Skip to comments.This Year’s Greatest Television Moment: a most unexpected denunciation of ObamaCare
Posted on 08/15/2009 9:49:41 AM PDT by HorowitzianConservative
Credit must be given where its due. Earlier this week MSNBCs Ed Schultz treated his viewers to two of the finest minutes of television that anyone, anywhere, has seen in years. Not, mind you, because of anything Schultz said, but because of what one of his guests said to him. It was one of those deeply satisfying moments when we got to see a knee-jerk Obama lapdog like Schultz spend several minutes spewing his trademark leftist claptrap, only to be dramatically ambushed by a guest who Schultz thought was going to do nothing more than dutifully rubber-stamp everything he had just said.
The segment began with Schultz deriding Christian political operatives for having failed, thus far, to speak out in favor of the Democrat/Obama plan for government-run healthcare. He looked earnestly at the camera and demanded that the four most influential Christian leaders in this country he named, specifically, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, Franklin Graham, and James Dobson step up and speak up. These Christian leaders, said Schultz, need to get engaged and support a Christian president on the public option of providing healthcare for all Americans. Isnt it the Christian thing to do? Their silence [so far] is deafening.
Schultz then proceeded to explain that these ministers failure to publicly endorse socialized medicine constituted a betrayal of Christs message:
(Excerpt) Read more at newsrealblog.com ...
These Christian leaders, said Schultz, need to get engaged and support a Christian president on the public option of providing healthcare for all Americans.”
What Christian President?
Yeah, all I really need is a lecture on what “true Christians” are from a guy whose first wife found him in bed what what became his second. /North Dakota rant
Schmulz then went on to decry the total failure of the Black Pastorhood, across America, for failure re the 80% "Bastardy Rate" among black citizens...../sarc
He asks what would Jesus do about sick people.
Interesting, these men of “God” didn’t even touch on the fact that Jesus would heal them voluntarily!
He wouldn’t look into the crowd and demand that they rabble rouse the “government” to pay the medicine man.
This MSNBC report sickens me. It is a like a Saducee or Pharisee in Christ's time. Sophistry to try and bend public opinion.
In that segment, the only one speaking with clarity of any type, was the blkack Bishop.
The idea that we cannot get to clarity until we have civility is another strawman. Tell that to our founders, who, though they tried to be civil, ultimatley had to resort to war in order to keep the King from foisting his tyranny on the people. That is a historical note and fact that should not be lost on the call for civility surrounding today's issue
There are some issues, some particularly fundemental issues, when someone is calling for fundamentally changing them or destroying them, that you cannot be civil about. The agent of change MUST hear, see, and feel your passion about opposing him.
So it is with this issue.
You Idiot Liberals can’t have both sides... HOW DARE YOU try to preach GOSPEL, when YOU and your ILK, under the guise of “SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE” and Almost completely removed even the MENTION of GOD anywhere in PUBLIC.
MORALITY and ethics come from Religion... you illiterate SCUM only show yourselves as the HYPOCRITS that you ARE..
If you want the Government to take care of you, BIG ED, Go for it.. but LEAVE ME THE **** ALONE!!!
Jesus never preached that Roman guards should take money from some people to buy health care for others.
He preached **personal** charity.
"When Jesus walked the face of the earth, he was feeding the hungry, he was clothing the poor, and healing the sick. He didnt ask anybody for their health insurance card and he didnt heal anybody for profit..."
A great argument for private charity. Thanks Ed!
(After all, Jesus didn't work for the government, did he?)
Jesus wanted us to feed and clothe and take care of the poor. He didn’t ask Rome to do it....
Charity is a voluntary gesture individually given freely.
Coerced "charity" is simply slavery by another name.
Funny how delusional self-styled intellectuals can't grasp such a simple concept.
I am my brother’s keeper. I am not your brother’s keeper.
Ed asserts that we “should hear more from Christian leaders” while simultaneously talking over and shutting down an attempt by his guest to have that very discussion.
Typical Rat hypocrisy.
It did me as well. Shultz simply does not understand that Christian charity is voluntary and not forced. Jesus never suggested that Roman guards should force people to hand over their money or time to serve the needy. The other two religious people neglected to mention this as well.
I love how folks who despise Christianity deem themselves experts on knowing what Jesus Christ would say or feel about ANY issue.
This is absolutely ridiculous.
Jesus wouldn’t abort helpless unborn babies or counsel disabled elderly on how to choose death with so-called dignity. BTW...how many hospitals and medical foundations have been started by Christian churches and related private organizations?
How many wealthy individuals bequeath portions of their wealth as well to medical facilities and foundations? Answer = many.
If Big Govt. healthcare grabs it all expect a big decline
in the above in donations!
Here is just one small but powerful example that shows the absurdity of the claims that Christian leaders' silence about DeathCare are unchristian and contrary to Christ's teachings.
Matthew 6:1-4. "Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from you Father in Heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."
I'm pretty sure Jesus never said we should worship the holy socialized government.
And that was, by no means, a smackdown. Jesus did not concern himself with the politics of Rome. He dealt directly with the people. The left only calls on HIM when they need Him to further an agenda He does not share. Christians should help the needy (not government), and they would do more if their taxes weren't killing them. Cash 4 Clunkers did damage to charities but they want Jesus to help them pass more socialism?! They don't know who he is.
I watched this RAT on the video
First, the Constitution does not empower the Federal Government to be involved in our health care, it is unconstitutional. Period. Game over. If they do it, then our only response needs to be to force our States to use the 10th Amendment and not participate. If the Feds force the issue after that, then a State’s only alternative would be to leave the union. If the Constitutional framework is no longer being honored, the contract binding us together is obviously null and void.
Second, as others have pointed out. I’m not very impressed with an atheist (think satan supporter) being deceptive about what my obligations are. Naturally, he has them wrong. I have a Christian and moral obligation to help those in need. Having goons from the government steal enslave me and use the fruits of my labor for redistribution regardless of the excuse is still theft and against God. Coveting is still a sin.
Third, hussein is Christian? Really? I see more evident of a satan worshiping muzzie. I see a lot of evidence for an atheist marxist. And lots of evidence for black liberation theology. Do not see any evidence for Christianity.
Thanks for the post, because if this happened on MSNBC, I didn’t see it, and never will. It’s like reading Pravda; you always know what it’s going to say before you read it.
With 0bamaCare, Christopher Reeve never would have made it out of the ER.
Maybe so, but I was responding to THIS;
These Christian leaders, said Schultz, need to get engaged and support a **Christian president**”
we will soon have a greatest hits montage of people trashing the messiah, and another of his bumbling, stumbling nn answers when he goes off the prompter.
"I think it is incumbant on these major Christian leaders - Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, Franklin Graham, and James Dobson - to back our Christian President George W. Bush and his attempts to make certain that our students get the education they need by allowing them to receive vouchers to attend the school of their choice."
How would THAT be received?
bookmark for later.
Wow. Where to begin... so many conflicting principles, so little time. But a great response from the Bishop, Thank You Lord.
Guess we can just file this under Typical Liberal ANY Means to the End.
Soooooo....Dems are now using ‘civility’ as a euphemism for passive acceptance of the overthrow of freedom. They don’t understand how this moves us - they are incapable of even conjecturing about WHY we value freedom but they plan to take from us and keep it for themselves. IF they really want us to behave as if our freedom really has no value and no one is trying to rob us of it, then Dems should at least try to pretend that they don’t want to steal it from us and use it to ‘rule’ us.
As I understand it, there is no real bill out now because that would give us ammunition to point to it and say specifically why we don’t want it. There are various drafts we can point to and decry but then we are accused of making a big deal about nothing -there is no bill. If we are civil, only the Obamacare propogandists will be heard. If we are ‘civil’ then the Dems return in the fall to swiftly pull a bill out of hiding and sign it. This is our only chance to say anything at all to our ‘representative government’. Apparently, they imagine that we ‘should’ quietly listen when lied to and let them do what they want to us. Everything else is incivility.
It’s always amusing/pathetic when libs try to talk authoritatively about religion. Remember when Howard Dean said his favorite book of the NT was the Book of Job?
Wait a minute. Maybe he didn't.
I guess Jesus wasn't a very committed liberal. Obama would have probably not named him Secretary of HUD.
1. The neighbor never felt indebted to an individual for the indignity of needing and taking charity, and was relived of the burden of worrying about how he was going to repay the giver some way, some how
2. The neighbor was inclined to feel kindly toward ALL his neighbors and friends, because he couldn't know which of them had given him the money
Because I know of this true story, I refrain from criticizing wealthy people or anyone else, liberal or conservative, for not giving to charities -- we not only cannot know whether or not the ultra-rich do alms, it's not our business to know.
The reason the religious leaders Schultz cites are silent is because the Church has been in this business for a long time and were driven out of the public policy sector by secularists during the past several decades under the banner of "separation of church and state." Schultz shouldn't be surprised that they're not there now to comment.
I'm sure that Schultz actually isn't surprised, but rather, he's using the Alinsky rule of using their rules against them. He's trying to shame the religious leaders by holding them up to a standard he purports that they live by, but aren't now.
Didn't the church used to host medical clinics for the poor? Didn't the church used to host food banks for the poor? Weren't those clinics and kitchens funded by charitable donations from their parishioners and philanthropists?
What was Schultz' position when George W. Bush proposed "faith-based" initiatives to help the poor?
No, Schultz instead supports government handouts taken from confiscatory taxes, in the name of "morality."
True morality came from local organizations accepting local donations from local residents to help the local poor and down-on-their-luck neighbors in their local communities.
But local people helping their own to improve their situations doesn't fit the Left's agenda of consolidating power and centrally ruling everyone.