A friend sent me a piece from the "New York Times" of September 28 which was a hodge podge of topics from the Supreme Court (both historically and current,) Justices, segueing to definitions of law and Obama's accidental but actually planned, since remarks had been published previously, which in some religious circumstances would be called sins of omission.
In particular we were given sufficient evidence to realize that he was intentionally omitting the Creator in the familiar "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights: life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness." One of the incidents happened during in a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus on September 15.
We will probably never know what he is really up to, or maybe we will, it doesn't matter. There are as many opinions and theories as there are pundits plus a goodly number of ordinary but curious citizens as well. What was of more than passing interest, however, especially coming from the NY Times, was the following paragraph concerning George W:
After pointing out that Obama had omitted reference to the Creator it went on to say "George W. Bush, not usually credited by the media with high powers of mind, gave a truer version of the Founding principle when he famously observed that "we" did not give these rights to each other. If we gave these rights to each other--if we ourselves were the source of those rights or the authority that conferred--we could not as readily withdraw them. But those rights were thought to bring them from the very nature of human beings that no man was by nature the ruler of other men in the way that God was by nature the ruler of men, and then were by nature the rulers of horses and cows. These rights were taught them to spring from the 'laws of nature and of Nature's God.'"
Is he trying to confuse everyone? Or is he just trying to change the subject? Does it not seem that he is just trying to change the subject so folks forget about his religion and the accompanying theories on his birth. If he's a Muslim, why doesn't he just say so? I truly doubt that it would upset many people. The American citizen just doesn't like to be lied to. And look around--we're really pretty darn tolerant and forgiving.
But I do love the fact that even the NYT has eaten a little crow and admits that good old "W" is a pretty good thinker. Sure wish there were a few good men and women with some common sense in the White House and the rest of those buildings in D.C.
Caught Off the Record Friday evening and Breslin and Lyons acquitted themselves nicely, but the Democrat woman (think she's a McNamara) came off as a throwback to the good old tax and spend Democrat. Didn't catch the name of the Democrat fellow, but he was difficult to read. It seems he is digging as deeply as he can to find issues that may or may not be relevant, but he thinks it makes him look as though he knows all the intricacies of MSU. Don't forget to vote the entire ballot where the judges and education contests are.
Have a good week-