Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Fundamentalists Threaten President and Speaker Pelosi

This was a very scary segment on Rachel Maddow. The interview is with Frank Schaefer, who was a leader of the fundamentalist movement in the United States. Psalm 109:8, "Let his days be few and another take his office," is the language on bumper stickers. The far right is basically turning on the minds of the unbalanced and giving them permission to kill President Obama. This is in light of the fact that threats against President Obama are up 400%, basically exceeding the Secret Service's ability to keep up with them.

If you are religious, I ask you to pray for President Obama's safety. This isn't funny at this point.

20 comments:

djtyg said...

These are the same people that defend the rape of women. Assasination is just a step up for them.

vomamike said...

Fundamentalist - be they Muslim, Jewish or Christian - are the bane of society. They promote violence in the name of religion. The problem is that for the past decade, they have infiltrated our government and have an unholy influence on both our foreign and domestic policies. Voters can be so stupid.

Chris said...

Wow Bruce I think you are way off on that one. The proof is in the pudding. Look at the liberals and their G20 protests and the protest when Bush was President. You keep saying the right wing extreemist Christians are going to go Wacco on Obama but it hasn't happened yet. In fact SEIU has beaten a black man and called him the "N" word at a protest. Nothing yet from the, sky is falling and the Christians are coming to kill Obama, groups you keep talking about. Yeh djtyp they are the same group as the women rappers. Are you on drugs or somehting? I have seen Muslims doing all the damage. Even the Hasan"Allah Akbar" fundamentalist. Where are the Christian ones you keep talking about? I'm sure there are some out there but not the numbers you are trying to portray. Vomamike where are the Christian fundalmentalist that have infiltrated our government and have an unholy influence on both our foreign and domestic policies? Have they found one of them yet? Where are those crazy Christian and Jews that are distroying or trying to distroy our country? I know about the 12th Imam and the millions of people that believe in that. In fact many Muslims worldwide believe Obama might be the 12th Imama. There are crazy people all over the place in spight of religion and because of it. Don't forget to scare everyone about those Teabaggers and the threat they are to humanity. lol. Oh you already did that peice. Look at the G20 and then the Tea Party protests. There hasn't been one arrest at a Tea Party and just look at the liberal Al Quida G20 riots.

Bruce Fealk said...

Chris, I don't think I'm off one bit, nor is Frank Schaefer. He was one of you till he saw the light and the harm the Christian fundamentalists were doing to our country. Maybe you should read his books, Chris.

Just because no one has been arrested at a tea party, doesn't mean that there aren't people out there that are plotting to kill President Obama. Threats against the President are up 400% since President Obama took office, over any other President, probably outstripping the Secret Service's ability to investigate all the threats.

No one was arrested before Scott Roeder killed Dr. Tiller. Roeder is probably one of your heros, isn't he, Chris.

vomamike said...

Chris - I used a very "broad brush" accusation against fundamentalist - past and present. That charge stems from a plethora of information digested over time. I wish that I had the recall necessary to give you "chapter and verse" regarding my viewpoint. However, there was one recent event that I can point to regarding undue influence peddling by the religious Right. Surprise, it is the Catholic Church. They got Congressman Bart Stupak to insert a "fundamentalist" prohibition against abortion in the House health care bill. I won't go down the road of abortion, as the point I am making is strictly with the influence that the Catholic Church had in this instance. It is systematic of the undue influence religious fundamentalist has over the roll of government. We are not a Theocracy like Iran, but I swear there are those who want it so.

Now as for the protesters at those C 20 summits - you have a point BUT you miss a point. Their protests were at business entities. It was generic in its complaint against them. As violent as some of them were, it was mostly civil disobedience and a protest against police forces stopping them from protesting. That is a far cry from signs and diatribes by the Right that seem to advocate assassination of President Obama and/or the overthrow of the government. Now I hope you are right, and we are making a mountain out of a molehill, but I don't think so. The language used - the signs displayed - while couched in incendiary language, cannot but cast fears for the safety of President Obama and some of our government leaders.

djtyg said...

Actually, Chris, I was talking about you specifically. You already support the rape of women. What's a couple dead bodies to you?

Chris said...

No Bruce you know how I feel about murder. Unlike you and your ilk I don't believe two wrongs make a right. Their are crazy people on all sides. But when it comes down to it the left have acted out their craziness 10 to 1. Is Dr. Tiller one of your heros Bruce? He was a hero to many on the left. Mike what about the beating of the black conservative by SEIU members? They even called him the N word while beating him. Why is it OK for the organize unions and left wing ACORN types to have influence on government but not organized religion? You do know that the Roman Catholic Church thinks abortion is murder along with most organized religions? So why wouldn't they try to stop murder? If you thought that people were being murdered you would try and stop it wouldn't you? So why the double standard? Mike did you see the signs that the left had of Bush? Don't play like the left didn't do the exact same thing to Bush when he was in office.

Chris said...

You are something else my full face little friend. Now I support the rape of women? Now I know you are crazy djpyg. You come up with some great come backs. You guys are the fringe. Keep up the good work over here on the left you make it easy for us with your off the wall posts. I bet Mike wishes you two were a little more lucid and less left field with your crazy thories of conspirocy. I bet the computer is your only friend Donald.

vomamike said...

Donald - we could get into some heavy disagreement about a woman's right to control her own body. However, I noticed that at least in your case, the excessive need to include profane invectives to illustrate your passion for a point of view. I can't say that does much for enhancing dialogue between us. I still maintain that the Supreme court decision in Roe V Wade was based on sound scientific evidence but not on religious dogma. So all your diatribe about "killing babies" has more to do with your religious tenets than secular civil law. It would appear that no amount of compromise or appeasement will ever make you happy. It is with that in mind, that is making us on the Left more entrenched them ever, to fight your theocracy tooth and nail.

Now as for your profane diatribe about Christian violence vs any other - or perhaps just Muslim - I have neither the time nor the inclination to research - or fact check your assertion that Chris "proved" protests against Bush were more incendiary than what has transpired against Obama. I can only recall my own involvement in many anti war protests against Bush - and aside from frequent calls for his impeachment and going to jail - I never recalled any threats - veiled or otherwise that called for violence against his person. One noted fact is the recent release of stats from the Secret Service which said threats against Obama were up 400% over Bush - and were the highest ever against any President - Republican or Democrat.

"Anti" protests are nothing new, no matter who is in power. Even during the height of the Viet Nam War protests, one never got the sense that either Presidents Johnson or Nixon were personally in danger. And generically speaking, I don't have a problem with the "Tea Party" protests. Oh sure, I don't agree with their sentiments, but not their right to protest. BUT I do see a problem, which you seem to want to ignore, with the "personal" level of attack against Obama and the not so veiled threat against his person. I submit that the level of protest have been ginned up a big notch, by the incendiary language and talk by such luminaries as Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Fox Noise. There is a subtle but ominous difference between what they say - and hint at, then any anti Bush rhetoric from the past. Too bad you can't see it.

djtyg said...

That the best you have, Chris? Pretending to be me?

Hilarious! Chris wants to be me!

vomamike said...

Chris - you asked me a question, "why is it OK for unions & "acorn" types to influence government but not organized religion?" I would have thought the answer to that would be quite obvious. We are not a theocracy and to attempt to insert legislation that is based on religious doctrine is unconstitutional. Whereas unions are trying to promote the welfare of the working men and women. Now as for your "Acorn types" - well that is neat wordsmithing, but hardly accurate or even fair. The mission of ACORN is highly laudable, but to the extent it has been corrupted by individuals within that organization has yet to be determined in a court of law. You and I have both said "two wrongs never make a right", so I guess pointing out the corruption and avarice of those on the Right would be an exercise in redundancy. The only compromise I would accept would be the premise that both "sides" have a problem and need to clean up their act.

Chris said...

So Mike does that mean we should have no influence from religion even if that religion is liberalism? I never said that there should be a thocracy and you know that. I was talking about religion having influence on govt like it had in the past. I'm not saying Christian influence I said religion.Nice try trying to twist my words.

Bruce Fealk said...

Chris, you are more stupid than I thought. Unions are not organized religion.

Our country was not founded as a Christian nation. It was founded so that all American could have the freedom of religion, to practice a faith or no faith at all.

Our founders put up a clear wall between government and religion. Government should be secular and serve the best interests of the people. Period.

Church is where we talk religion, and we should not be considering religion as a part of our government.

vomamike said...

Chris - you are still missing the point. We are not debating the level of moral certitude of our elected leaders, but the attempt to infuse religious dogma into the tenents of law. Big differance!

djtyg said...

Oh c'mon, Chris! Resorting to cyberstalking? That would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.

Pretending to be someone else is one thing. Pretending to be me? Well that's just flattering.

Wow. To put in that much effort, you must have no life at all.

"You're a coward because you don't want to come on my blog and argue with me over the internet!"

No, Chris. I just don't care about your pathetic little blog. But it's nice of you to try to goad me into trying. I'm flattered by all of this, I really am.

Chris said...

What are you talking about djtyg?

djtyg said...

Like you don't know "Donald".

That's hilarious. And illegal. But mostly hilarious.

Chris said...

Once again I don't have a clue what you are talking about. I never used the name "Donald". It is funny how Bruce doesn't post most of what I say to you guys. Talk about not being fair and ballanced. Where is that blog of yours djtyg so I can post on it. I clicked on your name and their isn't a blog there. So if you want me to know what you are talking about don't use code. And leave it to Bruce to only allow half of my posts through. It's like when he only tells half the truth.

Bruce Fealk said...

Chris, you're right. I'm not posting some of your comments. I'm not going to let you come over to my blog and put the same shit here that you put on your blog.

It's not useful in any way whatsoever.

djtyg said...

Sure, Chris, I mean "Donald". That's why you referred to me as "full faced" even though I have no photo on this profile or gave you any indication of what I look like.

You give yourself away too easily.

And if you don't like Bruce's comment policy, start your own blog. Oh wait, you did. Quit your crying. This is his blog and he can run it as he sees fit. If Bruce decides tomorrow that the only comments going through have to be in prose, you better quit commenting or brush up on your poetry. That's how blog ownership works.