Obama: Yes, I support the Ground Zero Mosque

The Lord of Liberty
by P Parsealot

On a warm July evening in 1741, a large crowd had gathered in the Congregational meetinghouse in Enfield, Connecticut. This group did not seem worshipful, and in fact they were quite restless, irreverent, and thoughtless. To some these “worshippers” appeared to be there only for entertainment. Others were there out of curiosity, and some were there out of sincere piety. Whatever motives for the cramped worshippers attendance, there was unanimous consensus on the person they had crowded together to listen to – Jonathan Edwards.

The “Great Awakening”, the first great spiritual revival in America, was beginning to light a spiritual fire in the colonists. It had been over 130 years since the first settlers arrived in Jamestown, and a century since the “Great Migrations” that began with the Pilgrim separatists and later the Puritans brought Christianity to the shores of America. But as the colonies grew many of the spiritual leaders began to be concerned that America’s founding faith was irresolute. The trappings and temptations of a progressive society’s prosperity and security had turned the colony’s vibrant faith lukewarm. The frontier was infamous for its rowdy lifestyle. For the social elites, Deism was in vogue. The squalor of the inner city slums fostered worldly indifference. Colony life in the 1700s in all appearances seemed to be drifting aimlessly away from their founding faith.

Pastors throughout the Colonies lamented over the decline and demise of religion in light of the rapidly transforming social circumstances. People had become “careless at heart and stupidly indifferent” when it came to matters of faith. The distinctive differences between church and the secular world were disappearing. Church discipline had become neglected, and a persistent moral laziness “invaded” the church. It was Jonathan Edwards and many other noted pastors and revivalist, especially George Whitefield, during this time that “awakened” the God-Fearing citizens of America to a renewal and restoration of their faith. Biblical faith was re-ignited and its effects lasted for decades, stirring in the colonial hearts for three generations a faith that firmly believed in the Christ who was, who is, and who always will be the Lord of Liberty.

I have been studying very diligently the role of the Judeo-Christian faith and its influence in Colonial America these past few months. As a pastor, theologian, and historian I have always held that America was founded on biblical principles, and that the ONLY and TRUE solution to the dilemmas we are now facing is for Christians to submit to God. However, the modern church and Christians have fundamentally failed in their duties to uphold these traditions in our society. We have allowed the misquoted, so-called “separation” doctrine to effectively silence our vital role as the ambassadors of Christ’s blessing to not only each other but to the world. When I see this president bowing before foreign leaders, and paying homage to a foreign religion and god, I am dismayed not at him, but at my fellow Christian brothers and sisters (including myself), for not upholding our end of responsibility when it comes to being a “light set on a hill.” It is NOT the politicians who have let us down, WE, the Christian believers in God, have permitted this radicalism through indifference, fear, and quite possibly unbelief.

To my fellow believers, WE have been entrusted by God to be the standard bearers of his LIBERTY and FREEDOM in this country. WE have been given the “talent” of INALIENABLE RIGHTS that we are to nurture and produce an increase, and WE will be judged according to what WE have done with these gifts. WE must turn to God through His Son, Jesus Christ, imploring his Holy Spirit to “fan the flames” of a great spiritual awakening in this country once again. WE must also confess to never again stray from His ways, and pass this legacy of independence on to our posterity. WE must repent of our irreverent lack of vigilance, faith, and confidence in Him to lead this country HE founded on our behalf. WE must resolutely demand of our spiritual leaders and churches to once again assume the roles they held in early America that led us to forsake all for the cause of freedom. Lastly, WE must allow our God to go before us into battle. For this battle cannot be won with crafty arguments, protests, and transfers of political power in Washington. This battle will be won through the FUNDAMENTAL TRANSFORMATION in the hearts and minds of Christian men and women – FIRST!

For my fellow conservative, progressive, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, liberal, and/or independent friends who are either non-believers, atheists, or of a different faith, understand this message is not directed towards you. However, the evidence is overwhelming that this country was profoundly and irreversibly shaped by Christian thought that was lived out in the lives of most colonial Americans. WE have let you all down, by not remaining faithful to upholding Biblical Law and the moral principles of our God. Our Founding Fathers clearly believed that the key to America retaining its rights, freedoms, and liberties rested squarely on the shoulders of its abiding faith community, i.e. the Church. My point is to call the Church and all who call themselves “Christian” to renew and ignite their faith in Christ for the sake of this country. For WE know and confess that the “Higher Law” which WE serve has appointed us to be the guardians of His rights, liberties, and freedoms which were and are intended to give man life in abundance. My prayer is that good Christian men and women will turn to God in humble submission, avoiding all trifling speech and violence, making supplication to God through prayer and fasting on behalf of this country. WE have a great multitude of witnesses who have preceded us and are a steadfast example which WE are to model. Our Founding Fathers turned to God for guidance and direction during the establishment of this land. Let us no longer be “lukewarm,” indifferent, and “stupidly” careless at heart. Instead, through faith, may WE stir up a fire of true restoration and reform in this nation. If WE will turn to God once again, He will act on our behalf, thus securing the precious gift He gave us in liberty.

Freedom of religion? What happened to that?

No one is advocating the prevention of muslims to build mosques, just not on the hallowed ground that is the resting place of victims of islamic violence. And considering the islamic pattern throughout history of building triumphal mosques on conquered sites of worship, it’s not merely a ‘freedom of religion’ issue…

Thank you God! Keep hindering the building of this Mosque!

let’s not forget the very relevant issue of the suspected backers behind the 9/11 mosque. if built with non-terrorist money and further away i think most rational americans are unopposed to the mosque. heck, there are already hundreds of them in nyc. but we all see this as it is: antagonism against the west and a victory flag over the dead.

What do you see as a difference between “Freedom of Religion” and “Freedom of Worship” that the one devolves into the other?

I’m aware of the statement made by World Magazine:

That’s not an inconsequential change: Freedom of worship means the ability to have church services, which is crucial, but leaves out protection for Christian schools, publications, and Christian compassionate ministries…’Freedom of religion’ means that ministries designed to help prisoners change their lives, or to help the poor enter the workforce, can teach what the Bible teaches. Under ‘freedom of worship,’ these ministries could become illegal, as they are in many parts of the world. This is a development to watch warily.

I submit they are VERY wrong. About all of it. How can Freedom of religion exist as anything but a hypocrisy-laden theoretical concept, unless it includes freedom of worship?

And without freedom of religion. what exactly is Freedom of Worship? The freedom to go to a church other than the one nearest your home? The first amendment enshrines both. Freedom of Worship would be the one the Administration focuses on, because that’s what is assaulted by attempts to block the building of a mosque.

Part of America’s creed… is “equal protection under the law.” We are not to give preferential treatment to one religion over another, and that means neither can we subject one religion to limitations we impose on no other.

In our history, religions have been “officially” regarded and treated equally. Once they meet the criteria to be considered a bona fide religion… they enjoy all the protections of one, no matter their size or finances. Witness the myriad non-denominational churches that continue to spring up all over the nation, as they have done since its founding… whether with tiny congregations or huge broadcasts to millions.

If we wouldn’t stop a group of non-denominational Christians from building a church on a certain spot, we can’t stop any other religion from building their worship space there.

I think anyone that uses the constitution to destroy the constitution is a low life traitor and an enemy to this country.

Not bad, as for myself I believe Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Worship to be intertwined as in worship falls under auspices and or practice of religion,and I believe you would find most here in agreement when it comes to the two,however there are limits. Now before you jump the gun on that statement consider this,there are religions out there,they may not be major faiths like Christianity,Judaism etc., but they are religions that require human sacrifice or the spilling of human blood. Should these be allowed to be practiced freely? How about religions that encourage child brides? You may try and dismiss these as cults however they are still religious faiths,so this is an area requiring careful and deliberate consideration. I will point out this however your statement about Sharia and Islam is naive at best as the two are inextricably intertwined, one does not exist with out the other,I would suggest more research in the subject.

Those aspects of the religions that violate our laws are not permitted, and it doesn’t matter which religion it is. Judaism permitted owning slaves. They can’t do that here. It doesn’t matter which religion permits it, we don’t allow THAT here, and the prohibition is equal on all of them. Same with polygamy, even though when permitted by Islam, Judaism and Mormonism, they all treated it differently.

There are religions that permit, and even encourage the use of drugs, such as marijuana and peyote. I have to admit, I haven’t looked into those, but I think that our courts strive for treating them all with even-handed consistency.

My statement about Sharia and Islam was that characterizing Obama’s statement protecting freedom of worship as a precursor to instilling Sharia in America was absurd, since there is no freedom of worship under Sharia. I don’t understand your objection.

I didn’t see Danny give any particulars that might be “dead wrong”, really. He stated what he thought, identifying it as such, and then asked 2 questions.

If it isn’t built, it will be because of a lack of financing. New Yorkers don’t generally oppose new buildings going up.

Anyway… look at the bright side: It would mean a thousand or so more jobs, wouldn’t it?

Islam needs no defense against the Constitution. The Constitution doesn’t attack it.

That isn’t just a Muslim pattern. It was practiced by others long before Mohammed was born. The Catholic church did it too, but they extended the practice not just to physical monuments, but to co-opting symbolic ones also.

The perennial campaign to “put Christ back in Christmas” is an example. The gospels aren’t at all clear about the time of year, but the only thing we can rule out, is that it was in the dead of winter. The shepherds would not have their flocks in the fields after October. Yet Christmas is celebrated at the winter solstice. We can’t put Christ back in that time of year… he was never there in the first place. Those were pagan holidays, like Yule, which Christianity co-opted, and now it won’t be happy until all vestige of the previous symbolism of the holiday is forgotten.

Same with Easter. The Last Supper was a Passover Seder. So why is Easter dependent upon the lunar cycle following the vernal equinox, instead of simply following the Jewish calendar to put it the required number of days after Passover? Originally, wasn’t it a pagan holiday honoring spring, fertility, etc.? Catholicism used it to celebrate the crucifixion and resurrection, on dates that don’t, in any calendar, bear any connection whatever to the dates when they are believed to have occurred. In the process, taking over all celebrations surrounding the vernal equinox… except Passover, and that was only because the Jews steadfastly refused to convert, and Passover persisted in the public consciousness. Many other lesser pagan festivals were also taken over and renamed after Catholic Saints.

The Romans took over the Greek pantheon of gods and goddesses after conquering them, giving them Roman names.

The Hebrews destroyed Jericho and killed everybody there, building their own city in its place… with the exception, we’re told, of Rahab and her family who, let’s face it, betrayed her people.

Excavations throughout the Middle East and Asia Minor have found cities built atop cities.

It appears to be not a Muslim pattern… but a human one. The basic concept being, “I conquered it… now, I’ll make it mine.“

That was the title of the video on you tube. The truth is the a-holes in Dearborn are going against the constitution. You are not alone in hating this country. There are many of you, but there are more of us that loves this country.

Don17000, Shalom aleichem! Peace be with you, upon you, and your household! As I wrote in my exhortation to my Christian brothers and sisters, those who don’t believe or are antagonistic to this message it was NOT intended for them. Therefore, I do not expect you to understand or accept what I wrote, and that is ok. I had a very specific target audience in mind and those words were specifically intended for those who are Christ-followers. But for those who would seek to silence my input and attempt to segregate my faith from my life outside the walls of the church or my household, I will not be silent! So I respect your right to disagree with me, and I value your remarks. However, I will not give rebuttal as I am sure others do plenty of that. My sole purpose and message have been made clear to me by God, and demonstrated through the example of the Founders, and I will not stray from it. Through my studies and my personal convictions, I have come to the conclusion, based upon the writings of Benjamin Franklin, that I will no longer engage in trifling banter which leads nowhere and does not promote understanding. Rather, I will hold myself personally accountable for living according to my Christian heritage, which in turn will make be a better citizen of this country. I will also exhort my fellow Christian brothers and sisters to do the same. I hold Christians to a higher level of responsibility and accountability in their words, deeds, and actions than I do you. That is why I am calling Christians to turn to their faith in Christ Jesus FIRST. Learn and abide in the Higher Law of God’s Word and against this there can be no greater law!

You mentioned in your other rebuttal, that you are a Jew (your Bar Mitzvah in Spain?), so we share something in common. The only difference between you and I in this is that I believe somebody showed up, if you know what I mean. So if I only glean from the Torah or Talmud, Adonai has provided for me a clear road map that I am to follow. First of all I believe that Adonai is the TRUTH, and that He alone created and sustains the universe and all that is within His creation. Second, I will worship, study, and abide by His Law which was given to Moses. Against God’s Law, there is no higher law. Third, since I believe Adonai’s Holy Word in faith, as Abraham believed in faith, that is credited to me as righteousness as well. Fourth, since I believe in faith, study and abide by Adonai’s Higher Law, then I know by the examples provided to me in the Torah and Talmud, that it is Adonai alone who goes before me into battle and will be victorious. All I must do is be faithful to Adonai for the victory has already been won!

Therefore, there is no longer any need to do all this senseless banter, and I do not need fear the outcome. What I must do, and I am specifically exhorting my fellow Christians is to transform our ways and model our lives in compliance with what Christ would have us to do. I understand there are many who read this who do not share this view, including some Christians, and that’s ok. As long as Right Scoop permits me to encourage those of Christian faith to let God go before us in this battle, and I will use “original source” documentation to verify my research regarding the true historical evidence of many Founders abiding Christian faith, then I will continue to post.

The Talmud declares that it is Adonai who establishes and removes rulers and nations from power. The only prayer that I have for our country is that those who are in power will humble themselves before Adonai’s Law and rule according to His kesed love (Hebrew for royal, loving-kindness). The Israel of the Talmud proved this. When Israel allowed Adonai to lead and they were obedient to His Law they remained in their land (ארץ ישראל Eretz Yisrael). When the Jews did not, Adonai permitted the land to be removed from them. I could go on. But in the same measure, our Founding Fathers clearly believed that the land of America was granted and established to them by this same God. They clearly identified themselves as being like the Jews in the Exodus, and they fashioned an early seal depicting Moses, the Red Sea, and the pillar of fire. This is fact. So, I will exhort those of like-mindedness as mine to turn to this God-Adonai, whose name is above all names (YHWH), who was-and is-and is to come, Jesus – the Alpha and Omega, for in Him alone we will find deliverance.

No, I got the point. I don’t see its relevance to the discussion. Basically,

1. We’re talking here about building a mosque or Islamic center. That is protected under the 1st Amendment.

2. The article and the post attempt to characterize the perceived “shift” from Freedom of Religion to Freedom of Worship, as the ushering in of Sharia. My point is that since neither one of these is compatible with Sharia, there can be no validity or merit to this assertion. Whichever one is favored… the door to Sharia remains closed.

3. Also, Sharia is not the whole of Islam, any more than the Laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy are the whole of Judaism. Sharia is an important part of it… but not the whole thing, being only a portion of the Quran, just as Leviticus and Deuteronomy are only a portion of the Torah.

4. I understand that most Muslims use the Hadiths to interpret the Quran, and this is in much the same way most Orthodox Jews use the Talmud to interpret the Torah. But they just don’t have equal weight.

5. Finally, the First Amendment states, in regards to religion: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; “. Thus, freedom of worship is also enshrined and protected. But it doesn’t exempt anyone from state laws. Polygamy, for example, is permitted by some religions, but rarely if ever required. A law attempting to bar animal sacrifice by the Santeria religion was unanimously declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. I’m not sure there has ever been a case of human sacrifice brought before them. Cases of female genital mutilation have, and these have been found to be tribal ritual rather than anything required by the participants’ religion, and hence not protected.

You say you love this country too. Do you support the president that has a goal to fundamentally transform this country you claim to love?

Would you support any government that would allow Sharia Law,such as Kenya?

Do you feel because Kenya elected the government that supports sharia law that it is ok to take away the rights from women?

Once again you prove unequivocally that you do not get it.
1. This in response to both 1 & 5. The construction of physical structures is neither addressed nor protected under the First Amendment. The Amendment only addresses religion as an institution of thought or belief and what the Federal Government may or may not do in relation to Religious beliefs. No one that I have seen is asking for the intervention of the Federal Government other than possibly investigating the financial sources,which is entirely legitimate and permissible under our laws. The Mayor is free to express his opinion on the matter but ultimately the real decision lies with the people he and the elected officials of the City of New York were elected to represent.

2.& 3. Your statements here show, as I have previously stated, your ignorance and quite possibly your arrogance, more than likely both of Islam and in turn Sharia. Islam does not recognize the legitimacy of the secular state in fact it views it as an a abomination,Islam was designed from the ground up as the foundation of a Theocratic state and Sharia Law is an inseparable component of Islam. Judaism has proven its ability to function as a faith just fine without insisting that laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy be applied to everyone,as has Christianity. By the way, you have stated that you are not a “religiously observant” Jew, have the Rabbis called you apostate? Do the laws of Leviticus call for your death? Somehow I doubt it. Comparing the Judaism and Christianity to Islam is like comparing apples to oranges.

4. The Hadiths are the only texts to be used to Interpret the Qu’ran period,the weight they are given by Muslims is absolute. Once again to compare them to the works of other theologies does not work.

5. As I have addressed the bulk of this above I will not belabor the point further,except with this suggestion that you consider the first hand accounts and the basis for mutilations under Islam and Sharia there are many sources out there Ayaan Hirsi Ali, among them that directly challenge the apparent ignorance of your last statement.

Fair, thanks for the point of clarification. I was legitimately just curious.

Williamm..

First, this country is, and has always been, and was from its very beginning designed by its Founders to be, in a constant state of transformation. That’s why there is built into the document, an Amendment process. If they didn’t intend for it ever to change from what they set up, why put in such a mechanism?

Furthermore, the first people to fundamentally transform it… were the Founders themselves, with the passage of the 12th amendment.

Second… What does my love of this country have to do with Kenya? Why on earth should I care what laws they pass there? If you want to say that there are 23 million reasons… then let me point out that at least no Americans died for it. Thousands of Americans died to set up the Iraqi constitution, which also enshrines Sharia. And that one cost us hundreds of billions of dollars. So I’m not going to get overly excited about Kenya, which as far as I understand, only set up Sharia as an alternative court system, for those who refuse to trust the Federal government. If the people ratify it, they can have it, and it’s none of my business.

I didn’t plan to go there, anyway.

But there was no conquest!

“The only difference between you and I regarding religious belief is that I believe somebody showed up, if you know what I mean. “

I’m sure we have a lot more differences in belief than that. My beliefs are not mainstream Judaism, not at all. Judaism is actually more my heritage than my belief, which really runs a bit closer to Judaic Deism.. but it is still forming. It has formed enough for me to consider the majority of the Bible as mostly a mixture of historical fiction, manipulative fear-mongering, and philosophical lessons.

Unlike most other Jews, I’ve reached the point of doubting God’s omnipotence, omniscience, perfection, benevolence and infallibility. But never His existence. That, I believe in… but only because I choose to… not because I think it’s been proved.

I understand the Constitution and it’s Amendments quite well Don, “Free exercise thereof”,as I stated previously has nothing what so ever to do with the construction of a physical structure, you are free to pray or conduct a service anywhere you like (unless of course it happens to be someone else’s property and they don’t want you there) that is the exercise of religion,prayer and or services which do not require a structure. So, it is in fact you Don, who doesn’t get it.

Thank you for admitting you don’t care what laws are passed as long as you aren’t going there. I can’t do anything about it, but i do care if any country passes a law that enslaves women and even murders them. I would think if you spent 5 years living under a dictator, you would understand that.

First, let me point out that unlike Franco’s Spain, Kenya is not a dictatorship.

Second, let me point out that Kenya’s constitution was approved by national referendum… which is a better standard than our Founders used. Our own constitution was only ratified by three fourths of the legislatures, who were elected by only the 10-20 per cent of the population who were allowed to vote.

Third, let me point out that Kenya has also passed a bill of rights… and it gives the people more rights than our own gives us… and apparently, with its guarantee of adequate and affordable healthcare, food, water and housing, more rights than you believe any government should ever give its people.

Fourth, let me point out that Kenya is not a Muslim country, and Sharia is not the law of their land. Sharia, as a legal system is set up there as an alternative for those who trust it and are more comfortable with it than with secular law. Kind of like the way a hospital might offer a kosher menu, if there are a lot of Jewish people in its community. You have the right to choose it, or you can choose to waive that right. This is offered as a respect to the 12% Muslim population they have. Otherwise, a secular court might, for instance, order someone to pay interest… which Sharia forbids. This would be like a court here ordering a Christian to pay for an abortion if they found it was his fault that a woman got pregnant and she didn’t want to have the baby.

You have the right to choose it, or you can choose to waive that right.+++++++++++++++++So you are OK with them choosing Sharia law.What if the husband chose sharia law but the wife was against it? Also, it appears by your comment that Kenya passed a bill of rights that guarantees adequate and affordable health care, food,water and housing, that you are a socialist.

Socialism hasn’t worked anywhere. Someone has to pay for all these things guaranteed by the government and you won’t be able to push it on us either.

I would have thought you would be intelligent enough to know it can never work for long. When you people take away the incentive to work, there will be no one to support socialism.

If they want to choose Sharia, that’s none of my business. If a husband wants it and his wife doesn’t, that’s between them. And also, none of my business. One thing I do not understand about your position… you appear to be against Big Government… that the US Government shouldn’t be micro-managing our lives… so how do you figure it’s up to us to dictate to other nations what laws they can or can’t have, even when they approve them by national referendum? I think if you had the power… you might be even worse than Obama, more authoritarian.

It appears by your remarks that you don’t know what Socialism is. You think that if the state guarantees these things, it’s Socialist. The definition of socialism is actually, a system wherein the State controls the means of production. See?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

It really doesn’t depend upon guaranteeing all those things as a right of the people. Hitler was a Socialist. Nazism= National Socialist Party. This was true even though the government didn’t own all the industry… they still controlled it, and Albert Speer told them what to produce, where, how much, what they would be paid for it, etc. But so were Somoza and Duvalier, technically… because they controlled all industry under their regimes… even though they didn’t provide much of anything to their people. You did not do business in their countries unless they got their cut… and I don’t mean taxes.

Socialism usually ends up providing the basic needs of the people, because they know they need the consent of the people, and if they don’t satisfy the people’s needs… they’re courting revolution.

Socialism has not worked for any long period of time on a national scale, in a closed system… but there are instances where it has worked and still does, in a limited system. An Israeli kibbutz is one example. The Catholic church is another.

But unregulated Capitalism also has never worked for very long. It has inevitably led to either regulation by the government, or revolution against it, and America is no exception. The rise of the robber barons of the late 19th century and their excesses, including the calloused and cavalier ruination of ordinary people’s lives, is what spawned the launch of Progressivism in the early 20th. Our capitalist system was beginning to collapse under its own weight, and the monopolies were consuming themselves, smothering the economy as they strove to stay on top of it. When wealth becomes too unbalanced…. the system soon topples. It’s as simple as that. It can find its own equilibrium point for minor adjustments, the way water in two connected vessels will seek an equilibrium level… but once the flow becomes too lopsided, if one container can hold all the water, it WILL all flow there, and its added weight will increase the flow rate, and the other will be left empty and dry.

And yes… when you take away the incentive to work, people won’t do it. Which means, this principle also applies to labor, with the two containers being private sector and public sector. If the private sector is paying a lot more, and can employ all the top people… then nobody wants to work for the government, except the people the private sector didn’t want… or the moles they sent into the public sector to “pretend” to regulate them.

You’ll find those people easiest in the government financial sector… they’re the ones with the words “Goldman Sachs” somewhere in their resumee.

You’re kidding, right?

Nothing Obama has done changed the process of who gets to break the tie in Congress… not the title of the person, but who gets to decide who holds that title. Originally, the Founders wanted it to be a person who was chosen by a majority of the Electoral College or the House of Representatives, from among all those qualified.. but not the President, or anyone controlled by or beholden to him. In fact, they appeared to have taken the step of choosing to give the tie-breaking vote to the only person in the country they could be assured would have stood in serious and viable opposition to the President! After the 12th, that tie-breaking vote was given to the President’s most loyal lackey… a man hand-picked by the President, who owed his position to him.

Before the 12th, if and when the Senate considered an impeachment of the President, they were faced with the choice that if they removed him, they would get in his stead the man who had, in fact, been their second choice at the last Presidential election, and who many in such a situation would be thinking was the man who (considering the impeachment articles that would be before them) really would have been the better choice… the impeachment of a president was like a do-over of the election which in their day, was most likely to have been decided by the House anyway. Again, the 12th changed it all around… removing the President would mean only replacing him with his most loyal lackey, a man who had been chosen probably for his sheer popularity and campaigning, vote-getting abilities rather than any actual intelligence or qualifications he might have.

What has Obama transformed, really? The reconciliation stuff, with the health care bill? That had all been done before, many times. It’s the same way the Bush tax cuts were passed. I hear a lot of people rant, scream, wail about how he’s transforming the country and turning us into a dictatorship…. but when I ask what new powers he actually has seized… it turns out to be nothing that hasn’t been done before, many times… and less than his predecessor did.

The bank bailouts… were done by Congress. The auto bailout… was Congress, and what it did to the auto industry was similar to what the Federal Reserve did for failing banks in the Depression. They were failing, the government temporarily took them over, right? Financial reform… basically nothing at all, compared to Glass Steagall, compared to FDR. The bailout of Fannie and Freddie was nothing compared to the creation of them, and the Federal Reserve. Health care reform… nothing compared to the creation of Medicare and Medicaid.