STAR PARKER’S COMMENTS ON FOX REMIND US WHY WE DIDN’T ELECT HER
By Greater Long Beach
Former Republican congressional candidateS tar Parker was on Fox News today, checking in with her solution to the ongoing boycott of Wisconsin legislative sessions by a group of Democratic state senators: “we should fire them.”
Parker’s comment was typical of the half-cocked cracks and loose command of the facts that characterized her opportunistic campaign for Long Beach and Carson’s 37th district seat in congress last year. Even with her flawless complexion, high cheekbones and mouthful of pearly whites, Parker made Laura Richard a comparatively attractive candidate and lost in a landslide.
On TV today, Parker ought to have benefitted from sharing a split screen with the relentlessly unhappy mug of Fox host Neal Cavuto. But then she went and spoiled it all by saying something stupid like “we should fire them.”
We? How careless and presumptive for Parker to include herself—and hell, maybe you and me, too—in her call for action when she and we aren’t from Wisconsin and thus weren’t the citizens who cast their votes for those senators.
(Thanks for the heads-up, Howard X)
76 Comments
Really? We’re going to take Ms. Parker to task for her choice of pronouns?
Did howardx also give you the heads up that during the very same interview, Ms. Parker clarified who should be doing the “firing” and what she meant by the term:
“They should start recall of all of these Democrats who will not show up at work and they should look at every one of these public servants who have not gone to work and fire them.”
Personally, I think that every single one of those Senators who bugged out of town to avoid their sworn duty should be recalled for abandoning their post and failing the people of Wisconsin.
I would very much like howardx or anyone else to point out for us just where in the Wisconsin State Constitution we might find codified the authority for any single Senator or any block of Senators, of any political persuasion, to willfully and intentionally leave town rather than meet his or her legal obligation to report to the floor of their legislative house when called to do so and debate an issue and hold a vote.
What those absentee Senators did was cowardly and abdiciative and I fully agree with Ms. Parker’s sentiments that the voters in Wisconsin should initiate recall proceedings against every single one of them immediately if not sooner.
One last thing, if Ms. Parker’s campaign for California’s 37th District is to be considered “opportunistic” then I think all of Congresswoman Richardson’s political campaigns must be considered no less so. From her run for City Council, to State Assembly to US Congress, Laura Richardson can be said to have aggressively availed herself of one opportunistic political stepping stone after another.
So if we’re going to denigrate people for running for political office, let’s at least attempt to be more “fair and balanced” about it shall we?
This editorial was coming from a pretty emotional place if they want us to compare the empirical value of Richardson against Star for the right to take space on this planet. Like comparing the merits of Hitler against Stalin, it’s just going to end with a lot of yelling, and somehow offending the jews.
As far as calling for firings, I’d go light on that, since at some point in the future, Republicans might like to exercise that political option at a prime moment.
To the editors of this piece, I think the application of “asshole professional courtesy” should be the rule of the day, and “hate the game, not the player” is called for in this matter.
Hey John, I agree that Laura Richardson is not an attractive candidate; my point is that Star Parker made her look like one. As far as any public official’s obligation to show up and vote, well, unfortunately I think we’re long past that. In legislatures from the House and Senate to states across the land, political parties regularly decline to approve executive appointments or bring issues to the floor for votes. Not showing up so as to prevent a quorum so as to keep from losing on an important issue seems to simply be a strategy that has so far proven effective. As you often say, if we don’t like our current office holders we have the opportunity to vote them out next time or recall them. These state senators took a huge political risk and we’ll see how it plays out.
i emailed dave a link to an article, not sure how that makes me responsible for answering greet’s inane questions about wisconsin legislators duties. naturally i wont bother. i will point out once again greet’s massive hypocrisy as he is living off the fruits of HIS UNION’S COLLECTIVE BARGAINING for his pension while he wants to see those same rights taken from wisconsinites. go ahead and stamp your feet and cry in outrage greet we’re all used to the perpetual victim act you republicans pull.
Hi Dave, reasonable people can disagree on the relative merits of Congresswoman Richardson and Star Parker (or lack thereof).
I would very much like to see any other example from any other local, state or federal legislature, where elected representatives boarded a conveyance, en masse, as these cowardly senators did, left town together and literally *went into hiding* specifically so as to not do what their voters elected them to do…show up at work, debate an issue (using all of the delays and constitutional “tricks of the trade” available to them), and then deal with a question placed before them one way or the other.
There is a clear distinction between what these cowards did and declining to approve executive appointments or to bring issues to the floor for votes. they actually have to be *present* to accomplish these things. In the latter case the electeds in question actually showed up and did what they were being paid to do…debate, discusss and deal with the issue, one way or another, in their respective legislative houses.
“Not showing up (as a voting block of elected representatives) so as to (specifically) *prevent* a quorum to keep from losing a vote on an important issue” is not a constitutional strategy, it is a specific *refusal* to meet one’s sworn duty. What happened in Wisconsin is not acceptable. It would be no more acceptable were it Republicans behaving in this way so as to deliberately block a vote on, say, increasing taxes.
As a means of protest, individuals and small groups of electeds refuse to report for a vote or literally stand up and walk out during open sessions all of the time. But the vote in question (the legislative work) proceeds, up or down in their absence regardless. Protests I get. Showing up and voting “present,” I get.
Leaving the state and *hiding* to prevent a question from being called on the floor is cowardly, it is counter-constitutional and it is thoroughly abdicative of their responsibility as elected representatives.
In my view, anyone who willfully and deliberately abandons ones post under circumstances such as these has no business to continue to enjoy the *privilege* of serving as an elected official. Ms. Parker is absolutely correct that they should start recall of all of these…public servants (sic) who have not gone to work. Let the voters in Wisconsin decide whether each of these fools should continue to serve them in such a cowardly fashion. If they decide they want them to remain in office, then the voters there have only themselves to blame hereafter.
I’m still waiting for howardx or anyone else to point out for us just where in the Wisconsin State Constitution we might find codified the authority for any single Senator or any block of Senators, of any political persuasion, to willfully and intentionally leave town rather than meet his or her legal obligation to report to the floor of their legislative house when called to do so and debate an issue and hold a vote.
I’ll help him out. It isn’t there. Here is what *is* there:
~~
Article IV, Section 7:
Organization of legislature; quorum; compulsory attendance.
Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members; and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under
such penalties as each house may provide.
~~
These cowardly Senators split the scene so as to specifically prevent that house from meeting its constitutional obligation under this section. They were compelled to attend by their colleagues who remained (as well as the governor himself) and they refused and, as of this writing, they *continue* to refuse.
Under Art. XIII, Sec. 12 of that same constitution, the electors of the state have a right to petition for recall of any elected official who has so served for at least one year. The electors in Wisconsin need to do so in the case of these cowards who remain in hiding and refuse to report to the floor of their chamber as compelled by their colleagues and their governor.
Art. IV, Sec. 28 of that same constitution stipulates that all elected and highly appointed state officials take an oath of office, in part, “faithfully to discharge the duties of their respective offices to the best of their ability.”
Through this cowardly act, these Senators have failed to faithfully discharge the duties of their respective offices. They are in violation of their oaths and their constitution and they should be recalled.
Ms. Parker said much the same, just in different words. I could not agree with her more. Some do not agree. I get that.
As you say, we’ll see how it plays out. But I can tell you this, were I a State Senator, and it took a State Trooper to find me and physically escort me to the chamber of the legislative house so as to compel me to do my sworn duty, I would do it, and then I would resign my seat in shame for having failed to serve the voters as I had sworn an oath to do.
I rather doubt these 14 Democrat Senators in Wisconsin possess even that much ethical awareness.
“I rather doubt these 14 Democrat Senators in Wisconsin possess even that much ethical awareness”
any talk of “ethics” coming from a republican is always hilarious.
howardx: You misunderstand me completely. My utter contempt for the 14 absentee democrat Wisconsin senators stems from their refusal to do the job they swore oaths to do. I do not care *how* they choose to vote on the matter, I just expect them to show up and vote.
I have consistently said that I think all public and private sector employees should have the right to collectively bargain for the best wages and working conditions they can receive from their employers. As you accurately (if ever so rudely) point out, my family and I have personally benefitted from the collective bargaining process throughout my own recently concluded career. Public employees in Wisconsin should so benefit as well, if such is truly their preference.
I’m still hoping you can point out for us just where in the Wisconsin State Constitution we might find codified the authority for any single Senator or any block of Senators, of any political persuasion, to willfully and intentionally leave town rather than meet his or her legal obligation to report to the floor of their legislative house when called to do so and debate an issue and hold a vote.
speaking of “ethics”
Former Wisconsin AG to Recommend Walker be Investigated for Ethics Violations to Accountability Board
“Looks like Scott Walker’s prank phone call may end up getting him in some trouble with their Government Accountability Board and his remarks about bringing in agent provocateurs to cause trouble at the rallies isn’t sitting too well with the voters. Ed Schultz discussed Governor Walker’s conversation with the fake Koch brother with The Nation’s John Nichols who filled Ed in on some of the latest developments in Wisconsin.
NICHOLS: The governor’s not walking a fine line Ed. He tripped off the cliff. The fact of the matter is that Wisconsin has the toughest ethics laws in the nation. We pride ourselves on that. That goes back more than a hundred years to the progressive era with Bob La Follette. Those ethics laws require that an elected official keep faith with the people of Wisconsin. Those statements raise deep concerns here in Madison and around the state.
The former Attorney General of Wisconsin, Peg Lautenschlager told me tonight that she is in the reviewing this, of the transcript of this conversation, for several hours found what she determined to be multiple ethics, election law and labor law violations. And she will tomorrow morning suggest that the state Government Accountability Board begin to review those ethics violations.
Ed Schultz asked Nichols if the Republicans running the state would allow the investigation to go forward.
NICHOLS: The Government Accountability Board is an independent, non-partisan board, staffed by former judges who are elected in a non-partisan manner without any Republican or Democratic control.
Nichols wasn’t sure where the investigation would end up going and pointed out to Schultz that the residents of Wisconsin aren’t too happy with some of the other statements he made during the call as well.
NICHOLS: But second, there’s a moral component to this. People around Wisconsin are talking tonight about the fact that they brought their children to peaceful, very attractive and popular rallies in Madison and other communities and now they find out that their governor says that he considered sending agent provocateurs into those rallies to screw things up and cause trouble, perhaps to begin violence and he only decided not to do it, not because he’s worried for the people of his state, but because he was worried that it might not play well politically. That’s a very troubling thing to have a governor of an American state talking about.”
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/former-wisconsin-ag-recommend-walker
given your concern for “ethics” im sure you support any investigation into walker’s violations.
why dont you attempt to explain to me how sending dave a link about a local politician’s national tv appearance requires me to answer any of your questions.
“As you accurately (if ever so rudely)”
i dont like you greet, i disliked you when you were wasting taxpayer money posting at the district and i like you even less now that you apparently have endless hours to spend bloviating here. dont expect courtesy from me unless you have some sort of revelation and decide to be an american again instead of a republican.
howardx: If anyone in Wisconsin believes Governor Walker committed ethics violations, I think he should be fully investigated and, if the allegations are proven true, he should be sanctioned appropriately and, if warranted, removed from office.
Are you willing to say the same in the case of these 14 absentee Wisconsin Senators? Somehow I doubt it.
I’m not concerned that you dislike me, howardx. That line is quite long so feel free to squat there all you like.
But when you initiate an action, as you did in sending Dave the link, it seems reasonable that you would be willing to defend your purpose for doing so. It seems clear that you dislike Star Parker and that you hoped Dave would choose to run a story here that paints her in a disfavorable light and to use the Fox News interview to support that story.
Dave chose to accomodate you. Congratulations.
Certainly you are not “required” to answer any of my questions on any matter. But it also seems fair for others to draw reasonable inferences from your refusal to do so. I think what Star Parker said during her interview was correct and reasonable. I would have worded my position a little differently than she chose to but if we are going to start taking people to task for how they choose to word their positions, rather than for the actual *content* of their positions, we’ll never make any progress at all.
even if what you say about my reason for sending dave the link is true (which it is, star parker admitted welfare cheat is a blight on the community and deserves any and all ridicule that comes her way) how does that make me responsible for defending what wi. senate dems have done?
im fine with letting people draw reasonable inferences, as matter of fact i’ll spell it out.
John Greet, former lbpd officer and lbpoa union member is a complete hypocrite who much like star parker admitted welfare cheat deserves nothing but ridicule for his regressive anti american ideology and is certainly not someone i would entertain having any sort of discussion with as he is likely to ignore the truth as past attempts at discussion have shown.
Hey John. You should have told me that we were talking about examples “from any other local, state or federal legislature, where elected representatives boarded a conveyance, en masse, as these cowardly senators did, left town together and literally *went into hiding*.” See, I was talking about the general principle of legislators getting what they want or don’t want by refusing to participate. Of course, I will never succeed in getting my point across if you keep narrowing the discussion. As for your other point, I am not sure if all members of legislators have to show up to make sure an issue is not voted upon. Don’t the chairmen of committees usually schedule votes? Anyway, have a good one.
Hi Dave. Please forgive my apparent lack of clarity. I sort of though I had covered it pretty well when I asked “where in the Wisconsin State Constitution we might find codified the authority for any single Senator or any block of Senators, of any political persuasion, to willfully and intentionally leave town rather than meet his or her legal obligation to report to the floor of their legislative house when called to do so and debate an issue and hold a vote.” But I guess not.
Yes, sir, it is my understanding that Commitee Chairs schedule votes. This *was* a scheduled vote. but rather than convene *as required* and deal with the question before them, even if only to vote “present” (the legislative equivalent of saying “I can neither confirm nor deny my official position on this matter”,) these 14 absconding, democarat, absentee senators skipped town in blatant violation of their oath and the state constitution they promised to uphold.
They left because they did not believe they would prevail in the matter and so, rather than be defeated in their position, they took the cowardly step of abandoning their constitutional responsibility and leaving the state in which they are employed to legislate.
Imagine if the majority of Congressional Dems had chosen this path almost fifty years ago and instead of showing up and voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as 37% of them did), they had simply fled the Capitol in busses so the vote could not be held at all? I would hope we would all have taken considerable exception to that.
This senatorial nonsense in Wisconsin is no less significant, simply smaller in scope.
Take care sir!
Boy, howardx, for someone who isn’t interested in having a discussion with me, you sure do seem to have a lot to say…
Can you offer any examples that support your allegation that my ideology is to any degree anti-American?
BTW, howardx, some could just as easily say: “Congresswoman Laura Richardson, repeated mortgage absconder, real property abandoner, blight facilitator and squanderer of public funds, is a blight upon the community and the nation and deserves any and all ridicule that comes her way.”
You won’t say that, of course. But others surely could. But what constructive purpose does saying such things serve?
And if none, then why say them?
Walking out to eliminate the possibility of a quorum is just as fine a tactic as filibustering. It would seem to give some power to the minority when they are being bullied. I applaud it.
Ms. LB, the former is abdicative, cowardly and unconstitutional. The latter is a legislative tactic that, while annoying, is entirely permissible and thoroughly constitutional.
Through the former, those cowards who fled did so to assert unlawful control over an otherwise lawful process. Suspecting they would not prevail in the vote they decided to opt out of the process altogether but without resigning their seats, which is something none of them have the legal authority to do.
To put it simply, these 14 cowardly Democrat senators chose to take the law into their own hands rather than to abide by the constitution that they each swore oaths to support and defend. They didn’t take an oath to uphold their constitution only so long as it proved convenient, but such proved the character of their “service.” A service of convenience.
May it prove equally convenient for the voters to recall every single one of those cowardly legislators as soon as possible.
LB Girl, there’s a difference between playing within the rules of the game, and “gaming the game.” Filibustering is intended to assure that what are considered important points, by whomever, are not dismissed or overlooked for debate.
The Fleebaggers are akin to a man running to Canada to avoid paying child support payments because he feels “the judge was female, and the bitch tricked me.”
You have to admit there is a significant level of arrogance attached to the Fleebagger’s mentality, and is the opposite of competence in ethical leadership.
Love the term “fleebagger.” I begrudgingly admit you are a genius, Jason.
John, isn’t it true that you are only calling them cowards because they are Democrats? I mean seriously, if it were Republicans who walked out you’d be railing on about how how brave and enlightened, and downright necessary a walkout was.
damn you DAve for moderating me.
Ms. LB: The actions were, and remain cowardly. The party affiliation is entirely incidental though accurate . Please review a prior comment in which i said:
“I would very much like howardx or anyone else to point out for us just where in the Wisconsin State Constitution we might find codified the authority for any single Senator or any block of Senators, *of any political persuasion*, to willfully and intentionally leave town rather than meet his or her legal obligation to report to the floor of their legislative house when called to do so and debate an issue and hold a vote.” (emphasis added)
-and-
“Imagine if the majority of Congressional Dems had chosen this path almost fifty years ago and instead of showing up and voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as 37% of them did), they had simply fled the Capitol in busses so the vote could not be held at all? I would hope we would all have taken considerable exception to that.”
Despite that I disagree with the Democrats AND the Republicans who voted against the Civil Rights Act of ’64, I have to at least respect that they showed up at work and cast their vote.
Star Parker was abosultely correct. These cowardly Senators from (no longer “in) Wisconsin couldn’t find it in themselves to do the job they swore an oath to do. They abandoned their post and they abandoned the voters in Wisconsin. They boarded a bus and slunk out of the state like criminals evading arrest.
They should be recalled.
Soon.
One man’s coward is another man’s hero. It is called civil disobedience. Thank goodness some people are willing to stand up for what is right.
“John, isn’t it true that you are only calling them cowards because they are Democrats? I mean seriously, if it were Republicans who walked out you’d be railing on about how how brave and enlightened, and downright necessary a walkout was.”
BINGO
i guess some here will support a self admitted welfare cheat such as star parker just because she is a republican.
Pimps, Whores and Welfare Brats: From Welfare Cheat to Conservative Messenger [Paperback]
http://www.amazon.com/Pimps-Whores-Welfare-Brats-Conservative/dp/0671534661
she calls herself that, dont see why i shouldnt repeat it.
Ms. LB: You will never, ever, read or hear me defend *any* elected official, regardless of party affiliation, who has behaved in the cowardly and counter-constitutional manner that the absentee Wisconsin Senators behaved.
Provide me any specific example of a block of elected Republicans who behaved in the manner in which these Wisconsin scofflaws did and for the same purpose (to intentionally prevent a quorum so that the lawful business of the legislative body could not proceed as required) and I will gladly call them cowards also.
My condemnation has nothing to do with party, much though howardx and others greatly and foolishly desire to make it so. These cowards happen to be democrats. If it shames some to hear and to acknowledge that fact, then perhaps they should re-think their dogged allegiance to that particular party. But facts are facts. Sorry.
I look forward to your example so that we might discuss it.
howardx: I support Ms. Parker because she has openly admitted her wrongdoing and has moved forward in her life to become a productive member of her community and of our society. I support her because I think she would do a far better job serving us in the House than Rep. Richardson has been or ever will.
Mostly, though, I think I support her just because it seems to annoy people like you so much : )
“Mostly, though, I think I support her just because it seems to annoy people like you so much : )”
of course thats the conservative MO, it doesnt matter if someone is a pig ignorant hater with no positive vision as long as it irritates liberals.
“That’s when Lincoln determined to keep the legislature in session in order to buy precious time for the bank to find a way to survive, and that’s how he jumped into the national limelight on December 5, 1840. On that date, the Democrats proposed an early adjournment, knowing this would bring a speedy end to the State Bank. The Whigs tried to counter by leaving the capitol building before the vote, but the doors were locked. That’s when Lincoln made his move. He headed for the second story, opened a window and jumped to the ground! ”
looking forward to your condemnation of the cowardly abe lincoln.
“In 1988, Senate Republicans, tired of filibustering through the night, left the Senate floor so there would be no quorum to conduct business. As Time reported at the time, the Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd (D-WV) was not amused, and called upon the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest his wayward Senate colleagues.
http://volokh.com/2011/02/22/when-senate-republicans-went-awol/
The police raiders struck after midnight. Armed but in plain clothes, they knocked on the locked door. No response. Their leader inserted a passkey and pushed. On the inside, the fugitive braced a shoulder against the door and shoved back. But the lawmen burst in, reinjuring the suspect’s broken finger. Reluctantly he allowed them to lead him into an elevator, then went limp. They lifted him up, carried him feet first through massive doors — and onto the floor of the U.S. Senate.
The bizarre arrest of Republican Senator Bob Packwood of Oregon by the Senate’s sergeant at arms and five Capitol police officers last week showed how emotional the presumably genteel senior body has grown over a furiously partisan election-year issue: a Democratic plan to reform campaign financing. Packwood’s offense was to flee a quorum call. The raiders also came across Connecticut Republican Lowell Weicker, who was waiting out the call in his office. But, cowed by Weicker’s bulk (6 ft. 6 in., 235 lbs.), they backed off when he stoutly insisted on remaining on his couch.”
it would really behoove you to google stuff BEFORE you make stupid pronouncements like
“Provide me any specific example of a block of elected Republicans who behaved in the manner in which these Wisconsin scofflaws did and for the same purpose”
which i have just done.
now lets hear the condemnation.
waiting…
I disagree with and personally condemn all of the instances howardx has cited above. In each case I believe the person or persons acted outside the law and it was wrong for them to do so.
If you read your own information, however, howardx, you will see that Lincoln’s original intent was to keep the legislature *in session* so that they could address the question before them. It was the Dems who sought to adjourn early so as to *avoid* their duty, something Dems seem to have become quite adept at over the years.
But Lincoln then misstepped, I think. His goal was to keep the legislature in session, yet he left the building rather than allow himself to be brought to the floor so that the legislature could adjourn early. The legislature could not remain in session either in his absence or his presence. Between that rock and hard place I think he should have reported to the floor and done his duty, however unpleasant that proved for him.
I think the Republicans in your second example were absolutely wrong to depart the chamber. They should have either maintained their filibuster as would have been legal or submitted to a vote and let the question be decided one way or the other, however unpleasant the results may have proved. There is a good reason the Sergeant-at-Arms has the legal authority to physically return absentee electeds to their respective houses…because the act is unlawful…as I should be.
In your final example Packwood most assuredly should have been physically dragged to the floor since his cowardly and petulent behavior made that response necessary. Despite his size, Weicker should have been dragged back to the floor as well.
Now, howardx, do you have any condemnation for these 14 cowardly Democrat Wisconsin Senators who fled their state rather than do their duty and who remain absent to this day?
And I’m still hoping you can point out for us just where in the Wisconsin State Constitution we might find codified the authority for any single Senator or any block of Senators, of any political persuasion, to willfully and intentionally leave town rather than meet his or her legal obligation to report to the floor of their legislative house when called to do so and debate an issue and hold a vote.
Waiting…
I dislike Star Parker nearly as much as I dislike Sarah Palin. I think “Star Parker” sounds like a porn star name.
There I said it.
personally i dont care what the wi. constitution says, i fully support the wi. dems and the protesters in whatever they decide to do.
You have confirmed what I have long suspected, howardx. The law is more a matter of convenience for you than it is a necessary guidance for and reasonable regulation of our daily activities in a free and civil society.
It seems obvious that the 14 cowardly Senators in Wisconsin agree with you. And, you know, that’s fine. Like you, they are free to view abiding by the law as a matter of convenience if they like. But if that is truly their preference, then they really should seek a different line of work. One that doesn’t directly conflict with the ignorant manner in which they have chosen to approach the law in this case.
Hey, Dave. Can I get a raise? : )
“You have confirmed what I have long suspected, howardx. The law is more a matter of convenience for you than it is a necessary guidance for and reasonable regulation of our daily activities in a free and civil society.”
coming from a lifelong tool of the authorities im not going to take this comment too seriously.
“You have confirmed what I have long suspected, howardx. The law is more a matter of convenience for you than it is a necessary guidance for and reasonable regulation of our daily activities in a free and civil society.”
i dont take this too terribly seriously, coming from a lifelong tool of the authorities.
Another one, John? Another one?
You Might be a Republican If……….
1) You believe George W. Bush’s redistribution of middle-class tax cuts to the top 1% of tax-payers was good for America, but Obama’s plan to return it to the middle class is ‘socialism.’
2) You believe stem cells are living human beings, but thousands of Iraqi children are ‘expendable collateral damage.’
3) You believe tax cuts for billionaires is a great idea, yet you wonder why the economy has stalled, your job just got outsourced to India, and oil company executives receive $400,000,000.00 retirement packages.
4) You believe the surge worked because the violence in Iraq is back to 2006 levels, which is only horrible, compared to what it was in 2007; intolerable. Besides, Brit Hume said so.
5) You think trial lawyers are harmful to America, yet you support prosecuting some guy in Muncie Indiana who burned his 99¢ American flag that was made in China by forced child labor.
6) You’re all for the ‘rule of law’ when it’s applied to Bill Clinton for lying about his infidelity, but not for prosecuting Karl Rove and Scooter Libby for committing treason.
7) You think George W. Bush is actually a really smart guy, but his folksy manner just makes him seem dumber than he really is.
You believe that those privileged from birth achieve success all on their own, and that those who are born to poverty and never have opportunities for advancement, got what they deserved.
9) You believe Ronald Reagan was a great president who had complete control of all aspects of government, but the Iran-Contra Affair was an insignificant scandal that went on without his knowledge.
10) You believe Democrats tax and spend, but George W. Bush was a fiscal conservative.
11) You believe Oliver North, who was CONVICTED of perjury, obstruction of justice, destroying evidence and accepting bribes, is a patriot. But John Kerry, who saved a man’s life while under enemy fire in Vietnam is a coward.
12) You believe George W. Bush kept us safe from terror, and the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks were Clinton’s fault.
13) You actually believe Fox News is fair & balanced.
14) You still believe Saddam had truckloads of WMDs, and that he somehow managed to sneak them into Syria, right under our noses.
15) You believe Terri Schiavo was sentient all along, and Bill Frist had the ability to diagnose her condition by watching a 5 second video of her sleeping.
16) You’re in favor of stronger prison sentences for drug users, yet your favorite radio personality is Rush Limbaugh.
17) You complain about having to press 1 for English, yet you hire undocumented workers to mow your lawn because they’re cheaper than hiring the kid next door.
18) Homosexuality is abhorrent to you, except when a Republican senator, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, and a planted White House journalist get caught having sexual affairs with gay men. Then you suddenly feel sorry for them.
19) The war in Iraq makes perfect sense to you, but any suggestion by Barack Obama that we target al Qaeda specifically is ‘dangerous and reckless.’
20) You don’t mind that president Bush tortured men who were never charged with a crime, yet you’re horrified by the wrath of al Qaeda when they capture one of our guys.
21) You believe the 1/10 of 1% of scientists who claim global warming is a hoax, and reject the 99.9% who say it’s real, because Sean Hannity and his friends in the oil industry have convinced you that science is a part of a greater liberal conspiracy.
22) You believe patriotism means you should support your government right or wrong … unless a Democrat’s in power, then it’s your patriotic duty to call him a closet Muslim, challenge his birth certificate, expose his sex life and impeach him.
23) You’re proud of your party’s ‘culture of life.’ Yet you support the death penalty for minors, you believe 600,000 dead Iraqis is justified because one of them was Saddam Hussein, and you oppose confronting the genocide in Darfur because they don’t have oil.
24) You support prayer in school, as long as your kids aren’t subjected to Muslim prayers.
25) You think Darwin’s theory of evolution is a loony fairy tale, and mankind actually began with two naked teenagers, a magic apple and a talking snake.
26) You think $35 billion spent on health care for children is a waste of taxpayer’s money, but $1.7 trillion spent on a catastrophic war that has isolated us from our allies, decimated our economy and made us less safe was money well spent.
27) You believe embargoing communist Cuba is sound foreign policy, but trading with China is just good business.
28) You believe Bill Clinton was an immoral cad, but Newt Gingrich and Henry Hyde were faithful husbands (and Larry Craig just has a wide stance).
29) You fervently defend the Constitution, but when president Bush got caught monitoring 300 million phones without a warrant, politicizing our justice system, hyping evidence for going to war and pardoning a convicted perjurer who just happened to be on his staff, then it’s okay, because he was ‘protecting America.’
30) You were outraged when a gallon of gasoline went from $1.29 to $1.40 during the two terms of the Clinton presidency, but you didn’t seem to mind when prices tripled under George W. Bush, the “oil man.”
31) You were furious when Bill Clinton pardoned international commodities trader Marc Rich, who was convicted of tax evasion, but applauded when George W. Bush exonerated Scooter Libby for obstructing justice to protect Dick Cheney from a treason indictment.
32) With no evidence whatsoever, you complained of ‘voter fraud,’ and demanded that thousands of blacks be scrubbed from voting lists during the 2004 election in Ohio, yet when Rush Limbaugh asked his audience to illegally claim to be Democrats and vote for Hillary Clinton during the Ohio Primary in February to “stir up trouble,” a FELONY, you were okay with that.
33) You believe Barack Obama should be held accountable for every sermon that Jeremiah Wright ever gave, but John McCain, who sought the endorsement of anti-Semitic, xenophobic, openly racist and homophobic pastors should be given a pass.
34) You believe Barack Obama is either a secret Muslim, was actually born in Kenya, and his parents forged a fake birth certificate when he was born – just in case he should ever run for president, or that his father’s nationality disqualifies his son from being president, all because you read that on the Internet.
35) You believe the 8 consecutive years of prosperity and strong economic growth from 1993 – 2001 was due to the work of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, but today’s recession is all Clinton’s and Obama’s fault.
36) You laugh at how much better Barack Obama speaks with a TelePrompTer than without one, yet you never mention the fact that even with a TelePrompTer, every time George Bush opened his mouth, gibberish tumbled out.
37) You still believe Barack Obama has somehow succeeded in fooling every government and independent examination with his “obviously Photoshopped” documents. Instead, you rely on Internet gossip, WorldNetDaily and Jerome Corsi as your sources for “truth.”
38) Your conservative media spent more air time discussing Michelle Obama touching the queen of England’s arm than on the economy, the environment, terrorism and health care combined.
39) You believe that we should get out of Afghanistan because Obama is “nation building,” yet for eight straight years of Bush’s bumbling incompetence there, you kept mum. Therefore, attacking Iraq makes sense, even though they never threatened us, but finishing off the job of finding Osama bin Laden; the terrorist who killed 3,000 Americans — Bush’s original task — is a dumb idea.
40) You were furious that Barack Obama admitted in France that Americans have occasionally been “arrogant, dismissive and derisive,” but you cheered them on when Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were arrogant, dismissive and derisive.
41) You believe that Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget is an outrage, but never once complained that George Bush turned Bill Clinton’s $300 billion surplus into a $1.3 trillion deficit. And it never once occurred to you that Bush deliberately omitted the Iraq and Afghanistan wars from those statistics, which means Bush’s TRUE deficit was $3.1 trillion.
42) You supported Gov. Sarah Palin, partly because you believed she kept a good Christian home. This, despite the fact that her seventeen year old unmarried daughter was knocked up, her son was accused of vandalizing 44 school buses (cutting the brake lines of school buses – HELLO!!?) and was given the choice of going to jail or join the military, and Palin herself was found guilty of abusing the power of her office. But Barack Obama can’t possibly be a true Christian, because his father was a Muslim, and his middle name is Hussein. (Besides, he’s black, and everybody knows that Jesus was a blond haired blue eyed white man.)
43) You believe the only solution to gun violence is to make sure everybody is armed to the teeth. That way, when some crazy person goes on a killing spree, right-thinking people will take out the killer, and tranquility will prevail throughout the land.
44) You believe the mainstream news anchors are crazy, biased and filled with hate, but Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity are rational, accurate and informative.
45) You defend Rush Limbaugh’s right to wish for Obama to fail, and therefore, the failure of our republic, yet you call Democrats the “blame America first crowd.”
46) You claim that the economic crisis is the fault of the Democrats, but never mention that it was the Reagan administration that massively deregulated the banking industry in 1982, and it was Phil Gramm – McCain’s choice for economic advisor – who completed the task for his pals in the banking industry in 1999.
47) You believe the failure of the US automobile industry is primarily the fault of the unions, and not because management of the three corporations insisted on producing vehicles that nobody wanted. And you’re angry with the $28.00 per hour average wage of the work force, but you believe that the multimillion dollar salaries of the men who bankrupted the industry are perfectly reasonable.
48) You believe Barack Obama is a “narcissistic megalomaniac,” because you heard Glenn Beck call him that once, but Beck himself is a humble man, concerned only for your welfare (brought to you by Goldline!).
49) You believe anybody who doesn’t subscribe to Orly Taitz’ birther movement is a RINO, and those who do, are carrying the torch of Reaganism.
50) You think this list is mean-spirited and biased, and even though you privately acknowledge to yourself that it’s all true, you believe the Democrats are just as bad. Here’s a bulletin: Nobody has ever been this bad.
howardx, I just fell in love with you…all over gain.
howardx: There is just far too much nonsense going on there to attempt to refute in this forum. Nor, I suspect, would doing so serve to alter your views to any appreciable degree. When you finally admitted that you do not care what the Wisconsin constitution says, you made it clear to me that the law and abiding by it is a matter of purest convenience for you: Important to follow when it suits you and your political biases, far too easily dismissed when it does not. I find your approach to the law (much like that of the current administration) to be an extremely ignorant one, and very, very unfortunate.
Thankfully the 37th District and California for the most part showed that our citizenry is very sophisticated by not voting against the interest of our common humanity and societal needs, that incidentally makes California still the richest State in the USA. Wisconsin is a prime example of what happens when you vote for the interest of Koch Brothers, Bank of America and other tax cheats.
Star Parker was not only a carpetbagger but was attempting to achieve receiving a “government” check along with decent benefits, that “hard working” people gained for all of labor. The irony that she and others don’t mind having a “government” pension for themselves, but the Serfs need not apply. She along with “many” in the GOP are nothing more than “Gatekeepers” for the uber-wealthy. If the median income in our country is $38k then why, (not in California, but mainly States our tax dollars help fund) do these people support the GOP?
We have the Republican Party within the Democratic Party because the latter run the gamut with respect to views and ideology. The GOP are a cult whose mantra is “tax cuts” for our masters and we don’t mind building the gates to their communities that keep us out. Star Parker being one of these types thought the people in the 37th District were as ignorant as she is as an admitted thief, prostitute, welfare cheat etc., and now she is nothing but a right wing lackey. There’s money in it.
What masquerades as Republicans these days are nothing more than fearful people afraid that they are losing their “false” perception they themselves are part of a ruling class that wouldn’t hire them to poop their pets scoop. So laughable. Once Star Parker’s I was a welfare queen show stopped bringing in donations to her fake non-profit she began to obsess and spew her venom towards gay people. Again fortunately most Californians get it and understand the divide/conquer tactics GOP have used since women, minorities and others gained rights during the Civil Rights era.
This bothers the hell out of them when people see through these tactics and come together. She could have gone to the reddest parts of California and she still would have lost. Only a severely non-critically thinking voter would cast their ballot for a charlatan like Star Parker. Our country is in a struggle, Aristocracy vs. Democracy. Question to the people that support our devolution into 3rd world status is which side are you on?
“howardx: There is just far too much nonsense going on there to attempt to refute in this forum”
greet translated
“its all true”
“you made it clear to me that the law and abiding by it is a matter of purest convenience for you: Important to follow when it suits you and your political biases, far too easily dismissed when it does not.”
greet translated
“anyone who doesnt share my anal retentive authoritarian views is ignorant”
the fact is greet the wi dems are heroes and gov. walker is sinking in the polls, even the heavily biased rasmussen has 66% of americans polled supporting the unions and the wi. 14. i suspect that the fact that walker is quickly becoming the laughing stock of america is whats driving your blather here. we all know if these were republicans you’d be praising them as being principled and brave. protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
to sum up
greet, gov. walker and the republican party 0
howardx, the WI 14 and the Democratic party 7
THANK A DEMOCRAT!
It’s hard to argue that the Democratic Party doesn’t work to make our lives better in some way.
If you’re not a wealthy landowner and you vote, thank a Democrat.
If you’re a woman and you vote, thank a Democrat.
If you have ever voted while between the ages of 18 and 21, thank a Democrat.
If you never experienced racial segregation, thank a Democrat.
If you never had to take a literacy test or pay a poll tax to vote, thank a Democrat.
If you earn a fair wage, get paid overtime and/or was never subjected to child labor, thank a Democrat.
If you have ever received benefits through Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, thank a Democrat.
If you or your child has ever benefited from Head Start or SCHIP, thank a Democrat.
If you have ever worked in a clean, safe workplace, thank a Democrat.
If you’ve ever missed work due to a serious illness, accident, or birth of a child (FMLA), thank a Democrat.
If you, your parents or your grandparents were helped by the G.I. Bill, thank a Democrat.
If you’re a woman who is paid as much as your male coworkers, thank a Democrat.
If you’ve never been discriminated against due to your age or physical disability, thank a Democrat.
If you enjoy clean air and water, thank a Democrat.
If you enjoy freedom and security, thank a Democrat- Monroe Doctrine, Marshall Plan, NATO
Sheila: A quick review of the California Secretary of State’s Statement of Vote for the last general election reveals that some 1.37 million people who were eligible to vote in California could not even be bothered to register to do so. Of those who had registered, a dismal 2.37 million (or about 53.4%) bothered to actually turn out in one way or another and vote. This, to me, does not indicate, as you allege, “sophistication” but, rather, “ignorance” and “apathy” and serves to support the aphorism that we truly do get the government we deserve, especially in California.
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2010-general/complete-sov.pdf
Far from representing “the interest of our common humanity and societal needs,” Rep. Richardson votes almost exclusively to support laws and causes championed by organized labor, which, through its many PACs, out-contributed her next closest political donors by more than 2 to 1. She votes in this manner despite the fact that the vast (and growing) majority of private sector workers are *not* unionized.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/pacs.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00029112&type=I
All elected officials at all levels of government earn either a salary or a stipend as well as a publicly funded pension. Do you take all political candidates to task for aspiring to a position that offers such benefits or only those with whom you disagree? Would you deprive all elected officials of those benefits or only those of whom you disapprove?
The Koch Brothers contribute to both Rep. and Dem. political candidates. By contrast George Soros contributes exclusively to Dems and outspends the Kohn Brothers 31 to 1 in individual donations. So between them, who is spending their billions in a less fair and balanced manner? Yet no complaint from you where Soros is concerned. I wonder why that might be?
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/09/opensecrets-battle—koch-brothers.html#
Ms. Parker has strong religious beliefs and makes no excuses for them. I do not share all of them, but I support her (and everyone else’s) right to hold them and to speak about them publicly. She believes that God was central to and inseparable from our great nation’s founding and that He provided the basis for many of the princples in most of our founding documents. Presidents Clinton and Obama believe that too, yet we do not hear you taking them to task for this. I wonder why that might be? She has said that she believes that “(w)hat individuals choose in private, and for which they bear personal responsibility, is separate from what we sanction publicly for which we all must bear responsibility.” I could not agree more. You disagree. I get that. But in the civil society, there is no need to denigrate those beliefs which happen to differ from your own. Can you not find within you the capacity to offer disagreement without also offering insult?
According to the Capitol Hill newspaper “Roll Call”, the wealthiest (by over $20 million) member of Congress is a Democrat and more than half (29) of the 51 wealthiest members of Congress are Democrats. Given these facts, which politcal party is more likely to be adjudged as representing “aristocracy.”
http://www.rollcall.com/features/Guide-to-Congress_2010/guide/-49892-1.html
Star Parker is far from a perfect human being. Who among us can say that they, themselves, are? But I like that she is readily willing to admit to her past failings. By contrast, Rep. Richardson does everything possible to evade personal and professional responsibilities at every turn:
http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/files/laura_richardson_most_corrupt.pdf
Rep. Richardson does not represent my interests or that of any reasonable conservative thinker. She consistently elevates the interests of organized labor over those of the vast majority of her non-unionized constituents and I believe she does so quite simply because they have spent more money to help her achieve a foothold upon her most recent political stepping stone and because they will continue to spend the most money to keep her there.
There are many ways one might choose to prostitute oneself, Sheila. In my view, those who choose to do so politically should not be considered any more noble or altruistic than those who may have once chosen some other method.
howardx: Polls can be certainly be informative. But fortunately the rule of law does not operate according to the latest polling data. The people of Wisconsin saw fit to adopt a state constitution and the the 14 absentee elected senators there took an oath to support and uphold it. Unless or until that constitution is amended to exempt them, those senators have a duty and a legal responsibility to remain present in their chamber and to deal with the question before them.
By departing the state en mass as they did and for the reasons they did, they violated their oaths of office. Rather than do this, they should have simply resigned, but none of them seem to possess the courage of their convictions sufficient to do so.
Instead, if these absentee senators do not return very soon, some 1500 state workers may well be laid off and those senators may likely find themselves “in contempt of the senate” and physically returned to their chamber by state law enforcement officers and compelled to do their jobs.
How very sad that it might come to that.
“those senators may likely find themselves “in contempt of the senate” and physically returned to their chamber by state law enforcement officers and compelled to do their jobs.”
wrong as usual.
under what authority can wisconsin law enforcement arrest people in illinois? they dont have that authority, as you probably knew when you made your latest ignorant statement.
“the chief of a major Wisconsin police union tells me this proposal may itself be unconstitutional under state law.
“It’s unclear to me on what constitutional authority Senate Republicans think law enforcement officers can take state lawmakers who have not committed a crime into custody,” James Palmer, the head of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association, told me by phone moments ago.”
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/03/is_wisconsin_gops_proposal_to.html
yeah too bad your guy cant use law enforcement for his own political ends, which you apparently have no problem with…because he’s a republican.
as for the threatened layoffs,
“Remember, in that infamous crank call, when he thought he was talking to David Koch, Walker talked about using layoffs as a tool to pressure the unions and the Democrats to give in to his demands.
–Josh Marshall”
since your guy walker was too stupid to confirm who he was talking to, the public is well aware of who’s fault the layoffs are.
“George Soros contributes exclusively to Dems and outspends the Kohn Brothers 31 to 1 in individual donations.”
from greet’s own link, which PRESUMABLY he read before he posted it
“Political Action Committee Spending (1989 to 2010)
Koch Industries: $5,938,993 (83 percent going to Republicans)
Soros Fund Management: $0
527 Group Contributions (2001 to 2010)
Koch Industries: $574,998
•$186,598 – Democratic Governors Association
•$150,000 – Republican State Leadership Committee
•$103,400 – Republican Governors Association
Soros Fund Management: $0
Lobbying Expenditures (1998 to 2010)
Koch Industries: $50,972,700
Soros Fund Management: $860,000
Open Society Policy Center (Soros-Funded): $11,930,000
Individual donations to federal candidates, parties and political action committees (1989 to 2010)
Koch Brothers: $2.58 million
George Soros: $1.74 million
David Koch: $2,224,170
•$667,500 – National Republican Congressional Committee
•$555,000 – Republican National Committee
•$191,400 – National Republican Senatorial Committee
Charles G. Koch: $363,100
•$58,900 – National Republican Senatorial Committee
•$50,000 – Republican National Committee
George Soros: $1,748,627
•$252,670 – Democratic National Committee
•$147,216 – Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
•$259,716 – Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
so in short EVERYTHING greet just said about george soros and the koch’s is a lie and is in fact the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he claims.
there is only one area where soros outspent the koch’s
David Koch: $1,472,000
•$1,352,000 – Republican Governors Association
•$100,000 – Americans for Better Government
George Soros: $32,506,500
•$12.05 million – Joint Victory Campaign 2004
•$7.5 million – America Coming Together
•$2.5 million – MoveOn.org
•$3.65 million – America Votes
•$3.5 million – The Fund for America
•$150,000 – Win Back Respect
•$120,000 – Majority Action
•$100,000 – Campaign Money Watch
oddly enough greet didnt mention it!
next.
“She believes that God was central to and inseparable from our great nation’s founding and that He provided the basis for many of the princples(sic) in most of our founding documents. Presidents Clinton and Obama believe that too”
a quote from each please, saying EXACTLY what you have claimed.
this is why greet should be ignored by anyone with half a brain, this claptrap about the founders being biblically inspired only works if you ignore their own statements at the time. its just more complete bullshit from those who want to push their myth worshipping on all of us. you know because THEIR god demands it.
Members of the legislature shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest; nor shall they be subject to any civil process, during the session of the legislature, nor for fifteen days next before the commencement and after the termination of each session. Wis. Const. Art. IV, §15.
i finally had time to look up that wisconsin constitution…
As a gesture of respect I will offer these last comments in response to howardx, and then I have to let this go:
Illinois has no control over what happens in the Wisconsin senate. The absentee senators may well each find themselves charged with “contempt for the senate” by their senatorial colleagues by the end of the day. Illinois could very well grant Wisconsin state troopers authority to take physical custody of these absentee senators for the purpose of returning them to their own state so that at least one of them might be sufficiently shamed into keeping his or her oath and doing his or her duty. I am not particularly interested in what a police union chief may have to say on the matter since it is well beyond his purview to have any impact upon the matter one way or the other.
~~
Perhaps I have misunderstood the report I linked, but I do not see a single contribution from Soros to a single Repub. This was the basis for my comment that Soros contributes exclusively to Dems. Can you point out any figure in the report that refutes this?
The report I linked quite clearly states:
“Individual donations to 527 organizations (2001 to 2010)
George Soros: $32.5 million
Koch Brothers: $1.5 million
This was the basis for my comment that “(Soros) outspends the Ko(ch) Brothers 31 to 1 in individual donations.”
Nothing I said on this matter was a lie, howardx. That’s just the spin you have chosen to place upon it. Such accusations are not constructive but then it seems fairly clear that you have no desire to be constructive during these discussions.
~~
I am not going to coninue. I apologize but I just haven’t the patience for it. Believe what you will, howardx. Nothing I say will serve to change that and anything I do say is twisted, misconstrued, misstated and blatantly mischaracterized.
Do what you will, sir. I am done.
“and outspends the Kohn(sic) Brothers 31 to 1 in individual donations”
didnt you say that? arent you moving the goalposts as you always do when proven wrong? the koch’s outspent soros in every category but the one youre referencing and in fact since 2004 soros has spent $4k and the koch’s have spent millions on 527′s again this per your own link, disingenuous leaning towards outright falsehood i’d say.
Our founding fathers were not “Christians.” Most of them were non-religious secularists. This is why they made separation of church and state such an important element in our constitution. Most early settlers to the US were seeking to escape the way tyrannical religions were controlling their homelands.
oh, and Sheila, I am in love with you now, too.
Hi Ms. LB: I never alleged that the founding fathers were Christians (although some certainly were). All I said was that Ms. Parker believes that God was central to and inseparable from our great nation’s founding and that He provided the basis for many of the principles in most of our founding documents.
He was and He did.
By the way, there is nothing whatsoever in the constitution about “separation of church and state.” The First Amendment simply states, in part, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
The intent in this clause was to prevent the establishment of a theocracy…of a single federal government-mandated state religion in America. It was Jefferson who coined the phrase that you and others know so well…but you will not find it in the constitution, nor in any of the federalist papers. It was written in a personal letter to an association of Baptist ministers in 1802.
But this in no way serves to erase the clear and irrefutable influences of (and, indeed, references to) God at our nations founding and throughout so many of our founding documents.
too easy, as i stated earlier, the only way you believe greet’s crackpot ideas about the founders is if you ignore their statements about religion at the time, you will find these statements below.
“It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov’t from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others.”
James Madison, “James Madison on Religious Liberty”,
edited by Robert S. Alley, ISBN 0-8975-298-X. pp. 237-238
.
“What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.”
– “A Memorial and Remonstrance”, 1785
.
“Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
– “A Memorial and Remonstrance”, 1785
.
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.”
-letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774
.
“Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects.”
.
“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.”
-1803 letter objecting use of gov. land for churches
.
.
John Adams The second president of the United States was John Adams, lawyer and diplomat. Adams’ public career lasted more than 35 years. He was second only to George Washington in making a place for the young United States among the nations of the world. In his devotion to the country he was second to none.
.
———————————————————
Excerpted from Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia Deluxe
Copyright © 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
.
“As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?”
-letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816
.
“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved– the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”
-letter to Thomas Jefferson
.
“The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes.”
– letter to John Taylor
.
“The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.”
.
“The question before the human race is, whether the God of Nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?”
.
“Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?”
-letter to Thomas Jefferson
.
“God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world.”
.
“Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years?”
“. . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”
.
“This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.”
.
.
.
.
.
Thomas Jefferson The third president of the United States was Thomas Jefferson. He had been the author of the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. In an age of great men Jefferson was remarkable for his wide-ranging curiosity on many subjects. He helped the United States get started, and his plans for the future helped it grow. Many of the good things Americans enjoy today have come from Jefferson’s devotion to human rights.
Jefferson is often called the founder of the Democratic party. Many other groups also claim to follow his principles. He developed the theory of states’ rights, which was against giving much authority to the federal government. He is known to everyone as the author of the ringing statement in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal, that among their inalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. His writings have stood as a torch to the defenders of individual freedom, in spiritual as well as in worldly affairs. .
———————————————————
Excerpted from Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia Deluxe
Copyright © 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
.
“In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot … they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose.”
– to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814
.
“Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.”
– “Notes on Virginia”
.
“Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
– letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787
.
“It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests.”
– to John Adams, 1803
.
“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose.”
– to Baron von Humboldt, 1813
.
“On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind.”
– to Carey, 1816
.
“Gouverneur Morris had often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system (Christianity) than did he himself.”
-in his private journal, Feb. 1800
.
“It is not to be understood that I am with him (Jesus Christ) in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism, he preaches the efficacy of repentance toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it.” – to Carey, 1816
.
“The priests of the superstition, a bloodthirsty race, are as cruel and remorseless as the being whom they represented as the family God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, and the local God of Israel. That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in that lore.”
– to Story, Aug. 4, 1820
.
“The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man. But compare with these the demoralizing dogmas of Calvin.
1. That there are three Gods.
2. That good works, or the love of our neighbor, is nothing.
3. That faith is every thing, and the more incomprehensible the proposition, the more merit the faith.
4. That reason in religion is of unlawful use.
5. That God, from the beginning, elected certain individuals to be saved, and certain others to be damned; and that no crimes of the former can damn them; no virtues of the latter save.”
– to Benjamin Waterhouse, Jun. 26, 1822
.
“Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a common censor over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.”
“Notes on Virginia”
.
“Creeds have been the bane of the Christian church … made of Christendom a slaughter-house.”
– to Benjamin Waterhouse, Jun. 26, 1822
.
“Let us, then, fellow citizens, unite with one heart and one mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of a bitter and bloody persecutions.”
.
“I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.”
.
“It has been fifty and sixty years since I read the Apocalypse, and then I considered it merely the ravings of a maniac.”
.
“The truth is, that the greatest enemies of the doctrine of Jesus are those, calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them to the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come, when the mystical generation [birth] of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation [birth] of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
– to John Adams, Apr. 11, 1823
.
“They [preachers] dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live.”
.
“I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.”
.
“We discover in the gospels a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication .”
.
“No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever.”
-Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
.
“… I am not afraid of priests. They have tried upon me all their various batteries of pious whining, hypocritical canting, lying and slandering. I have contemplated their order from the Magi of the East to the Saints of the West and I have found no difference of character, but of more or less caution, in proportion to their information or ignorance on whom their interested duperies were to be played off. Their sway in New England is indeed formidable. No mind beyond mediocrity dares there to develop itself.”
– letter to Horatio Spofford, 1816
.
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
.
.
“Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law.”
-letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814
.
“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot…. they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose.”
– to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814
.
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”
-letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT
“The Complete Jefferson” by Saul K. Padover, pp 518-519
More about Jefferson’s Religious Beliefs
More of Jefferson’s Writings
Jefferson’s Complete Writings on CD
.
.
George Washington Many United States presidents are honored for their great work, but two stand above all others– George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln is remembered for his great human qualities. Washington is beloved as the “father of his country.”
Washington was a “father” in many ways. He was commander in chief of the American forces in the American Revolution, chairman of the convention that wrote the United States Constitution, and first president. He led the men who turned America from an English colony into a self-governing nation. His ideals of liberty and democracy set a standard for future presidents and for the whole country.
Washington seemed somewhat cold and formal to the public. With his family and friends he often relaxed. He helped family and friends with gifts and loans, asking only that they would not reveal the donor. However, he was quick to say “no” when he felt imposed upon.
Washington’s memory is held in honor by his fellow countrymen and by the world. The enemies and critics who attacked him in war and in peace are now largely forgotten. His name has become a byword for honor, loyalty, and love of country.
.
———————————————————
Excerpted from Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia Deluxe
Copyright © 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
.
.
The father of this country was very private about his beliefs, but it is widely considered that he was a Deist like his colleagues. He was a Freemason.
Historian Barry Schwartz writes: “George Washington’s practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not himself a Christian… He repeatedly declined the church’s sacraments. Never did he take communion, and when his wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the sanctuary… Even on his deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to Christ, and expressed no wish to be attended by His representative.” [New York Press, 1987, pp. 174-175]
Paul F. Boller states in is anthology on Washington: “There is no mention of Jesus Christ anywhere in his extensive correspondence.” [Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, pp. 14-15]
.
.
“Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.”
– letter to Edward Newenham, 1792
.
“Gouverneur Morris had often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system (Christianity) than did he himself.”
-Thomas Jefferson, in his private journal, Feb. 1800
More about Washington’s Beliefs
.
.
Benjamin Franklin Few men have done as much for the world as Benjamin Franklin. Although he was always proud to call himself a printer, Franklin had many other talents as well. He was a diplomat, a scientist, an inventor, a philosopher, an educator, and a public servant.
Any one of Franklin’s many accomplishments would have been enough to make him famous. He organized the first library in America, and the U.S. Postal System. He invented many things, including the lightning rod and the Franklin stove. Franklin amazed scientists throughout the world with his experiments in electricity.
In Europe, Benjamin Franklin was the most famous American of his time. It was he who persuaded the English to repeal the hated Stamp Act. It was also he who convinced the French to aid in the American Revolution. Franklin helped draft both the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution.
.
———————————————————
Excerpted from Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia Deluxe
Copyright © 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
.
“I think vital religion has always suffered when orthodoxy is more regarded than virtue. The scriptures assure me that at the last day we shall not be examined on what we thought but what we did.”
– letter to his father, 1738
“. . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.”
.
“I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it.”
– “Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion”, 1728
.
“I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works … I mean real good works … not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing … or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity.”
– Works, Vol. VII, p. 75
.
“If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both here (England) and in New England.”
.
“Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.”
.
“The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.”
-in Poor Richard’s Almanac
.
“When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, ’tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.”
.
“I looked around for God’s judgments, but saw no signs of them.”
.
“In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it.”
“It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin’s general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers” (Priestley’s Autobiography)
More about Franklin’s Deism
.
Thomas Paine was the “firebrand of the American Revolution.” His writings brought courage in times of crisis. The first was in January 1776. At that time the colonies were still split on the question of declaring their independence from Great Britain. Some instructed their delegates in the Continental Congress to act against separation from the mother country. Thousands of colonists were undecided. On January 10 Paine published a pamphlet, ‘Common Sense’. To rally the faltering he wrote: “Freedom has been hunted around the globe. Asia and Africa have expelled her . . . and England has given her warning to depart. O, receive the fugitive and prepare in time an asylum for mankind!” Colonists up and down the seaboard read this stirring call to action. George Washington himself said it turned doubt into decision–for independence.
As a young man he sailed to America from England, carrying letters of introduction from Benjamin Franklin, whom he had met in London. Franklin recommended him for the “genius in his eyes.” Franklin’s letters got him the post of assistant editor of the new Pennsylvania Magazine in Philadelphia. One of his essays denounced slavery in the colonies.
In England he published ‘Rights of Man’ in 1791, in support of the French Revolution. Today the book seems moderate, but it so stirred Britain that he was indicted for treason. He fled to France and was elected to the National Convention. There he opposed the execution of Louis XVI. His humanitarian stand won him the ill will of the Jacobins, and he escaped the guillotine only through the fall of Maximilien Robespierre. After ten months in prison he was released and aided by James Monroe, then United States ambassador to France and later U.S. president.
.
———————————————————
Excerpted from Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia Deluxe
Copyright © 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
.
“The New Testament, they tell us, is founded upon the prophecies of the Old; if so, it must follow the fate of its foundation.”
.
“Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst.”
.
“Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half of the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.
.
“What is it the New Testament teaches us? To believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is called faith.”
.
“Take away from Genesis the belief that Moses was the author, on which only the strange belief that it is the word of God has stood, and there remains nothing of Genesis but an anonymous book of stories, fables, and traditionary or invented absurdities, or of downright lies.”
.
“We do not admit the authority of the church with respect to its pretended infallibility, its manufactured miracles, its setting itself up to forgive sins. It was by propagating that belief and supporting it with fire that she kept up her temporal power.”
.
“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.”
.
“The story of Jesus Christ appearing after he was dead is the story of an apparition, such as timid imaginations can always create in vision, and credulity believe. Stories of this kind had been told of the assassination of Julius Caesar.”
“All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”
“The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion.”
Ethan Allen, Revolutionary War Hero
“I have generally been denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious I am no Christian, except mere infant baptism makes me one; and as to being a Deist, I know not strictly speaking, whether I am one or not.”
preface, Reason the Only Oracle of Man
.
.
Abraham Lincoln, although not a Founding Father, was an extremely influential and important U.S. President. He is considered, after George Washington, the greatest of presidents. Every child is taught about Lincoln’s birth in a log cabin, but what is not taught is that he rejected Christianity, never joined a church, and even wrote a treatise against religion.
At times religious wording was written into Lincoln’s speeches, but such public soothes were brought at the insistence of White House staff members. In 1843, after he lost a campaign for Congress, he wrote to his supporters: “It was everywhere contended that no Christian ought to vote for me because I belonged to no church, and was suspected of being a Deist.”
When Lincoln was first considered for the presidential nomination, Logan Hay wrote to his nephew, the future Secretary of State John Hay: “Candor compels me to say that Mr. Lincoln could hardly be termed a devout believer in the authenticity of the Bible (but this is for your ears only).”
Interviewer Opie Read once asked Lincoln about his conception of God, to which he replied: “The same as my conception of nature.” When he was asked what he meant by that, he said: “That it is impossible for either to be personal.”
His former law partner, William Herndon, said of him after his assassination: “[Mr. Lincoln] never mentioned the name of Jesus, except to scorn and detest the idea of a miraculous conception. He did write a little work on infidelity in 1835-6, and never recanted. He was an out-and-out infidel, and about that there is no mistake.” He also said that Lincoln “assimilated into his own being” the heretical book Age of Reason by Thomas Paine.
Lincoln’s first law partner, John T. Stuart, said of him: “He was an avowed and open infidel, and sometimes bordered on atheism. He went further against Christian beliefs and doctrines and principles than any man I have ever heard.”
Supreme Court Justice David Davis: “He [Lincoln] had no faith, in the Christian sense of the term– he had faith in laws, principles, causes and effects.”
.
.
“The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession.”
-Spoken by Abraham Lincoln, quoted by Joseph Lewis
.
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html
Thank you Howardx. People who actually know the biographies of our founding fathers know what they said about Christianity. I personally agree with them and see “faith based” movements and politicians as a serious threat to our democracy and freedoms. Hence why Star Parker did not win…born again Christians are the worst sort of all hypocrits.
Ms. LB: With all of his copy-n-paste in vain attempts at refuting the comment and the point I actually made on this topic, howardx has still failed to disprove what I said and, in some cases, has only supported and strengthened it.
During debates on this topic, some, like Mr. X and others, fixate on specific religions or on religion in general. I did not and I do not. I never have and I never will.
I said that God was central to and inseparable from our great nation’s founding and that He provided the basis for many of the principles in most of our founding documents. I said not one word about Christianity or Judaism or any other standardized belief system commonly referred to as “religion.” I specified God, and nothing in all of Mr. X’s copied comments offered in response refutes it. Nothing.
It does not because he cannot, because what I said is true. I think he, and others who argue this topic surely know this because instead of accepting and acknowledging the clear evidence beforre them, evidence they, themselves attempt to use to distract, he, and they, attempt to divert the topic of the debate to one of “religion” and of “separation of church and state” rather than remaining on the topic it hand…that of God, and His inarguable influence over and the clear and repeated references by, our founders at the beginnings of this great nation.
No one need feel threatened or put out by this truth, as Mr. x and so many others seem to be. God is. Other than athiests and agnostics everyone believes in God (just as the founders clearly did.) Even though many people perceive and interpret God differently, we still acccept and acknowledge the existance of a power and a force and an entity far greater than ourselves.
In this context, it doesn’t really matter what we call Him or how we choose to acknowledge or intreract with Him. He exists. The founders knew and acknowledged this and they solicited His blessings constantly.
There is no doubt about this. The documentary evidence is quite clear for anyone to see who is not so blinded by his or her own personl agendas that they cannot read and understand what is written right there before them.
Read them again, Ms. LB. Read them without bias. You will see that what I have said many times now is true: “God was central to and inseparable from our great nation’s founding and He provided the basis for many of the principles in most of our founding documents.”
Although I have lost all respect for Mr. x at this point and have no intention of ever acknowledging his comments further, you I still admire greatly and respect considerably. Read the writings of our founders again. Set aside your bias toward one religion or any religion and, in so doing, better understand them. And me.
“Although I have lost all respect for Mr. x at this point and have no intention of ever acknowledging his comments further”
this would be the 3rd time youve said that, clearly your word is worthless.
John, I simply do not believe God is central to our country’s formation. You and the Tea Party will never convince me of that. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. I do not want candidates like Parker to get elected who make me feel like they are shoving their beliefs down my throat, and it scares me even more they might make policy decision based on the silly myths they believe.
people just need to do their own research, not take the word of ideologues who want you to believe their assertions “on faith” rather than providing any facts to back up their claims.
Ms. LB: Again you confuse God and religion. I get that you disagree with Ms. Parker’s faith and that you dislike that it is so central a theme in her life and in her vision for government. Fine. That is a reasonable concern to have regardless of the candidate and regardless of the faith.
But, Ms. LB, God was most certainly and irrefutably central to and inseparable from our great nation’s founding and He provided the basis for many of the principles in most of our founding documents.
You may dislike that this is so, but your dislike does not make it any less so.
Howardx saw fit to copy and paste a considerable amount of information that in no way and to no degree refuted these truths.
Indule me some copy and pasting of my own that supports them. Just a few, I promise:
“It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge to Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and to humbly implore His protection and favor.” – George Washington October 3, 1789 Proclaiming a National Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving
“We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.” – Benjamin Franklin Statement he made at the Constitutional Convention June 28, 1787
“God who gave us life and liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1781
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men *are created* equal. That they are endowed *by their Creator* with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” – Declaration of Independence 1776
None of these quotes address a specific religion, Ms. LB. They simply indicate a clear acknowledgement and open acceptance on the part of he founders that God was most certainly and irrefutably central to and inseparable from our great nation’s founding and He provided the basis for many of the principles in most of our founding documents.
As for policy decisions being based upon “silly myths,” this occurs constantly and consistently at all levels of government. Myths based in religion, myths based in junk science, myths based in manipulated statistics and a failure to understand or appreciate history.
So many “silly myths,” Ms. LB. And yet we constrain ourselves within policy decisions based upon some of those myths every single day.
So why only take exception to this where born-again Christians are concerned?
The answer, to me, seems clear…because you find it politically expedient to do so. And that’s fine too. We all have our own particular political preferences and biases. I just think it would be refreshing if you would acknowledge that truth along with the truth concerning the self-evident influence of and references to God during our nations founding.
greet provides 2 quotes which supposedly prove his point while the dozens of quotes i provided “in no way and to no degree refuted these truths.”
because greet says so apparently as he has once again offered nothing but the opinion of a committed christianist bent on revising our shared history so that his “god” gets a central role.
ps greet
responding to me in posts to other people is NOT ignoring me, its just childish and as is the norm with you, pathetic as well.
John, every religion in the world is based on silly myths, Christianity is not an exception.
Ms. LB: I do not believe I have ever said otherwise.
My faith is not your faith. I get that. I do not require that it be. Likewise, your faith (if you have one) is not (if he is to be believed) our President’s. His faith is, in turn, different from Ms. Parker’s and her’s from Senator Lieberman’s and his from Congressman Ellison’s…and so it goes.
One person’s silly myth is another person’s raison d’etre. This is precisely the point…if you are going to take exception to Ms. Parker based, even in part, upon her belief in what you feel to be a silly myth..then you must likewise take exception to our current President, and most of our former Presidents, including Clinton, and many if not most of our elected officials regardless of political party.
As I understand Ms. Parker, she laments that our society is increasingly lacking in morality. She happens to define morality within the constructs of her particular faith system. But neither she nor any other individual, once elected to public office, can dictate terms to others in this area. The same system that allows Ms. Parker and, President Obama, and Senator Lieberman, and Congressman Ellison all to believe as *they* choose, also respects and defends the right of all of the rest of us to believe (or not) as *we* choose.
Your point that G. Washington and the founding fathers believed in “God” is well taken, but they were all deists.In the “Age of Reason” most of the greatest thinkers ( especially people like J. Madison and B. Franklin) did not view God in the way most Judeo-Christians do. They understood God as a higher power that could not really be defined, more like an organizing force of nature. This belief actually allows for far more religious tolerance than Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. This is the idea of God the founding fathers sought to protect. That is why I will always vote against any candidate that professes their personal religious beliefs very loudly–especially any fundamentalist sect.
I would like to point out that Obama, Clinton, and George Washington never campaigned based on their faiths. Their faith was only made an issue of by their right wing detractors.
Ms. LB you seem to need to persist in arguing against *Christianity* but Christianity was never a part of my thesis. I do not know how much more clear on that point I can be.
Your perception that President Obama never campaigned based on his faith and that his faith was only made an issue by his right wing detractors is simply false.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/obama-and-faith-on-the-stump/
The plain fact is that President Obama made his faith an issue by making it a central theme of his campaign…not solely in response to detractors (from the left and the right), but in blatant efforts to garner votes in the “bible belt.” But, hey, it worked. He was elected. So I would think you would be happy about the fact that he “went there.”
In point of fact, during his campaign, President Obama actually called into question the religious faiths of *others,* committing the very same offense against them in this area that so many others were accused of offering against Obama. When he alleged that some segments in our society have become bitter and, as a result, “they cling to guns or religion…” (San Francisco, 04/12/08) he speaks of people’s chosen faith (whatever it happens to be) in a manner that is at once dismissive and disparaging. This sort of insulting commentary should be well beneath someone who aspires to be the President for *all* Americans, of *all* faiths, and of *no* faith.
This was one of the few times in my life that I actually found myself in agreement with (then candidate) Hillary Clinton when she stated in response:
“The people of faith I know don’t ‘cling’ to religion because they’re bitter,” she said. “People embrace faith not because they are materially poor but because they are spiritually rich. People don’t need a president who looks down on them. They need a president who stands up for them.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3740080.ece
An individual’s choice of faith system (or choice to *not* choose one) should be an entirely personal matter. So long as following their faith system does not involve violating our laws or prevent a candidate from doing his or her duty or carrying out his or her oath of office, I don’t think it should be an issue at all, either during or after a campaign.
I do not feel threatened by a Congressman who chooses to be Muslim any more than I think others should feel threatened by a President who chooses to be Christian or, for that matter a President who may choose to make no choice in that area at all.
I just do not want my tax dollars spent to subsidize *any* faith system, period. And I do not want references to God purged from public buildings, spaces, writings and events just because some in our society do not believe in God. The vast majority of the people in this nation agree with the vast majority of our founders and *do* believe in God. Not the Christian God or the Muslim God or the Jewish God or the Hindu pantheon or any other specific God or Goddess…just God…as a concept…as a being higher, outside of and far beyond ourselves…Whose blessings we should seek always and attempt to secure and retain in all aspects of our lives, including that of our government.
Finally, by today’s standards, George Washington had no right wing detractors. Like Lincoln, by today’s standards Washington was a thoroughly right-wing President and administered in a most conservative manner. Would that his far more liberal successors (and even some of the allegedly conservative ones) would have adopted a page or three from Washington’s book, particularly his willingness to exercise his veto power on the grounds that a proposed piece of legislation was unconstitutional.
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/first_veto.htm
Wow…whatta concept huh? A President actually trying to *follow* the constitution as it was written at the time. What must THAT have been like?!?!?
“When he alleged that some segments in our society have become bitter and, as a result, “they cling to guns or religion…” (San Francisco, 04/12/08) ”
right wing crazies like greet tried to make hay with that statement, until they joined tea parties and proved obama right. notice obama just said “religion” he didnt specify but fundamentalists assumed he meant them, i wonder why?
“This sort of insulting commentary should be well beneath someone who aspires to be the President for *all* Americans, of *all* faiths, and of *no* faith.”
unless its a republican and they are talking about muslims
The reason I am arguing against Christianity is because this is a conversation about why Star Parker did not get elected. She made her faith an issue in her campaign. Had she run as a Muslim, right now I’d be talking about why I did not vote for her faith based campaign as well.
Actually, Ms. LB, neither the article that started the conversation nor the interview upon which the article is based, said anything about Ms. Parker’s religious beliefs. Poster Sheila chose to allude to it and I chose to respond to her and you and howardx ran with if from there.
You weren’t arguing against Christianity, Ms. Parker’s or anyone else’s, at least not initially. You were arguing with my assertion that God was central to and inseparable from our great nation’s founding and that He provided the basis for many of the principles in most of our founding documents.
I was pleased when you finally conceded the point, however grudgingly, just as I readily -and, by the way, immediately- conceded your point that Ms. Parker is indeed a Christian, that she makes no excuses for being so, and that you dislike her because of it.
An individual’s choice of faith system (or choice to *not* choose one) should be an entirely personal matter. So long as following their faith system does not involve violating our laws or prevent a candidate from doing his or her duty or carrying out his or her oath of office, I don’t think it should be an issue at all, either during or after a campaign.
You seem to disagree with this. I get that. Since you do, I hope you were just as vocal in your opposition to President Obama’s emphasis upon *his* Christian faith during *his* political campaign as you were, and are, about Ms. Parker’s.
But somehow I doubt it.
I am not anti-Christian. I am anti-hypocrit.
I never said you were anti-Christian. If you persist in arguing against things I have not said, we will never make any progress during any discussion or debate.
Do you not feel it to be to some degree hypocritcal to object when one candidate emphasizes his or her religious faith during his or her political campaign, but to give another a complete pass when he or she does the very same thing?
greet attempting to lecture about hypocrisy, should be a good show. nobody knows the subject better…
He’s also the master of putting words in others’ mouths, evidenced by the fact that when he “translates” what I write, he uses about six times more words to do it than I used.
Ms. LB, I sincerely apologize for my wordiness. It is a challenge I constantly struggle to overcome.
Star Parker is a joke. It’s funny how all these “black conservatives” are betrayed by the very people they worship — right-wing, wealthy Whites. Dear Star, join the long line of fakes: Clarence Thomas, Debra Dickerson, Jesse Peterson, Dorothy Dandrige, etc. Star, did you return your welfare payments and abortion spending back to the U.S. taxpayer? I doubt it. When you do something like that, you are truly a real conservative!