US Governance

Jager, you should be a right wing blogger, for sure.. you need a broader audience.

I will admit to being biased, being a 12th generation American who's ancestors fought & died in almost every war fought since the 1600's. Also, since i'm in a state (az) where it is legal to CC without a permit.. just like New Hampshire & Alaska.

I don't really understand the left.. the motivations.. the logic (or lack thereof).. the desire for complete control. The problems we have in America now are due almost completely to left wing social engineering programs. The housing collapse? Mostly because of Al Franken (edit:Barney Franks..) & his opening up loans to anyone & everyone.. & 100% loans, too. Our current economic malaise? Obama's stimulus package. Soaring debt with trillions of taxpayer dollars going to his left wing cronies.. tons of 'studies' for universities.. tons of $200k + bureaucrats to oversee nothing.

And now the war machine is escalating, too. He's opening another front in Libya. Where does it stop? Do Americans have to go & die to liberate all the oppressed people of the world? Who gave us that responsibility?

I like the declaration of Independence. It is an amazing document outlining an equally amazing experiment in human govt. Here's a snippet:

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.

The direction our govt is heading.. for the last 80 years or so.. is becoming destructive to our 'unalienable rights', imo. They are not 'securing these rights', but are destroying them. Poor people are lured into big cities with no hope of work or self sufficiency. They are given minimal sustenance, & in such an environment, crime flourishes. Then to compound the problems, they put exorbitant taxes on the working citizens. Their liberties are diminished, & their 'pursuit' of happiness includes carrying a load of bureaucrats, as well as supporting all the poor that the govt created.

Personally, i don't think the federal govt. has any business operating safety nets, or any kind of social programs. They should get out of the way & let the states & local govts take care of that. They are not efficient with anything they do. Govt housing is a dismal failure. Medicare is rife with fraud & corruption. Universal health care will fail for the same reasons. Corruption & fraud will make it ineffective, as most of the federal govt is now. The federal govt should stick with what it does best: Blowing things up & killing people. And presidents should not be able to make those choices, but there should be a balance of power with the legislative & judicial branches limiting who & what can be blown up. A president should not be able to just blow up some Libyans or Pakistanis because he thinks it would be cool or help his re-election, or even because his heart aches for the suffering of those people.

Right now, it is about time for the citizens of the US to 'alter & abolish' the way this govt is heading. We need a 'govt. of the people, by the people, & for the people'. Big corporations & big unions have held sway on our govt decisions for too long, now. If we take away their money, we will lose the corruption. Corruptors have no interest if there is no money. True public servants will serve & protect the interests of their neighbors with minimal compensation.

I have a lot of liberal friends.. we joke about each other's political views & manage to get along. But i am afraid for my country. I do not want the American Experiment to be over & for us to become another european nanny state.

The govt seems out of control & bent on bringing us to economic collapse. Will we face the same riots as socialist agitators stir up the mobs to protest (loot)? I think the left fears the armed right, which they should. The class war would be very short lived with right wing vigilantes coming up against academia in prius's. So they want to level the field by taking the arms of the citizens so their 'professional' armies can squash any resistance to their controls.

But i think the radical left underestimates our military, who swore an oath to protect the US Constitution from all enemies, foreign & domestic.

When considering the invasion of the US in WW2, the Japanese decided no, 'because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass'. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is so the govt fears the people, not the other way around.

Perhaps some of this ranting sounds paranoid. But history is too full of people who have 'trusted' their govt to take care of them, only to be oppressed & murdered. Obama does not like asking permission from congress for his military actions. He would like to be king, or at least like a latin american dictator. That is how i see him. He's a 2 faced chicago politician who changes his views with the weather, & for political expediency. I will not vote for him, but for those who will limit the federal govt & stop the madness. If the newly elected officials don't do it, i will keep voting for others until someone does. If the country ends, it ends, & we will all do what we can to survive.

Well, there is a lot that can be said, & that is said on this subject many times for many years. Hopefully reason & responsible behavior will triumph, & the next elections will be a mandate for more freedom for the citizens, & less demands from the govt. We shall see.

Oh dear (Flying Spaghetti Monster) God.....the housing crisis is Al Franken's fault????

The economic crisis is all, and only because of Obama?

"I will not vote for him, but for those who will limit the federal govt & stop the madness."

Those? You mean the repubs who call for "small government" but seem to have a keen interest in what you do in the bedroom? "Those" that privatize state prisons then pass draconian laws to fill up those same prisons to maximize profits? "Those" that want to create a Christian-only society- screw the non-Christians among us? "Those" that claim to be pro-life but then press for the death penalty? "Those" that want to dismantle American society and reconstruct it in some Dickensian image, or worse? How about an Orwellian image?

The republicrats offer no answers. America needs a viable 3rd party and maybe a 4th or 5th party as well. It was a shame that the TeaParty didn't evolve into an actual political party. All that effort was wasted as the repubs eventually marginalized their influence. They should have known better. Ron Paul? He should have stayed with the Libertarians. The repubs will eventually put him down like an old dog, just like all the times before. I envy other countries that have socialist, communist, green party, conservatives (although sometimes they're actually liberals), etc. Different ideas with clear choices. Sometimes they actually have to get together and form a COALITION to run their country- what a radical concept! Democracy may not be dead here yet but it's definitely on life-support.

TBird1 wrote:

The republicrats offer no answers. America needs a viable 3rd party and maybe a 4th or 5th party as well. It was a shame that the TeaParty didn't evolve into an actual political party. All that effort was wasted as the repubs eventually marginalized their influence. They should have known better. Ron Paul? He should have stayed with the Libertarians. The repubs will eventually put him down like an old dog, just like all the times before. I envy other countries that have socialist, communist, green party, conservatives (although sometimes they're actually liberals), etc. Different ideas with clear choices. Sometimes they actually have to get together and form a COALITION to run their country- what a radical concept! Democracy may not be dead here yet but it's definitely on life-support.

Bravo good sir. Bravo.

The Tea Party lost almost all credibility when the likes of Palin and my state's Christine O'Donnell got sucked in.
Throw in the idiocy like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and ...............ewwwww.

The problems this country faces today fall equally square upon both the reps and the dems.

Time for different choices altogether. Not just different names same party.

motokid wrote:

Oh dear (Flying Spaghetti Monster) God.....the housing crisis is Al Franken's fault????

The economic crisis is all, and only because of Obama?

that's all you got out of my post?

This is why i don't post much stuff like this, or much of anything anymore. The left wing relies on distortion & lies to smear their opponents, rather than responding logically to the issues.

But now that you mention it.. yes, the housing crisis was in great part because of Al Franken's (edit: Barney Franks) work in the lending industry. There were many reasons & a perfect storm, but his part was significant.

You don't think obama has had anything to do with the current economic malaise? His record breaking spending spree has nothing to do with the current problems? You believe everything you hear on msnbc?

Later.. i'll leave the debating to jager.. though he gets little support for it, either.

TBird1 wrote:

"I will not vote for him, but for those who will limit the federal govt & stop the madness."

Those? You mean the repubs who call for "small government" but seem to have a keen interest in what you do in the bedroom? "Those" that privatize state prisons then pass draconian laws to fill up those same prisons to maximize profits? "Those" that want to create a Christian-only society- screw the non-Christians among us? "Those" that claim to be pro-life but then press for the death penalty? "Those" that want to dismantle American society and reconstruct it in some Dickensian image, or worse? How about an Orwellian image?

The republicrats offer no answers. America needs a viable 3rd party and maybe a 4th or 5th party as well. It was a shame that the TeaParty didn't evolve into an actual political party. All that effort was wasted as the repubs eventually marginalized their influence. They should have known better. Ron Paul? He should have stayed with the Libertarians. The repubs will eventually put him down like an old dog, just like all the times before. I envy other countries that have socialist, communist, green party, conservatives (although sometimes they're actually liberals), etc. Different ideas with clear choices. Sometimes they actually have to get together and form a COALITION to run their country- what a radical concept! Democracy may not be dead here yet but it's definitely on life-support.

I only get one vote. I'll vote for whoever will stand for a return to the Declaration of Independence values. I don't care what labels they carry, but for what they stand for.

Where did you get all the christian stuff out of my post? If you have a problem with christians, fine, but i'm talking about life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness. I've been leaning a lot more toward the tea party values & libertarians than any of the current parties. But i still only get one vote.

..really not much point in arguing about this stuff.. some get too worked up & take themselves too seriously.. or get cranky over the direction of the govt & break out in rants.

I suppose there are those who want to create a religious based society.. many muslims do for sure, & probably there are christians, hindus, & jews, & even atheists who want to also. But America has been & still is the most open religious society in the world. Many of our ancestors came here for that religious freedom.

But this is more like a smoke screen.. like carrying on about injustices with slavery in the 1800's. I don't see 'christian theocracy' as a current issue that needs addressed. But you are welcome to debate it more.. i probably won't contribute any more.

First of all - Al Franken was not elected to office until AFTER the housing bubble burst.

Are you suggesting that a non-elected official, a regular citizen of the USofA who was not part of the banking industry or mortgage and loan industry is at fault for the housing situation????

That's just downright unreasonable.

Second of all, there's no doubt the current administration is not making things any better in terms of deficit spending and increasing the debt this country is drowning in.


But Obama is not THE sole and only cause. The whole kit-n-kaboodle rests on the shoulders of BOTH parties.
The financial collapse started with Bush. That man increased the size of the government, was the sitting President when the housing bubble burst wide friggin open,
and he's the one who started signing the whole economic stimulus stuff that began the elevator crashing dive of our economy. Not to mention starting the debacle in Iraq.

Businesses were shipping labor and manufacturing overseas long before Obama took office.

The auto industry really fell into complete collapse during the Bush years.

Sure - Obama hasn't been able to "fix" things. In some cases he's probably made things worse.

However - the place he had to start from was far and away so far behind the eight-ball that expecting miraculous recovery in less than 2 years of his presidency is silly and unrealistic.

Nobody could have walked in and cleaned up after 8 years of Bush.

As for the msnbc comment - I'll respond with this:

Do you believe everything you hear on Fox?

Just to clarify.

I'm not saying the Dems and Obama are free from blame.

Not at all.

They share the blame.

I'm also not saying every bit of blame falls on the Reps.

They share the blame.

The two party system is destroying our country. Both are equally destructive and both have way too much power.

Neither is worthy of running our country any more.

my bad.. Barney Frank

rydnseek wrote:

Jager, you should be a right wing blogger, for sure.. you need a broader audience.

Not sure that would work, if the definition the socialists use means I have to be fundamentalist Christian and all the rest of the tags they hang on "right wing". JFK would be called "right wing" in today's political climate. However, I don't think that "right wing" label is very accurate for most people, because a lot of people that would have that tag hung on them aren't even churchgoers in any religion to begin with. I suspect "conservative" would be a better label for me, and "constitutionalist" would be the best fit - in Canada or the US.

When you decide your constitutional documents are merely there for "guidance", and instead of using the amending formula provided with those documents, you change governance and how people live through courts, workarounds, and plain old ignoring what the constitution says, you're headed for disaster in my opinion. You might like how that works for you under the government at any particular day, but sure as hell, sooner or later, a government that is everything you don't agree with will come along and do exactly the same thing. And when you complain they can't do that, they'll say "Sure we can: _____ did it, and it was okay then".

Quote :

The housing collapse? Mostly because of Al Franken (edit:Barney Franks..) & his opening up loans to anyone & everyone.. & 100% loans, too.

Yes, it's convenient to forget the CRA, and Frank Raines (who I think you had in mind) & Barney Franks & Nancy Pelosi saying all was well when bankers and even dumb ol' George Bush were saying they had to stop doing that. And to forget - while we're hating "banksters" - that over 80% of failed mortgage holders committed mortgage fraud in obtaining their mortgage. All because socialists who can't understand the words "shall not be infringed" also don't understand that the words "pursuit of happiness" does not mean "guaranteed home ownership". Sadly, if Republicans are supposed to be conservatives and constitutionalists, many of them don't get that either. Which is why the Taxed Enough Already movement began - because they weren't only pissed with the Democrats approach to governance, but the RINOs running the Republican party who weren't much different in their political philosophy.

Quote :

The direction our govt is heading.. for the last 80 years or so.. is becoming destructive to our 'unalienable rights', imo. They are not 'securing these rights', but are destroying them.

I happen to agree with you on that front. The shift of power to government at the expense of INDIVIDUAL liberty (which is what the US Republic was intended to be about) has been enormous.

Quote :

Well, there is a lot that can be said, & that is said on this subject many times for many years. Hopefully reason & responsible behavior will triumph, & the next elections will be a mandate for more freedom for the citizens, & less demands from the govt. We shall see.

One of the central problems is we are raising pockets and generations of people who at the end of the day effectively pay no taxes for what the government does. They don't see themselves as the ones responsible for their lives and how their "pursuit of happiness" turns out. They see the government as the source of their income, paying for what they want out of life in the way of programs, subsidies, etc. They have no intention of participating in the "pursuit of happiness" the way their grandparents and great-grandparents did. Some governments tell them that if they put them in power, they will give them "social justice" and their lives will be well. These people, in effect, vote to give themselves a raise, a home - the things in life they think the government has a duty to provide for them.

Which would be fine if the economy was strong enough that the government could continue to appease them by doing that. However, there is a high probability that we are coming to the day when the government will be saying to those people "Sorry... there is no money left, and we can't print anymore. You are on your own". Life will be interesting then, both for those people and for the rest of us.

Interesting post Scotty... thanks for contributing.

motokid wrote:

The financial collapse started with Bush. That man increased the size of the government, was the sitting President when the housing bubble burst wide friggin open, and he's the one who started signing the whole economic stimulus stuff that began the elevator crashing dive of our economy. Not to mention starting the debacle in Iraq... Nobody could have walked in and cleaned up after 8 years of Bush.

Revisionist history at its finest. Thank God their wasn't a Democrat controlled Congress in power when Bush signed that stimulus stuff at the end of his presidency.

We can defer claims that Bush started the "debacle in Iraq" to the other thread here discussing that, although one would hope it is difficult to reconcile that bit of revisionist history with the fact that Bill Clinton is the one who signed the Iraq Liberation Act into power as the policy of the United States and launched the first attacks on Iraq. Apparently, if you truly loath Bush, Bill Clinton never existed, the Iraq Liberation Act never existed, and as Clinton never existed he never launched the first US attacks on Iraq after the nonexistent Iraq Liberation Act was signed, either.

As that thread is doing well on it's own, let's consider the statist claims that Bush started the financial collapse and in particular the housing crash. That is supposedly Bush's fault - he's responsible not only for everything after his presidency, but everything that happened before as well. The truth is a little bit different:

In 1977, Jimmy Carter brought us the Community Reinvestment Act to supposedly address banks discriminating against making loans to poor people (rumour has it banks actually were reluctant to issue mortgages to people without the means to pay them back - the bastards!).

In 1995, Clinton ordered the Treasury Department to track loans by income group AND neighborhood to determine how financial institutions were giving out mortgages. The Clinton government then registered it's approval/disapproval of how financial institutions were lending money by using that tracking to approve or disapprove of new branches, bank mergers, acquisitions, etc. If you weren't lending to the right people (as Clinton saw it)... well, no soup for you.

Those regulatory changes and Clinton Administration policies empowered groups like ACORN to file lawsuits and petitions with regulators - or threaten banks that they would do so if they weren't appeased - to impede banks conducting business and challenge who they loaned money to and how they leant money. It amounted to legalized extortion, with the banks changing their lending practices to get along, and making pools of money available to groups like ACORN. A young lawyer named Barry Obama got his start in this legal extortion business. Because the borrowers could not pay normal rates, these loans were made at discounted rates, did not require credit scores in most cases, usually didn't require documenting income, and were often 100% financed. The idea was not whether the loan could be paid back or not - the objective was to make that loan. These became known as "subprime loans".

In 1995, Clinton established the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, which gave banks tax dollars to encourage them to make even more of these risky loans. Which banks of course were willing to do. Why not - it wasn't their money being put at risk under this policy of Clinton's - it was the taxpayers'.

Banks weren't happy with all the risk they were being forced into, however. They were happy to accept derivatives, which are in effect a form of insurance for lenders. They allow lenders to spread the financial risk of their lending to others willing to buy them, speculating that the loans WILL be paid off and they will make a buck. Many of those buying derivatives did so because the government of the day (and one Barney Frank) were telling everyone all was well. All this started well before George Bush took office.

The Federal government, under Bill Clinton, using Jimmy Carter's legislation, had forced banks to abandon traditional bank lending standards, creating a whole new world of risk. But as we can see, it was all Bush's fault.

Congress - and Clinton - were repeatedly warned that economics and banking history demonstrated that this kind of lending was unsustainable, would lead to disaster, and would probably leave the government (aka The Taxpayer) on the hood for the defaults. For those who like Google, it doesn't take much of a search to find footage on CSPAN of top Democrats like Charles Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd, and of course Barney Frank insisting that Fanny and Freddy were perfectly sound, as was the housing market.

This went back as far as 1993, and Barney Frank and the Democrats fought lending reform every step of the way. In 2000, Rep. Richard Baker proposed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie's lending practices and government oversight. Barney Frank scorned the idea, publicly saying concerns about Fannie and Freddie were ridiculous and that there was "no federal liability there whatsoever."

In 2002, that dummy George Bush was warning Congress about the housing market in general and Fanny and Freddy in particular. Another attempt at reform ended with Barney Frank, from his position in Finance, saying "I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems, I regard them as great assets.". And really; who would you rather believe? Dumb ol' George Bush, or a smart guy like Barney Frank?

More assurances followed from Barney Frank in particular and the Democrats in general followed in 2003, when alarm bells were still going off. Barney assured everyone from his position that there was no federal liability with Fanny and Freddie, assurances there was no impending crisis. In the fall of when their billions of dollars accounting scandal blew open, Barney Frank was there to assure everyone, contrary to that dummy George Bush, that and they "pose no threat to the Treasury".

2003 is also when we found out that the top execs of Fannie and Freddie, most of whom had worked or were working for the Democrat Party, were cooking the books to give themselves tens of millions of dollars in bonuses while fighting lending reforms every step of the way. You can see the sordid tale on CSPAN or read the detailed government analysis by reading the "Report of the Special Examination of Freddie Mac" and "Report of the Special Examination of Fannie Mae".

Our friend Barney was placed at the head of the House Financial Services Committee by the Democrats after they took control of Congress. In this position, he stated why he like Fannie and Freddie so much - they were playthings of his political direction. So when the market (everything to this point is George Bush's fault, remember) started to crumble, from his position at the head of the HFSC, he "encouraged" Fannie and Freddie to guarantee even more "reasonable" mortgages. Which of course they did, putting out even more subprime loans. He pressured federal regulators to relax on lending institutions capital requirements. He abetted this further by demanding and getting an increase in loan limits which permitted Fanny and Freddy to guarantee more and larger mortgages.

Mr. Frank from his position also pushed through a trust fund that shook down Fannie and Freddie for a portion of any profit they made, with that fund going to politicians to spend on their favorite porkbarrel projects.

Through 2008 and 2009, the Democrat controlled Congress pushed through the TARP funding. It was supposed to be for purchasing nonperforming or risky loans from financial institutions. Instead, government committees began spending the money to buy equity positions in those same troubled financial institutions.

Barnie Frank and the Democrats did eventually decide maybe some reform was needed, and maybe Fannie and Freddie and the mortgage environment created by President Carter's CRA bill and President Clinton's policies were in trouble. But it was a little late by then.

And yet, this (like every flat tire in the USA) was Bush's fault. He did it, he created it, and no matter who is president now or what any president before did, the economy today is still his fault.

I find CSPAN to be a great tool for stirring the ol' memory about who said what and who did what...

Rydnseek- you completely missed my point.

"I don't care what labels they carry, but for what they stand for."

Exactly-what do they REALLY stand for? It seems that a good many modern republicrats REALLY stand for making themselves wealthy through influence-peddling. Everything else is window dressing. We live in an age where everyone lies- there is honor no longer.

"I'll vote for whoever will stand for a return to the Declaration of Independence values."

Like I said above- everyone lies. How do you know they'll deliver once elected? How do you know if they're even competent? Just because they wave (waive?) the Constitution around?

"But this is more like a smoke screen.."

Exactly- from BOTH sides. Neither side wants to "rock the boat" when both sides benefit from the status quo. Just a case of good-cop/bad-cop.

"I've been leaning a lot more toward the tea party values & libertarians than any of the current parties."

Be careful what you wish for. Many libertarians are simpletons who have absolutely no ideas on how to implement their ideology. It's as if some magic date would roll around and, POOF, the White House turns into a pumpkin at midnight. More likely, we would rapidly become a country of Dickensian landscapes. Personally, I think the great majority of libertarians are just shills for big business. If the answer to all of America's problems is that simple, then I'm a big-time skeptic.

"I don't see 'Christian theocracy' as a current issue that needs addressing."

Really? Bachman quotes scripture in her speeches and Old Testament at that. How does that play to the non-Christians among us? Would she speak for all of us? If a voucher system to send rich kids to private schools is passed, would Muslims be able to send their kids to Muslim schools on the tax-payer's dime? Have we really thought this through? BTW, my reference to christian "stuff" is for the Holier-Than_Thou candidates- it was not a reference to your post. I naturally question the motives of someone who wants to beat me with their Bible as the candidates do.

"But America has been & still is the most open religious society in the world."

Yeah, let's work to keep it that way, for every faith.

"I will not vote for him, but for those who will limit the federal govt & stop the madness. If the newly elected officials don't do it, i will keep voting for others until someone does."

Well, we've done just that for 200+ years. Satisfied with the results? Clearly, we need a better approach to how we pick our candidates.

"The class war would be very short lived with right wing vigilantes coming up against academia in prius's."

You should know better than to make a remark like that. History is full of revolutions that were won by the left as well as the right. How about- the AMERICAN Revolution for starters?

Lastly, "i probably won't contribute any more."

Why not? We need reasonable people to forge a consensus on what the future of our country should look like. Don't you want a seat at the table? We need for the electorate to come back to a more centrist position and away from the loonies at both extremes. We need to pare the federal budget without dismantling American society. There's a lot of work to do. Not contributing won't help- it won't help society, and ultimately, it won't help you either.

TBird1 wrote:

"I don't see 'Christian theocracy' as a current issue that needs addressing."

Really? Bachman quotes scripture in her speeches and Old Testament at that. How does that play to the non-Christians among us? Would she speak for all of us?

She does?

Oh MY GOD! That's terrible. Quoting scripture in speeches like she's Martin Luther King or something! But there's something even more terrible going on. Been going on for centuries now!

Let me share some of it with you:

Do you know that the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence put about FIVE references to God in that document they signed?

And did you know Bachmann is not the first US politician who was religious and made reference to God?

Yep, it's true! Other US politicians have done that same outrageous thing. A few quotes:

• “In regards to this great Book (the Bible), I have but to say it is the best gift God has given to man. All the good the Savior gave to the world was communicated through this Book. But for it we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man's welfare, here and hereafter, are found portrayed in it.”
  
• "And having thus chosen our course, without guile, and with pure purpose, let us renew our trust in God, and go forward without fear, and with manly hearts"
  
• "Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him, who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty."
  
• “Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right”
  
• (I like this one from the Old Testament in particular)
  "To read in the Bible, as the word of God himself, that "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread," and to preach therefrom that, "In the sweat of other mans faces shalt thou eat bread," to my mind can scarcely be reconciled with honest sincerity."

- Abraham Lincoln

• “It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.”
  
• “Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
  
• “I am sure that never was a people, who had more reason to acknowledge a Divine interposition in their affairs, than those of the United States; and I should be pained to believe that they have forgotten that agency, which was so often manifested during our Revolution, or that they failed to consider the omnipotence of that God who is alone able to protect them.”

- George Washington

• "'When a man's way please the Lord,' the Scriptures tell us, 'he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.'"
  
• "The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God."

- John F Kennedy

Some of the Founders, perhaps?

"We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!
- John Hancock and John Adams

"I do not believe that the Constitution was the offspring of inspiration, but I am as satisfied that it is as much the work of a Divine Providence as any of the miracles recorded in the Old and New Testament."
- Benjamin Rush

I wonder how the religious comments and beliefs of these people - Washington, Lincoln, Kennedy, etc - play with "the non-Christians among us"? I wonder if they would complain that a Washington, Lincoln, or Kennedy could not speak for them.

I am not sure what my religious beliefs are, and I don't know whether I would support Bachmann or not if I had a vote. But I find it telling indeed that those who are horrified because Bachmann quotes scripture and makes reference to religion when speaking publicly aren't equally as condemning of Washington, Lincoln, Kennedy, The Founders, and all the other outstanding American political figures of the past who have done no different than Bachmann.

It leaves one asking: why do they employ this double standard?

TBird1 wrote:

America needs a viable 3rd party and maybe a 4th or 5th party as well. It was a shame that the TeaParty didn't evolve into an actual political party. All that effort was wasted as the repubs eventually marginalized their influence. They should have known better. Ron Paul? He should have stayed with the Libertarians. The repubs will eventually put him down like an old dog, just like all the times before. I envy other countries that have socialist, communist, green party, conservatives (although sometimes they're actually liberals), etc. Different ideas with clear choices. Sometimes they actually have to get together and form a COALITION to run their country- what a radical concept! Democracy may not be dead here yet but it's definitely on life-support.

The root of your angst with our system of government probably lies with the fact that the US is NOT a Democracy. Never has been. So complaints that we don't have a democracy in the US are largely irrelevant.

The US is a Republic. And it was framed in that manner to guard against the precise excesses of a Democracy that you wish for. They wanted a country where the rights of the individual were paramount. Not a compromise "peace, order, and good government" Democratic model, trying to please the majority. This was what The Framers of the Constitution were referring to in debates at the Federal Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" (foisted on them prior to the Revolution by the democratic Parliament of England) and abuses under any democracy of the unalienable rights of the individual by the majority.

Democratic coalitions to appease a majority of voters are NEVER going to recognize the supremacy of individual rights over group interests and government authority. Governments that do not recognize and protect the supremacy of individual rights should be anathema to every American.

If you want to live in a democracy, where the interests of the majority supersede the unalienable rights of the individual... Canada can offer you that. Canada is all about "peace, order, and good government" and very little about the supremacy of individual rights.

You may think the Tea Party movement "wasted" it''s effort. The results of the last election and the Tea Party's effect on how the Republican party runs say otherwise. Have they moved the Republican Party all the way back to what many think it should be? No. But they are an influence moving the Republicans towards making respect for the Constitution the basis of the party and it's policies. It's a start.

You want a whole bunch of political parties to split the vote up in the US? Ask the socialists and statists in Canada how that worked out for them in the last general election in May. They thought they had a slam dunk in getting rid of the Harper Conservatives. So instead of keeping the Conservatives under control in a minority parliament, they defeated the government to bring on an election. They now have a conservative (for Canada) majority government because the socialists, leftists, and greens split their votes up between three and sometimes five different parties - resulting in electoral districts being won by the Conservatives. If your wish is more conservative parties to split up the Republican vote and thus ensure a Democrat win, yes, what you are wishing for would probably do just that.

Coalitions work at times. Most times they lead to utter chaos and government paralysis - Italy and a few other European countries a number of times in recent history provide examples of that.

I'm as amused at complaints that the root of the problem is the party and government system we have, as I am by those who claim their economic problems are the fault of the banks, corporations, Rich Guys, etc. Why is it so difficult - particularly in a Republic structured to guard your unalienable rights and recognize the supremacy of the individual - for people to accept responsibility for their actions, instead of blaming it on a system, or a corporation, or a political structure?

How many don't even vote? Adding more parties is going to fix that? BS it will - they will get off the couch to go get a six pack and a bucket of chicken, but they still won't find the energy to vote. The usual excuse will be "well, there was nobody I agreed with". Fine - so you joined the party closest to your beliefs and then as a member of that party worked to get policies adapted that you favoured? No, of course not - somebody else is supposed to do that for you while you're sitting on the couch with your six pack and bucket of chicken watching Motocross racing on the SPEED channel.

No matter how many parties we offer, how do we fix the voters who are so moronic they will reject (or vote) for a candidate simply because they make religious references in a speech?

How do we fix the voters who are so moronic they will reject (or vote) for a candidate simply on the basis of their skin color? Will offering those people more party choices make any difference? Not a chance.

The problem is not with the political structure that has stood us in good stead for over 200 years. The problem is with the way voters waste their vote, or use it in utter stupidity.

TBird1 wrote:

"I will not vote for him, but for those who will limit the federal govt & stop the madness."

Those? You mean the repubs who call for "small government" but seem to have a keen interest in what you do in the bedroom? "Those" that privatize state prisons then pass draconian laws to fill up those same prisons to maximize profits? "Those" that want to create a Christian-only society- screw the non-Christians among us? "Those" that claim to be pro-life but then press for the death penalty? "Those" that want to dismantle American society and reconstruct it in some Dickensian image, or worse? How about an Orwellian image?

Really? Are you that ignorant? Do you honestly think that one cant be pro-life and support the death penalty without being contradictory? for one, it says it all in the name: death penalty as in, something that is deserved or owed to someone. does someone deserve to die for killing another human being? yes they do. does an unborn child deserve to die for the convenience of the mother? Absolutely not! Executing convicted criminals for taking someone elses life and murdering innocent, unborn babies are two totally different things. Maybe you should understand what you are talking about next time before you poke holes in their standards.

Jäger wrote:

watching Motocross racing on the SPEED channel.

That was low. There's no need for that.

"Executing convicted criminals for taking someone elses life and murdering innocent, unborn babies are two totally different things."

Really? Well, seeing everyone here seems to like the Christian references, I'll offer this: "Thou shall not kill." How do you reconcile your declaration with that commandment? If having a Christian theocracy is OK with everyone would that not make our government anti-Christian to impose the death penalty?

"Maybe you should understand what you are talking about next time before you poke holes in their standards."

I was raised as a Catholic. I don't know what Bible you read, but I don't remember any listed exceptions to "Thou shall not kill". It's airtight, kind of like "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Are you saying that you can wiggle out of this restriction? I do understand what I'm talking about. I'm saying that I don't agree that killing is OK. Just like the fifth (or sixth) Commandment.

In response to the lengthy posts concerning religious inspiration of past leaders- I don't care about any of that. A million examples won't change my mind. There is only one thing that matters to me and the framers got this right the first time: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Talk about your perceived God all you want, go to church seven days a week, name all your kids after the apostles for all I care. But when it comes to governance leave God out of it. Countless atrocities have been committed throughout history in the name of one God or another. Why should the next Bible-beater be any different? When a politician spouts off about God-this and Jesus-that like they have some kind of mandate the rest of the candidates don't have the FIRST thing I think is: what is their REAL agenda? What are they hiding? If they had real vision, real answers and real conviction they wouldn't have to invoke God like he was their campaign consultant. The more a candidate spouts religion, the less I trust him/her. I could not care less about a candidate's religion. I only care about their actions and decisions in office. Increasingly, the actions of our office holders show no correlation between their announced piety and their behavior in office. I'm sure Washington was a fine gentleman. Lincoln, too, but these guys aren't around any more. Dead guys don't govern the nation, live ones do. Until such time that the current group rises to the stature of a Washington or a Lincoln, I don't trust them. Hiding behind God won't help that mistrust.

TBird1 wrote:

"Executing convicted criminals for taking someone elses life and murdering innocent, unborn babies are two totally different things."

Really? Well, seeing everyone here seems to like the Christian references, I'll offer this: "Thou shall not kill." How do you reconcile your declaration with that commandment? If having a Christian theocracy is OK with everyone would that not make our government anti-Christian to impose the death penalty?

"Maybe you should understand what you are talking about next time before you poke holes in their standards."

I was raised as a Catholic. I don't know what Bible you read, but I don't remember any listed exceptions to "Thou shall not kill". It's airtight, kind of like "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Are you saying that you can wiggle out of this restriction? I do understand what I'm talking about. I'm saying that I don't agree that killing is OK. Just like the fifth (or sixth) Commandment.

No offense, but clearly you need to read your Bible a little better. The Bible makes two allowances in that commandment: the first is that it is sometimes necessary to kill in war. there are multiple examples of God ordering the Isrealites to go to war against other nations because of their sin and wickedness. (Deuteronomy 20:16-17 and 1 Samuel 15:18 to name a few.) not only that, but it is sometimes necessary to kill in order to defend ones country or even ones own life in self defense. the second allowance in that commandment is for the death penalty. God made it clear that man was not to take another mans life. If you want to get really involved in this and look at the original text, you would see that the original word in Hebrew refers to a premeditated, personal attack with a malicious intent.(disclaimer: i am not a hebrew scholar, but i have friends who are). However, because man is inherently sinful, he broke this law. God realized this and prescribed the death penalty to punish this horrible offense (Exodus 21:12). God also attributed this penalty to a number of other offenses including bestiality, adultery, and incest. (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 20:10, Leviticus 18:6-18)

"He that smites a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death." Exodus 21:12
As you can see, the Bible is pretty black and white on this issue, treating murder differently than self defense or retribution for sin. Also for what its worth, there was no christian reference in my first post.

rydnseek wrote:

".... 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.

Right now, it is about time for the citizens of the US to 'alter & abolish' the way this govt is heading. We need a 'govt. of the people, by the people, & for the people'.

Ironically the government considers this type of thinking to be treasonous.

...but it more eloquently covers my earlier point.

AZ here I come...

TBird1 wrote:

If having a Christian theocracy is OK with everyone would that not make our government anti-Christian to impose the death penalty?

Religion sure does push your buttons. Suggesting having religious beliefs/principles underlying the creation of the US and it's form of government makes it a "Christian theocracy" is quite a stretch. And no, it is not anti-Christian to impose the death penalty.

Unless of course, you prefer your bible as some prefer their Constitution - altered in meaning.

Quote :

Well, seeing everyone here seems to like the Christian references,

Just for clarity's sake, you're the one who brought Christianity into it with your expression of your belief that Republicans want to create a Christian-only country. Which you then expanded upon with your disgust that somebody running for political office would actually quote from the Bible. As you seemed obsessed with that, the quotes from earlier American political figures was to point out that Christian beliefs - and quoting the Bible - isn't exactly new in America. And just as many were Democrats as Republicans. Has nothing to do with "liking" Christian references - although I suspect there's a few that hate them.

Quote :

I'll offer this: "Thou shall not kill." How do you reconcile your declaration with that commandment... I was raised as a Catholic. I don't know what Bible you read, but I don't remember any listed exceptions to "Thou shall not kill".

I get the impression your experience as a Catholic was not a happy one.

If you were raised a Catholic, you probably remember that the Catechism of the Catholic Church accepts capitol punishment. You sound like you have rejected both the church you were raised in and religion itself, but the fact is, you were raised in a religion whose tenants accept capitol punishment as consistent with the Bible. You must have bumped into this issue a time or two while growing up in the church. I know this was discussed in the churches I attended while growing up. And if you read that Bible you referred to while being raised in that church, you probably remember many instances where capitol punishment is decreed for what early Anglo Saxons called bot and wergilt, which Hebrews referred to as blood guilt. You choose to ignore all of that.

That commandment, in the original Hebrew, does not say "Thou shall not kill". The literal translation from Hebrew would be "Thou shall not murder". I have no idea what version of the Bible you were raised with, although it was probably some variation of the King James version. Both the Hebrew Bible and the Torah retain clear distinctions between an injunction against murder and capitol punishment for some crimes. Similarly, the earliest translations of the Bible to English accurately transcribed that commandment. The Book of Common Prayer which predated the King James bible stated that commandment as "Thou shalt do no murder".

Some English translations of the Bible from the original Hebrew are faithful to the original meaning; some are not. You may prefer the "Thou shall not kill" English translations because you believe they support your belief that you don't agree with killing, but claiming that "It's airtight" is simply not correct.

But, this is getting away from US Governance. If you want to discuss this commandment and how it affects capitol punishment, it can have it's own topic.

Nuuuuu..... The more I read about the incredibly botched up versions of whatever you want to call the books, the more I want to gag. Wow...it's funny how things can go astray so fast in these topics.

Dan just gave his two cents worth: Kill them all, let God sort it all out.