Link (RedState): Barack Obama: A Composite Kenyan
(snip)

A man happy to let others embellish his background to separate himself from his peer group to his advantage now wants to be the final arbiter on fairness in America.

Link (Breitbart): A ‘Fact Checking Error’? Dystel & Goderich Ask Writers to Submit Their Own Bios
(snip)

Submission guidelines at the Dystel & Goderich website (original emphasis): “You should describe in two or three sentences—no more—what the book will be about. This is followed by another brief paragraph on why it is being written and then another on why you are qualified to write it….Finally, there should be a more formal narrative Bio of the author.”

Link (Breitbart): Obama’s Lit Agency Used ‘Born in Kenya’ Bio Until 2007
(snip)

According to archive.org, a website that caches websites on a regular basis, the Dystel.com website – the official website for Dystel & Goderich, Obama’s literary agents – was using the Barack Obama “born in Kenya” language until April 2007, just two months after then-Senator Obama declared his campaign for the presidency.

I encourage all to click the links and read each piece.

I the very least, this should make one pause to question why so many legit sources from obama’s past have him listed as Kenyan born, and not U.S. — It is a valid question. Why the misrepresentation? And why wait all those years to “correct” it? A man willing to settle for a misrepresented past, is a man who will lie to you about what he plans on doing in the future.

END UPDATE

That darned cat in that darned bag…He refuses to stay in there!!!! (end snarky-ness)

Link: The Vetting – Exclusive – Obama’s Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet: ‘Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii’

(snips)

by Joel B. Pollak

Note from Senior Management:

Andrew Breitbart was never a “Birther,” and Breitbart News is a site that has never advocated the narrative of “Birtherism.” In fact, Andrew believed, as we do, that President Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961.

Yet Andrew also believed that the complicit mainstream media had refused to examine President Obama’s ideological past, or the carefully crafted persona he and his advisers had constructed for him.

It is for that reason that we launched “The Vetting,” an ongoing series in which we explore the ideological background of President Obama (and other presidential candidates)–not to re-litigate 2008, but because ideas and actions have consequences.

It is also in that spirit that we discovered, and now present, the booklet described below–one that includes a marketing pitch for a forthcoming book by a then-young, otherwise unknown former president of the Harvard Law Review.

It is evidence–not of the President’s foreign origin, but that Barack Obama’s public persona has perhaps been presented differently at different times.

***

Breitbart News has obtained a promotional booklet produced in 1991 by Barack Obama’s then-literary agency, Acton & Dystel, which touts Obama as “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.”

The booklet, which was distributed to “business colleagues” in the publishing industry, includes a brief biography of Obama among the biographies of eighty-nine other authors represented by Acton & Dystel.

It also promotes Obama’s anticipated first book, Journeys in Black and White–which Obama abandoned, later publishing Dreams from My Father instead.

Obama’s biography in the booklet is as follows (image and text below):

Read the rest at the link above.

PS – Breitbart is here.

For the most part, that ‘sea change’ of understanding between those elected to office, and those they work for, still remains. In fact, it continues to effect change in down-ballot primaries and other races,…Something that should NOT be ignored by ‘friend and foe alike’. Just ask Dick Lugar. And that is precisely the reason why the citizenry MUST remain informed and involved in the goings-on of government, at all levels. Our Liberty and Freedom are too precious to waste, and if not used, will wither on the vine…Something a good share of elected officials count on.

Still, as Erick Erickson points out in two pieces today, it seems House Republicans Still Hate Spending Cuts, and the Failure and Lies of the Tea Party Congresscritters, should serve to put the citizenry on notice…After you elect ‘em, don’t turn your back on ‘em.

From the 1st linked article:
(snip)

Last week, the House passed H.R. 5326, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, by a vote of 247-163, providing $51.131 billion in discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2013. That’s $1.61 billion or 3% below the amount of funding provided for these programs in fiscal year 2012–and $731 million or 1.4% below the amount requested by the president for fiscal year 2013.

Not terrible, but clearly there was room to cut more spending, right? Surely House Republicans realized that Americans want them to cut more spending than 3%–and be more than 1.4% below where President Obama is, right?

Right?

And from the 2nd linked article:
(snip)

There have been many studies out on the “tea party congress” and just how tea party it actually is. One study last year noted that 70% of candidates who went to Congress under the tea party banner were voting just like the Republican Leaders they ran against.

Probably one of the best places to get a sense of this is the Club for Growth. Why? The Club ignores social votes and focuses only on fiscal votes — spending issues more than anything else. The tea party candidates went to Congress not just to repeal Obamacare, but were really motivated by out of control government spending, bailouts, etc. Remember, it was Rick Santelli of CNBC on February 19, 2009, who predicted this grassroots army of activists would rise up and say enough to out of control government spending and bailouts. Santelli said, in part,

The government is promoting bad behavior. Because we certainly don’t want to put stimulus forth and give people a whopping $8 or $10 in their check, and think that they ought to save it, and in terms of modifications… I’ll tell you what, I have an idea.

You know, the new administration’s big on computers and technology– How about this, President and new administration? Why don’t you put up a website to have people vote on the Internet as a referendum to see if we really want to subsidize the losers’ mortgages; or would we like to at least buy cars and buy houses in foreclosure and give them to people that might have a chance to actually prosper down the road, and reward people that could carry the water instead of drink the water?

…

We’re thinking of having a Chicago Tea Party in July. All you capitalists that want to show up to Lake Michigan, I’m gonna start organizing.

Things sort of spiraled from there sending a wave of candidates to Washington embracing the concerns of the activists who showed up to the tea party.
They wanted to cut spending because of out of control debt, stop Barack Obama, end Obamacare, and they were willing to primary Republicans to do it. A number of Republicans lost. In some open primaries, the candidates who were supported by the GOP out of Washington went down in flames.

But what of the candidates who actually went to DC on a wave of tea party support. Turns out some of them were liars and a lot of them behaved like the pigs in Animal Farm with some of them deciding they were more equal than others.

I encourage you to click on over and read both pieces, in full.

Remember folks — we HAVE to keep up the pressure. Yes, families, friends, social gatherings, work, vacations, etc etc are all important. But, if we do not CONTINUE to uphold our responsibilites bestowed upon us by the Founders…We will deserve the government we end up with.

Don’t let them convince you to ‘idle’ your Liberty!! Take control of it and use it!!

Ok so – fast on the heels of obama’s predictable use of a ‘wedge issue’ during a campaign season, when, just a few days ago, he announced his supposedly “evolved” support for so-called “gay marriage”, Townhall’s Erick Erickson decides to jump into the mix with his own take.

Read:
(snip)

Where Is The Balance?

Posted by Erick Erickson
Friday, May 11th at 4:46AM EDT

(…)

In the past week, I’ve been called a bigot, a hater, had people wish I died, and had people wish Christians had died, been rounded up and killed, or experienced their own personal holocaust.

All this came from proponents of gay marriage. The media won’t cover most of this. The media sees most stories as victims versus victimizers and those who support gay marriage are the victims. They get the positive media coverage.

In reality, though, throughout this week I’ve seen a number of Christians engaged in as much hate filled rhetoric as gay marriage proponents, including the pastor in North Carolina who encouraged parents to beat up their gay acting sons.

As a Christian, I cannot support gay marriage, nor can I accept practicing homosexuality as anything but a sin. At the same time, there are a lot of Christians out there who seem convinced they aren’t sinners. In fact, we are all sinners and as I have matured in my faith, I have a harder and harder time understanding how so many Christians can be so tolerant of so much sin, but treat homosexuality as some sin set apart from all other sins making it a worse sin than, for example, adultery.

(…)

Hearing a pastor encourage parents to commit violence on their sons because they may be gay is offensive to me. Hearing Christians refer to gays with slurs is offensive. At the same time, hearing gay rights proponents wish Christians would die is equally offensive. Hearing gay rights proponents derisively call a Christian a bigot for standing on principle is offensive.

As most folks know, I’ve written many many times on the subject of Religious Liberty & Social Liberty. We The People are free to believe as we choose when it comes to matters of faith, according to the dictates of our on conscience. We are also free to observe, engage and otherwise interact within our own society, as long as we are law-abiding individuals.

What that means (in terms of Erick’s piece) is this:

We have the freedom to call ourselves Christian and yet be so screwed up, a pastor (for instance) can tell his congregation to beat their children if they are ‘gay’. (Of course, there are potential legal questions involved if parents choose to do this beyond a mere ‘spanking’). We have the freedom to call ourselves Christian and yet harbor hate (pure hate) in our hearts and minds for those who we believe are undeserving, due to their supposed “life-style choice”.

And we are also free to associate with, tolerate, or otherwise ‘pal around with’ anyone we choose, who may (or may not) be a ‘sinner’, according to God’s definition. We are furthermore free to believe anything we wish about that person and their ‘sin’, without first checking with the “rev.” phelphs types, or being deemed “not Christian enough” by the generally spiritually haughty among us.

We are also free to ignore the blatantly political left-leaning (so-called) “gay rights” movement, who most of the time make complete arses out of themselves, and DO NOT speak for the entire gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, (etc) community in this country.

Erick puts it well, when he says:

There are real rights and real wrongs and we should not be so eager to accommodate this world as to be silent on right and wrong. But we should not be so eager to show our separation from this world by pouring out contempt for others who, like ourselves, have fallen short of the glory of God.

The balance is not easy, but let’s try not to go wobbly.

May we all find the courage to understand what he understood; That there is NOTHING wrong with the concept of American Exceptionalism, if ONLY our government would once again live up to that idea.

He inspired a still-growing number of Americans to bravely and boldly accept the responsibility given to us by the Founders…To hold our elected officials accountable, and stay informed and involved in the goings-on of government, at all levels.

BREITBART IS HERE. NOW — AND FOREVER!!

Stop pandering, Romney
(snips)

The resignation of Richard Grenell, the recently appointed and openly gay foreign policy spokesman for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, was as sudden as it was shocking. It was also yet another disturbing sign that the Romney campaign is still in pander mode when it comes to the anti-gay right.

Which is exactly the wrong direction for the presumptive GOP nominee to be moving in. Because according to a wide variety of poll data, Republican voters, unlike most of the politicians vying for their support, largely support gay rights.

(…)

Romney seems to be all over the map on gay rights, depending on what audience he’s addressing. In 2002, he stated his support for domestic partnership rights such as health benefits and inheritance rights, and last October in New Hampshire, he said he supports “partnership agreements” incorporating limited legal rights for gay couples.

But in August, he signed a pledge from the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage promising to support a federal amendment to ban same-sex marriage, defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court, nominate Supreme Court justices who oppose gay marriage and even establish a presidential commission on “religious liberty” to investigate alleged threats against opponents of same-sex marriage. He has reiterated those views in nearly every Republican presidential debate since then.

Yet in nearly every primary, he lost the evangelical vote to other, more authentic candidates such as Santorum, who emerged as the clear favorite of the anti-gay movement after most of the other contenders dropped out.

I’ve written on this blog and at other online venues many times on this subject. We The People need to understand the importance of NOT allowing government to play “favorites” when it comes to societal dictates. I’ll try to make this as short as possible, but, don’t count on it: It is NOT a function of federal government to set social policy, beyond the bounds of constitutional authority. We may not like the drunkard, but, prohibition didn’t work. We may not like gambling, but, Nevada makes a ‘killing’ off the revenues. We may not like the idea of so-called “gay marriage”, but, 50% of all STRAIGHT marriages (already sanctioned by government)…FAIL. And so on, and so on. You see what I’m getting at? Government shouldn’t have the authority to dictate to law-abiding adults of legal age what they can and can’t do, as far as their private lives are concerned.

Now, the #1 argument I face when I’ve made this point in the past, is the “child molestation” argument. Those who oppose my point will say “well then, people will be able to engage in child molestation and marry animals!!”. No…Far from it. See, as far as the technical legal argument goes…Child molestation is wrong, because a child is not a ‘consenting adult’. They do not have the aged experience to know what ‘consent’ means, and the consequences of such ‘consent’. Now, of course, there’s the moral argument to go along with that, which only the insane would disagree with. But, government should NOT be in the business of prosecuting/adjudicating on the grounds of ‘immorality’ alone in our society, and here’s why: Government would first have to define what is moral and what isn’t. Is that something we want government to be doing, for now, and all time? Clue for you: government can’t even get ‘cash for clunkers’ right!! As for marrying animals goes…Animals also do not have the ability to give consent. Yes yes, you could stretch the argument and say “well what if government tried to define a special set of criteria for consent from a child or animal!” — If you say that, you are then making my point…Government shouldn’t be able to do such a thing, because they shouldn’t be allowed to set social policy beyond the bounds of constitutional authority!! Child molestation does NOT fall within the ‘realm’ of social policy. It is a crime, for the same reason rape is a crime…There is NO legal consent given!! WAKE UP PEOPLE!!

There’s also another side of this that no one thinks about…What if government is allowed such power? Ok, so…What happens when your party’s opposition gains control of that power? Will you be so inclined to allow them to redefine what should be considered moral, and what shouldn’t?

Look…Call this what you will: A “slippery slope” — A political “pandora’s box” — etc etc. But, if we go down this road, expecting government to pass a law for every little social behavior we might not like…We are, by definition, asking government to creep into our private lives, more and more, every day. Example: I can’t stand lewd behavior in public, but, there ARE existing laws for such things, and, frankly, what I consider “lewd” may not legally be lewd in the first place. Another example: Let’s say government has been given the power to dictate social policy, and decides that an aspect of your life is not socially acceptable. Yet, whatever this aspect is, it harms no one, and you are a law-abiding adult of legal age. What then? Will you like that kind of governmental authority then?

Think hard…

A few days ago on ‘the Twitter’, Larry Sabato (Director, Univ of Virginia’s Center for Politics, and frequent guest on FNC) was asking for ideas for potential slogans for Romney’s campaign. I made a suggestion, and…In today’s issue of “Crystal Ball”, Mr Sabato mentions our contribution to the list:

Maybe Romney should go with something else, so we asked Twitter users to submit some of their own ideas for Romney’s slogan.

Our favorite comes from @gavinize, who riffed off Obama’s 2008 slogan: “Hope Less, Do More.”

Alex Burns (@aburnspolitico) from Politico suggested a term associated with Richard Nixon: “Sock it to me.”

Tom Bevan of RealClearPolitics (@TomBevanRCP), along with @mattlyonsms, suggested a simple slogan that gets at the heart of Romney’s economic message: “America Works.”

Jason Whitman of the Young Republican National Federation must have noticed Ann Romney’s recent comment about her husband: “I still look at him as the boy that I met in high school when he was playing all the jokes and really just being crazy, pretty crazy. And so there’s a wild and crazy man inside of there just waiting to come out!” So Whitman (@JasonBWhitman) suggests: “Inside, I’m a wild man.”

Friend of the Crystal Ball Alex Beres (@talexberes) turned President Warren G. Harding’s “Return to Normalcy” on its head by suggesting “A Return to Exceptionalism”

Here are some of our other favorites, both serious and sarcastic. Thanks to our Twitter followers for the suggestions:

@121GigaWHATS: “Get America Working Again”

@KatMcKinley: “Getting the economy and you working again”

@LibertysLev: “Restore, Strengthen and Renew”

@gogurt48: “Putting America Back to Work”

@liberaldemise: “Change Done Right”

@Yert_Siwel: “The last 4 years have been…Ruff!”

@jaxbchgirl521: “O MUST GO!”

@AmeriChronicles: “Because sobering times require a teetotaler.”

@KeyWestAuthor: “Every dog has its day”

@malgeo: “A chicken in every pot, a car elevator in every home”

@RussCroteau: “Trust Me I Didn’t Get Rich by Accident”

@ThePantau: “If you were lukewarm for McCain, you’ll be milquetoast for Mitt”

– Geoffrey Skelley (@geoffreyvs), Larry Sabato (@LarrySabato) and Kyle Kondik (@kkondik)

We now return you to your regularly scheduled citizenship…

I spent a little time on ‘the Twitter’ at the Liberty’s Leviathan account, engaging in a bit of mischief, spoiling the paid-for hash-tag “#CorporateGreed”. I wasn’t the only one either…LOTS of folks were poking fun at the ‘astro-turfed’ efforts of the “movement” to somehow ‘effect change’ in the world by – apparently – twittering the most lame-ass, illogical diatribes ever.

A few folks I sparred with; @Twinklecreep @mrfaulty @leducviolet @kleptomik @PontiusPyrite @moewytchdog @misandristcutie … All seemed to be your typical leftist/”occupy” miscreants. It was quite obvious most were also experienced in what they believe to be proper debate, since they all used personal attacks and name-called, when I posed questions to them for which they had no fact-based logical answers.

A few of the items they noted:

-No citizen should be allowed to “own” anything.
-It doesn’t take business (corporate or small) to create a job & provide a salary.
-People should “pool their resources” for the good of all. (This one was interesting…I asked “what resources? no one will have any, since jobs, money and property are evil”. The replies I got back were filled with personal attacks. I think I hit a nerve.)
-People can create products on their own.

These are the highlights. I won’t bore you with the rest of it, because it gets worse from there.

Given the increasing frequency of violence against property and person, I gave a tip to the “occupy” brats on Twitter, in 140 words or less: “Keep on breaking those laws & U will 1 day hurt/kill someone. Then all hell will break loose. Bad for U” — If they think I’m joking…They’ve got a rude awakening coming.

As I noted in this post back in March…

Pardon me, little foolish man, but…If your “movement” (fecal and otherwise) starts using more and more violence to disrupt the day-to-day goings on in this country, prohibiting We The People from going to work, getting our kids to school, getting food for our families…It will NOT be violence from the police you’ll need to worry about. It will come from We The People…And if you think I’m kidding — Just watch us.

There’s a reason why the citizenry has left you alone for so long. Learning your tactics and movements over the past year has been most beneficial. And if you make any real attempts, nationwide, to destroy what remains of our country, sending it into a chaotic tail-spin where “occupy” rioters “own” the streets and regular citizens dare not go outside their homes…Your little “movement” will find itself BEGGING the police to protect you.

We The People are tired of your collective ‘hissy fit’, but for the most part, you’ve been nothing more than a stinky, shitty, pissy boil on the butt of humanity.

But – the minute your “movement” starts using violence, on a major scale…All bets are off.

No quarter asked…NONE given.
Choose wisely…

R.I.P. Andrew Breitbart….

Ticking time-bomb…They’re doin’ it right.

As we’ve seen over the past year, obama continues to pump his fist in the air, implying that he walked the SEALs through the entire operation. As we all now know, that’s not the case.

And now a few of the SEAL Team members are speaking out. Good on them, I say.
Link: SEALs slam Obama for using them as ‘ammunition’ in bid to take credit for bin Laden killing during election campaign
(snips)

By Toby Harnden

PUBLISHED: 18:35 EST, 30 April 2012 | UPDATED: 19:34 EST, 30 April 2012

Serving and former US Navy SEALs have slammed President Barack Obama for taking the credit for killing Osama bin Laden and accused him of using Special Forces operators as ‘ammunition’ for his re-election campaign.

The SEALs spoke out to MailOnline after the Obama campaign released an ad entitled ‘One Chance’.

In it President Bill Clinton is featured saying that Mr Obama took ‘the harder and the more honourable path’ in ordering that bin Laden be killed. The words ‘Which path would Mitt Romney have taken?’ are then displayed.

Besides the ad, the White House is marking the first anniversary of the SEAL Team Six raid that killed bin Laden inside his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan with a series of briefings and an NBC interview in the Situation Room designed to highlight the ‘gutsy call’ made by the President.

Mr Obama used a news conference today to trumpet his personal role and imply that his Republican opponent Mr Romney, who in 2008 expressed reservations about the wisdom of sending troops into Pakistan, would have let bin Laden live.

‘I said that I’d go after bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him, and I did,’ Mr Obama said. ‘If there are others who have said one thing and now suggest they’d do something else, then I’d go ahead and let them explain it.’

Ryan Zinke, a former Commander in the US Navy who spent 23 years as a SEAL and led a SEAL Team 6 assault unit, said: ‘The decision was a no brainer. I applaud him for making it but I would not overly pat myself on the back for making the right call.

‘I think every president would have done the same. He is justified in saying it was his decision but the preparation, the sacrifice – it was a broader team effort.’

Mr Zinke, who is now a Republican state senator in Montana, added that MR Obama was exploiting bin Laden’s death for his re-election bid. ‘The President and his administration are positioning him as a war president using the SEALs as ammunition. It was predictable.’

(…)

A serving SEAL Team member said: ‘Obama wasn’t in the field, at risk, carrying a gun. As president, at every turn he should be thanking the guys who put their lives on the line to do this. He does so in his official speeches because he speechwriters are smart.

‘But the more he tries to take the credit for it, the more the ground operators are saying, “Come on, man!” It really didn’t matter who was president. At the end of the day, they were going to go.’

Chris Kyle, a former SEAL sniper with 160 confirmed and another 95 unconfirmed kills to his credit, said: ‘The operation itself was great and the nation felt immense pride. It was great that we did it.

‘But bin Laden was just a figurehead. The war on terror continues. Taking him out didn’t really change anything as far as the war on terror is concerned and using it as a political attack is a cheap shot.

‘In years to come there is going to be information that will come out that Obama was not the man who made the call. He can say he did and the people who really know what happened are inside the Pentagon, are in the military and the military isn’t allowed to speak out against the commander- in-chief so his secret is safe.’

Happy dead-osama day!!

While surfing ‘the Twitter’ today, I saw this item, and about fell out my chair:

Link (via Breitbart): What ‘Gutsy Call’?: CIA Memo Reveals Admiral Controlled bin Laden Mission
(snip)

by Ben Shapiro

Today, Time magazine got hold of a memo written by then-CIA head Leon Panetta after he received orders from Barack Obama’s team to greenlight the bin Laden mission. Here’s the text, which summarized the situation:

Received phone call from Tom Donilon who stated that the President made a decision with regard to AC1 . The decision is to proceed with the assault.

The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven’s hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out. Those instructions were conveyed to Admiral McRaven at approximately 10:45 am.

This, of course, was the famed “gutsy call.” Here’s what Tom Hanks narrated in Obama’s campaign film, “The Road We’ve Traveled”:

HANKS: Intelligence reports locating Osama Bin Laden were promising, but inconclusive, and there was internal debate as to what the President should do.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: We sat down in the Situation Room, the entire national security apparatus was in that room, and the President turns to every principal in the room, every secretary, “What do you recommend I do?” And they say, “Well, forty-nine percent chance he’s there, fifty-one … it’s a close call, Mr. President.” As he walked out the room, it dawned on me, he’s all alone. This is his decision. If he was wrong, his Presidency was done. Over.

Only the memo doesn’t show a gutsy call. It doesn’t show a president willing to take the blame for a mission gone wrong. It shows a CYA maneuver by the White House.

The memo puts all control in the hands of Admiral McRaven – the “timing, operational decision making and control” are all up to McRaven. So the notion that Obama and his team were walking through every stage of the operation is incorrect. The hero here was McRaven, not Obama. And had the mission gone wrong, McRaven surely would have been thrown under the bus.

To see the copy of the memo, go here.

Puffery…Thy name is Obama.

(h/t to @vivianberryhill on ‘the Twitter’ for the original ‘heads-up’ on this story)

Link: Osteen: Romney Is A Christian–My Main Message Is “God Is On Your Side” UPDATE
(snips)

(by) Greg Hengler

“Discernment is not simply a matter of telling the difference between what is right and wrong; rather it is the difference between right and almost right.” -Charles Spurgeon

I don’t want to spend much of my time rebuking this heretic who preaches the American dream while sprinkling it with a little Jesus and New Age/self-help philosophy, so I will simply post a couple of his comments (because there is probably 7 to 10 things that are said which don’t square with the Bible) from the video and show how they are antithetical to the Scriptures. Note: I’m going to be dealing with Osteen here, not the LDS faith.

This prosperity gospel that Osteen preaches makes me sick: Accept Jesus and He will give you all the stuff your heart desires in this world. That’s not the message from God’s Son, but Satan.

(…)

First, when Osteen is asked if Romney’s Mormon faith is “Christian,” Osteen doesn’t cite Scripture (he never does) but himself (he always cites himself–or his own heart): “My personal view is…” and “That’s good enough for me.” is the general patented response in all things Osteen. Note how many times he says I, me, or my during the interview–compare that with how many times he refers to what God actually says on the issue.

I’m not going to poison my blog with any more of this fool’s quotes…Feel free to click on over and read the entire piece, filled with embedded source links he provides, if you have the stomach for it.

First off…Look – Greggy: We are NOT voting for a ‘pastor in chief’. Each of us, as citizens of this country, have the Liberty and Freedom to use our OWN “discernment” abilities to judge a man (or woman) by “content of their character”. THAT is what most folks do, when it comes time to vote…Find someone who’s character will be a good ‘fit’ for the office of the President of The United States…And then hope those character traits will play a part in their decision-making skills. I.E. – find a person who falls back on those character traits (faith, family, upbringing), in order to help them be the best President (senator, congressperson, etc, etc) they can be.

“Ye shall know them by their fruits” — See Greggy…Even folks not as spiritually haughty as you are know how to quote scripture.

Second: I also want to make this point: Greg is a liar. A flat out liar…When he suggests that Osteen never cites scripture. I’ve flipped on Osteen on more than on occassion, while surfing the channels on Sunday mornings, and he ALWAYS cites scripture during his sermons. So, once again…Greg is a liar, and he knows it.

Last but not least: While Greg (and everyone else who chooses to do so) has the right to “discern” anything he wishes to, regarding the LDS faith…He does NOT have the right to assume the rest of the Christian community in the United States agrees with him:

UPDATE: Let me set the record straight for all you who think I am Mormon-bashing or “hate” LDS’ers. I speak for myself but think most Christians would agree with what I am about to say concerning the claim that Latter Day Saints are “Christian.”

Greggy…My misguided fool…If someone were to judge YOUR faith, based on your loud-mouthed assumptions and diatribes written in this piece…They might come to the conclusion that your faith is nothing more than “self-serving”, at best.

“LOOKY OVER THERE!! LOOKY!! THERE’S A GUY WHO’S FAITH DOESN’T AGREE WITH MY OWN!! STONE HIM!!! STOOOONEEE HIMMMM!!!” — Really Greggy?!? Seriously??

The same thing was said of Christ…Before He took up His Cross…And died…For YOU.
And for all. Amen.

We’ll count you as a “no” vote Greggy…And if too many more people sit out this election, for the reasons you’ve cited…YOU (and they) will be re-electing, by default, the worst president in American history. So thanks…Greggy. Thanks alot.

Ass-clown.