Obama Outdoes Bush on Jesus
By Don | June 9, 2009
President Bush was known for his Christianity but it's President Obama mentioning the Savior of the Christian world in speeches.
From the Politico
He’s done it while talking about abortion and the Middle East, even the economy. The references serve at once as an affirmation of his faith and a rebuke against a rumor that persists for some to this day.
As president, Barack Obama has mentioned Jesus Christ in a number of high-profile public speeches — something his predecessor George W. Bush rarely did in such settings, even though Bush’s Christian faith was at the core of his political identity.
In his speech Thursday in Cairo, Obama told the crowd that he is a Christian and mentioned the Islamic story of Isra, in which Moses, Jesus and Mohammed joined in prayer.
At the University of Notre Dame on May 17, Obama talked about the good works he’d seen done by Christian community groups in Chicago. “I found myself drawn — not just to work with the church but to be in the church,” Obama said. “It was through this service that I was brought to Christ.”
And a month before that, Obama mentioned Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount at Georgetown University to make the case for his economic policies. Obama retold the story of two men, one who built his house on a pile of sand and the other who built his on a rock: “We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand,” Obama said. “We must build our house upon a rock.”
More than four months into the Obama presidency, a picture is emerging of a chief executive who is comfortable with public displays of his religion — although he has also paid tribute to other faiths and those he called “nonbelievers” during his inaugural address.
Obama’s invocation of the Christian Messiah is more overt than Americans heard in the public rhetoric of Bush in his time in the White House — even though Bush’s victories were powered in part by evangelical voters.
“I don’t recall a single example of Bush as president ever saying, ‘Jesus’ or ‘Christ,’” said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Christian group Family Research Council. “This is different.”
Maybe this due to Obama's Messianic complex but it is more likely part of a carefully crafted strategy to portray himself as a Christian to dispel any notion that he is a Muslim.
Post #2104
33 Comments | Post a Comment
All I can say is…it is probably just orchestration, just as his position was to even get to the Presidency. The God of some of us is opportunity. They are called opportunists. They are used by other opportunists of a higher order.
Well, I think he deserves the academy award next time around for Best Actor. Also wondering when he might be rehearsing his script for the big Christmas scene at the White House, and if that has been written for him yet? And I agree with you, Tk. Before I can believe him,it would be helpful to hear him talk about restoring some of those very important things that you mentioned.
Funny how when President Bush even thought about mentioning Christ there was outrage. But, when obama does it it’s…...what? Ummmm,,,,,historic? Is everything he does historic? They want historic, try the fact that he’s tearing this country apart little by little. He sucks, and the sooner he’s out, the better for our country!
Re: Post 4;
Your comment:
“...he’s tearing this country apart little by little. He sucks, and the sooner he’s out, the better for our country!...”
Just to be somewhat fair and balanced here - since Bush 43’s approval rating was in the 30%-37% range for most of his eight years - don’t you think there were reasonable grounds for many reasonable people to feel exactly the same way about Bush 43?
Additionally, just to be factual about it, Obama’s overall approval rating is currently 60+% - and, for the FIRST TIME in the last SEVEN YEARS - MORE people are reporting that they NOW feel the country is headed in the RIGHT direction. (Over the most recent several years - the MAJORITY of people polled have reported that they believed the country was headed IN THE WRONG DIRECTION.)
So, while you may personally hate Obama - the facts just do not support the contention that the MAJORITY of people feel “he sucks” - nor that he’s “tearing the country apart”. In fact, the reality may be that your personal comments about Obama may actually reflect the majority opinion of Bush 43 over his last 5-6-7 years in office. (And, of course, Obama has only been in office for some 4 1/2 months.)
Time will tell. But majority popular opinion is clearly supportive of Obama at this time and a majority of people polled feel the country is now headed in the right direction.
And, personally, regardless of who is president, my opinion is that if the president succeeds - we ALL succeed. So, I’m certainly hoping Obama is successful, especially on revving-up the economy and in terms of improving international relations.
(And, the more “Jesus-oriented” he shows himself to be - the better!)
George W. Bush lives his Christianity, Barrack H. Obamma talks his Christianity. I believe that W. will hear the words “Well done my good and faithful servant”, whereas H. will hear “Get thee away from me, I never knew you”.
re #5 - “Just to be somewhat fair and balanced here - since Bush 43’s approval rating was in the 30%-37% range for most of his eight years…”
Had Bush enjoyed the same one-sided adoration by the MSM, his numbers would have been at least as high as Obama’s. And unlike with Bush, the MSM never delved into Obama’s shady background, which surely would have sunk his presidential bid as well as his poll numbers.
If you REALLY wanted to be fair, the only HIGH approval rating the big o has is in personality. The polling for his policies are int he tack! And, no, the majority of Americans DO NOT think we’re heading in the right direction. Maybe in his first 2-4 months, but now he’s in the tank. Mark my words, before he leaves office, he’s going to proclaim and sign an executive order making him dictator, just like his buddy chavez! And, that’s when the fun really starts!
Re: Post 8;
Like it or not; believe it or not:
For the first time in years, polling indicates the majority of Americans believe the country is headed in the right direction.
And, the current polling on the issue of Obama’s PERFORMANCE shows a favorable rating of 61%; the polling on his PERSONALITY varies from poll to poll, but is generally around a positive 70%.
And, your last two sentences are just over-the-top silly.
Re: Post 6;
Your statement:
“...George W. Bush lives his Christianity, Barrack H. Obamma (sic) talks his Christianity…”
Now, how in the world would you ever know that statement to be factually true?
Have you personally known Bush 43 and Obama in their private lives over, say, the last 15-20 years? Have you been an actively-involved minister to both? Are you a direct family member of each?
And, do you also have the private ear of God so that you can offer a special insight into His final judgment of Bush 43 and Obama? And, doesn’t the forgiving God of the Christians allow for redemption of all sinners and, therfore, the possible entry of almost everyone into the Kingdom of Heaven?
I had a pretty stringent, orthodox Christian upbringing - and, at this point, I certainly am not aware of anything in Obama’s conduct to date that would likely cause my God to consign him to Hell!
#10 - “Have you personally known Bush 43 and Obama in their private lives over, say, the last 15-20 years?”
That didn’t stop you from proclaiming Bush to be an alcoholic during his administration.
“I certainly am not aware of anything in Obama’s conduct to date that would likely cause my God to consign him to Hell!”
His support of abortion legislation that would kill babies at any time during a woman’s term and for any reason, including ‘mental health’, would certainly consign him to hell if he doesn’t seek contrition. I also think his bigotry and associations, past and present, with other bigots would qualify him for damnation if he doesn’t sincerely seek forgiveness.
I can’t help but wonder who those people are who are giving Obama the high performance ratings ? I just cannot imagine that anyone who has been paying close attention to everything that he has been doing, as well as to what has been happening inside our govt. during the past several months would be willing to give him a very high rating. And IF those people have actually been paying close attention to all the issues, and are still willing to give him a high rating, then that is extra scarey, I think.
Well, the thing about the big ‘o’ is that while he’s saying one thing, he’s doing the exact opposite! I didn’t vote for him, but neither did I vote for McCain, so go figure! But, since he “won” I was willing to give him a chance. Well, he says “Idon’t want to run a car company”. LIE. “I don’t want to run the banks” LIE. What the hell does he think he’s doing? It is completely unconstitutional what he’s doing to these companies! Firing the CEO? Since when does the prez have the authority to fire anyone that’s not in his cabinet? “Don’t pay attention to the man behind the door” It’s a scary place we’re going!
Re: Post 11;
Bush 43 PUBLICLY confirmed his alcoholism to the general media during his first presidential campaign in 2000 - and it was common knowledge in his earlier campaign for governor of Texas. Plus, he had a public record of being arrested in Texas at least twice for DUI - and once in college for petty theft.
And, in 1973, when the Roe vs. Wade decision came about making abortion legal (including the so-called late-term abortion) - Obama was 10 years old. So, obviously, he did not “support abortion legislation”.
In his recent adult political years, Obama has NEVER said he, personally, “supports abortion”, but has said publicly that “abortions should be decreased”.
As the Chief Executive, his constitutional duty is to enforce the laws - AND - abortion is currently legal. Period. The point being, Obama has personally done NOTHING to further abortion and has not performed any abortions personally - and - I’m sure even you will agree - HE has, therefore, NOT KILLED BABIES! And, he is certainly not guilty of anything via his “thinking” unless, of course, that your versioin of Christianity believe “thinking bad (but legal) thoughts” is “sinful”. (???)
Likewise, espousing “guilt by association” is, in and of itself, an expression of “bigotry”! And, of course, you have no absolute proof that Obama is bigoted in any way whatsoever - yet - you still condemn him to damnation because of rumored “associations” and attendant innuendoes - and some completely fictional assumption of “bigotry” on his part. To me, your statement sounds like it could be bigotry. (???)
Anyway, ridiculous!
Is it Christian for you to make these kinds of comments about someone? Or, are the comments closer to something a mindless Puritan zealot might be saying as he or she lit the fire to burn a witch at the stake in 1692 Salem?
As I said, I had a strict religious upbringing many, MANY years ago - but I obviously was not instructed in YOUR particular version of Christianity.
Re: Post 13;
If anything Obama was doing was “unconstitutional”, he would have been formally called on it and the Supreme Court (currently a “conservative” court) would have reversed his decisions. (And - I’m sure you know ONLY the courts have the authority to declare a law or an action “unconstitutional”?)
First, he had the executive authority to do what he’s done - and was supported by the House and Senate in the doing.
Further, when the government provided funds to the companies being bailed out - several of the companies provided stock in the company as collateral for receiving the monies - which were, in fact, in most cases, “loans” or “loan guarantees”. As a result, the government/U.S. taxpayers became shareholders in those companies and, in some instances, e.g., General Motors, MAJORITY shareholders (if only temporarily) - and, of course, a majority of SHAREHOLDERS in ANY company HAVE THE LEGAL ABILITY (especially if they also have a Board of Directors majority vote) TO FIRE A CEO.
And, of course, simply owning a majority of a company’s stock does not mean one is necessarily also “running the company”.
Teddy Roosevelt and FDR went much further in their regulation of business than has Obama thus far.
And - the companies that Obama bailed out were in total failure mode - so the damnable CEOs, CFOs, other upper management and boards of directors that brought them to that failure mode - should damned-well have been fired!
If you don’t like obama and his politics, fine. But at least recognize the real-world facts of the matter (or matters) which concern you.
I don’t know who your talking to, but since it’s directed at me, I’ll respond. Maybe your correct about the prez not saying anything about abortion. I don’t know. I don’t care. I do know that he WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE INFANT BORN ALIVE ACT. Twice, when he was in the state senate, it came before them, and he voted NO! Hmmmmm,,,,,makes me think he thinks abortion ok! Not to mention what he said about what he
‘d do if his daughters got pregnant! “I wouldn’t want them punished with a baby!” WTF??? Me thinks the “H” stands for ‘hypocrisy”.
Re: Post 16;
In my town, there’s been a publicity campaign lately to “get help” for the following:
Two sixteen year olds (both caucasian) have a 9-month old baby that needs a liver transplant. There is little likelihood that a cadaver liver will be found from an infant - which would cost $100,000 to re-implant. On the other hand, the 16-year-old mother and father could provide a piece of their livers - but that procedure would cost $300,000 because of the medical care necessary for the living donor. In either case, lifelong medication for the infant will also cost somewhere between $30,000-$40,000 annually for the rest of the infant’s life. The ONLY way this happens is if welfare pays for it - and also pays for the infant’s care and medication for the rest of her life.
Sounds to me that these two moronic teenagers have been “punished with a baby” - as well as all of us taxpayers in my state who fund the welfare program - and, to some degree, maybe the teenagers’ parents, too.
I certainly understand Obama’s comment.
And, whether he supported some measure in the Illinois senate or not is immaterial. And, in fact, in that case, there were onerous amendments attached to the bill you specify that he stated he was against - consequently - the “nay” vote.
And - “making me think that he thinks” is one lousy reason for making a decision or coming to a conclusion.
And, of course, there are MANY, M-A-N-Y critical issues other than abortion that also need immediate attention - and which may be easier to resolve.
Peggy (post #13} - “What the hell does he think he’s doing? It is completely unconstitutional what he’s doing to these companies! Firing the CEO? Since when does the prez have the authority to fire anyone that’s not in his cabinet?”
It’s known as FASCISM.
TK (post #14) - “Bush 43 PUBLICLY confirmed his alcoholism to the general media during his first presidential campaign in 2000.”
That’s nothing but libel on your part. Bush never confirmed that he was an alcoholic.
The rest of your inane post is so full of lies, deception, obfuscation, parsing of words, etc., that it doesn’t dignify a response from me.
republican…..I recently discovered a picture of George Bush when he was at the Olympics last year. The picture appeared to be showing President Bush being surrounded by a group of his secret service men who were ALL helping him to stand up and to help him to keep his balance from where he had been seated. And I wondered why it was taking so many men to assist him in doing that ! I also noted that Mrs Bush was just a little down below him, and that she was going down the steps from the stadium seats already without having any help from anyone at all. And above her were all those men (at least 6 men) holding onto President Bush’s arms and they seemed to be doing thier best not to let him fall backward or forward. Well, I just could not believe my eyes, and am still wondering if that picture had been fixed in some way, or if it was indeed really real ?? This has recently become just another item on my list of mysteries. I just cannot even imagine any president allowing himself to be in that kind of condition out in public at any event ! Has anyone else seen that picture ? And if so, can you shed some light on some logical explaination for that picture ? It’s also very strange to me that Mrs Bush was not looking around in back of her to show some concern or interest about her husband, as well, unless perhaps she just did not know that he was having trouble standing ! She was moving on down the steps and smiling and saying hello to people in the crowd. Anyway, if it was really real, then I just cannot imagine that the liberal media was not exposing that scene! But perhaps I missed something too. Was President Bush ill during his trip there ?? I am feeling so puzzled now about that picture.
I just saw that picture and it is so cropped! He was sitting right beisde his lovely wife, with nothing or noone between them. Just another stupid moron trying to besmirch him. In the end, they still lose!
Re: Post 19;
You’re wrong.
Bush is on the record several times stating he was “recovering” from “alcohol abuse” and that he “quit cold turkey” in 1987 - although there are many who claim to have seen him drinking since then. There was ostensibly “evidence of alcohol” in his blood test coming from the time he reportedly “choked on a pretzel” (as president, in the White House, watching a football game) and “was knocked unconscious” when he “collapsed” and hit his head on a coffee table on the way down.
There are also those who say he has indicated that he used pot and cocaine - and he ostensibly gave up piloting while in the National Guard in 1972 when drug and alcohol testing was first initiated. He was arrested for disorderly conduct and petty theft for stealing Christmas wreaths in 1966 - he was also arrested on a DUI charge in Maine in 1976 (and received a two year license suspension) - and he had a DUI episode in 1972 in D.C. when he took his underage brother (Jeb) out drinking and crashed his car into some kind of trash receptacle while trying to get home - as well as reported abuse episodes in Texas.
Your last sentence is equally in error.
Go learn some reality!
TK - Re: #22
You said in post #14, “Bush 43 PUBLICLY confirmed his alcoholism”.
That’s a lie on your part.
Bush never said he was an ‘alcoholic’, nor has any official authority certified him to be an alcoholic. From what I read on alcoholics, going ‘cold turkey’ for all those years, on his own, as he did, would have been impossible.
If you google [George W. Bush substance abuse controversy], it says, “Bush has described his days before his religious conversion in his 40s as his “nomadic” period and “irresponsible youth” and admitted to drinking “too much” in those years.”
You said - “There are also those who say he has indicated that he used pot and cocaine.”
Why would you bring that up considering that Obama said the following - “I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though.”
Just to show you that I’m a fair guy, I also feel that Bush did the same, even though I haven’t seen any proof that he did.
So what’s your point in bringing this up?
Re: Post 23;
I said - - “...Bush is on the record several times stating he was “recovering” from “alcohol abuse” and that he “quit cold turkey” in 1987 - although there are many who claim to have seen him drinking since then. There was ostensibly “evidence of alcohol” in his blood test coming from the time he reportedly “choked on a pretzel” (as president, in the White House, watching a football game) and “was knocked unconscious” when he “collapsed” and hit his head on a coffee table on the way down…”
To me - Bush’s own statement, that he was “recovering from alcohol abuse” is more than enough confirmation that he was either “an alcohol abuser” or “an alcoholic” - - a distinction without much of a difference.
And, YOU brought up Bush’s alcoholism in this particular thread with your Post #11 - and then Post #20 picked up on it.
I RESPONDED.
RE: (post #24)
(TK’s childish attempt at feigned ignorance of one of his posts; But I’m in a good mood, so I’ll play along).
According to your post #14, you said, “Bush 43 PUBLICLY confirmed his alcoholism to the general media during his first presidential campaign in 2000.”
Re: post 25;
I SAID - “... I said - - “...Bush is on the record several times stating he was “recovering” from “alcohol abuse” and that he “quit cold turkey” in 1987 - although there are many who claim to have seen him drinking since then…”
“On the record”, in case you’re unfamiliar with the phrase, indicates George W. Bush, himself, made the statement, to various journalists, for PUBLIC consumption (during his original 2000 presidential election campaign).
Got it?
RE: post #26
So, are you denying that you submitted post #14 in this thread, where you stated, “Bush 43 PUBLICLY confirmed his alcoholism to the general media during his first presidential campaign in 2000”.??
RE: post #27
Well, there you have it everyone.
TK refuses to acknowledge his post #14 where he lied about Bush confirming himself to being an alcoholic.
I hope this illustrates to everyone here the futility of engaging in any type of discussion with this far-left gutter-snipe.
Re: Post 29;
Apparently, denser than dense.
And, if you do have a problem with reading comprehension and retention, try reading this again (from Post 22):
“...Bush is on the record several times stating he was “recovering” from “alcohol abuse” and that he “quit cold turkey” in 1987 - although there are many who claim to have seen him drinking since then…”
And, to help you out a little further in terms of that density problem of yours - the operative phrase here is “Bush is on the record”.
And, you apparently also need help with this concept: I see little distinction between someone admitting that he/she is an “alcohol abuser” versus someone admitting that he/she is an “alcoholic”.
You’re just an offensive, extremist, lemming-like ideologue - and your use of the handle “republican” does nothing but give responsible, fair-minded and thinking Republicans a bad name.
Buzz-off!
RE: #30
The troll not retracting or acknowledging his lie (first sentence) in his post #14.
The troll in denial.
The troll obfuscating.
The troll projecting.
The troll feigning indignation.
The troll exhibits zero credibility.
June 9 at 6:23 pm | #1 | Link
Well - Don just can’t ever say anything good about Obama and leave it at that! We gotta’ have his “Maybe ...”!
Good going for Obama. Now, if we could just get some prayer back in the schools, the Ten Commandments posted in schools, courthouses and courtrooms, and OFFICIAL recognition of Christmas and Easter as universal religious holidays “of the majority”.