way, nor does anyone associated with him, his family, his friends, anyone other than those with a hateful purpose. The only way you could explain it away would be if you had a history of referring to everyone with their whole name. I, of course, notice you have seemingly never done it unnecessarily, outside of Obama.

    It’s bad for you to do it. It’s worse for you to lie about it. But you really lose my respect when you turn it around on me, as if I am doing something wrong when I call you on it. It’s one thing to do it but, when you’re pinned down, just apologize and move on. The cover up is always worse than the crime, and your continued insistence that “I use his name because it is his name” is beyond the pale. Seriously. You’re better than this, Jerry … I think. This rhetoric is unimaginable from someone who I didn’t think would stoop to this level. Not sure why, but I didn’t think it was your style. I stand corrected.

  8. Jeff,

    I’m going to say this nicely because I realize that you are in an irritable mood this week.

    Here goes: I am not using Barrack Obama’s middle name for any other reason than the fact that it is HIS NAME and, in this particular post, I chose to take extra time and type out his middle name.

    The only way you can possibly get anything other than that out of what I have written is if you are reading it back into what I have written. I am simply at a loss to understand why you are so angry that I choose, in this particular post, to use the full given birth name of a presidential candidate. (As many do when they refer to Hilary Rodham Clinton–as if there are other Hilary Clinton’s she might be confused with!)

    It is bad for you to accuse me. It is worse for you to assume you know what is in my head or heart (since you don’t and you can’t and since I have told you explicitly otherwise!). But you really lose my respect when you call me a liar and question my integrity in this matter. I am not pinned down. I have nothing to apologize for. I have nothing to move on to. I have covered up nothing. I have committed no crime. It is a blog post for crying out loud, mostly tinged with sarcasm, and, ironically, more about the church he preached at than the candidate himself.

    You still have not answered my question: Why are you so offended that I use his middle name? Are you afraid someone else might suddenly learn his middle name, as if it is a crime to have a middle name? Why do you feel so compelled to defend Barrack Hussein Obama and shield him from bloggers who use his middle name in an inocuous blog post that has been read by 15 people out of the trillion or so that live on the planet earth? Seriously. THAT is beyond pale.

    PS–what is nefarious about him that I could possibly hint at by using his middle name? Seriously? What? Because I am not aware of anything that senator Obama has done to break any laws or anything like that.

    ONCE AGAIN: In this post I chose to use his middle name for no other purpose than to use his middle name. If you get anything else out of what I have written, after I have testified that I have no hidden agenda or other motives, then it is more of a testament to your own insecurities than of my supposed demagoguery.

    Are you sure your not just egging me on for the sake of an argument?


    ps–did you see Tiger win again today? That man is amazing!

  9. Jeff,

    PS–my wife just pointed out to me that Barack Hussein Obama did not himself choose his middle name. It was given to him. Thus we are both at a loss to understand all the angst over his middle name. I guess we are thinking it might reflect something of his parents’ personal feelings, or their love for their heritage, but it certainly doesn’t say anything in particular about senator Obama.

    Look, I’m waiting on senator Obama to show me something real. I have no personal animosity towards him. I’m waiting on him to show me why he is different from every other elected official on the planet. He has not and my money says he will not. But as a social and economic conservative, I have no faith in him whatsoever. He will only lead this country to a place worse than we currently are because he doesn’t have an original idea in his head. He is a typical, cookie-cutter, tax and spend, liberal.


  10. You’re “at a loss” for how using his middle name, Hussein, could be viewed as inflammatory? Seriously? This is the position you’re taking? You’re not only saying you weren’t using his middle name multiple times, for no possible rational reason (you didn’t use McCain’s or anyone else’s in any other post), but you’re saying you don’t even see how it could be taken as anything other than perfectly innocent?

    This means you’re either being even more purposefully dense than I thought you were, you’re oblivious to the world around you or you’re simply not very bright. I wouldn’t have thought any of the above were true (I just thought you were being mean-spirited toward a politician you didn’t like, especially since some say he’s Muslim and you have previously expressed some concerns about Muslims) but, if you’re really taking the stance that you don’t even understand what I’m talking about, I have to assume one of those is true. I suspect it’s the first one for various reasons.

    I like your last graf here in your second response. I disagree with you completely on pretty much every bit of it, but I can respect that. What I can’t respect is you doing what every second-rate, Muslim-hating hack has done during this race — refer to Obama’s middle name in an attempt to make a tacit connection between him and Saddam (and, through Bush logic, Muslim extremism) — acting like you’re not doing it, and then, in a final act of disrespect, claiming you don’t even understand why anyone would have an issue with the repeated, obligatory use of this man’s middle name. In doing so, you refer to my “insecurities” and suggest that I’m stupid for even questioning your motives here. It’s truly astounding.

  11. Jeff,

    You are the only one visiting this blog post who is upset by my use of senator Obama’s middle name. No one else on the planet is writing here to complain of my use.

    My middle name is Lee. Do you think that automatically makes me a white southern racist who carries around the stars and bars on the back of my pick-up truck? No. It doesn’t. Nor does the name Hussein necessarily conjure up an implicit or explicit link to Saddam, Muslim-extremism, or Muslim hate or any of those other nasty things you wrote. In other words, I’m not the one stereotyping here.

    The only thing it conjures up is a senator from Illinois who is running for president of the United States of America.

    If it will make you happy, I will change my post to reflect senator McCain’s proper, full name too. If you will tell me what his middle name is, I will include it so that you will no longer be offended by my use of senator Obama’s name.

    I marvel at how you have this uncanny ability to reach into the recesses of my mind and heart and know what I am thinking. Seems to me that violates some evolutionary principle or rule. Or, perhaps you have evolved more quickly than the rest of us have.


    PS–I really am at a loss. I really don’t know, and you have not explained, why this offends you so much. Please explain it to me.

    PSS–you will not make me say something that is not true just because you continue to throw inflammatory rhetoric at me (dense, mean-spirited, not very bright, etc). How would you feel if I said similar things to you or about you at your blog? I don’t know why you don’t believe me when I say I am telling you the truth. Senator Obama is not a Muslim and has made that abundantly clear. He is a Christian, he preaches in Christian churches, he talks a lot about Jesus. One would think that would be more offensive to you than his middle name.

    PSSS–Here’s a link to the transcript of his ‘speech’ on Father’s Day. Read it and then tell me he was addressing a merely social concern. He was campaigning for the presidency.

    Here’s another take on the speech:


    Thanks Jeff.

  12. Jeff,

    Thanks for a spirited debate. We disagree strongly on this matter, but in the end what I hope for is friendship. And, furthermore, I’m still looking foward to having a beer with you someday. (And maybe some nachos.) Believe it or not, I appreciate the ‘other point of view.’ It makes me think more deeply.


  13. Jeff,

    Thanks for a spirited debate. We disagree strongly on this matter, but in the end what I hope for is friendship. And, furthermore, I’m still looking foward to having a beer with you someday. (And maybe some nachos.) Believe it or not, I appreciate the ‘other point of view.’ It makes me think more deeply.


  14. Jeff, Jerry,

    I know your debate happened a long time ago… but I have followed it with a lot of interest. Certainly I see that someone is not wholly truthful. It happens a lot when we have our prejudices about others that we completely shut off and are not ready to appreciate anything they have or capable of. Reading about what Jerry is saying about Senator Obama tells a lot about prejudice. Saying that the Senator has nothing to show, he is a phony just fails to appreciate that the Senator is a human being like any other. It is also a total disregard of those who see him as a capable leader. I do not think that you could go into the trouble of repeating his middle name throughout the post if you did not have a point you were trying drive. It is not worth the effort. Just say yes…. and there are many people who share with you the view that a man with such a name should not become a president of the US. That is your right, to think so and to say so. No need to be a hypocrite.

  15. Jerry,
    A human being is never complete, only God is. Obama might have skipped but I would believe a church is a place for all to come together and pray. You have attended and I am sure you wouldn’t have been allowed out. Remember that this is not the end of the world. You should forgive each other for minor mistakes. I’ll only tell you that Obama is a fine man and if elected president of the United S of America, the Americans would have something special in the world. For how long now you have been having the same old policies, the same politicians? It is time for Change and you better not miss it this time. Obama seem to be serious and is young and energetic to lead the nation. It is time for Change!

  16. Thank you Jeff. It’s one thing to clearly state your true opinions, but I can’t STAND those who pretend they are don’t think what the say.

    Whether dangoldfinch realizes it or not, his post reflect either this conscious or subconscious feelings. The English language is very diverse and an effective way of communicating. We CHOOSE the words we use becuase they fit the message we want to convey….sometimes we realize it; sometimes we don’t.

    Contray to what you think, dangoldfinch, what you’re thinking and what’s in your heart is reflected in your words whether you are aware of it or not. If you’re not aware of that, you really need to start paying more attention. If you’re aware of it, then just admit it and stop pretending!!

  17. Dani,

    I don’t think you are right to call me a hypocrite. I explained myself fully to Jeff above and I stand by what I said. My dislike of Senator Obama has nothing to do with his name or his race (YOU use the word prejudice, not I). He is a classic left-wing, flaming liberal. I am a fiscal, social, and cultural conservative Christian. His version of Christianity is offensive to me and an abomination to Scripture. I dislike him not because of his person, but because he is a politician who speaks out both sides of his mouth. His name, eh, what do I care?


    The only change that is necessary in this country is for people to get their heads out of their arses and quit supporting politicians and their heavy handed taxes. Obama is not a wonderful man. He is a politician and you have been duped. Just like so many republicans have been duped by McCain which is why I am not voting for either of them. We don’t need change, we need the laws that exist to be enforced and obeyed. And we need to pay less taxes. Neither will do that for us.

    Thanks to both of you for stopping by.


  18. Pat,

    I’m choosing my words carefully now: You have no idea what I am thinking. Just because you don’t like what I say or have no argument for what I say, you have chosen the path of the least resistance which is to attack the way I say things. That is typical liberalism at work.

    Thanks for stopping by.


  19. Jerry,

    The issue is NOT whether I like what you say or not. The issue is that you say what you say and then deny that that’s what you meant!!!

    Your original post was not about Obama’s middle name and it was asking about a possible conflict between the rule of separation of church and state. That’s a question the courts will answer especially now that several pastors have publicly endorsed McCain from the pulpit. You’ll get your answer on that soon enough I’m sure.

    I was commenting on your discussion with Jeff NOT to your original post. I was commenting on the way you said what you said. There’s only one path I’d intended to take and I took it.

    AGAIN, whether or not I like what you say is IRRELEVANT. I just want to to man up to it instead of appearing unaware, ignorant or disingenuous. The reason we have words/languages is to express our THOUGHTS, so if you said what you’ve said and then say I don’t know your thoughts makes no sense……or maybe you don’t know your own thoughts either.

  20. Pat,

    I used the Senator’s middle name because it is his middle name. It is the name his parents gave to him. It is the name on his birth certificate. Only those who fear or are ashamed of his middle name have rebuked my use of his name. I used it as a sign of respect and to honor him and his parents who gave him the name in the first place. I will not admit to something that I am not guilty of. You can spin it however you like, but I will not change my stance on this because I, and only I, know my intent. I have explained myself time and time again. In fact, you seem to agree:

    Pat: “I was commenting on your discussion with Jeff NOT to your original post. I was commenting on the way you said what you said.”

    This is exactly what I said. You can’t argue with my content, so you choose instead to argue with the way I said what I said. I agree with you that you have no substantial argument here.


  21. ” I used it as a sign of respect and to honor him and his parents who gave him the name in the first place.”

    lol OK Jerry, yeah right….whatever puts you to bed at nights. Peace out.

  22. Pat,

    I don’t know why you find that so hard to believe. Why must everything someone says or does be construed to be done with ulterior motives?

    God’s Sovereignty puts me to sleep at night.

    Thanks for the conversation.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s