Why is this an issue again?
Here’s the encore post of the original 2006 post quoting Jefferson on the topic of religious freedom, and what it means.
Can we lay off Obama now? It’s no slam on America that he knows U.S. history better than most of us. It’s encouraging.
34 Comments | 
America's founding, Barack Obama, Bill of Rights, Civil Rights, First Amendment, History, Religion, Religious Freedom, Thomas Jefferson | Tagged: Barack Obama, Bill of Rights, Christian nation, First Amendment, History, Religion, Religious Freedom, Thomas Jefferson | 
Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
With this blog’s occasional focus on flag etiquette and my concern for faux patriotism, I’ve been getting barbs all day on a story out of Clark County, Nevada (home of Las Vegas).
It’s a threefer of hatred, slamming President Obama, teachers, and public schools, all at once. Plus it is rather disrespectful of the U.S. flag.
The Clark County School District calls the story “bogus!!” with the exclamation points clear. Spokesmen for the district complain they’ve been fielding calls all day, none with details. Their check of the district’s schools turns up nothing.
The claim is that an elementary school student wants to drop out of school after being “forced” to say the Pledge of Allegiance to a picture of President Barack Obama backed by several U.S. flags.
Bloggers fume. “The gall!”
Press spokesmen for the district say they encourage parents to call any principal of any school in the district with any complaint. A survey of principals finds none who knew of such a complaint.
None of the bloggers bothered to check the facts, it appears. The story so far checks out to be a hoax. No one can name the school, no one can name the kid, no one can corroborate the story.
U.S.. Nevada and Clark County flags fly at Moapa Valley High School in the Clark County School District, Nevada. Wikipedia image
Students in Clark County schools say the Pledge of Allegiance every morning as a usual practice. School officials were unsure whether this is done by state law, district ordinance, or tradition. Through much of the 20th century, it was common for schools to have a picture of the sitting president in every classroom. That tradition fell to budget cuts years ago.
What motivates people to invent such stories? What motivates bloggers to spread stories without bothering to make the simplest check to see whether the story is accurate? One of the things that screams “Hoax!” in this story is the complete inaction of the student and parent. Were they worked up about it, why didn’t they bother to complain?
Here’s the wall of shame, bloggers who got suckered and repeated the story without bothering to check it out (isn’t it odd that they all seem to know exactly what photo of Obama was used, and they show it on their blogs, but they don’t know where it was used? Isn’t it odd that they use a color photo while saying it was projected on an overhead projector, which would turn that photo into gray and white mush?):
I’ll wager that’s just the tip of a very mean-spirited iceberg of calumny.
Update, January 30 – More hate-filled spreading of the story:
Still the gullible fall, on February 1:
Nearly responsible skepticism:
I spoke again with David Roddy at the Clark County School District offices. He confirmed that as of late this afternoon (January 30) no one had stepped forward to identify the school where the event is alleged to have occurred, nor the name of anyone involved, nor any other fact that could be corroborated to vouch for the accuracy of the story.
See “7 Signs of Bogus History.” Notice any of these characteristics in this story’s allegations?
Update, September 5, 2009: No evidence of this event has ever been produced outside of the original two anonymous blog posts. My investigation found no such incident in any school in or around Las Vegas, nor anywhere else. Pure hoax.
Don’t let others be misled; spread the word:
34 Comments | Barack Obama, Flag ceremony, Flag etiquette, Hoaxes, Pledge to the flag, President Obama, Teachers, Teaching, Urban Legend, War on Education | Tagged: Barack Obama, Bloggers, Flag etiquette, Hoaxes, Las Vegas, Pledge of Allegiance, Teachers, urban legends, US Flag | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
. . . from the Washington Post site. Not sure yet if there were any departures from the text.
Leave a Comment » | Barack Obama, DBQ sources, Famous quotes, Quotes | Tagged: Barack Obama, Famous quotes, famous speeches, Inaugural Address | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Some of the Birth Certificate Obsessed (BCOs) are seeing things (that’s Obama’s birth certificate that they are obsessed with). They claim to see a vision that is attributed to George Washington in a hoax. It’s voodoo history, stuff that never was.
Hallucinations would be bad enough, but what do you have to smoke to see hallucinations other people were supposed to have had, but didn’t?
Looking at the docket of the Supreme Court, I don’t see that any of the anti-Obama suits got an order for certiorari. Will the dismissal of the wingnut lawsuits make the wingnuts go away?
4 Comments | Barack Obama, Citizenship, George Washington, History, Hoaxes, Jurisprudence, Law, Natural Born, Politics, President Obama, Presidential Eligibility, Rampant stupidity, Voodoo history | Tagged: Barack Obama, Citizenship, George Washington, History, Hoaxes, Jurisprudence, Law, Natural Born, Politics, Presidential Eligibility, Vision, Voodoo history | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
The United States Armed Forces Color Guard presents the American flag and the different U.S. military service flags at the opening ceremony for the 55th Presidential Inauguration, "A Celebration of Freedom," near the Ellipse in Washington, D.C., Jan. 19, 2005. More than 5,000 service members will take part in the 55th Presidential Inauguration. Defense Dept. photo by U.S. Air Force Tech. Sgt. Tracy DeMarco
The law asks us to do it, but we only get the chance every four years.
Fly your flag today for the inauguration of the president, Barack Obama.
The flag flying today bears 50 stars, the 50th in honor of Obama’s birth state, Hawaii.
Today is one of those days we get to see the flag displayed with scrupulous attention paid to the proper methods of display. If you see a flag attached to an automobile, for example, it will probably be on a special attachment on the right front fender of the vehicle, as the Flag Code suggests. The free-for-all flag display methods of small town Fourth of July parades will be reined in. At least, we hope so.
Fly your flag today — you’ll be glad you did.
Resources:
1 Comment | Barack Obama, Flag ceremony, Flag etiquette, Fly your flag today, History, President Obama, Presidents | Tagged: Barack Obama, Flag etiquette, Fly your flag today, History, Inauguration | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
This will make P. Z. Myers shake his head — apologies, P. Z. — but those of us in the “mainstream,” or “liberal leaning” sect of the Disciples of Christ are quite happy that our general minister, Sharon Watkins, will preach the sermon at the National Prayer Service on Wednesday.
We’re such a politically polyglot group that we can be described as mainstream, liberal, or conservative with some accuracy. Three presidents have Disciples roots — James Garfield, who was a Disciples minister before becoming president of a Disciples college in Ohio; Lyndon Johnson, who was a life-long Disciple, and who built a chapel on his ranch; and Ronald Reagan, whose mother was a devout Disciple, and who attended one of several Disciples affiliated colleges, Eureka College in Eureka, Illinois.
Watkins is the first woman to preach at this service in the history of the nation.
The National Prayer Service is one of those events that underscores the separation of church and state. At the first Washington inaugural, it was held the same day as the ceremony, but after the official ceremony. The attendees concluded the swearing in and other official ceremonies, then adjourned to a church a few blocks away for a sermon, those who wished to.
This year the sermon will be held in the National Cathedral, a majestic building which is actually an Episcopalian venue (where Woodrow Wilson and Helen Keller are interred), miles from the federal area at the National Mall, and a day after the inauguration.
But watch: There will be a band of religious radicals, fanatics, who will claim that the mere existence of this service somehow nullifies the First Amendment, and suggests that the government has a religious bias. Do not believe them. You know the history, and you know better. Our government has great tolerance for religious displays, but no tolerance for religious bias, in our government.
I’ve wondered sometimes what would happen were the three Disciples presidents to meet. If Reagan and Johnson ever met, I have not found the record of it. I wonder whether Johnson, Reagan and Garfield could have found between them some subject of common interest for talk of substance. It’s difficult to imagine Reagan and Johnson finding much common ground, one who revered FDR and the New Deal, and the other who campaigned against the New Deal almost from the day FDR died. And yet they shared concepts of faith, and they may have found there common ground on which to stand, and talk.
I marvel at a sect that embraces, and celebrates, such diversity. We think it makes for healthier theology, healthier congregations, and a healthier nation.
We can hope.
Below is the press release from Disciples News Service, with details about the service and how to view it or listen to it. There is also a plea for clips from local papers — maybe some of you could do a good turn and clip any article that appears in your local paper, with the date and page, and mail it in. It’s for the archives, you know — history.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
National Prayer Service Updates
January 17, 2009Dear Disciples,Earlier this week it was announced that Rev. Dr. Sharon Watkins will preach the sermon at the National Prayer Service in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday, Jan. 21. Her sermon will conclude Presidential Inauguration activities for our country’s forty-fourth President, Barack Obama. Dr. Watkins appreciates the outpouring of support, prayers and well wishes she has received from Disciples and ecumenical colleagues everywhere since the announcement.“I am so grateful that Disciples have a role in this historic moment,” said Watkins. “I am depending on your prayers for God to use me to deliver an uplifting and appropriately challenging message to our new President, vice-President and all those who will attend the service.”Watkins will be joined by a diverse group of religious leaders at the prayer service, which will take place at the National Cathedral, starting at 10 a.m. EST.A press release listing those who will participate in the service was released yesterday afternoon and includes another Disciples pastor, Dr. Cynthia Hale, Senior Pastor of Ray of Hope Christian Church in Decatur, Ga. Hale will be among those reading scripture. To read the press release that announces participants at the service, please go to:
www.pic2009.org/pressroom/entry/presidential_inaugural_committee_
announces_participants_of_national_prayer_/
Many of you have asked about opportunities to view the program. Our office has just learned that the program will be webcast in two ways. One is through the National Cathedral website at: www.nationalcathedral.org. The other option is to go to the Presidential Inaugural Committee website at www.pic2009.org.We’ve also had a number of phone calls regarding the availability of tickets for the prayer service. Unfortunately, we have not been able to secure tickets for the service.Please note that DisciplesWorld Publisher and Editor Verity A. Jones will provide special coverage of many Inauguration activities, including the prayer service. Jones will blog from Jan. 18 to Jan. 21 at: disciplesworld.wordpress.com. She also will post news stories to the Disciples World home page and send short updates from the DisciplesWorld “twitter” account. To read more about ways DisciplesWorld will keep you informed, go to: www.disciplesworld.com/dynamic.html?wspID=501
Finally, Associate General Minister and Vice-President Todd Adams asks that Disciples send in hard copies of newspaper articles that have been covered in your community about Dr. Watkins and the prayer service, so that we might keep them in our official archives. Articles can be sent to: Dr. Todd Adams, Office of General Minister and President, P.O. Box 1986; Indianapolis, Ind. 46206-1986.To read the Jan. 11 press release from the Presidential Inaugural Committee that announced Dr. Watkins selection for the prayer service and to learn updates about events taking place during the Inauguration, please visit www.disciples.org.Please keep Sharon and the many other Disciples who will be attending the Inauguration, National Prayer Service and other events in your prayers.
Blessings,
Wanda Bryant Wills
Executive Director of Communication Ministries
Tip of the old scrub brush to Bill Longman, “Bill in the Ozarks,” and the DoCDisc Listserv.
Other resources:
4 Comments | Barack Obama, History, Lyndon B. Johnson, President Obama, Presidents, Religion, Separation of church and state | Tagged: Barack Obama, Charles Garfield, History, Inauguration, Lyndon Johnson, Presidents, Religion, Ronald Reagan, Separation of church and state, Sharon Watkins | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
It’s one of those arcane and many argue archaic things the “founders” left us, but the electoral college’s process of electing the president of the U.S. rumbled to completion yesterday when Congress opened the ballots from the electors, and then certified that Barack Obama will be the next president of the U.S.
Preparations for the inauguration continue unabated.
But for those still clinging to their tinfoil hats, even as the deadline rapidly approaches to go to High Definition Television, January 9 and January 16 offer chances for the Supreme Court to overturn the election, by ruling Obama’s birth was invalid. Some, confusing the Supreme Court with Congress, urge a landslide of letters to the Court itself (“that’ll show ’em!”).
I’ve managed to get myself banned at that last website. I asked the author to make a case, to provide the evidence and arguments against Obama’s eligibility. Such an appearance of gravity and Newtonian physics scares the bejeebers out of these groups.
One of the most intrigueing questions now: What will the Bergites and Dononfrions do after inauguration? Are there enough of them that Pfizer is working on a treatment, or cure?
15 Comments | Barack Obama, Elections, Law, Paranoia, Politics, President Obama, Presidents, Rampant stupidity, U.S. Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court | Tagged: Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizenship, Election 2008, Natural Born Citizen, Supreme Court, Tinfoil Hats | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Go look at Barry Weber’s post at First Morning.
Spend at least a full minute looking at that photograph.
Wow!
Look at every single face. Each face is the verse of an epic poem. Each expression is a note in a symphony. Here are a hundred eyes full of excitement and joy, and..(though these kids don’t know it yet their parents and grandparents do)..hope. This is the kind of Hope that straightens paths, brightens colors, and builds bridges to possibilities. It is the kind of Hope that I feel so grateful to have been able to witness, and even feel in my own heart.
But, just look at these kids! Whatever I might feel is peanuts compared to the smiles, laughter, and amazement of these young ones.
By many accountings, these are dark days for the United States. Those faces show the light of the future — they may be the light of the future.
Nice catch, Mr. Weber.
1 Comment | Barack Obama, Capturing history, Citizenship, Heroes, History, Images, Leadership, Obama 2008, President Obama, Presidents | Tagged: Barack Obama, Citizenship, Education, Heroes, History, hope | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Generally the orders coming out of Friday conferences at the Supreme Court issue the following Monday. So, for Obama critics and dedicated Obama haters, there is still some hope that the Supreme Court might answer part of their wildest dreams. But it doesn’t look good for them.
[Saturday night update: Donofrio’s blog acknowledges the orders don’t include his case. He’s holding out for Monday. Technically, he’s right — the orders usually would issue Monday. But if Friday’s orders issued from Friday’s conference, it doesn’t speak well of the chances that an age discrimination case took precedence over a case challenging the election still in process. We won’t know for sure, until Monday.]
[Monday morning update, December 8: It’s official. Donofrio’s case was not accepted for a hearing. As the Washington Post noted, there are other pending cases, but nothing likely to be acted on soon. I’ve noted in other posts, I think it unlikely any of the cases has a signficant chance of success.]
No order issued from the Supreme Court to further discuss the appeal of the dismissal of a New Jersey lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president. Instead, the Court granted certiorari to an accused terrorist to challenge President George W. Bush’s authority (which will fall to President Barack Obama, really), and the Court granted cert and an okay for an amicus brief on a labor case (age discrimination).
(writ of certiorari: [Law Latin “to be more fully informed”] An extraordinary writ issued by an appellate court, at its discretion, directing a lower court to deliver the record in the case for review. ♦ The U.S. Supreme Court uses certiorari to review most of the cases it decides to hear.) Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th ed. (Bryan Garner, ed.)
Assuming this listing to be accurate, the shotgun arguments against Obama’s eligibility appear to be dead issues. The electoral college balloting occurs on December 15 in 50 state capitals and the District of Columbia.
Short of a mass exodus of Obama electors in states where law does not bind them to vote as they pledged to vote, Obama’s selection by the electoral college appears to be fait accompli.
The Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog noted the lack of order in the case, late yesterday.
For thousands of people addicted to the tubes of the internet, this will pose interesting problems as to what they can whine about for the next several weeks.
Previous comments on the Bathtub:
Over the front door of the U.S. Supreme Court: “Equal Justice Under Law.” Wikipedia image by UpStateNYer
11 Comments | Barack Obama, Jurisprudence, Justice, Law, U.S. Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court | Tagged: Barack Obama, Berg, Birth Certificate, Donofrio, Justice, Law, Politics, Rampant Insanity, Supreme Court | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
In a conference today [December 5, 2008] the Supreme Court will reconsider together whether to take on a suit challenging the eligibility of Barack Obama to be president of the United States under a sometimes-arcane section of Article II of the Constitution.
Is Barack Obama a “natural born” citizen of the U.S.?
In the building where “Equal Justice Under Law” is engraved high over the front door, poker-player Leo Donofrio’s challenge will be examined to see whether at least four of the nine justices of the Court think he has enough of a case to actually merit a hearing. Justice David Souter rejected Donofrio’s case earlier, so this is a hail-Mary play on the part of Obama’s opponents.
Equal Justice Under Law, the West Pediment of the U.S. Supreme court. AAPF image
The Court takes seriously the principle engraved over the door, however. This is the same Court that ruled earlier this year an accused terrorist and all-around bad guy held at Guantanamo Bay has the right to a writ of habeas corpus over the objections of the Most Power Man in the World, U.S. President George W. Bush. The humble, gritty, or even unsavory history of litigants does not limit their rights under the law.
Leo Donofrio in his usual office. Leo Donofrio image
So the question is, what sort of case does Donofrio have against Obama’s eligibility?
Would Justice Clarence Thomas have agreed to bring this case to the conference if it doesn’t have a chance to succeed?
I’ve not lunched with Thomas in more than two decades, so I can’t speak with any inside knowledge. Historically, the Court, and indeed all the federal courts, have agreed to examine cases like this often simply to provide an authoritative close to the issue. In this case, the outright hysteria of the anti-Obama partisans suggests the issue should be put to bed if possible.
Under usual Court procedures, we won’t learn the results of the conference until Monday. I would not be surprised if the results are announced today, just to promote the settling of the issue.
Does Donofrio have a case?
I don’t see a case. It’s clear that Obama is a U.S. citizen now. Donofrio’s argument is rather strained, and sexist. He claims that Obama’s father having been a British subject in 1961 (Kenya was not yet independent), Obama had dual citizenship at birth — and, further, Donofrio alleges, this dual citizenship trumps both Obama’s birth on U.S. soil (which should be dispositive) AND Obama’s mother’s U.S. citizenship, conferring a special status that doesn’t meet the intentions of the framers of the Constitution.
Donofrio’s claim is odd in that it would grant a lesser-status to children of legal immigrants than is allowed by law to children of illegal immigrants, or temporary visitors. It also is bizarre, to me, in the way it dismisses Obama’s mother’s existence as a factor in Obama’s citizenship status — and while equal rights for women were not wholly obtained in 1961, no one has successfully argued that the citizenship of the father trumps that of the mother in citizenship cases.
Donofrio is arguing that Obama’s dual citizenship at birth disqualifies him from holding the presidency, technically, in a very narrow reading — though Obama would have absolutely every other right of a natural born citizen.
A couple of observations:
First, this is not an easy issue to litigate. Standing is the easiest way for a federal court to avoid a decision — what harm can a citizen claim from letting Obama be president? It’s difficult to find an injury even were Donofrio’s claims valid. No blood, no foul. No injury, no standing to sue. It is upon this basis that most of the cases against Obama’s eligibility have been tossed out, as Donofrio’s has been tossed, twice already.
Second, it is unclear what entity enforces the eligibility clause of the Constitution, or indeed, whether any entity can. For most of the summer Obama’s critics were pressuring the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to do something, even though the FEC lacks a quorum of members to do anything. More to the point, there is nothing in any law that confers on the FEC the function of checking the citizenship status of any candidate. Sometime in October they finally figured out that state secretaries of state might have a role, since they set up the ballots in each state.
I admit I thought that, until I reflected on the issue of the electoral college. In U.S. presidential elections, voters do not vote directly for president and vice president. Instead, we vote to elect people who will be the electors who decide — electors of the electoral college. The history of this institution can be found elsewhere. For the sake of these suits, however, it means that the secretaries of state have no role at all in the eligibility of the candidates. They rule on the eligibility of the electors, which is an entirely different kettle of fish. Some states even list the electors on the ballot.
But in any case, it means Donofrio is suing the wrong entity, even if we can’t tell him what the correct entity is.
Third and most important, Donofrio is asking for U.S. citizenship law to be overturned in a most inconvenient time and place. Dual citizenship is a bar to very little in American life. There is an assumption that people who hold that status are fully American citizens, absent a showing of contrary facts. There are no contrary facts in evidence from Donofrio, nor from anyone else, despite promises of the revelation of conspiracies.
In short, Donofrio is arguing that there is, somewhere, somehow, some information that Barack Obama is not the shining patriot his life story reveals. Donofrio doesn’t know what that information is, or where it might be found, but he thinks maybe the State of Hawaii is complicit in a conspiracy to hide this information, which is hidden on the hand-written records of Obama’s birth in 1961. You might think Donofrio has watched “National Treasure” a few too many times, and whether it’s that movie or some other source, you’d be right — paranoid suspicions of conspiracy are not the stuff good court cases are made of.
The dozen or more cases against Obama’s eligibility all suffer from this astounding, dramatic lack of evidence. Is there an affidavit from someone who alleges that Obama’s citizenship should be called into question? If so, they’ve not been presented to any court. (Obama tormentor Corsi claims to have interviewed Obama’s Kenyan grandmother, and he alleges she said through an interpreter that Obama was born in Kenya; oddly, he didn’t bother to get an affidavit from the woman, nor from anyone else — and others who listen to the tape think she thought Corsi was asking about the birth of her son, not grandson. This is not solid evidence.)
I argued earlier there is a long chain of evidence creating rebuttable presumptions that Obama’s a natural born U.S. citizen. To contradict this chain of evidence, contestants should provide extraordinary, clear evidence of contradiction. What is offered by Donofrio is neither extraordinary, nor clear, nor necessarily contradictory to the presumptions.
This is not an issue solely for the hysterical. Lawyers and scholars have looked at the issue through the years, and intensely this year, and arrived at the conclusion that Obama is perfectly eligible for the presidency.
Will sanity ever prevail?
Resources you may want to consult:
Vodpod videos no longer available.
164 Comments | Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizenship, denialism, Elections, History, Jurisprudence, Justice, Law, Natural Born, Politics, President Obama, Presidential Eligibility, Presidents, U.S. Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court | Tagged: Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Birthers, Citizenship, Constitution, denialism, Elecctions, Eligibility, History, Natural Born, Politics, Presidential Eligibility, Supreme Court | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Oh, wait. He’s still interested in recruiting your help.
Change you can count on. Change you can believe in. Change we need.
What sort of thing did that campaign unleash? We’re still learning.
Leave a Comment » | Barack Obama, Government, History, Obama 2008, Politics, Technology | Tagged: Barack Obama, Government, History, Politics, Technology, video | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
This is just so, so, so delicious.
Look at this photo. It’s a shot of the crowd gathered in St. Louis on October 19 to see and hear Barack Obama — about 100,000 people. Study the buildings in the photo.
Supporters of Barack Obama rally in St. Louis, Missouri, on October 19, 2008
See the building with the green dome? Recognize it?
Elizabeth Kaeton wrote at Telling Secrets:
If you look in the distance there, you can see a building with a greenish-copper dome. That’s the Old St. Louis Courthouse. For years and years, slaves were auctioned on the steps of that courthouse.
The Old Courthouse used to be called the St. Louis State and Federal Courthouse.
Back in 1850, two escaped slaves named Dred and Harriett Scott had their petition for freedom overturned in a case there. Montgomery Blair took the case to the US Supreme Court on Scott’s behalf and had Chief Justice Roger Taney throw it out because, as he wrote, the Scotts were ‘beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.’
Hard to imagine, isn’t it?
What is rather uplifting is that, 158 years later, the man who will most likely be the first black US President was able to stand outside this very same courthouse and gather that crowd. Today, America looked back on one of the darkest moments in its history, and resoundingly told Judge Taney to go to hell.
That case is the first one I thought of when Sarah Palin got caught by Katie Couric unable to explain Supreme Court decisions with which she might have disagreed. In re Dred Scott is right at the top of my list, and generally on the tip of my tongue. We fought a great and bloody war to overturn that decision, amended the Constitution, bore another 100 years of atrocities, then passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, all to blot out the dreadful decision those conservative, activist judges wrought on the nation.
Kaeton posted the photo and comments last Saturday, before Freedom Tuesday when we voted as nation to clean up even more of the mess of the Dred Scott case.
History teachers: I’ll wager that’s a photo you can get cheap, to blow up to poster size for your classrooms. You ought to do it. Students should not only understand history, they ought also be able to take delight in watching it unfold, especially when justice comes out of the unfolding.
Found the photo and post, with a tip of the old scrub brush to Blue Oregon, while looking at the astounding number of literary and history allusions in Obama’s unique victory speech, in which he talked about Americans trying to “bend the arc of history.” I knew I’d heard that line before. It’s from Martin Luther King, who saidm “The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.” (Where did he say that? When?)
Those allusions, and the speech, may be a topic for another post.
Resources:
11 Comments | 1861-1865, Barack Obama, Civil Rights, Civil War, DBQ sources, Elections, Freedom - Political, History, History images, Human Rights, Obama 2008 | Tagged: Barack Obama, Civil Rights, Civil War, DBQ sources, Dred Scott, Elections, freedom, History, Human Rights, Slavery, St. Louis | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Who said this?
Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there’s not a liberal America and a conservative America — there’s the United States of America. There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.
In the end, that’s what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope? John Kerry calls on us to hope. John Edwards calls on us to hope. I’m not talking about blind optimism here — the almost willful ignorance that thinks unemployment will go away if we just don’t talk about it, or the health care crisis will solve itself if we just ignore it. No, I’m talking about something more substantial. It’s the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs; the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores; the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta; the hope of a mill worker’s son who dares to defy the odds; the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too. The audacity of hope!
In the end, that is God’s greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation; the belief in things not seen; the belief that there are better days ahead.
I could vote for a guy who said that.
3 Comments | Barack Obama, Elections, History, Politics | Tagged: Barack Obama, Campaign 2008, Elections, History, hope, Politics, voting | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
The Economist, that august, conservative British publication about economics, endorsed Barack Obama for president. (I added highlights, below):
IT IS impossible to forecast how important any presidency will be. Back in 2000 America stood tall as the undisputed superpower, at peace with a generally admiring world. The main argument was over what to do with the federal government’s huge budget surplus. Nobody foresaw the seismic events of the next eight years. When Americans go to the polls next week the mood will be very different. The United States is unhappy, divided and foundering both at home and abroad. Its self-belief and values are under attack.
For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.
We face tough issues, and tough times. The world’s economy is in a fix, America is involved in two protracted wars, our reputation internationally is at a low ebb for the past 125 years, and too many of America’s institutions just are not working.
Serious issues won’t stop the hoaxsters from trying to hoax Americans about Barack Obama right up to election day, and probably beyond.
For example, there’s a guy named Mitchell Langbert, who insists that there remains an issue about Barack Obama’s birth certificate. He goes so far as to claim that Obama might be committing fraud merely by running for office, and then he stretches a biased assessment of U.S. election law to say Obama’s running is a violation of voters’ rights. The birth certificate hoaxers roll on despite their nuisance lawsuits being dismissed solidly in at least two jurisdictions, and despite the complete lack of any cogent or coherent case that there is a problem with Obama’s citizenship.
Consider this: Obama’s birth was recorded by the State of Hawaii, in Hawaii, in 1961. As many newspapers did at the time, the Honolulu Advertiser listed births in the state, and it listed Barack Obama’s birth there. This issue would have been checked again on at least three occasions. First, when he applied for his own passport, the U.S. State Department would have required a showing of a birth certificate. Second, when he applied for a law license, he had to make such a showing to the National Conference of Bar Examiners (as we all did); I haven’t checked, but Illinois may have required a separate confirmation. And third, when he was elected to the U.S. Senate, the FBI would have checked the issue in their routine checkings of senators for top secret clearances (Obama is a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, where secret information is often passed to senators).
Finally, it is the duty of the state secretary of state (SOS) to verify that candidates are eligible for listing on the ballots. I suspect most SOS offices take a certification from the candidate without much checking; however, what this means is that the SOS is the person who would have authority to challenge for citizenship. Knowing that they have no case, none of the birth certificate hoaxers, not Langbert or Texas Darlin’, nor anyone else, has bothered to ask their SOS to check things out.
Other hoaxers are worse, creating whole cloth fictions, just for the sake of malice. (See here, too, for a solid example of just plain malice in hoaxing.)
Remember the 7 Signs of Bogus History? (You’ll find a link just under the masthead here.) The first is that the work is conducted by press release, and not in the archives, or in serious searches for the facts. Each of these anti-Obama hoaxes originates either with a press release or a blog post. Not one has withstood scrutiny of any court, nor of any editor at any serious mass media outlet who seriously worries about libel, slander, or otherwise getting the facts straight. That’s a serious indictment.
Gone are the days when one needed a printing press at least to make one’s views known broadly. Web tools, like the blogging software and servers used by this blog, allow any fool (as I may well be) to throw his hat, brain too often included, into the public arena as a pundit.
The Economist conclude in their endorsement editorial:
He has earned it
So Mr Obama in that respect is a gamble. But the same goes for Mr McCain on at least as many counts, not least the possibility of President Palin. And this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.
* * * * * * * *
Update, November 2, 2008: Langbert appears to be censoring comments at his blog, as well – none of my responses other than my first post have been allowed to get through his personal filtering. This is a pattern we’ve seen in many of the hoax blogs that complain about Obama, and the McCain sympathizer blogs that pose as disgruntled Democrat blogs. Any post that offers serious criticism is dangerous to their posing as informed seekers of the truth — so posts that contain real information rebutting their claims are not allowed through their “moderation,” or are edited to say inane things.
For Obama voters, this confirms their fears that a McCain administration would probably continue the Bush administration’s suppression of views and filtering of helpful criticism. Also, it means bloggers like Langbert are bullies who can’t take the hurly-burly of serious discussion.
2 Comments | Barack Obama, Bogus history, Campaigns, History, Jurisprudence, Law, Obama 2008, Politics, Voodoo history | Tagged: Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Bogus history, Campaign 2008, Hoaxes, Voodoo history | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
On July 27, 2004, candidate for the U.S. Senate from Illinois, Barack Obama, delivered the keynote address to the National Democratic Convention.
It was a turning point speech. Obama went on to win the Illinois senate race. His candidate for president, John Kerry, lost. But the power of his speech and its ready reception earned Obama consideration as a candidate for the presidency in 2008.
As the 2008 campaign winds down to election day next Tuesday, it’s interesting to revisit Obama’s debut on a national stage. What was it that made his speech so well received? What was it about the biographical portions that made Obama look like a potential president?
PBS’s Online Newshour described the speech:
Illinois Senate candidate Barack Obama introduced himself to Democrats and a national television audience Tuesday, giving the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. Obama told the story of his working class family and urged the nation to elect Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, saying he would ensure more educational and economic opportunities for all.
Here is the full text (borrowed from PBS), so you can see for yourself.
A YouTube capture of the CSPAN broadcast:
BARACK OBAMA: On behalf of the great state of Illinois, crossroads of a nation, land of Lincoln, let me express my deep gratitude for the privilege of addressing this convention. Tonight is a particular honor for me because, let’s face it, my presence on this stage is pretty unlikely. My father was a foreign student, born and raised in a small village in Kenya. He grew up herding goats, went to school in a tin-roof shack. His father, my grandfather, was a cook, a domestic servant.
But my grandfather had larger dreams for his son. Through hard work and perseverance my father got a scholarship to study in a magical place; America which stood as a beacon of freedom and opportunity to so many who had come before. While studying here, my father met my mother. She was born in a town on the other side of the world, in Kansas. Her father worked on oil rigs and farms through most of the Depression. The day after Pearl Harbor he signed up for duty, joined Patton’s army and marched across Europe. Back home, my grandmother raised their baby and went to work on a bomber assembly line. After the war, they studied on the G.I. Bill, bought a house through FHA, and moved west in search of opportunity.
And they, too, had big dreams for their daughter, a common dream, born of two continents. My parents shared not only an improbable love; they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation. They would give me an African name, Barack, or “blessed,” believing that in a tolerant America your name is no barrier to success. They imagined me going to the best schools in the land, even though they weren’t rich, because in a generous America you don’t have to be rich to achieve your potential. They are both passed away now. Yet, I know that, on this night, they look down on me with pride.
I stand here today, grateful for the diversity of my heritage, aware that my parents’ dreams live on in my precious daughters. I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story, that I owe a debt to all of those who came before me, and that, in no other country on earth, is my story even possible. Tonight, we gather to affirm the greatness of our nation, not because of the height of our skyscrapers, or the power of our military, or the size of our economy. Our pride is based on a very simple premise, summed up in a declaration made over two hundred years ago, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
That is the true genius of America, a faith in the simple dreams of its people, the insistence on small miracles. That we can tuck in our children at night and know they are fed and clothed and safe from harm. That we can say what we think, write what we think, without hearing a sudden knock on the door. That we can have an idea and start our own business without paying a bribe or hiring somebody’s son. That we can participate in the political process without fear of retribution, and that our votes will be counted — or at least, most of the time.
This year, in this election, we are called to reaffirm our values and commitments, to hold them against a hard reality and see how we are measuring up, to the legacy of our forbearers, and the promise of future generations. And fellow Americans — Democrats, Republicans, Independents — I say to you tonight: we have more work to do. More to do for the workers I met in Galesburg, Illinois, who are losing their union jobs at the Maytag plant that’s moving to Mexico, and now are having to compete with their own children for jobs that pay seven bucks an hour. More to do for the father I met who was losing his job and choking back tears, wondering how he would pay $4,500 a month for the drugs his son needs without the health benefits he counted on. More to do for the young woman in East St. Louis, and thousands more like her, who has the grades, has the drive, has the will, but doesn’t have the money to go to college.
Don’t get me wrong. The people I meet in small towns and big cities, in diners and office parks, they don’t expect government to solve all their problems. They know they have to work hard to get ahead and they want to. Go into the collar counties around Chicago, and people will tell you they don’t want their tax money wasted by a welfare agency or the Pentagon. Go into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can’t teach kids to learn. They know that parents have to parent, that children can’t achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. No, people don’t expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense, deep in their bones, that with just a change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better. And they want that choice.
In this election, we offer that choice. Our party has chosen a man to lead us who embodies the best this country has to offer. That man is John Kerry. John Kerry understands the ideals of community, faith, and sacrifice, because they’ve defined his life. From his heroic service in Vietnam to his years as prosecutor and lieutenant governor, through two decades in the United States Senate, he has devoted himself to this country. Again and again, we’ve seen him make tough choices when easier ones were available. His values and his record affirm what is best in us.
John Kerry believes in an America where hard work is rewarded. So instead of offering tax breaks to companies shipping jobs overseas, he’ll offer them to companies creating jobs here at home. John Kerry believes in an America where all Americans can afford the same health coverage our politicians in Washington have for themselves. John Kerry believes in energy independence, so we aren’t held hostage to the profits of oil companies or the sabotage of foreign oil fields. John Kerry believes in the constitutional freedoms that have made our country the envy of the world, and he will never sacrifice our basic liberties nor use faith as a wedge to divide us. And John Kerry believes that in a dangerous world, war must be an option, but it should never be the first option.
A while back, I met a young man named Shamus at the VFW Hall in East Moline, Illinois. He was a good-looking kid, 6’2” or 6’3”, clear eyed, with an easy smile. He told me he’d joined the Marines and was heading to Iraq the following week. As I listened to him explain why he’d enlisted, his absolute faith in our country and its leaders, his devotion to duty and service, I thought this young man was all any of us might hope for in a child. But then I asked myself: Are we serving Shamus as well as he was serving us? I thought of more than 900 service men and women, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, friends and neighbors, who will not be returning to their hometowns. I thought of families I had met who were struggling to get by without a loved one’s full income, or whose loved ones had returned with a limb missing or with nerves shattered, but who still lacked long-term health benefits because they were reservists. When we send our young men and women into harm’s way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they’re going, to care for their families while they’re gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.
Now let me be clear. We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued and they must be defeated. John Kerry knows this. And just as Lieutenant Kerry did not hesitate to risk his life to protect the men who served with him in Vietnam, President Kerry will not hesitate one moment to use our military might to keep America safe and secure. John Kerry believes in America. And he knows it’s not enough for just some of us to prosper. For alongside our famous individualism, there’s another ingredient in the American saga.
A belief that we are connected as one people. If there’s a child on the south side of Chicago who can’t read, that matters to me, even if it’s not my child. If there’s a senior citizen somewhere who can’t pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it’s not my grandmother. If there’s an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It’s that fundamental belief — I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sisters’ keeper — that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. “E pluribus unum.” Out of many, one.
Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there’s not a liberal America and a conservative America — there’s the United States of America. There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.
In the end, that’s what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope? John Kerry calls on us to hope. John Edwards calls on us to hope. I’m not talking about blind optimism here — the almost willful ignorance that thinks unemployment will go away if we just don’t talk about it, or the health care crisis will solve itself if we just ignore it. No, I’m talking about something more substantial. It’s the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs; the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores; the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta; the hope of a mill worker’s son who dares to defy the odds; the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too. The audacity of hope!
In the end, that is God’s greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation; the belief in things not seen; the belief that there are better days ahead. I believe we can give our middle class relief and provide working families with a road to opportunity. I believe we can provide jobs to the jobless, homes to the homeless, and reclaim young people in cities across America from violence and despair. I believe that as we stand on the crossroads of history, we can make the right choices, and meet the challenges that face us. America!
Tonight, if you feel the same energy I do, the same urgency I do, the same passion I do, the same hopefulness I do — if we do what we must do, then I have no doubt that all across the country, from Florida to Oregon, from Washington to Maine, the people will rise up in November, and John Kerry will be sworn in as president, and John Edwards will be sworn in as vice president, and this country will reclaim its promise, and out of this long political darkness a brighter day will come. Thank you and God bless you.
11 Comments | Barack Obama, Campaigns, Famous quotes, History, History video sources, Obama 2008, Politics, Presidents, Video and film | Tagged: Barack Obama, Campaigns, Democratic National Convention, Famous quotes, famous speeches, History, Obama 2008, Politics, Presidency | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Ed Darrell on Texas's Colorado River
Come on in, the water's fine. Come often: Cleanliness is next to godliness.
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 