Image deleted at the request of the photographer: http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/2009/08/05/james-david-manning-versus-barack-hussein-obama-and-bill-oreilly.html#comment-8743
Concerning James David Manning, he has Black-nationalist overtones and definitely hedges but with irreconcilable language. He's a constitutionalist, which is not a Christian position. He's a double talker. He says Bill O'Reilly is complicit in the anti-Birther movement and that Bill O'Reilly has been impeached by O'Reilly's own words while he also says that he respects Bill O'Reilly and will continue to watch his show, etc.
This is a very strange position. It is very strange talk. It is not consistent with Christianity. Manning is referring to Bill O'Reilly saying on air that he, Bill O'Reilly, has seen the documentation that shows that the questions surrounding Barack Obama's birth certificate are bogus. Manning says that Bill O'Reilly doesn't have the documents or would have put copies up on his, Bill O'Reilly's, website and shown them on his TV program.
Well, I've seen the documents, not firsthand but as image copies on the Internet, which James David Manning is insisting be done for the public. Why is James David Manning not aware that these images are posted on the Internet? They were posted not long after the issue surfaced during the campaign.
When I saw them, I posted about it and do so again, below. I also said that it wouldn't be sufficient to put the issue to rest and suggested that it would rise to the level of the U.S. Supreme Court having to wade in. It should have been handled by the U.S. Supreme Court the moment it came up. It still has not, and the manner in which the State of Hawaii has handled it and that the White House has played along is very poor.
Now to the Birthers (those who are attempting to force this issue to a conclusion where Obama is either exonerated or removed),
Here's what I wrote back in November 1, 2008:
Barack Obama's Birth Certificate
[UPDATE: There's a new link at the end of this section.]
I think it is heading in the right direction that there is an. However, is there a legal requirement that the number be blacked out? Well regardless, this won't satisfy everyone, nor should it have to [emphasis added] on the mundane level, frankly.
There are pending suits regarding this matter, and the only right thing for Barack to do is to supply the court with a certified copy of his Birth Certificate with nothing blacked out. If he can't do that, something is really wrong and he should not be allowed to assume the office.
As for the debate about the meaning in the U.S. Constitution of "natural-born," if the mother is pregnant and a U.S. citizen and has the baby outside the U.S., what's the law? The Naturalization Act of 1795 says that to be "natural-born," one must be born in the United States. Barack Obama needs to have been born in the U.S. to be allowed to be President.
John McCain, for instance, was not born in the United States. He was born in Panama.
The Supreme Court has apparently dismissed several of the lawsuits concerning this issue on the grounds that U.S. citizens don't have legal standing to bring such a suit. However, every U.S. citizen has the legal standing to challenge whether or not someone seeking the Office of the President is a natural-born citizen. Otherwise, anyone could make the claim of being a natural-born citizen and no U.S. citizen or group of citizens could demand proof. Who has standing to enforce the U.S. Constitution if the people do not? The Supreme Court is corrupt.
This is the best thing I could find on the subject: "" Fact Check. August 21, 2008. Updated: November 1, 2008
It doesn't satisfy everyone though.
I'm satisfied in the mundane with the proviso that it needs to be verified in Hawaii by officers of the court. [U.S. Supreme Court] [emphasis added] This issue needs to be put to rest. In fact, it would make perfect sense to me if Chief Justice Roberts would go personally to do just that with the blessing of the other justices. Perhaps he could take the most "liberal" associate justice with him. Otherwise, this issue will just continue adding to the poison.
Oh, the system is so wrong. It will never work.
Change They Can Litigate
The fringe movement to keep Barack Obama from becoming president.
By David Weigel
Posted Thursday, Dec. 4, 2008, at 4:25 PM ET
Now, I want to be clear here. I am no fan of Barack Obama. I said he was tricking the people, especially the youth, right from the start. He was as vague as can be while still running with any possibility of winning. The plutocrats who own the mainstream media anointed him. He had no intention of being a peace candidate, and why the youth didn't pay attention when Obama promised to accelerate the war on the Pashtuns of Afghanistan and Pakistan by conflating them with the Taliban and conflating the Taliban with al Qaeda says a great deal about the lack of depth and serious thinking and concern on the part of the youth of today. They have been mesmerized and twisted by violent video games such that their ranks are over in the Middle East and elsewhere enjoying the murder of innocents. Other of their ranks sit right here in the U.S. playing life and death over real people via video-game-controlled predator drones firing indiscriminate Hellfire missiles that blow babies to pieces (baby killers) along with the maybe suspected (not proven guilty) freedom fighters, as they would be called in the U.S. were the tables turned and Americans fighting against an imperial-, military-superpower invader from Afghanistan.
Let me also clarify that I do not vote, am not registered, and do not campaign for anyone for any secular office. The only thing I do is work to bring forth as much truth as I can. I don't hold with the secular. I state quite clearly that everyone has, and states, partial-truths. There are those within secular government who care more about truth than do others. Unfortunately even for those who care the most within that system, they are all compromised. Just being on this plane of existence compromises one who isn't God proper and able to avoid all temptations.
I have sympathy for every human being no matter how degenerated. I truly believe that everyone in a degenerated state, and everyone is to some degree or another in a degenerated state until perfected (regenerated) by God, is degenerated on account of abuse and carelessness by one and all whether witting or unwitting.
There are many books on this site, meaning the contents of this site could fill many volumes. It is pointless for me to try to impart everything in one post. However, I can do it provided readers and visitors will take the time and trouble (should be no trouble but rather a pleasure to seek truth) to delve in to scour the site for answers to whatever questions arise. The summation is the New Commandment that may be understood only within its own full context. It is not a common understanding.
Lastly, how could Barack Obama manage to get his birth notices printed in the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin upon his birth 48 years ago? It appears that he was born in Hawaii and that his mother was a natural-born American citizen. I don't understand people attacking him on this front. There are enough real problems not to have to make something up or not to have checked into it enough before speaking as if it's a done deal that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. The burden of proof is really on those who say he was not born in the U.S. They have to show how the birth notices in the papers at the time could have been faked and why. Was it a conspiracy of the plutocrats started before Obama was born to have him become the president of the United States? Why wouldn't those most powerful people simply have had Obama born in the U.S. for real? I'm not against conspiracy theories, but this one is stupid. There just isn't enough to back it up.
Why is Lou Dobbs pushing it? Ordinarily, he's appeared more sensible than this (not sensible enough, but at least more sensible than this).
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)