The MOTIV8 tour was amazing, wasn't it? It exposed a lot of people to the works of talented authors, people whose works you won't find splashed on magazine covers or talked about on the big television networks (Although, Wayne had an appearance on Fox and Friends, and Bryan's been hopping around local tv stations in certain markets lately).
So, I've been working on a new page of links! My previous page that includes the original four Fantasy Fiction Tour authors can be found here.
This page is still a work in progress, so you may see new links come up as I work on this some more.
Bryan Davis
Meet the Author, Episode 2: Bryan Davis
Enter the Door Within - Motiv8 Blog Tour - Bryan Davis
Ten Tough Questions (and 1 easy one) for...Bryan Davis!
L.B. Graham - Bryan Davis
Interview with Bryan Davis
The Fantasy 4 Fiction Tour #3- Bryan Davis
Fantasy and the Heart of a Child (Updated)
I Know Why the Angels Dance Author Interview Part 1
I Know Why the Angels Dance Author Interview Part 2
Wayne Thomas Batson
Meet the Author, Episode 1: Wayne Thomas Batson
Ten Tough Questions (and 1 easy one) for...Wayne Thomas Batson!
L.B. Graham - Wayne Thomas Batson
Interview with Wayne Thomas Batson
The Fantasy 4 Fiction Tour #6a- Wayne Thomas Batson
The Fantasy 4 Fiction Tour #6b- Wayne Thomas Batson
Curse of the Spider King Author Interview Part 1
Curse of the Spider King Author Interview Part 2
Exclusive Interview With the Authors Part 1
Exclusive Interview With the Authors Part 2
CSFF November Tour: Curse of the Spider King...Day One
Christopher Hopper
Meet The Author - Episode 5: Christopher Hopper
Enter the Door Within - Motiv8 Blog Tour - Christopher Hopper
Eric Reinhold's Blog - Christopher Hopper
L.B. Graham - Christopher Hopper
Interview with Christopher Hopper
The Fantasy 4 Fiction Tour #4a- Christopher Hopper
The Fantasy 4 Fiction Tour #4b- Christopher Hopper's Book Trailers
News Article on Curse of the Spider King
Eric Reinhold
Meet the Author - Episode 7: Eric Reinhold
Enter the Door Within - Motiv8 Blog Tour - Eric Reinhold
Eric Reinhold's Unedited Interview With L.B. Graham
Eric Reinhold's Interview With L.B. Graham
Interview with Eric Reinhold
L.B. Graham
Meet the Author, Episode 3: L.B. Graham
Enter the Door Within - Motiv8 Blog Tour - L.B. Graham
Ten Tough Questions (and 1 easy one) for...LB Graham!
Eric Reinhold's Blog - LB Graham
L.B. Graham's Introduction
Interview with L.B. Graham
Interview with L.B. Graham
Interview with L.B. Graham
L.B. Graham's Posts on Writing:
More Than Moralism
More Than Moralism - Posted on MOTIV8
Convention & Innovation
Convention & Innovation - Posted on MOTIV8
Villains & Conflict
Villains & Conflict - Posted on MOTIV8
The Naming of Names
The Naming of Names - Posted on MOTIV8
Jonathan Rogers
Meet the Author - Episode 8: Jonathan Rogers
Enter the Door Within - Motiv8 Blog Tour - Jonathan Rogers
L.B. Graham - Jonathan Rogers
Eric Reinhold's Blog - Jonathan Rogers
Fiction and Friction - Posted on MOTIV8
Interview with Jonathan Rogers
Interview with Jonathan Rogers
Sharon Hinck
Meet the Author - Episode 4: Sharon Hinck
Enter the Door Within - Motiv8 Blog Tour - Sharon Hinck
Eric Reinhold's Blog - Sharon Hinck
L.B. Graham - Sharon Hinck
Interview with Sharon Hinck
The Fantasy Four Fiction Tour #5a- Sharon Hinck
The Fantasy 4 Fiction Tour #5b- Sharon Hinck
Donita K. Paul
Enter the Door Within - Motiv8 Blog Tour - Donita K. Paul
Eric Reinhold's Blog - Donita K. Paul
L.B. Graham - Donita K. Paul
Interview with Donita K. Paul
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Monday, December 8, 2008
Citizen Obama? Legit, or Looney?
Citizen Barack Obama? Maybe not. The Supreme Court is deciding whether arguments will be held in the case of Donofrio v. Wells, which is challenging Obama's qualifications to be President of the United States. This issue has invited little press coverage, particularly on the conservative side, which is not known for being silent on controversial topics.
The conservative intelligentsia (of which I am a very small part, I have written op-eds for my college paper since 2003) is not made up of stupid or cowardly people. They have not hesitated to thrash out an issue even when it didn't seem popular to do so. That's why their silence or hesitancy on this issue is puzzling, but somewhat illuminating.
I surfed by Michelle Malkin's blog three days ago. Now, Michelle is no shill or flake. She's unloaded on the Bush administration on amnesty, on spending, on the bailouts. When it comes to this citizenship issue though, she's not buying it. In her piece, she consigns it to the same wastepaper basket as the idea that 9/11 was an inside job.
Michelle is not alone. Several conservative blogs have picked up her piece and given an amen to it.
In one respect, Michelle has a point. The fact that some who dispute Obama's citizenship are also 9/11 truthers is a cause for concern. (Leo Donofrio, the retired attorney who's bringing up one of the cases, also questioned McCain's natural-born status, which may not help, no one on the Right thought that had any credibility). When a cause is disproportionally joined by people with dubious views, it inevitably taints that cause. I suspect that's why much of the right is not joining the fight on this issue.
The Right has had a history of trying to ensure that it doesn't start chasing rabbits down rabbit holes and end up lost in Wonderland. The North American Union conspiracy is one example. We were told that Bush had a secret plan to merge the U.S. with Canada and Mexico. Needless to say, it didn't happen and it's not happening. But it made conservatives who supported it look foolish in the process. And of course we have the 9/11 Truthers, who aren't confined to the right, but still exist among the right. That conspiracy is as out there as you can get. Needless to say, when it turned out that some of them were publicly supporting Ron Paul in the GOP presidential primary, it proved to be very embarrassing to his campaign, and probably doomed any chance he had of gaining traction.
Now, is this issue only worthy of people donning tin-foil hats? No. It is a legitimate Constitutional question, and it is troubling that we do not seem to have an active process for verifying candidates' natural-born status. Obama himself has invited suspicion by sealing up his credentials, including his birth certificate. To this date, he won't release it for public view. If nothing else, it's a disservice to the people he wishes to lead.
Whether Obama truly isn't a natural-born citizen is another matter. Donofrio's point is that Obama's father was a British citizen and thus under the authority of the British government, which would have conferred citizenship to Obama Sr.'s children. If so, Barack Obama would have had a dual citizenship at birth and could not have been considered "natural born." But that's only if the Constitution prohibits natural-born status on account of foreign parentage. American citizenship has been defined as being conveyed by "jus soli," meaning born on American soil. Is natural-born status solely conveyed by this as well? We currently have controversies over what are called "anchor babies," children born on American soil by illegal immigrants. If these children are citizens, are they natural-born citizens?
It may be these questions that ultimately doom any challenge to Obama's citizenship. The courts, by nature, do not require the defendents to prove their innocence, it is the plaintiffs who must prove the guilt of the other party. Similarly, they may not require that Obama prove he is natural-born, but for the plaintiff to demonstrate conclusively that he is not. But Donofrio will not even get that far. His case was denied today. I figured his case may be dismissed on basis of "standing," that he does not have the right to sue because he cannot demonstrate damage or possibility of damage to his person from his complaint. A similar argument was used to dismiss the many lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the 2003 Iraq War and the Vietnam War.
The end result will be that Obama will be President. But those who are convinced of his ineligibility will not accept it. They will argue that because Obama did not prove his legitimacy, he is not a legal POTUS. And where that line of thought will take them, I don't know for sure.
The conservative intelligentsia (of which I am a very small part, I have written op-eds for my college paper since 2003) is not made up of stupid or cowardly people. They have not hesitated to thrash out an issue even when it didn't seem popular to do so. That's why their silence or hesitancy on this issue is puzzling, but somewhat illuminating.
I surfed by Michelle Malkin's blog three days ago. Now, Michelle is no shill or flake. She's unloaded on the Bush administration on amnesty, on spending, on the bailouts. When it comes to this citizenship issue though, she's not buying it. In her piece, she consigns it to the same wastepaper basket as the idea that 9/11 was an inside job.
Alas, Trutherism thrives on both the left and right. Which brings us to the spate of lawsuits challenging President-elect Barack Obama’s U.S. citizenship. On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court considers one of those suits filed by New Jersey citizen Leo Donofrio, who maintains that Obama is not a “natural born citizen” because his father held British citizenship.
There may be a seed of a legitimate constitutional issue to explore here (how is the citizenship requirement enforced for presidential candidates, anyway?) And at least Donofrio concedes that Obama was born in Hawaii. But a dangerously large segment of the birth certificate hunters have lurched into rabid Truther territory. The most prominent crusader against Obama’s American citizenship claim, lawyer Philip Berg (who, not coincidentally, is also a prominent 9/11 Truther), disputes that Obama was born in Hawaii and claims that Obama’s paternal grandmother told him she saw Obama born in Kenya.
Michelle is not alone. Several conservative blogs have picked up her piece and given an amen to it.
In one respect, Michelle has a point. The fact that some who dispute Obama's citizenship are also 9/11 truthers is a cause for concern. (Leo Donofrio, the retired attorney who's bringing up one of the cases, also questioned McCain's natural-born status, which may not help, no one on the Right thought that had any credibility). When a cause is disproportionally joined by people with dubious views, it inevitably taints that cause. I suspect that's why much of the right is not joining the fight on this issue.
The Right has had a history of trying to ensure that it doesn't start chasing rabbits down rabbit holes and end up lost in Wonderland. The North American Union conspiracy is one example. We were told that Bush had a secret plan to merge the U.S. with Canada and Mexico. Needless to say, it didn't happen and it's not happening. But it made conservatives who supported it look foolish in the process. And of course we have the 9/11 Truthers, who aren't confined to the right, but still exist among the right. That conspiracy is as out there as you can get. Needless to say, when it turned out that some of them were publicly supporting Ron Paul in the GOP presidential primary, it proved to be very embarrassing to his campaign, and probably doomed any chance he had of gaining traction.
Now, is this issue only worthy of people donning tin-foil hats? No. It is a legitimate Constitutional question, and it is troubling that we do not seem to have an active process for verifying candidates' natural-born status. Obama himself has invited suspicion by sealing up his credentials, including his birth certificate. To this date, he won't release it for public view. If nothing else, it's a disservice to the people he wishes to lead.
Whether Obama truly isn't a natural-born citizen is another matter. Donofrio's point is that Obama's father was a British citizen and thus under the authority of the British government, which would have conferred citizenship to Obama Sr.'s children. If so, Barack Obama would have had a dual citizenship at birth and could not have been considered "natural born." But that's only if the Constitution prohibits natural-born status on account of foreign parentage. American citizenship has been defined as being conveyed by "jus soli," meaning born on American soil. Is natural-born status solely conveyed by this as well? We currently have controversies over what are called "anchor babies," children born on American soil by illegal immigrants. If these children are citizens, are they natural-born citizens?
It may be these questions that ultimately doom any challenge to Obama's citizenship. The courts, by nature, do not require the defendents to prove their innocence, it is the plaintiffs who must prove the guilt of the other party. Similarly, they may not require that Obama prove he is natural-born, but for the plaintiff to demonstrate conclusively that he is not. But Donofrio will not even get that far. His case was denied today. I figured his case may be dismissed on basis of "standing," that he does not have the right to sue because he cannot demonstrate damage or possibility of damage to his person from his complaint. A similar argument was used to dismiss the many lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the 2003 Iraq War and the Vietnam War.
The end result will be that Obama will be President. But those who are convinced of his ineligibility will not accept it. They will argue that because Obama did not prove his legitimacy, he is not a legal POTUS. And where that line of thought will take them, I don't know for sure.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Barack Obama: God's choice?
I was passing by World Net Daily the other day and I found this article, in which people are debating whether Barack Obama was chosen by God to be president. Rebecca Miller brought up a similar point just after the election (I left a comment). The assumption goes off passages like this, "He removes kings and raises up kings" (Daniel 2:21) or "...there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. (Romans 13:1).
I wonder, though, if Romans 13 is meant to be read in a certain context. How would this explain people like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Tito, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe, or Kim Jong-Il? Romans 13 says the "rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong." But what happens when the rulers do wrong? Romans 13 calls them "God's servant" twice, but it is plain as day that the list I just rattled off served their own evil interests. In many of these countries, to submit to the authorities would be to surrender your religious faith and embrace the state. Obviously, they cannot do that.
And if God chooses all leaders, then why have an election? Why should we participate if the choice is divinely ordained? Could we then blame God if our leader does something we don't like? How much responsibility should we give God, or not?
There is another point that I'm finding a little unsettling. From the WND piece:
Now here's where we back off and start giving man the credit for choosing our leader. Not because we wanted it, but because we actually deserved it because of our country's sinful actions. God is simply giving us what we "deserve." You see, God is appointing the leader, but it's what we really want in our heart of evil hearts, so even if Obama was really to lose, God would intervene and have Obama elected. So we can blame ourselves for Obama, but absolve God of it at the same time.
It should be obvious that this kind of thinking doesn't work. The United States is not comparable to ancient Israel. Ervin compares us to the Israelites clamoring for a king, which turned out to be Saul. But 59 million people, 46% of the popular vote, 22 states didn't vote for Obama. Whatever ancient Israel did, it did almost in unison. They were a single people with a single culture that usually went one way all at once. The United States is divided into fifty different states, with people of different religions, different denominations of Christianity, different cultures, different ways of thinking and living. You can't say America "wants" a king because this country was founded to mitigate the differences in opinion that this country would always have. Read James Madison's Federalist papers.
It seems that the church is getting into the habit of presuming too much on God's actions. Sometimes the words "I don't know" can be very liberating. Did God chose Obama to be president? I don't know. If I was to say so, could I back it up definitively? No. I don't know that God has divinely appointed Obama. I tend not to think so. Why is it important? What would that knowledge gain us?
I wonder, though, if Romans 13 is meant to be read in a certain context. How would this explain people like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Tito, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe, or Kim Jong-Il? Romans 13 says the "rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong." But what happens when the rulers do wrong? Romans 13 calls them "God's servant" twice, but it is plain as day that the list I just rattled off served their own evil interests. In many of these countries, to submit to the authorities would be to surrender your religious faith and embrace the state. Obviously, they cannot do that.
And if God chooses all leaders, then why have an election? Why should we participate if the choice is divinely ordained? Could we then blame God if our leader does something we don't like? How much responsibility should we give God, or not?
There is another point that I'm finding a little unsettling. From the WND piece:
Andrew Ervin, whose words make it clear he's no supporter of Obama, nonetheless concedes that he believes God granted Obama the victory. "Do you believe that God is still in control of events in the world?" Ervin asks. "Do you believe that all authority comes from God? … If you answered yes to even one of these questions, then you must realize that God chose Obama to be the president of this great country. "Like the Israelites of old, we have grown decadent and have forgotten our Christian roots," Ervin argues. "And so, like the Israelites of old that clamored for a king to lead them, God has given us President Obama so that we can be given over to our craven desires. We have sinned against God, and it is time to take our medicine."
Now here's where we back off and start giving man the credit for choosing our leader. Not because we wanted it, but because we actually deserved it because of our country's sinful actions. God is simply giving us what we "deserve." You see, God is appointing the leader, but it's what we really want in our heart of evil hearts, so even if Obama was really to lose, God would intervene and have Obama elected. So we can blame ourselves for Obama, but absolve God of it at the same time.
It should be obvious that this kind of thinking doesn't work. The United States is not comparable to ancient Israel. Ervin compares us to the Israelites clamoring for a king, which turned out to be Saul. But 59 million people, 46% of the popular vote, 22 states didn't vote for Obama. Whatever ancient Israel did, it did almost in unison. They were a single people with a single culture that usually went one way all at once. The United States is divided into fifty different states, with people of different religions, different denominations of Christianity, different cultures, different ways of thinking and living. You can't say America "wants" a king because this country was founded to mitigate the differences in opinion that this country would always have. Read James Madison's Federalist papers.
It seems that the church is getting into the habit of presuming too much on God's actions. Sometimes the words "I don't know" can be very liberating. Did God chose Obama to be president? I don't know. If I was to say so, could I back it up definitively? No. I don't know that God has divinely appointed Obama. I tend not to think so. Why is it important? What would that knowledge gain us?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)