Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
THE DEISTIC IDEA OF GOD
In contrast to the ideas of God endorsed and promoted by the various revealed religions, ranging anywhere from killing babies in the Old Testament to suggesting the practice of "turning the other cheek" in the New Testament, Deism offers a very simple non-dogmatic concept of God: an eternal entity whose power is equal to his/her will.
With the quality of being eternal, the entity of God obviously would have no beginning or end. Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity predicted places in the universe void of time, so the idea of eternalness is not unreasonable. As humanity learns more about science and the universe, our concepts of the Creator will correspondingly grow. This is the only way we can learn more about God: through the honest study of the Creator's creation, not through contradictory books written by men but claiming inspiration and revelation from God.
The antiquated practice of forming an idea of God based on purely past material experience, such as referring to God as "King", is also rejected by Deism. The extremely limited picture of God as the jealous and paranoid king of kings sitting on his throne upset that his subjects were going to reach "heaven" by building a brick tower is due to the limited vision which the Bible writers had of both the Creator and of the universe. This fear the Bible god had of the Tower of Babel is based on fear of humanities acquisition of knowledge. The Creator the Deist venerates invites all of us to learn as much as possible about absolutely everything, for this is the best way to learn about God.
Another problem with the idea of God as promoted by the revealed religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam is its depiction of God as a man. By limiting God to the status of a man, women are consciously and subconsciously relegated to a lesser standing in society. After all, if God is characterized as a man, then men are closer to God then women. Perhaps this accounts for the multiple instances of women bashing found throughout the various "holy books." By limiting the advancement of women through their subjugation to men, revealed religion has limited the advancement and progress of all of society. And a very sad element of this anti-progress mind-set, advanced by revealed religion, is that it claims God as its author.
DEISM REJECTS VIOLENCE
All religions claim they reject violence. History, of course, proves them wrong. From the grotesque horror stories of slaughter and rape at the alleged command of God found throughout the Old Testament, to the claimed words of Jesus regarding bringing not peace but a sword, to the blood soaked Inquisition through religiously approved contemporary wars, revealed religion goes happily hand in hand with violence and war.
Deism's rejection of divine revelation excludes it from falling into the same violence promoting business that the revealed religions are in. There are no written words from the Almighty that can be twisted to sanctify one human being killing another. This makes Deism less useful to the ambitions of the power-elites. Could this be why very few people are aware of Deism and of the Deistic influence of the Enlightenment and the American Revolution?
Nuclear realities have made the waging of war an unacceptable proposition. War was never justifiable, it only exposed man's mental limitations at being able to formulate a workable solution to a problem. However, in the nuclear age humanities ignorance can lead to the extermination of civilization and life itself on our planet. The shallow chauvinism of the various revealed religions take us all one step closer to that irreversible catastrophe. Deism, by its reliance on reason and rejection of violence, serves as a block to the apocalyptic nightmare that is so central to the major revealed religions.
DEISM'S APPRECIATION OF LIFE AND BEAUTY
One of the best roads to happiness is to greatly appreciate the positive things in life. In spite of many obstacles that everyone has in their lives that need to be overcome, the fact remains there is much to be thankful for. To quote Thomas Paine:
"But if objects for gratitude and admiration are our desire, do they not present themselves every hour to our eyes? Do we not see a fair creation prepared to receive us the instant we are born - a world furnished to our hands, that cost us nothing? Is it we that light up the sun, that pour down the rain, and fill the earth with abundance? Whether we sleep or wake, the vast machinery of the universe still goes on."
From personal experience I know if my problems seem overwhelming, all I need to do is force myself to only think of the positive things in life and my spirits are soon picked up and fortified. I not only feel better, but my mind is cleared and solutions to the problems flow much smoother. And the more often I use this method the easier it becomes.
Many people express anger at God for disease, natural disasters and war. Yet it is within humanities power to eliminate and/or neutralize all of these. By studying the principles of Nature we have already eradicated many diseases and protected ourselves from much of Nature's fury. If we didn't let our egos, selfishness and fear get in the way, just think of how far we could be by now. Every invention and discovery we have today, could have been in effect 2,000 to 5,000 years ago. For the fact is, the principles those inventions and discoveries are based on were in effect from before the evolution of mankind. We could be enjoying a virtually disease free, peaceful progressive society extending well beyond our planet Earth. It still isn't too late. As we generate a peaceful worldwide religious revolution through Deism and the World Union of Deists we will bring about the emancipation of the individual's mind and spirit. The soul of society will then be lifted to a new level, never before thought possible. A level of progress and international cooperation that will make warfare just an archaic oddity of the dark, superstitious past.
Think! Sample Articles
The World Union of Deists Quarterly Publication
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAILY DEISTIC AND PROGRESSIVE THOUGHTS
"I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy permanent planet. The proper function of man is to live, not to exist. I shall not waste my days in trying to prolong them. I shall use my time." Jack London
". . . Nature, the common parent of us all."
". . . Nature can never be overcome."
"Philosophy! The guide of our lives, the explorer of all that is good in us, exterminator of all evil! It is you who have brought peace into our lives; you who have relieved us of the fear of death."
". . . in life generally, the contemplation and study of Nature are far superior to the whole range of other human activities."
"The deepest knowledge and contemplation of Nature is but a very lame and imperfect business, unless it proceed and tend forward into action."
"The substance is more important than the form."
"An acute first-class brain is the finest asset anyone can have- and, if we want to be happy, it is an asset we must exploit to the uttermost." Cicero
"The pragmatist turns away from abstraction and insufficiency, from verbal solutions, from bad a priori reasons, from fixed principles, closed systems, and pretended absolutes and origins. He turns toward concreteness and adequacy, towards facts, towards action, and towards power." William James
"You gain strength, courage, and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face. You are able to say to yourself, 'I lived through this horror. I can take the next thing that comes along.' You must do the thing you think you cannot do." Eleanor Roosevelt
"Do not fear death so much, but rather the inadequate life." Bertolt Brecht
"To teach us how to live without certainty, and yet without being paralyzed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can still do for those who study it."
"It is preoccupation with possession, more than anything else, that prevents men from living freely and nobly."
"Fear is the main source of superstition, and one of the main sources of cruelty. To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom." Bertrand Russell
"Nothing is terrible except fear itself." Francis Bacon
"We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about." Charles Kingsley
"It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible."
"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death."
"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason. I have never used any other and I trust I never shall."
"While man keeps to the belief of one God, his reason unites with his creed. He is not shocked with contradictions and horrid stories. His bible is the heavens and the earth. He beholds his Creator in all His works, and everything he beholds inspires him with reverence and gratitude. From the goodness of God to all, he learns his duty to his fellow-man, and stands self-reproved when he transgresses it. Such a man is no persecutor."
"It is an affront to truth to treat falsehood with complaisance."
"The creation is the Bible of the Deist. He there reads, in the handwriting of the Creator himself, the certainty of His existence and the immutability of His power, and all other Bibles and Testaments are to him forgeries."
" . . . and having endeavored to force upon himself the belief of a system against which reason revolts, he ungratefully calls it human reason, as if man could give reason to himself."
"Is it because you are sunk in the cruelty of superstition, or feel no interest in the honor of your Creator, that you listen to the horrid tales of the Bible, or hear them with callous indifference?" Thomas Paine
"Hell is the impossibility of reason." from Oliver Stone's PLATOON
"Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up."
"Results! Why, man, I have gotten a lot of results. I know several thousand things that won't work." Thomas A. Edison
"Many persons have a wrong idea of what constitutes true happiness. It is not attained through self-gratification but through fidelity to a worthy purpose." Helen Keller
"If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put foundations under them." Thoreau
"If you trap the moment before it's ripe,
The tears of repentance
you'll certainly wipe;
But if once you let the ripe moment go
"You can never wipe off the tears of woe." William Blake
"A man who examines the saddle and bridle and not the animal itself when he is out to buy a horse is a fool; similarly, only an absolute fool values a man according to his clothes, or according to his position, which after all is only something we wear like clothing."
"To be really respected is to be loved; and love and fear will not mix."
"It's only when you are breathing your last that the way you've spent your time will become apparent. I accept the terms, and feel no dread of the coming judgment."
"It is philosophy that has the duty of protecting us. She will encourage us to submit to God with cheerfulness and to fortune with defiance; she will show you how to follow God and bear what chance may send you."
" . . . no one can lead a happy life, or even one that is bearable, without the pursuit of wisdom, and that the perfection of wisdom is what makes the happy life, although even the beginnings of wisdom make life bearable. Yet this conviction, clear as it is, needs to be strengthened and given deeper roots through daily reflection; making noble resolutions is not a important as keeping the resolutions you have made already." Seneca
"Have no fear of perfection - you'll never reach it. Salvador Dali
"The superior man thinks always of virtue; the common man thinks of comfort." Confucius
"One of the best ways to properly evaluate and adapt to the many environmental stresses of life is to simply view them as normal. The adversity and failures in our lives, if adapted to and viewed as normal corrective feedback to use to get back on target, serve to develop in us an immunity against anxiety, depression, and the adverse responses to stress. Instead of tackling the most important priorities that would make us successful and effective in life, we prefer the path of least resistance and do things simply that will relieve our tension, such as shuffling papers and majoring in minors." Denis Waitley
"Guilt is never a rational thing; it distorts all the faculties of the human mind, it perverts them, it leaves a man no longer in the free use of his reason, it puts him into confusion." Edmund Burke
"Why do you hunger for length of days? Is it to experience sensations and desires, or increase or cessation of growth? Is it to make use of the powers of speech or of thought? Does any of these things seem really worth coveting? Then if you think them beneth your notice, press on towards the final goal of all - which is the following of reason and of God. But to prize this, you must remember, is incompatible with any feelings of resentment that death will rob you of the others."
"For a life that is sound and secure, cultivate a thorough insight into things and discover their essence, matter, and cause; put your whole heart into doing what is just, and speaking what is true; and for the rest, know the joy of life by piling good deed on good deed until no rift or cranny appears between them."
" . . . the passing moment is all that a man can ever live or lose."
"Firstly, avoid all actions that are haphazard or purposeless; and secondly, let every action aim solely at the common good."
"How ample are the privileges vouchsafed to man - to do nothing but what God will approve, and accept everything God may assign!"
"Anger is as much a mark of weakness as is grief; in both of them men receive a wound, and submit to a defeat."
"Our anger and annoyance are more detrimental to us than the things themselves which anger or annoy us."
"Impermanence is the badge of each and every one."
"If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself, but to your estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment." Marcus Aurelius
"The journey of ten thousand miles begins with a single phone call." Confucius Bell
"Often the difference between a successful person and a failure is not one's better abilities or ideas, but the courage that one has to bet on his ideas, to take calculated risk - and to act." Maxwell Maltz
"We should be taught not to wait for inspiration to start a thing. Action always generates inspiration. Inspiration seldom generates action." Frank Tibolt
"Guilt is the mafia of the mind." Bob Mandel
"Fall 7 times, stand up 8." Japanese Proverb
Success is not the result of spontaneous combustion. You must set yourself on fire." Reggie Leach
"When I do good I feel good; when I do bad I feel bad; and that's my religion."
"Quarrel not at all. No one resolved to make the most of himself can spare time for personal contention."
"Important principles may and must be inflexible."
"Hold on with a bulldog grip, and chew and choke as much as possible."
"Let the people know the truth and the country is safe."
"The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present."
"I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors, and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."
"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right."
"Happy day, when, all appetites controlled, all passions subdued, all matters subjected, mind, all conquering mind, shall live and move the monarch of the world. Glorious consummation! Hail fall of Fury! Reign of Reason, all hail!
"I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live up to what light I have."
"Most folks are about as happy as they make up their minds to be."
"Towering genius disdains a beaten path. It seeks regions hitherto unexplored."
"The best thing about the future is that it comes only one day at a time."
"Upon the subject of education I can only say that I view it as the most important subject which we as a people may be engaged in."
"Always bear in mind that your own resolution to success is more important than any other one thing." Abraham Lincoln
"If the point is sharp, and the arrow is swift, it can pierce through the dust no matter how thick." Bob Dylan
"We live very close together. So, our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can't help them, at least don't hurt them." The Dali Lama
"Nothing shall warp me from the belief that everyone is a lover of truth."
"There is no chance and no anarchy in the universe. All is system and gradation."
"The day of days, the great day of the feast of life, is that in which the inward eye opens to the Unity in things . . . This beatitude dips from on high down on us and we see. It is not in us so much as we are in it."
"The words I and mine constitute ignorance."
"All good is eternally reproductive. The beauty of nature reforms itself in the mind, and not for barren contemplation, but for new creation."
"The ancestor of every action is a thought."
"At the gates of the forest, the surprised man of the world is forced to leave his city estimates of great and small, wise and foolish . . . Here is a sanctity which shames our religions, and reality which discredits our heroes."
"Do not be too timid and squeamish about your actions. All life is an experiment."
"There are many who are living far below their possibilities because they are continually handing over their individualities to others. Do you want to be a power in the world? Then be yourself. Be true to the highest within your soul and then allow yourself to be governed by no customs or conventionalities or arbitrary man-made rules that are not founded on principle." Ralph Waldo Emerson
"When I was born I was so surprised I didn't talk for a year and a half." Gracie Allen
"Write injuries in dust, benefits in marble."
"In the present weak state of human nature, surrounded as we are on all sides with ignorance and error, it little becomes poor, fallible man to be positive and dogmatical in his opinions."
"Speak little, do much."
"How exact and regular is every thing in the natural world! How wisely in every part contriv'd! We cannot here find the least defect! Those who have studied the mere animal and vegetable creation, demonstrate that nothing can be more harmonious and beautiful! All the heavenly bodies, the stars and planets, are regulated with the utmost Wisdom! And can we suppose less care to be taken in the order of the moral than in the natural system?"
"Hast thou not propos'd some certain end
to which thy life, thy every act may tend?
Hast thou no mark at which to bend thy bow?
Or like a boy pursu'st the carrion crow
With pellets and with stones, from tree to tree,
A fruitless toil, and liv'st extemore?"
"Think of three things, whence you came, where you are going, and to whom you must account."
"By the word simplicity, is not always meant folly or ignorance; but often, pure and upright Nature, free from artifice, craft or deceitful ornament." Ben Franklin
"Here is the test to find if your mission on earth is finished: If you're alive, it isn't." Richard Bach
"Nothing contributes so much to tranquilizing the mind as a steady purpose - a point on which the soul may fix its intellectual eye." Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley
"Strong lives are motivated by dynamic purposes." Kenneth Hildebrand
"Since nothing we intend is ever faultless, and nothing we attempt ever without error, and nothing we achieve without some measure of finitude and fallibility we call humanness, we are saved by forgiveness." David Augsburger
"For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it."
"May it be to the world, what I believe it will be (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all), the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves." (regarding the American Revolution)
"Your sect (Judaism) by its sufferings has furnished a remarkable proof of the universal spirit of religious intolerance inherent in every sect, disclaimed by all while feeble, and practiced by all when in power. Our laws have applied the only antidote to this vice, protecting all on an equal footing. But more remains to be done, for although we are free by law, we are not so in practice; public opinion srects itself into an Inquisition, and exercises its offices with as much fanaticism as fans the flames of an Auto-da-Fe." Thomas Jefferson
"Courage is doing what you're afraid to do. There can be no courage unless you're scared." Eddie Rickenbacker
" When we see we have gone wrong, it is our duty to retrace our footsteps and proceed again by the right path."
"Cowards can never be moral."
"Fear has its use, but cowardice has none."
"The acquisition of the spirit of nonresistance is a matter of long training in self-denial and appreciation of the hidden forces within ourselves. It changes one's outlook on life . . . It is the greatest force because it is the highest expression of the soul."
"Truth never damages a cause that is just."
"A reformer has to sail not with the current. Very often he has to go against it even though it may cost him his life."
"The mind of a man who remains good under compulsion cannot improve; in fact, it worsens."
"To a true artist, only that face is beautiful which, quite apart from its exterior, shines with the truth within the soul."
"Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress."
"The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong."
"The greatest of man's spiritual needs is the need to be delivered from the evil and falsity that are in himself and in his society."
"Joy lives in the fight, in the attempt, in the suffering involved, not in the victory itself."
"It is beneath human dignity to lose one's individuality and become a mere cog in the machine."
"Where there is love, there is life; hatred leads to destruction."
"Every murder or other injury, no matter for what cause, committed or inflicted on another is a crime against humanity."
"Mankind has to get out of violence only through nonviolence."
"True nonviolence is an impossibility without the possession of unadulterated fearlessness."
"Silence becomes cowardice when occasion demands speaking out the whole truth and acting accordingly."
"Rights that do not flow from duty well performed are not worth having."
"Strength in numbers is the delight of the timid. The valiant in spirit glory in fighting alone."
"I believe in God, not as a theory but as a fact more real than that of life itself."
Gandhi
"I believe serious progress (in the abolition of war) can be achieved only when men become organized on an international scale and refuse, as a body, to enter military or war service."
"I appeal to all men and women, whether they be eminent or humble, to declare that they will refuse to give any further assistance to war or the preparation of war."
"I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research."
"Whatever there is of God and goodness in the universe, it must work itself out and express itself through us. We cannot stand aside and let God do it."
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. . . . This is a somewhat new kind of religion."
Albert Einstein
" Self-sufficiency is the greatest of all wealth."
"He who is not satisfied with a little, is satisfied with nothing."
"If the gods listened to the prayers of men, all humankind would quickly perish since they constantly pray for many evils to befall one another."
"That which creates unsurpassable joy is the removal of a great evil."
"By love of true philosophy we are delivered from every disturbing and painful desire."
"The mean soul is puffed up by successes, but brought down by adversity."
"Great abundance is heaped up as the result of brutalizing labor, but a miserable life is the result."
"A person is made unhappy either by fear or by endless and vain desire. The person who curbs these can attain for himself the blessed gift of reason."
"Justice's greatest reward is peace of mind."
"It is impossible for the one who instills fear to remain free from fear."
"Live your life without attracting attention."
"Happiness and blessedness do not belong to abundance of riches or exalted position or offices or power, but to freedom from pain and gentleness of feeling and a state of mind that sets limits that are in accordance with nature."
"Vain is the word of a philosopher, by which no mortal suffering is healed. Just as medicine confers no benefit if it does not drive away bodily, disease, so is philosophy useless if it does not drive away the suffering of the mind."
Epicurus
"Evil does not naturally dwell in the world, in events, or in people. Evil is a by-product of forgetfulness, laziness, or distraction: it arises when we lose sight of our true aim in life.
"When we remember that our aim is spiritual progress, we return to striving to be our best selves. This is how happiness is won."
"Don't surrender your mind.
"If someone were to casually give your body away to any old passerby, you would naturally be furious.
"Why then do you feel no shame in giving your precious mind over to any person who might wish to influence you? Think twice before you give up your own mind to someone who may revile you, leaving you confused and upset."
"In trying to please other people, we find ourselves misdirected toward what lies outside our sphere of influence. In doing so we lose our hold on our life's purpose.
"Content yourself with being a lover of wisdom, a seeker of the truth. Return and return again to what is essential and worthy.
"Do not try to seem wise to others.
"If you want to live a wise life, live it on your own terms and in your own eyes."
"Attache yourself to what is spiritually superior, regardless of what other people think or do. Hold to your true aspirations no matter what is going on around you."
"Instead of averting your eyes from the painful events of life, look at them squarely and contemplate them often. By facing the realities of death, infirmity, loss, and disappointment, you free yourself of illusions and false hopes and you avoid miserable, envious thoughts."
"So you think, so you become."
"Other people's views and troubles can be contagious. Don't sabotage yourself by unwittingly adopting negative, unproductive attitudes through your associations with others."
"It is much better to die of hunger unhindered by grief and fear than to live affluently beset with worry, dread, suspicion, and unchecked desire."
"Begin at once a program of self-mastery. But start modestly, with the little things that bother you. Has your child spilled something? Have you misplaced your wallet? Say to yourself, 'Coping calmly with this inconvenience is the price I pay for my inner serenity, for freedom from perturbation; you don't get something for nothing.'"
"Nothing truly stops you. Nothing truly holds you back. For your own will is always within your control.
"Sickness may challenge your body. But are you merely your body? Lameness may impede your legs. But you are not merely your legs. Your will is bigger than your legs.
"Your will needn't be affected by an incident unless you let it. Remember this with everything that happens to you."
"Every difficulty in life presents us with an opportunity to turn inward and to invoke our own submerged inner resources. The trials we endure can and should introduce us to our strengths.
"Prudent people look beyond the incident itself and seek to form the habit of putting it to good use."
"Never depend on the admiration of others. There is no strength in it. Personal merit cannot be derived from an external source. It is not to be found in your personal associations, nor can it be found in the regard of other people, even people who love you, will not necessarily agree with your ideas, understand you, or share your enthusiasms. Grow up! Who cares what other people think about you!
"You have been given your own work to do. Get to it right now, do your best at it, and don't be concerned with who is watching you. Create your own merit."
Epictetus
"To live with dignity we must first discover our fundamental beliefs and then live by them."
"When I was lost and alone I finally took the time to know myself. The discovery was worth the discomfort."
"When you are physically 'stuck', remember that you are still spiritually FREE."
Ros Stiles
GEORGE WASHINGTON AND DEISM
http://www.deism.com/washington.htm
Deists have a great example of toleration, perseverance, and integrity in the person of fellow Deist George Washington.
Christian preachers who ardently wanted Washington to be portrayed as one of them have made up many stories of George Washington's strong Christian beliefs. One of the primary purveyors of these propaganda pieces was Mason Locke Weems, a Christian preacher who came up with the fable of George Washington and the cherry tree. He also feverishly promoted the myth of George Washington and Christianity.
Washington, like many people in colonial America, belonged to the Anglican church and was a vestryman in it. But in early America, particularly in pre-revolutionary America, you had to belong to the dominant church if you wanted to have influence in society, as is illustrated by the following taken from Old Chruches, Ministers and Families of Virginia, by Bishop William Meade, I, p 191. "Even Mr. Jefferson, and George Wythe, who did not conceal their disbelief in Christianity, took their parts in the duties of vestrymen, the one at Williamsburg, the other at Albermarle; for they wished to be men of influence."
In the book Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller, Jr., we read on page 92, "Washington was no infidel, if by infidel is meant unbeliever. Washington had an unquestioning faith in Providence and, as we have seen, he voiced this faith publicly on numerous occasions. That this was no mere rhetorical flourish on his part, designed for public consumption, is apparent from his constant allusions to Providence in his personal letters. There is every reason to believe, from a careful analysis of religious references in his private correspondence, that Washington’s reliance upon a Grand Designer along Deist lines was as deep-seated and meaningful for his life as, say, Ralph Waldo Emerson’s serene confidence in a Universal Spirit permeating the ever shifting appearances of the everyday world."
On page 82 of the same book, Boller includes a quote from a Presbyterian minister, Arthur B. Bradford, who was an associate of Ashbel Green another Presbyterian minister who had known George Washington personally. Bradford wrote that Green, "often said in my hearing, though very sorrowfully, of course, that while Washington was very deferential to religion and its ceremonies, like nearly all the founders of the Republic, he was not a Christian, but a Deist."
Like truly intelligent people in all times and places, Washington realized how very little we know about life and the workings of the universe. He wrote that the ways of Providence were "inscrutable." Yet he DID the very best he could in all aspects of his life. When things were dark and it looked like the Revolution would be lost, he never gave up. Even when people in his own ranks were turning on him and trying to sink him he persevered because of his deep heartfelt Deistic belief in Providence.
George Washington coupled his genuine belief in Providence with action. After the American defeat at Germantown in 1777 he said, "We must endeavor to deserve better of Providence, and, I am persuaded, she will smile on us." He also wrote that we should take care to do our very best in everything we do so that our, "reason and our own conscience approve."
Washington's toleration for differing religions was made evident by his order to the Continental Army to halt the observance of Pope's Day. Pope's Day was the American equivalent of Guy Fawkes' Day in England. A key part of Pope's Day was the burning of the effigy of the Pope. In his order, Washington described the tradition as, "ridiculous and childish" and that there was no room for this type of behavior in the Continental Army.
The altruism and integrity that Washington possessed is made evident by his restraint in his personal gains. At the successful conclusion of the American Revolution he could have made himself dictator for life. Or he could have allowed others to make him king. Yet, like the Roman General Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus before him, Washington refused to do either.
Preacher Weems has written that on Washington's death bed, "Washington folded his arms decently on his breast, then breathing out 'Father of mercies, take me to thyself,' - he fell asleep." Like almost all of what the Christian fundamentalists have written about Washington, this is not true.
Tobias Lear, Washington's secretary, was with him when he died. The following is his account of Washington's death.
"About ten o'clk he made several attempts to speak to me before he could effect it, at length he said, -'I am just going. Have me decently buried; and do not let my body be put into the vault in less than three days after I am dead.' I bowed assent, for I could not speak. He then looked at me again and said, 'Do you understand me?' I replied, 'Yes.' 'Tis well,' said he.
"About ten minutes before he expired (which was between ten and eleven o'clk) his breathing became easier; he lay quietly; - he withdrew his hand from mine, and felt his own pulse. I saw his countenance change. I spoke to Dr. Craik who sat by the fire; - he came to the bed side. The General's hand fell from his wrist - I took it in mine and put it into my bosom. Dr. Craik put his hands over his eyes and he expired without a struggle or a sigh!"
Like other Deists such as Paine, Jefferson, Voltaire, Franklin, and Allen, Washington did not fear death but looked at it as just another part of nature. Though he didn't speculate much on an after-life, he was comfortable to look at his own death as part of God's design.
George Washington offers us a tremendous example of altruism and positive action. His actions tell us stronger than any words could possibly do to persevere in the face of all obstacles. To never give up and to always combine our sincerely held beliefs with action.
Liberal CAT FIGHT! MEEEEOOOOWWWWW! Hisss hisss
God And Liberty; Liberals And Lies
Paul E. Scates
November 16, 2001
Toogood Reports
The awareness of G-d as the source of our liberty, in turn, hampers the efforts of liberals/socialists who need to change the founding documents, in interpretation and even in fact, in order to implement their big government agenda.
It is interesting to observe how those opposed to the individual liberties guaranteed by the Constitution use that very document to justify their anti-G-d agenda. What has G-d to do with individual liberty? That the question even occurs demonstrates the effectiveness of the liberal assault on our founding principles. Remember what Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence:
“…they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
That remarkable document clearly states that our freedom and rights come not from men—as the liberal/socialists would have us believe, thus making them subject to change with circumstances, ergo the 'Constitution as a living document' claptrap—but from our Creator, from G-d. And as long as there is an awareness of G-d in the public sphere, be it through school prayer or Bible studies, religious displays in public buildings, parks and so on, we are reminded of that fact.
The awareness of G-d as the source of our liberty, in turn, hampers the efforts of liberals/socialists who need to change the founding documents, in interpretation and even in fact, in order to implement their big government agenda. As long as the protections of liberty in the Constitution are acknowledged to be inviolable (i.e., 'unalienable', which means 'G-d-given,' and that man has no rightful authority to either violate or change them), the leftists are stymied. But if they can make us forget about G-d, we'll be more susceptible to their restrictions on individual liberty and property and their expansion of government authority.
Oh, they won't openly admit what they're doing, of course, always claiming the necessity of some good cause for their changes ('for the children' being a favorite ploy, of late). And they'll corrupt language itself in service of their aims, considering 'truth' to be just another weapon when useful, and irrelevant otherwise. An avowed socialist, and Palestinian, college professor of mine was amused at my reaction to his frank revelation of such tactics, and delighted in poking fun at my 'naïve' attachment to truth and objective facts.
In the past thirty years we've allowed the leftists to successfully use such methods, their reasonable lies and deconstruction of our founding documents and principles, in order to weaken the protections of liberty that have served so well for over two hundred years. Recently, a controversy in my hometown provided a good example: In the week following the terrorist attacks, some county commissioners proposed placing a plaque of the Ten Commandments in the county courthouse. Their stated aim was patriotic, to acknowledge the nation's foundation and its continuing source of strength, inspired no doubt by the scenes of people from all walks of life and all across this nation bowing their heads in prayer and calling upon G-d to comfort and strengthen us.
The response from the left, of course, was predictable: liberals were aghast at the 'intolerance' of it (not everyone believes in 'that G-d', you know), and the ACLU vowed to take the battle to the courts. The local newspaper printed an editorial siding with the anti-G-d crowd, concluding that the plaque violated the “separation of church and state clearly upheld by the Supreme Court,” and condemning the act as a willful violation of the law.
Now 'the law' to which that editorial refers is the civil and criminal law of the United States, the foundation of which is the Constitution. Those laws are traceable back through English common law straight to the very Ten Commandments that the editor believes should be banned from the court through which 'the law' is administered! Though the Supreme Court has ruled that such displays are unconstitutional…they've also ruled that murdering infants is constitutional, and that proven criminals are often due more rights than their victims, among other shameful acts. But the Declaration of Independence clearly states:
“…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them (i.e., citizens) under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government….”
In other words, the Supreme Court and the Congress—through rulings and legislation—have clearly been destructive of our unalienable right to life and of the First Amendment right to free expression of religion (among others) and should, by authority of those foundational documents and principles, be defied, returning to the people their G-d-given rights. So, through the ballot box or other means if necessary, it is our duty to restore the fundamental rights that liberals have taken from us by lies and guile. Thus says Jefferson, Madison, Adams and the rest of the Founding Fathers.
But, as I mentioned, liberals will lie to keep G-d out of our consciousness. They do so because individual rights just won't work under socialism, where the government controls everything. For example, one of their bold and common lies is about the First Amendment: Rather than stopping with the establishment clause, though, as liberals always do (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”), reason requires we also read the very next clause, “…or prohibit the free exercise thereof…”. What did Madison mean by that? In his Proposal for a Bill of Rights, written in June of 1789, he writes:
“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.”
Even as he expresses the reason for the establishment clause (a ban on a national religion or state church), Madison makes clear that such a ban should not extend to the expression of faith by individuals! Yet leftists and their friends in the Court would have us believe, I suppose, that Madison only meant part of this phrase?
The 'wall of separation' of which Jefferson wrote is another principle that is so misused by liberals. The phrase comes from his response to a letter from the Danbury Baptists, who in a letter claimed their inalienable right to free expression of religion was being treated “as an issue subject to legislation by the government,” which they rightly claimed was inconsistent with the Declaration and Constitution. To this Jefferson agreed, adding that the government's authority extends not to opinions, nor to interference with the free exercise of man's natural rights. In other words, government shouldn't make legislation for or against religion, but leave it to men's consciences. But leftists reveal their hypocrisy by accepting legislation that removes school prayer or religious symbols, while touting the 'inviolable wall of separation' in opposing pro-religious measures. It seems the 'wall' is violable after all, but in only one direction.
The editorial predictably talked about 'tolerance' and 'the community's increasingly diverse religious base,' and went on to say that strengthening our trust in G-d and our national pride 'promote exclusion and intolerance of other faiths'—horse apples! No one in this nation is prevented from worshiping his own G-d, but it is the Christian G-d that the Founders referred to…not Allah, or Buddha, or some other. And I'd argue that most immigrants recognize and accept that, and would never think of demanding we give them up. Immigrants know they're welcomed here; it's the liberals who have their panties in a wad over 'differences.' Somebody should tell them that's what 'diversity' actually means, and not lockstep group-think!
Who decreed, besides the self-hating schizophrenics on the left, that this nation has no right to our heritage? Is there any other nation on earth—except perhaps Great Britain—that is willing to commit cultural suicide for the sake of newcomers or minorities, just to please simpering handwringers worried that somebody, somewhere, 'might' be offended? If liberals want a nation that recognizes no past history, no cultural or traditional values or standards, no religious beliefs and practices, they should go start one…and good riddance! But like every other nation, America has all those things, and based on most of the world's desire to come here, we should be proud of them.
Liberals, like the author of that editorial, have surreptitiously dismantled the moral, ethical, educational and political structure of this nation for the past thirty years, and for that they're guilty of something very close to treason, and all for a foolish and false ideology, historically proven to be bankrupt and murderous.
No, a plaque with the Ten Commandments on it won't make people live holier lives, any more than it will somehow harm those who believe in other G-ds, or none at all. But it will acknowledge and remind us that the true foundation of this nation is the G-d that Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration. And that's why leftists can't allow such public expressions of faith…lest we remember that G-d is the source of our liberty, not career bureaucrats and lying politicians.
Toogood Reports contributor Paul Scates is a Constitutional Conservative and a Christian who offers his commentary to 'we, the people,' who bear the ultimate responsibility for the actions of our elected representatives, and for preserving our Constitutional liberties. Paul served as a Marine in Vietnam, his interests include history, government and cultural issues. You may e-mail Paul at pescates@earthlink.net.
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Constitution_Issues/god_and_liberty.htm
Sen. Kerry Urges Talks with Iran, Syria
December 15, 2006
Foxnews.com
CAIRO, Egypt — Sen. John Kerry, on a Mideast tour taking him to Damascus for talks with President Bashar Assad, said Friday that the Bush administration's rejection of dialogue with Syria and Iran to try to calm Iraq is a mistake.
Kerry's trip is the latest in a growing tussle between the White House and Congress over the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel that called for talks with Iran and Syria to win their help in stabilizing war-torn Iraq.
The Massachusetts Democrat said his visit to Syria was "a fact-finding mission" to explore "what might or might not affect behavior with respect to Hezbollah, Lebanon, Israel and Iraq, where in each of those cases Syria is playing a role."
"Dialogue is an important thing. It's very hard to move the ball if you don't know firsthand what people's needs are, what their own perceptions are," Kerry said in an interview with The Associated Press and several other journalists in Cairo.
Kerry said he was "willing" to go to Iran for talks but had no current plans to do so.
The White House said Thursday that trips to Syria by U.S. lawmakers were "inappropriate," giving a public relations victory for Damascus, which the Bush administration accuses of fueling crises in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.
Spokesman Tony Snow said a visit earlier this week by Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla. to Damascus, Kerry's visit and others planned by Democrat Christopher Dodd and Republican Arlen Specter send a mixed message to Syria.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice soundly rejected any talks with Syria and Iran in an interview with The Washington Post, saying any "compensation" they demand would be too high and that they should act on their own if they want stability in Iraq.
Kerry called the refusal to talk to Syria and Iran "a mistake. I think it's the kind of policy that's got us into trouble in the reason and it needs to change."
The former Democratic presidential candidate underlined that he was not engaging in negotiations with Damascus. "Talking to somebody is not rewarding their behavior. I have no illusions about our differences with these countries ... and nothing in the discussion is based on trust," said. "But you cannot get to (action and verifiability) without setting up the modalities. So you have to engage in some dialogue."
"Now that the Democrats are in control of Congress, we have an even larger responsibility to set a direction ... as a counterbalance to policies that have gotten us into trouble," he said.
Kerry, who met Thursday with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, was heading to Jordan, then to Iraq. He visits Damascus early next week, where he will hold talks with Assad. He also planned stops in Lebanon, Israel and the West Bank in the nine-day tour.
Syria has influence with Iraqi Sunnis and some leaders of the Sunni-led insurgency are believed to be based on its soil. Iran in turn is closely linked to Shiite parties in the government and some of the militias blamed for killing thousands of Sunnis in Iraq's sectarian violence.
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,236708,00.html
BullNBear52.. Only if three doctorates and 32+ published books makes you one. And you have how many doctorates to your name? How many published books? What’s that you say? How many? What does that make you, you ask?.. I’m to compassionate to tell you.
Obviously you have shown me the light. How could I be so blind? All I ever had to do was Read your amazingly insightful one line post and the Light Of God would shine.
Throw away everything else, Bullshitbear has spoken!
Paule Walnuts
Mental Disorder indeed!
Some information on the liberal media.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0603/p02s01-usgn.html
Journalists know they're liberal:
In 1995, 22% of journalists told Pew they were liberal, and 5% conservative. Now (2004) it's 34% and 7%, respectively.
So, when liberals claim no bias, they believe that Americans and Journalists do not know what they are talking about; they seem to call everyone dumb -even themselves.
Rarely, liberals (Journalists & networks) will shy away from true discussion forums as "Hannity & Colmes" because it is a threat to their bias. Americans are not fooled by the myth of the "liberal bias myth". Liberal media want to think for everyone, and the secret is out.
Some Liberal Arguments:
1. Some liberals will be so desperate as to claim a "Pat Robertson" is a massive media outlet like the NY Times or Reuters. Liberals evidently are in total denial. Pat Robertson may be equivalent to an individual journalist, but not a media outlet. Let's compare apples or oranges, okay, libs?
2. The media is owned by "conservative" corporations.
This is an absurd lie. TIME WARNER is the largest media company in the world!
http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/timewarner.asp
How does one judge a corporation to be "conservatively" biased? Because of tax incentives? Profitability? "Liberal" corporations don't care for profits? Let's ask the founder of Time Warner, Ted Turner, a noted liberal flamer that was once married to "Hanoi" Jane Fonda, the huge liberal activist.
God forbid that the truth come out that Time Warner is the Parent Company OF Time Magazine, Time Warner Cable (a cable service provider), CNN, CNN HEADLINE NEWS, TNT, AOL, TBS).
Liberals (Journalists - Media Owners) who report the news are so adament about getting their views and/or lies out, they will continue to report them even if it means that the network/journalist is killing the ratings. How else can you explain the Dan Rather controversy? A man who clung to fabricated documents with a network that refused to admit the lies they reported.
The facts are alarming. However, we in America are in a better position than are neighbors across the pond. Britain has no Fox News, it only has liberal networks like the BBC.
I'm sorry that you liberals hate Fox News in your lineup. Most Americans disagree. We have to put up with biased groups like Time Warner Networks, NY Times, LA Times, CBS, Reuters, and AP, not to mention a bunch of rabid leftist political hack journalists. Fox News does have open debates on their network between liberals and conservatives. I would dare say that Fox news has more liberal voices than the other major networks having conservative voices combined.
So, next time I hear a liberal crying about Fox News, I'll play a little violin while I'm free to turn the radio to O'Reilly and turn CNN off.
GREAT EXAMPLE LEFTIST JOURNALISM
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/14/D8D824KO4.html
Someone trying to demonize C. Rice?
http://fromthepen.com/condi_usatoday_scandal.html
Lengthy story on pictoral edits by the media
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003177.htm
Gulfbreeze...
Republicans have their woes as well. But you are right, the demonrats have been on the full frontal assault for quite some time; saying and doing some of the most hurtful and hateful things. Moreover and most importantly are IMHO, committing acts of Anti-American sedition as well. The sad thing is the people in the trenches have no real clue as to why they are protesting. Their leaders spout out drivel and they repeat it continuously never fully researching the issue from a non-bias point of view. Like Susie they readily accept the head pat and doggie biscuit for doing so.
I am constantly looking at both sides of the story and developing my own path...Guess that's why I'm a registered Independent, could never bring myself to vote for a baby killer though. Or a group of people specifically Nancy Pelosi that champion pedophile groups such as NAMBLA either. I don't know how the rank and file dems can sleep at night.
Glad to see you here, Post more often. Bring friends. My group from Raging Bull came over and started this board several years ago. I'm taking it back. Appreciate all the help the conservatives here can give.
Paule Walnuts
Merry Christmas and God Bless America.
'ergo sum'...Exactly the response anticipated. At least you don't deny being a complete and total liar.
That’s something.
Paule Walnuts
Good luck finding a cure. You are in desperate need.
BOREALIS...
Follow the link back and you'll see that no I’m not talking to you, but rather insulting your friends that made that very same demand to me.(even though I had already done so) In your words, yes it is a cop-out and you should tell your friends that.
Debunking hypocrisy to me is more important than engaging in a circular argument full of red herrings, temporizations and obfuscations. I have no desire to listen to you equivocate, or suffer your incredulous behavior.
Paule Walnuts
Liberalism IS a mental disorder
You need help my friend...
The book Common sense has nothing to do with Deism, Yes I did say this. I was insulting you by adding it to the list of books that DO deal with Deism; insinuating that indeed you have none.(Common Sense). When you immediately didn't point out that the book had nothing to do with Deism and then further compounded you dilemma by claiming you "disagree with the argument"(paraphrased) It was obvious that to even a three year old that you had lied by claiming that you had read the book Common Sense in the first place.... Unable to produce a coherent conversation in regards to Thomas Paine, a man you keep claiming to have read; you show everyone that you are a liar. You have no defense, I busted you; period!
Liars are bad people. Their lies kill people physically and metaphorically inside. Yes I'm judging your character and I find you lacking. People judge each and every day and it’s a good thing. It keeps us alive.
Next the link I posted for you is just further proof that Deism is a real belief structure, and not "made up" as you claim I'm doing. More lies or just plain ignorance I really can't tell. Based upon your previous postings I’ll claim it a lie until you acknowledge your ignorance in full. Thomas Paine one of Americas greatest unsung heroes, contrasts Deism with Christianity laying out a well thought and consistent comparison. He is not arguing right or wrong. Mainstream Christianity is the reason George Washington and Thomas Jefferson betrayed Mr. Paine, as Deism was radical to the times and considered and treated as Atheism. America BEING A CHRISTIAN NATION couldn't allow such a great man to come along and destroy their paradigm. Censorship and abomination, much the same way you Liberals today, treat all those that disagree your beliefs. (Yes I’m comparing Liberalism with Christianity gone bad. I defy you showing me the difference.)
Third, I am who and what I have always claimed to be. I hate the liberal ideologies. I am a Theist; my belief structure is that of Deism. Deists have no religion just beliefs. I think liberalism IS a mental disorder. Evidence to this fact would be the constant pathological liars here on this board namely you, Susie and Stephanie V.
I am a conservative in principal but I am also a registered Independent as I have told you before.(add retention problems to your list of inadequacies)
Now IF… you want, and are in any way capable of having a debate or conversation without lying; I would be more than willing to engage you. Until then you are not worth the 2 minutes it took to write this post.
As for Zeeves thread. Good my goal would be that conservatism reigns supreme on each and every board. We need to combat your intolerant, hateful, hurtful, America destroying, communist, socialist, Marxist, murdering ideologies and belief structures before its too late. Can I be any clearer than that? Liberalism is a mental disorder, you are the victim, and we are the cure.
Paule Walnuts to you!
“The louder I hear you cry freedom, the louder I hear your chains rattle.” I forget the author.
I thought the report didn't say anything about US needing help from Iran. Seems even Alex can find this to be false.
"in thinking Iran or Syria has any reason to help us in Iraq,"
Paule Walnuts
Here ya go ergo..
OF THE RELIGION OF DEISM
COMPARED WITH THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every person, of whatever religious denomination he may be, is a DEIST in the first article of his Creed. Deism, from the Latin word Deus, God, is the belief of a God, and this belief is the first article of every man's creed.
It is on this article, universally consented to by all mankind, that the Deist builds his church, and here he rests. Whenever we step aside from this article, by mixing it with articles of human invention, we wander into a labyrinth of uncertainty and fable, and become exposed to every kind of imposition by pretenders to revelation.
The Persian shows the Zend-Avesta of Zoroaster, the lawgiver of Persia, and calls it the divine law; the Bramin shows the Shaster, revealed, he says, by God to Brama, and given to him out of a cloud; the Jew shows what he calls the law of Moses, given, he says, by God, on the Mount Sinai; the Christian shows a collection of books and epistles, written by nobody knows who, and called the New Testament; and the Mahometan shows the Koran, given, he says, by God to Mahomet: each of these calls itself revealed religion, and the only true Word of God, and this the followers of each profess to believe from the habit of education, and each believes the others are imposed upon.
But when the divine gift of reason begins to expand itself in the mind and calls man to reflection, he then reads and contemplates God and His works, and not in the books pretending to be revelation. The creation is the Bible of the true believer in God. Everything in this vast volume inspires him with sublime ideas of the Creator. The little and paltry, and often obscene, tales of the Bible sink into wretchedness when put in comparison with this mighty work.
The Deist needs none of those tricks and shows called miracles to confirm his faith, for what can be a greater miracle than the creation itself, and his own existence?
There is a happiness in Deism, when rightly understood, that is not to be found in any other system of religion. All other systems have something in them that either shock our reason, or are repugnant to it, and man, if he thinks at all, must stifle his reason in order to force himself to believe them.
But in Deism our reason and our belief become happily united. The wonderful structure of the universe, and everything we behold in the system of the creation, prove to us, far better than books can do, the existence of a God, and at the same time proclaim His attributes.
It is by the exercise of our reason that we are enabled to contemplate God in His works, and imitate Him in His ways. When we see His care and goodness extended over all His creatures, it teaches us our duty toward each other, while it calls forth our gratitude to Him. It is by forgetting God in His works, and running after the books of pretended revelation, that man has wandered from the straight path of duty and happiness, and become by turns the victim of doubt and the dupe of delusion.
Except in the first article in the Christian creed, that of believing in God, there is not an article in it but fills the mind with doubt as to the truth of it, the instant man begins to think. Now every article in a creed that is necessary to the happiness and salvation of man, ought to be as evident to the reason and comprehension of man as the first article is, for God has not given us reason for the purpose of confounding us, but that we should use it for our own happiness and His glory.
The truth of the first article is proved by God Himself, and is universal; for the creation is of itself demonstration of the existence of a Creator. But the second article, that of God's begetting a son, is not proved in like manner, and stands on no other authority than that of a tale.
Certain books in what is called the New Testament tell us that Joseph dreamed that the angel told him so, (Matthew i, 20): "And behold the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph, in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."
The evidence upon this article bears no comparison with the evidence upon the first article, and therefore is not entitled to the same credit, and ought not to be made an article in a creed, because the evidence of it is defective, and what evidence there is, is doubtful and suspicious. We do not believe the first article on the authority of books, whether called Bibles or Korans, nor yet on the visionary authority of dreams, but on the authority of God's own visible works in the creation.
The nations who never heard of such books, nor of such people as Jews, Christians, or Mahometans, believe the existence of a God as fully as we do, because it is self-evident. The work of man's hands is a proof of the existence of man as fully as his personal appearance would be.
When we see a watch, we have as positive evidence of the existence of a watchmaker, as if we saw him; and in like manner the creation is evidence to our reason and our senses of the existence of a Creator. But there is nothing in the works of God that is evidence that He begat a son, nor anything in the system of creation that corroborates such an idea, and, therefore, we are not authorized in believing it.
What truth there may be in the story that Mary, before she was married to Joseph, was kept by one of the Roman soldiers, and was with child by him, I leave to be settled between the Jews and Christians. The story however has probability on its side, for her husband Joseph suspected and was jealous of her, and was going to put her away. "Joseph, her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was going to put her away, privately." (Matt. i, 19).
I have already said that "whenever we step aside from the first article (that of believing in God), we wander into a labyrinth of uncertainty," and here is evidence of the justness of the remark, for it is impossible for us to decide who was Jesus Christ's father.
But presumption can assume anything, and therefore it makes Joseph's dream to be of equal anthority with the existence of God, and to help it on calls it revelation. It is impossible for the mind of man in its serious moments, however it may have been entangled by education, or beset by priestcraft, not to stand still and doubt upon the truth of this article and of its creed.
But this is not all. The second article of the Christian creed having brought the son of Mary into the world (and this Mary, according to the chronological tables, was a girl of only fifteen years of age when this son was born), the next article goes on to account for his being begotten, which was, that when he grew a man he should be put to death, to expiate, they say, the sin that Adam brought into the world by eating an apple or some kind of forbidden fruit.
But though this is the creed of the Church of Rome, from whence the Protestants borrowed it, it is a creed which that Church has manufactured of itself, for it is not contained in nor derived from, the book called the New Testament.
The four books called the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, which give, or pretend to give, the birth, sayings, life, preaching, and death of Jesus Christ, make no mention of what is called the fall of man; nor is the name of Adam to be found in any of those books, which it certainly would be if the writers of them believed that Jesus was begotten, born, and died for the purpose of redeeming mankind from the sin which Adam had brought into the world. Jesus never speaks of Adam himself, of the garden of Eden, nor of what is called the fall of man.
But the Church of Rome having set up its new religion, which it called Christianity, invented the creed which it named the Apostles's Creed, in which it calls Jesus the only son of God, conceived by the Holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary; things of which it is impossible that man or woman can have any idea, and consequently no belief but in words; and for which there is no authority but the idle story of Joseph's dream in the first chapter of Matthew, which any designing imposter or foolish fanatic might make.
It then manufactured the allegories in the book of Genesis into fact, and the allegorical tree of life and the tree of knowledge into real trees, contrary to the belief of the first Christians, and for which there is not the least authority in any of the books of the New Testament; for in none of them is there any mention made of such place as the Garden of Eden, nor of anything that is said to have happened there.
But the Church of Rome could not erect the person called Jesus into a Savior of the world without making the allegories in the book of Genesis into fact, though the New Testament, as before observed, gives no authority for it. All at once the allegorical tree of knowledge became, according to the Church, a real tree, the fruit of it real fruit, and the eating of it sinful.
As priestcraft was always the enemy of knowledge, because priestcraft supports itself by keeping people in delusion and ignorance, it was consistent with its policy to make the acquisition of knowledge a real sin.
The Church of Rome having done this, it then brings forward Jesus the son of Mary as suffering death to redeem mankind from sin, which Adam, it says, had brought into the world by eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. But as it is impossible for reason to believe such a story, because it can see no reason for it, nor have any evidence of it, the Church then tells us we must not regard our reason, but must believe, as it were, and that through thick and thin, as if God had given man reason like a plaything, or a rattle, on purpose to make fun of him.
Reason is the forbidden tree of priestcraft, and may serve to explain the allegory of the forbidden tree of knowledge, for we may reasonably suppose the allegory had some meaning and application at the time it was invented. It was the practice of the Eastern nations to convey their meaning by allegory, and relate it in the manner of fact. Jesus followed the same method, yet nobody ever supposed the allegory or parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the Prodigal Son, the ten Virgins, etc., were facts.
Why then should the tree of knowledge, which is far more romantic in idea than the parables in the New Testament are, be supposed to be a real tree? The answer to this is, because the Church could not make its new-fangled system, which it called Christianity, hold together without it. To have made Christ to die on account of an allegorical tree would have been too barefaced a fable.
But the account, as it is given of Jesus in the New Testament, even visionary as it is, does not support the creed of the Church that he died for the redemption of the world. According to that account he was crucified and buried on the Friday, and rose again in good health on the Sunday morning, for we do not hear that he was sick. This cannot be called dying, and is rather making fun of death than suffering it.
There are thousands of men and women also, who if they could know they should come back again in good health in about thirty-six hours, would prefer such kind of death for the sake of the experiment, and to know what the other side of the grave was. Why then should that which would be only a voyage of curious amusement to us, be magnified into merit and suffering in him? If a God, he could not suffer death, for immortality cannot die, and as a man his death could be no more than the death of any other person.
The belief of the redemption of Jesus Christ is altogether an invention of the Church of Rome, not the doctrine of the New Testament. What the writers of the New Testament attempted to prove by the story of Jesus is the resurrection of the same body from the grave, which was the belief of the Pharisees, in opposition to the Sadducees (a sect of Jews) who denied it.
Paul, who was brought up a Pharisee, labors hard at this for it was the creed of his own Pharisaical Church: I Corinthians xv is full of supposed cases and assertions about the resurrection of the same body, but there is not a word in it about redemption. This chapter makes part of the funeral service of the Episcopal Church. The dogma of the redemption is the fable of priestcraft invented since the time the New Testament was compiled, and the agreeable delusion of it suited with the depravity of immoral livers. When men are taught to ascribe all their crimes and vices to the temptations of the devil, and to believe that Jesus, by his death, rubs all off, and pays their passage to heaven gratis, they become as careless in morals as a spendthrift would be of money, were he told that his father had engaged to pay off all his scores.
It is a doctrine not only dangerous to morals in this world, but to our happiness in the next world, because it holds out such a cheap, easy, and lazy way of getting to heaven, as has a tendency to induce men to hug the delusion of it to their own injury.
But there are times when men have serious thoughts, and it is at such times, when they begin to think, that they begin to doubt the truth of the Christian religion; and well they may, for it is too fanciful and too full of conjecture, inconsistency, improbability and irrationality, to afford consolation to the thoughtful man. His reason revolts against his creed. He sees that none of its articles are proved, or can be proved.
He may believe that such a person as is called Jesus (for Christ was not his name) was born and grew to be a man, because it is no more than a natural and probable case. But who is to prove he is the son of God, that he was begotten by the Holy Ghost? Of these things there can be no proof; and that which admits not of proof, and is against the laws of probability and the order of nature, which God Himself has established, is not an object for belief. God has not given man reason to embarrass him, but to prevent his being imposed upon.
He may believe that Jesus was crucified, because many others were crucified, but who is to prove he was crucified for the sins of the world? This article has no evidence, not even in the New Testament; and if it had, where is the proof that the New Testament, in relating things neither probable nor provable, is to be believed as true?
When an article in a creed does not admit of proof nor of probability, the salvo is to call it revelation; but this is only putting one difficulty in the place of another, for it is as impossible to prove a thing to be revelation as it is to prove that Mary was gotten with child by the Holy Ghost.
Here it is that the religion of Deism is superior to the Christian Religion. It is free from all those invented and torturing articles that shock our reason or injure our humanity, and with which the Christian religion abounds. Its creed is pure, and sublimely simple. It believes in God, and there it rests.
It honors reason as the choicest gift of God to man, and the faculty by which he is enabled to contemplate the power, wisdom and goodness of the Creator displayed in the creation; and reposing itself on His protection, both here and hereafter, it avoids all presumptuous beliefs, and rejects, as the fabulous inventions of men, all books pretending to revelation.
-Thomas Paine
Unprogressive Democrats
Michael Kazin
December 15, 2006
Michael Kazin is the author, most recently, of A Godly Hero: The Life of William Jennings Bryan, named one of the best books of 2006 by The Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Chicago Tribune. He teaches history at Georgetown University.
The members of the new Democratic majority that takes control of Congress next month do not support every progressive ideal and policy. Dozens of House members, especially from the South and Mountain West, oppose abortion rights, gun control, and same-sex marriage. Other lawmakers still believe the U.S. can emerge victorious in Iraq; they criticize the way the Bush administration has managed the war, not the decision to invade and occupy the country in the first place.
Some liberal journalists and bloggers warn us to beware of such red-hearted wolves in blue garments. They warn Democratic leaders to prevent the conservatives in their midst from gaining influence, lest they stall the revival of a solidly progressive party.
Although the argument may sound logical, it is a prescription for failure. Over the past century, the Democrats, as their very name implies, have nearly always been a broad yet fragmented party—and they were seldom able to reform America unless they could keep those fragments from flying apart.
The party that lifted Woodrow Wilson into the White House in 1913 and strengthened its hold on Congress was a crazy quilt of ideological and regional diversity. Agrarian populists from the West and Dixie caucused both with Southern conservatives who still revered Robert E. Lee and with wily, often corrupt pols from Tammany Hall and similar urban machines. But all Democrats agreed on the need to rein in the corporate rich and give aid to struggling workers and small businesses. So Congress managed to pass the income tax amendment, an eight-hour day for railroad workers, and forged an alliance with organized labor. Only after World War I, when Prohibition became law and the Senate rejected Wilson’s vision of a new global order, did the Democrats devolve into warring factions.
Fifteen years later, Franklin Roosevelt roared into power during the pit of the Great Depression. Backed by huge Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, he signed measures that remain benchmarks of liberal statecraft—the Social Security Act, public works programs, laws that protected the right to organize, established a minimum wage, banned child labor, and placed a floor under farm prices. But none of these policies would have been enacted if FDR had read conservatives out of the party.
As during Wilson’s day, the Democrats’ strongest base was in the South. Roosevelt won over 80 percent of the vote there in 1932 and 1936; a GOP congressman from the region was then as rare as an ice hockey team. The Solid South required FDR’s economic reforms to pass through committees chaired, for the most part, by men who cared as much about keeping black people down as they did about helping the downtrodden white majority.
For African-Americans, the price was high. Some were able, for the first time, to find government jobs, especially in the North. But Roosevelt declined to support a federal anti-lynching bill, the civil rights movement’s highest priority, and it fell victim to a six-week-long filibuster in 1938. FDR explained his painful decision to Walter White, executive secretary of the NAACP: “I did not choose the tools with which I must work. Had I been permitted to choose them I would have selected quite different ones. But I’ve got to get legislation passed by Congress to save America.”
Not until almost 30 years later did a Democratic president—Lyndon Johnson—commit himself firmly and irrevocably to the cause of black freedom. But, as LBJ predicted, his support for civil rights and affirmative action split the party wide open, as white Southerners and not a few suburbanites in the North deserted for the GOP. Before that occurred, the Democratic Congress was able to enact Medicare, Medicaid, and a variety of anti-poverty measures. In 1966, Republicans picked up almost 50 seats in the House and effectively finished off the Great Society.
No one should regret Johnson’s principled stand. Propelled by a large and determined grassroots movement, he helped make the U.S. a more tolerant society and opened up good jobs to Latinos and women of all races, as well as to African-Americans. Yet truly progressive eras don’t last long in American politics; it’s been four decades since the last one ended. To keep a victorious coalition together, some compromises are always necessary. But in the 1960s, the Dixiecrats were exacting too high a price: They demanded that the party sell its liberal soul.
Fortunately, no issue of comparable significance divides the incoming Democratic majority. Whatever their misgivings, hardly any of the party’s office-holders favor overturning Roe v. Wade , engage in gay-bashing, or, notwithstanding a certain “independent” from Connecticut, think U.S. troops should keep fighting in Iraq for more than another year or two.
An overwhelming number of Democrats in the new House and Senate do endorse proposals that would begin to reverse the damage GOP administrations since 1981 have done to the welfare of ordinary Americans. Their program includes a serious hike in the minimum wage, tax breaks for college tuition, federal support for low-cost green energy sources, and the legal reform that would enable millions to join unions. A Bush veto would likely follow passage of any of these bills. But together, they could plant the seeds of a New Deal for the 21st century.
Isn’t that prospect worth a bit of compromise with office-holders whose constituents still regard “liberalism” as a metaphor for the anti-Christ? Democrats who can unite behind and forcefully advocate a package of populist economic measures will be in a good position to win the presidency in 2008. Without a friend in the White House, those seeds will never bloom into a fairer, more egalitarian society. So liberals might heed the wisdom of the prancing pundit Mick Jagger, “You can’t always get what you want. But if you try sometime, you just might find, you get what you need.”
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/12/15/the-hippie-era-just-wont-die/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tomp...
I hate hippies!..end
The Hippie Era Just Won't Die
Paul Waldman
December 13, 2006
Paul Waldman is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America and the author of the new book, Being Right is Not Enough: What Progressives Can Learn From Conservative Success (John Wiley & Sons). The views expressed here are his own.
Most people remember the 1992 Republican convention for Pat Buchanan’s blistering speech in which he declared that there was ‘a cultural war’ being waged, ‘a struggle for the soul of America.’ But there was another speech given that August in the Astrodome, just as important in retrospect if not more so. Marilyn Quayle, wife of the vice president, told the assembled GOP faithful what Buchanan was really talking about:
Much has been said lately about the need in this country for a new generation of leadership; that the moment has come for a couple of baby boomers to take the helm of this great and complex nation; that the time has come for generational change. Well, Dan and I are members of the baby boom generation, too. And yet our basic understanding of what constitutes good government and a good society is very different from that of the boomers who lead the other party.
We are all shaped by the times in which we live. I came of age in a time of turbulent social change. Some of it was good, such as civil rights—much of it was questionable. But remember, not everyone joined the counterculture, not everyone demonstrated, dropped out, took drugs, joined in the sexual revolution or dodged the draft. [roaring ovation from crowd]
The 2008 campaign has begun in earnest—Barack Obama made his first trip to New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton is working the phones to line up key supporters and the last few pieces of the primary puzzle are falling into place (the will-he-or-won’t-he nail-biting over the Kucinich candidacy is mercifully over). And now another generational change is beginning. It won’t be complete for a couple of elections yet, but we are beginning to see the twilight of the baby boom politicians. One day soon, we could actually have an election in which nobody talks about the 1960s.
Though the revolutionary boomer candidacy of Clinton and Gore in 1992 doesn’t seem that long ago to many of us, the boomers may be gone sooner than you realize. Let’s consider a candidate conceived in the celebration over V-J day in August 1945, and born in May 1946. In 2008 this candidate will be 62, still prime campaigning age. In 2012 he’ll be 66, still vigorous but perhaps without the spring his step once had. In 2016, two elections hence, he’ll be 70, near the upper limit for a presidential candidate. By way of comparison, Ronald Reagan was 69 when he took office, older than any other president. Bob Dole was 73 in 1996; his age became his chief liability, the personal attribute around which the late-night comics built every Dole joke. And John McCain would be 72 upon taking office if he were to win in 2008.
What this means is that our presidential campaigns—and by extension, our politics more generally—is headed for a dramatic transition. In the 2008 race, every major candidate in both parties, with the exception of Obama, could be called a baby boomer. At the very least, for the rest of them the '60s occurred when they were young people, either teenagers or young adults. Four years from now, the contenders will probably be a mix of baby boomers and post-boomers. Four years after that, post-boomers will dominate, with perhaps a few baby boomers hanging around.
There is no single accepted cut-off date for baby boomers, but one way to think about it would be whether you had hit high school by the time the 1960s ended. But it’s nearly as hard to pin down the end of the 1960s. Because it is the cultural and political legacy of the sixties that defines the baby boom, that is where we should set our dates. And "the Sixties" as embodied in the cultural and political emblems we remember today didn’t really begin until around 1963. The best place to mark their end might be with the resignation of Richard Nixon in 1974.
So where do our current presidential contenders fall? What follows is the year each of the presidential candidates was born, ranked from oldest to youngest, along with the age each will be on inauguration day in 2009:
Republicans
John McCain: 1936 (72)
Tommy Thompson: 1941 (67)
Newt Gingrich: 1943 (65)
Rudy Giuliani: 1944 (64)
George Pataki: 1945 (63)
Chuck Hagel: 1946 (62)
Mitt Romney: 1947 (61)
Duncan Hunter: 1948 (60)
Mike Huckabee: 1955 (53)
Sam Brownback: 1956 (52)
Democrats
Joseph Biden: 1942 (66)
Wesley Clark: 1944 (64)
Christopher Dodd: 1944 (64)
Hillary Clinton: 1947 (61)
Bill Richardson: 1947 (61)
Tom Vilsack: 1950 (58)
John Edwards: 1953 (55)
Evan Bayh: 1955 (53)
Barack Obama: 1961 (47)
Still Fighting the Hippies
The current incarnation of the culture war didn’t just begin in the sixties—it is, to this day, about the '60s. That decade divided the country in two: you were either cool or square, with it or a stuffed shirt. Which side of that divide you placed yourself—whether you grew your hair long or cut it short, supported Vietnam or opposed it, thought free love would lead to the decline of civilization or thanked your lucky stars it came along while you were still young—continues to determine how people who were around at the time look at not only the '60s, but today’s politics as well.
Consider this piece of public opinion data, courtesy of the National Election Studies carried out every two years since 1952 by the University of Michigan. One of the NES questions asks respondents how liberal or conservative they think the candidates running for president are. The ratings given to Bill Clinton by people calling themselves conservatives would have made him the most liberal presidential candidate of the last half-century—more liberal than Hubert Humphrey, or Walter Mondale, or Michael Dukakis or even George McGovern. Now if you think Bill Clinton is more liberal than George McGovern, you’re living in a strange fantasy world. But the conservatives of 1992 and 1996 rated him as more liberal than the conservatives of 1972 rated McGovern.
Why? Consider that avid culture warrior Newt Gingrich once called Bill and Hillary Clinton ‘counter-culture McGoverniks,’ as though they spent the Summer of Love driving to Haight-Ashbury in their VW Microbus, dropping acid all along the way. Anyone who has seen photos of Hillary from that time knows that she was more than a few steps from ‘counter-culture.’ As for Bill, he didn’t even know how to inhale. In fairness, the two did work for George McGovern in 1972—but Bill, the recent law school grad, was in charge of McGovern’s Texas campaign, a staff position that probably necessitated the wearing of a tie.
The facts of their not-so-misspent youth are beside the point. The Clintons came to embody everything that conservatives hate about the '60s. For better or worse (and there’s a case to be made for each), a general election in which Hillary is matched up against a Republican will almost inevitably see one more smackdown between the hippies and the squares. (And if you think which Republican it is matters at all, consider the drubbing war hero John Kerry took from draft-dodgers Bush and Cheney over Vietnam.)
There’s no doubt that Barack Obama is hoping that voters, particularly those in the Democratic primary, will be looking for a respite from the 40-year war that began when his opponents were young adults and he was in elementary school. "Although his instincts were right on target," Obama recently told The New York Times , speaking about Bill Clinton and the bitter disputes of the '60s, "and I think, intellectually and pragmatically, he understood that America wanted to move beyond those categories, in some ways he was trapped by his biography." In other words, the fact that Clinton was a baby boomer meant he had no way of transcending the culture war—Obama is attempting to make the case that he can.
Yet today’s culture war can be seen as just an updated version of the one we were having 30 and 40 years ago. The religious, social, political and cultural divides of today still concern the same fundamental issues, a great many of which revolve around sex. To oversimplify a bit, America is divided between people who think that sex is a natural part of life, and you should be able to do it with pretty much whoever you please; and people who think sex is dirty and sinful and they should be able to tell you whom you can do it with and how. (Not to mention the fact that we’ve got our own updated Vietnam—and once again, the liberals were right and the conservatives were wrong).
The passing of one generation of politicians is unlikely to change that. I’d be surprised if we aren’t still arguing about sex 20 years from now. And even if baby boomer politicians are getting long in the tooth, baby boomer voters—and even plenty of their parents—will still be heading to the polls for some time to come. According to the U.S. census, in 2004 there were 113 million voting-eligible Americans between the ages of 18 and 44—those born after 1960—compared to 107 million born before 1960, the boomers and their parents. The post-boomers are now a majority, but their elders are still calling the shots.
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/12/15/the-hippie-era-just-wont-die/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tomp...
"Its only new initiative is to go regional and involve neighboring Syria and Iran.
Syria should stop infiltration, declares the report. And Iran "should stem the flow of equipment, technology, and training to any group resorting to violence in Iraq." Yes, and obesity should be eradicated, bird flu cured and traffic fatalities, particularly the multi-car variety, abolished. Such fatuous King Canute pronouncements give the report its air of detachment from reality.
This holding back of the tides is to be accomplished by negotiations with the likes of Iran. Baker admits that Iranian representatives told the commission that they are unlikely to cooperate. But we must press on, Baker insists, because we will thus expose Iran as "a rejectionist nation" that is "not . . . willing to help try and stabilize Iraq."
Now, there's a diplomatic achievement: undermining our hard-earned agreement with the Europeans to make any future approach to Iran dependent on the suspension of uranium enrichment in order to . . . demonstrate to the world that a country providing sophisticated weapons, roadside bombs and financial support to both sides of the civil war does not support stability there. Is there a sentient adult outside this commission who did not know that?"
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/12/15/in-bakers-blunder-a-chance-for-bush/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fw...
Oh, ok...
• Rice: U.S. won't talk to Iran, Syria
Dec. 15: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says she does not want to trade away Lebanese sovereighty to Syria or allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon as a price for peace in Iraq.
MSNBC
Updated: 8:42 a.m. PT Dec 15, 2006
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday rejected a bipartisan panel's recommendation that the United States seek the help of Syria and Iran in Iraq, saying the "compensation" required by any deal might be too high. She argued that neither country should need incentives to foster stability in Iraq.
"If they have an interest in a stable Iraq, they will do it anyway," Rice said in a wide-ranging interview with Washington Post reporters and editors. She said she did not want to trade away Lebanese sovereignty to Syria or allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon as a price for peace in Iraq.
Rice also said there would be no retreat from the administration's push to promote democracy in the Middle East, a goal that was de-emphasized by the Iraq Study Group in its report last week but that Rice insisted was a "matter of strategic interest." She reiterated her commitment to pursuing peace between Palestinians and Israelis -- a new effort that President Bush announced in September but that has yielded little so far.
"Get ready. We are going to the Middle East a lot," Rice said.
In a separate interview with Post editors and reporters, Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte provided an assessment of the situation in Iraq that did not deviate much from the Iraq Study Group's grim appraisal. He said the Iraqi insurgency could now finance itself from inside Iraq "through corruption, oil smuggling and kidnappings."
Rice's remarks indicated that, despite a maelstrom of criticism of Bush's policies by outside experts and Democrats, the administration's extensive review of policy in Iraq and the region will not yield major changes in its approach. Rice said that Bush could be "quite expansive" in terms of a policy review and that the new plan would be a "departure." But the president will not radically change any of his long-term goals or commitment to Iraq, she said.
Indeed, Rice argued that the Middle East is being rearranged in ways that provide the United States with new opportunities, what she repeatedly called a "new strategic context."
‘New strategic context’
She said the range of struggles in the Middle East, such as the election of Hamas in the Palestinian territories, the conflict between Hezbollah and the Lebanese government, and strife in Iraq, represents a "clarifying moment" between extremists and what she called mainstream Arabs.
"This is a time for pushing and consulting and pressing and seeing what we can do to take advantage of this new strategic context," Rice said.
But she said democracy in the Middle East is "not going to be concluded on our watch" and acknowledged that "we've not always been able to pursue it in ways that have been effective."
"I take that criticism," she added.
Rice's comments on Iran and Syria were among her strongest on one of the key recommendations of the Iraq panel, co-chaired by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former congressman Lee H. Hamilton. The report noted that Iran cooperated with the United States on Afghanistan and urged the administration to "explore whether this model could be replicated in the case of Iraq."
Bush called Iran part of an "axis of evil" shortly after the 2001 Bonn conference that led to the formation of the Afghan government, a label that Iranian diplomats have said soured Tehran's interest in cooperation.
In May, Rice offered to join talks on Iran's nuclear program if Tehran suspended its uranium-enrichment program, but Iran has rejected that condition. She said that Syrian officials have been unreceptive to previous entreaties by U.S. diplomats.
Negroponte noted that Iran was in a "defensive posture" three years ago when Iraq was invaded, wondering whether it would soon be a target. But now, flush with oil wealth, he said, it has become a major factor in the Middle East.
Rice said the administration's goal over the next two years is to give Iraqis the space to marginalize extremists and create a moderate middle that can hold the country together. The violence may not have ended before the administration leaves office, she acknowledged, but she said she hopes that Iraqis would "get to a place that is sustainable" by the end of 2008.
Although the administration is reviewing its troubled strategy in Iraq, Rice said the United States ultimately does not hold the key to solving the country's multifaceted military and political crises.
"The solutions to what is happening in Iraq lie in Baghdad, in their ability to deal with their own political differences," she said. The U.S. role is only in a support capacity, she said, reflecting the emerging undercurrent of the ongoing White House policy review to shift the mission from combat to support in both security and political reconciliation.
Rice said Iraqi officials have appealed to the administration to show greater flexibility and to hand over more responsibility to the new government, which was elected last December and took office in May.
Support for al-Maliki
Rice voiced support for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki but said the full array of sectarian and ethnic leaders must be prepared to bring their diverse communities along in tackling the most sensitive issues, including political reconciliation and disarming militias.
The administration has been pressing this message in meetings with two of Iraq's most prominent leaders, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of Iraq's largest Shiite party, who was in Washington last week, and this week with Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi, the highest-ranking Sunni in Iraq's government.
"You can't ask a prime minister in a democracy to take difficult steps that nobody will back that up," Rice said.
Although Shiite militias and death squads are behind much of the sectarian violence, Rice said she believes that most Iraqi Shiites are "firmly" on the side of democracy. The Shiite-dominated government is committed to Iraq's national identity and does not want Iraq to be dominated by Iran, Rice said.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
December 15, 2006
Q&A Friday #55: Is Ric Flair Going To Run For Office?
Question: "Is there any truth to the rumors about a possible NC Governor's run by Rick Flair? If so, would you support him? Which is really just my way of politely asking what the Nature Boy's political leanings are." -- Good_Ol_Boy
Answer: As an ex-Charlottean, I can tell you that Ric Flair is a diehard Republican and he's well-liked. However, Flair spent decades drinking, screwing, and partying his way across the country and then went into great detail about a lot of the things he did in his biography. Here's a little sample. It's a quote from wrestling promoter Davy Crockett about Flair:
"When Ric was a bad guy, the women loved to hate him. But, when the show was over, they loved to be with him. He had a bad habit of taking his clothes off. He'd come out of the bathroom, walk up to a female sitting on the couch, and tap her on the head. Only he wasn't tapping her with his finger."
The bio, which I've read, is absolutely full of stuff like that...although, on the other hand, Arnold Schwarzenegger was nearly as bad back in his bodybuilding days. In an unauthorized bio I read about him, way back in the day before he ran for office, it said that he would literally walk up to women on the beach that he had never met before and say, "Do you wanna do the hibbetty jibbetty," but in much more explicit language.
Of course, Arnold managed to win a special election, in a very accelerated time frame, so a lot of his background material never went public and then, once he was reelected, it wasn't a big issue. But, Flair? He's a likable guy (and his bio is one hell of a wild read), but it would be too hard for him to get elected after living that sort of lifestyle for so long.
John Hawkins | 01:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q&A Friday #55: Can Duncan Hunter Win The Primaries?
Question: Presidential candidate Rep. Hunter is a conservative except, as you've noted, when it comes to his protectionist tendencies (e.g. opposing NAFTA).
Do you think that a somewhat-protectionist but otherwise capitalist conservative can win in the Republican Party presidential primaries?
I really have reservations about how much our economy has been opened and left vulnerable to foreign manipulation (e.g. China's undervalued currency). I feel that Republicans could stand to gain votes from moderates and the union crowd if they became a little more aggressive about fighting unfair foreign trade practices. What are your thoughts?" -- RepublicanPig1
Answer: Here's the thing: Hunter is not running against the perfect prototypical conservative who has conservative views on every subject. To the contrary, he's running against real people who deviate from the conservative orthodoxy on a lot of fronts.
For example, the two front runners right now appear to be John McCain & Rudy Giuliani. Although, I am free trader and don't agree with Hunter on that issue, I also don't agree with McCain on campaign finance reform, his incredibly broad definition of "torture," global warming, the protection of marriage Amendment, illegal immigration, etc, etc. When it comes to Rudy Giuliani, you have a guy who is pro-abortion, pro-amnesty, pro-gun control, etc, etc. So personally -- and I think this will be true for most conservatives -- despite my difference with him on trade, I still have much more in common ideologically with Hunter than I do with Giuliani or McCain.
Moreover, let me add that Hunter's views on the free trade issue would probably be very useful in appealing to blue collar Democrats working in factories, mills, unions, etc. The sort of things Hunter is saying about CAFTA, NAFTA, and China would be music to their ears and I think a lot of them could be persuaded to vote for him because of it.
I'm not endorsing him or anything at this point (I probably won't pick a the candidate I'm going to get behind until shortly before the first primary), but I think Duncan Hunter would be the most electable candidate that the GOP could run in 2008. He has no serious baggage that I've seen, served in Vietnam, has enormous credibility and experience on defense issues, a tough anti-illegal immigration stance, favors a Balanced Budget Amendment, wants a 2/3rds majority to raise taxes, I believe he would pull in some Democratic voters because of his trade stance, and I think he's a candidate that conservatives would actually turn out to vote for (as opposed to say, turning out just because they don't want Hillary in the White House).
Can Hunter gain the name recognition and backing he needs to have a real shot of winning the nomination? That remains to be seen at this point, but since Republicans desperately seem to be searching for someone to represent the conservative wing of the Republican Party and since Hunter seems to fit the bill better than anyone else running, I think a meteoric rise into the top tier over the next few months is within the realm of possibility for him.
PS: Granted, the best candidates for the Presidency are usually Governors, but when you look at the candidates in the race, the pickings are pretty slim at the moment. Huckabee? No. Pataki? Please. Romney? The only reason is even getting a hard look from people is because so many conservatives really don't like the idea of having McCain or Giuliani as a candidate.
PS #2: When Howard Dean ran in 2004, he built up name recognition and buzz online. Then, when he won the MoveON.org primary, people started to take him seriously as candidate. The same thing could happen with Hunter. If he can build up some buzz and win or place surprisingly high in a prominent poll (like the National Journal Insider's Poll), then next thing you know, people will start to give him a hard look. So, although a guy like Hunter would have had no chance to get up into the top tier in let's say 2000, because of the new media in today's political environment, he has a real chance to pull it off if he can appeal to conservatives.
John Hawkins | 12:51 PM |
You have nothing to offer me.
Stocks Rise After Jobless Claims Drop
Dec 14 2:19 PM US/Eastern
By MADLEN READ
AP Business Writer
NEW YORK
Wall Street resumed its fourth-quarter rally Thursday on a series of strong company earnings and a drop in unemployment claims. The Dow Jones industrials made their first foray past 12,400.
Investment firms Bear Stearns Cos. and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Costco Wholesale Corp. and telecom equipment maker Ciena Corp. all had robust profits in the latest quarter, reinvigorating investors' confidence in the economy.
Wall Street, which has suffered from erratic trading in recent sessions, was also boosted by the Labor Department's report that Americans filing for unemployment benefits plunged for a second straight week. The data suggested the U.S. economy won't cool as quickly as some investors feared.
"As far as I can tell, consumers keep spending as long as unemployment is low," said Ed Peters, chief investment officer at PanAgora Asset Management Inc.
Airline stocks were pummeled by rising oil prices, after the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries said it would keep its oil production target stable for now but might make cuts in February. Overall, though, the stock market was unfazed by the possibility of higher fuel prices dampening consumer spending and hiking companies' materials costs.
In midafternoon trading, the Dow rose 79.79, or 0.65 percent, to 12,397.29, after hitting a new trading high of 12,402.26 earlier in the session.
Broader stock indicators also rose sharply. The Standard & Poor's 500 index was up 10.82, or 0.77 percent, at 1,424.03, after reaching a 6- year trading high of 1,424.89. The technology-laden Nasdaq composite index rose 22.86, or 0.94 percent, to 2,455.27.
Bond prices fell again Thursday, with the yield on the benchmark 10- year Treasury note rising to 4.59 percent from 4.58 percent late Wednesday. The dollar rose against other major currencies, and gold prices rose as well.
Oil prices shot higher after the OPEC announcement. Crude oil for January soared 98 cents to $62.35 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
The tech sector got a boost from Ciena's robust profits and a forecast by Advanced Micro Devices Inc. of cost savings from its acquisition of ATI Technologies. Ciena, which makes equipment for fiber optic communication networks, rose $2.20, or 8.9 percent, to $27.17, and Advanced Micro gained $2.00, or 10 percent, to $22.17.
Investors were also cheered by Costco, which said late Thursday its profit in the latest quarter rose 10 percent. Costco, the nation's largest wholesale club operator, rose $1.18, or 2.2 percent, to $54.31.
The stock market had been moving cautiously over the past week, inching up and then pulling back after the Federal Reserve left interest rates steady on Tuesday and offered no hints that it might start lowering them. But Thursday's positive corporate and economic news sparked a resumption of stock buying, extending the Dow's upward climb to record territory. The Dow reached record territory for the first time in nearly seven years this fall, crossing 12,000 for the first time.
"We're in that Santa Claus rally time, and there's nothing to stop it today," said Arthur Hogan, chief market analyst at Jefferies & Co. He said the market seems to be looking past rising energy prices.
Though stocks have bounced back, the economic picture remains mixed, analysts said.
"There have been a few good earnings coming out, in addition to energy stocks rising because of oil," Peters said. "But it's also against the backdrop of bond yields rising and energy prices going up, which is negative for everybody."
Higher energy prices were a boon to oil companies' stocks, pushing Chevron Corp. up $1.22 to $75.61; ConocoPhillips up $2.15 to $73.15; and ExxonMobil Corp. up $1.19 to $78.55.
But airlines buckled under the prospect of higher fuel costs. Continental Airlines Inc. fell 20 cents to $44.56; Southwest Airlines Co. fell 24 cents to $15.70; and UAL Corp., parent company of United Airlines, fell 94 cents, or 2.1 percent, to $44.30.
Bear Stearns climbed $4.05, or 2.6 percent, to $159.94 on its strong financial results. Lehman Brothers slipped 68 cents to $75.70, as investors were slightly disappointed that the firm did not produce record fourth-quarter profits, as its rivals Bear Stearns and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. did. Goldman reported record results on Tuesday.
The Russell 2000 index of smaller companies was up 6.81, or 0.86 percent, at 795.56.
Advancing issues outnumbered decliners by about 2 to 1 on the New York Stock Exchange, where volume came to 939.5 million shares.
U.S. stocks aren't the only equities that have had a sharp rally lately. Chinese stocks on Thursday hit record highs, with the Shanghai Composite Index gaining 1.2 percent to close at 2,249.11, its highest closing level ever. It hit a trading high of 2,250.32, up from the previous record of 2,245.43, reached back in June 2001.
Australian and New Zealand markets also rallied to new records Thursday.
In other overseas markets, Japan's Nikkei stock average closed up 0.82 percent. Britain's FTSE 100 closed up 0.57 percent, Germany's DAX index closed up 0.49 percent, and France's CAC-40 closed up 0.62 percent.
___
On the Net:
New York Stock Exchange: http://www.nyse.com
Officers say U.S. soldiers ‘abused’ by al Qaeda inmates
http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Guantanamo.htm
Al Qaeda might be on the run in Afghanistan, but Osama bin Laden's agents are in the driver's seat at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Officers tell of daily attacks by al Qaeda inmates against U.S. military personnel, who are ordered not to respond. The officers have also been ordered to fulfill the religious, cultural and even entertainment needs of the inmates, including providing Arabic translations of Harry Potter.
"I have never once since I've been down here ever heard of a detainee being abused, but I've seen the soldiers and sailors get abused," Staff Sgt. Thomas Garcia said. "[Detainees] throw some of the most unmentionable cocktails. They urinate on [the guards]. They spit. They call them names."
On Dec. 7, the U.S. military transferred the first group of al Qaeda detainees to a new $37 million 178-cell maximum-security prison designed to prevent attacks on guards. The facility has been reserved for prisoners deemed by the military to be the least compliant.
"As a commander, I don't like my folks being in danger every day," U.S. Navy Cmdr. Kris Winter said.
Guards have been routinely pelted with feces by inmates and face physical attacks from al Qaeda detainees. In May, al Qaeda detainees organized an ambush to stop a search of cells for contraband medication following two suicide attempts. Prison authorities have responded by providing inmates with a huge Arabic library, a modern hospital, sporting facilities and satellite television. Officials said Harry Potter in Arabic was one of the most popular books in Camp Delta.
Sgt. Garcia of the Maryland Army National Guard's 2nd Battalion, 110th Field Artillery, said guards maintain a professional attitude in the face of provocations by al Qaeda inmates. He said the al Qaeda operatives then send messages that they were being tortured. The Pentagon has been allowing guards at Guantanamo to discuss their work in an effort to combat the image of Camp Delta, which has been visited by 1,000 journalists. Officials said independent investigations have not confirmed allegations of misconduct and often Guantanamo has been confused with Camp X-Ray, which was open for four months in 2002.
"There's always the misconception that we're somehow beating these detainees and doing heinous things to them, and that is simply not the case," said Navy Rear Adm. Harry Harris Jr., commander of JTF-GTMO.
Much of the allegations about Guantanamo have been spread by human rights activists. Aryeh Neier, president of the New York-based Open Society Institute and former executive director of Human Rights Watch, termed Guantanamo "one of America's worst violations."
A U.S. sailor and block guard, who could not be identified for security reasons, said prison staff members are ordered to fill a range of dietary requests that seek to adapt to the religion and culture of the inmates.
"If a guy's salad isn't right, I'll make a phone call to try and get him the correct salad," said the 28-year-old guard, who is also a member of a task force.
The block guard recalled being attacked by a "cocktail" of feces, semen, blood and urine thrown by an inmate. He said guards are ordered to walk away.
"It's humiliating," the guard said. "A guy throws feces on you, and you've got to turn right back around and walk down a block that might have 40 people on it. They're making their little comments, and you go home and you change and you come back to work. Take a shower. Go to medical, get your screening."
Officials said al Qaeda inmates have attacked American guards on a daily basis. During the 12-month period that ended in August 2006, authorities reported 3,232 incidents of detainee misconduct. They included 432 assaults with bodily fluids, 227 physical assaults and 99 efforts to incite a disturbance or riot.
"This is serious stuff," Adm. Harris said. "And yet the guard force and the intelligence people maintain a remarkable degree of restraint and equilibrium. The young Americans that work here are doing a spectacular job in a dangerous place."
Officials said most guards are not allowed to handle Korans or other religious and cultural items for the inmates. The Korans, prayer beads and Islamic rugs are stored in a 300-foot long building similar to a small aircraft hangar.
Al Qaeda inmates have been taught to lie about Camp Delta and claim torture. Officials cited a terrorist training manual known as the Manchester Document and seized by British authorities in 2000. The manual directs al Qaeda operatives to make false claims of torture and mistreatment. More than 340 people have been released from Camp Delta.
“They're out there walking around spewing forth all manner of lies and evil things and distortions, but the fact is that they're released," Adm. Harris said.
Didn't the Iraq report say we need Irans help???
I guess this is what they meant?
http://www.savage-productions.com/holocaust.html
My premise: Bush Lied.
http://liberalscum.com/anonrocks.html
Not about the WMDs; we know there were WMDs. There were receipts for WMD making matteriel all over France, Germany and Russia. We know all about the WMD programs in Iraq. We found the empty ware-houses, and laboratories.
It is important to remember that the UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq to find evidence of the DESTRUCTION of the WMDs, not to look for the WMDs themselves. Sadly, we will be seeing those missing WMDs in the future.
Bush lied when he said that this was a War On Terror, not a war on Islam. It is a war on Islam. Terror is just a tactic of Islam. We are fighting Islam. Not only is it not Politically Correct to say so, but it would only stir up more mischief makers.
Islam relies of corrupt dictators, kings, presidents-for-life, princes, and various strongmen dictators to govern their Islamic countries and to protect the faith. There is no place for these dictators in a democracy. Likewise, there is no place in a secular democracy for the "clerics" that benefit from supporting the reign of these dictators.
Democracy is an apostasy to the Moslem. Allah himself, through the prophet Mohommed, revealed the Koran and the Shariah law by which people are to be governed. To assume that men can govern themselves is an insult to Allah, Islam, the Koran and Shariah law. Therefore, democracy is against the basic tenets of Islam. Promoting or even discussing democracy is a head-lopping offense in Islam.
Bush's attempts to get a democracy going in Iraq threaten regional stability in a big way. If democracy is allowed to flourish in Iraq, every tin-horn dictator and head-lopping Islamic cleric will be made redundant. They know it too. They are fighting us with everything they have. Fortunately for the USA, the fighting is in Iraq.
Iraq is a rich nation. It has large petroleum reserves, and could function quite nicely as a prosperous democracy on it's GDP and oil revenues. Iraq could be an example of a secular democracy, but every one of those Moslem dictators and clerics across islam is dedicated to seeing that a democratic Iraq never comes about.
So, in summation, Bush lied. Western Civilzation is at war with Islam. I am confident that Western Civilization will eventually pull the ignorant savages out of the mud and sand, as it has done since the French Revolution; and the despots and Islamic clergy will flee to their lavish villas in Switzerland. It will take time, but we will win.
We can count on Islam's death throes to be bloody and violent. We will be badly scarred by this conflict, and as I write, Iran's Supreme Leader is directing their nuclear weapons program and the developement of their extended range Shahab-3 missiles. These are not positive developements. Israel may take a decisive position at any moment, and act.
The Islamists have the will to win, but not the means;
The West has the means to win, but not the will.
If it were not for the level of civility and restraint that Western Civilization extends to Islam, this entire conflict could be over in about 45 minutes. Let us hope that this level of civility and restrain prevails. A nuclear strike agains the USA could severily test our civility and restraint
Axel Springer CEO Mathias Döpfner wrote an editorial for Die Welt blasting Europe for its timidity in confronting Islamic fanaticism.
A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe — your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.
Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.
Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe where for decades, inhuman, suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.
Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and, even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.
Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.
Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U. N. Oil-for-Food program.
And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany.
I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists.
One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler, and declaring European "Peace in our time".
What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.
It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness.
Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.
His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.
In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.
On the contrary, we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even Otto Schily justifiably criticizes.
Why?
Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.
For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy, because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake — literally everything.
While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation, or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "Reach out to terrorists, to understand and forgive".
These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.
Appeasement? Europe, thy name is Cowardice.
They Need your help!
My name is Chris Tiedemann and I attend Stephen F. Austin State University in deep east Texas. We need the help of liberalscum.
Recently we have been told that we are not allowed to display the United States and Texas flags in the window of our dorm room. A Student a few weeks ago had a Jamaican flag displayed in his window and was told that it was against the rules. So the same student is making complaints about our flags being in the windows because he feels that since he wasn't allowed to hang his Jamaican flag, we shouldn't be able to display our flag. The director of our residence hall has since given us warnings concerning the flags being in our window. We have been asking the student body here on campus and no one will stand with us.
My roommates and I were wondering if y'all wouldn't mind posting this on your site, and ask people to write letters to the University protesting what is going on here at SFA.
Our address is:
Chris D.Tiedemann Jr
P.O. Box 14810 SFASU
Nacogdoches Tx 75962
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant.It's just that they know so much that isn't so."
President Ronald Reagan
Fact Sheet: Job Creation Continues - More Than 5.5 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060804.html
In Focus: Jobs & Economy
Today, The Government Released New Jobs Figures – 113,000 Jobs Created In July. The economy has created more than 1.7 million jobs over the past 12 months – and more than 5.5 million jobs since August 2003. The unemployment rate is 4.8 percent – below the average of each of the past three decades. In addition, wages grew 0.4 percent in July, the second consecutive month of strong wage growth and faster than inflation.
The Economy Remains Strong, And The Outlook Is Favorable
Employment Increased In 47 States Over The Past 12 Months Ending In June.
Real GDP Grew A Strong 3.5 Percent Over The Past 4 Quarters.
Productivity Has Grown At A Strong 3.5 Percent Annual Rate Since The First Quarter Of 2001. Productivity growth during the past five years has been at the fastest rate in nearly four decades.
Real After-Tax Income Has Risen By 13.5 Percent Since January 2001.
Industrial Production Increased 4.5 Percent Over The Past 12 Months.
Manufacturing Production Has Risen 5.7 Percent Over The Past 12 Months. Manufacturing productivity has grown 4 percent over the past four quarters, faster than the 3.7 percent average growth in the 1990s.
Strong Growth Is Helping Raise More Tax Revenues For The Federal And State Governments. In 2005, Federal tax revenues grew by $274 billion, the largest increase in 24 years, and State tax revenues are up substantially in 2006.
President Bush Has An Aggressive Agenda To Create Jobs And Keep The Economy Growing
President Bush Has Called On Congress To Make His Tax Relief Permanent. The economy grows when Americans have more of their own money in their pockets to save, spend, or invest. The President worked with Congress to double the child tax credit, reduce the marriage penalty, cut taxes on capital gains and dividends, create new incentives for small businesses to invest, and reduce income taxes for every American who pays them.
The President Is Calling On The Senate To Quickly Pass The Line-Item Veto, So He Can Sign It Into Law. The line-item veto would make it easier for the legislative and executive branches to work together to ensure fiscal responsibility. Under the line-item veto passed by the House, a President could approve spending that is necessary, redline spending that is unnecessary, and send the wasteful spending back to Congress for a prompt up-or-down vote.
President Bush Is Working With Congress To Control Runaway Entitlement Spending. In February, President Bush signed the Deficit Reduction Act into law, saving our Nation almost $40 billion over the next five years. In addition, the President's FY07 Budget proposes to slow the growth of entitlement programs, including Medicare, by $65 billion over five years. The President will continue to work with Congress on entitlement reform, including reforming Social Security.
The President's American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) Will Keep America The Most Innovative And Competitive Economy In The World. The ACI will encourage more aggressive investment by businesses in research and development, increase Federal support for vital basic research, and improve math and science education for America's students.
The President Is Committed To Opening Markets Around The World And Expanding Opportunities For America's Farmers, Ranchers, Workers, And Businesses. Since 2001, the U.S. Congress has approved free trade agreements (FTAs) with 12 countries. Export growth to trade partners with FTAs implemented between 2001 and 2005 is twice as fast as U.S. export growth to the world. More trade leads to more jobs for workers, more income for businesses, more choices for consumers, and more tax revenue for State and local governments.
As We Work To Open Markets To American Goods, We Must Ensure That America Remains An Open Society To New Immigrants Who Add To Our Economy And Prosperity. The President urges Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform that will secure our borders, enhance worksite enforcement, create a temporary worker program, resolve the status of illegal immigrants already here, and promote assimilation into the American culture, including learning English.
# # #
This one is good
http://www.whenangrydemocratsattack.com/
Funding for Veterans up 27%, But Democrats Call It A Cut
Money for Veterans goes up faster under Bush than under Clinton, yet Kerry accuses Bush of an unpatriotic breach of faith.
February 18, 2004
Modified: February 18, 2004
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=144
In the Feb. 15 Democratic debate, Kerry suggested that Bush was being unpatriotic: “He’s cut the VA (Veterans Administration) budget and not kept faith with veterans across this country. And one of the first definitions of patriotism is keeping faith with those who wore the uniform of our country.”
It is true that Bush is not seeking as big an increase for next year as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs wanted. It is also true that the administration has tried to slow the growth of spending for veterans by not giving new benefits to some middle-income vets.
Yet even so, funding for veterans is going up twice as fast under Bush as it did under Clinton. And the number of veterans getting health benefits is going up 25% under Bush's budgets. That's hardly a cut.
Analysis
Funding for veterans benefits has accelerated in the Bush administration, as seen in the following table.
Fiscal years ending Sept. 30
Source: US Budget: Table 5.2 - Budget Authority by Agency
In Bush’s first three years funding for the Veterans Administration increased 27%. And if Bush's 2005 budget is approved, funding for his full four-year term will amount to an increase of 37.6%.
In the eight years of the Clinton administration the increase was 31.7%
Those figures include mandatory spending for such things as payments to veterans for service-connected disabilities, over which Congress and presidents have little control. But Bush has increased the discretionary portion of veterans funding even more than the mandatory portion has increased. Discretionary funding under Bush is up 30.2%.
By any measure, veterans funding is going up faster under Bush than under Clinton.
One reason: the number of veterans getting benefits is increasing rapidly as middle-income veterans turn for health care to the expanding network of VA clinics and its generous prescription drug benefit.
According to the VA, the number of veterans signed up to get health benefits increased by 1.1 million, or 18%, during the first two fiscal years for which Bush signed the VA appropriations bills. And the numbers continue to grow. By the end of the current fiscal year on Sept. 30, the VA estimates that the total increase under Bush's budgets will reach nearly 1.6 million veterans, an increase of 25.6 percent.
And according to the VA, the number of community health clinics has increased 40% during Bush's three years, with accompanying increases in the numbers of outpatient visits (to 51 million last year) and prescriptions filled (to 108 million).
But They Keep Repeating: "It's a Cut"
That's just the opposite of the impression one might get from listening to Democratic presidential candidates debate each other over the past several months. One thing they seem to agree on is the false idea that Bush is cutting funding for veterans.
Examples:
Oct 9, 2003:
Sharpton: As this president waved the flag, he cut the budget for veterans, which dishonored people that had given their lives to this country, while he sent people like you to war.
October 27:
Dean: I've made it very clear that we need to support our troops . . . unlike President Bush who tried to cut -- who successfully cut 164,000 veterans off their health-care benefits.
Jan 4, 2004:
Kucinich: Look what's happened with this budget the administration has just submitted. They're cutting funds for job programs, for veterans . . .
Jan 22, 2004 :
Kerry: And while we're at it, this president is breaking faith with veterans all across the country. They've cut the VA budget by $1.8 billion.
Feb 15, 2004 :
Kerry: And most importantly, I think he's cut the VA budget and not kept faith with veterans across this country. And one of the first definitions of patriotism is keeping faith with those who wore the uniform of our country.
And even the Democratic National Committee website proclaims, "Bush Cuts Funds for Veterans' Health Care," despite what the numbers show.
Veterans Groups Want More
While it's false to say the veterans budget has been cut, and false to say that any veteran getting benefits has been cut off, it is true that funding is not growing as rapidly as demand for benefits, or as rapidly as veterans groups would like.
Veterans groups are unanimous in calling for more money than the administration or Congress have provided. Four groups -- AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States -- have joined to ask for $3.7 billion more than the administration is requesting for next year.
Even Bush's own Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony Principi -- in a rare break with administration protocol -- told a House committee Feb. 4 that had asked for more money than Bush was willing to seek from Congress. "I asked OMB for $1.2 billion more than I received," he said, referring to the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Some Denied Benefits; A Cut Proposed
In January, 2003 the Veterans Administration announced that -- because the increase in funds couldn't meet the rising demand -- it would start turning away many middle-income applicants applying for new medical benefits.
That led to accusations that Bush was denying benefits to veterans. " We have 400,000 veterans in this country who have been denied access in a whole category to the VA," Kerry declared during a debate Oct. 9, 2003. The VA's estimates of the number who might be denied benefits is much lower, and in fact nobody can say with certainty how many middle-income veterans might have signed up for medical benefits if they had been allowed.
Meanwhile the VA continues to add hundreds of thousands of disabled and lower-income veterans to those already receiving benefits, and has kept paying benefits to all veterans who were already receiving them.
The middle-income veterans who currently aren't being allowed to sign up are those generally with incomes above 80% of the mid-point for their locality. The means test cut-off for benefits ranges up to $40,000 a year in many cities. And any veteran with income less than $25,162 still qualifies no matter where they live. Those figures are for single veterans. The income cut-off is higher for those with a spouse or children.
Veterans groups have called for "mandatory funding" of medical benefits, which would automatically appropriate whatever funds are required to meet demand. Kerry has endorsed mandatory funding, which would allow middle-income veterans with no service-connected disability to resume signing up.
The administration also has proposed to make the VA's prescription drug benefit less generous. Currently many veterans pay $7 for each one-month supply of medication. The administration proposes to increase that to $15, and require a $250 annual fee as well. Congress rejected a similar proposal last year. The proposal wouldn't affect those -- such as veterans with a disability rated at 50% or more -- who currently aren't required to make any co-payments.
And it should be noted that the administration is proposing to increase some benefits, including ending pharmacy co-payments for some very low-income veterans, and paying for emergency-room care for veterans in non-VA hospitals.
All this means Bush can fairly be accused of trying to hold down the rapid growth in spending for veterans benefits -- particularly those sought by middle-income vets with no service-connected disability. But saying he cut the budget is contrary to fact.
(Note: FactCheck.org twice contacted the Kerry campaign asking how he justified his claim that the VA budget is being cut, but we've received no response.)
Sources
Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005 "Table 5.2 -- Budget Authority by Agency" (Washington, Government Printing Office) 3 Feb 2004.
US House of Representatives, Committee on Veterans Affairs, “ Statement of Anthony J. Principi , Secretary Of Veterans Affairs” 4 Feb 2004.
US House of Representqatives, Committee on Veterans Affairs, “ Statement of Peter S. Gaytan, Principal Deputy Director, Veterans Affairs And Rehabilitation Division, The American Legion” 4 Feb 2004.
US House of Representqatives, Committee on Veterans Affairs “ Statement Of Joseph A. Violante , National Legislative Director, The Disabled American Veterans” 4 Feb. 2004.
US House of Representatives, Committee on Veterans Affairs “ Statement of Vietnam Veterans of America , Presented by Richard F. Weidman, Director, Government Relations” 4 Feb 2004.
Press Release , Rep. Lane Evans (D IL)"Bush administration ’05 VA budget reflects misplaced priorities, places greater burden on some veterans" 2 Feb. 2004.
Suzanne Bamboa, “Principi Wanted $1.2B More for VA Budget,” Associated Press 4 Feb. 2004.
Gulfbreeze…You've just been bullied into compliance. I provided links dates and authors. That was never the intent of their argument. They are blatantly lying and no evidence to the contrary will get them to stop. The intent was to side track you (really me) into a circular argument thus shutting you up.
Pay attention friend, like wolves these people are very cunning. They now have you bending to their will, willingly with a smile.
Paule Walnuts
P.S. Don't mistake cunning for intelligence.
With no link attached one wonders why the libs are not admonishing their own.....
Can you say the argument had only one intent and nothing to do with it's premise.
Paule Walnuts
PegnVA..Produce one. end
n4807g..Look at whom we are dealing with...end
Do you just pick a post and decide what to say before you even read it or something?
Being as the link is only two sentences down I wonder how you might have missed it?
Paule Walnuts
Conflict-Free Stem Cells
December 13, 2006
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
Here's a headline from LifeNews.com:
"Hair Follicle Cells Offer Embryonic Stem Cell Research Alternative -- Scientists at the Medical College of Wisconsin have found what may be another alternative to embryonic stem cells." Embryonic stem cells are not an "alternative." There's nothing there! But I digress. They have found that "adult stem cells from hair follicles, which don't involve the destruction of human life to obtain, are different from other types of skin cells. Similar to embryonic stem cells, they have a high degree of plasticity, can be isolated at high levels of purity, and can be expanded in culture....
"[T]he hair cells are similar to other types of adult stem cells, as they are readily accessible through a minimally invasive procedure and could lead to using a patient's own hair as a source for therapy without the controversy or transplant problems associated with embryonic stem cells." Now, who is this woman? Maya Sieber-Blum, Ph.D. did the study. She "points out that the hair follicle cells may also be useful to treat Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, Hirschsprung's disease, stroke, peripheral neuropathies and ALS. Certain defects of the heart, and bone defects could also be treated through neural crest stem cell replacement therapy," which is the hair follicles. Parkinson's disease? Parkinson's Disease! Hmm. Interesting! Ladies and gentlemen, I actually think we need to start a new movement: conflict-free stem cells. I mean, hell's bells, we're moving around out there conflict-free diamonds; why not conflict-free stem cells? Think the entertainment community, the Hollywood left and the left in general would associate themselves with the conflict-free stem cell movement?
END TRANSCRIPT
Read the Background Material...
(LifeNews: Hair Follicle Cells Offer Embryonic Stem Cell Research Alternative)
Russia's Great Gas Grab
By Thomas Lifson
The global economy is held together by silken threads of trust, the belief that contracts will be honored once signed. Without the assurance that governments will honor their agreements, individuals and companies would be reluctant to advance the substantial sums necessary to undertake large scale projects, such as drilling for oil or natural gas.
The ability of the world to generate sufficient energy supplies depends on the willingness of investors to take huge risks in exploring and developing new oil and gas fields overseas. Often, that development must take place in lands not fully integrated into the modern capitalist economy. When the technical risks are amplified by the addition of the risk of arbitrary government actions, energy development will naturally slow down. Supply will be constrained, and prices will rise even higher.
Russia is in effect muscling in on the highly promising but very expensive natural gas field Shell Oil and its Japanese partners Mitsui & Company and Mitsubishi Corporation have developed off Sakhalin Island, east of Siberia and north of Japan. Much of the construction work is done, but further work has been delayed by administrative considerations. The project had experienced substantial cost overruns. [Full disclosure: the author has worked as a consultant for both Mitsui and Mitsubishi over a considerable period of years in the past.]
The Project
Sakhalin 2, as it is known, is an offshore natural gas field, set to purify, cool and condense gas to about 1/614th of its volume at atmospheric pressure, and ship it to Japan , South Korea and the US on highly specialized expensive cryogenic LNG tankers, where the gas will be warmed and fed into distribution via conventional gas lines. LNG projects are of necessity large, expensive, and technically challenging.
The very first large scale LNG project opened in Algeria, in 1964, supplying Britain and France. Since then, large projects have opened in countries like Indonesia, Brunei, Qatar, Malaysia, Nigeria, and others, including the United States.
At present, it is estimated that $22 billion (or more) will be the final cost to complete development of Sakhalin 2, with Shell owning 55% of the project, Mitsui 25% and Mitsubishi 20%. Russia, via its giant monopoly natural gas company Gazprom, has let it be known over the past several months that it wanted a chunk of the project, probably a controlling interest, for itself. In effect, having earlier lured the companies into pouring billions of dollars and huge amounts of effort into the project, once the project appeared to be a success, Russia has moved to grab a bigger share of the pie, previous agreements be damned.
Playing Hardball
Natural resource industries have a sordid history of exploitation by both companies and governments. In the past bribery and highly imbalanced terms sometimes gave companies the upper hand as resources were wantonly plundered. But since the 1960s, states with potentially lucrative natural resources have played harder to get.
The monopoly on the legitimate use of force enjoyed by states usually gives them the ultimate bargaining leverage in the contest. They can send in soldiers and take over whatever physical installations exist, and companies, aside from those few which have hired mercenaries in the past, are powerless to stop them, at least in the immediate time frame. Soldiers command territory with "boots on the ground," whether in the copper mines of Katanga or the oil fields of Libya.
But operating a natural resource extraction facility, especially a large one, requires many specialized inputs, and also requires smooth handling of the output. If skilled manpower, technology, transport, spare parts, distribution channels, financing, and many, many other necessities are denied to an expropriated property, governments have a hard time profiting from them.
But when governments forego the military option and merely use regulatory pressure, they can often avoid the most unpleasant consequences of outright physical expropriation, including the sort of retaliatory denial of necessary inputs. They prefer to incrementally inflict costs on the companies, to demonstrate that a little "protection" is in order, otherwise matters could become even more unpleasant.
One of the means of extortion Russia has been using is environmental regulation. From the Moscow Times:
The Natural Resources Ministry has mounted a campaign of inspections by its environmental inspectorate and threats of administrative sanctions against Sakhalin-2, the only big energy project entirely in foreign hands.
Partly as a result, a deal is taking shape for Gazprom to buy into the scheme that includes the world's biggest liquefied natural gas project, which is due to start supplying Japan, South Korea and the United States in mid-2008.
The water resources agency has suspended 12 water-use licenses held by Sakhalin-2's main contractor -- Russian-Italian joint venture Starstroi -- and given it two on Wednesday, Interfax quoted the agency's head, Rustam Khamitov, as saying he doubted that the contractor could rectify the violations and that the licenses would be suspended.
This would prevent the group from finishing pipelines linking gas fields in the north of Sakhalin with the liquefaction plant in the south.
Analysts say pressure from the state, notably from environmental inspectorate official Oleg Mitvol, is part of a wider drive to increase Kremlin control over the strategic energy sector.
It is, of course, extortion. In its defense, Russia points out that the West has been extorting large sums form oil companies itself, over environmental issues. Once has to admit they have a point.
But it is all perfectly legal (states make the laws, after all), and sometimes almost a genteel-seeming process. Guys in three thousand dollar suits engaging in extortion observe certain niceties of language and protocol, but the underlying process can be almost as brutal as sending in the troops. Thus, for instance, last week, the head of Shell, who met with the head of Gazprom over the terms of the extortion, issued an almost flowery statement, as reported in the New York Times:
A Shell spokesman, Maxim Shoob, confirmed today that Mr. van der Veer met last week with the chief executive of Gazprom, Aleksei B. Miller. Mr. Shoob said the talks were "quite positive and very constructive," but offered no details.
Why Russia Needed Shell, Mitsui and Mitsubishi
Russia possessed a large domestic oil and gas industry in the Soviet era. It was, however, notoriously behind the technical levels of the West, and following the collapse of the USSR, foreign technologies were believed capable of substantially improving production. For a period of time, foreigners have been allowed to invest in oil and gas, so as to bring with them the technology (and capital) Russia lacked.
But in the long run, Russia's leader Putin seems fully determined to ensure that Russia be able to supply all important oil and gas technologies from a domestic manufacturing and engineering base. To be dependent on foreign suppliers for production technology weakens the overall bargaining position of the Russian state. Should push come to shove, Russia does not want to be crippled by any cutoffs coming in retaliation for its flaunting of agreements.
The aggressive move on Sakhalin 2 confirms that Russia is moving toward a far more confrontational posture toward the rest of the world. Russia has shown a willingness to cut off gas supplies to Europe, as it demonstrated on Ukraine, using energy as a political weapon to intimidate other states. Putin knows that Russia's energy resources are a trump card in his effort to restore his native land to the status of superpower.
But there are limits. Russia still wants foreign companies to play a role, albeit one not so prominent as originally envisioned in Sakhalin 2, 100% foreign owned. There is more development scheduled off Sakhalin, with other companies, like BP, involved. They, too, must now factor in a great political risk in their calculations of the returns necessary to justify their investments.
Shell and Russia have not agreed on terms of separation, as it were. They have to negotiate, a lop-sided exercise at best. In the end, Gazprom will probably in theory "buy" approximately half the stakes of foreigners, out of "royalty income." But in practice, it will be a form of expropriation, intended to give Russia operating control of something built and paid for by others. With this control, Russia can better master the complex technologies, and make them its own, as it were.
Shell, Mitsui and Mitsubishi have no choice but to make the best of it. They will smile and talk about great progress being made, hoping that Russia will allow them to achieve some return on their investment, in order to keep their resources available in the future.
We often carelessly assume that the march of progress will continue inevitably, secured by the triumph of market economies. While it is true that capitalism provides a demonstrably richer life for its beneficiaries, many powerful forces in the world do not find themselves advantaged by it. Russia, Islamofascists, and certain Euro-Socialists would rather see market forces confined and a greater number of important decisions in the hands of state or religious bureaucrats.
Russia's move against the Shell consortium is a blow against the regime of international capitalism, in the end. By itself, it is not a major affair, but as a harbinger of things to come from Russia, it is as chilling as the Sakhalin LNG whose shipment will now be delayed by Russia's hardball tactics.
Thomas Lifson is the editor and publisher of American Thinker.
US Senators who voted YES to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq:
Allard, Wayne (R-CO)
Allen, George (R-VA)
Baucus, Max (D-MT)
Bayh, Evan (D-IN)
Bennett, Robert (R-UT)
Biden, Joseph (D-DE)
Bond, Christopher (R-MO)
Breaux, John (D-LA)
Brownback, Sam (R-KS)
Bunning, Jim (R-KY)
Burns, Conrad (R-MT)
Campbell, Ben (R-CO)
Cantwell, Maria (D-WA)
Carnahan, Jean (D-MO)
Carper, Thomas (D-DE)
Cleland, Max (D-GA)
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY)
Cochran, Thad (R-MS)
Collins, Susan (R-ME)
Craig, Larry (R-ID)
Crapo, Michael (R-ID)
Daschle, Tom (D-SD)
DeWine, Mike (R-OH)
Dodd, Christopher (D-CT)
Domenici, Pete (R-NM)
Dorgan, Byron (D-ND)
Edwards, John (D-NC)
Ensign, John (R-NV)
Enzi, Michael (R-WY)
Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)
Fitzgerald, Peter (R-IL)
Frist, Bill (R-TN)
Gramm, Phil (R-TX)
Grassley, Chuck (R-IA)
Gregg, Judd (R-NH)
Hagel, Chuck (R-NE)
Harkin, Tom (D-IA)
Hatch, Orrin (R-UT)
Helms, Jesse (R-NC)
Hollings, Ernest (D-SC)
Hutchinson, Tim (R-AR)
Hutchison, Kay (R-TX)
Inhofe, James (R-OK)
Johnson, Tim (D-SD)
Kerry, John (D-MA)
Kohl, Herb (D-WI)
Kyl, Jon (R-AZ)
Landrieu, Mary (D-LA)
Lieberman, Joseph (D-CT)
Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR)
Lott, Trent (R-MS)
Lugar, Richard (R-IN)
McCain, John (R-AZ)
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY)
Miller, Zell (D-GA)
Murkowski, Lisa (R-AK)
Nelson, Bill (D-FL)
Nelson, Ben (D-NE)
Nickles, Don (R-OK)
Reid, Harry (D-NV)
Roberts, Pat (R-KS)
Rockefeller, John (D-WV)
Santorum, Rick (R-PA)
Schumer, Charles (D-NY)
Sessions, Jeff (R-AL)
Shelby, Richard (R-AL)
Smith, Robert (R-NH)
Smith, Gordon (R-OR)
Snowe, Olympia (R-ME)
Specter, Arlen (R-PA)
Stevens, Ted (R-AK)
Thomas, Craig (R-WY)
Thompson, Fred (R-TN)
Thurmond, Strom (R-SC)
Torricelli, Robert (D-NJ)
Voinovich, George (R-OH)
Warner, John (R-VA)
"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."
Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
September 13, 2001
http://www.wavsource.com/news/20010911a.htm
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/
"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."
Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
Congressional Record, p. S10145
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/
cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S10145&dbname=2002_record
"It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."
Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Statement on eve of military strikes against Iraq
March 17, 2003
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030331&s=lizza033103
"It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism. If so, the only exit strategy is victory, this is our common mission and the world's cause."
Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Statement on commencement of military strikes against Iraq
March 20, 2003
http://kerry.senate.gov/high/record.cfm?id=191582
Senator John Edwards, when asked about "Axis of Evil" countries Iran, Iraq, and North Korea:
"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
During an interview on CNN's "Late Edition"
February 24, 2002
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/24/le.00.html
"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be President, or the credibility to be elected President.
No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer -- and Iraq is better -- because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars."
Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Drake University in Iowa
December 16, 2003
http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/dec03/193182.asp?format=print
John Edwards, while voting YES to the Resolution authorizing US military force against Iraq:
"Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can."
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
US Senate floor statement: "Authorization of the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq"
October 10, 2002
http://edwards.senate.gov/statements/20021010_iraq.html
"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."
Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
During a Democratic Primary Debate at the University of South Carolina
May 3, 2003
http://www.vote-smart.org/debate_transcripts/trans_1.pdf
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."
Senator Edward Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
September 27, 2002
http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/09/2002927718.html
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
John Kerry, while voting YES to the Resolution authorizing US military force against Iraq:
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html
"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away.
The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
US Senate floor statement: "Iraqi Dictator Must Go"
September 12, 2002
http://edwards.senate.gov/statements/20020912_iraq.html