Article

2006-11-30 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by anonymous5089 2006-11-30 07:50|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I think the whole picture of taking an oath on any sacred instrument is purely for show. The few times I've had to take an oath, to give testimony in court or to become a commissioned office of the US, no Bible was seen anywhere. The formula is what counts: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm)..." etc.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2006-11-30 07:56|| 2006-11-30 07:56|| Front Page Top

#2 Seems like a pretty clear application of the First Amendment to me (freedom of religion.) Unlike all the nonsense about crosses in county seals and Nativity scenes on public property.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2006-11-30 08:05|| 2006-11-30 08:05|| Front Page Top

#3 Unfortunately, I 'spect he'll turn his oath into a ~~dog~~ goat and pony show. Surely a dirty infidel won't be allowed to handle the sacred words of Allan, and it'll be one of the holiest of holies who will need to be brought in to administer the oath...

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2006-11-30 09:03|| 2006-11-30 09:03|| Front Page Top

#4 Even I do not think he should be forced to swear by somebody else's sacred scrolls.

Posted by Excalibur 2006-11-30 09:12|| 2006-11-30 09:12|| Front Page Top

#5 I think he should be forced to swear on a copy of "Dianetics".

Posted by Rob Crawford">Rob Crawford 2006-11-30 09:21|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2006-11-30 09:21|| Front Page Top

#6 This is hooey. It is well-established in the courts that there are all sorts of documents one can swear on, not just the King James version of the bible. There is even an oath for atheists.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-11-30 09:21|| 2006-11-30 09:21|| Front Page Top

#7 I'll be the contrarian: This is the beginning of the march to Shari'a in the USA. Freedom is a fine thing, but it must apply to all.

Multiculturalism and political correctness are destroying this nation from within. Compromise you say? Show me any similar compromise in the Muslim world. Until they demonstrate their ability to compromise and co-exist with others, I say no compromise.

No more tolerance for intolerance.

Posted by SR-71 2006-11-30 09:25|| 2006-11-30 09:25|| Front Page Top

#8 The formula is what counts: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm)..."

Let me play devil's advocate here and ask, given the muslim precept that lying to infidels is no big deal, whether the whole concept of a sacred oath to "...support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." has any validity; especially since the Constitution and Sharia law seem to fundamentally conflict.

Posted by SteveS 2006-11-30 09:37|| 2006-11-30 09:37|| Front Page Top

#9 I doubt Joe Lieberman swore on a bible.

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2006-11-30 09:38|| 2006-11-30 09:38|| Front Page Top

#10 Joe Lieberman could swear on a can of sardines and would still honor his own word.

SteveS's point is probably the important one. Hudna, taqiyya, kitman...

Posted by SR-71 2006-11-30 09:53|| 2006-11-30 09:53|| Front Page Top

#11 I wonder how long after Rep. Ellison formally takes office does he assume his proper Moose limb name?

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2006-11-30 10:02|| 2006-11-30 10:02|| Front Page Top

#12 I doubt Joe Lieberman swore on a bible.

Reputable people told me the Bible is a Jewish book.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2006-11-30 10:31|| 2006-11-30 10:31|| Front Page Top

#13 Only the first section of the Christian Bible.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-11-30 10:56|| 2006-11-30 10:56|| Front Page Top

#14 Make him swear on a pack of bacon.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2006-11-30 11:10|| 2006-11-30 11:10|| Front Page Top

#15 It's ok, Nimble Spemble. Clever publishers have taken what Christians call the Old Testament, put a new cover on it, stamped Bible on it in gold letters with a Jewish Star underneath instead of a cross, and voila! Something Jews can swear with in comfort. The extra clever ones even re-arrange the order of the books to that used historically by the Jews, and even make use of scholarly translations from the original Hebrew, eschewing the labour of King James' savants and those of the Catholic Church altogether. The footnotes in my copy make for fascinating reading, referencing as they do recent archeological discoveries that expand our understanding of a language, culture and religion that modified considerably over the millenium or so during which the various books of the Old Testament were originally written.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-11-30 11:24|| 2006-11-30 11:24|| Front Page Top

#16 I like that. A bible with a fake Koran cover. Let's do that. Then after he's taken the oath, we can show it to him and watch his reaction and put it on America's Funniest Home Videos.

Posted by tu3031 2006-11-30 11:35|| 2006-11-30 11:35|| Front Page Top

#17 Unfortunately, I 'spect he'll turn his oath into a dog goat and pony show. Surely a dirty infidel won't be allowed to handle the sacred words of Allan, and it'll be one of the holiest of holies who will need to be brought in to administer the oath...

Bingo, Sefarious. I find it impossible to imagine that Ellison will not take this opportunity to demand that some grand poobah mufti or hiya-mucky-muck be the one to hold ~~his hand~~ Koran during the ceremony. It will simply be another inroad of Islam's rites upon America's conducting of national business.

Yes, this does fall under First Amendment law, but only so long as we still (idiotically) permit Islam to remain categorized as a religion.

This is the beginning of the march to Shari'a in the USA. Freedom is a fine thing, but it must apply to all.

Multiculturalism and political correctness are destroying this nation from within. Compromise you say? Show me any similar compromise in the Muslim world. Until they demonstrate their ability to compromise and co-exist with others, I say no compromise.

No more tolerance for intolerance.

Which I feel is far more to the point. Even closer to which is the following:

Let me play devil's advocate here and ask, given the muslim precept that lying to infidels is no big deal, whether the whole concept of a sacred oath to "...support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." has any validity; especially since the Constitution and Sharia law seem to fundamentally conflict.

Whose culmination is reached when SR-71 loops around with:

SteveS's point is probably the important one. Hudna, taqiyya, kitman...

How do you trust someone who has given themselves an out that extends to violating every single oath they ever could take, including the apparent rejection of their own religion if such pretense is deemed necessary? THERE IS NO WAY.

Ellison must be kept off of any committe whose clearance requirements demand any more allegiance than one could expect from somebody already convicted of espionage.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-11-30 11:42|| 2006-11-30 11:42|| Front Page Top

#18 "It is well-established in the courts that there are all sorts of documents one can swear on, not just the King James version of the bible. There is even an oath for atheists."

Indeed. This is an old issue that is dealt with in courthouses across the country every day.

Posted by Mark E. 2006-11-30 12:10|| 2006-11-30 12:10|| Front Page Top

#19 It is not what you swear on but the belief that the object is solomn. Having a Muslim swear over a Bible would be as useful as having a Christian swear over a Koran or Dianetics. If it means nothing to them the oath is worthless.

Posted by rjschwarz 2006-11-30 12:38|| 2006-11-30 12:38|| Front Page Top

#20 Joe Lieberman could swear on a can of sardines and would still honor his own word.

As Chuckie Schumer said in a telling remark yesterday: "He's not a typical politician. He really has deep convictions".

Posted by GK 2006-11-30 12:39|| 2006-11-30 12:39|| Front Page Top

#21 No Oath on Bible

I'll take mine on a pile 'O Sprouts thank youse.

Posted by Deep Vegan 2006-11-30 12:50|| 2006-11-30 12:50|| Front Page Top

#22 I really don't care what he places his hand on when taking the oath of office (with the exception of a pages rearend). What I do care about is just what kind of committee asignment Polosi is going to give him.

Posted by Cheaderhead 2006-11-30 12:54|| 2006-11-30 12:54|| Front Page Top

#23 It boils down to the accepted difference between ethics and morality in the US. Though the dictionary equates the two, the man on the street sees the difference.

Ethics is willingness to obey the law. It is objective, and people want ethical politicians and bureaucrats.

Morality is adherence to religious principles. It is not written by, nor can be re-written by man, and judgement is made in heaven. That is why the man on the street is dubious about a politicians who proclaims themselves "moral". By whose definition? A priest, rabbi, Imam, or other shaman?

Violations are also questionable. Often "moral" people refuse the judgement of other men, claiming that heaven alone justifies whatever it is they want to do.

The rejection of "subjective" morality is also problematic, and there are politicians who proudly claim to be "immoral", as rejection of morality. The problem is that they are often "unethical" at the same time, not distinguishing between the two.

Most people are indifferent if their politicians are immoral, within limits, but they do not want them to be unethical. Of course, if they have flair and elan while being unethical, they just might get re-elected anyway.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-11-30 13:03|| 2006-11-30 13:03|| Front Page Top

#24 My $.02. I do believe that politician's of other belief systems HAVE taken the oath on the Bible. It's a tradition people. I truly have a problem with the grandstanding and "moral superiority" Ellison has over all this. If Joe Lieberman (or any Atheist, Mormon, Buddhist, Hindu, etc.) can swear on the Bible (to protect our Constitution), so can Ellison.

Honestly, it is covered under the First Amendment. Problem is, NO ONE has ever made this big a show and/or deal about it. One of those "slippery slope" issues, that if you take it out to it's farthest extremes will have Hef elected to office, swearing on his latest copy of Playboy (or .com's stash), or some crackpot Scientologist swearing on Dianetics.

It comes down to this with me, like others have more eloquently explained. I don't have a problem on swearing on anything (because you're swearing on our Constitution, basically). But, could you imagine some camera-hogging politico swearing on Mein Kampf during the heat of WWII? Hell no! It just shouldn't be done, especially with a book and belief system that is SOOOOO completely opposite of the Republic's ideals our Founding Fathers gave us. Just one more line that'll encourage the jihadis, even though to the average American it's no big deal.

Posted by BA 2006-11-30 13:17|| 2006-11-30 13:17|| Front Page Top

#25 Hef elected to office, swearing on his latest copy of Playboy (or .com's stash)

Bwahahaha! Only at Rantburg.

could you imagine some camera-hogging politico swearing on Mein Kampf during the heat of WWII? Hell no! It just shouldn't be done, especially with a book and belief system that is SOOOOO completely opposite of the Republic's ideals our Founding Fathers gave us. Just one more line that'll encourage the jihadis

Word, BA.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-11-30 13:30|| 2006-11-30 13:30|| Front Page Top

#26 Thanks, Zen! I really have fun at .com's expense, now that he's become a mod.

Posted by BA 2006-11-30 14:09|| 2006-11-30 14:09|| Front Page Top

#27 Ooooh . . . Seafarious might be right. The Muzzies I knew always told me that they would work their way into public office in the US as part of their political goals.

About the oath--the Bible is important in the oath because it REPRESENTS the foundations of thought, philosophy, belief, and law the country originated from. America was NOT founded on Islam. Ellison is seeking to deconstruct and supplant those foundations with the "acendancy" of Islam. Or maybe he doesn't want to have his house bombed for touching the book of the Christians/Joooooos. We'll see more of this kind of thing, ala the six imams . . .

Posted by ex-lib 2006-11-30 15:01|| 2006-11-30 15:01|| Front Page Top

#28 First of all this Detroit native Jew bashing Muslime terrorist huger is right in my freaking backyard. The local news stations and papers knew just what this meteor kissing turban head was all about and the refused to make public,,, any of his ties with fellow Muslim terrorist. His public defence of cop murderers should have at least hit the front page on a Monday.

I'm sorry but if you are affiliated with CAIR then you ARE a Muslim terrorist.

Lastly let's be blunt about this. The poKoran is nothing more than a Muslim terrorist handbook calling for our conversion or death. Ellison swearing on the Arab book bound toilet paper is the last straw. I could care less about what he takes the oath on. The bottom line is that Ellison should not be in office period! I'd be interested in hearing what other Minnesotans think of our Congressional Muhamhead.

I'm so pissed I can hardly eat my Lutefisk.

Posted by Icerigger 2006-11-30 15:04|| 2006-11-30 15:04|| Front Page Top

#29 Fun question:

Let's say Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts administers the oath of office. Would he be allowed to hold the Koran, or would the Grand Mufti of Falls Church be necessary to act as a intermediary?

Discuss.

*note: I don't actually know if a third party typiccally holds the Bible/racing form/popular mechanix etc. Does the First Lady ever assist at a Prez Inauguration?

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2006-11-30 15:19|| 2006-11-30 15:19|| Front Page Top

#30 Will he wear one of those little hats like Louis Farrakhan and Prince Chucky wear - or will he go ahead an sport a turban?

Also, NOI bowtie or mandress or thobe, which is more apropos for the SOTU Address?

Posted by .com 2006-11-30 15:56|| 2006-11-30 15:56|| Front Page Top

#31 SOTU is a formal affair...formal calls for the full Muammar Qadaffi...

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2006-11-30 16:01|| 2006-11-30 16:01|| Front Page Top

#32 But sunglasses indoors are sooo 70's, lol. Now if he's sporting a coupla MN ScandoBlonde Fembots, he'll steal the show...

Posted by .com 2006-11-30 16:06|| 2006-11-30 16:06|| Front Page Top

#33 I'm sorry but if you are affiliated with CAIR then you ARE a Muslim terrorist.

End of story.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-11-30 16:26|| 2006-11-30 16:26|| Front Page Top

#34 He's not a Christian so swearing on a Bible is bogus anyway. I have no objection to him swearing on a Koran but the suicide belt has to go.

Posted by Angeaper Slomoth1630 2006-11-30 17:04|| 2006-11-30 17:04|| Front Page Top

#35 This is all part of the mad mooslum road show.

Ellison is involved in the flying imam(onster)s routine.

Rest assured, swearing on a holy piece of toilet paper (albeit flushable) is only the opening salvo.

Ellison is up to his ass in louie faracon and the nation of islam, and he has many more tricks up his sharia sleeves.

Posted by Captain America 2006-11-30 17:30|| 2006-11-30 17:30|| Front Page Top

#36 Now, considering he is a "representative" of heavy swed and norwegs here in tropic minnesota, wonder how fran and ollie feel 'bout mooslums gone wild?

Posted by Captain America 2006-11-30 17:33|| 2006-11-30 17:33|| Front Page Top

#37 considering he is a "representative" of heavy swed and norwegs here in tropic minnesota, wonder how fran and ollie feel 'bout mooslums gone wild?

Looking at how long it to the Norskies to finally oust mullah Krekar from their own home turf, I think the "away game" is going to need some extra innings.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-11-30 17:39|| 2006-11-30 17:39|| Front Page Top

#38 I am so ready to swear on a Daily Racing Form, I can't believe I didn't think of it first.

Posted by Shipman 2006-11-30 18:01|| 2006-11-30 18:01|| Front Page Top

#39 I don't care what he swears on, but I do question his fitness for public office. He is required to swear that he will faithfully conduct the affairs of his office. He is required to swear that he will support and defend the Constitution, and bear true faith and allegience to it. How can we trust a muslim to do this, when they are given the freedom to lie to anyone who is not a muslim? How can he be trusted with ANYTHING? Big can-o-worms here that needs to be looked at very carefully, and closely tracked as time passes.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2006-11-30 18:29|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2006-11-30 18:29|| Front Page Top

#40 Just wait till he pops out his prayer rug in session or in committee and starts banging his head on the floor...

Posted by .com 2006-11-30 18:32|| 2006-11-30 18:32|| Front Page Top

#41 We'll know that our government has failed us completely when Ellison demands and congress just as quickly permits five prayer breaks each day.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-11-30 19:04|| 2006-11-30 19:04|| Front Page Top

#42 Trust me us Scandinavians outside the Twin Cities are about ready to sell Minneapolis back to the communists. But only if they promise to take Ellison with them.

When I go to DC in the spring I'll have to pack him a ham sandwich.

To be blunt I blame his election on Ellison's opponent, Republican Alan Fine. Fine didn't have much success with the press coverage in fighting this CAIR lap dog. Come to think of it I don't recall a single TV ad by Alan Fine.

Lets not forget Keith Ellison saying Sara Jane Olson was fighting for freedom when she planted a bomb under a police car, during his speech in February 2000. Fighting for Freedom by killing Police Officers! Sara Jane Olson/Soliah pleaded guilty to planting the bomb, as well as pleading guilty to First Degree Murder charges for the murder of Myrna Opsahl. Ellison's 40 or so unpaid parking tickets, and his nine moving violations since 2000 show this punk azz's complete lack of standards. Which I guess helps him be a good Muzzy. You'd have to be to follow the Pedophile for Profit.

Ellison's defenders brushed off their candidate's $25,000 in unpaid back taxes -- incurred some years ago and later paid -- in a similar spirit. Let's face it: When you're on a crusade to right big wrongs, you've got little time for the petty details of personal life -- license suspensions or tax liens. Anyway, this stuff has nothing to do with running the people's business, right?

And if you don't care about him using the koran, then you haven't read it. Be afraid folks. The general ignorance of Islam will be our downfall and their fifth column is on the march with the aid of the Dhimmicrats of course.

Posted by Icerigger 2006-11-30 19:20|| 2006-11-30 19:20|| Front Page Top

#43 I'm so pissed I can hardly eat my Lutefisk.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-11-30 19:29|| 2006-11-30 19:29|| Front Page Top

#44 The Minnesota DFL (Democrat Farm Labor) party has been replaced with DML (Dumb Mooslum Lackies)

Posted by Captain America 2006-11-30 22:54|| 2006-11-30 22:54|| Front Page Top

07:34 Besoeker
14:10 Zenster
23:58 JosephMendiola
23:49 BA
23:49 JosephMendiola
23:45 JosephMendiola
23:32 KBK
23:30 Jan
23:26 SteveS
23:23 Icerigger
23:21 trailing wife
23:21 FOTSGreg
23:19 Icerigger
23:18 Icerigger
23:14 Icerigger
23:10 Ptah
23:09 Icerigger
23:08 BA
23:06 Icerigger
22:59 USN,Ret
22:54 Captain America
22:52 .com
22:46 Elmert Crosh5077
22:40 Mick Dundee