Hannity: Bribe/Pay-off by Obama to Rev. Jeremiah Wright? $150,000? Benny Da' Man?

Bribe and  Pay-off to Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright by Mr. Obama?

     
          The ever-voluble, chatty, cheeky, pugnacious, churlish, country-music-lovin,' foot-stompin,' baccalaureate in the arts (B.A. only and nothing more), half-read, half-literate, noisy  and ever-confident Irishman, Sean Hannity, is reporting that Obama “bribed” his former Pastor, the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah, with $150,000 to keep silent during the Presidential campaign.  
          We routinely patrol the Irish enthusiast’s program, a service of vetting that is needed in/for the media, as well as theological arenas.  RA does not easily abide half-literates easily.  Yet, Sean has surfaced an interesting--perhaps, an important--story.

          Reformation Anglicanism abhors Sean’s weak and shallow academic credentials.  In fact, that applies to everything on FOX from 1900-2200,  Sean is a putz.  A minor. A B.A.  He needs to go back to school for several years. 

         Sean is a blue-collar loud-mouth who entertains “political enthusiasts” (like the MSN"BS" exhorters and like other bucolic, religious “revivalists”).  Further, we dislike the “shout-overs” and “shout-outs” on his unscholarly program of loud-mouths.  Where are the scholarly footnotes?  Yet, this Irish Romanist and enthusiast, this blue collar fella, of few notable attainments, other than entertainment on TV and radio, has raised some good issues about Obama and his black Pastor, Dr. Wright, another infamous loudmouth who exclaimed “God damned America” in a sermon following 9/11. 

           Even if we dislike Hannity, there are issues here worth reviewing.

          The Rev. Dr. Wright claims that Obama’s team offered $150,000 for him to bow out and go silent.  Klein, a new author, is claiming some revealing things from the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright.  As an aside, where are these half-literates in the media?  CNN?  MSN"BS"?  ABC?  CBS?  FOX is on it, thanks to Hannity, but no others.
          Are we "elites" at Reformation Anglicanism?  Indeed, we are.  We are educated.  We insist on it.  We do so when visiting a Physican, flying on a jet, or taking a course in history at college.  We insist upon vetting media (and theological) elites.  We've earned that right and we insist on it.
          Here’s a brief roundup.   The story is developing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gjfw4LUPqY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHnHG5ZDp-Q&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4G1g7RzAdU&feature=related

        So, what are the facts?  Was there a $150,000 payoff?

        We'll need to ask Benny, the Big Thinker and Big Reader in America, for his views.   Benny, what do you think, Dude?

Vetting Cultural/Media Elites: 9th Commandment, Truth, Journalists, MSNBC and Ann Romney

Vetting Cultural/Media Elites
9^th Commandment and MSNBC, But What Would They Know About That?

         
         Thank God for the Bible; thank God for the old Catechisms of the Reformation.  It's the way this scribe was reared.  We addressed the Westminster Larger Catechism this morning at:  http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2012/05/westminster-larger-catechism-141-150.html. 

          Two things are offered.  First, we post an article about MSNBC and the outrageous, un-rebutted, unchecked, gratuitous and manifestly stupid comments about Ann Romney…comparing her to Hitler and Stalin.  Are there no standards of pursuit of factual patterns?  After we cite the news article for your review, we post the 9^th commandment from the Westminster Larger Catechism, 143-145. 

          I’ve been noticing this more intensely of recent.  I’ve been asking questions about this.  Is it me?  My dear wife, Sharon, am I just getting older and more aware? I've always known about leftward leaning journalists, academics and Churchmen.  But, is it getting worse?   Or, is the cable “noise networks” getting worse? 

          As for MSNBC, I’ve come to dubbing them “marionettes, ventriloquists, salesmen, dictationists, press secretaries, and advocates” of Obamaites.  As to the 9^th commandment, it warrants review and reassertion.

          In re training.  My theological training has sensitized me here, no thanks to Presbyterian or Episcopal Professors.  Unfortunately, I had to teach myself.  Assuredly, my English literature and Law Professors insists on facts, good thesis sentences, good definitions, weighty arguments, careful deliberations, and justifiable conclusions.  That’s the stuff of scholarship.  Yet, such things like this from MSNBC occurs without rebuttal?  Ann Romney akin to Stalin and Hitler?

          Scholar-Pastor-Brothers, let the 9^th commandment have visibility with our children and grandchildren.  If they rely on current centres of information and training, they will never have the tools to vet these folks.  Notably, the old 1662 Book of Common Prayer (BCP) contained the 10 commandments.  So did the 1873 BCP.  However, the 1928 and 1979 BPCs saw fit to minimize and mitigate the 10 commandments, horrible setbacks in Anglicanism.  Fortunately, Confessional Reformed Churchmen never tossed the 10 commandments.   As we speak, vast hordes of American Pastors and their followers have “small to no” views in re the 10 commandments.

          Again, two things are offered.  First, the MSNBC article that freely compares Ann Romney to infamous 20^th century fascists followed by the second article from the Westminster Larger Catechism. 

          Here’s the precipitating article.

http://times247.com/articles/ann-romney-compared-to-hitler-on-msnbc

Ann Romney compared to Hitler, Stalin on MSNBC

by: Noel Sheppard

MSNBC hosts Eve Ensler and
and Michelle Goldberg
wonder aloud about the value of motherhood on
Sunday, May 13.
Photo Credit:MSNBC

Photo Credit:  MSNBC

MSNBC hosts Eve Ensler and and Michelle Goldberg wonder aloud about the value of motherhood on Sunday, May 13.

As NewsBusters reported Sunday, Newsweek/Daily Beast senior contributor Michelle Goldberg called Ann Romney "insufferable" on MSNBC this morning.

Seconds later, she also compared the wife of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.   "You know, yes, motherhood is beautiful," Goldberg continued. "I found that phrase 'the crown of motherhood' really kind of creepy, not just because of its, like, somewhat you know, I mean, it’s kind of usually really authoritarian societies that give out like The Cross of Motherhood, that give awards for big families. You know, Stalin did it, Hitler did it."

Here's what Mrs. Romney wrote at USA Today Thursday that somehow reminded Goldberg of Hitler and Stalin: "Cherish your mothers. The ones who wiped your tears, who were at every ball game or ballet recital. The ones who believed in you, even when nobody else did, even when maybe you didn't believe in yourself. Women wear many hats in their lives. Daughter, sister, student, breadwinner. But no matter where we are or what we're doing, one hat that moms never take off is the crown of motherhood. There is no crown more glorious."

Related:
Washington Post's hit piece on Romney 'implodes'
Read about more media bias at times247.com/mainstream-media Read the original article at Newsbusters
Read more:  http://times247.com/articles/ann-romney-compared-to-hitler-on-msnbc#ixzz1utNkb9Sc

Here is the thoughtful, deliberative and scholarly Westminster Larger Catechism.  Imagine practicing this in news analysis?

Q. 143. Which is the ninth commandment?
A. The ninth commandment is, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Q. 144. What are the duties required in the ninth commandment?
A. The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own; appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things whatsoever; a charitable esteem of our neighbors; loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name; sorrowing for and covering of their infirmities; freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, defending their innocency; a ready receiving of a good report, and unwillingness to admit of an evil report, concerning them; discouraging talebearers, flatterers, and slanderers; love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth; keeping of lawful promises; studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.

Q. 145. What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?

A. The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbors, as well as our own, especially in public judicature; giving false evidence, suborning false witnesses, wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, outfacing and overbearing the truth; passing unjust sentence, calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked; forgery, concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others; speaking the truth unseasonably, or maliciously to a wrong end, or perverting it to a wrong meaning, or in doubtful or equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of the truth or justice; speaking untruth, lying, slandering, backbiting, detracting, talebearing, whispering, scoffing, reviling, rash, harsh, and partial censuring; misconstructing intentions, words, and actions; flattering, vainglorious boasting, thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others; denying the gifts and graces of God; aggravating smaller faults; hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession; unnecessary discovering of infirmities; raising false rumors, receiving and countenancing evil reports, and stopping our ears against just defense; evil suspicion; envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any; endeavoring or desiring to impair it, rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy; scornful contempt, fond admiration; breach of lawful promises; neglecting such things as are of good report, and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering what we can in others, such things as procure an ill name.

Vetting Elites & Politicians: Mixed Messages on Marriage

        An interesting article is posted by “Chaplain Mike” at: http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/mixed-marriage-messages. Chaplain Mike challenges us about Bill Clinton (serial adulterer), John Edwards (adultery with a “love child”), Herman Cain (alleged improprieties), and Newt Gingrich (serial adulteries). As Chaplain Mike concludes, “Now that primary voters have weeded out the adulterers and philanderers…[emphasis added]” What do these men have to say—with any moral authority—on the issues of marriage, fidelity, honor, dignity, vows, integrity and as examples? 

                  Chaplain Mike then offers a review of Mr. Barak Obama and Mr. Mitt Romney. Both men are heterosexual, traditional and creditably faithful in their own marriages and families, but both are diametrically opposed on the issue of homoerotic and civil partnerships. One gets mixed signals, as Mike asserts.

          Yesterday, we called for the “vetting” and “review” of elites
by elites (highly educated, Confessional, Reformed Churchmen)
yesterday at: http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2012/05/cultural-elites-and-confessional.html.

         While we were thinking about media, Hollywood, journalistic, and academic types, the same review should be applied to political elites—our city, state and national leaders. If they wish to speak to moral issues in public, let them be reviewed publicly.

                  Let the vetting and review continue.

                  Here's Chaplain Mike.

Mixed Marriage Messages

12 May 2012

by Chaplain Mike

What an interesting cast of characters and what a conflicted conversation we’ve had in recent history in American presidential politics when it comes to the subject of marriage.
It wasn’t too long ago, we had public hearings about adulterous liaisons in the Clinton White House.
This year we are being treated to the spectacle of former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards’s trial, in which he is accused of soliciting and secretly spending over $925,000 to cover up his adultery.
Herman Cain, Republican hopeful, suspended his campaign when he could not overcome revelations of a 13-year adulterous affair and numerous allegations of sexual harassment by some of his female employees.
Likewise, on the campaign trail this past year fellow Republican Newt Gingrich had to deal constantly with public scrutiny of his marital and extra-marital affairs. Wed three times, his two previous marriages ended in divorce after he had affairs with younger women, once when his wife was seriously ill.
I guess it could be worse. France just elected Francois Hollande, the first French president to enter office unmarried and living with his partner. Just imagine how that would play in Peoria.
Well, at any rate, now it looks as though it will be President Obama vs. Governor Romney in the U.S. November election.
When it comes to marriage, conservative Christians get mixed messages from both.
On the one hand, you have Mitt Romney, the presumed Republican candidate, who married his teenage sweetheart and has had a long traditional heterosexual marriage. He affirms his support for marriage between one man and one woman for life and says he believes the federal government should codify the institution in law. His faith is the basis for this position, he says. Mr. Romney is a Mormon, a faith that now strongly emphasizes conservative “family values,” but which was once notorious for its practice of polygamy (“plural marriage”).
Mormons officially practiced polygamy from the 1830′s until 1890. Certain Mormon sects even today continue the practice and criticize the main church body for abandoning a fundamental tenet of their faith. In 1856, the Republican party which Romney now represents had an anti-Mormon plank in its platform that berated “the twin relics of barbarism – polygamy and slavery.” In 1857-58 a conflict known as “The Utah War” saw U.S. military forces occupy the Territory of Utah under the charge of sedition and failing to honor U.S. laws (including monogamous marriage). Under constant pressure from the government, the LDS church officially changed its stance on plural marriage in 1890, when church President Willard Woodruff issued a manifesto urging Mormons to follow the laws of the land with regard to marriage.
Today the LDS church is overwhelmingly supportive of monogamous, heterosexual marriage, and Romney has conferred with leaders of the Mormon church regularly over the years about how he should approach such public issues as abortion and gay marriage so as to stay in line with church teachings. Will his faith commitment pose a problem for evangelical Christians? Although orthodox believers might envy the strong family morals Mormons promote, they still consider them theologically outside the pale of genuine Christianity, and supporting a member of a “cult” may be more than some can stomach.
For a detailed history of Romney’s actual actions regarding issues related to gay rights and marriage, see this LA Times piece. Those on the right tend to think Romney is a waffler when it comes to most political decisions and his record on gay issues may give them some ammunition to question how robust his convictions truly are.
It will be interesting to see how conservative Christians spin this. Unable to agree with Gov. Romney on doctrines of his religion and suspicious of him as a politician, I assume they will nonetheless support him based in part on his conservative social position regarding marriage. They will do this even though his position grows out of his faith, with which they disagree, and even though they see him as a political opportunist rather than as a man of real convictions.

On the other hand, you have President Obama, who is a Christian, and who also has a traditional, heterosexual marriage. He has said repeatedly that his position on gay marriage has been “evolving,” but the direction of that evolution has been clear.

The president has taken some significant steps toward advancing gay rights. His administration moved to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Clinton, which defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. And he did assist in bringing an end to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in the U.S. military. So, although he has supported traditional marriage, and in statements has even assigned special significance to it because of his Christian faith, it is clear that he has been “evolving” toward acceptance of gay marriage. He confirmed that this week.
Like Mr. Romney, President Obama said that he came to his position via his faith. He specifically cited the “Golden Rule” taught by Jesus and said that Christian faith should not only be defined by Christ sacrificing himself for us, but also by Christians treating others as they would like to be treated.
It is unlikely that conservative Christians will do anything but condemn this. Frankly, most of the public voices I have heard from the “Christian Right” really don’t trust in President Obama’s faith and never have, and it has been rare to hear anyone engage him or take him seriously on that level. There is too much suspicion about his political motives and agendas.

According to a report in the Washington Post, the President’s announcement is already mobilizing Christians to support Gov. Romney: “Pastors in Ohio, North Carolina, Florida and other swing states are readying Sunday sermons inveighing against same-sex unions, while activist groups have begun laying plans for social media campaigns, leaflet drives and other get-out-the-vote efforts centered on the same-sex marriage issue.”
As one prominent gay marriage opponent and activist stated, “We are going to make this our key issue: the attack on marriage.”
Nevertheless, the piece also points out an ongoing uncertainty among those in the religious right that Gov. Romney is fully committed to this fight. They point to statements in recent days that he supports allowing gay couples to adopt children and that he does not view same-sex marriage as a religious issue.

• • •

So, U.S. Christians, these will be your choices when it comes to presidential candidates and their views on marriage. Now that primary voters have weeded out the adulterers and philanderers, we’re left with two people with positions that conservative Christians are going to have a hard time trusting or supporting without holding their noses.

Triablogue: Political Will, Cultural Elites and Confessional Churchmen

Reformation Anglicanism attempts several things.  One objective has been to vet solid blog-sites.  Triablogue is one such site, not because we agree on all things; they are Reformed and we are Anglican.  But, they often offer important insights.  Here, Matthew Schultz offers a good one.  We’d add a few qualifications however.  According to the Census Bureau 2010, 27% of America has a baccalaureate degree; even worse, 12% of African Americans have a B.A.; one can see how louds mouths like the Rev. "Big Al Sharpton" easily influences uneducated black folks ("Big Al" hasn't even finished one year of undergraduate college, but he yaps away anyways); of course, the Caucs aren't without their own tub-thumpers either like the Baptacostals at TBN; we do not believe these numbers have shifted widely since 2010. We do not live in a highly educated nation.  Illiterates still widely populate this large land. This means that elites in Hollywood, music, art, and academic centers can easily influence the masses and mobs.  Those who survive the academic world (“the few, the proud, the elite”) more often than not perpetuate earlier indoctrinations.  Relatedly, notice how easily the masses follow the Hillbilly religionists in Baptacostal-land;  these anti-intellectuals have been and always will be with us.  The educated flock to mainline churches, if they go at all.  There, they get doctrinal pablum proferred with polite and meaningless niceties, although the hymns and liturgy are often better. Ergo, the takeaway: be an educated Churchman or Churchwoman and influence academic, media, publishing and musical centers with a view to the unvarnished masses.  That’s exactly what elites are doing and they know it.  Elitist?  Yes, indeed, but wisely and, we pray, humbly so.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/05/political-will-and-cultural-elites.html

Thursday, May 10, 2012 

Political Will and Cultural Elites

 Rick Santorum said:
I will continue to fight to make sure that the cultural elites don't further undermine the institution [of marriage] that gives the best opportunity for healthy, happy children and a just and prosperous society.

You can't fight cultural elites with political weapons. Film makers, journalists, artists, university professors--these people care little for what a conservative politician says.

Even if you legislate a law against their positions, it will be overturned in a generation (or less) since these elites are the ones who train our youth and future political, cultural and business leaders.

This is why liberalism, despite being a minority position, holds ascendency in our world. Power lies in cultural transformation, and conservatives own little of it.

There's a sense in which we lost the cultural battle generations ago, when the fundamentalists fled the universities and similar cultural institutions and let the secular perspective reign unchecked.

We are just seeing the fruits of that capitulation.

There's hope, but the change will be generational, and will involve sending more Evangelicals to the university. This is also reason to be glad many Evangelical philosophers have made headway into the university setting. There is a very real sense in which philosophy undergirds all cultural pursuits.

It will also entail giving more money to foundations, scholarships, etc., for Christian artists, lawyers, academics, and similar groups--another reason to support sending more Christians into business, since they are the cash cows for serious, lasting cultural efforts.