Sarah Palin and the Witch-Fighting Pentecostalist

-

palin and muthee twn.jpg
This is a picture of Sarah Palin being prayed over by Thomas Muthee, who according to Max Blumenthal and his sources, “gained fame within Pentecostal circles by claming that he defeated a local witch [in Kenya], Mama Jane, in a great spiritual battle, thus liberating his town from sin and opening its people to the spirit of Jesus.”
I have to say I was pretty surprised when he was praying for her that Muthee said, “In the name of Jesus, in the name of Jesus, every form of witchcraft. . .”
I don’t follow religious issues much, and I’m not one that has the confidence Blumenthal does in framing personal and organized spiritual activity. But I think that it is important to know whether Palin is someone who generally believes in rationality and the Enlightenment or whether she follows a very different path.
This film clip doesn’t answer my question, but it does raise them to a higher order of concern for me.
The video of the May 2005 encounter at the Wasilla Assembly of God appears here, and the segment with Sarah Palin clicks in at about 7:30:

— Steve Clemons

Comments

33 comments on “Sarah Palin and the Witch-Fighting Pentecostalist

  1. Kathleen says:

    erichwwk…you are so right…Did you happen to notice the wording “no more than $700 billion at any one time”? What do they mean, “at any one time”? Does this mean they can ask for $700 billion more than one time?
    This bailout is sickening.
    Tahoe Editor…just because a candidate mouthes some hog wash about being god-fearing, doesn’t mean they are…
    Dora… you got it….

    Reply

  2. carol says:

    Just who is this woman ….we now have a Pastor who drives out witches…she advocates for abstinence…now the daughter is pregnant…sells a plane on ebay…NOT!!!!and the latest thing out there now is that she may have had an affair!!!
    Sarah Palin is nothing more than a HUGE JOKE… and some American’s are wanting her as Vice President…..are you all absolutely mad!!!!
    Is it just because she’s a woman or just that she
    is from your party……it can’t possibly be because you even remotely think she qualified!!!
    No, the party is over for Sarah and John…they have made a mockery of this election with all their lies, convenient photo op’s, no interviews,
    and expect the American people to fall for it!!

    Reply

  3. arthurdecco says:

    WigWag said: “I don’t like Sarah Palin. I don’t want her to be elected as Vice President. But making fun of people’s religious beliefs is in poor taste and it’s offensive.”
    ALL religion is delusion. To ignore that is to invite madness into your centre.
    What’s offensive is the crap we’re supposed to swallow because religious delusionists and those that need their politikal help have a profound criminal influence over the American government.

    Reply

  4. White Conservative Male says:

    I see several people advocating “engaging” the evangelicals…
    That is not feasible for mainstream policy, as the evangelicals generally have the “my way or the highway” mentality – there is little room for compromise. This is due to the dogmatic nature of religion – if the common basis for affiliation is secular in nature, it permits the presentation of counter-argument – hopefully leading to rational discourse and eventual compromise. If one party feels as though their position is mandated by God himself (or their personal interpretation of God’s will) there is no room for discussion.
    There are a plethora of sound reasons for separating church and state – and the unyielding nature of the “true believer” is the most compelling.

    Reply

  5. LaGioiella says:

    She prays to kill people in the Middle East who had nothing to do with 9/11 too! This is what I call false religion as Jesus would say to her and ALL her supporters, “Get away from me you workers of lawlessness…I never knew you!”

    Reply

  6. rollingmyeyes says:

    If Palin cannot stand up to Brian
    Williams, how will she stand up to
    Putin? If MeCain is incompasitated and she becomes President, who will she pick for Vice President? Dick Cheney?

    Reply

  7. Tahoe Editor says:

    Yes, that’s it. Insult the average American, call them stupid & backward. The Democratic Playbook: losing elections since God knows when.

    Reply

  8. Dora says:

    What else needs to be said? …. ummm .. let’s see … Maybe every wannabe US President needs to act like some backward God-fearing, church-going Christian, to get elected by the backward American populace. Yup, that’s it!

    Reply

  9. Tahoe Editor says:

    How about every U.S. president has been a God-fearing, church-going Christian? What else needs to be said?

    Reply

  10. arthurdecco says:

    WigWag said: “…making fun of people’s religious beliefs is in poor taste and it’s offensive. There are very few religious beliefs from any religion that would not look silly if held up to strict standards of rationalism.”
    Exactly!
    All religion is delusion. What else needs to be said?

    Reply

  11. Not Religious says:

    When someone encourages a vote from any position of preaching or directing as he did, the tax exempt status of that organization should at the very least be called into question. If there were the integrity he speaks of in the organization he speaks from, it would be called a PAC and not a church.

    Reply

  12. rich says:

    Steve,
    I have no doubt you did, and didn’t need to look it up to know that. I did overstate, and blurred to whom I was speaking. But this emphasis and tenor hadn’t been applied to Bush’s or McCain’s fitness to serve.
    It’s not about whether you spoke up, but whether any other Republican did. Having worked hand in glove towards mutual goals, can Repub pols be disassociated from evangelicals? Seems to me they egged each other on.
    Can you really drive a wedge with Palin’s extremist politics, given the emotional appeal of effective campaigns (Lakoff, Rove), Republican loyalism, and current policy?
    I question whether there’s really any substantive difference between George Bush and Sarah Palin as politicians, or between old-guard Republicans and the evangelical base. I know: it’s easy to find differences–of degree.
    Yet in terms of rationality and in terms of radicality, in word and in deed, the corporate old-guard and evangelicals have worked together very closely to enact policies that’ve torn a giant hole in the social contract and political fabric that’s our common ground as Americans.
    Since George Bush can’t stand up for the separation of church and state, and stand-up Republicans can’t stand up and remind Judge Roy Moore that what this country is about—we could almost expect Bush not to upold any other law he didn’t like. Not having driven the point home for eight years, is it really possible to compensate by going after Gov. Palin?
    Do the Bushes and McCains really deserve any credit for being distinct from Sarah Palin? Is Bush really more rational than Palin?
    I don’t think you can make that case based on the evidence at hand. Your emphasis on marginalizing Sarah Palin as an extremist is rides on her religious beliefs and resume, neither much different than George Bush’s. And I don’t believe you took that tack at all, with that heavy emphasis, when dealing with Bush. Saying Alaska is a small state makes as much sense as saying Texas is a big state and therefore Bush’s tenure there will serve him well as Prznt. (not speaking geographically)
    Did Bush or McCain every really separate themselves from the religious right? Not so much. Captive to it, using it, furthering that agenda for the sake of their own.
    I’d suggest that in matters of faith and in basic policy, Bush and McCain have done a real number on the concept of rational, effective policy, preferring to gut the process than moderate a few of their most radical policies.
    All rationalized and sold using God, guns, and gays, right?
    We’re spending a lot of time on Sarah Palin, and she’s not the nominee. The McCain people adherents will not peel away because of the VP’s peculiarities, and may come to see her as a buffer against impeachment, as were Agnew and Ford. John McCain’s the nominee. If all the oxygen is sucked out of the room by Palin, the media and the Straight Talk Express will happily slide right by any close examination.

    Reply

  13. questions says:

    anIRprof:
    “would encourage you to pay more attention and to learn more about her Pentacostalist beliefs. Today I’m surrounded by Eastern elite academics and policy wonks, mild-mannered agnostics and Episcopalians and Jews, who cannot accept that anyone believes in demons and faith healing and speaking in tounges and “end times” theology. I hardly can either.”
    Not to be too even-tempered, but I’d say that somewhere around yoga, massage, singing, and maybe panic attacks, we all believe in some of this stuff **with variations**. Laying on hands is likely somewhere between massage and mild sexual thrill; speaking in tongues is likely not miles away from la-la-la singing/humming/dancing, and Woody Allen is not miles away from end times anxiety. (And don’t forget mosh pits and drugs for similar ecstatic experiences — ecstasy is pretty normal stuff.)
    I don’t want to defend a reading of theology that would encourage nuclear war to speed up the rise to heaven, but I do think that we should see in each of us many of the qualities that some of us display.
    Note that the parallel between conservative Islam and conservative Christianity has been made by many. I’d suggest not demonizing the religion thing too much. There are plenty of other ways to attack — politicization/enforcement of religious views, general incompetence, scientific ignorance…. go after those and don’t worry about “faith healing” since we all give hugs and wish we had a buck-fifty a minute for a massage. (Not that I think it cures cancer….)

    Reply

  14. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Sarah Palin simply isn’t the issue this election. John McCain’s irrational adherence to George Bush’s policies, is”
    Perhaps if you believe that it is John McCain who is being placed on the throne, than you mayu have a point. I don’t believe that. I believe that John McCain is seen as dispensible, and will be removed from the picture shortly after being elected. Sarah Palin, because of her fanaticism, is highly maleable, and believes she is serving God’s purpose. Palin is who they intend to seat on the throne.
    If you render McCain impotent, you haven’t harmed Palin, she will still aspire to, and attain, power. But if you render Palin irrelevent or disgraced, you have stopped the McCain candidacy in its tracks.

    Reply

  15. Raclare says:

    I have been reading Anatol Lieven’s book, America Right or
    Wrong, an Anatomy of American Nationalism (purchased a few
    years ago when he discussed it at a New America program). You
    want post- Enlightenment thinking? Not from this group!
    If he is correct about the historical depth, cultural origins and –
    especially – the extent today of commitment to a pre-
    Enlightenment style of thought in the Right (mainly Evangelical)
    wing of the Republican Party, then we will have a very hard time
    constructing a rational argument that will move its voters.
    Sometimes it is a little hard to anticipate where he is coming
    from – not many of us, I think, tend to think of Ulster or
    Cromwell when trying to understand our present situation. He
    makes some very interesting points, however, and his
    perspective is disturbingly relevant to the political scene.
    At least, ‘Let us Pray…’ that their leaders are as hypocritical as
    some of their televangelist stars have proven to be, and that
    their words are partly chosen to garner support from a very pre-
    Enlightened sector of the population.

    Reply

  16. pauline says:

    POA,
    Please note bush’s “god” is the international bankers’ dirty money. He thinks he’s the pope and paulson is his bishop.
    bush doesn’t know the real God and doesn’t care.

    Reply

  17. Steve Clemons says:

    rich — appreciate your perspective, but you overstate.
    i was very concerned about the blurring of faith and secular government very early on — and I was the first to post on the web these fliers which were being mailed to church parish rosters in the 2004 campaign:
    http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2004/09/bible_banned_re/
    best, steve

    Reply

  18. rich says:

    apologies, had intended anlRprof, precisely as signed. or is that an “I”?
    I said engage them. Certainly ghettoizing them and refusing to have any conversation at all just exacerbates the culture shock our oh-so rational elites will feel when they step out of the provincial circles endemic to centers of power and get an actual taste or feel for the rest of the country. Second, refusing to engage just ensures more rigid contours for a sharper schism, with no ameliorating personal or social bonds to bridge the divide.
    I don’t want them in power either, but we’re already three-quarters of the way there, with no sign that George Bush will back off, stanch the flow of money he’s funneling to evangelical groups, or acknowledge the separation of church and state.
    I’m as far from a Pentacostalist as you can get, but you cant’ credibly tell anyone there’s a dime’s worth of difference between the End-Timer who faithfully backs George Bush and the George Bush who exploits the End-Timer. One veers from the path to worship Old Testament canards; the other veers from the Constitution to worship blood, oil, de-regulated lending/trading, Enron accounting, and no-bid contracts. As though God Himself told him to invade Iraq and let Osama bin Laden run free. Day 2,568!
    After 8 years of obscene war, insane policy choices, and Orwellian governance, NOW we’re supposed to be scared of a little Alaskan Pentacostalist? You’e joking. John McCain is the nominee. Every minute spent uselessly demonizing Gov. Palin on specious grounds is a minute not spent examining the legitimate shortcomings of John McCain. Which is the point.
    It’s common knowledge attacking Gov. Palin is an ineffective tactic.

    Reply

  19. anIRprof says:

    Who said engage them? On the contrary, for Pentacostalists (which is not at all the same as Evangelical, that’s a much larger category) who believe in end-times theology to the point that, if in poiwer they would do what they can to accelerate Armageddon, I think the ONLY approach is to keep them the hell away from being in charge of anything.
    And that’s ANirprof, not “anal”, thank you very much.

    Reply

  20. judec says:

    (Note: I somehow posted this first to the wrong piece. Was having trouble getting it to post)
    ————————————————–
    I don’t believe most Americans would be comfortable with this. What a nutcase! Rev. Wright is a saint compared with this guy…
    Muthee says:
    –That believers put Bush in office (true).
    –That believers have to “infiltrate” business, education, and government… and that is why we’re praying for Sarah.
    The above is enough to scare me off well before you get near the bit about witchcraft. Yikes!
    We also know that Palin believes the end times are coming during her lifetime… we can not have this woman a button-push away from apocalypse.

    Reply

  21. rich says:

    DonS,
    Again, how does that differ from past elections and other candidates? I submit it does not. Further, what’s less rational than the set of economic and international policies deployed over the past 8 (and 28) years? They fly in the face of common sense and our core values. We toss aside our Constitution on the whim of a Prznt who routinely says “God told me” to go to war. It’s a mistake to underestimate George Bush by not taking him at face value.
    Personally, I agree with you on the religion thing. But that doesn’t make Palin different from Bush on religious grounds, and it doesn’t make Palin different from Cheney, Bush or McCain on straight Republican policy grounds.
    Further, demonizing her won’t work and may backfire, and you don’t need to be Lakoff or Rove to understand that. Folks don’t always vote on the facts, or rationally. So Steve’s wedge won’t save anyone with too much invested in the current, if crumbling, set of social/political elations.
    analRProf is right: We really do have to engage evangelicals, not isolate or ridicule them.
    By the same token, Establishment Republicans—those viewing themselves as the responsible adults—have a parallel obligation. They also must engage with the rest of the country, and behave responsibly, rather than foisting off irrational economic policies and insane unprovoked wars just because they can get away with it or to grow fat off no-bid contracts.
    So we also must engage the Republicans who presume to feign adult behavior, but push irrational policies. Presumably these party leaders are in sharp contrast to the evangelical base Steve highlights by focusing on Gov. Palin. Problem is, it’s a two-way street. There hasn’t been any effort by Republicans to compromise or listen to sound policy for nearly 30 years—despite the defining reciprocal obligation ingrained in the American character.
    Lest anyone read into my comment above a diatribe that just isn’t there, I’ll say this: It’s a sane reaction to an insane political track record.
    I’m no fan of Sarah Palin. But this newfound skepticism over Gov. Palin’s fitness to serve? It’s a little late in the come-to-Jesus department. It’s too little, too late. In the wake of recent religious affiliation & patronage, in-your-face dicatatorial attitudes, and plainly counterproductive emotionally-driven policies, Washington needs a little electroshock therapy before recklessly questioning who’s rational and who’s not. Not bitter, not over the top; just pointing out a little reality check is in order.

    Reply

  22. anIRprof says:

    Steve,
    I would encourage you to pay more attention and to learn more about her Pentacostalist beliefs. Today I’m surrounded by Eastern elite academics and policy wonks, mild-mannered agnostics and Episcopalians and Jews, who cannot accept that anyone believes in demons and faith healing and speaking in tounges and “end times” theology. I hardly can either.
    Years ago I grew up around such churches, though, and what you need to understand is that they REALLY DO BELIEVE that stuff. Believe it to their bones. Believe it enough to _act_ on it. From the guys in Texas that are trying to breed a pure red heifer (something that has to happen before the Temple is rebuilt in Jerusalem) to the utterly sincere debates about whether it is Obama, Putin, or the UN Secretary General who is the Anti-Christ, they BELIEVE IT.
    Palin’s particular church, Assembly of God, may be less “conservative” in some respects than say, Southern Baptists, but it is out there at the extreme end in terms of the centrality of “End Times” thinking and the belief that we are — right here, right now — living out prophesies from the Book of Revelations.
    Knowing _exactly_ what those churches are like, I shudder in fear at having someone from that tradition have their hand on the nuclear button or dealing with crises in the Middle East.

    Reply

  23. DonS says:

    Pentacostals are theocratic literalists in their thinking. That is relevant. It is salient to separation of church and state. It is different than a person whose life is informed by their faith. It is the merging of faith with action in a way that the Founders warned against.
    Pentecostals are no less theocratic than Islamic fundamentalists who see little distinction between government and religion and, more importantly, act based on that orientation.
    Whether, and how, this discussion is brought into the public marketplace is a question. But since the culture wars have been engaged, it seems only a matter of degree as to how and when the discussion is joined.
    Clear statements should be forthcoming from those who would invoke their religiosity as to their view of the interrelation between governing and their practice. Kennedy did so, and he didn’t even wave his faith around.

    Reply

  24. rich says:

    BillR and POA
    When Steve writes:
    “But I think that it is important to know whether Palin is someone who generally believes in rationality and the Enlightenment or whether she follows a very different path.”
    –we’re getting one of the most disingenuous posts ever to hit the Washington Note.
    How does this differ from the main issue confronting the candidacy of John McCain? Or George Bush’s? Pat Robertson? Rick Santorum?
    Why did no Republican think to ask whether George Bush followed “the path of rationality and the Enlightenment”? Or whether he followed “a very different path?” Those questions were very much on the minds of American voters, yet we couldn’t get a hearing as the media mocked Gore, but let Bush slide on his inadequacies and unlike Clinton, his drug use.
    No think tanker sought to raise those issues, or thought to question the Republican Party’s calculated exploitation of evangelical voters in 2000 and 2004.
    None confronted Pat Robertson with “the path of rationality and Enlightenment” test when he ran for office. And no Republican brought Robertson to heel when he called Saddam Hussein the Anti-Christ and cried shrilly for war.
    Instead, the ‘experienced’, corporate Republican ‘adults’—Cheney, Baker, Bush, Powell, Rice—unquestioned about their willingness to tread the “path of rationality and Enlightenment,” happily exploited the faithful to gin up a war–and the result? Osama bin Laden still on the loose (Day 2,568!), one failed occupation, one war tilting to disaster, a failed geopolitical strategy, our international stature blown to smithereens, and the economy in a shambles—if not in free-fall.
    Sarah Palin is distinct from Dick Cheney how? From James Baker or George Bush? It’s not her rationality. And their experience didn’t serve us well either. But we’re expected to believe that Sarah Palin is really the irrational one when John McCain is in the room? Really? The issue is suddenly Sarah Palin’s ability to grasp the pith of Englightenment thinking?—in the aftermath of Bush/Cheney? I don’t underestimate either Bush or Cheny, never have, but rational or reasonable or humanist Enlightenment thinkers they are not.
    Sorry, I know your intended audience is made of thoughtful Republicans, but this is not simply a red herring, it’s an ineffective tactic. The more we talk about Sarah Palin, the less we talk about John McCain.
    About how Rick Davis was on Fannie Mae’s payroll until a just a few months back, to the tune of $15,000/mo. About John McCain’s lobbyist-infested campaign team. About McCain’s geographical befuddlement, his eagerness to poke Russia right in the eye—about his qualifications.
    Attacking Palin won’t stop McCain (which wouldnt’ be the pointof the post) because much of the electorate turns out and votes based on an emotional, even visceral appeal. Appealing to reason and fact won’t sway those already inclined to vote for John McCain. Attacking Sarah Palin won’t deter the base, and it won’t convince McCain backers to change their minds about John McCain.
    To do that, you need to highlight John McCain, and stories that viscerally and fundamentally contradict the myth of the maverick, straight-talkin’ Senator who’s ever stood up to Washington lobbyists.
    You don’t have to be George Lakoff or Karl Rove to know many voters vote based on reassuring cultural factors such as Reagan’s upbeat avuncular appeal—or Sarah Palin’s analogous appealing persona, combining like Reagan, wit and bald falsehood. Culturally, she’s a great fit for the GOP base—and appealing to reason will not deter Palin voters. Many voters condemned Reagan on rational grounds, and that didn’t work either. For ideological reasons too, and that meant nothing to Reagan voters. So it’ll take an entirely different method to peel off Republicans from the McCain/Palin ticket.
    Sarah Palin was designed to do what John McCain could not. Turn out the base he’s never connected with. I don’t like her or her politics. But she’s hardly less rational that George Bush or Dick Cheney, who’ve been busy up-ending the Constitution and pretending their Orwellian Dr. Strangelove act qualifies them to sit shoulder-to-shoulder with the Founding Fathers. They’ve no claim on the Enlightenment. And it’s their track record that’s the irrefutable evidence of that.
    Corporate Republicans, those moderates who believe in limited government and tight fiscal policy, who consider themselves the adults in the room, had better speak more carefully about “rationality and the Enlightenment” given the state of the stock market and America’s fiscal and economic condition right now. I didn’t hear them call for rationality while free-market ideologues goaded Republican policy makers to tear down the rules that kept a the market rational, functional, stable and intact. No one put their foot down.
    Note that Henry, er, Heinz Kissinger is the Wormtongue whispering in George Bush’s ear. Nothing rational about that. Nothing adult or productive; nothing that furthered American interests in the abstract or in concrete terms. No Realpolitik involved.
    Let’s get a handle on insane here, before November rolls around. Pretending Sarah Palin is somehow distinct from James Baker unreliable sense of direction, let alone his moral compass, isn’t gonna do that.
    Sarah Palin simply isn’t the issue this election. John McCain’s irrational adherence to George Bush’s policies, is.

    Reply

  25. Tahoe Editor says:

    Wig makes a good point, and while Steve includes his usual “don’t know much about religion (or history)” caveat, setting up an Enlightenment vs. religion battle only emphasizes that ignorance. The Enlightenment and religion went hand-in-hand. I’ll send you a book.
    Professing ignorance of history and religion and then mocking someone’s beliefs — not smart, and very revealing of the polemical bent TWN is taking in the Last Days of this election cycle. You’re flirting with Josh Marshall-type polemic disdain now — you’re better when you do your own open-minded thing.

    Reply

  26. Bill R. says:

    Steve: “But I think that it is important to know whether Palin is someone who generally believes in rationality and the Enlightenment or whether she follows a very different path.”
    You can’t be serious, Steve. This is a person cut her teeth politically by intimidating school boards into teaching the Genesis story in science classes. This is a person who blocked abortion clinics. This is a person who believes we’re in the end times and that Alaska is a the refuge for true believers who are escaping the “Tribulation” of the Book of Revelation. This is a sympathizer of the Alaska Independence Party, a secessionist political party.
    Friends of mine from Alaska say the fundamentalist churches in the Mat-Su Valley where Wasilla is, are even more over the top than the religious extremists in the lower 48, in part because of their isolation, and inclination to develop their own end-time theories. Sarah Palin is an anti-intellectual from the get-go with those proto-fascist ideas that only political will and religiously framed anti-elitist ideology matte. Having this certifiable nut-job and narcissist a heart beat away from the nuclear button should motivate all of us.

    Reply

  27. PissedOffAmerican says:

    This is highly relevant, and NEEDs to be discussed. Palin has commented in the past that she believes Muthee’s “laying on of hands” and “praying over her” was instrumental in landing her the governorship. Such comments means she believes that God made her governor of Alaska. Consequently, she has linked policy to God’s decree, such as her comments that her policies on drilling and pipelines are God’s will.
    This woman’s zealotry and religious fanatacism poses no less danger than any other zealot, of any faith, who rises to a position of extreme power.
    When one believes they have a mandate from God, mistakes and damage can be shrugged off as God’s will. The classic “all things happen for a reason” can be used to rationalize failure or disaster. Rash and imprudent action, based on on a whim, becomes “counsel from a higher power”.
    For Chrissakes, people, wake up. We’ve been here before. And Palin is TEN TIMES the zealot that this monkey Bush is….
    “I believe God wants me to be president.”
    George W. Bush
    [I was] “chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment.”
    George W. Bush
    “God told me to strike at al-Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East.”
    George W. Bush
    “I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job.”
    George W. Bush

    Reply

  28. WigWag says:

    I don’t like Sarah Palin. I don’t want her to be elected as Vice President. But making fun of people’s religious beliefs is in poor taste and it’s offensive. There are very few religious beliefs from any religion that would not look silly if held up to strict standards of rationalism.
    Christians believe Jesus was born to a virgin mother and that he was resurrected after death. Jews believe Moses parted the Red Sea during their Exodus from Egypt and that the Algmighty wants them to “eat any animal that has cloven hooves and chews its cud.” Moslems believe God revealed the Qur’an to Muhammad, God’s final prophet, through angel Gabriel and that Muhammad ascended to heaven from Jerusalem.
    Suggesting the use of enlightenment standards to judge these precepts is wrong headed.
    Criticizing people for their religious beliefs is rude.
    It’s not smart politics either.

    Reply

  29. G W McKay says:

    How do these guys get away with this stuff? Its like everybody is asleep, lulled by McCain’s words.
    People are free to worship as the see fit, but I think its disingenuous to beat up Obama over Rev Wright and some how make Sara some kind of Religious Progressive.
    I don’t get it. These guys Lie about Lying; the Rick Davis Story would seem to me to be the last straw over the battle for the truth, but i guess folks will believe and accept anything

    Reply

  30. Linda says:

    I doubt that this matters as much as people not voting for Obama because they think he is Muslim. And worse yet that the war on terror has created a lot of prejudice against Muslims and their religion.
    I wonder what Palin would do about Wiccans because it is a religion and under the Constitution as legitimate as any other religion–though I doubt they receive much funding from faith-based initiatives.
    Many years ago, like early 1970s, I lived in West Hollywood, didn’t have a car, and used to walk my daughter in her stroller around a lot on Santa Monica Blvd. and often drop in to this place that apparently still is there:
    Sorcerers Shop
    8246 1/2 Santa Monica Blvd
    West Hollywood, CA 90046
    They had an owl in a cage, crystal balls for sale and all kinds of scented candles before they were popular in secular stores. You could buy a candle to help with most any ill or emotion. It was a fun place to visit. I assume it’s still there as I found the address above on wwww.
    The main tenet of Wiccan morality: “Do as ye will, as long as ye harm none.”
    If I could ask Palin two questions, they just might be:
    What do you think of the Wiccan religion?
    Have you ever seen or read “The Crucible” by Arthur Miller?
    Oops, I’m sounding like an elitist Obama supporter!

    Reply

  31. erichwwk says:

    While I cede that the selection of Palin as a VP defies credulity, and does indicate how low America’s moral standing has sunk, how about returning TWN to a forum discussing issues of more substance, such as the outrageous attempt by Paulson to grant Wall Street immunity from returning their ill-gotten gains from creating funny money? Paulson’s 3 page proposal is callous towards working Americans, being a back door effort to make transfers from working Americans to the richest of Americans permanent, to be overseen by Wall Street, making their theft PERMANENT, beyond the review of the courts (Sect 8) and exempting these efforts from existing law (conflict of interest, whistle blowing, etc (Sect 2).
    To the credit of the American public, they have been putting extreme pressure on Congress, expressing outrage at Paulson, recognizing that his proposal is a bailout of Wall Street, a last ditch effort of this administration to steal as much from the American public as possible.
    There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to grant this sort of power to a financial TSAR, to scare the public in condoning this latest fraud. A small fund, with oversight, and contingent on Wall Street private party involvement (read, their theft CANNOT be viewed as permanent), and putting a moratorium on credit default swaps and home foreclosures is more in line with what’s appropriate.
    Much has been made of Buffet’s purchase of $5 billion of Goldman Sachs stock. Of course this is just a small part of the bonus granted to the almost 30,000 employees, who have averaged $600,000/ per person in bonuses since Paulson became Sect of Treasury ($16.5 BILLION last year alone).. BTW, readers might be interested in what Buffet had to say about derivatives in his 2002 Berkshire stockholders report.
    http://tinyurl.com/3npad7

    Reply

  32. questions says:

    Matt, it’ll never happen because the Obama/Wright thing is all about race. Palin’s pastor person is white, so he won’t bill us for slave reparations or take revenge for slavery or whatever the underlying fear-fantasy is.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *