of being sick and tired of being considered a racist if I choose not to vote for a Black/White Messiah. As is with most Leftist propaganda, you get half the truth as if it were the whole truth. A projected 90% of the Black vote will be cast for what reason? 45% will be voting for the "Black" half and the other 45% will be voting for his White half? MCCain--who has been a thorn in the side of Conservatives for years and openly opposed a lot of Bush's position's, a Senator who cowtowed to illegal immigrants with the likes of Senator Kennedy and schmoozed with the likes of Feingold to prevent free choice--is touted to be another four years of Bushdom? While a man who votes "present" to avoid making decisions that could taint his flawless lack of action on anything substantive, is touted as a "change agent?" I guess it could rightly be said it's his "White" half that does the "bad" things because his "Black" can do no wrong--or can do "nothing" that means anything--but run for President. A Liberational Theologist that seeks to claim a Jesus was racially different than history allows, an Alinsky Socialist that believes that believes that tearing down a system that leaves choice to the people who created the system because "all those White People are evil" because they don't vote out of guilt and deference to a skin tone but vote for what they think is best for them--just like 80% of Black voters who vote their skin tone regularly when the historical evidence clearly shows they have been bamboozled not by Rich Republicans but Southern Democrats who have traded their sheets for votes and their hoods for campaign contributions.

It's a "50-50" election not because of skin color, racism or bigotry but because half of us know what the truth is and the other half dream that hope and change as a mantra is just about as empty a promise as "We Democrats are for the little guy." To that I ask "How many of these little guys in Washington leaves your sorry a--ses in the dirt while you make them rich with campaign contributions while you still live in the slums & projects waiting for the Messiah to take of life for you.

the Danes know what is going on. But what they do is not "heroic" in a sense. When you consider the cowardly, weak "enemy" of Islamic Extremists--let me say that louder: EXTREMISTS!--who use children and children as shields, who vie for 72 pure women they would just as soon stone as let another man look at them, who target school children, marketers, taxi drivers, their own people, who attach explosives to individuals who don't have the mental capacity to resist . . . do I need to go on? And as far as the non-extremist Islamic who tolerates this blasphemy against any god, well, do you deserve to be respected when you won't clean up amongst your own kind to promote the "peaceful" religion of Islam? You can't have it both ways. Real men don't kill cartoonists, women or children on a regular basis to the glory of Allah. "Fight like man" used to be a noble, honorable way to settle differences. Hiding behind women and children in masks seems like a pretty "womanly" way to fight for what you believe in. Sorry, ladies. No offense. In this world you have more courage than certain extremist "men" who seek 72 sex objects as a reward. That should make you more upset than my turn of a phrase. Or that Allah would offer that as a reward.

"Americans United for Separation of Church and State has urged officials in Green Bay, Wisc., to remove a nativity scene from government property. The display, Americans United points out, amounts to an unconstitutional endorsement of religion by government."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . . "

Ok, Constitutional lawyers, get off your duffs this holiday season and do your jobs! I have no law degree and I may have figured it out . . . maybe . . .
 

Establishment clause: "Congress shall make no law." I have not scoured the Constitution, but will someone in the ACLU please point me toward Federal codes which state that specific religious ornaments must be placed in governmental institutions, thus fulfilling an "establishment" condition which would violate law. Then, how removing religiously based ornaments from public areas that have not been mandated by acts of legislatures is not a violation of the "prohibition of free exercise" clause for objects placed not by law.

Now I as a private citizen--be I President of the United States or the janitor thereof--of the government property I deem to place a religious reference on my own stead--barring any safety or spatial concerns--which precept of Amendment 1 do I violate in doing so? If I offend an atheist in my action, am I violating his Constitutional rights since I am not "establishing" a state religion just expressing my personal belief at which point--should this atheist address a grievance against me--in reciprocity--be denying me the second clause of the "establishment" amendment in which my freedom is being denied? Doesn't anyone find it just a bit odd that Amendment 1 is conveniently phrased as it is so as not to leave in the shadow of doubt that "establishment" requires a legislative mandate to legitimate a violation of "establishment" while the very next phrase validates the free expression of a personal nature and does not limit it with the exclusions of those it might offend?

Government should not be in the business of "establishing" what people should believe but surely must protect the rights of those who chose to believe in something and their free exercise thereof. And if the majority of governmental officials sympathize with a cultural acceptance of religious ornaments on publically owned property and have passed no law mandating their presence under penalty of law, does that constitute a legislative action, thus a violation of law and the establishment clause when no official proclamation has been made?

It's quite plain that the COTUS protects freedom of speech and religion and as such does not prohibit what a person believes or says. It does protect us from governmental decree of a particluar belief system, but nowhere can I find that a person who doesn't believe in anything has a Constitutional right to file grievance against a government that does not "establish" a religion but represents a majority of a population that does have one and thinks that those who do express themselves freely--a Constitutional guarantee no matter their position as an elected official or plain citizen--anymore than the insistence that "freedom" constitutes a protection "from" a reference to a belief system which is freely offered and not imposed by legislative action.

"Nietzsche calls himself an immoralist and harshly criticizes the prominent moral schemes of his day: Christianity, Kantianism, and Utilitarianism. However, in one important sense he seeks not only to destroy morality, but to reconstruct a new, more naturalistic source of value in the vital impulses of life itself (readers have also often seen this as a desire to return to the values of Homeric Greece)."--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche

Isn't it odd that nihilistic, deconstructionistic philosophers work so hard to destroy progressive civilizations that have emerged doing so much good in this world (along with the prerequisite bad on occasion!) by decrying Christian religion as the threat to all that we can be if we just believed in nothing? We could revert back to Darwinian monkeys, devoid of morality and belief, and justify smashing a ceramic baby Jesus as instinctual rather than guided by a morality no matter its source, a considered and debated framework by which no other animal however exalted on this planet can achieve at present.

Have a banana, atheists, because humanity has not been cursed by religion because you don't see its relevance. We just resist the vacuum you are trying to create since "freedom of" does not translate "freedom from" in any lexicon I can find. And it's about time our legal experts started basing their arguments on counter-nihilistic points like "if our forefathers wanted to exclude religious expression along with "the establishment of a state religion," they would of in their brilliance written the clause "Government shall make no mention of religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof . . . " That would have been much clearer . . . were it not for "intent."

Merry Christmas to all and to all may you not be sued by the ACLU protecting someone else's freedom while denying yours.

<P>Ah, Conservatives as grinches . . . how original. But you did not spell that right . . . got a few letters wrong . . . you meant g-i-n-g-r-i-c-h . . . right, huh? Now that would make sense if you used that tact.</P>
<P>In this holiday season, we celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ--in the off time when we aren't hiring lawyers to defend placement of a baby statue in a manger filed by the ACLU who is protecting Americans from being violated by a ceramic infant. In this land of religious freedom, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" so those who wish to inhibit the freedom of other Americans petition the courts that display of religious material on government property violates the rights of those who believe in nothing destroying the tradition of this and other nations who choose to honor this religious heritage as if for 200+ years no other jurists of the High Courts saw any "establishment" action in the freely sanctioned display of a religious symbol representing Peace, Joy and Hope in a land founded by religionists of many Christian persuasions.</P>
<P>I remember the Christmas story told by Luke about those centuries ago and the evil king who decreed all male children under the age of two be killed to hopefully extinguish the life of a King. And I read the papers now and read "Roe vs. Wade," freedom of choice, pro-lifers are selfish, chauvinistic people who want to control your female life. Then I realize our methods and science have geometrically progressed and that king Herod's excuse could written off to ignorance. So now we have become enlightened. We can now--with the assurance of Constitutional Rights and advanced scientific inquiry--kill our inconvenient truths before they see the light of day and maybe catch a glimpse of the Christ child which is no longer displayed at the courthouse conveniently--or by some other "intelligent design" of those who would have us as a society deny the source of our faith as if this 2000 year old child were a threat to those who don't believe. Or maybe THAT'S what they are afraid of . . . we who have faith could be right. And then where would they be? Killing infants to prevent the reign of a King, maybe. For their personal rights instead of the rights of our society as a whole.</P>
<P>The child that survived infanticide and wound up being crucified for his belief--and I will not assign validity to any claim of his essence or the veracity of his claims . . . that is between you and He solely--from a secular OR religious point of view, the story and ideals one can glean from the narratives of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John far outweigh our progressive enlightenment we have achieved over the past few centuries whether we be Conservative or Liberal-minded, both have left unseemly footprints along the same paths he wished us to walk. Now we wear Nikes with blinking lights or maybe springs instead of the lowly peasant sandals of a carpenter/evangelist/savior and think we know the best roads to travel while glory in our self-ness of superior intellect. We can fly to the moon, cure diseases that wiped out nations, we can clone sheep and we're on our way to stop climate change. But we can't suggest to young women that abstinence is 100% effective and--God forbid--placing a ceramic figure of a baby born by a virgin nestled in hay for all to see because someone's rights would be violated.</P>
<P>It's sadly ironic, Lilly, but I don't see Conservatives "grinching" the real meaning of Christmas joy as much as I see the enlightened Progressive minds trying to quell any mention of it.</P>
<P>Have a wonderful Winter Solstice, Lilly! And to the rest of you, Merry Christmas with the real joy and understanding of what we should be celebrating Christmas morning while opening our presents.</P>

That is equally absurd to make that condemnation! What Mr. Burney expounds upon is Mormon founding documents and perhaps the precise words of Joseph Smith who received a revelation from the angel Moroni of the presentation of a new Gospel on two gold tablets and the story grows from there. As stated in popular current Mormon advertising, what is offered is "another Gospel" of Jesus Christ.

Contrast Galatians 1:8, 9: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." This is not my judgment or condemnation of Mormonism but a definite argument that validates a necessary debate between Evangelicals and LDS. The mere assertion that Joseph Smith was let in on "another Gospel" by a personal angel and founded a religion of now 13,000,000 with the assumption that the first Gospel didn't really do the job for about 1 billion others--well--if that's not calling Evangelicals "liars" . . .

Do you see how lame your argument really is? It's a personal attack on an opinion and doesn't even graze Truth and reconciliation. Or face the facts Mr. Smith's Southern American civilization as the basis for this "gospel" has never been found though meticulously described in his writings in the Book of Mormon. That doesn't prove all Mormon doctrine errant but it does invite skepticism since the bases seemed to have been built on sand instead of rock.

The Mormons I have met and debated with have seemed to be wonderful, faithful and stable individuals. If Gov. Romney were nominated I would have no hesitation pulling the lever for him. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with his religion's founding father on doctrinal issues. And, unfortunately, many on both sides of this argument will be functionally "ignorant" of what we are voting on and think this is a vote for the nature of Jesus Christ instead of a president of the United States.

What's the point talking to flowers? In Lilly's case, the "bulb" suspends above her head instead of buried in the dirt where it really belongs. I'm amazed at one fact in particular: for an administration that is continually typified as the most brain-dead in American history and, on the otherhand, the most diabolically devious masters of intrigue able to pull off flawless escapades under the noses of its own citizens with the cooperation of the Guilliany's of this world, give me a break. Bushophobia is really corrupting what little you have left in that bulb if there was anything there to begin with.

Freedom of speech, Lilly, gives you the right to say anything you want and I support your right to post that here in this forum (as if I had any control over that anyway). Creative thinking and factual reporting, however, are two separate fields and should not be mixed.

So here's the choices: Bush is a dolt and could never have figured out how to accomplish such a college-graduate level project so he couldn't have done it. Or, Bush is the most brilliant man in the world that appoints Michael Brown, Alberto Gonzalez, Donald Rumsfeld, et. al., into his mesmerizing "Fascist" regime and they all go down in flames with endless Congressional inquiries and he successfully bamboozles the Waxman's, the Kennedy's, the Frank's, the Rangle's, the Schumer's, the Clinton's, et. al.--politician's who would give a dangling part of their anatomy (Hillary thinks she has 'em, too!)-to impeach this President--and they ALL mind-numbingly look the other way because they are under the charismatic spell of this American Rasputin we call Dubya.

So there are your choices: (pick one which makes the most sense to you and stick with it) A) Dubya's too dumb  B) Dubya's brilliant  C) Both A & B

(Answers below)

You can't have it both ways. If you picked A, you fall into the category that would send campaign money to the "Paris for Prez" campaign in about ten years and ask her to nominate Brit as her VP choice because we "really need a woman (or two) in the White House."

If you picked B, your real first name must be Barbara, Laura or Jenna and your last name would be Bush, duh, and you would be guilty of staying with a man the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Polpott, Amin, et. al. who must have had just an iota of charisma to pull their plots off!

If you picked C, your last name must be Moore, Obama, Edwards, Waxman, Feingold, Mahr, Gore--do I need to go on. I think not.

You are welcomed to respond and I would like to hear facts of how A, B, or C accomplished the plot you propose. In detail.

<P>Beeblebrox, hammer that nail on the head! One of our greatest Democrat Presidents ever, Lyndon Baines Johnson, along with a majority Democrat Congress forced enlistment of the poor and uneducated--Lily's family, I guess--and then let the politicians run the war. And all I hear about Viet Nam is how Nixon "dragged the war on." Such an educated assessment.</P>
<P>Now our brave legislators who voted to send troops to confront a faceless, spineless pack of thugs who wear rags on their faces because they are no man enough to stand up and fight for what they believe (excepting civilians, women, children, you know, shoppers on the main streets of Iraq), now they tap dance around their original intent kind of like they had baited and switched our our President into a corner almost by intelligent design (which has no possiblity of existing according to science that supports global climate change in the "majority" of those polled qualified only by their reliance on government funding to continue their projects).</P>
<P>You want conspiracy theories. Don't look at George W. Bush and his neo-cronies. Examine turncoats in Congress who get elected merely because they hate a President. It's not an opinion, it's a fact substantiated by their own word and attitudes.</P>
<P>You win a war by killing the enemy and breaking all of their things. Approval polls have relegated our power as a nation to slapping wrists and telegraphing our intentions to the enemy by leaks. War is hell and we have created heaven in Gitmo while our boys and girls get blown to pieces by atomic Tonka toys on the side of the road. To earn 72 really hot virgins, one should at least be manly enough to fight a war and not cower behind your lowly Islamic woman's gown right before you stone her. And for our politicians in kind, either vote to end your "unjust war" with the spine you attest to have and maybe you'll get the coveted 72 really hot VOTES you're really aiming for or keep hiding behind those face rags of political "conscience" while laying prostrate toward Mecca.</P>
<P>If they insist on a "religious" war, maybe dropping the big one on Mecca would convince them we are not joking. Japan got the message. Then maybe "moderate" Islam will get off their butts and take care of their own business of reigning in the "Mohameddan Mafia," the followers of that peaceful prophet of love and grandeur who are so proud of him they cover their faces doing his work--kind of like the virgin women they intend to earn.</P>