Why a vote for a Democrat in our national government might be a vote to end our Republic.
A Democratic Party President, a Democratic House and a filibuster proof Democratic Senate would be the end of this nation as we know it. When are people going to realize that this secular humanist amoral Democratic party is not the Democratic party of our fathers? The national party is now controlled by radical left wing elitist power brokers. It is a fifth column of elite that wants to force the U.S. to conform to the socialist globalist rules of the UN and the EU.
We would be a Left wing Fascist socialist nation in no time. Within a year or two they would have a liberal Supreme Court to uphold their unconstitutional laws and anything Obama, Harry and Nanny wanted they would get. The whole U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights would be redefined by godless socialists. By the end of term they will have changed media laws, they will have put into effect anti Christian hate speech laws and they will have made broad political changes that will insure that they stay in power. Somewhat like Putin and his Fascist people are now doing in Russia.
Even if they do not get their filibuster proof majority in the Senate it does not mean that we are out of the woods. If there is a Democratic President the scum suckers will try to change the Senate rules and stop filibusters all together and they will probably succeed. The only reason these bottom feeding scum suckers have not attempted to do that already is that they know that a Senate rules change now would not help them with a Republican President in office who would veto their bills.
So gee…nothing less then our Republic is on the line during the next election. So if you want to live under left wing Fascism you know how to vote. I find it simply unbelievable that so many people in this nation continue to vote for a national party that has not taken a correct moral stand on any significant issue in decades. Don’t you people even believe what your religion teaches? If not quit pretending! Admit you believe in nothing but how the government can give you a free handout.
Don’t count on being able to remove these bottom feeders in four years like some say will happen either. By then the rules of the political game will have changed and they will have muzzled free speech. We could even be under martial law. You will need a military coup to get the scum suckers out of office if that happens.
Don’t also count on the U.S becoming some Christian socialist paradise through the liberals passing huge give away programs and bailouts that this nation cannot afford. The failed economic polices of socialism will put us in the worse economic times in the history of this nation. We are in trouble already because of a democrat controlled House and Senate. Just one example is the cost of gas. Why do you think gas is four dollars a gallon? It is because liberals would not let people drill where there is significant oil or build refineries for twenty years.
Left wing naive wishful thinking will bring foreign policy miscalculation against Iran, Russia, and others that will probably put us in the third world war. So vote for a Democrat and also sign up for the draft.
You cannot say you were not warned when you still go ahead and vote for that Democrat.
(Of course I am mainly talking about national candidates not all democrats running for local offices)
RealClearPolitics – Articles – Democrats Aim for a 60-Vote Senate
Here’s an intriguing thought: The John McCain-Barack Obama fight isn’t this season’s biggest political story. That honor should be reserved for the intense Democratic push to win a filibuster-proof Senate majority.
Democrats know this is a huge prize, and they are throwing at least as much money and sweat into that effort as they are into electing Mr. Obama. What isn’t clear is that voters are as aware of the stakes. An unstoppable Democratic Senate has the potential to alter the balance of power in Washington in ways not yet seen.
Mr. Reid won’t necessarily need 60 votes to hold Washington’s whip hand. With a contingent of blue-state Republicans (think Maine’s Olympia Snowe), Mr. Reid could peel off votes and have an “effective” filibuster with just 57 or 58 seats. That may not be enough to accomplish every last item on his wish list, but close.
That wish list? Take a look at what House Democrats (who aren’t burdened with a filibuster) unilaterally passed last year: The biggest tax increase in history; card check, which eliminates secret ballots in union organizing elections; an “energy” bill that lacks drilling; vastly expanded government health insurance; new powers to restrict pharmaceutical prices. Add to this a global warming program, new trade restrictions (certainly no new trade deals) and fewer private options in Medicare.
Date posted: Friday, August 22nd, 2008 7:14 pm | Under category: American patriot topics, Big Brother/Nanny State, Danger to the US, Hatred toward Christianity, Liberals/Left, amoral society, brain washing, constitutional issues, control freaks, economy, ignorance, irrational, media lies, socialist
RSS 2.0 | Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Our republic was a nice experiment while it lasted. We’ve already reached the tipping-point where voting-net-takers out-number voting-net-producers, and that’s just one measure of our decline. Our “dike” keeps springing more and more leaks, faster and faster, and we only have so many “fingers!”
Regardless of who becomes president, I don’t think we will recognize the USA in a handful of years.
As it is written: “a house divided cannot stand.”
We are already in the midst of a civil war, we’re just not using bullets again yet.
Moreover, this war is essentially a “religious” one in that it is rooted in diametrically opposed world views. In the short-term, the real Church will be defeated (criminalized and driven underground), while the apostate Church will cozy-up and find “common ground” with the rest of the rebellious unbelievers.
In the long-term, however, WE WIN because Jesus was and is victorious.
Until then, it’ll be a “bumpy ride” to say the least!
I think if they turn the United States into some super Nanny control freak system and take away your rights and force you to comply with their immoral views, a military coup would be justified as long as its goal is to restore the original Constitution and American way of government. Pinochet did it (bloodlessly) when the people elected Allende who was about to turn Chile into Cuba II, but unfortunately it took several more years before he handed the rule back to the people and in the meantime not everything he did was justifiable.
I agree with Brett though that in the end it is a spiritual fight we have to fight as Christians as opposed to a carnal one. The world is in the hands of the adversery and enslaved by sin. As Christians we were taken out of this world and told not to conform to its sinful lifestyles. We can’t change this world for the better no matter what Liberals and postmodern Christians say. You can and probably should take action to restore the Constitution (and I would support that) but if the people don’t want it and would rather be enslaved by big government that support their moral depravity, then I’m afraid there’s really nothing you can do about it because that’s the world we live in. The only thing that can free them is the Gospel. Yet our carnal efforts aren’t going to make the blind see, unless it’s God’s will.
I totally agree with both of you. Of the two choices they have given us one choice might just be quicker. They think they cannot lose. If the far Left does not get elected into power because the people are not yet brainwashed enough they give us a progressive who will more gradually bring in their programs until they achieve the same result. The goal is always a one world socialist bureaucratic government controlled by the world power elite that are controlled by Satan.
Everyone in the military or who was ever in the military has sworn to uphold the Constitution of the U.S.A., that is the Constitution as it is written. If 5 or 6 judges in black robes depart from it by defining the Constitution, we the people should know the difference. If the constitution is suspended for some national emergency they had better know the people agree with them and that it is limited. The people have the right and the duty to change our government if it should become a tyranny.
Our constitution’s framers understood human nature well enough to design a government that divided power among its participants. Each branch had a “check” against another branch to limit the damage that may be done buy other branches that may place their interests above that of the nation.
We have three co-equal branches: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. However there is a fourth branch that is not usually considered as such: We the People.
We the People are governed because a nation is not simply a group of unorganized people. Like the other branches, we have privileges and responsibilities. We are responsible to uphold the constitution in our day to day behavior; we are responsible to be good stewards of the freedom and opportunity that our nation provides; we are responsible to elect fellow Americans who we believe will act in the best interests of our nation (through the best means).
The last responsibility of We the People, that of electing our representatives, is our first “check” against tyranny in the other branches. However, few people seem to understand that the other, far more drastic “check” is the Second Amendment itself.
The Second Amendment codifies the right and responsibility of We the People to use arms against tyranny as a last resort. This idea is evident from our Declaration of Independence, which justifies the de-solution of political bonds, through the use of arms as a God-given right rather than unjustifiable rebellion against lawful authority:
+++
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 shewn 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
+++ http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm
I believe this parallels God’s thinking about human government bearing arms against evil doers within their jurisdiction, and the legitimacy of the people governed to use force-of-arms against their government who have become like the evil doers they are meant to check.
We have seen that after taking control of the dissemination of information, the next thing a despot attempts is to disarm his fellow citizens. We in fact see this happening in America in slow-motion.
I believe it is my duty to uphold The Constitution of the United States of America, and that doing so is a facet of obeying my Lord Jesus. Currently, our constitution aligns with God’s law, should it be amended to force us against God, then that is where my allegiance will end. We have a more urgent problem today however, it is that of evil people in government who are de facto changing our constitution by interpreting it in their perverted ways — in such a case, it is these people rather than our governmental framework that requires change.
These are dangerous words, and the time is likely coming soon where patriots will be required to water the tree of freedom with their blood.
True and well said
Brett, thanks for the additional info. You’re right. It’s not just the Military’s allegiance to the U.S. constitution but the 2nd Amendement which grants people the right to bear arms, maintain a militia to keep the government in check and remove tyranny to restore the Republic as well.
To me, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights basically represent Classical Liberal thought and they have their roots in Anglo Saxon tradition of limited government and Christianity. The British were the first to introduce such a thing as a parliament and a bill of rights, i.e. the Magna Carta.. and that was way back in the 13th century during so-called “Dark” Middle Ages.
However, it does look to me like quite a large number of Americans today seem to oppose the 2nd Amendement or at least express support for gun control. Anyway, if tyranny is established and the Constitution and Bill of Rights are altered by the black robe men of the Supreme Court, exactly how many people are going to realize what’s happening or care about it? Frankly, I think the people who are going to be willing to defend the Constitution are going to be vastly outnumbered by those who support tyranny and they will not even realize it because they will think of you as intolerant, aggressive “terrorists”. Ironic, isn’t it?
So that’s why I think that ultimately it really is a spiritual fight. Don’t get me wrong, I wholeheartedly agree with what you wrote. But here in Europe we don’t even have such a thing as a 2nd Amendment. In any case if I had a family of my own I know I’d physically defend them if that was needed no matter where I’d be living.
On a sidenote, I read the NRA has given Joe Biden a F rating. I bet Charlton Heston must be turning in his grave with Obama having chosen Joe as his running mate…
God bless.
El Nasrani, I believe you are right, that this will boil-down to a spiritual battle. I have the sense that our founders understood this too about the Revolutionary War.
It does look like America is splitting into two general groups: those who hold to the America as it was founded (including what that implies spiritually) and those that want to morph America into a globalist-socialistic-superstate. I think this may lead to one of three things:
1. A geographical division of our nation much as Don has described elsewhere.
2. The forces of “change” simply overwhelm and then “eliminate” traditional Americans. Where “elimination” could range from forced “re-education” to liquidation. (Certainly there are multiplied tens of millions of people over which these principals have been applied by socialists; one would be naive to believe that it could not happen here.)
3. Traditional Americans (say, “Americans in spirit”) will migrate to another location and reestablish themselves elsewhere much as our founders and fellows did.
Due to the my reckoning that people “of The American Spirit” are now in the serious minority here, I think the option three would be the best for all concerned. However, there are very few places to establish a new nation and none of the ones I can think of are hospitable. (Antarctica anyone?)
If the Lord tarries, I think that option one will be the one that is actually attempted, but due to an imbalance of population and force, I think it will ultimately lead to option two. Of course the “Beast Government” will very much in line with option two.
Should the rapture occur, I think that option two will occur right away. (Those “Americans in spirit” who remain will be lacking the spiritual support as (and of) Christians. They will either continue to reject Jesus, or will become “babes in Christ,” requiring at least a bit of time to grow into “Tribulation Saints.” Either way they will be in no place to resist the Antichrist in a meaningful geopolitical way.)
Beyond this, I think any of these options lead to an America (or Amerika) that is reduced to a second or third-rate nation. This fits into the end-times scenario as we currently understand it, and may well be required in order for the prophesied attacks upon Israel to occur (so they will return to God).
Hi, el nasrani,
We are a nation of states. Although many if not most states will go along with federal government tyranny because they have a godless socialist majority. I do not believe the most conservative states will. That is why I have been saying if the far Left get control of government it will be the end of the Republic. If they should suceed in taking away our constitutional rights there will be a secessionist movement and possibly a civil war.
One of the first things they will do after stacking the Supreme Court with liberals is that they will overturn the recent 5/4 decision by the Supreme Court on second amendment rights for citizens to have arms and redefine it to the military (militia). Then the government will pass laws accordingly. That will not fly in some states and they had better come with an army to try to take away the guns.
Joe Biden and Obama as well as Reed and Polosi all wish to take away our guns. In fact you can hardly find a Democrat in congress that will not vote to do that.
I also agree with Brett’s three possible scenarios except I think we will not go to Antarctica. We will actually take over certain states and certain counties and also form an ungrounded resistance elsewhere.
By the way I think this will happen before the Beast even comes on the scene.
Yes, Don, as much as I have a fondness for inhospitable places, I can’t see us seriously considering Antarctica.
By the way I think this will happen before the Beast even comes on the scene.
Agreed, if the Lord tarries, I can’t see America lasting as it is currently constituted by the end of another decade.
If the secessionist hopes to form a viable nation, they will need to seize at least part of a coastline (Gulf coast, perhaps?), because the socialists already pretty-much own both the Atlantic and Pacific coastlines.
It won’t be pretty. The socialists will own much of the current industrial base, but the secessionist will likely control the the bulk of staple-food production (and possibly the ability to acquire and refine domestic petrochemicals if they hold the Gulf coast).
I don’t think the socialists will consider a “live and let live” scenario; rather I think they will pursue a plan of subjugation or genocidal conquest (It fits their ideology, their morality, and their history). Thus, I think that a split America will remain at war indefinitely.
Thanks both for your insightful answers! I guess a few decades ago this whole scenario would have seemed inconceivable, but today many Americans want to actually do away with the original Constitution and turn the USA into an European-style socialist welfare state.
On the issue of gun control, in many Western European countries quite a number of people would actually like to see gun legislation changed to make it possible to defend themselves, their families and their property without having to get treated as if they were thugs. But the reality today is that European citizens living in large cities or towns with a huge number of Muslim immigrants and high criminality rate, they need to be on guard constantly against criminals. They risk getting prosecuted for being “racist”, or on charges of murder when they shoot at some criminal in defense of their familiy or property. Respectful citizens are duped and criminalized by our governments while the real thugs out there on the streets are getting special treatment because they generally belong to minority groups. That Americans actually want to impose such inverted “laws” on themselves is, quite frankly, insane.
I guess you will need a coastline in the case you manage to establish a new republic since you don’t want to be cut off from the rest of the world and surrounded by your enemy. I think you’ll want to possess the Lone Star state. It has a large population, huge cities, technology, crops, oil reserves, a coastline, lots of airports and so on. I’m not sure what the illegal immigrants there will do though. Alaska is one of those states that I think will most likely secede (or try to) from the Union though due to its strategic location I don’t think they will allow the Alaskans to do that.
God bless !
Interesting…
Yes, I think Texas will be one of the secessionists. They have an anti-littering campaign called “Don’t Mess with Texas.” And their tourism campaign name is “Texas, it’s a whole other country.” But when you understand a bit of their history, and communicate with Texans, you’ll see that both of these has a double meaning. Texas would not think it much of a sacrifice to leave the federation (except for Austin, that is).
Alaska? They are certainly independent-minded enough. But I have the bad feeling that Russia is going to “reclaim” them in the not too distant future. (They’ve already made noises about building a bridge from Siberia to Alaska to “promote trade.” Oh course, we all know that Putin’s a trustworthy kind of guy!
I think Texas has it it in their state Constitution that they can pull out of the Union.
Russia taking Alaska? Naah! the supply lines are not there and the people would not take well to Russian Fascism. If the Russians think Afghanistan was bad, let them move their military robots into Alaska. It would make their day. The Alaskans would be giving out bounties on Russian scalps. A disabled Russian tank might even get you a free beer.
Oklahoma may be the first state to go they would probably eventually join Texas. The Okies have already told the Feds to butt out of their business. Idaho could go next along with Utah, Montana, Wyoming the Dakotas and some corn states. They might all join with a couple of providences of what is now called Canada. You might see a nation from Utah to Alaska with the exception of the entire West Coast They can call it the American Free Ebullient West (A-FEW).
Most of the deep South would be next, they would form their own Southern Baptist Convention of America (SBCA) and then the West Coast would have no choice but to make there own Pacific Idolater Socialist States (PISS), and the Atlantic States their Association of Atlantic Socialist States (A-ASS). I guess the rest of the country would have to join one of the above or form the Independent Obstinate Union of States (IOU’S). They will get to pay off all the overdue national debt..
Hi Brett,
You’re right. Texas was even an independent Republic for about a decade in the 19th century. Some people like to mock at Texas but I’m pretty sure those “obese Texan cowboy rednecks” would perfectly manage to survive on their own if they wanted to. Everything is BIG in Texas and so is Texas itself and it has a whole lot of natural resources and technology. Of cours with an EMP much of that technology may be rendered useless but I do hope they will harden their infrastructure by the time such an attack occurs. They Texans seems to have their own culture and I’ve noticed Texans really love their state.
Russia has no right to reclaim Alaska no matter what they say. The Russian Empire sold Alaska to the United States and that makes it U.S. property, period. I don’t think there’s any significant number of Russian nationals living in Alaska either. However, times have changed in the meantime and we now live in a digital age with computers, internet and satellites. The Russians sold Alaska to the U.S. because they wanted to focus more on the development of Siberia but there’s no reason why they could not manage to govern Alaska today. Right now if they wanted Alaska “back” they would have to either (a) buy Alaska from the U.S. (but obviously Alaska is NOT for sale), or (b) invade it. They might just take the latter option if the U.S. really turns into a second rate country at some point.
The ultranationalist Russian politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky of the “Liberal Democratic” Party (read: Russian Nazi Party) has proposed Russia takes back Alaska. He has also stated he wants Russia to seize Iran and partition Poland. I don’t know whether we can take him seriously but he supports Putin and with Russia’s recent moves in Georgia and its threats towards Poland, I don’t think we should rule out any possibility. Nothing seems too outlandish anymore these days.
Sure, what better way to promote trade than by building a bridge from Siberia to strategically located Alaska or building a highway from Mexico to Canada! Better hope your next president isn’t going to be so stupid to let those Troyan Horses in for the sake of “diplomacy”…
Great comment Don!!
Before you move to Texas I have to tell you that almost all of the state is infested with fire ants. That’s one reason we never consider it. Of course there is also the killer bees in the southern part of the state. The only part of Texas I would live in would be the far West part around Alpine and Rio Grande National Park.
As For Russia invading Alaska? Even if the U.S. was a mess there is no way that Russia could occupy and hold Alaska. Right now they might even have a problem keeping Russia together if the oil prices keep going down.
Well I don’t know about living in those arid or subtropical regions. I don’t want to get sunburned all through the year and I’m not too fond of bugs either. So maybe Alaska would be a good choice after all! I’m used to rain and I’m probably going to die of a caffeine overdose with the amounts of coffee I consume every day, so I considered moving to Seattle, WA too. Unfortunately pacific coffee is far too liberal for my taste. Californian wine is pretty good though.
EU wimp! You ought to try the Ozarks where the gnats, flies, ticks and mosquitoes will have you for lunch.
There is the South West Coast of Alaska that almost goes as far south as Seattle but if you go there I hope you like mosquitoes and flies in the summer. What is wrong with central and northern Idaho? Good luck finding a job there though.
I had an 18 month assignment that took me down to Texas some years back (designing an industrial robot). Instead of flying me back and forth every week, I talked my company into letting my wife and toddler son come down with me. We had a blast! I spent most of the time in Del Rio, along the US/Mexican border, then I spent time in San Antonio and a little bit in Austin. Anyway, my wife and I enjoy history, geography, weather things, and that’s when we began homeshooling too, so Texas was good for and to us.
After all that time in TX and the frequent-flyer points it earned, we all decided to take a vacation in Alaska, since we’d not be able to afford it otherwise. So we ended-up staying with a new friend we made (whilst planning the trip) in his home in Anchorage. We had a wonderful time; it’s very much a place we could call home. Just substitute small aircraft for pickup trucks and moose for dogs and it felt kind of home like! Yes, Don, I could see them offering a beer for a scalp!
My wife actually worked a couple of summers in Alaska on a fishing trawler in the North Sea (barf) and in a canning factory (barf). She actually liked it and always wanted to move to Alaska. That is, until she got the taste of the northern mainland U.S. winters (she is a California girl). I don’t think I could drag her up there anymore. If I were a lot younger I would at least try Alaska. If gas were a lot cheaper I also would like to drive up in a RV.
OK guys, how are you getting those funny faces on your comments. I seem to be missing something here because I don’t see a way to do it.
Hey Don, don’t take what I said too seriously (except for the coffee and wine part). Climate isn’t that much of an issue. And I never get bitten by mosquitos, they don’t seem to like how I taste (my blood is pure acid). It’s just that I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what it’s like to live in a climate other than a temperate, maritime climate that we have here in most of Western Europe (as in the Pacific Northwest). I’m actually prepared to live pretty much anywhere in the U.S. as long I can get a good and interesting job.
I sure like the Pacific Northwest, it’s a beautiful region and all, but actually it’s not my preferred region. In fact, those arid states of the South West rank very high of my list (Texas included), and so do the Midwestern states and maybe a few Southern ones. I don’t really have a strong preference for any particular state though. Most important thing is to get a good job first. If I can get one and it’s in the liberal Chicago metropolitan area in Illinois, or the Twin Cities in Minnesota, so be it. Or if it’s Houston, Pheenix, Indianapolis, Charlotte, etc – even better. I could always move to a region or some particular state or city with a culture, political tendency, demography or climate that I like more later on.
Idaho is nice but so few people! Same goes for Wyoming, Alaska, and Montana. They’re not really states I’d seriously consider settling unless I wanted to hide, like you!
Those smilies are just part of wordpress. You should try it. But don’t overdo it!
See http://codex.wordpress.org/Using_Smilies.
God bless!
Phoenix*
I Did not know that about smiley faces thanks (-:
Mosquitoes love me more than anyone I know maybe I should drink more coffee (-;
hmmmm it did not work for me maybe I got me head up my butt lets try this
Phoenix is nice, but they’ve got serious water problems.
Don’t forget the heat I lived near Phoenix when it got to 122 one day and 120 the next and I did not have air conditioning in my car and I had a hour drive. Phew!
Heck, 120 °F?! I might as well go live in Kuwait City! No wonder McCain is said to be “hotheaded.”
Don, tell me, what U.S. states have you have *not* lived in?
We were thinking about moving out there because of the Mayo Clinic, and I would prefer the hill country north of Phoenix where the temperatures are much more moderate (and it snows).
I lived fifty miles north of Phoenix on the edge of Black Cannon City. It cools down nice at night although the days can be quite hot. I lived about 2500ft you need to get above 4000ft for a big cool down and occasional snow in the winter although every few years you might get snow down to 2000ft.
I think the Southeast part of Arizona is a much better choice. In Cochise and Santa Cruz county almost all of it runs about 3,000ft to over 5000 ft. It is about 15 degrees cooler than Phoenix in the Winter and only about 5 degree colder in the winter because it is further south. It seldom get above 100 F and it cools down in the 60’s almost every night in the summer due to a T-Storm. They get much more of them because of the summer monsoons. Property is also much cheaper than up toward Phoenix or Tucson. I have lived there twice and may move back there again if Diana stops working. If you live near Sierra Vista you have all the conveniences of a big city in a city of about 30,000 people. There is a lot of open spaces and some fantastic pine covered mountain ranges. It is the best kept secret in the entire South West
el nasrani there is a big army military intelligence center there and the army fort is where most of the jobs are that supports the population many are civilians. Sierra Vista is also the only area in that part of the Southeast Arizona that is still mostly white and not mostly Mexican Hispanics. Phoenix gets about a 100 days a year over 100 F and about 20 or 30 over 110F. You only spend much time outdoors in Phoenix in the summer in a pool or at night.
I have lived in Arizona, New York, Nevada, Missouri, Pennsylvania,Virginia and Kansas in that order of time spent. I have also visited most of the states except for most states in the deep South which I have little interest in due to the heat, humidity and bugs. Even Missouri is tough for me for that reason.
Sorry to join the discussion so late, so I hope another isn’t bad. On the secession issue, there was a group a few years ago that was trying to get a bunch of Christians to move to South Carolina for just this purpose. I don’t know whatever became of them. They were saying SC is a good place because it’s already a conservative state (In fact it may have been on your posts here Don, that I read a report of homos trying to tout SCas a gay friendly place and then getting the ads pulled since their constitution is already ‘legally’ defined appropriately) I’ve had just the same thoughts as you guys about our Nation not being able to last much longer with the polarization that’s so obvious. Out here in California, we’re already the minority, and if the ‘marriage’ amendment doesn’t pass in November, I think we’re done. I know out in New York (I’m originally from Albany), they recognize ‘unions’ from other states, but I don’t think gay ‘marriage’ is legal there yet.
Oh, here is the website for that group I was talking about. Apparently their homepage still works, but doesn’t look like it’s updated very often:
http://www.christianexodus.org
Beware though, I tried to join their mailing list or whatever and become a member of their message board, but was rejected without explanation. I even emailed and asked why, and was never even given an email back saying anything.
YOU PEOPLE ARE SCARY. THE ONLY FACISTS IN THIS COUNTRY ARE YOU HATE FILLED DEMAGOGUES. WHEN WILL YOU REALIZE THAT WE ARE EVOLVING INTO AN ERA OF TOLERANCE? OUR FOREFATHERS WANTED TO SEPERATE CHURCH AND STATE FOR GOOD REASON, SO WE CAN ALL BE FREE TO CHOOSE OUR OWN FAITH WITHOUT PEOPLE LIKE YOU SPEWING VENOM. JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOU DOES NOT MAKE THEM THE ANTI-CHRIST!
THANK GOD OBAMA WILL WIN IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS.
Yeah you look like your evolving into tolerance.
Which forefathers wanted to separate church and state and who said you cannot choose your own faith?
You failed to mention why we are spewing venom by telling you the truth about the Left that took over the Democratic Party?
Who said you were the Anti-Christ?
Your forefather said God will give a nation the leader they deserve. That is a scary thought.
Also, don’t count your chickens before they hatch Obama has not won yet. Who you going to thank if he loses? But even if Obama does win remember his prophet Biden said, “Barak Obama will need the help of community leaders to control the population as unpopular decisions are made and Americans resist “, he also said it will happen within six months. What can I say more scary than what Joe Biden said to celibate Halloween?
TJ, I believe your YELLING gives me some idea of your grasp of the concept of “tolerance.”
My venomometer when off-scale when I read your post.
Do you realize that what they were trying to avoid was the state creating its own church along the lines of the Church of England? No, I didn’t think so our you could not have made the comment you did.
There is absolutely nothing in our laws that forces you to accept one religious belief over another. There is not requirement that you belive or disbelieve the Christian world view. That fact that this is even possible (here in the the USA) is a tribute to the advanced degree of tolerance that Judeo-Christians have for others: While they believe theirs is the only way to God and they will tell people so, they are not holding a knife to others’ throats or starting bloody riots when people insult them.
Sometimes I wonder why we bother to reason with people like TJ. Oh yes, now I remember: Jesus said that God is not willing that any perish, but that all come to have eternal life. (John 3:16)
Hay Brett actually that verse is 2 Pe 3:9 In context that is the reason for the Lord’s delay in coming but once He comes it also implies the offer has ended and many will perish.
Oops! Cross-talk in the brain again! Sorry!
Thank God for secularism and separation of church and state. You people are as whacky as you are ignorant.
Why thank God He had nothing to do with man’s choice to separate Church and state and neither does our Constitution? It seems all your twisted “enlightenment” was given to you through secular brainwashing.
Bucky, where are we ignorant? From the posts I’ve seen on this topic, I’ve seen posters display quite a lot of (verifiable) learning. Since “ignorance” is defined as a lack of learning, I fail to see how you can honestly make that statement.
As for “whacky,” many of of will freely admit that we see the world and events differently than many secularists. Some of the things we talk about are intellectually accessible to anyone who can read a newspaper or newssite. Some things (such as some of our biblical references) may require that you understand our point of view; indeed, some of these things are not accessible at all to those who have not surrendered themselves to Jesus. So, let’s be charatibable as say “different & peculiar” for “whacky” (unless you’re trying to insult us).
Your statement “Thank God for secularism and separation of church and state.” Is problematic on a number of levels:
1. If you really had a relationship with God such that your thanks would make a difference to him, you wouldn’t be thanking Him for secularism.
2. “Separation of Church and State” is a distortion of our constitution’s first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What this is saying is that our govenment cannot establish a state church (like the Church of England). That is, to say that the state church is the church, and there is not other legitimate religious body. It does not imply, much less say that the government must be scrupulously “secular.” The only other place where this topic is touched upon is one of Thomas Jefferson’s letters, and he was not implying today’s interpretation of the “wall of separation.”
Moreover, “secularism” is itself a religion. While it does not accept the “supernatural,” it places humans and the state in the place of God, and demand the worship of the same. Secularism is a world view, just as any religion.
So, Bucky, what you really want is for our nation to have secularism as the state religion (which is jealous of our Judeo-Christian heritage). Secularists claim that Christians try to force their views on others, but that is precisely what secularists do. Secularists say that we (Christians) should not attempt to “legislate morality,” but that is exactly what legislation is: codified morallity; the only real question is who’s morality will be codified. Here, the secular (minority) has been aggressively changing our mores and laws to the detriment of the (majority) of non-secular people.
Good points, Brett. I’ve recently found an interesting article on this issue, that may be of interest to Bucky and people who hold similar beliefs:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/669337/the_founding_fathers_were_neither_deists.html?cat=37
Despite its title, it actually makes a good case against the belief that the Founding Fathers wanted to strictly separate Church and State. I guess it’s more appropriate to say they supported non-interference in each other’s affairs, like the Puritans in Britain did. And if you have any notion of history, it should be quite obvious why they were opposed to this union between world politics and religion. That is what Islam stands for, but not true Christianity (remember Christ said His Kingdom is not of this world?).
Several Founding Fathers held heterodox views that I entirely disapprove of (e.g. nontrinitarianism, universalism) but then again John Witherspoon was an ordained Presbyterian minister (thus a clergyman) and member of the Church of Scotland, and he did sign the U.S. Constitution. Some Founding Fathers were indeed freemasons, yet many others were not. But what difference does it make anyway? John Adam’s son who later became president himself was a member of the Anti-Masonic Party, go figure. The truth is that all these men, despite their differences, were united in a common cause. That cause was the advancement of liberty and sound principles, and the downfall of tyranny.
The French Revolution was profoundly anticlerical and look at what it produced despite its Enlightened ideals of Liberté, Egalité & Fraternité. They replaced the “unenlightened” absolutist tyranny by new tyranny, albeit an “enlightened” one… To this day, France tries to surpress any form of religion from politics to the point it just gets absurd. That is NOT what the U.S. Constitution intended (though some Founding Fathers were indeed sympathetic to the French Revolution).
Also:
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html
My apologies for going off-topic again.