Archive for May 11th, 2010

Update: Commenter ras has pointed out that Nelson has clarified his position. He believes Obama was born in the United States.

I ended up being busier the week after school than I was during school. Family was coming to town, the house needed to be cleaned, friends were getting ready to leave, their parents were in town, and on and on. I thought I would be keeping up with things and writing a lot, but that was not the case. At least when I was in school I could write a post or two during a dull class. So I’ve missed a few things. One of the main ones I’ve missed is that former SD Secretary of State and current South Dakota Republican congressional candidate Chris Nelson is also a current birther.

I found that the Washington Post reported on this. Then I found that Cory had, of course, reported on this. So I apologize for being behind the times. The Rapid City Journal ran this and it understandably got attention.

“Yes, meeting the constitutional qualifications to be President is a very important issue. If President Obama isn’t constitutionaly qualified, it would be the biggest scam ever perpetuated on the American people. MANY people contacted me as Secretary of State prior to and after the election asking how Obama could be on our ballot given this controversy. Absent a court finding that he isn’t a natural born citizen, we have to take the certification from the National Democratic Convention at face value.”

The other candidates simply answered the question of Obama’s birth with either, “He’s an American” or “Why are we talking about this.” But not Nelson. Forget that it’s obviously a debunked myth or that it makes him look foolish, he’s just not so sure. But he guesses for the time being we’ll have to take the NDC, which I’m sure he loves, at face value.

While looking around to see what I could about the guy, I found that Dr “likes” Nelson’s run for Congress. I was looking at Nelson’s campaign page, and Dr’s facebook picture was in the first row of those that like his campaign. That’s a glowing endorsement from a smiling Dr, so I am interested to hear what Dr has to say on this issue.

Enjoy a little spice in the race.

Adam Feser

In a recent Salon article Gabriel Winant asks, “What’s with conservatives’ fetish with the Founding Fathers?” I thought that was an interesting question. You always hear how pious they were, how brilliant they were, and how they all had exactly the same ideas (which is a completely false notion) from various conservatives, but you rarely hear much beyond how they would agree with conservatives.

As Winant points out, the Constitution left out women and slaves. In addition to that, it left out all but about one fourth of the population. Their great notions of freedom and a voice for the people were left to the white landowners, and they didn’t even trust them (hence the electoral college). You could argue that those were different times, and you’d be exactly the point. They were different times and currently different standards and needs must be met. Looking to the late 1700s for guidance isn’t always the best answer.

Remember when Palin claimed that all of the Founding Fathers were her favorite? That would imply their ideas were all the same, but there were and continued to be bitter fights between these beloved figures for years. You would think she would have said someone like Jefferson, who was all about small government. But without Hamilton and Adams, who at the time represented big government, we wouldn’t have the capitalist system her and other conservatives so cherish.

Another point often forgotten was the reason the Constitution was created. We had a very limited government system created by the Articles of Confederation. When people say that the Constitution was created to keep a limited government, they’re wrong. It was created to create a stronger central government than that created by the Articles of Confederation, with the ability to tax and tariff. If anything, it’s surprising that small government proponents should long for the days of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, which, as the title states, was meant to be perpetual. But they were not perpetual because the Founding Fathers recognized something different was needed.

It just seems odd to me that conservatives have adopted all of the Founding Fathers as if they all stood for the same thing. It’s also odd that conservatives either forget or neglect that the Constitution was a flawed document. Flawed in what it meant to be an American, and you would think flawed from a conservative viewpoint in that it overturned the small government Articles.

No doubt many of the Founding Fathers were brilliant men far ahead of their time, but they were hardly all in agreement or perfect. And the Constitution was hardly without its flaws. To pretend otherwise is to make idols of mere men. Palin should know better than to give men godlike properties. It’s the first of the commandments she wants us to make law with.

But I guess when you engage in historical fantasy, these things can mean or stand for whatever you want them to.

Enjoy some more angry comments.

Adam Feser

Terry Larkin, the U.S. Army officer famous for refusing to go to Afghanistan because he questions where Obama was born, went on Cooper’s show recently. He barely talked, having his lawyer do most of the talking. They don’t answer most of Cooper’s questions, instead choosing to stick to the talking points they feed people. Watch:

Cooper seems genuinely distraught that a seemingly intelligent guy would engage in such ridiculousness.

Enjoy the lunacy.

Adam Feser

Here’s a video of Sarah Palin on O’Reilly’s show:

I have no problem with National Prayer Day because it is voluntary. I do have a problem with some of Palin’s other statements.

I want to start by summarizing the Ten Commandments (though the order varies).

1. I am God and you can have no other gods.
2. Don’t take the Lord’s name in vain.
3. Keep the Sabbath holy.
4. Honor they father and mother.
5. Don’t murder.
6. Don’t commit adultery.
7. Don’t steal.
8. Don’t lie.
9. Don’t covet your neighbor’s house.
10. Don’t covet your neighbor’s wife or possessions.

How are we supposed to use these to create law? Making the first three Commandments (you could also argue the Fourth and Sixth) law would make us a theocracy. The Fourth Commandment can hardly be made a law. The Fifth is a law. The Sixth Commandment cannot be legislated. The Seventh is a law. The Eighth is only a law in rare circumstances (when under oath). And if we outlawed coveting it would ruin our economy. The American dream is built on coveting stuff other people have.

So 5 and 7 (and 8, at times) of the Ten Commandments are already laws and would be laws regardless of the Ten Commandments. If we legislated 1,2, and 3 we’d be a theocracy. Legislating 4, 6, 8 (most of the time), 9, and 10 makes no sense.

Knowing this, exactly why would we want out laws to be based on the Ten Commandments? The Ten Commandments are an important part of may religions, but that does not mean a huge modern country can base laws on them. Which commandment is salient regarding environmental policy? Where should we set speed limits? What about the death penalty?

To be fair, Palin also mentioned the Bible. Which parts of the Bible do we legislate? Do we use the Old Testament? Do we outlaw tattoos and shellfish? Do we stone women for premarital sex?

Or do we move in a New Testament direction and work on forgiveness and turning the other cheek? Should we use that as our guiding foreign policy?

This gets at one of the main problems with trying to legislate based on these texts – everyone has different interpretations of the texts. Many Christians believe the Old Testament does not apply. Others believe only parts of it apply. Palin is fond of the word “Judeo-Christian,” so should we include Orthodox Jewish law? Do we keep single women separate from men at night? Do we keep kosher?

I recognize and have no problem with anyone using whatever religion they follow for their own purposes. If it provides comfort and purpose, then it is a good thing. But when you attempt to force your religion on others, you are acting against the Constitution, which is the guiding law for creating legislation in this country.

I also think it cheapens religion to have it involved in something as contentious and oftentimes corrupt as politics. The First Amendment protects the right of citizens to choose their own religion, and it also protects religion from misuse and abuse.

I have to believe that Sarah Palin knows it would be impossible and often unconstitutional to legislate according to the Ten Commandments and the Bible. I can only imagine she says things like this because she knows it will appeal to certain parts of the Republican Party. Either that or we better hope she never gets in a real position of power.

Just to reiterate: I am not trying to belittle anyone’s religion. I am simply stating that no one religion is or should be the basis of the law in this country. It should for each individual, not something you force on others.

Enjoy angry comments.

Adam Feser

Just wanted to give you all a heads up that a portion of the American News hosting domains were subject to a nasty virus in which the digital team is working diligently to repair.  The good news is that the Red, Blue, and Purple was one of two blogs that weren’t affected as they are hosted in other areas.  The bad news is to repair everything correctly, they may have to shut us down.  So if you come to this blog or any other blog and you get the “this cannot be found” screen, keep checking back.  They are going to fix everything ASAP…

In other things, I am back from vacation.  I was in the Caribbean for 7 days and Miami for 2.  A lot of things have happened since I ‘left reality’ some good and some that have me royally pissed.  Glen Beck could become my friend and I am nearly in full support of the Arizona Immigration Law….