You may howl your insistence to the moon, but case law cites the Declaration as precedent in determining that our rights are inherent within us, by way of the means I have given you. I will cede the point, but only because I wish to discuss it no further- we are at odds and not to be moved, and I do not wish to provide the laborious research necessary to provide the proofs to buttress what is otherwise simply my opinion- Research I have already done previously in the formation thereof...
As a parting shot, you may want to look up a guy named John Van Zandt, and his case defended before the SCOTUS. He was being tried for harboring fugitive slaves, AFAIR, and was successfully defended on the basis of the DOI- That freedom was God given, and above the jurisdiction of courts or any law abridging it without due process. I would look it up, but as I said, I am disinclined to follow it further. I remain thoroughly unconvinced, however.
[roamer_1:] for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God
Remember you are reading this in translation. Jealousy as an emotion is petty. God is not petty.
I reject your definition outright, and stand by the KJV translation. I guard my principles jealously. That is not a petty thing. It is right and proper for me to do so. Your supposition that "jealous" is used in it's ignoble sense, or that I assumed it as such is an interpretive problem of your own.
[...] 1 a: intolerant of rivalry or unfaithfulness 2: hostile toward a rival or one believed to enjoy an advantage 3: vigilant in guarding a possession (new colonies were jealous of their new independence — Scott Buchanan) Main Entry: jealous
1 b: disposed to suspect rivalry or unfaithfulness
As to the rest of your comments in this section, it is exactly this that I am pointing to as the unalterable course which will occur by taking Jehovah out of our law and out of our public square. Our laws mean nothing without the Judeo-Christian ethic under which they were written. Without that formal conscience, dutifully applied, humanism will not be defeated, and justice cannot return. The reason that is true, is that a secular state is the definition of humanism in the political sense.
Socratic reason is embodied more in Conservatism by way of Hebraic/Judaic thought and law, and thereby Christian thought and law espoused and inherited by way of England, than it is by the secular Republicanism born of France, as the primary instance.
The difference between the two, The US Constitution, and the Constitution of the French Republic, is precisely that the former recognized the Father, put itself under His care, built it's laws in deference to His Justice and allowed it's people freedom under His auspices, while the latter espoused freedom for the sake of freedom, relying wholly upon the reason of men, and rejecting God outright.
The first represents the free-est, most productive, most inventive, most giving, most blessed country on earth. The other has given us Human Secularism, which breeds Socialism, and then Communism and/or tyranny, and has given us two world wars. Yet it is this secular government which you would champion, the very infection which destroys us now, from within.
The ready evidence for my argument comes from the foundations of the documents- The inarguable primary reference for the US Constitution was Blackstone, whose deference to God in law is not only apparent, but obviously right. Blackstone not only served as foundational reference for our Framers, it also served as a reference for precedence until such time as our country had formed enough precedence of it's own. It was commonly cited even into the 1900's, and is used before the SCOTUS. In leaning so heavily upon our English roots in law and Parliament, our fathers drew upon an hardier root than the supposed "enlightenment" theories "discovered" in the 1700's.
The Declaration for the Rights of Man, however, and the constitution which followed it, carry forward the rotten fruits of European enlightenment- Taking influence from the US formative documents, to be sure, and even the presence of Thomas Jefferson, but bastardizing it all with the influence of the likes of Rousseau to form European Secular Humanism. To wit: Rights are inherent in Man, not endowed upon him, and they are invariably ceded to the state for the greater good.
That is where the secular state must always lead, because even as a benevolent government, with no recognition of Authority above it, and as the sole arbiter of the rights and needs of the people beneath it, it's assumed powers must invariably work to increase it's estate; whatever checks and balances it may have work together to increase themselves collectively as it is in their own interest over the power of the people to do so. Since the purveyors of such pap suppose the power of government provides equality to the people, such increases are always considered to be in the peoples' favor... And so it goes.
The latter is *not*, nor has it ever been the root of the American Republic, and the distinction between the two is readily apparent and immense.
The "Christian" right is more along the size you already defined.. perhaps 30M voters. Other folks who are Conservative but do not identify as "Christian Right" make up the rest of 55 to 60 Million we have seen turn out in the recent several presidential elections. Keep it real.
There, in a nutshell, is why the Republicans are fighting for tiny percentage points instead of swamping the liberals. You have no idea, and seriously only look at the numbers from one election to the next, never bothering to add up the attrition, and never bothering to calculate the natural increases. The Christian Right has babies... Lots of them... yet their numbers, 30m never have increased. Their numbers are always growing statistically- New believers always coming online, converts fleeing the liberal churches, learning the ways of the social conservatives- yet 30m is all they ever muster for the Pubs...
I was 1 Reaganite in 1980. In a generation, I will be 6 solid, hard right Reaganites, with at least 12 grandchildren on the way. How many generations came of age between? Yet you are content to believe than the unchanging value of the Christian Right has been 30m since the 80's, and will always be so.
In fact, the Conservatives should have easily doubled in the time since Reagan, particularly the Christians. It is far more likely that the Republicans have lost them, even as they have lost their way since '94, and I am but the tip of an iceberg. A Limbaugh-like "See, I Told You So" moment awaits, but alas, a new party will probably have to get all that credit.
[roamer_1:] Oh really? Why don't you just tick off for me all the thing the Republicans have done for the Christian Right in the last 27 years? And for the Conservatives at large for that matter?
Gosh I have heard this more often than I would like. I heard it used as a justification to vote for Obama.. and it is just a pile of crap. I will use Kennedy's quote. "Ask not what the Republican Party can do for you, Ask what you can do for the Republican Party."
Screw that noise. I will *not* lend my support to socialists governing from the right, and neither, quite obviously will the remainder of my fellows- those few that still vote for you.
This gets at the fact that the "Religious Right" offers far to often to take its toys and play by itself. And this unreliability becomes a situation where those who need to make decisions discount this block.
It always amazes me how the liberals, barely 30% of the electorate can do what they do, but they always cater to their base. Maybe not as far as their base would like, but it always gets pushed along. Yet when I ask you what the Pubs have done for us, it's base, you cannot answer me (because the answer is close to *nothing*), and basically tell me to shut up and vote.
The Conservatives, all of them, are as reliable as the sun. All Republicans have ever needed to do is offer Conservatives for us to vote *for*. That is the agreement we entered into with you, via Reagan, and it is not we who have been unreliable allies in that agreement. That has been the Republicans.
ANY Republican of good character, who can be proven in his record to uphold the traditional Republican platform and espouses traditional Republican positions, held since Reagan, are sure to get Conservative support- Conservatives will move heaven and earth to elect such a man. And he will win because of it. But that is *not* what we are given.
Now, if the Republicans would care for it's base with half the determination of the left, if it would defend us from liberalism, and promote Conservative values which is why we put them in power, they would be there even yet. So don't come crying to me about unreliability until you can show me Republicans doing their jobs instead of colluding with socialists.
The Conservative Base in its fury at Republicans in Congress that could be "played" by the Democrats to their advantage has given us a Congressional Majority of freaks and kooks, because this knee-jerk behavior of the "Christian Right" is predictable and useful against the Republican Party.
Bullcrap. It certainly is predictable that Conservatives will refuse to reward poor performance, bad behavior, and sleeping with the enemy. I know Pubbies chaff at the fact that they are held to ethics and standards, and wish to be free of them. Fine. But don't cry when Conservatives refuse to support you then. That was not in our agreement.
Sarah Palin is a much more important figure, because rather than being Miss Walkaway, she engages in trench warfare.
Sarah Palin is much ado about nothing. I will predict right here that she will not carry the Conservatives anywhere.
In many states, the idea of stealing seats from Democrats is bizarre. Why, because Republicans have forgotten their core message and ceased to believe in themselves.
No, Republicans are corrupt, insipid, and without principle. They care more about electability and filthy mammon than they do about the truth. Their "core message" was discarded before Regan even stepped down. They have been stifling the faithful ever since.
My advice was to seed the population with faith and then let faith guide us out of our morass. How can you translate that into this bizarre screed against Republican's.
That is because the population was seeded with faith. Reagan accomplished that, and brought Social Conservatives to the table, brought God back into the political sphere. It was part and parcel, joined to Conservatism. And the people cheered. The people ROARED their approval. All Republicans had to do was follow the program, and keep faith with the people.
You are behaving and thinking irrationally and like a loser.. and a loser you shall continue to be until you find your way.
ROTFLMAO!!! I am not a loser!!! LOL! I had nothing at stake to lose. If me and mine are not represented, we have nothing to lose in going elsewhere and supporting otherwise. No, I am quite comfortable with my decisions this season. I am happy to have been a thorn in the side of the traitorous bastard McCain, and I am quite content to force the failure of the Republicans as well. I am also happy to have supported Alan Keyes through the general election, having supported my principles and my conscience fully.
As a Conservative, I will oppose socialism regardless of the party, and I have developed a particular and abiding annoyance for Globalist Republicans. I will rise to oppose them especially, as I consider them a greater enemy to this nation than the liberals on the left, as they stand in the bulwarks of the loyal opposition, pretending to oppose, when all the while they collude and allow.
Be very clear, I do not merely leave the Republicans- I will rise to oppose them, here and everywhere, with every joint and sinew. And if my position can be magnified through the AIP or another suitable party, then there is where I will certainly go.
You see, I am way past "off the reservation". I could really give a damn what your party thinks about anything. It is without honor or principle. I am in full fledged opposition to you, and will remain so.
And as to the twenty years in the wilderness if we break Republican ranks: it would do you well to remember the lesson of the Whigs. They were removed nearly completely within two election cycles, and brought the Republicans into power, standing on their political grave. Do not dream that the feckless Republicans do not deserve the same.
Not howling. Just stating fact. Drop it. Boring.
I reject your definition outright.
More Boring. What do I care if you accept or reject my definition. What do I care if you "cling to the King James Version" Gees.
hostile toward a rival or one believed to enjoy an advantage
What rival does the Master of Might recognize? Any question of worshiping false Gods is not about any sense of rivalry between the "One true God of All" and any other human folly. Instead, God directs not to choose the way of error because evil grows from error.
The latter is *not*, nor has it ever been the root of the American Republic, and the distinction between the two is readily apparent and immense.
Uh.. just an elaborate restatement of what I said. The point being that God is an assumption for our system of laws and this is what makes America special. Yet, when you attempt to specify the sect and the "allowed" definition of one group over all others, than you introduce a folly into this powerful design. You are more than happy to attempt to engage in this folly and thus are a fool.
Instead, it is the vast agreement of the polity laughs at absurd attempts to remove all religious reference as a means of "leveling" the playing field that has provided a firewall against changing the American system into the French.
It is a frustrating situation but, when you have to argue the Judeo-Christian roots, you are already defeated. The argument itself equates to an attempt at establishment. This logic has been confounding to people of faith who understand the evil that is possible for attempting to change the underlying assumptions of our form of government from flowing from God's grace to flowing from the Dignity of Men. Yet, as such, having to make the argument signifies the very weakness that it attempts to correct. The problem is the greater loss of consensus of faith in American Community as a whole. Thus the appropriate and successful answer is to work toward re-establishing this greater consensus. This aiming at a goal where non-sectarian expressions of faith in the public square once again become "cool". Yet, once again, those attempting to establish directly sectarian expressions of faith in an attempt to push the proverbial "camel's nose" under the tent are bound to hit extreme opposition. The problem being attempting to establish a consensus from a minority position. Which I have identified over and over as overreach.
You have no idea, and seriously only look at the numbers from one election to the next, never bothering to add up the attrition, and never bothering to calculate the natural increases
This whole piece of the discussion flows from you attempting to blather something out of nothing.. the original 30M number was yours. I agreed and you proceeded to try to say that your own number was faulty. This is lame and a waste of time.
Republicans understand that the Black and Latino community as a whole tend to share most of the philosophical basis as the Conservative movement, but that tradition and calumnies pushed by the press and the Democrat party have kept these communities acting in opposition to the greater consensus and their own self interests.
The concession of the organs of communication and the halls of academia created this situation so that claiming majority representation in these institutions should be a core mission of the faithful.
I will *not* lend my support to socialists governing from the right
So instead, you lend your support to the socialists that propose governing from the left. Walk away, walk away.. and you wonder why those who are left make the rules. Walk away as far and as fast and you like and you will always not be represented. Its your choice. Its your foolishness that causes your pain. The Democrats claimed a majority by getting "Yellow Dog" Democrats elected running to the "right" of incumbant Republicans in races where the Republican was clearly conservative. These "Yellow Dogs" vote with the Democrats 70% of the time and give the Democrats leadership 100% of the time. They have chosen to live with the pain of DINO's. Because they wanted power. We have no power and insisting that we cannot live with anything other than purity will assure us 35% of the seats in both Houses of Congress. And thus, leaving our views and agendas dead in the water. This is what you get for your idiocy.
Republicans have no clue how to get the Reagan Coalition back together and all of this posturing and haughtiness is not the way. We also know that trying to be Democrat light isn't the way. Sarah Palin scares the Democrats because she represents a stunning new attack. Republicans have become Joe six-pack. The elite have lost their faith and lost God's grace through their inability to discern what is good and valuable for society. Thus, they are suckered into delusions and hoaxes such as Global Warming and Gay marriage as values. America could and should be able to turn these propositions away with the laughter that they truly deserve, but instead, this stupidity gets a serious hearing.
The left spins the idea that a man should be able to run for President without needing to show his basic records of qualification. This should be laughed out of existence but yet, instead we accept we should fight to force these disclosures. What insanity.
The left is ripe to be exposed by derision and comedy. And, this is part of the way back. Laughing at jackasses.
Don't be one of them.
Sarah Palin is much ado about nothing. I will predict right here that she will not carry the Conservatives anywhere.
And once again, you violate the maxim about keeping your own counsel and rather than removing all doubt about your seriousness. Gees. Good luck with that. Back to being boring. You just expose yourself as being so out of touch with reality as to not merit the time to correct. Which gets to the heart of the balance of this tirade you propose as reasoned disposition. Boring. While facing all but complete loss of power, you wish to damage your own party more. You say Republicans are corrupt and ignore the Criminals you have elected who now claim that they do not even have to attempt lawful behavior because good people such as yourself will always give them a pass while insisting that each and every Republican be a Saint in every way. You are Saul Alinsky's bitch.