Cult Watch
See other Cult Watch Articles
Title: Sharron Angle Says Democrats' Agenda Violates 'The First Commandment,' Frames Reid As Dark Overlord
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/ ... ngle-says-democr_n_670833.html
Published: Aug 4, 2010
Author: Sam Stein
Post Date: 2010-08-04 19:44:43 by Skip Intro
Keywords: None
Views: 48361
Comments: 67
Sharron Angle Says Democrats' Agenda Violates 'The First Commandment,' Frames Reid As Dark Overlord Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle has long seen religious meaning behind her candidacy, going so far as to tell supporters that God was behind her rise from political obscurity, guiding her path to Congress. On Wednesday, the celestial threads took another turn towards the bizarre, as Nevada political reporter Jon Ralston uncovered an interview in which the Tea Party favorite said that actions of the federal government were a "violation of the First Commandment" -- not amendment, commandment. "I know people are very frightened about what's going on in this country," Angle said in an interview that originally aired on April 21 with TruNews Christian Radio's Rick Wile. "And these programs that you mentioned -- that Obama has going with Reid and Pelosi pushing them forward -- are all entitlement programs built to make government our God. And that's really what's happening in this country is a violation of the First Commandment. We have become a country entrenched in idolatry, and that idolatry is the dependency upon our government. We're supposed to depend upon God for our protection and our provision and for our daily bread, not for our government. And you've just identified the real crux of the problem." This statement alone was a rather glaring reflection of just how infused religion is in Angle's political mindset. The Nevada Republican has already made major waves arguing in opposition to abortion even in cases of rape and incest. But once Ralston published the exchange, things grew even more bizarre. Angle's communications director, Jarrod Agen -- who was hired, it should be noted, less than 24 hours ago -- sent a clarifying statement to the reporter that was dipped even deeper in religious tones, framing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) as a sort of dark overlord. "Only the supreme arrogance of Senator Reid would believe that he has a divine right to rule over mere mortals by ramming through Obamacare, billions in reckless spending, and yes, buying cocaine for monkeys," Agen said. "The fact is, Reid has acted like he's all-powerful and accountable to no one. People are frustrated because, like Sharron, they understand Washington has become a giant, unseen, omnipotent force whose presence is felt in all our lives whether we like it or not." The statement provoked a slew of seemingly shocked tweets from Ralston who took the response as sincere. Only after the fact did the campaign get in touch with him to insist the statement was facetious. Story continues below Asked to clarify whether, in fact, he was being sincere or sarcastic, Agen said there was "a little of both in there." In all, the entire episode seems likely to end up being just another footnote in a Senate candidacy that has been filled with incredible oddities and dramatics. But context remains important. It's not unusual for a candidate to invoke his or her religion in the course of an election. Harry Reid himself has said it's difficult to "separate your religion from your politics, its part of your personality. It is part of who you are." It's rare, however, for a candidate to insist that their candidacy is imbued with religion itself. Angle has certainly raised the bar for envelop-pushing statements. Whether those following the campaign will adjust their expectations and coverage as a result (or continue to call a spade a spade) will matter as Election Day approaches.
Poster Comment: Sounds like her wing has lost it's nut.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Skip Intro (#0)
What exactly does that mean?
It means that Palin and Bachmann have some serious competition for this month's batshit crazy award.
"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
Skippy, you have permanently claimed the batshit trophy. Few are as clueless and stupid as Obamanazis.
Hey, yuckturd, I found your high school photo. Why not kiss it and give it to Mad Dog? "How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
Skippy, you have permanently claimed the batshit trophy. Few are as clueless and stupid as Obamanazis. Besides all your other problems it appears you are a faggot also.
This woman is crazier than a rabid rat. What does it say about Reid that she stands a good chance of beating him? I have a hard time believing she is the best candidate the Republicans could come up with,though. It's almost like they don't WANT to win. Maybe they don't want Reid to lose because they use him like they used Teddy Kennedy,as a fund-raiser?
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
What exactly does that mean? Seems to me like the loon is claiming we need God to provide our welfare instead of the government. Which would make God the government.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
Since when was the first Commandment the law of the land in the USA?
The more exposure she has, the slimmer her chances are. The anybody but Reid voters didn't mean her.
Don't forget - Nevada has "none of the above candidates" on its ballot. I'd like to see NOTA win, and Reid come in 3rd . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meet the new elephant boss The last gasp of a dying Republic is a "living, breathing Constitution."
It means you should get off welfare and get a job.
Lighten up Goldi.
"Lets [sic] rent a room." ~ Jethro Tull to Rotara
Oh, I thought that maybe she wanted to get rid of the government supported military and rely on prayer for our national defense.
That is why I am here. To help you. So that you don't get confused. You're welcome.
Was that the scotch posting again? HILARIOUS...
Given that she said, "depend upon God for our protection and our provision and for our daily bread," it makes it sound like you shouldn't get a job. You should stand outside and look upward for your daily bread to "trickle down." Sounds like God-welfare to me.
Your narcissism is showing. The Bible says God helps those who help themselves. Go for it.
"See in my line of work, you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --- George W. Bush (Rochester NY, 5-24-2005)
Like the Israelites during their 40 year desert trek.
Just more collective begging to the God parent. Never do these types ever admit to asking God to show them how to do it for themselves.
"See in my line of work, you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --- George W. Bush (Rochester NY, 5-24-2005)
And they have been seeking to reacheive that type of mommy/child relationship ever since.
"See in my line of work, you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --- George W. Bush (Rochester NY, 5-24-2005)
It certainly isn't the Capitalist model - no production, no buying, no selling, and most shocking of all, no hoarding.
There is no doubt that the left's basic agenda has always been to replace the distributed authority that naturally exists in society, i.e., that of the family, church, and business, with the central authority of the state. For example, if you're in a bad marriage you don't have to stick with your rotten spouse because the state will provide you with a no fault divorce and if needed a welfare check to boot. One can argue about whether or not this is a good thing. Regardless, this is the what the left is all about -- putting the state at the pinnacle of society. Sharon Angle is merely stating this fact, although in a very poor way.
I'm going out on a limb here, but IMO Sharron Angle's worldview does not conflict with most who consider themselves evangelical Christians. The problem is - when evangelical Christians seek elective office in our SECULAR society - they must to a certain extent hide who they are. (I am saying this as someone who considers myself an evangelical Christian) She is obviously a neophyte in the national political realm - and is likely getting bad advice. It will be a shame if she loses. Reid has been handed a break - one he truly DOES NOT deserve.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meet the new elephant boss The last gasp of a dying Republic is a "living, breathing Constitution."
It means you should get off welfare and get a job. No, it means you should just wait for God to take care of you.
"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
There was a really good chance of finally getting rid of Reid, but NO, the Republicans had to go and nominate the only woman who makes Michelle Bachman appear sane.
"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
HILARIOUS... Wait till you see Badeye's HS pic.
"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
{l^D
Amen,brother,amen! I have been preaching "None of the above" for years,with the additional stipulation that if NOTA wins,but parties MUST run new candidates,and THEY must pay ALL the expenses for the special election,not the taxpayers. If you want to stop getting party insiders who are promoted as "the lesser of two evils",this is the way to do it. Once they start having to pay for elections out of party coffers,they will start promoting candidates that people want to vote for. I realize this would put third party candidates at a distinct advantage because no third party could afford to pay this sort of expense,so something would have to be worked out to allow third parties to participate.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
You really are clueless.
No, I just listen to what the idiots you'd vote for say. Try reading what she said again: "We're supposed to depend upon God for our protection and our provision and for our daily bread."
"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
Yep we sure are. That doesn't mean we just sit there. We have Spinner and now you Twister.
Find me one sermon anywhere from a pastor teaching to sit on your ass and do nothing and wait. That isn't even close to what she said means. You are supposed to work hard and have faith that God will take care of us and things will work out. For example stealing is showing a lack of faith. If you steal something you must not have had faith enough that God would provide with what you needed if you actually needed it.
I like the way you just contradicted yourself by agreeing with my interpretation of what Angle said.
"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
If you agree with me then don't argue about it.
“If Christians would really live according to the teachings of Christ, as found in the Bible, all of India would be Christian today.” Gandhi Perhaps if Christians stopped complaining about being misunderstood by secular society and actually LIVED who they claim to be, they wouldn't have to waste so many words trying to convince secular society that they have a worthy message. Its that splinter and log thing.
Perhaps if you went to the store and bought some rope....Na nevermind.
1 Cor. 10:31 Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God
There was only One in history who really lived according to the teachings of Christ (the rest of us STRIVE to - big difference). And one of the disciples who lived with Him 24/7 betrayed Him. So - was the problem with Christ and/or His message? Or was the problem with Judas - the fallible human follower? As far as I'm aware, no one is questioning Ms. Angle's Christianity. What I AM observing is heaps of ridicule hurled her way - much of it by statists and leftists who wouldn't consider voting for her anyway. My question is: can someone who is an evangelical Christian (which I understand Ms. Angle is) run for public office AND NOT compromise who they are? In other words - if a candidate who is an evangelical Christian is asked certain questions pertaining to their faith AND THEY ANSWER HONESTLY, does that dis-qualify them? Given today's polarized political climate, I think it does.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meet the new elephant boss The last gasp of a dying Republic is a "living, breathing Constitution."
Sharron Angle: “And these programs that you mentioned — that Obama has going with Reid and Pelosi pushing them forward — are all entitlement programs built to make government our God. And that’s really what’s happening in this country is a violation of the First Commandment. We have become a country entrenched in idolatry, and that idolatry is the dependency upon our government. We’re supposed to depend upon God for our protection and our provision and for our daily bread, not for our government.” She has not been disqualified as a candidate. It is up to the voters to decide if she represents their interests. What may disqualify her in the eyes of many voters is her willingness to impose her version of Christianity on the rest of us. Beyond that, I find her analysis of the first commandment as it pertains to the role of government garbled. To idolize is to worship, dependence is to rely on; they are not the same. One may worship what one depends on or resent it. She wants us to rely on God for our protection, but I don't hear her object to the government's role in our protection, or taxes collected for military spending. It is entitlement spending she objects to, specifically those programs designed to help people through rough patches - she wants them to depend on God.
I suspect that I am more inclined than you to cut Sharron Angle some slack. :-) There was concern that - if JFK were to be elected - we as a nation would be beholden to the Pope, etc. We know how it turned out, of course, and these arguments today sound bigoted and dated. I mention this because I think it somehow relates to your argument. If we as people of faith (whatever that faith happens to be) are asked to vote for someone who is of a different faith, we may have a concern as to how much that candidate will "impose" their faith. I'll make this more personal. We may be faced with Mitt Romney as a candidate in '12 (if we still HAVE elections). While I don't happen to believe in Mormonism, nor would I attend a Mormon temple, I believe I COULD vote for a Mormon if I happened to agree with his/her political views. (I don't think I'll be voting for Romney BTW, but it's not because he's a Mormon.) I'm just not concerned that they would want to impose Mormonism on the rest of us. I do have a concern with how the Angle/Reid race is playing out. As I see it, one of the chief problems with the Fedgov (among the many) is the onset of the professional politician. The Reids, Grahams, Bushes, Clintons and Kennedys have done nothing else with their lives except run for or hold office. As a result, they are nothing more than elitists who never have to live under the laws they make. This is not what the founders intended. They wanted "citizen" legislators - who would go to DC and serve no more than 2 or 3 terms, and then return to private life. I see the much maligned "tea party" as a way to achieve that. Hopefully they can resist the temptation to join the GOP. But the tea party poses a potential threat to the existing power structure and, as such, must be destroyed. Why else do you think you have such "divergent" (yeah, sure) people like Trent Lott and Nancy Pelosi opposing it. Much of the vitriol directed against Angle is that she is a product of the "tea party". Since it is imperative the tea party be destroyed, it follows that any candidate they support be destroyed. Angle's defeat (if it happens) will be a setback for the concept of the "citizen legislator and a win for the elite class. When the elite class wins, the rest of us lose.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meet the new elephant boss The last gasp of a dying Republic is a "living, breathing Constitution."
Comments (41 - 67) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestWe're supposed to depend upon God for our protection and our provision and for our daily bread, not for our government.
#2. To: lucysmom (#1)
What exactly does that mean?
#3. To: Skip Intro, lucysmom (#2)
this month's batshit crazy award.
#4. To: Ibluafartsky (#3)
#5. To: Skip Intro (#4)
I found your high school photo.
#6. To: Skip Intro (#0)
#7. To: lucysmom (#1)
We're supposed to depend upon God for our protection and our provision and for our daily bread, not for our government.
#8. To: Skip Intro (#0)
#9. To: sneakypete (#6)
What does it say about Reid that she stands a good chance of beating him?
#10. To: lucysmom (#9)
The more exposure she has, the slimmer her chances are. The anybody but Reid voters didn't mean her.
Same as the old jackass boss
#11. To: lucysmom (#1)
What exactly does that mean?
#12. To: A K A Stone (#11)
#13. To: A K A Stone (#11)
It means you should get off welfare and get a job.
#14. To: lucysmom (#13)
#15. To: Skip Intro (#4)
#16. To: A K A Stone, lucysmom (#11)
It means you should get off welfare and get a job.
#17. To: A K A Stone (#14)
That is why I am here. To help you. So that you don't get confused. You're welcome.
#18. To: Suzanne (#16)
You should stand outside and look upward for your daily bread to "trickle down." Sounds like God-welfare to me.
#19. To: Suzanne (#16)
Given that she said, "depend upon God for our protection and our provision and for our daily bread," it makes it sound like you shouldn't get a job. You should stand outside and look upward for your daily bread to "trickle down." Sounds like God-welfare to me.
#20. To: lucysmom (#18)
Like the Israelites during their 40 year desert trek
#21. To: mininggold (#19)
Just more collective begging to the God parent.
#22. To: Skip Intro (#0)
#23. To: Skip intelligence, all (#0)
Sharron Angle
Same as the old jackass boss
#24. To: A K A Stone (#11)
What exactly does that mean?
#25. To: jwpegler (#22)
ere is no doubt that the left's basic agenda has always been to replace the distributed authority that naturally exists in society,
#26. To: war (#15)
Was that the scotch posting again?
#27. To: Skip Intro (#26)
#28. To: Ignore Amos (#10)
I'd like to see NOTA win, and Reid come in 3rd . . .
#29. To: Skip Intro (#24)
No, it means you should just wait for God to take care of you.
#30. To: A K A Stone (#29)
(Edited)
You really are clueless.
#31. To: Skip Intro (#30)
#32. To: Skip Intro (#30)
#33. To: A K A Stone (#32)
#34. To: Skip Intro (#33)
#35. To: Ignore Amos (#23)
I'm going out on a limb here, but IMO Sharron Angle's worldview does not conflict with most who consider themselves evangelical Christians. The problem is - when evangelical Christians seek elective office in our SECULAR society - they must to a certain extent hide who they are.
#36. To: lucysmom (#35)
#37. To: A K A Stone (#36)
Perhaps if you went to the store and bought some rope....Na nevermind.
#38. To: lucysmom (#35)
“If Christians would really live according to the teachings of Christ, as found in the Bible, all of India would be Christian today.” Gandhi
Far be it from me to disagree with Gandhi, but . . . Perhaps if Christians stopped complaining about being misunderstood by secular society and actually LIVED who they claim to be, they wouldn't have to waste so many words trying to convince secular society that they have a worthy message. Its that splinter and log thing.
You've completely missed my point. Same as the old jackass boss
#39. To: Ignore Amos (#38)
In other words - if a candidate who is an evangelical Christian is asked certain questions pertaining to their faith AND THEY ANSWER HONESTLY, does that dis-qualify them?
#40. To: lucysmom (#39)
It is up to the voters to decide if she represents their interests.
What may disqualify her in the eyes of many voters is her willingness to impose her version of Christianity on the rest of us.
I'm old enough to remember the presidential election of 1960 (JFK vs. Nixon). I was only a kid, but it was a VERY hot topic in my household. My parents were very anti-JFK because he was a Roman Catholic. (up to that point, we'd never had a Catholic POTUS). Same as the old jackass boss
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]