Barack Obama is still a lawyer. He is also a Christian, and we must hope that he recognizes the sovereignty of Almighty God over and above the hype of his high office and the prejudices of his lawyers education. We have great expectation of him, and when he was inaugurated he took on the role of the Chief Magistrate of the United States.

This role is taken by Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second in respect of Australia and the United Kingdom and when She took her Oath of Allegiance, it was to Almighty God and the culmination of over two hundred and sixty four years of Christian rule in the United Kingdom and since 1828 in Australia. During that time, the Parliament of the United Kingdom refused to recognize the right of the American Colonists to the blessings of Almighty God and the rebel colonists replaced the King with a President.

The Royal Prerogative of Almighty God is exercised in the United States by the President, and Bush, abused it to let some convicted cronies out of jail. The United States Constitution enshrines the Christian Institution of jury trial of civil matters, as a guarantee in any matter involving the sum of $20 or more. This has more or less kept the bastards honest. Consequently after all other republics have failed, the United States has prevailed.

The English and the United States both have Christian Republican Government, the only difference being that the Representative of Almighty God in the United States is elected. The past eight years have demonstrated that this method can be flawed. Money talks, and through the electronic media, Obama got lots of money, not from the usual sources, but directly. The King makers who usually elect United States Presidents were unhorsed by popular contributions. Obama comes without baggage.

Some men rise above themselves in public office, others sink into corruption. We may be blessed that Obama has continued his education beyond the iconoclast Law Schools, as has our Kevin Rudd, by following the example of Jesus Christ and consulting God in church and out every day.

There are some points in here, and considering the lack of ;- No - Zero content of objective achievements in Modern times – and The Media – in broad terms , I would have thought it more relevant to name the titled of the essay as : “ Obama is not the new Mohammad” you know , or is that not allowed?
It stands to reason , with all things considered with our Media.

But then again , it seems as if he may be.

Daggett

Just for the record, I've always believed that by far the most implausible explanation for 911 is the official one.

However ... re Noamh Chomsky. I had a look at some of your links, from Zwicker etc. Yes, it's very disappointing that Chomsky (and other high-profile figures of the left) is so dismissive of the 911 Truth Movement. But my argument is that it doesn't have to be an either/or thing. He can BOTH reject the 911TM AND still remain an important critical voice on American hegemony etc. And he HAS stuck his neck out on many other issues throughout his career, e.g. his dissection and discrediting of US claims of Serbian genocide used to justify the Kosovo bombing and to criminalise the Serbian leadership.

And, as for Zwicker, his disenchanted-fan outpourings are a little fatuous for my liking. (Having said that, however, I will try and read his book.)

Trav,

"Rob, if you don't even see it as a remote possibility, then you shouldn't really look at the evidence. Your presuppositions have closed your mind from considering all options."

You're right I do have a presupposition and it is this. To physically get a dead body out of a cave requires physical force to first move the rock out of the doorway and then the body out of the cave. As a dead body can no longer provide a motive force, it can't do the physical deed. It's that simple.

If Jesus really did spring back to life in a physical sense, where did he go? Why did only a few apostles see him? Why did he not continue to spread his message?

I have no reason to doubt that James had a real, personal experience. I believe it was in another dimension (which was picked up by James' intuitive sense) but not in the physical sense.

SJF, evidently we have differing definitions of both extremism and different ideas as to what the fringe of the political spectrum represent and reject.
What you describe sounds more like the apathetic.

I didn't say that people from the very edge of the spectrum are idiots, actually, what I said was the Obama's policy was devoid of idiotic policies from the fringe.

I think we'd be very lucky if all extremists were idiots. They wouldn't be capable of making such problems.

An 'extreme' view, would be, by definition, one that is outside the mainstream. It would be one that is held by a minority of people.

Thus, if an 'extreme' view is adopted by society at large, it has been forced upon them. If it's an accepted idea, then by definition it is a mainstream one.
In order to hold a fringe view, you must first reject society as needing an overhaul.
This is the attitude centrists despite, because by its very nature it is contemptuous of the views held by the public, plus it's usually aggressive.

I reject that the 'centre' merely go along with wars, I'd say it's the extremists who wage them and the apathetic who just go along to keep the peace.

You speak of the libertarian right and the socialist left, however seeing as you use the term socialists, then I'm assuming when you use the term libertarian, you're referring to libertarian economic policy?
The recent neo-conservative US administration held extreme libertarian economic beliefs but conservative social policies - I'd argue this was an extreme government, in contrast to the more centrist government of Clinton.
It was the more extreme government which waged wars.
If you're referring to groups who believe in a libertarian social agenda, then yes I'm sure they reject wars... but don't most socialist movements tend to hail from the left and hold pretty libertarian social agendas?

You state: "Give me an extremist over a moderate any day."

Well, try spending some time with the Taliban. Or is that example too 'extreme'?

TRTL

Despite many semantic difficulties, I relate to a lot of what you say. Just some further thoughts …

‘I reject that the 'centre' merely go along with wars, I'd say it's the extremists who wage them and the apathetic who just go along to keep the peace.’

This is my main point of disagreement. War is initiated mostly by centrist political parties as a standard response to extreme events. All politicians know that to publicly oppose a war is political suicide. Some are brave enough to do so, but their careers stall or go into decline. And it’s not apathy that causes people to go along with a war – it’s the fear of negative centrist reaction.

‘The recent neo-conservative US administration held extreme libertarian economic beliefs…’

I don’t think their beliefs had much to do with extremism or libertarianism. They reworked the centrist US free enterprise doctrine to favour the rich, while keeping all other traditional economic controls in place – nothing extreme about that.

What they represented was pretty much what centrist American society valued – military might, national hegemony, wealth and celebrity, masculine honour, family pride, religious reverence. They lost popularity because they were generally incompetent, they militarily screwed up two wars and because the economy collapsed on their watch – not because of their supposed extremism.

Had someone like Ron Paul or Denis Kucinich won the presidency, that would be an example of an extremist US Administration – and, in my view, a more positive one.

‘I'd argue [Bush] was an extreme government, in contrast to the more centrist government of Clinton. It was the more extreme government which waged wars.’

Clinton (Mr Cruise Missile) waged more wars than Bush, only much less spectacular. Clinton’s crippling siege/sanctions/bombing campaign against Iraq progressively degraded its military, indicating that a US 'intervention' was in the planning. Clinton waged low-intensity wars on other fronts, especially against Serbia and Somalia, as well as intense propaganda campaigns, especially against the Taliban (not that I don’t condemn the Taliban, just the way both Clinton and Bush have dealt with them).