Obama's Birth Certificate

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by earl

So were the social conservatives who opposed the civil rights movement doing so to uphold the constitution while simultaneously employing justice as compassion? I do believe Nick that you often say things that make any sense only to you. earl

You lost me. How would opposing civil rights be supporting the constitution? Being just would seek to put into practice how Simone Weil defines equality.

"Equality is the public recognition, effectively expressed in institutions and manners, of the principle that an equal degree of attention is due to the needs of all human beings."

Political correctness natural for modern liberal thought seeks to justify an imbalance and deny justice.

If it only makes sense to me, we are in serious trouble. Fortunately there is a minority not so gullible and willing to smell the coffee.

[earl]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

You lost me. How would opposing civil rights be supporting the constitution? Being just would seek to put into practice how Simone Weil defines equality.



Political correctness natural for modern liberal thought seeks to justify an imbalance and deny justice.

If it only makes sense to me, we are in serious trouble. Fortunately there is a minority not so gullible and willing to smell the coffee.

You're quite right that the traditional liberal stance of supporting civil rights is both in support of the constititution and "justice as compassion," Nick. Being a Weil-o-phile, I suspect you're aware the gal was quite the social activist and her political positions are the ones typically associated with liberals as opposed to conservatives. Weil would be classified more as a liberal than a conservative.(In fact, early in her life she was a Marxist.) I just give you grief whenever I see you make your wholly unfounded, idiosynchratic and erroneous blanket statements about what a "liberal mindset" is. earl

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by earl

You're quite right that the traditional liberal stance of supporting civil rights is both in support of the constititution and "justice as compassion," Nick. Being a Weil-o-phile, I suspect you're aware the gal was quite the social activist and her political positions are the ones typically associated with liberals as opposed to conservatives. Weil would be classified more as a liberal than a conservative.(In fact, early in her life she was a Marxist.) I just give you grief whenever I see you make your wholly unfounded, idiosynchratic and erroneous blanket statements about what a "liberal mindset" is. earl

I've been thinking on an idea that I believe would be useful for the site and plan to post it on the Feedback Board. It requires participation of two people. I was thinking of suggesting it to Path of One but it would work with you as well. It is an experiment that others could try if they have the nerve to be sincere. Watch for it.

One reason that Simone is so valuable is that she connects the sacred with the secular. Yes she was a social activist and Marxist and had the admiration of Leon Trotsky. Yet later in life Pope Paul V1 considered her an an intellectual influence. To most anyone else it would reveal a contradiction but with her it was normal for achieveing what she did.

She learned that no matter how sincere political activists are, human nature cannot change. when Marx said that religion was the opiate of the masses, Simone retorted that revolution is the opiate of the masses.

It was only through grace that man could become more than he is now and society as well. Otherwise the only change is in form but everything repeats in essence. Her conservatism was conserving the essence of religion and a medium by which we profit by it by becoming open to grace. She was conserving what Mary was as she anointed Jesus at Bethany. Judas felt it as a waste of money that should be given to the poor which is a liberal reaction. The essential conservative tries to preserve the goose that is laying the golden eggs, The classic liberal for me grabs as many eggs as possible without concern for the goose. Naturally neither is pure and greed permeates both sides so they need each other's influence to preserve whatever good is possible.

The constitution is a document that provides a foundation by which man's quest for the spiritual is left open for him. It implies that it represents an understanding that is beyond superficial pragmatism, This is why I choose to support it.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

? It may be legal but only serves to prove that he disrespects the intent of the constitution.

What is the intent of the Constitution?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

What is the intent of the Constitution?

To put boundaries on government.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

To put boundaries on government.

In more ways than one. If we look at the Preamble we find a statement concerning intended purpose, namely, to give the government specific powers that had previously been left up to the colonies.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

What was the context here? Economics. The colonies and states had been printing up their own paper money. This created problems because of variable exchange rates influenced by differential rates of appreciation/depreciation. The values were so unreliable as to be be disruptive to commerce. The exchange rate issue was no longer a problem after the government became the source for all currency and all others were outlawed.

This limit on who gets to create currency wasn't just an incidental byproduct of a division of governmental powers on which the Framers agreed. The idea is clearly stated when the states were forbidden from making up their own monies:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

~U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 10

That's from Article 1, so one might conclude it was a fairly high priority.

My point here is that the federal government was actually accorded more power - not less - in the interest of the stated goal, to create a more perfect union.

Originally Posted by Nick_A

One reason that Simone is so valuable is that she connects the sacred with the secular.

What were Simone's thoughts on the US Constitution?

[earl]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

I've been thinking on an idea that I believe would be useful for the site and plan to post it on the Feedback Board. It requires participation of two people. I was thinking of suggesting it to Path of One but it would work with you as well. It is an experiment that others could try if they have the nerve to be sincere. Watch for it.

One reason that Simone is so valuable is that she connects the sacred with the secular. Yes she was a social activist and Marxist and had the admiration of Leon Trotsky. Yet later in life Pope Paul V1 considered her an an intellectual influence. To most anyone else it would reveal a contradiction but with her it was normal for achieveing what she did.

She learned that no matter how sincere political activists are, human nature cannot change. when Marx said that religion was the opiate of the masses, Simone retorted that revolution is the opiate of the masses.

It was only through grace that man could become more than he is now and society as well. Otherwise the only change is in form but everything repeats in essence. Her conservatism was conserving the essence of religion and a medium by which we profit by it by becoming open to grace. She was conserving what Mary was as she anointed Jesus at Bethany. Judas felt it as a waste of money that should be given to the poor which is a liberal reaction. The essential conservative tries to preserve the goose that is laying the golden eggs, The classic liberal for me grabs as many eggs as possible without concern for the goose. Naturally neither is pure and greed permeates both sides so they need each other's influence to preserve whatever good is possible.

The constitution is a document that provides a foundation by which man's quest for the spiritual is left open for him. It implies that it represents an understanding that is beyond superficial pragmatism, This is why I choose to support it.

Nick, where I think you're confusing things when you discuss "liberalism" is when you mix in spiritual-religious notions. There are areligious liberals, agnostic liberals, atheistic liberals, religious-spiritual liberals and same for conservatives. Liberalism as we mean it these days is primarily empathy with the disenfranchised. While Jesus' mission was primarily about spiritual matters, he didn't forget to feed the hungry. Judas wasn't the first "Christian" liberal, Jesus was. earl

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by earl

Nick, where I think you're confusing things when you discuss "liberalism" is when you mix in spiritual-religious notions. There are areligious liberals, agnostic liberals, atheistic liberals, religious-spiritual liberals and same for conservatives. Liberalism as we mean it these days is primarily empathy with the disenfranchised. While Jesus' mission was primarily about spiritual matters, he didn't forget to feed the hungry. Judas wasn't the first "Christian" liberal, Jesus was. earl

Earl, whose side do you take in the following biblical passage? Do you side with Jesus or those expressing indignation over such apparent selfishness including Judas who couldn't take it any more?

Mark 14:

3While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.

4Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, "Why this waste of perfume? 5It could have been sold for more than a year's wages[a] and the money given to the poor." And they rebuked her harshly.
6"Leave her alone," said Jesus. "Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 7The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. 8She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial. 9I tell you the truth, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her." 10Then Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went to the chief priests to betray Jesus to them. 11They were delighted to hear this and promised to give him money. So he watched for an opportunity to hand him over.

[earl]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Earl, whose side do you take in the following biblical passage? Do you side with Jesus or those expressing indignation over such apparent selfishness including Judas who couldn't take it any more?

He was honoring the woman's spontaneous outpouring of sacrifical giving. Bread and roses Nick-one gives what is needed in the moment. Sometimes that's bread, sometimes that's roses. earl

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by earl

He was honoring the woman's spontaneous outpouring of sacrifical giving. Bread and roses Nick-one gives what is needed in the moment. Sometimes that's bread, sometimes that's roses. earl

So Jesus was a con artist and got Mary to give him what was of greatest value to her even at the cost of the welfare of the poor around her. Why was it needed? Wasn't it only a token gesture and people go hungry as a result? Maybe Judas was right? We have these same con artists today that like to adorn themselves with gifts like expensive cars from followers. Is this what you defend?

[earl]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

So Jesus was a con artist and got Mary to give him what was of greatest value to her even at the cost of the welfare of the poor around her. Why was it needed? Wasn't it only a token gesture and people go hungry as a result? Maybe Judas was right? We have these same con artists today that like to adorn themselves with gifts like expensive cars from followers. Is this what you defend?

Oh you silly boy- the odd conclusions you tend to draw from my words. earl

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by earl

Oh you silly boy- the odd conclusions you tend to draw from my words. earl

What can I tell ya: if someone prefers being adorned in expensive perfume rather than selling it and giving the money to the poor, what does that say about humanitiarian interests? The liberal mindset would have prefered Jesus lecturing Mary about the virtual criminal nature of her selfishness but what did he do: he defended her. Not politically correct.

[Nick_A]

Birth certificates seem to be going the way of new Age religions where people just create their own birth certificates as Obama appears to have done. Now a court has decided that people put what ever names they want on birth certificates.

At one time a birth certificate seemed to be a good idea with a legitmate purpose but it is no longer the case so from now on we just create their own reality including birth certificates. Adoptive records can be a birth certificate. Typical liberal mentality. This will require at least a half a bottle of Merlot to begin to make sense.

Judge: 2 adoptive dads belong on birth certificate
NEW ORLEANS -- A same-sex couple in California has won a federal court ruling that their adopted son's Louisiana birth certificate must bear the names of both adoptive fathers.
The facts are so clear that no trial is needed, U.S. District Judge Jay Zainey wrote.
"What a great Christmas present for these guys!" said Kenneth D. Upton Jr. who represented Oren Adar and Mickey Ray Smith, of San Diego.
In his ruling Monday, Zainey said Louisiana's Office of Vital Records must give full faith and credit to the New York State court in which Adar and Smith adopted the boy, he ruled Monday. The office had refused to issue a birth certificate listing both as the boy's legal parents.

[earl]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Birth certificates seem to be going the way of new Age religions where people just create their own birth certificates as Obama appears to have done. Now a court has decided that people put what ever names they want on birth certificates.

At one time a birth certificate seemed to be a good idea with a legitmate purpose but it is no longer the case so from now on we just create their own reality including birth certificates. Adoptive records can be a birth certificate. Typical liberal mentality. This will require at least a half a bottle of Merlot to begin to make sense.

Judge: 2 adoptive dads belong on birth certificate
NEW ORLEANS -- A same-sex couple in California has won a federal court ruling that their adopted son's Louisiana birth certificate must bear the names of both adoptive fathers.
The facts are so clear that no trial is needed, U.S. District Judge Jay Zainey wrote.
"What a great Christmas present for these guys!" said Kenneth D. Upton Jr. who represented Oren Adar and Mickey Ray Smith, of San Diego.
In his ruling Monday, Zainey said Louisiana's Office of Vital Records must give full faith and credit to the New York State court in which Adar and Smith adopted the boy, he ruled Monday. The office had refused to issue a birth certificate listing both as the boy's legal parents.

And yet the lad was born a US citizen. May the light of the ever-present All shine forth among us. Om Shanti Om. earl

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by earl

And yet the lad was born a US citizen. May the light of the ever-present All shine forth among us. Om Shanti Om. earl

I imagine he is a citizen. I am presuming of course that there is a hospital record of his birth and the name of the delivering physician. But who knows, maybe even this now offends some group for some reason ending in "ist" and it is now politically incorrect to include such information.

Now it seems you put whatever names you want on a BC. Some might say Julius Caesar, others may write Jesus Christ. We create our own reality. The only enjoyable thing about this transition from common sense into lunacy is the delicious downing of the above mentioned merlot.