Tagged: Christine O’Donnell Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Jill 2:40 PM on 10/19/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Christine O'Donnell   

    On Constitution, O’Donnell is right, Coons and liberal media are wrong 

    What happened, via Michelle Malkin and Politico:

    Delaware GOP Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell questioned on Tuesday whether the Constitution provides for the separation of church and state.

    The comment came during a debate on WDEL radio with Democratic opponent Chris Coons, who argued that local schools should teach science rather than religion, at which point O’Donnell jumped in. “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” she asked.

    The audience at Widener Law School was taken aback, with shouts of “whoa” and laughter coming from the crowd.

    Coons then pointed to the First Amendment, which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

    “You’re telling me the First Amendment does?” O’Donnell interrupted to ask.

    Following the next question, Coons revisited the remark — likely thinking he had caught O’Donnell in a flub — saying, “I think you’ve just heard from my opponent in her asking ‘where is the separation of church and state’ show that she has a fundamental misunderstanding.”

    “That’s in the First Amendment?” O’Donnell again asked.

    “Yes,” Coons responded.

    O’Donnell was later able to score some points of her own off the remark, revisiting the issue to ask Coons if he could identify the “five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.”

    Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others — the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition — and asked that O’Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions.

    “I guess he can’t,” O’Donnell said.

    Jeffrey Lord:

    Well. Isn’t this interesting.

    As John R. Guardiano has noted below, Democrat Chris Coons and the liberal media have gotten the Constitution totally wrong. [. . .]

    This is one very, very big issue. The notion that Coons was wrong is bad enough. The audience not understanding the fundamental founding document that is the U.S. Constitution?

    Downright scary — and a glaring warning sign of just how far off-track the American left-wing and secularists have gotten this country.

    Christine O’Donnell — she the supposed unqualified candidate — got this 100% correct.

    And Coons — the Ivy Leaguer — got it wrong, and not just wrong but abysmally so.

    In this one exchange Americans can see two of our big problems at work. Ignorance of the Constitution — and arrogance from self-appointed elitists about a supposed intellectual superiority they quite laughably don’t even come close to possessing.

    Pass it on. This is being misrepresented far and wide.

     
    • fuzislippers 9:03 PM on 10/19/2010 Permalink | Reply

      This exact thing has sparked quite a few debates between some of my liberal friends and myself. They honestly believe that “separation of church and state” is in the Constitution, that it’s a founding principle. And they will argue for days about it, even though they are dead wrong. Even when you go to the trouble of proving it (and who doesn’t carry a pocket Constitution), they will huff and puff and talk about “intent” and “living documents” and why we shouldn’t adhere to the Constitution because it’s a dated and (as BO himself has said with pride) a “flawed” document. So as usual, leftist logic goes something like this: it’s a founding principle of America. Oh, it’s not? Well, of course it’s not, the founders were a bunch of dead white males who hated women, minorities, and . . .and puppies!

      All the court’s meddling on behalf of progs through the past century or so has ingrained this idea into many American’s understanding of America. They sincerely believe that they are guaranteed freedom FROM religion, not freedom OF religion. It’s disgraceful, of course, but not surprising. They truly have no clue about our Constitution or our founding principles.

    • Yukio Ngaby 11:32 PM on 10/19/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Have you noticed how Obama keeps not citing the “Creator” as the source of “inalienable rights.”

      He did it again (for the 3rd time) on Monday. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-continues-to-omit-creator-from-declaration-of-independence/

      Robert Gibbs came up with this when asked about it– “I can assure you the president believes in the Declaration of Independence.” Thanks America’s version of Baghdad Bob.

      Fuzzy’s right, it does seem interesting that this section of the First Admendment has been interpreted as protection from religion rather than protections for it. I’ve argued that the phrase keeps away a State dictated morality– a form of “morality” that the Left has been intently pushing upon the citizenry for at least 45 years or so.

      • fuzislippers 10:44 AM on 10/20/2010 Permalink | Reply

        I’m of two minds about his omission of “Creator”: on the one (more generous) hand, he may simply be trying to avoid any backlash by the anti-God squad in his base, and on the other (less generous) hand it’s a manifestation of progressive ideals that dictate the state and only the state can grant (and retract) rights. In the former case, he’s an inept politician who’s totally out of touch with the right-of-center country he “leads,” and in the latter case, he’s an inept politician who’s not only totally out of touch with the right-of-center country he “leads,” but he’s also an egomaniacal ideologue who is so invested in his progressive utopian vision of totalitarian government control that he thinks it best to ignore all that “Creator” nonsense in the “flawed document” (after all, if they rewrite stuff often enough, people come to believe it, witness the “separation of church and state” nonsense). So take your pick, he’s incompetent and a disgrace either way.

        • Obi's Sister 3:50 PM on 10/20/2010 Permalink | Reply

          Wow. Obama unwound in one tidy package!

        • Yukio Ngaby 6:04 PM on 10/20/2010 Permalink | Reply

          Of course the omission is intentional, but remember that much of Obama and his buddies’ backgrounds are academic. Look at the way that God is presented within the university system in the U.S. (and elsewhere for that matter), with a combination of embarrassment and high-handed contempt.

          One time I had to do a talk on Samuel Johnson’s sermons (well, the ones he wrote). Instead of taking the expected social-justice-trumps-mean-old-conservatives-of-the-day line, I instead argued that Johnson was pushing a clockwork universe interpretation of the universe, instead of a Divine Chain of Being idea. This made the everyone very uncomfortable because I was going into theological concepts of metaphysics– and I how dare I talk about God while discussing Johnson’s sermons… Much better to warp Johnson’s work into being a cheerleader for Marxism, or use it as “proof” of the Hegel/Marx nonsense about history moving forward toward a goal.

          I think Obama treats God in politics the way most “academics” treat it in universities– with embarrassed contempt. The fact that freedom to believe in your interpretation of God is in direct conflict with the idea of a State morality (another favorite idea among American academics [and very much European academics as well– another reason for the European resistance to assimilating Muslims, by the way]) is no coincidental, however.

          • fuzislippers 11:24 AM on 10/21/2010 Permalink | Reply

            You gave a talk about Johnson’s sermons and brought up God? What on earth were you thinking? (heh, yay you!) But your point is a good one, academics do indeed treat with contempt God and people who believe in God (but not in Allah, or any other creator, isn’t that interesting? I mean if the complaint is that Christians are unsophisticated, slack-jawed, drooling fools for believing in God, what’s the defense of the billions of people who believe in other gods? Oh, yeah, that they are supposed to be unsophisticated, slack-jawed, drooling fools . . . after all, they are neither white nor western, so they are automatically inferior and should be indulged as lesser beings.).

            As to Obama, I don’t think of him as an academic.. He certainly wasn’t a successful one, was he? A lecturer? What did he publish? Where’s his tenure? At what conferences did he present papers? Where, in other words, are his academic credentials? He liked to latch on to Marxist academics, no doubt about that, but in that hanging around, let me get an A, way, not in anything he substantively added to the academic discussion. His Marxist roots aren’t academic, they’re learned from his parents, from his childhood, and a part of his worldview, no doubt, but I think you give him too much credit by calling him an academic.

            • Yukio Ngaby 7:30 PM on 10/21/2010 Permalink | Reply

              I don’t believe Obama is an academic (why does he keep his academic , records so hush-hush?) but he hangs out with academics, has packed his admin. with them, and I think he likes to believe himself to be one (sort of like Gore). And his attitudes, especially his contempt for Middle America (bitter, racist Bible-clingers and scared children not thinking in their right minds– unlike the cool academic elite, right? LOL) is right out of the Ivy League’s (and wanna-bes’) playbook. American academia is at the heart of Obama’s politics and policies, not his parents and not his childhood– except in the way that Leftist academia influenced both.

              The Left portrays Muslims as victims and have become essentially mascots (a word usage coined by Thomas Sowell regarding American Blacks and the Left) for the Left. Mascot-victims have political uses (most often for demonizing opposition– the modern tactic unfortunately developed out of the days of the Civil Right Movement), but are in no way held in high esteem and can, at best, be thought of as quaint entertainment– there was nothing like “slumming” with those American Blacks in the ’60s (hilariously depicted in the first “Hairspray” movie). The Left has no more respect for Muslim beliefs than they do for Christians’ but Muslims are “exotic” and currently have their political uses. They’ll be abdandoned immediately if the political climate changes to where it’s simply unsustainable (another major terrorist attack for instance), or the victim card simply gets used up. Then the Left will once again think of them as “unsophisticated, slack-jawed, drooling fools.”

              Remember that the Left loved Israel in the early days of the country (Rem. the Paul Newman movie “Exodus” etc.) but Israel succeeded and prospered– an unforgivable sin for the Left. Then they become not the victim, but the oppressor. Had Israel simply had the good sense to be wiped from the map, they would’ve remained in the Left’s good graces and the Left would have been very sorry that the world refused to give the Jewish people a chance…

              Such switches of loyalty are inevitable in Marx-based thought because of Trotsky’s “permanent revolution” excuse/nonsense. Revolutions happen because of oppressed victims, not because of succeeding societies.

              • fuzislippers 7:38 PM on 10/21/2010 Permalink | Reply

                “Revolutions happen because of oppressed victims, not because of succeeding societies.”

                This.

    • Vegas Art Guy 10:29 PM on 10/20/2010 Permalink | Reply

      It’s sad how liberals only know the first half of the whole ‘not establishing a state religion’ thing. They ignore the whole part about freedom to worship as we wish.

      I mean seriously…

      • fuzislippers 11:28 AM on 10/21/2010 Permalink | Reply

        Yes, this is hugely problematic and has contributed greatly to their ability to win lawsuits that they should never win and manage to remove God from our culture and society to the degree that they have. It’s an intentional misreading. There is no way that anyone can read the actual First Amendment and conclude that it means that seniors can’t say Christian prayers at a nursing home. But then, even in Constitutional Law class, the actual Constitution is not read or taught that much. The focus is on the bastardization of it by later (and progressive) rulings. It’s the old telephone game: start with a clear statement and then dilute it as it gets whispered around the circle. What you end up with is not what you start with. Not even close.

  • Jill 8:19 AM on 09/23/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Christine O'Donnell,   

    Quote of the day 

    Andy McCarthy, Contra Buckley:

    The movement now ascendant in the country is not about anything so small as the question of which party has control over the Senate in 2011. It is about the future of freedom and prosperity, about the kind of nation we will be. Its goal is to return the United States to a pre–New Deal understanding of the Constitution’s limits on federal power, and to a pre–Baby Boom Left’s appreciation of the greatness of America. That is not a project for one election cycle. It is the work of a generation.

    The Buckley Rule has no place in that enterprise. The object is to make Big Government pols of both parties members of an endangered species. And unlike the callow GOP establishment, the tea party is bold enough to believe good ideas — applied, limited-government conservatism — can win even in Delaware . . . and Massachusetts.

    The GOP establishment will either get the message or it will go the way of the failed candidates it has backed. If it had done its job, if it had undertaken to represent rather than thwart the public will, it wouldn’t now be asking itself how you get Christine O’Donnell elected. It would have found a better Christine O’Donnell.

    Read the rest.

     
  • nosheepleshere 12:08 AM on 09/19/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Christine O'Donnell,   

    O’Donnell’s Got ‘Em Bewitched, Bothered And Bewildered 

    John Nolte, of Big Hollywood writes, “In desperate Hail Mary moves to protect Obama and Democrats from what’s looking like a November rout, three of the left’s most beloved Palace Guards have just upped their game considerably. Bill Maher’s now openly blackmailing Delaware Republican Senate Candidate Christine O’Donnell, threatening a weekly drip-drip-drip of videos he thinks will ruin her candidacy unless she agrees to appear on his show—which is where he’ll really pull out the stops to finally win that Emmy by attempting to destroy her.”

    Big Government, offers the thoughts of John Tillman, CEO of the Illinois Policy Institute, on what Karl Rove should have said following O’Donnell’s victory in Delaware.

    Michelle Malkin sternly writes, “Narcissism. Blackmail. Distortion. All wrapped in his trademark smirk of pallor. Yes, it’s tired old liberal “comedian” Bill Maher trying to get Senate GOP primary candidate Christine O’Donnell to come on his show by baiting her with a brief video clip in which she mentions having “dabbled” in “witchcraft” and hung around people who practiced it.”

    “The left-wing blogs (and a few short-sighted rightie ones) are having a field day. What they all seem to have missed is the context for the discussion. The AP says the “context of what led to the comment is not clear.”

    I like what Stacy McCain threw out there:  “What is it with some Republicans who would rather walk away from a difficult fight rather than to muster a show of force by winning where Conventional Wisdom says victory is impossible? I’ve always loved underdogs who fight like hell and win despite all odds, but it seems some members of the GOP commentariat are wired differently.”

    “Christine O’Donnell is a ‘lousy candidate’? Well, pray tell what would you call John McCain?”

    Tell it, brother!

    Read more at No Sheeples Here.

     
    • archer52 3:20 PM on 09/19/2010 Permalink | Reply

      I haven’t gone to powerline for a long time. Ever since they decided they were too big to accept comments. It seems they are convinced, with the little notoriety they gained, that they are too big for us regular folks. In this case, O’Donnell may not be the right candidate for the position in Delaware, but the childishness of the establishment Republicans, like Rove, shows they have trouble accepting she is THE candidate, whether they like it or not.

      She may be flawed, they are children. Who wins that?

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel