LF: Obama Rips Bible, Praises Koran

This is historically and philosophically illiterate. Historically speaking, the Crusades were a response to Islamic aggression in Europe and the Middle East; the Inquisition, as Jonah Goldberg points out while quoting historian Thomas Madden, director of the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at Saint Louis University, was designed to regularize executions rather than leaving them to the will of the masses. Christians undoubtedly pursued horrible brutalities against people, including innocent Jews. However, as Goldberg points out, “Christianity, even in its most terrible days, even under the most corrupt popes, even during the most unjustifiable wars, was indisputably a force for the improvement of man.”

Nowhere is that clearer than in Obama’s second example, slavery. Virtually all of the most ardent abolitionists were deeply religious Christians. Hundreds of thousands of American men marched to their deaths singing “The Battle Hymn of the Republic”: “In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea / With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me / As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free / While God is marching on.” That was 150 years ago. It’s not exactly the modern Islamic slogan, “Death to the Jews.” Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., was, as his name suggests, a reverend. He quoted old black Christian spirituals and the Biblical story of the exodus from Egypt. Christians obliterated slavery. Christians obliterated Jim Crow. Modern slavery is largely perpetrated by Muslims. Modern Jim Crow is certainly perpetrated by Muslims under shariah law.

There is a larger point, here, too: President Obama’s foolish argument suggests that because Christians were brutal a millennium ago, they should shut up about brutalities today. This is somewhat like saying that because someone’s great-great-grandfather held slaves in rural Alabama, that person should shut up about human trafficking in 2015. It’s asinine.

He then concluded that religious leaders should not speak out against publicly-funded contraception or gay marriage.

We can get into President Obama’s pathetic Biblical commentary here – his interpretation of Leviticus on slavery is incorrect, Jews still avoid shellfish, the Talmud explains that no child has ever been stoned for rebelliousness, and the Sermon on the Mount is not a pacifist document. Obama’s not Biblically literate – he’s the same fellow who says, “I think the good book says don’t throw stones in glass houses.”

He said in The Audacity of Hope that he would define Biblical values however he chose, stating that he is not willing “to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.” Both are, in fact, parts of the Bible. Citing the Sermon on the Mount to justify civil unions for homosexuals, as Obama has done, is not in fact Biblical.

But more importantly, Obama’s scorn for the old-fashioned Bible is obvious. That became more obvious in 2008, when Obama told some of his buddies in San Francisco that unemployed idiots “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

The Obama administration has routinely attacked religious organizations and people who violate Obama’s personal political predilections. They’ve attacked all trappings of Christianity as well. Whether they’re using Obamacare to force religious individuals to pay for others’ contraception or toning down the National Day of Prayer instead of holding a public ceremony, whether they’re covering a monogram of Jesus at Georgetown University during a presidential speech or objecting to adding FDR’s D-Day prayer to the WWII memorial, the Obama administration clearly isn’t fond of Christianity.

This contrasts strongly with President Obama’s romantic vision of Islam. He famously called the Muslim call to prayer “the sweetest sound I know.” He said in his first presidential interview, with Al-Arabiya, that his job was “to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives.” Weeks later, he said in Turkey, “We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country.” A few months later, in a speech in Cairo to which he invited the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama said:

He added that Islam has a “proud tradition of tolerance,” explained, ‘Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace,” and said, “America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” He said in his Ramadan message in 2009 that Islam has played a key “role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.”

ISIS, Obama has said over and over again, is not Islamic. His administration maintains that America is not at war with radical Islam. He stated before the United Nations in 2012, just weeks after the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya at the hands of Muslim terrorists, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” Hillary Clinton allegedly promised Charles Woods, father of one of the slain in Benghazi, that the administration would achieve the arrest of the YouTube filmmaker behind The Innocence of Muslims. The State Department issued taxpayer-funded commercials denouncing that YouTube video. President Obama variously called the video “crude and disgusting” and stated that “its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.” At the UN in 2014, Obama lauded a Muslim cleric who backs Hamas. And, of course, Obama uses Islamic theology to promote his vision of world peace:

All three religions do have access to holy sites now, in Jewish-run Jerusalem. They did not when Muslims ruled Jerusalem. But facts have no bearing in the fantasy world of the president.

Perhaps one final contrast tells the tale. In 2012, according to the Washington Post. “U.S. troops tried to burn about 500 copies of the Koran as part of a badly bungled security sweep at an Afghan prison in February.” Two American soldiers were shot in the aftermath. This prompted President Obama to apologize profusely to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, writing him a letter stating, “We will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, including holding accountable those responsible.”

Three years earlier, members of the military burned Bibles printed in Pashto and Dari. CNN reported that they had been discarded “amid concern they would be used to try to convert Afghans.” The Bibles were burned rather than sent back to their source organization because the military worried they might be re-sent to another outlet in Afghanistan. There was no apology to the church that printed the Bibles, or to Christians more broadly.

Sure, radical Muslims around the world, supported by millions of their compatriots and friendly governments, are murdering innocents. But it’s Christian aggression that forces Muslims to burn other Muslims alive in Muslim countries. (1 image)

If it is to accepted that those who committed heinous barbaric acts deemed themselves to be “Christians” but were not really “Christians”….can it not also be said that those who deem themselves to be “Muslims” and commit violent acts are not “Muslims?”

That be the case, then why do so many have so much trouble with Obama’s regime refusing to use the term or categorize the radical extremists: “Islamic Terrorists?”

Again, total BS. Christianity cleaned up it act hundreds of years age. With Islam it is still the same old same old from hundreds of years ago.

Modern day Christianty is not committing savage and barbaric acts in the name of its God, and hasn't for hundreds of years. Modern day Islam is still committing savage and barbaric acts in the name of its God just the same as Islma did hudreds of years ago.

Christianity did something to clean itself up. Christians not only acknowledged the wrongs of the past in Christ's name but put an end to it with no degree of uncertainity. The same cannot be said for Islam as it still is tolerating savagery, cruelty, slavery, murder, barbaric acts againt children , etc., etc., etc. in the name of Allah, especially if such acts are committed on infidels.

Jordan's response proves this to be true. It was just fine to behead infidels, no venegance required here. But harm a Jordanian Muslim in a brutal manner? Well, there shite hits the fan and venegance is theirs (so they say). Jordan's response is a pure act of revenge demanded by the tribe of the murdered pilotr not a moral act of rejection of ISIS and for all that it stands.

If you and pericles still do not understand this then you are being willfully ignorant and/or intellectually dishonest.

I wouldn't give a feather's worth of weight to Gatlin-the-Lightweight's argument. Only the Left and carnival barkers are willing to wade into this kind of absurdity.

Who, Where, When, Why, How and What:
Obama was not the person to say this.
Where he said it was not the right place.
When he said it was not appropriate.
Why he said it is because he believes it.
How he said it and what he said has not been challenged.
All you have done so far is spew forth snarky comments.
You have yet to show where Obama lied.
Why can’t you do that?

Obama riles right with accurate remarks at Prayer Breakfast

By now, you’ve probably seen the headlines and the emails from your wacky uncle who watches Fox News all day. President Obama, as he’s done every year, spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast yesterday, enraging his conservative critics for reasons that don’t make a lot of sense.

The president made the case that while we see faith communities around the world “inspiring people to lift up one another,” we also see “faith being twisted and distorted, used as a wedge – or, worse, sometimes used as a weapon.” After noting horrific acts of terror, sectarian violence, and religious division – “sectarian war in Syria, the murder of Muslims and Christians in Nigeria, religious war in the Central African Republic, a rising tide of anti-Semitism and hate crimes in Europe” – the president added:

“So how do we, as people of faith, reconcile these realities – the profound good, the strength, the tenacity, the compassion and love that can flow from all of our faiths, operating alongside those who seek to hijack religious for their own murderous ends?

“Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history. And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ…. So this is not unique to one group or one religion. There is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith.”

All of this happens to be 100% true. No faith tradition has a monopoly on virtue or peace; none of the world’s major religions can look back in history and not find chapters they now regret.

So why in the world is the right claiming to be outraged?

Conservative media lashed out at President Obama for mentioning the Crusades and Inquisition at the National Prayer Breakfast after condemning the Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL) as a “death cult” that distorts Islam.

Republicans are apparently a little hysterical, with one Fox News host claiming that “essentially” the president argued “Christians were just as bad as ISIS.” Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore (R), desperately trying to get attention as a presidential candidate, called Obama’s remarks “the most offensive I’ve ever heard a president make in my lifetime.”

I’m going to assume that the president’s critics aren’t really outraged, but instead are playing a cynical little game in the name of partisan theater. It must be the latest in an endless series of manufactured outrages, because the alternative – that the right is genuinely disgusted – is literally hard to believe.

The portion of Obama’s remarks that has drawn so much scrutiny isn’t ambiguous – while people have used religion to advance righteousness and justice, horrible acts have been made in God’s name, no one group should be too quick to condemn another while wrestling with their own misdeeds. Is this accurate? Of course it is. Is it offensive? Only to theists who believe their faith tradition has always been without flaw (or perhaps those who’ve convinced themselves the Crusades and the Inquisition were noble causes, worthy of defense.)

It prompted Ta-Nehisi Coates to note the “foolish” and “historically illiterate” responses from the right to the president’s remarks.

It’s worth pausing to appreciate that conservative whining about Obama and the National Prayer Breakfast is annoyingly common. In 2013, the president said that as a Christian, his approach to government “coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.’” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) condemned the speech on the Senate floor and then-Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) stormed out of the breakfast in protest.

One assumes that the right will once again be reaching for the fainting couch this time next year, whatever it is Obama happens to say at the time. There’s no reason for the rest of us, however, to take such hollow complaints seriously.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/obama-riles- right-accurate-remarks-prayer-breakfast.

I hear your cry for help, but I don't want your Muslim house negroes, thank you. You're not a "cracka" unless you have cotton pickin' field nigaz.

If POTUS is the Great Orator of the US Constitution, why is he bringing religious values into a debatable position while denying current events?

I only asked that you show where Obama lied and where anything I have posted on this thread is a lie.

Agian, total BS. Obama is total BS, a total fraud. Wake up. Obama played the useful idiots by telling them what they wanted to hear. He knew that he could not get elected on a pro-life and anti-gay marriage message. In the meantime time he has done evertything he can to misdirect attention from the true agenda of Islam and ignoring modern day Islamic terrorism and brutality. He goes out of his way to avoid using the term Islamic terrorism, he can't even same Islamic extreism. I can understand why he goes so far up his ass to portect his agenda. I can't understand why you do.

Along with being a highly intelligent, strikingly handsome, emotionally stable, financially independent person with a heart of gold, too.

1) What compels you to conflate Christendom's defense of its people and lands with Islam's attempt at invasions and a Caliphate whether one thousand years ago OR just yesterday?

2) Islam's tenets command its adherents to murder "In the name of Allah."
Christianity's tenets command its adherents to love "In the name of Jesus Christ."

Yet instead of addressing IT, you instead post miles of cut & paste propaganda on Slavery. Slavery that's NOT taken place in Africa, Asia, or anywhere else, but America. And on other incidential acts of violence oupon blacks in America that haven't transpired in a half century. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY??

Lee, Robert Edward (January 19, 1807–October 12, 1870), was a Confederate General during the Civil War. He was the son of the Revolutionary leader, “Light-Horse Harry” Lee, and the son-in-law of George Washington’s adopted son, George Washington Parke Custis. Robert E. Lee and his wife, Mary Ann Randolph, inherited the 1,100 acre Washington estate directly across the Potomac from Washington, D.C. Tutored and home-schooled as a child, Robert E. Lee excelled at West Point, and distinguished himself in the Mexican-American War. From San Antonio, Texas, he engineered the American troops’ passage across the difficult Mexican mountains so they could quickly take Mexico City.

Lee was against slavery and a number of years before the war he freed his own slaves. He was so highly respected, that when war looked imminent, President Abraham Lincoln offered him the Field Command of the U.S. Army. He struggled all night with his decision, finally resolving to the obligation of loyalty to his home state and the South. He resigned from the U.S. Army and in a letter to his sister, explained:

With all my devotion to the union and the feelings of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home.

Slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil in any country.… I think, however, a greater evil to the white than to the black race …

The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small part of the human race, and even among the Christian nations what gross errors still exist!

General Robert E. Lee’s His military expertise was so formidable that, for the first two years of the Civil War, it looked as if the South had won. General Stonewall Jackson’s repeated victories kept pushing the North back until Lee’s troops were dangerously close to attacking Washington, D.C., itself. On December 25, 1862, General Robert E. Lee wrote to his wife from Fredericksburg, Virginia:

My heart is filled with gratitude to Almighty God for his unspeakable mercies with which He has blessed us in this day. For those He granted us from the beginning of life, and particularly for those He has vouchsafed us during the past year. What should have become of us without His crowning help and protection?

Oh, if our people would only recognize it and cease from self-boasting and adulation, how strong would be my belief in the final success and happiness to our country! But what a cruel thing is war; to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbors, to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world!

I pray that on this day when only peace and good-will are preached to mankind, better thoughts may fill the hearts of our enemies and turn them to peace.

On May 31, 1863, General Robert E. Lee wrote to his wife as he prepared the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia for its next major northern thrust:

I pray that our merciful Father in heaven may protect and direct us. In that case I fear no odds and no numbers.

On April 8, 1864, General Robert E. Lee issued orders for his troops to observe the Day of Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer that had been proclaimed:

Soldiers! Let us humble ourselves before the Lord, our God, asking through Christ, the forgiveness of our sins, beseeching the aid of the God of our forefathers in the defense of our homes and our liberties, thanking Him for His past blessings, and imploring their continuance upon our cause and our people.

Knowing that intercessory prayer is our mightiest weapon and the supreme call for all Christians today, I pleadingly urge our people everywhere to pray. Believing that prayer is the greatest contribution that our people can make in this critical hour, I humbly urge that we take time to pray—to really pray.

Let there be prayer at sunup, at noonday, at sundown, at midnight—all through the day. Let us pray for our children, our youth, our aged, our pastors, our homes. Let us pray for our churches.

Let us pray for ourselves, that we may not lose the word “concern” out of our Christian vocabulary. Let us pray for our nation. Let us pray for those who have never known Jesus Christ and redeeming love, for moral forces everywhere, for our national leaders. Let prayer be our passion. Let prayer be our practice.

There are things in the old Book which I may not be able to explain, but I fully accept it as the infallible Word of God, and receive its teachings as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

General Robert E. Lee was visited in his tent by Chaplain J. William Jones and General Stonewall Jackson’s Chaplain, B.T. Lacey. They told the General that all the chaplains were praying for him. As Jones recorded, tears came to General Lee’s eyes as he said:

Please thank them for that, sir—I warmly appreciate it. And I can only say that I am nothing but a poor sinner, trusting in Christ alone for salvation, and need all of the prayers they can offer me.

One night around the campfire, Chaplain Jones overheard some soldiers discussing the recent invention of the theory of evolution, when one soldier replied:

Well, boys, the rest of us may have developed from monkeys; but I tell you, none the less than God could have made such a man as Marse Robert.

Near the final end of the War, after such a tremendous loss of life, one of Lee’s generals suggested rallying more recruits to the Confederate cause. General Lee responded:

General, you and I as Christian men … must consider its effects on the country as a whole. Already it is demoralized by four years of war. If I took your advice, the men … would become mere bands of marauders, and the enemy’s cavalry would pursue them and overrun many wide sections.… We would bring on a state of affairs it would take the country years to recover from.2244

General Robert E. Lee surrendered to General Ulysses S. Grant on April 9, 1865 at Appomattox, Virginia. Lee took off his sword and handed it to Grant, and Grant handed it back.

The next day, April 10, 1865, General Robert E. Lee issued his final order from his headquarters to the Army of Northern Virginia:

After four years of arduous service, marked by unsurpassed courage and fortitude, the Army of Northern Virginia has been compelled to yield to overwhelming numbers and resources.… I have determined to avoid the useless sacrifice of those whose past services have endeared them to their countrymen. By the terms of the agreement, officers and men can return to their homes.… I earnestly pray that a merciful God will extend to you His blessing and protection.

In all my perplexities and distresses, the Bible has never failed to give me light and strength.

In a church service on June 4, 1865, as reported by Colonel T.L. Broun, there was a shock when a Negro advanced to the communion table. But then:

[General Robert E. Lee] arose in his usual dignified and self-possessed manner … and reverently knelt down to partake of the communion, not far from the Negro.

In June of 1865, Robert E. Lee was indicted for treason by the U.S. Grand Jury in Norfolk, Virginia. When some friends voiced their indignation, Lee calmly responded:

I have fought against the people of the North because I believed they were seeking to wrest from the South dearest rights. But I have never cherished toward them bitter or vindictive feelings, and have never seen the day when I did not pray for them.

After the war, a southern clergyman spoke critically of the recent actions of the federal government. Following a pause, Robert E. Lee asked:

Doctor, there is a good old book which … says “Love your enemies.” Do you think your remarks this evening were quite in the spirit of that teaching?

William J. Federer, Great Quotations: A Collection of Passages, Phrases, and Quotations Influencing Early and Modern World History Referenced according to Their Sources in Literature, Memoirs, Letters, Governmental Documents, Speeches, Charters, Court Decisions and Constitutions (St. Louis, MO: AmeriSearch, 2001).

“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org

HA! Did you trip on your big fat red clown shoes and fall into a vat of Metamuecil?

Don't get all cuddled because you posted a link. You are a liar, a thief and a charlatan.

Aaw, has your integrity been challenged? Don't worry -- it's on its way to the municipal water treatment plant to be processed...

I want see traitors hung by the neck until dead. If you can find a judge, we can accomplish this mission goal.

Stop smokin', snortin', shootin', poppin', sniffin', gulpin', swallowing whatever meds you're doing. Immediately...

Plenty of those still around, strangulating America. They're the same ones who defend Mooselimbs who every single day stack their victims and burn them on six continents.

Do you really think ANY one is reading your neatly boxed cut & paste propaganda??

Your question was directed to some comment that Gary made. I'm not sure about what that comment was, so I'll start by defusing the lead in - I'm not answering whatever issue you were debating with him. Rather, I am addressing the questions directly put:

(2) "If so, how do you explain 'animism' and the perpetual belief systems thereof?"

I will answer the first and third questions directly in this missive. To answer the second question I will need you to define for me what you specifically mean by "animism". When I hear the word "animism", I think of the belief among various tribes that all things, be they animals or trees or rocks, have individual spirits that are perceptive and aware, and that have the power to interact with men and the world. That's what I think of what I think of "animism", and given my use of the word, I would find the second question a non-sequitur: what one thinks about beliefs and reality is unrelated to the question of whether rocks and trees have intelligent souls.

Obviously you have something different in mind when you use the word "animism" here, such that the question flows logically from the answer to the first question. Please supply your definition of animism, so that I can see what your second question is aimed at, and I will happily answer (NO IRONY INTENDED). As it is, I can't answer because I'm not sure what you are asking.

Now then, to return to the first question: "Is 'belief' tied to 'reality'?", to answer it I have to define three words: "belief", "tied" and "reality".

These words have varied meanings in different people's mouths and minds, so I have to tell you what I mean by each word to be able to answer it. Depending on the precise meanings of each word, the answer could be "yes", "no", "yes and no", or "maybe". So let's get precision.

"Belief" can mean a lot of things. When I use the word, it is a noun for of the verb "to believe", and refers to a mental state in which a person thinks that something is true. Whether or not the thing thought really IS true is dependent upon reality external to the mind of the individual, but belief, as I use the term, does not speak to the ultimate truth of the thing believed, only to the fact that the person doing the believing thinks that the thing is true, or is probably true.

The third word "reality", I take to mean "objectively true", something that exists, that IS.

The real key word, then, is "linked", because in this context it COULD mean many things.

There is a philosophical link called "truth" between a thing that is believed and reality then the thing believes is externally, objectively true. If the thing believed is not objectively true, then the philosophical link between the belief and the reality is that the belief is untrue, or that there is a true belief in something that is unreal.

I think that your use of the word enters a different realm of philosophy, and raises the question of subjectivism: does belief in a think CAUSE IT to be real. In such a case, the link would be causation. To that, I would answer that I do not believe it to be so that human beliefs, on their own, cause things to be real. To quote an old Irish proverb: "You don't plow a field by turning it over in your mind."

That said, I do think that human beliefs can unleash events that brings a state of reality into being that did not exist before. But in these cases it is because the belief triggered a man to act in some way that changed external reality. Certain realities are themselves internal: for example, to enter into a state of hypnosis does result in a change in brainwave pattern on a monitor, and this is the result of an internal mental state. It is a case where a belief itself induces a change of state in the mechanism by which belief happens: the internal activity of the brain, bringing about a concrete reality. The same thing is true when a human thought causes an arm to reach out and do something. There, the link between the belief and the reality is direct, and it is caused by mental will, although that will is then mechanically translated down a system of nerves to cause the action to be. Simple thought initiates physical reality in such a case.

For gods, such a conveyance mechanism may or may not be required. For God, as I use the word, mental will itself creates reality and there is no need for a mechanism.

So, the link between belief and reality exists, but the nature of that link is dependent on who is doing the believing, and what the thing is that is believed.

To move, then, to the Las Vegas question: Does a person really wanting to roll a 7 cause, in any way, to 7 to be rolled? Only to the extent that it causes the hands to throw the dice. But beyond that, what the dice DO is a matter of external reality, not the internal mental state of the believer, however fervent the desire.

In the physical universe, if the dice are honest, how they turn up is a matter of randomness. There is a grand philosophical debate as to whether TRUE randomness exists, or whether if one had all information about all of the forces that impinged on the dice, one could demonstrate that the fall of the dice is an utterly foregone conclusion by the mechanism of physics.

While the debate has raged, there is an apparent answer to the question, and it is that the fall of dice, while affected by many inputs, is truly random because there are chaotic elements among the forces that are themselves random and not predictable. Of course, all of this assumes that the dice are honest.

Beyond the philosophical question of whether the dice are random (if they are honest, they are), there is the question that you're asking, which is whether mental state can cause the dice to fall a certain way. The answer to that is "no" when referring to human beings. But when speaking of God, the answer is "yes" - yes, God determines the outcome, or perhaps God CAN determine the outcome, if he chooses, but he may simple decide to leave the outcome to the function of the random elements that he has built into the universe.

Then we come to the linking question: can a man's prayer and belief about God cause God to effect the outcome of a dice roll in Las Vegas. The answer to that is that it can, of course, logically, for God is God. However, the answer may be that the outcome effected may not be good.

The next logical question is "How do you know there is God at all?" But the answer to any question like that should wait until we've first clarified your second question and answered it.

Of course, and to Obama's credit (as much as I hate to give him credit for anything>...look at what he has everyone talking about right now.

On Thursday, at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C., President Obama blithely informed his audience that Christians ought not get on their “high horse” about the problem of radical Islam:

The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party