by Al Bratton, Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 12:19:39 PM EDT
by btchakir, Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 10:14:49 AM EST
I ran across this on a site called MLive from Muskegon, Michigan:
Letter: Why didn't flight crew mention God?I wonder what God was doing when that plane went down outside of Buffalo last week.
by Dena Malda | Muskegon
Monday February 16, 2009, 11:37 AM
On the Feb. 8 "60 Minutes" program, we were captivated while viewing the Katie Couric interview of the crew and passengers of Flight 1549.
However, we were struck there was not one mention of God, who directs pilots of planes and secures the safety of passengers.
We have written CBS and asked them for more realistic programming. Help protect our freedoms. Write CBS about this.
I used to live near Muskegon many years ago for a brief period. I wouldn't hesitate to say that this kind of comment is typical.
by January 20, Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:45:13 PM EDT
There have been countless diaries in the past few days on our VP opponent. I apologize if I've missed coverage of this aspect of her past here.
The Times' William Yardley has a fascinating look at Palin's rocky start in local politics http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/us/pol itics/03wasilla.html?hp The piece details some of the well-diaried issues such as her questionable economic policies and her consideration of book banning. But the focus of this piece is how she dived into the local election with a campaign of hard-core Christian dogma. It also shows that even in 1996, just two years after Newt's Contract With America, she was a tough campaigner who had already mastered the art of exploiting wedge issues - particularly religion.
For 2008, McCain has chosen a ticketmate with the very skills he deplored in 2000.
WASILLA, Alaska -- The world arrived here more than a century ago with the gold rush and later the railroad. Yet one aspect of American life did not come to town until 1996, the year Sarah Palin ran for mayor and Wasilla got its first local lesson in wedge politics.
The traditional turning points that had decided municipal elections in this town of less than 7,000 people -- Should we pave the dirt roads? Put in sewers? Which candidate is your hunting buddy? -- seemed all but obsolete the year Ms. Palin, then 32, challenged the three-term incumbent, John C. Stein.
Anti-abortion fliers circulated. Ms. Palin played up her church work and her membership in the National Rifle Association. The state Republican Party, never involved before because city elections are nonpartisan, ran advertisements on Ms. Palin's behalf.
Ms. Palin and her passion for Republican ideology and religious faith overtook a town known for a wide libertarian streak and for helping start the Iditarod dog sled race.
"Sarah comes in with all this ideological stuff, and I was like, `Whoa,' " said Mr. Stein, who lost the election. "But that got her elected: abortion, gun rights, term limits and the religious born-again thing. I'm not a churchgoing guy, and that was another issue: `We will have our first Christian mayor.' "
"I thought: `Holy cow, what's happening here? Does that mean she thinks I'm Jewish or Islamic?'" recalled Mr. Stein, who was raised Lutheran, and later went to work as the administrator for the city of Sitka in southeast Alaska. "The point was that she was a born-again Christian."
More ugliness after the bump
by duende, Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 03:35:53 AM EDT
Cross Posted at <redacted>
Yes, it's official. After months being courted by many candidates, on the eve of the republican convention, the Supreme Being has finally sent his own message of endorsement for Barack Obama as President.
by SevenStrings, Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 03:38:53 PM EDT
I am not a Constitutional Law expert, by any means.. but I do get very annoyed anytime a constitutional argument is made to justify something that simply does not make sense.
Let me explain. The preamble to the US declaration of independence states
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
It goes on to say that
To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Mr Hancock, in signing that document, was declaring that the British Crown was abusing it's right and was thereby being replaced by a US Constitution (which was to be drafted).
That makes sense... but let me break it down.