130 comments

  1. Chris, good to meet you tonight. Nice to put a face to a post. Politics certainly is a fickle venture. Someone asked me the other day regarding an issue if it could really happen. In politics anything can happen.

    McCain is an interesting person and deserves an enormous amount of respect.

  2. ProfG says:

    What’s everyone getting so excited about? McCain is nowhere near 1191 delegates yet.

    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/R-PU.phtml

    Before today, McCain had 812 bound or pledged delegates. He needed 379 bound delegates to reach 1191 bound delegates.

    Of tonight’s states:

    Texas – 137 bound and 3 unbound
    Ohio – 88 unbound
    RI – 17 bound and 3 unbound
    Vermont – 17 bound

    Of the remaining states:

    South Dakota – 24 bound and 3 unbound
    Wisconsin – 37 bound and 3 unbound
    Idaho – 26 bound and 6 unbound
    Hawaii – 20 bound
    Pennsylvania – 74 unbound
    Oregon – 27 bound and 3 unbound
    Puerto Rico – 20 bound and 3 unbound
    North Carolina – 69 bound
    Indiana – 27 bound and 30 unbound
    Kentucky – 45 bound
    Mississippi – 36 bound and 3 unbound
    Nebraska – 30 bound and 3 unbound
    New Mexico – 29 bound and 3 unbound

    Winning all four states tonight only gave McCain 171 more bound delegates at most. So he still needs at least 208 more bound delegates to reach 1191, out of the 390 left. His chances have (obviously) increased with Huckabee dropping out, but there’s still two others in the race — one of whom will likely have at least 1/3 of the delegates at the RNC ready to throw their unpledged votes to him if it gets to a second vote — so anything can happen.

    And then… anything CAN happen at the RNC, as history has shown.

  3. ProfG says:

    Oops, rechecked the numbers. WI and PR already voted, so those 54 pledged delegates were already part of McCain’s numbers. So he needs 262 more to get the magic number.

  4. bowersville says:

    Bill I hate to get nasty, but what is in this for you monetary wise? Aren’t you still a lobbyist?

  5. bowersville says:

    Just me, an average dummy Georgia voter. But I can recall that Bill Greene was a lobbyist.

  6. Ms_midtown says:

    Florida and Michigan must be counted, someway, somehow.

    Obama’s speech tonight sounded repetitive.
    He needs to do more than just run out the clock.

  7. Bull Moose says:

    It was a marathon that became a sprint and now it’s official!

    John McCain will be elected as the next President of the United States.

  8. John Konop says:

    McCain solution for the economy flood the country with illegal immigrants to compete with cheap overseas labor in China while tax payers pick up the social service cost for the cheap illegal labor here. Or legalize all the labor with a visa that gives the employer the right to kick them out any time and stick tax payers with the bill for social service cost while they work here.

    McCain solution for Iraq is to spend 12 billion a month of money we do not have in Iraq while our deficit grows out of control at home. This further depletes needed capital from the private sector driving business growth, cost of money, wages and jobs into the ground.

    He will be fighting Billary over who has the most experience to carry out the above irrational lobbyist driven plan!

  9. Goldwater Conservative says:

    Can anybody guess how out of touch Bill Greene really is if he thinks last night did not hand the nomination over to McCain?
    Who are the two candidates left? Paperwork aside…this thing is over.
    Do you think Mike Gravel is still going to pull it off on the Democratic side?
    Get with the program Mr. Greene.

  10. Goldwater Conservative says:

    The odds of somebody else getting the GOP nomination are more slim than you chances of having won that special election in the 10th.

  11. Bill Simon says:

    John,

    Regarding “playing the race card,” let’s consider this: IF Barack were to win the Dem nomination and run against McCain…and, IF on the day after the General Election, we woke-up and Brack was not tlected as President, do you honestly believe that the reasons cited for him not winning would never mention somethign on the order of “Well, apparently, America is not color-blind”….or…”The American people just don’t want to put the future in the hands of a black man…”

    OR, if Barack were to win the election, do you actually believe there won’t be statements from Dems and news media all over the country that “Barack Obama is the first black man elected president in the US”.

    Are you really that naive, John? OR, are race-based viewpoints ONLY invalid (or, “racist”) when uttered by a white/Caucasian person?

  12. John Konop says:

    Bill

    The issue is clear McCain denounced the use of his Obama’s middle name being used for racist fear mongering. The Clinton clan has run a racist whisper campaign against Obama.

    I have many issues I do not agree with McCain and Obama. But I respect both of them attempting to keep the election about issues not race baiting.

    If some people are racist that is not something McCain or Obama can control. Yet feeding into hate based racist politics is wrong!

  13. Bill Simon says:

    John,

    There is a distinction between “hate-based” and “racist-based” politics.

    People can choose to “hate” a candidate regardless of their skin color or national heritage.

  14. John Konop says:

    Bill

    That is the difference between us is I really do not hate a candidate. In fact I can intellectually disagree with someone and still like the person.

    I do business with people I do not trust at times, I just attempt to negotiate in a way that protects my interest. And if they do not do the deal so be it. Also if I know the risk going in I blame myself for designing the deal right.

    I have the same view about politicians. I do not hate Hillary; I just lost any respect for her beyond issue disagreement.

    What I find interesting as to how each party has many members who are more about protecting turf than relevant issues affecting their , family, friends and country.

  15. Doug Deal says:

    I know the consensus among Republicans and Democrats is that Obama would be the most electable candidate, but I really think Hillary is.

    To win, the Democrats have to win more than they lose to improve on last time. I think Hillary wins Ohio and does well in Florida (assuming no racial backlash if she gets the nomination). She may even pick up Arkansas. I do not really see her obviously losing anything.

    Obama, I can see losing California, which would be the death knell for the Dems. The Hispanic population is a huge part of the electorate, and although it is solid Dem right now, it is not like NY, MA, MN or VT. If I remember correctly, CA even has a higher percentage of Republican congressmen than Alabama does, and also has a Republican governor.

    Personally, I like to see the contention in the race for a party’s nomination because I think it is good for the system to have real races, as opposed to coronations, but I think Hillary getting the nomination would not be the blessing it could be for Republicans, if the Dems can maintain some semblance of unity.

  16. Goldwater Conservative says:

    I am old. I am only mean to religious zealots like you , Mr. Greene. People that think that Constitution needs to be more aligned with the bible and opportunists that take advantage of people for money with no intention to deliver their end of the deal. Never compare me to Nixon again. Buying and election and trying to steal an election are completely different.

  17. Mike Hauncho says:

    I would love to see McCain choose Michael Steele as his VP. Steele is young, motivating, full of ideas, a strong conservative, black, and outgoing. I would like to see him run for something and this may be just the thing for him.

  18. Bill Simon says:

    Michael Steele is “black?”

    John Konnnnnnnnnoooooop? Hauncho heree needs a lesson in race-baiting. How dare he categorize Michael Steele according to his skin color. Mike Hauncho needs to be stoned at noon today, just like I will be.

    (singing)…We are The World….We Are The Children…and we are color-blind to everything….

  19. jsm says:

    “I know the consensus among Republicans and Democrats is that Obama would be the most electable candidate, but I really think Hillary is.”

    I agree. Obama still has not unleashed any specific solutions for anything. He is at a clear disadvantage to Hillary when it comes to knowledge of issues and mechanics, and I think he will struggle with specifics to back up his philosophies.

    The advantage O could have against McCain is the ability to whip up a crowd with pretty words, although they’re empty. McCain is just plain boring when he speaks.

  20. drjay says:

    the idea of a v.p. whose highest previous elected experience was as a ltguv on a ticket will be ridiculed and lambasted as a gimmick and backfire, had steele won his senate race, or been named rnc chair insytead of martinez an argument could be made–for now the best chance of steele’s continued political presence would be as a cabinet member in a mccain administration or a guv run against o’malley in 2010

    jc watts is probably the only person of color that mccain could possibly pick -if he feels compelled to do so-rice is too tied to the bush admin and powell is almost as old as mccain–2 70 something does not make sense…

  21. drjay says:

    i feel like i now have to tread lightly over these race issues but –i would like to add-that last night in ohio we saw the 1st of what i have thought would be a problem for obama–call it the bradley effect or whatever–but i’m not sure that blue collar white guys that might would vote democratic otherwise–miners in wv and ky, auto workers in michagan, casino workers in vegas–are going to pull the lever for obama in the quiet of he voting booth when noone else is looking…

  22. Bill Simon says:

    “person of color”…

    There’s that reference to someone’s race again. Where are The Peach Pundit Thought Police KGB Officers, Rugby and John Konop? DrJay MUST be assailed for his clearly racist comments AND thoughts about race.

  23. John Konop says:

    Bill

    Please help us if you trying to be funny, because it just is not working for me. If this was the Gong Show you were off the show a few comments ago.

    Rugby if you have had a few beers already today can you tell me if this funny after that?

  24. SamTeasley says:

    Huckabee ran a good race and he should be proud of getting to where he got. I am proud to have played a role in his campaign. He is a fine man: we need more like him in politics.

    Congratulations to Senator McCain. Let’s hope he is able to win and govern as a conservative. We certainly need less spending, less government, and less regulation at a time like this.

  25. IndyInjun says:

    McCain is hurt by a fall in GOP party affiliation that is headed under 30%, while the Dems soar.

    He won’t be getting much help for the National Republican Congressional Campaign committee is in the midst of a full blown FRAUD.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8349.html

    “The National Republican Congressional Committee has retained a forensic auditor to review its accounting …..“There is a sense that this could be very damaging to the committee,” said a Republican insider close to the GOP leadership. ”

    Hahahahaha.

    It could not happen to a more deserving bunch.

    I have gotten SIX GOP fund raising letters in the last 2 days.

    A high volume shredder is sure handy.

  26. drjay says:

    http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/contrib.asp?id=N00000245&cycle=2004

    if you look at the kerry donors from 04 you see a lot of the same names–7 in common in the top 20 from my count–and where he had bush had att-kerry had ge–i bet if you go out to 30 or so the names get even more similar…

    a lot of the same top 20 populate obama’a list–goldman sachs–#5 on the bush list is number 1 on the obama list–its the way of things–not a gop or dem trait uniquely

  27. IndyInjun says:

    drjay,

    It is a point well made and taken that both parties and the major candidates thereof are bought and paid for.

    Perhaps the Dems might have done the same with control of all 3 branches,even, although the competing interest groups make that much less likely.

    BUT, the simple fact is that the GOP was in control of all three branches and dismantled all oversight, even after pledging that Enrons would no longer be coddled.

    We now have, laid bare before all, the greatest frauds in world history which endanger the entire world financial system.

    The GOP will bear the brunt of the retribution.

    The party had its chance and damaged us all with its power.

  28. drjay says:

    i think a prez race more than say a senate race will hinge on things like the likability and perceptions of the person as opposed to his party or policies–at this point i would rate the race a toss up–w/ mccain being the gop’s best chance to win as compared to his previous competitors for the nomination–i doubt we see a 64 or 84 aain any time soon

  29. IndyInjun says:

    Doc,

    Don’t look now, but the party affiliation movements, the 06 blow-out, and the massive voting on the Dem side suggest that you are wrong.

    A LOT of former Republicans like me detest what the party has become and won’t be lending our monetary or voting support.

    Take a look at the MASSIVE increase in donations for Bush from the top 20 in 2000 and 2004 from the donations to Clinton in 1996 and then tell me that the donors were not only looking for a pay-back, but got it.

    Even now they are begging for government bail-outs and getting them on about five different levels.

    The results of this fraud are totally unbelievable and the whole she-bang is blowing up under Bush.

    Bush and McCain are joined at the hip.

  30. IndyInjun says:

    BTW, Dr Paul got less than $20,000 from either ATT or Wachovia, while Bush got ten times that much.

    Army and Navy gave Dr. Paul nearly three times what ATT and Wachovia gave.

  31. MSBassSinger says:

    Congratulations to McCain and his supporters. My guy (Huckabee) tried and didn’t make it. McCain won – Huckabee didn’t. Life goes on.

    So now we have 2 very liberal Democrats and one liberal Republican still running,

    I respect the decision by many Republicans to rally behind McCain for the good of the party. However, that is not my decision. What is good for the party is not necessarily good for the nation.

    Aside from buying my “Don’t blame me – I voted for Huckabee” bumper sticker, there isn’t much left to do. Before the next Presidential election, if McCain is elected, I predict his actions as President will be detested by even more conservatives (who will scratch their heads wondering how they were duped) than Bush’s are.

  32. Jace Walden says:

    MBassSinger,

    You almost had me convinced of your “dyed in the wool” ConservativeCredentials© until you said this:

    I voted for Huckabee

    After reading that, I was forced to stop taking you seriously. Huckabee is more of a conservative Democrat than he is a liberal Republican though. A “Conservative Democrat” being defined as a Democrat who buys into the anti-free market message of the Democratic Party, but also hates gays and Mexicans.

  33. MSBassSinger says:

    Jace Walden,

    You almost had me convinced you were a conservative until you wrote “but also hates gays and Mexicans”. 🙂

    First, there is nothing factual about Huckabee that is in the least bit descriptive of a Democrat. You really should stop drinking the echoes of the old Romney Koolaid.

    Second, if you think those who believe homosexual activity is immoral and harmful to society, and those who believe illegal immigration is hurting America, are not conservatives, then 1) you don’t get conservatism, or 2) 95% of conservatives aren’t conservative.

  34. Jace Walden says:

    MBassSinger,

    If I almost convinced you that I was a Conservative®, then I have done something seriously wrong. That tainted brand name is one that I would love to have absolutely no association with.

    I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t “get” conservatism. Perhaps it’s because I’m young and naive…or perhaps I just have a very bad memory, or perhaps both…but weren’t Conservatives® at one point/place in time that group of people who wanted to downsize government, cut taxes, promote free markets, and increase personal responsibility?

    What in the hell ever happened to those guys?

    95% of conservatives aren’t conservative.
    I didn’t say that, although I would say that 95% of politicians aren’t Conservative.

  35. Jason Pye says:

    First, there is nothing factual about Huckabee that is in the least bit descriptive of a Democrat.

    That’s completely inaccurate. And no, I’m not a Romney supporter.

  36. IndyInjun says:

    The Dems are quite accurately portray McCain as running for the third Bush term.

    They have a very good point.

  37. MSBassSinger says:

    Jayce, I agree 100% that 95% of politicians aren’t conservative.

    When you hear “conservatism” in the context of American politics, it is not the same as conservatism elsewhere in the world. What I am discussing here is traditional American conservatism – the only one that has worked. Not neoconservatism or some other modern variation – traditional American conservatism, which I will refer to as just “conservatism”.

    Conservatism goes back to our country’s founding. In fact, its core values go back to the 1st great awakening. That revival that swept the colonies and England set in place a transdenominational set of JudeoChristian beliefs that reached critical mass in terms of those who believed it. In short, the 1st Great Awakening gave birth to the concept that Scriptural teachings that had application in civil society could be applied in civil law without creating a theocracy or church-state. That concept was in harmony with earlier concepts, such as were expressed in the Magna Carta, the Mayflower Compact, etc. of a natural law that existed because of nature’s God and His immutability.

    The 1/3rd of the American colonists that supported the Revolution were applying those principles to the founding of a new nation. In order to not violate Romans 13, they declared their independence so they could obey a new government of their own making.

    The new nation would not have a king because the Old Testament teaches that God never wanted man to have a king – because he was their King and there was no need for a human king.

    They created a government of 3 branches, so there would be checks and balances. They believed that government, because it was composed of fallible human beings (Scriptural teaching that all people are sinful, and left to their own unrestricted desires, would tend towards sin), would always seek more and more power over the nation’s citizens, and more and more of their money. None of the 3 branches could wield absolute power becasue of the checks and balances of the Constitution.

    They distrusted national government, and designed it to be small, poor, and shackled by the restrictions of the Constitution, and to do only what the Constitution enumerated as its powers.

    They believed in the maximum of personal liberty, restricted only when the exercise of such liberty harms another person or his property.

    They created a republic, not a democracy. The US never has been, and hopefully never will be, a democracy. In fact, in their time a “Democrat” was a person who pandered to the lowest and most selfish desires of the common man for his own power and wealth.

    They believed the individual States were soverign outside the proscribed and agreed upon limitations of the union, and each one a laboratory of how to live in a republic.

    They believed that national government should have no power over religion, and no religious organization should have direct power in government. They believed that the hierarchy was God dealing with individuals by the Holy Spirit, and those individuals interacting with government by the voting booth to elect the managers of government. Government was at the bottom of the hierarchical structure, not the top. No theocracy, no state church, no democracy. To be accurate, though, “religion” to them included any JudeoChristian sect – not just any religion. They clearly differentiated between a JudeoChristian religion and what they called “false religions”. Yet, there was (and is) no religious test by government for citizenship or for public office – even if the voter or politician were an atheist,a gnostic, or a follower of a “false religion”. No American should be forced or pressured by government to have a specific religion or any religion at all. That is soley between that person and God.

    Conservatism came from those core values. Conservatism generally holds that:
    1 – Govenrment should be as small as possible and still fully carry out its Constitutional duties
    2 – The Constitution specifies the limits of power of the national government, and all other powers are left to the States.
    3 – Government should only restrict personal liberty when there is a clear and present danger to others or their property by the actions of another person. For example, murder, theft, etc. A company/business/corporation is considered the private property of its owners. Government should only create laws on moral behavior where public immorality causes harm to others or their property.
    4 – The national government should defend this nation from all foreign dangers, including quick and substantial retribution when Americans or their property are harmed anywhere in the world. That includes stopping illegal immigration and enforcing laws that discourage the employ of illegal immigrants.
    5 – Government should lower taxes to the level needed for Constitutional duties by reducing spending to the level needed for those Constitutional duties, and eliminating taxes designed for social engineering. (That is why I am a supporter of the Fair Tax).
    6 – A person’s God-given liberties are to be balanced by a person’s God-given responsibility of self-control to keep their liberties from negatively affecting others or their property.
    7 – It is our responsibility as free citizens to help the deserving poor and sick to the degree we can and not neglect our own home. That is not the job of government. Had the Christian Churches been carrying out that God-given responsibility, and the church members had been obedient in giving to their churches, government would have never had any void to fill with welfare and government-run health care.

    The Republican party promised in 1994 to reduce government taxation, power, and size. They started off well, but quickly became what they replaced. More spending, more taxation, more government power, more government intrusion into personal lives. The Republicans abandoned conservatism, and Bush 43 is a prime example. McCain is even more of the same.

    Huckabee, Hunter, and F Thompson were the only candidates that were close enough to traditional conservatism to be worth electing. The Republican voters have spoken, and said they want a liberal Republican (McCain) for more of the same.

    You asked “What in the hell ever happened to those guys?” Well, “us guys” voted for either Huckabee, Hunter, or F Thompson. We lost. Time to accept that and move on until we get another chance in future elections. We just keep voting conservative in local, state, and national elections until more people are ready to give conservatism a try again, and we get folks in office who won’t turn liberal as the Republicans did after 1994.

  38. jsm says:

    “Second, if you think those who believe homosexual activity is immoral and harmful to society…”

    MSBS, there are a lot of things that are immoral and harmful to society, but government’s role is not to remove every harmful thing from its citizens. That’s what mommy does for us when we’re young and naive. It’s role is certainly not legislating or enforcing morality. Morality is a matter of an individual’s heart.

    Conservatism is about allowing people the freedom to do what they wish as long as they don’t harm others. It’s also about allowing people to experience the consequences of their own actions–otherwise known as ‘personal responsibility.’

    Too many people confuse our Nation’s more innocent culture in previous generations with what they think are conservative ideals. A little study quickly debunks this error.

    While I respect Huckabee’s morals and agree with him on many personal issues, I can’t support government enforcement of morality. Rather, government should ensure that churches have the freedom to preach and teach morality. That, among many other things, is the purpose of the church. Christians need to understand this concept rather than reacting with knee-jerk opposition to anything that doesn’t match up with their personal standards.

    Huckabee’s record on taxes and spending programs places him in the same category with many so-called conservative democrats of decades past, and even as recent as Zell Miller. His immigration stance has been nearly indistiguishable from that of President Bush, who clearly is no conservative.

    Conservatism is not about morality. It’s about the freedom to exercise your own morality.

  39. MSBassSinger says:

    jsm,

    You are describing libertarianism, not consevatism. When you say “It’s role is certainly not legislating or enforcing morality.”, what about immorality like treason, murder, rape, theft, assault, etc.? Those are immoral acts without question.

    Thus you either say government has no role in making laws agaisnt that immorality, or you are saying you agree government does have a role in legislating morality, and we only disagree on the point at which that begins to harm society.

    You say “Conservatism is not about morality. It’s about the freedom to exercise your own morality”, but that is not accurate. Conservatism adds responsibility to libertarianism, where the right to liberty carries with it the responsibility of selfcontrol.

  40. MSBassSinger says:

    JSM,

    You also state “Huckabee’s record on taxes and spending programs places him in the same category with many so-called conservative democrats of decades past”. That, too, is inaccurate.

    Huckabee’s record is one, overall, of lowering taxes and lowering government intrusion into private lives. I am sick and tired of the parrots who keep repeating the demonstrably false propaganda about Huckabee being a tax and spend liberal and weak on illegal immigration.

    If you wish to deceive yourself because you might be realizing too late that you were snookered by the Rockefeller Republicans, you are free to do so. Just don’t expect those of in touch with reality and who do our due diligence to buy it.

  41. Icarus says:

    “like treason, murder, rape, theft, assault, etc.?”

    You mean, acts that have one person interfering with the rights of another? As opposed to forcing your religous views on another or regulating what goes on in their bedroom? You really can’t see a difference, MsBassSinger?

  42. Jason Pye says:

    “If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.” – Ronald Reagan

    Huckabee, as Jonah Golberg put it, was progressive that happened to hold Christian conservative social views.

    Huckabee’s record is one, overall, of lowering taxes and lowering government intrusion into private lives. I am sick and tired of the parrots who keep repeating the demonstrably false propaganda about Huckabee being a tax and spend liberal and weak on illegal immigration.

    That is absolutely not true. He raised taxes and increased government employment, ostensibly increasing the size of government. His tax increases are well documented by newspapers from his home state, the Club for Growth and FactCheck.org.

    I’m not frantic about the issue, but at best, he has been inconsistent on immigration.

    You can be sick of hearing about it if you want, sometimes the truth hurts.

  43. jsm says:

    MSBS,

    Icarus is correct. Those crimes are wrong because they harm others, thereby violating justice and domestic tranquility–not because they are immoral. The preamble to the Constitution gives specific purposes for government:

    -protection from foreign enemies (common defence)
    -protection from domestic/criminal harm (justice, domestic tranquility)
    -protection of freedoms (blessings of liberty)
    -provision of necessities that cannot be provided by a citizen on his own, such as: roads, utilities, etc. (general welfare)

    Enforcing morality is not in the list.

    Here’s some of Huckabee’s record on taxes:

    * Immediately upon taking office, Governor Huckabee signed a sales tax hike in 1996 to fund the Games and Fishing Commission and the Department of Parks and Tourism (Cato Policy Analysis No. 315, 09/03/98).
    * He supported an internet sales tax in 2001 (Americans for Tax Reform 01/07/07).
    * He publicly opposed the repeal of a sales tax on groceries and medicine in 2002 (Arkansas News Bureau 08/30/02).
    * He signed bills raising taxes on gasoline (1999), cigarettes (2003) (Americans for Tax Reform 01/07/07), and a $5.25 per day bed-tax on private nursing home patients in 2001 (Arkansas New Bureau 03/01/01).
    * He proposed another sales take hike in 2002 to fund education improvements (Arkansas News Bureau 12/05/02).
    * He opposed a congressional measure to ban internet taxes in 2003 (Arkansas News Bureau 11/21/03).
    * In 2004, he allowed a 17% sales tax increase to become law (The Gurdon Times 03/02/04).

    Just the facts…

  44. MSBassSinger says:

    Icarus,

    You write: “You mean, acts that have one person interfering with the rights of another? As opposed to forcing your religous views on another or regulating what goes on in their bedroom?”

    That is not what I said. That is what you wanted to hear in order to justify an opinion unreachable by reason.

    Not everybody’s view is that treason, murder, rape, theft, or assualt is wrong. The fact that we consider them wrong or right comes from a religious viewpoint, whether that religion is JudeoChristian, Islam, Humanism, Atheism or some other. Religions do not have to be organized to be religion.

    The issue about “regulating what goes on in their bedroom” is not a conservative thing. Conservatives don’t care what you do in your bedroom between consenting adults. That is a trait of the so-called “conservative Democrats” – a result of the unChristian social gospel of the late 19th and early 20th century that brought Prohibition. Christians obviously do not advocate such behavior (I assume you are referring to heterosexual sex outside of marriage and/or homosexuality), but we do not advocate government legislation for what consenting adults do in the confines of their own homes.

    To be plainly blunt, heterosexual sex outside marriage and homosexuality harm those who participate in them, and eventually harm others in many cases. Ask kids how much they love Mommy and Daddy being divorced because one or the other or both couldn’t be faithful and loving to each other. Government can not fix such problems. But government can make it worse by explicitly affirming or supporting immoral behavior by force of law.

    Nice try with the red herrings, but no sale. Since I didn’t say it or imply it, the point I made stands.

  45. Icarus says:

    “To be plainly blunt, heterosexual sex outside marriage and homosexuality harm those who participate in them, and eventually harm others in many cases.”

    If I may humbly suggest, if this is true, you may be doing it wrong.

  46. MSBassSinger says:

    jsm,

    You wrote: “Just the facts…”

    When you stop cherry picking the few tax increases, one large one which was voted for by the people of Arkansas, and show the compelte record, you can be taken seriously on this issue.

    If Huckabee was still running, I would take the time to post all the facts, not just the Romney-koolaid you posted.

    If you cherry picked Ronald Reagan’s record as California governor, or Romney’s as mass governor, you would have the same results.

    It works much better when you tell the whole truth, and not some spin.

    You also wrote “Those crimes are wrong because they harm others, thereby violating justice and domestic tranquility–not because they are immoral”

    Which is what I have written. They are by definition immoral because they harm others. So again, you are not saying government shouldn’t enforce morality, you are merely disagreeing on what actions constitute harm to others.

  47. John Konop says:

    What I find interesting is you will go on and on about how tax cuts are great yet not want them coordinated with spending cuts! A tax cut without the proper spending cut cost is fiscally irresponsible.

    This logic has lead to a 9 trillion dollar deficit and growing. We now face a tight money market that is driving the cost of money up which hurts everyone more than what you gained by a tax cut without spending restraints. The value of the dollar has hit the skids.

    I am not defending Huckabee, but for you to rip Huckabee and think Bush and company that voted for the tax cut and spent like an out of control college kid on spring break blows my mind!

    Many of you are the same group that thinks we can spend 12 billion a week in Iraq and growing for a 100 years. DO THE MATH WE DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY! WHAT PART OF THIS DO YOU GUYS NOT UNDERSTAND?

  48. Jason Pye says:

    When you stop cherry picking the few tax increases…

    Few? Try twenty-one at over $800 million, overshadowing the $300 million in tax cuts for a net tax increase over $500 million during his time in office.

    one large one which was voted for by the people of Arkansas, and show the compelte record, you can be taken seriously on this issue.

    That is not true. What was voted on was non-binding. This had already been voted on and signed into law by the legislature.

  49. MSBassSinger says:

    John Konop,

    I am not sure who the “you” is in your first sentence, but what I posted talks about spending cuts and reducing the size of government which helps ensure spending stays reduced.

    Youa re 100% right about Bush and the spendthrifts in Congress. every dollar government takes is one dollar less in the private sector to create jobs and allow indivuduals to build personal wealth.

    My problems with Bush are:
    Why did he not veto the big spending bills and force Congress to override them if they wanted the spending so badly?

    Why did Bush not push Congress to increase the size of our military after 9/11? True, his dad and Clinton allowed the military to be decreased in size after the Cold War (remember the peace dividend nonsense?), but Bush was responsible to build it back up or make Congress deny him the money to do so.

    Why did Bush make his tax cuts so small, and not keep trying to remove things like the death tax?

    Why is Bush giving in to the global warming hysteria, when clearly no such manmade global warming exists?

    Why did Bush not make any attempt to clsoe down the Dept. of Education?

    Why did Bush push for government funding of senior’s prescriptions?

    You are right – we do not have the money, and further, we do not have the right to demand government confiscate someone else’s money by force to do things we should be doing for ourselves, and actions which the Constitution does not authorize.

  50. John Konop says:

    MSBassSinger

    I hope you do not take it as a slam toward you. In fact I agree with much of what you wrote. But as you know many in the tax cutting group ignore the proper spending cuts. That is like cutting your prices in business without the necessary reduction in production cost. If you are upside down $5 a widget the idea you can bower money and make it up in volume is recipe for disaster.

    This something for nothing mind set from politicians and voters is killing the financial future for our children.

  51. MSBassSinger says:

    John Konop,

    I agree about the spending. I think our politicians need to be locked in a room with Dave Ramsey’s Financial Peace Univ. video series until they “get it”.

    While the dynamics of personal finances and a country’s finances are different, the axiom about spending less thanyou make is always true. Borrowing is the last resort for dire, unavoidable emergencies (like world war).

    I know there is a strain of Rockefeller Republicans who grudgingly believe in tax cuts (since they worked for Kennedy and Reagan), but count on inflation to devalue the debt and look at the crrent value of the debt, and only look at debt as a percentage of GDP. But they don’t realize that the debt may not always decrease in real value over time.

    The best, first way to combat the debt is to stop having deficits. The best way to stop havign deficits is to reduce taxes AND spending. The increased tax revenue that eventually comes from the tax cuts would eliminate the deficit, and any excess be applied to the debt. That is only possible with reduced spending.

    Reagan’s tax cuts doubled government revenue in 8 years, but Congress, often over Reagan’s veto, more than doubled spending, particularly entitlements.

    In the end, we can’t blame the politicians we elect for doing what we asked them to do. We elect liberals and big spenders, and then marvel that they spend like drunken sailors (no offense meant to drunken sailors)?

  52. IndyInjun says:

    “In the end, we can’t blame the politicians we elect for doing what we asked them to do. We elect liberals and big spenders, and then marvel that they spend like drunken sailors (no offense meant to drunken sailors)?”

    Good summary.

    The electorate seems to be happy, until the wheels come off.

  53. ProfG says:

    jsm: I’m wondering how you get “provision of necessities that cannot be provided by a citizen on his own, such as: roads, utilities, etc.” out of “promote the general Welfare”? Do you really think that’s what they meant???

  54. Chris says:

    The new nation would not have a king because the Old Testament teaches that God never wanted man to have a king – because he was their King and there was no need for a human king.

    Actually it was because the concept of a King, and by extension divine rights of said Kings, proved to be a complete disaster during the 1600s paving the way for civil war.

    Our founders put in place a secular government to protect us from religious nutjobs who would use government to force everyone to believe as themselves.

    I’d suggest that the only difference between Cromwell and Huckabee are the century they lived in and the fact that unlike Cromwell, Huckabee will not be granted any more power, for the children.

  55. MSBassSinger says:

    Chris Farris,

    The oppression of the kings in their recent history was simply affirmation of what they knew to be universally true from Scripture.

    The founders established a civil government that was based on time-proven Scriptural principles, and that depended on the citizenry being largely Christian or non-Christians who accepted the civil application of natural law. They did not intend for government to be wholly indpendent of JudeoChristian influence, only that no church organization would be that influence and that such government would not legislate anything to do with an individual’s free exercise of religion.

    The founders’ writings which detail the integration of JudeoChristian principles with the formation of our government and Constitution are far too numerous to list here. They can be easily found online and in numerous books.

    As for the Oliver Cromwell/Mike Huckabee comparison, you would do well to study the history of Cromwell and Mike Huckabee. They are quite different. Cromwell came from a prosperous family, Huckabee from a poor family. Cromwell engaged in militaristic conquest, Huckabee has no desire to conquer our neighbors. Cromwell carried on war against Roman Catholics, Huckabee has no such hatred for them and counts them as fellow Christians.

  56. Goldwater Conservative says:

    Thank you bowersville. I hate saying I am an independent…but I am a Democrat for the 2008 election cycle. Once the GOP leaves the church and gets back to the office, I am sure I will be a Republican again.

  57. Chris says:

    GC, while I agree with your namesake that Fallwell was an SOB, I’m not sure the GOP can maintain a majority without the religious nutjobs.

  58. Jason Pye says:

    The founders established a civil government that was based on time-proven Scriptural principles, and that depended on the citizenry being largely Christian or non-Christians who accepted the civil application of natural law.

    “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…” – Treaty of Tripoli, unanimously ratified by the United States Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by President John Adams on June 10, 1797.

    Two of the three men (though there were five on the committee) that had a major hand in our separating document were deists. Thomas Paine, author of Common Sense was possibly an atheist.

  59. MSBassSinger says:

    Jason, Pye,

    The Treaty of Tripoli was worded that way so the Moslems could understand that our country is not a theocracy. They would not sign the treaty originally because they understood teh US to be a theocracy.

    There are hundreds of documents by the Founders that make it clear that our country is founded on JudeoChristian principles.

    Your cute attempt is misdirection (“our separating document”) falls flat. The Declaration of Independence is hardly on the same par (as far as how our nation and government are formed) as the Constitution. The vast majority of those folks were Christians of various sects and Deists who at least respected and affirmed those JudeoChristian principles.

    If you intent is to convince anyone that the US was not founded on JudeoChristian principles, you are facing an impossible task if you also are not willing to surrender your honor.

  60. John Konop says:

    The concept of “God –Given rights is part of the roots of our country. Yet at the same time church and state being separated is also rooted in our country.

    RIGHTS UNALIENABLE—BECAUSE GOD-GIVEN

    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 the gift of God?
    Thomas Jefferson (“Notes on the State of Virginia,” 1782)

    The Sacred Rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the Hand of the Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.

    Alexander Hamilton (An essay, “The Farmer Refuted,” 1775) (Note: entire passage in capital letters in the original.)

    UNALIENABLE RIGHTS

    Resolved, that the inhabitants of this Province are unalienably entitled to those essential rights [“founded in the law of God and of Nature”] in common with all men: and that no law of society can, consistent with the law of God and nature, divest them of those rights.

    Resolutions of House of Representatives, Mass., 1765

    http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/yardstick/pr3_quotes.html

    Separation of church and state is the political and legal idea that government and religion should be separate, and not interfere in each other’s affairs. [1]

    In the United States separation of church and state is often identified with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The phrase “building a wall of separation between church and state” was written by Thomas Jefferson in a January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. [2]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

  61. Bill Simon says:

    MSBass,

    I predict that most, if not all, of those “documents” you rely on to say what principles this country was founded upon were actually all written prior to the drafting and acceptrance of the Constitution.

    You see, there are 3 actual “stages” of this country’s “founding”, and it is the final stage that actually defines, in a written document, what the founding principles were.

    Stage 1: Fleeing religious and tax persecution, the Pilgrims left England to come to America. This was a process taking place over 250 years.

    Stage 2: Still under British Rule by the King, the inhabitants of what was then the 13 colonies decided they had had enough of the King’s rules on how they could worship, how they could live, how much they had to fork over to him in taxes (if you actually read the Declaration of Independence, it lists all of the things they wanted to be free of) and the like. This Stage 2 was the Revolutionary War.

    Stage 3: Stage 3 was the time period from 1776 to 1787 WHEN the actual documents were conceived, debated, signed, and ratified by the 13 colonies (and whatever other states might have been aded on by then).

    Those “documents” you presume to use to define that this country was founded on “Judaeo-Christian principles” were magically MISSING from the final draft of the US Constitution.

    In fact, a more telling document as to the intent of how this country’s principles were truly intended to be was the 1786 Virginia Religious Freedom Act, written by none other than Thomas Jefferson (I predict YOU will counter with some claim that he was an agnostic or some such tripe argument).

    I’ll take a 1786 document thta is so much closer to the actual, OFFICIAL document of what rules this country over anything you have from any earlier time.

    For your reference, I advise you to consult this document for a real clue as to the mindset of those who drafted, debated and ratified the US Constitution in 1787:

    http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/vaact.html

  62. Bill Simon says:

    MSBassinger, Part 2

    I predict one of those documents you rely on was written by Patrick Henry. Henry WAS one of those “Founding Fathers” who wanted the US founded on a religious plurality of Christianity. His viewpoint lost out to the majority of much smarter and wiser men.

  63. jsm says:

    Before we re-hash the role of Christianity in the founding of this Nation, may I remind you that we’ve had this discussion already:

    http://www.peachpundit.com/2006/09/25/christians-and-the-republican-party-in-georgia/

    MSBS, I did some research on your claims about Old Testament teachings being the reason the Founders rejected the idea of having a king, and I can’t find a single quote from any of them stating such. While the OT may contain some very good reasons not to have a king, I can’t be convinced that those reasons were the basis used.

  64. Bill Simon says:

    JSM,

    This discussion has nothing to do with “Republicans.” Republicans were not around in 1787, or any time before.

    Don’t squash or quash new ideas and new ways to present old ideas. If you don’t want to read it, DON’T.

  65. Goldwater Conservative says:

    You guys do know that “god” in those documents did not refer to some omnipotent being…it refers to the concept of human reason.

  66. jsm says:

    Read the comments in the thread, Bill. They went far past anything to do with “Republicans.” What sense is there in re-posting the same information again?

  67. Jason Pye says:

    The Treaty of Tripoli was worded that way so the Moslems could understand that our country is not a theocracy.

    Then why didn’t the word it like that? The wording of Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli is straightforward and to the point, “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

    The Declaration of Independence is hardly on the same par (as far as how our nation and government are formed) as the Constitution.

    Without the Declaration of Independence, a document used to justify and make the case for revolution, we may not have a United States of America.

  68. jsm says:

    The key here is the difference in the words “principles” and “religion.” Christians and deists founded this Nation on Christian principles, but not on any religion.

  69. Bill Simon says:

    JSM,

    Okay..let’s, for the sake of argument,presume this country was founded on Christian Principles.

    If that is the case, then WHERE is the love shown when Jesus said to “turn the other cheek?”

    In short, IF this was a “Christian-principle-founded” country, we would not have entered WW I or WWII. We would have just declared “Those Japanese just need some love, and a good hug.”

    AND, we would not have gone after the Taliban after 9/11. We would have tried to “understand them” and “bless their little hearts” for they know not what they do.

    Love is everywhere, JSM, in a true “Christian-principled country,” RIGHT?

    WRONG. The fact is, the concept of retaliation is a concept in the Old Testament…eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, etc.

    Christianity was founded on the New Testament and only bits and pieces of the Old Testament. Christianity rejected the harsh “lesson-teaching” ways of the Old Testament.

    Quit making ridiculous assertions because you think you know what was in the minds of the people drafting the document called The U.S. Constitution.

  70. Goldwater Conservative says:

    jsm, stop and think for a little while. I hardly remember the bible mentioning much about the separation of powers or the rights of man. I have plenty of proof that “god” was “creator” refer to human reason and its grace upon man’s ability to engage in a social contract.
    Furthermore, this country was founded on ethical principals…not christian principles. Do they coincide? Yes, it just so happens that there is a high correlation with all of the other major religions as well…not just yours.
    Read Jefferson’s diary, Hume, Descartes, Plato, Homer even.
    These concepts have existed for centuries before you religion jsm…and they have continued to evolve. Unlike the bible…we have to wait 500 years or so for the catholic church to recannonize it (decide what god thinks is important this semi-millenium) or when some televangelist figures out a good way to make some more money to buy his wife (or mistress) a new Mercedes. Read Machiavelli for more information on this last tirade.

    Education does not mean much to you, does it jsm. Same goes for Hank.

  71. IndyInjun says:

    “Read Machiavelli for more information on this last tirade.”

    Never in his wildest dreams did Machiavelli dream of anything remotely like the Bush Administration.

    They have given new meaning and scope to the word “pillage.”

  72. Goldwater Conservative says:

    De Tocqueville often warned of the tyrannies that were posed by “democratic regimes.” It is much different than what humanity had become accustomed to in medieval Europe. Rather than physically enslaving the population (feudalism and serfdom) the people of the United States were subject to pschological and emotional slavery and abuse.

    If Machiavelli had survived long enough to see a democratic republic, such as the U.S., become a successful experiment…I am willing to be he would be proud to see the Bush administration, as well as Nixon’s, Harding’s and Grant’s, administrations be so successful at exploiting the idiocracy of the masses for their political support…only to empty their wallets when the campaign is over.

  73. ProfG says:

    I hardly remember the bible mentioning much about the separation of powers or the rights of man.

    Nixon Conservative – try this:

    Old Testament (Pre-Kings) Israel was a confederative republic –
    1. Had a “constitution” – Exodus 20, Joshua 8:31, 23:6
    2. Balance of powers – Exodus 12:21,28; Numbers 11:16-17, 24-26
    3. Exercised by chosen representatives of the body of citizens, and given to the citizens themselves – Numbers 10:2-4
    4. Decentralized – Exodus 18
    5. Confederative – Joshua 22
    6. Popular (agreed to by the people as a whole) – Exodus 19:7-9
    7. Representative – Numbers 1:16, 16:2, 10:4

    The constitution of pre-Kings Israel, the main form of which is found in Exodus 20 (and which was reaffirmed in Joshua 8:31-32, 23:6), was adopted by the Israelite people themselves, (Exodus 19:8) as a nation. Under it, the individual tribes retained their internal autonomy and distinctiveness, but were nevertheless bound together by “their common allegiance to the composite bonds of the constitution”. This constitution spelled out all of the main ideas of Israel’s government, from its branches to its bill of rights, even determining the boundaries of the tribes.

  74. Goldwater Conservative says:

    You just don’t get it, do you?

    That is a history lesson Bill…not a prescription for a method of governance.

    Refer to my previous statements. I find it funny, though, that nearly all of these concepts you mentioned existed prior to Israel. For example:

    early Sumeria, the Etruscans…how about the Iroquois, a group of people who elected councils but had not the faintest idea of your god. Just like religions, mr greene, democracy and republicanism was created by man as a necessity and/or a comfort.

  75. ProfG says:

    Nixon Conservative – you just don’t get it, do you? I was referring to your previous statements. In fact, if you’ll just scroll up a little (it’s that arrow on the right of your screen), you’ll see that I was answering your previous statement. Bring up other cultures/religions/voices in your head/sad excuses for your little life all you want, it doesn’t change facts or Truth.

  76. jsm says:

    “If that is the case, then WHERE is the love shown when Jesus said to ‘turn the other cheek?'”

    Bill, the passage you’re speaking of applied to individuals – not nations or governments. When bloviating on Biblical subjects, you need to understand the audience of the particular text and its context. As a Christian, I have no problem with the New Testament and ALL of the Old Testament. Careful study will show that they do fit together.

    There is nothing in the Bible that contradicts a ruler’s purpose to “break in pieces the oppressor” in Psalm 72:4.

    “Furthermore, this country was founded on ethical principals…not christian principles.”

    Okay, GC. Here are some quotes…

    “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” – Patrick Henry

    “The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence, were . . . the general principles of Christianity.” – John Adams, second president, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1813

    “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” – George Washington, ‘Father of Our Nation,’ 1796

    “The future and success of America is not in this Constitution but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded.” – James Madison, fourth president & ‘Father of the Constitution’

    “The Bible is the rock upon which this Republic stands.” – Andrew Jackson, seventh president

    “America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness, which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scriptures.” – Woodrow Wilson, 28th president

    “The fundamental basis of this nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teaching we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul.” – Harry Truman, 33rd president

    “The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it.” – John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in a letter written in 1833.

    “Americans combine the notion of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, it is impossible to make them conceive one without the other.” – Alexis de Tocqueville

  77. Bill Simon says:

    “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” – George Washington, ‘Father of Our Nation,’ 1796

    “The future and success of America is not in this Constitution but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded.” – James Madison, fourth president & ‘Father of the Constitution’

    “The Bible is the rock upon which this Republic stands.” – Andrew Jackson, seventh president”

    JSM,

    There is a distinction between those who believe in “God” and “Christians.”

    Christians believe God is Jesus, The Christ.

    A major faction of Non-Christians believe in God as not being “Jesus,” but are STILL religious Americans,and do not wish to be indoctrinated by the likes of you.

    Keep in mind that the phrase on our money is In God We Trust, not “In Jesus We Trust.”

    It would be nice if you (and, holier-than-thou folks like you) tried to demonstrate a little respect for people who are not Christians, but are still religious Americans who are not going to Hell for not being “Christians.”

  78. jsm says:

    Bill, I haven’t shown any disrespect to anyone of any religion. In fact, you brought up Jesus–not me, and I’m not trying to “indoctrinate” anybody.

    The fact that Christians founded this Nation on Christian principles is not a slight on any other belief, but it is a fact that cannot be changed.

    I’ve noticed that many times the Founders mentioned God and Christianity in the same breath with the word ‘freedom.’ This is why I speak of ‘principles’ and not ‘religion’ regarding our founding. I believe in freedom for Christians and Non-Christians alike, just like our Founders did. Pardon me for quoting them.

  79. Bill Simon says:

    JSM,

    Isn’t it funny how the people who have no ability to argue any point successfully on their own always seem resort to quoting famous people? As if their mere knowledge of those quotes are supposed to bowl over their debating opponent. (Hint: I’m not impressed.)

    You state this country was founded on “Christian principles.” THEN, you correct me to state that I am the one who dared to mention “Jesus.”…as if those two entities are distinct and mutually exclusive.

    By consistently stating this country was “founded” on any religion’s principles, you are, in effect, indoctrinating. Stop the bullcrap, okay, JSM?

    If you didn’t know that is a form of indoctrination, consider yourself now educated on that fact.

  80. Bill Simon says:

    In fact…this country was founded MORE on the desire of people to be FREE. For a refresher on the concept of “freedom,” JSM, checkout this Declaration of Independence:

    In Congress, July 4, 1776,
    THE UNANIMOUS DECLARATION OF THE THIRTEEN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
    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.

    That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
    That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
    He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
    He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
    He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

    He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
    He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
    He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
    He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws of Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

    He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
    He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
    He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their substance.
    He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
    He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
    He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
    For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

    For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
    For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
    For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
    For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
    For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
    For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
    For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

    For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
    He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
    He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the Lives of our people.
    He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
    He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

    He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
    In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
    Nor have We been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

    We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

  81. jsm says:

    Bill, I am confident that I have argued my point well, because of the fact that you have chosen to attack me with baseless claims of indoctrination, when all I have done is present historical facts to back up my argument. Why don’t you prove my argument wrong, Bill? Perhaps because you cannot.

    Indoctrination is the act of instructing someone in a set of principles. Merely presenting documented evidence of the use of certain principles to accomplish something is far from indoctrinating someone in those principles. It appears that you are the one who needs to be “educated on that fact.”

    I will not sit silently while you try to redefine and add to my argument by bringing in specifics about the Christian belief of who God is versus that of other religions. I have not made any issue of that, and I will not let you put words in my mouth. You have an obvious distaste for what Christians believe, and you have made incorrect assumptions about my position.

    If you have a problem with what an overwhelming proportion of the Founders believed, attack them. I have merely presented a snapshot of what they believed in their own words.

  82. Jason Pye says:

    “The Founding Fathers were not a monolith. There were profound Christians and there were atheists and there was everything in between. Jefferson was somewhere in between. But to lump them all together and say that the Founding Fathers were Christians who intended a Christian nation is false, malicious and irresponsible and it has to be countered. We have to tell the truth about history. The truth is the Founding Fathers had a range of thought. They did not intend a Christian nation. They intended a free nation in which we might be Christians.”Clay Jenkinson

    “Although it had its share of strenuous Christians… the gathering at Philadelphia was largely made up of men in whom the old fires were under control or had even flickered out. Most were nominally members of one of the traditional churches in their part of the country.. and most were men who could take their religion or leave it alone. Although no one in this sober gathering would have dreamed of invoking the Goddess of Reason, neither would anyone have dared to proclaim his opinions had the support of the God of Abraham and Paul. The Convention of 1787 was highly rationalist and even secular in spirit.”Clinton Rossiter

  83. Bill Simon says:

    JSM,

    You state the following: Indoctrination is the act of instructing someone in a set of principles. Merely presenting documented evidence of the use of certain principles to accomplish something is far from indoctrinating someone in those principles.

    You state it as though these principles are ONLY found in Christianity. They are not.

    I point you to the State of Israel, which, according to you, would have to have been founded on “Christian principles” since their law mimics the law in this country.

  84. jsm says:

    “You state it as though these principles are ONLY found in Christianity.”

    No, I don’t. I never said anything to that effect.

  85. Bill Simon says:

    JSM,

    So, what would be your point, exactly, in making the statement(s) that this country was founded on “Christian principles” if the same principles can be shown to have existed prior to the religion of Christianity ever coming into existence?

  86. Bill Simon says:

    ProfG,

    “Saying” what something is tends to be quite different from putting that into writing, wouldn’t you say?

    Or, perhaps we should just do away with wasting our freaking money paying people to transcribe court testimony of trials, along with the whole concept of writing anything down, eh?

    If the Founders intended this country to be all Christian-principled based, WHY not put that in writing at the time of the Constitutional Convention?

    The reason it wasn’t is because the majority present in 1787 was absolutely against codifying this country according to any religious edicts. Period. Patrick Henry wanted the religious plurality noted in the Constitution, but his view wasn’t affirmed by the majority. Therefore, quoting Patrick Henry’s beliefs mean nothing as they were not of the majority of men present in the Constitutional Convention.

    To claim otherwise (like you and JSM, and a whole bunch of other Christian-superior minded folks) is to, yes, attempt to indoctrinate the inhabitants of this great country.

    Because, you see, the more often you repeat something with no challenge to it, the better chance that whatever you are repeating will become a permanent part of the intellectual landscape.

  87. jsm says:

    Bill, they did put it into writing. You can believe what you want about their definition of the words “Nature’s God” and “Creator,” but I think their statements and the letters they wrote make pretty clear what they believed. The Christian principles that our Founders referenced clearly promote freedom and individual liberty. Even the deists demonstrated respect for the Bible and its principles.

    You can continue to call me “Christian-superior minded” and “holier-than-thou” or whatever, but schoolyard namecalling is nothing more than a diversion from the issue. I’m sorry you can’t handle the facts surrounding this Nation’s founding. Go ahead and throw out Patrick Henry’s beliefs. You’ll also have to throw out George Washington’s, John Adams’, James Madison’s, Andrew Jackson’s, Ben Franklin’s, and many, many more. No one here is saying the Founders wanted “religious edicts” written into those documents anyway. Once again, you’re trying to manipulate the argument.

    “Because, you see, the more often you repeat something with no challenge to it, the better chance that whatever you are repeating will become a permanent part of the intellectual landscape.”

    Tell that to your local public school.

  88. Bill Simon says:

    JSM, Addendum

    Wait…belay that last question, JSM. I have an easier question for you to answer.

    Please answer me this: Do these Christian principles of which you state this country was founded upon ALLOW any other principles to be practiced that are not considered to be solely “Christian principles?”

  89. jsm says:

    “Do these Christian principles of which you state this country was founded upon ALLOW any other principles to be practiced that are not considered to be solely ‘Christian principles?’”

    I’ve yet to classify anything as a “solely” Christian principle, but I would say yes regarding principles that are not considered Christian, as long as those principles don’t interfere with the purposes of government laid out in the Constitution.

  90. Doug Deal says:

    Bill,

    What about the Salem-witch trials?

    What does any of this have to do with R.B. Farris’s ability to float or sink in the Chattahoochee?

  91. Bill Simon says:

    And yet…they were both perpetuated and propagated by Christians…

    It’s rather amazing how you decide to define that “good” things practiced can ONLY be attributed to “Christian-principles” while any bad things that happen aren’t ever attributed to Christian principles.

    Would you like your rose-colored glasses designed as plain frames, or diamond-studded?

  92. shep1975 says:

    Dang Bill! Is the best you can do is pull up something that happened more than 300 years ago?

    I would say Judeo-Christian Principles since the historic developmental trend of Western society is based mostly on those principles of government and corresponding philosophical thought from the Enlightenment. As our government was founded by mostly western Europeans, it would stand to reason they ascribed to the dogmatic notions of the day that were founded in a Western European, and even more specifically, Protestant Christian, view of government.

    I will ask you though, Bill, to state a good, though non-Christian, principle.

Comments are closed.