Does Size Matter?

The current crop of so called, tea bagging, neo-conservative, Republicans and their views—are in truth libertarian views—that would trample the rights of many. They have rewritten history with slick marketing, and blatant lies—none more damaging to our Democratic Republic than—"the size of our government is too big."

These Special Interest driven, Libertarian theories, are more Darwinian in nature and predatory in execution—a "survival of the fittest" mentality that preys on the weakest and most vulnerable. They exalt in their hubris and greed and protect themselves and their special interests by persuading congress with large campaign contributions, into privatizing and deregulating our government. The net result was banks could prey on the people with predatory lending, exorbitant interest rates and service fees as examples—forcing this nation into near bankruptcy. And then unabashedly, they're bought and paid for congress, stood firmly as a block against the Democratic efforts to re-establish financial reform regulations. They are the worst fear of the founding fathers coming true.

The founders saw the establishment of government as a matter of practicality—its establishment sprang from the belief that the (virtuous) people could and should govern themselves and the bedrock foundation of government, should be based on absolute moral and civic virtue. In other words the absolute necessity to do what is morally right for "promoting the general welfare." They were driven by the ideal that the government should be a neutral arbiter of what was just and morally right. Impartial to a fault.

However the founders were torn by the reality of the human nature at its absolute worst—and whether the ideal they envisioned—a government of the (virtuous) people, by the (virtuous) people, and for the (virtuous) people—was achievable.

Their careful inclusion of the intricate system of checks and balances, which we now take for granted was their best effort to ensure that those ideals would survive the onslaught of a minority or majority of corrupt, self serving men. That fear and apprehension was best expressed in The Federalist #10 by James Madison, writing under the pseudonym of Publius—he expressed his fear that "the greatest danger to a democratic republican form of government was the tyranny of a minority or of a majority faction." In today's terminology a faction would be a special interest group, who either as a majority or a minority would put their own interest above what is just and right for either another group of citizens or even the greater good of the nation.

What Madison said about the size of Government.

Madison recognized that a small democracy cannot avoid the dangers of majority faction because, "small size means that undesirable passions can very easily spread to a majority of the people, which can then enact its will through the democratic government without difficulty. He then makes an argument in favor of a large republic against a small republic for the choice of “fit characters” (representatives) to represent the public’s voice. In a large republic where the number of voters and candidates is greater, the probability to elect competent representatives is broader. The voters have a wider option. In a small republic it would also be easier for the candidates to fool the voters, while in a large one, harder."

Madison goes on in favor of a large republic, and explains that, "in a small republic there will be a lower variety of interests and parties, so more frequently a majority will be found. The number of participants of that majority, will be lower, and considering they live in a more limited territory, it would be easier for them to agree and work together for the accomplishment of their ideas. While in a large republic the variety of interests will be greater so to make it harder to find a majority. Even if there is a majority it would be harder for them to work together because of the large number of people and the fact they are spread out in a wider territory."

The fact that Madison's view was adopted as the majority view—that a large powerful robust government is the best protection against the corrupt self serving nature of man—is evident in the Constitution, as it was written, and flies in the face of the lie that our government is "too large."

Commentary: Our founding fathers did discuss the size and tone of the government, and knew that size does matter. The bigger and more robust the better. The Republican attempts to privatize and deregulate the government is nothing short of treachery. And makes a mockery of their so called, "love for the Constitution" and phony patriotism, when they are steadily trying to undermine our government at every turn.

"Hate Speech and Incitement to Violence"

The violent attempted assassination of a Congresswoman Gifford in Tucson Arizona is an obvious result and precursor to the Right's escalating hatred of all things progressive. The Right backpedaled quickly disclaiming any connection to their inflammatory rhetoric, but make no mistake the seeds have been planted in the minds of the easily persuaded gun-toting, "dittoheads" and the pot is about to boil over. The incitement to violence by hateful speech is defined as, any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. What could be more hateful then putting a bull's-eye along with the name of the person targeted and where they reside.

This is an article from CommonDreams.org—reprinted in its entirety here—echos many of the same conclusions I have come to after much thought about the political climate in this country.


Published on Friday, January 14, 2011 by CommonDreams.org

Is Fascism Lurking?

by Danny Schechter

Fascism is one of those words that sounds like it belongs in the past, conjuring up, as it does, marching jack boots in the streets, charismatic demagogues like Italy's Mussolini or Spain's Franco and armed crackdowns on dissent and freedom of expression.

It is a term we are used to reading in histories about World War II--not in news stories from present day America.

And yet the word, and the dark reality behind it, is creeping into popular contemporary usage.

Radical activists on the left have never been hesitant to label their opponents with this "F word" whenever governments support laws that limit opposition or overdo national security or abuse human rights. Government paranoia turns critics paranoid.

One example: writer Naomi Wolf forecast fascism creeping into America during the Bush years accelerated by the erosion of democracy, writing:

"It is my argument that, beneath our very noses, George Bush and his administration are using time-tested tactics to close down an open society. It is time for us to be willing to think the unthinkable - as the author and political journalist Joe Conason, has put it, that it can happen here."

Wolf feared Americans couldn't see the warning signs:

"Because Americans like me were born in freedom, we have a hard time even considering that it is possible for us to become as unfree - domestically - as many other nations. Because we no longer learn much about our rights or our system of government - the task of being aware of the constitution has been outsourced from citizens' ownership to being the domain of professionals such as lawyers and professors - we scarcely recognize the checks and balances that the founders put in place, even as they are being systematically dismantled. Because we don't learn much about European history, the setting up of a department of "homeland" security - remember who else was keen on the word "homeland" - didn't raise the alarm bells it might have."

Now, those bells are now being rung by John Hall, an outgoing Democratic Congressman from upstate New York. His fear of fascism has less to do with repressive laws and militarism than the influx of corporate money into politics, swamping it with special interests that buy influence for right wing policies and politicians.

"I learned when I was in social studies class in school that corporate ownership or corporate control of government is called Fascism," he told the New York Observer. "So that's really the question-- is that the destination if this court decision goes unchecked?"

Reports New York's Observer, "The court decision he is referring to is Citizens United, the controversial Supreme Court ruling that led to greater corporate spending in the midterm elections, much of it anonymous. In the wake of the decision, Democrats tried to pass the DISCLOSE Act, which would have mandated that corporate donors identify themselves in their advertising, but the measure failed amid GOP opposition. Ads from groups with anonymous donors were particularly prone to misleading or false claims."

Hall said the influx of corporate money in the wake of Citizens United handed the House of Representatives to Republicans. "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power."

Many in mainstream politics who understand that big money can dominate elections although not in every case share Hall's fears. In California, two well-known female candidates from the corporate world raised millions but still went down in defeat.

So money alone is not the be all and end all of a shift towards a red white and blue brand of fascism. Other ingredients are needed and some may be on the way-like an economic collapse, defeat in foreign wars, rise in domestic terrorism and the emergence of a right-wing populist movement that puts order before justice and wants to crush its opponents

Some argue we have just such a movement in the Tea Party although other critics focus on the rise of the Christian right that promotes fundamentalist politics in the name of God.

The Tea Party is not just after Democrats; it has started a campaign against the liberal Methodist Church. It is not internally democratic either with no elected officers or set of by by-laws. It seems to be managed and manipulated by shadowy political operatives and PR firms, financed by a few billionaires who support populism to defang it.

Already militias are forming because of fears of immigration, and there is also concern that if unemployment remains high there is likely to be more violence with police forces understaffed because of government cutbacks. Gun sales went up after the recent violent incidents in Arizona.

The erosion of economic stability with the rise of foreclosures and the shredding of social services is already turning a financial crisis into a social one.

We already have sharp partisan divide and inflation of hateful rhetoric with vicious putdowns of the President and condemnations by members of Congress calling him corrupt, even a traitor.

According to set of the characteristics of fascist nations, there is "a disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

"In place of human rights enemies are turned into scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists." This process is already far along in the USA.

Among the classical characteristics of fascism is a shutting down of debate and a focus on the state--which in our country is controlled by lobbyists and private interests. Wall Street and the military-industrial complex have far more clout than elected officials.

In the past, during the depression, there was a plot to overthrow Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was exposed and neutered. Could something like that happen again?

Maybe it doesn't have to, what with hawks already in control of Congress, major media outlets, the military and poised to slash the power of unions and curb progressive social programs including public education.

Several writers believe that if and when fascism comes to America it will be packaged in a friendly form tied to beneficial advertising slogans and public interest messaging. It will be sold, 1984-style as being unavoidable, even cool, and in our best interest.

Louisiana Senator Huey Long, a mesmerizing agitator, once said, "Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism."

Mediachannel’s News Dissector Danny Schechter investigates the origins of the economic crisis in his new book Plunder: Investigating Our Economic Calamity and the Subprime Scandal (Cosimo Books via Amazon). Comments to dissector@mediachannel.org

Commentary: A reader of this article on CommonDreams.org, asked a question of another poster who had made this observation: "Wars and military expansion can go on for about 7 years before they start costing more than they contribute to the economy." The posters response in part was: Q. We've been at our wars for nearly 11yrs now, when do we stop? My response was: A. When they have bankrupted the country and panic sets in, after people realize how dependent they are on credit which is no longer flowing. We are the frogs in a slowly warming kettle. I believe that the massive tax cut for the rich, two wars, the part D corporate welfare bill, and the dubious last minute collapse of the financial system, was a deliberate way to skim trillions of dollars out of the economy and assured the Radical Right would get another crack at imposing an even more drastic authoritarian regime when the country devolves into open conflict. Its closer than you think. Fascism is not lurking in the shadows anymore—it has found it's scapegoats, the left and all things liberal—and it is rearing its ugly violent hate filled head here in America—and is about to devour this Democratic Republic.

A Passing of Angels...Anne Lind September 10, 1922 - December 25, 2010

Anne (Dullea) Lind passed away on Saturday, December 25, 2010 at the Medical Center in Reno, NV at the age of 88.

As a teenager, I became best friends with Anne's son, Kevin. What stands out in my memory was how Anne's eyes lit up when anyone approached her, the warmth of her smile would embrace you even before she hugged you.

Her son, Kevin, became like a brother to me, and Anne my surrogate mom. In the years after graduation, over time and distance, our contacts became less frequent. But, Anne was faithful, and every year we received her Christmas Letter, with all the news that had happened in the previous year, it followed us like a thread, and remained a constant connection, that often brought back cherished memories I had shared with her family.


I remember one Christmas Letter in particular, she sent an article about my maternal grandfather Michael Fitzgerald, who I had been named after but had never met. That was Anne...thoughtful, kind, and generous with her time and affection. My wife Shellie became concerned when we didn't get her letter this year and felt in her heart that something must be wrong.

Smart, funny, bright: Anne won many contests with her skill as a writer. I don't remember what the prizes were, or how many, but some were esoteric to say the least, and she poked fun at her self if you made too much of her prowess. And she would regale you with the time she won a cow and 500 pounds of butter, or some such odd tidbit. And then she'd smile. She loved to ambush you with her humor. The butter is my invention, but, I think she did actually win a cow.

She was devoted to her husband, Clarence, who was the neighborhood fix-it man. He was from an era when a man's basement and garage were his absolute domain. Clarence could...and did... repair almost any item he came across. He is the epitome of a gentleman. Quite, unassuming, I know, that he was Anne's rock. Steady and patient he doted on Anne, and she on him. If Anne was my surrogate mom; Clarence is my surrogate dad; and Ed, my older brother. I love them all.

The last time I saw Anne and Clarence was the day before they moved to Reno to live with Ed and Irene. The first thing she said with a big smile was, "You were on my bucket list." It shocked me to hear that, but as it sunk in, I was honored to be among one of the last people she wanted to see before she passed.

I didn't say it then, but, Anne and Clarence, you were at the very top of my bucket list too.
Love Mike

An Irish Funeral Prayer

Death is nothing at all.
It does not count.
I have only slipped away into the next room.
Everything remains as it was.
The old life that we lived so fondly together is untouched, unchanged.
Whatever we were to each other, that we are still.
Call me by the old familiar name.
Speak of me in the easy way which you always used.
Put no sorrow in your tone.
Laugh as we always laughed at the little jokes that we enjoyed together.
Play, smile, think of me, pray for me.
Let my name be ever the household word that it always was.
Let it be spoken without effort
Life means all that it ever meant. It is the same as it ever was.
There is unbroken continuity.
Why should I be out of mind because I am out of sight?
I am but waiting for you, for an interval, somewhere very near, just around the corner.
All is well. Nothing is hurt; nothing is lost.
One brief moment and all will be as it was before.
How we shall laugh at the trouble of parting, when we meet again.

by Henry Scott Holland

The Big Lie: What's Wrong With This Picture?

When the ratio of debt to income is out of balance in our households, we either need to raise the income level by getting a part time job that gives us the ability to service the debt or cut our debt by reducing our spending—in a perfect world we try to do both at the same time. The same is true of any organization public, private or government.

Here's the problem with the current so called National Debt Crisis—its not going to be cured by the Republicans' NO NEW TAX Plan, because it eliminates one half of the ability to solve the problem. They claim that by raising taxes on the wealthy that the economic recovery will stall. When Bush cut the nominal tax rate for the wealthy and simultaneously increased spending by several trillion dollars he forgot that someone has to pay the bills. Every dollar he spent on a needless war in Iraq and a Part D drug program that benefited the drug companies—was a dollar we didn't have and had to borrow because the wealthy sure has hell weren't going to pay for it. They were getting filthy rich with no-bid war contracts, but, what fun would all those big profits be if you had to pay taxes —I'll wrap my big fat capitalist ass in the g-d damn flag but somebody else can pay for the g-d damn war.

On top of everything else—he also signed the Republican bill that deregulated the banking industry. Fast forward to today ten years and trillions of dollars later and we have had a, "come to Jesus economic crisis". So, here's my question if cutting taxes is the answer to keeping the economy in a sustained recovery—why did the economy fail in the first place?

In other words if it didn't work when they implemented the tax cut and the economy failed so miserably—why will extending the tax cuts work now. Two words—it won't. The big lie is, extending the tax cuts will save the economy. It will not—it will have the opposite effect. Remember the trickle down theory; when the rich get really stinking filthy rich the benefits will eventually reach all Americans. Bush senior called it voodoo economics when Reagan proposed it and it still is voodoo economics today.

The Republicans are singing a one note song—that frankly I don't understand how anyone with half a brain could fall for. I guess no-one is really paying all that much attention, at least it didn't look like it this last election cycle. The Tea Bagging Rabid Republicans took their victory as a sign from the gods of hubris and greed that they have been given carte blanche to gut every social program in government while extending the entitlements for the rich. What is truly amazing is that a recent post-election poll showed that over fifty percent of Americans—like most of the the Health Care Reform Bill—which is what the the Republicans claimed was their basis of their victory—a ground swell of anti Obama Care sentiment. WTF were Americans thinking?
What is particularly galling is that this morning two proposals were introduced to break the dead lock over the tax cut extensions, both were defeated by a minority that blocked their debate by a closure vote. An idiotic Senate rule that blocks even the discussion of a bill unless it receives 60 votes.

And on top of that, in a, the American middle-class can go to hell vote—The Republicans said no to two million unemployed American families who are losing their unemployment benefits unless you give tax breaks on every dollar of income to 375 thousand families that make over a million dollars. Even David Stockman Reagan's Economic Advisor said that the extension of the tax cuts is economic suicide:

Here is an excerpt from a recent interview:
IF there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation’s public debt — if honestly reckoned to include municipal bonds and the $7 trillion of new deficits baked into the cake through 2015 — will soon reach $18 trillion. That’s a Greece-scale 120 percent of gross domestic product, and fairly screams out for austerity and sacrifice. It is therefore unseemly for the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, to insist that the nation’s wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase.
More fundamentally, Mr. McConnell’s stand puts the lie to the Republican pretense that its new monetarist and supply-side doctrines are rooted in its traditional financial philosophy. Republicans used to believe that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts — in government, in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial affairs of private households and businesses, too. But the new catechism, as practiced by Republican policymakers for decades now, has amounted to little more than money printing and deficit finance — vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes.

Commentary: The main reasons a Democratic Republic fails is that the electorate are uninformed or misinformed and fail to exercise their voice by voting. If you didn't vote you should be very ashamed. If you were swayed to vote against your own interests by the swill the Republicans were peddling—you should enroll in a remedial course for critical thinking. If you were just to lazy to get your ass to the polling place you should relinquish your citizenship and move somewhere else, there are millions of immigrants that would do a hell of a better job than you at being an American and practicing their civic duty. If you didn't vote because you were pissed at the President for his shortcomings—go f%*k yourself because you just f%*k'd everyone else that isn't an egocentric p$@?k.

The Rise and Fall of the American Republic

We are slowly, but surly, being stripped of any meaningful voice in our government.
From the introduction of electronic voting machines*, that can be easily manipulated and programed into giving false results—and that are impossible to verify (they leave no paper trail)—to the creation of bogus misleading "Grassroots Citizens Groups" that are bought and paid for by corporations" that demonize of our government who are bent on privatizing every function of our government for their own financial gain—to the ability of corporations to sway our fundamental right to choose who represents us with ads...that represent no one, but some unnamed special interest.

Recently, I saw an that attack ad on a democratic member of the house, paid for by the Republican National Committee. It's hook was, "Earl Pomeroy is not "our" representative anymore." Having been advertising for forty plus years I recognized the hyperbole of that statement. The ad was made in a different state by people that have never lived in North Dakota, funded by the RNC, so in a very real sense he never was or could have been "their" elected representative. Yet their misleading message implied that this was the considered opinion of the majority of North Dakotans who had elected him to represent them in successive terms. Had they been wrong? Who were these nameless minions of discontent? What sudden revelation informed them that Good ol' Earl had betrayed his fellow North Dakotans? The point is, this is the kind of garbage that passes for political debate in America, when we allow unfettered financial intrusions into local politics.

The Assent of Special Interests and Decline of the Individual American Citizen.
The banking system failure is a prime example of the duplicity of the "right" and the corrupting effect that special interests have on our politics. Special interests (banking lobbyists) bought the votes to do away with the Glass Segall Act—which had protected us since the 1929 banking collapse—from banks becoming monopolies at the expense of the ordinary American taxpayer. Special interest groups bought votes to allow the country to be privatized and deregulated at the expense of the ordinary American taxpayer. Special interest groups bought votes to build an obscene corporate welfare system that allows corporations to out source American jobs and get paid for it with gargantuan tax breaks at the expense of the ordinary American taxpayer. The outcome? Through its own hubris, by the time the banking system failed catastrophically, it had become so powerful its collapse would bring down the entire system at the expense of the ordinary American taxpayer.

Who engineered the deregulation debacle through Congress over the fourteen successive years they were in power, beginning with "Saint Ronnie"? The Republicans with their 1994 misleading Contract With America. It should have been titled "Contract With the Multi-National Corporations of the World".

Keeping in mind that more honestly retitled document— and the Republican agenda—the Republicans began to systematically dismantle scores of regulatory safeguards and appoint a rigid right wing majority to the Supreme Court who recently decided to allow all corporations—both American and Foreign, the Supreme Court did not see fit to differentiate between the two—to plow as much money as they can raise into American elections, making for a an extreme change in the future of American politics and not for the better. Since that ruling there have been two developments that are alarming.

1. Karl Rove's American Crossroads Group will plow another $4.2 million into eight key Senate races, including Nevada, Illinois, and Pennsylvania.
2. Associated Press just reported that national Republicans are making a massive $2 million TV buy to try to topple Democratic champion Barbara Boxer. They're hoping a tidal wave of attack ads can wash away Boxer's lead over failed HP CEO Carly Fiorina.

What is at Stake?
The very idea that this nation was founded on is at stake: One person-one vote has been turned on its head the Supreme Courts ruling—allowing corporations to influence our elections out of all proportion—is another nail in the coffin of this failing American Republic. In other words, American's right to elect representatives who truly represent their interests and promote the general welfare, has been usurped by private corporations, who narrowly promote their self interests, which means their profits and their ability to privatize our government into oblivion.

Its not whether it can be done, its how will it be done in America. The history of Nazi Germany and fascist Italy followed a similar pattern in the prelude to World War II. Their methods were to create fear and discontent over the looming financial crisis, manufacture a scapegoats to vent those fears upon; turn the average citizens concerns into fanatical followers, fuel their hatred, point out their predetermined scapegoats, appointed themselves as the saviors by making powerful alliances with German industrialists, make claims of racial superiority, and a start preemptive war, one that consumed the entire world. It was called Fascism and its still alive and prospering here in a America. The recipe is the same and as Herman Goering stated at his trial in Nuremberg: "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Substitute gays, liberals, and commies for Jews, and you have your scapegoats, throw on the fuel of hatred by encouraging the inflammatory rhetoric of fanatical right wing talking heads, add the "War on Terror" that feeds the military industrial complex with billions of dollars, cut the taxes of the richest—which cuts off government revenue; deregulate and privatize ever function of government giving absolute financial power to the richest few; create as much confusion as possible with misleading ads; control the mechanics of the elective process; appoint puppet judges; stifle open descent by labeling your opponents as unpatriotic; liars; traitors, and liberals who want your money thus marginalizing your opponents. I could go on, but I think the point is obvious—these are all things that have been happening and escalating right here in America for the last twenty years.

Let History Be Our Guide.
The history of every period in human existence is fraught with "antichrists" and petty demigods, who want to control everything and everyone, the exact thing that our forefathers fought and died to preserve—our freedom to be who you are without fear from the megalomaniacal tyrants and despots live among us. That is the entire premise of —"a government by the people and for the people". Nothing has changed in human nature since the first human walked on the face of the earth. Trust me, there are still men that want absolute power to control our lives and our deaths if we are no value to them. There are truly evil and cunning men amongst us, that would take away our freedoms, and our lives, if we let them.

We have become victims of our own apathy. We are sheep being led to slaughter by the Judas goats—of the far right on FAUX NEWS. We have been sold out to every corporation with global aspirations. China owns us. Who sold us to them? We have been seduced by false patriots wrapped in the the American flag, the pied pipers of commerce have sold us lock-stock-and-barrel.

We have forgotten that—"we the people"—are our own government.
That is until and unless we are duped into giving it away to the greedy selfish among us who could care less about you and I—in a word to special interest groups that pump out malicious propaganda that would make a Nazi-like Joseph Goebbel's blush with envy. We are being lied to and manipulated—by the rich and powerful—into hating one another with false issues, that they use to divide us—a hint: substitute gays for Jews; burning the flag; "American Values"; These are not real issues they are code words that divide us. They are sound bites meant to inflame us and diminish our ability to make sound rational choices—while special interests steal our heritage and the legacy of the founders. It is true that the founders hated the idea of government, but knew in their wisdom that government was needed to protect us from the powerful, cunning, greedy among us. It is true that the founders disliked taxes, but knew they needed revenue to make this country an economic marvel. Washington even put down a rebellion that protested a whiskey tax. We have forgotten the lessons of previous generations who admonished us that a "nation divided can not stand." We have forgotten that a well informed public is the only guardian of our true liberties and is exercised by our individual right to vote. We have forgotten and neglected our right and duty to be active in our own governance, a right that our forefathers won for us with their blood and their treasure. Benjamin Franklin may have set that duty in the clearest light when he replied to a woman that asked, "What have you given us?" He replied, "a Republic, if you can keep it madam?"
The Anger in American politics is real and justified.
We've been lied to and hoodwinked by elected leaders, but I believe that the current anger is terribly misdirected by the same self serving bastards that created this mess. They have employed every dirty trick to stall and discredit the current administration, all the while not even acknowledging their own culpability in the creation of the disaster. But they are now saying just trust us, we have more of the same failed policies by refocusing the anger, they have manufactured in a slight of hand performance worthy of Houdini. It reminds me of my childhood when one of my siblings, or I, would create chaos and then sit back with a smirk enjoying the infliction of punishment on an innocent party. The problem is this is no childhood game of misdirection the real consequences are the Decline and Fall of this Republic, which too many good men have died to preserve.
A sacred trust has been given to Us.
The founders trusted that as free men and women, we could by our own mind and spirits, govern ourselves free of tyranny and despots. Unless we become involved and awaken to the real game being played we will forever relinquish those rights, and be enslaved by the rich who think nothing of our god given right to be free and full participants in this nations future.

I urge you strongly to inform yourself, if you are a true Independent, as I am, please consider the following and ask yourself:

Q. Who has cost this country more jobs? Republicans or Democrats?
A.













http://politicalirony.com/2010/02/06/jobs-lost-bush-v-obama/

Q. Who's lying: the Bureau of Labor statistics, or The Republicans?

Q. Who has stacked the Supreme Court with politically motivated Judges through twenty years in office?

Q. Why did the Republicans lead the fight to block financial reforms after they brought this country to the brink of financial collapse?
a) Their motives were prompted by real political principals and policies that were proven to be incorrect. And, they are sorry.
b) They have sold out?

Q. Why has the "loyal opposition" blocked appointments of critical government positions "carte blanche"?

Q. Why did the "loyal opposition" block bills from even coming to the floor for honest debate on a whole range of issues such as?:
• Small Business Tax Relief: which generates 80 to 90 percent of American Jobs
• Campaign Disclosures: which would let the American public see who is behind their
misleading attack ads;
• BP Liabilities: which should be held accountable for a disaster of their making;
• Block Circuit Court Appointees: who aren't fascists enough, in other words anyone that
doesn't agree we their right winged ideologies;
• The Defense Bill: which funds wars they started and in which our sons and daughters are dying;
• Corporations That Out Sourcing American Jobs: and then receive huge tax benefits at our expense;
• Emergency Unemployment Benefits: For the people they put out of work;
• Housing Relief Package: For people who are out of work and can't pay their mortgage;
• Taxing Windfall profits of Big Oil: who are gouging the American public and being subsidized to do it;
• Ban Foreign Interests from Meddling In American Elections: which would save the integrity of American elections;
• Alternative Energy Bill: which would create American jobs;
• Federal Support for Scientific Research: Medical research made this nation the envy
and a Medical Mecca for the world.

They blocked over one hundred bills, even those that had broad bipartisan support and contained many "supposed" Republican ideals. My only conclusion is they will do everything in their power to sabotage the present administration to make it look incompetent and America and be damned—until they are in back in power again.

P.S. "If You Want To Win An Election, Just Control The Voting Machines"
*The decisions to allow electronic voting for the most part, resides in the hands of each individual State under the purview of the Secretary of State of each State. Is it by "coincidence" that a large number of the states that allow the practice of electronic voting have Republican Secretaries of State, and the companies that manufacture the electronic machines are owned by Republicans who derive a huge financial benefit providing the machines that are stealing our elections. Do your own research: How many Secretaries' of State are Republican?

Commentary: George Washington set an example for American Public Service when he refused another term in office,—with even some suggesting he be made a king—if his precedent is a guide then there is something profoundly wrong with people who covet power so desperately they will sabotage "our" government and cling to their failed policies at the expense of everyday Americans.

Sources:
Wonk Room » ANALYSIS: Senate Republicans Block Over 100 Bills That ...
United Republicans Block Campaign Disclosure Bill
Republicans block Democratic Sunday voting plan | Politics Extra
Republicans Block Effort to Raise Oil Spill Liability Cap - Roll Call
Republicans block Obama's 9th Circuit nominee | News Blog from ...
Senate Republicans block defense bill authorizing military ...
Opposing Views: House Republicans Block Medical Help for 9/11 Heroes
Donklephant » Blog Archive » Republicans Block Infrastructure ...
Reid Upset After Republicans Block COBRA Benefits Extension ...
Pelosi Statement After House Republicans Block Passage of Tax ...
Republicans Block Passage of 9/11 Responder Aid Bill | Public ...
Republicans Block Plan To Ease Filing Requirements For Small ...
t r u t h o u t | Senate Republicans Block Heating Aid Bill
Nation & World | Republicans block bill that would restrict use of ...
Republicans block bill to tax companies that ship jobs overseas ...
Reuters AlertNet - US Republicans block small business plan in Senate
Senate Republicans block bill designed to encourage domestic job ...
AFL-CIO NOW BLOG | Senate Republicans Block Bill to Curb Outsourcing
Senate Republicans Block Campaign Finance Disclosure Bill ...
Republicans Block Oil Spill Commission From Having Subpeona Powers ...
Senate Republicans Block Debate On Campaign Finance Bill
Republicans Block Gays-In-Military Reform | The Onion - America's ...
Think Progress » With Just 40 Votes, Republicans Block Debate Over ...
Senate Republicans block Wall Street financial reform for second ...
Republicans Block Reform — Again. Can Their Obstructionism Help ...
Republicans Block Consideration of Housing Relief Package in ...
The Gavel » Blog Archive » Republicans Block Passage of the 9/11 ...
Senate Republicans Block Campaign Finance Bill | 89.3 KPCC
Republicans Block FISA Talks | Electronic Frontier Foundation
Republicans block Senate energy bill yet again - 04 Aug 2010 ...
Republicans block Senate bid to extend benefits for jobless ...
» Republicans Block Medicare Payment Fix Liberal Values
Senate Republicans block vote on DREAM Act proposed by Harry Reid ...
Senate Republicans block movement on two bills to spur renewable ...
Republicans Block Liu's Judicial Nomination : NPR
Republicans block bank-reform bill - MarketWatch
Senate Republicans block BP investigation | MNN - Mother Nature ...
Assembly Republicans block labor contract for state government ...
In The Senate, Republicans Block But The Democrats Just Run ...
House Republicans Block Bid to Increase Federal Support for ...
Republicans block small business lending bill in Congress ...
Senate Republicans block committee hearings again - TheHill.com
Senate Republicans Block Windfall Profits Tax on Big Oil Companies ...
Banana Republicans: Block the Vote - SourceWatch
Republicans Block Measure to Ban Foreign Meddling in U.S. ...

America And Its Christian Roots: The Treaty of Tripoli

Commentary: There is a continuing attempt by the far right to undermine the foundations of this Nation by calling America a Judeo-Christian Nation. They site dubious sources and quote their personal opinions as well as those of theologians who are anything but impartial. They use this manufactured history to deny rights to minorities and sew their narrow view of how this nation should be governed. It is insidious and pernicious. Here is a comprehensive treatise that debunks most of the myths about "America and its Christian Roots". The Treaty of Tripoli is a little known document that in Article XI unequivocally declares that America is not a Christian Nation. It was initiated during the last term of George Washington, ratified by Congress and signed into law by John Adams. 

This post is in its entirety a reprint written by Jim Walker.

 Article XI from the Treaty of Tripoli

Little-Known U.S. Document Signed by President Adams Proclaims America's Government Is Secular

by Jim Walker

A few Christian fundamentalists attempt to convince us to return to the Christianity of early America, yet according to the historian, Robert T. Handy, "No more than 10 percent-- probably less-- of Americans in 1800 were members of christian congregations."

The Founding Fathers, also, rarely practiced Christian orthodoxy. Although they supported the free exercise of any religion, they understood the dangers of religion. Most of them believed in deism and attended Freemasonry lodges. According to John J. Robinson, "Freemasonry had been a powerful force for religious freedom." Freemasons took seriously the principle that men should worship according to their own conscience. Masonry welcomed anyone from any religion or non-religion, as long as they believed in a Supreme Being. Washington, Franklin, Hancock, Hamilton, Lafayette, and many others accepted Freemasonry.

The Constitution reflects our founders views of a secular government, protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief. The historian, Robert Middlekauff, observed, "the idea that the Constitution expressed a moral view seems absurd. There were no genuine evangelicals in the Convention, and there were no heated declarations of Christian piety."

George Washington

Much of the myth of Washington's alleged Christianity came from Mason Weems influential book, "Life of Washington." The story of the cherry tree comes from this book and it has no historical basis. Weems, a Christian minister portrayed Washington as a devout Christian, yet Washington's own diaries show that he rarely attended Church.

Washington revealed almost nothing to indicate his spiritual frame of mind, hardly a mark of a devout Christian. In his thousands of letters, the name of Jesus Christ never appears. He rarely spoke about his religion, but his Freemasonry experience points to a belief in deism. Washington's initiation occurred at the Fredericksburg Lodge on 4 November 1752, later becoming a Master mason in 1799, and remained a freemason until he died.

To the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789, Washington said that every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience."

After Washington's death, Dr. Abercrombie, a friend of his, replied to a Dr. Wilson, who had interrogated him about Washington's religion replied, "Sir, Washington was a Deist."

Thomas Jefferson

Even most Christians do not consider Jefferson a Christian. In many of his letters, he denounced the superstitions of Christianity. He did not believe in spiritual souls, angels or godly miracles. Although Jefferson did admire the morality of Jesus, Jefferson did not think him divine, nor did he believe in the Trinity or the miracles of Jesus. In a letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787, he wrote, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god."

Jefferson believed in materialism, reason, and science. He never admitted to any religion but his own. In a letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, 25 June 1819, he wrote, "You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."

John Adams

John Adams

Adams, a Unitarian, flatly denied the doctrine of eternal damnation. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, he wrote:

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

In his letter to Samuel Miller, 8 July 1820, Adams admitted his unbelief of Protestant Calvinism: "I must acknowledge that I cannot class myself under that denomination."

In his, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788], John Adams wrote:

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

James Madison

Called the father of the Constitution, Madison had no conventional sense of Christianity. In 1785, Madison wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments:

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

Benjamin Franklin

Although Franklin received religious training, his nature forced him to rebel against the irrational tenets of his parents Christianity. His Autobiography revels his skepticism, "My parents had given me betimes religions impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself.

". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a through Deist."

In an essay on "Toleration," Franklin wrote:

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England] and in New England."

Dr. Priestley, an intimate friend of Franklin, wrote of him:

"It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers" (Priestley's Autobiography)

Thomas Paine

This freethinker and author of several books, influenced more early Americans than any other writer. Although he held Deist beliefs, he wrote in his famous The Age of Reason:

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church. "

"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. "

The U.S. Constitution

The most convincing evidence that our government did not ground itself upon Christianity comes from the very document that defines it-- the United States Constitution.

If indeed our Framers had aimed to found a Christian republic, it would seem highly unlikely that they would have forgotten to leave out their Christian intentions in the Supreme law of the land. In fact, nowhere in the Constitution do we have a single mention of Christianity, God, Jesus, or any Supreme Being. There occurs only two references to religion and they both use exclusionary wording. The 1st Amendment's says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." and in Article VI, Section 3, ". . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Thomas Jefferson interpreted the 1st Amendment in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in January 1, 1802:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

Some Religious activists try to extricate the concept of separation between church and State by claiming that those words do not occur in the Constitution. Indeed they do not, but neither does it exactly say "freedom of religion," yet the First Amendment implies both.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom:

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."

James Madison, perhaps the greatest supporter for separation of church and State, and whom many refer to as the father of the Constitution, also held similar views which he expressed in his letter to Edward Livingston, 10 July 1822:

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

Today, if ever our government needed proof that the separation of church and State works to ensure the freedom of religion, one only need to look at the plethora of Churches, temples, and shrines that exist in the cities and towns throughout the United States. Only a secular government, divorced from religion could possibly allow such tolerant diversity.

The Declaration of Independence

Many Christians who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration as "proof." The reason appears obvious: the document mentions God. However, the God in the Declaration does not describe Christianity's God. It describes "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." This nature's view of God agrees with deist philosophy but any attempt to use the Declaration as a support for Christianity will fail for this reason alone.

Article XI from the Treaty of Tripoli

More significantly, the Declaration does not represent the law of the land as it came before the Constitution. The Declaration aimed at announcing their separation from Great Britain and listed the various grievances with the "thirteen united States of America." The grievances against Great Britain no longer hold, and we have more than thirteen states. Today, the Declaration represents an important historical document about rebellious intentions against Great Britain at a time before the formation of our independent government. Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire the lofty thoughts of poets, and judges may mention it in their summations, it holds no legal power today. Our presidents, judges and policemen must take an oath to uphold the Constitution, but never to the Declaration of Independence.

Of course the Declaration depicts a great political document, as it aimed at a future government upheld by citizens instead of a religious monarchy. It observed that all men "are created equal" meaning that we all come inborn with the abilities of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." The Declaration says nothing about our rights secured by Christianity, nor does it imply anything about a Christian foundation.

Treaty of Tripoli

Unlike governments of the past, the American Fathers set up a government divorced from religion. The establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves about its origin; they knew this as an unspoken given. However, as the U.S. delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of America. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the United States to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:

Joel Barlow, U.S. Consul General of Algiers
Copyright National Portait Gallery Smithsonian Institution/Art Resource NY

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Barlow, along with his associate, Captain Richard O'Brien, et al, translated and modified the Arabic version of the treaty into English. From this came the added Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.

So here we have a clear admission by the United States that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all treaties do according to the Constitution (see Article VI, Sect. 2).

Although the Christian exclusionary wording in the Treaty of Tripoli only lasted for eight years and no longer has legal status, it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the U.S. government.

Signers of the Treaty of Tripoli

Common Law

According to the Constitution's 7th Amendment: "In suits at common law. . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact, tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law."

Here, many Christians believe that common law came from Christian foundations and therefore the Constitution derives from it. They use various quotes from Supreme Court Justices proclaiming that Christianity came as part of the laws of England, and therefore from its common law heritage.

But one of our principle Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, elaborated about the history of common law in his letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814:

"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.

". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

In the same letter, Jefferson examined how the error spread about Christianity and common law. Jefferson realized that a misinterpretation had occurred with a Latin term by Prisot, "*ancien scripture*," in reference to common law history. The term meant "ancient scripture" but people had incorrectly interpreted it to mean "Holy Scripture," thus spreading the myth that common law came from the Bible. Jefferson writes:

"And Blackstone repeats, in the words of Sir Matthew Hale, that 'Christianity is part of the laws of England,' citing Ventris and Strange ubi surpa. 4. Blackst. 59. Lord Mansfield qualifies it a little by saying that 'The essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law." In the case of the Chamberlain of London v. Evans, 1767. But he cites no authority, and leaves us at our peril to find out what, in the opinion of the judge, and according to the measure of his foot or his faith, are those essential principles of revealed religion obligatory on us as a part of the common law."

Thus we find this string of authorities, when examined to the beginning, all hanging on the same hook, a perverted expression of Priscot's, or on one another, or nobody."

The Encyclopedia Britannica, also describes the Saxon origin and adds: "The nature of the new common law was at first much influenced by the principles of Roman law, but later it developed more and more along independent lines." Also prominent among the characteristics that derived out of common law include the institution of the jury, and the right to speedy trial.

Christian Sources

Virtually all the evidence that attempts to connect a foundation of Christianity upon the government rests mainly on quotes and opinions from a few of the colonial statesmen who had professed a belief in Christianity. Sometimes the quotes come from their youth before their introduction to Enlightenment ideas or simply from personal beliefs. But statements of beliefs, by themselves, say nothing about Christianity as the source of the U.S. government.

There did occur, however, some who wished a connection between church and State. Patrick Henry, for example, proposed a tax to help sustain "some form of Christian worship" for the state of Virginia. But Jefferson and other statesmen did not agree. In 1779, Jefferson introduced a bill for the Statute for Religious Freedom which became Virginia law. Jefferson designed this law to completely separate religion from government. None of Henry's Christian views ever got introduced into Virginia's or U.S. Government law.

Unfortunately, later developments in our government have clouded early history. The original Pledge of Allegiance, authored by Francis Bellamy in 1892 did not contain the words "under God." Not until June 1954 did those words appear in the Allegiance. The United States currency never had "In God We Trust" printed on money until after the Civil War. Many Christians who visit historical monuments and see the word "God" inscribed in stone, automatically impart their own personal God of Christianity, without understanding the Framers Deist context.

In the Supreme Court's 1892 Holy Trinity Church vs. United States, Justice David Brewer wrote that "this is a Christian nation." Many Christians use this as evidence. However, Brewer wrote this in dicta, as a personal opinion only and does not serve as a legal pronouncement. Later Brewer felt obliged to explain himself: "But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all."

Conclusion

The Framers derived an independent government out of Enlightenment thinking against the grievances caused by Great Britain. Our Founders paid little heed to political beliefs about Christianity. The 1st Amendment stands as the bulkhead against an establishment of religion and at the same time insures the free expression of any belief. The Treaty of Tripoli, an instrument of the Constitution, clearly stated our non-Christian foundation. We inherited common law from Great Britain which derived from pre-Christian Saxons rather than from Biblical scripture.

Today we have powerful Christian organizations who work to spread historical myths about early America and attempt to bring a Christian theocracy to the government. If this ever happens, then indeed, we will have ignored the lessons from history. Fortunately, most liberal Christians today agree with the principles of separation of church and State, just as they did in early America.

"They all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point"

-Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835

Bibliography

Borden, Morton, "Jews, Turks, and Infidels," The University of North Carolina Press, 1984

Boston, Robert, "Why the Religious Right is Wrong About Separation of Church & State, "Prometheus Books, 1993

Boston, F. Andrews, et al, "The Writings of George Washington," (12 Vols.), Charleston, S.C., 1833-37

Fitzpatrick, John C., ed., "The Diaries of George Washington, 1748-1799," Houghton Mifflin Company: Published for the Mount Vernon Ladies Association of the Union, 1925

Gay, Kathlyn, "Church and State,"The Millbrook Press," 1992

Handy, Robert, T., "A History of the Churches in U.S. and Canada," New York: Oxford University Press, 1977

Hayes, Judith, "All those Christian Presidents," [The American Rationalist, March/April 1997]

Kock, Adrienne, ed., "The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society," New York: George Braziller, 1965

Mapp, Jr, Alf J., "Thomas Jefferson," Madison Books, 1987

Middlekauff, Robert, "The Glorious Cause," Oxford University Press, 1982

Miller, Hunter, ed., "Treaties and other International Acts of the United States of America," Vol. 2, Documents 1-40: 1776-1818, United States Government Printing Office, Washington: 1931

Peterson, Merrill D., "Thomas Jefferson Writings," The Library of America, 1984

Remsburg, John E., "Six Historic Americans," The Truth Seeker Company, New York

Robinson, John J., "Born in Blood," M. Evans & Company, New York, 1989

Roche, O.I.A., ed, "The Jefferson Bible: with the Annotated Commentaries on Religion of Thomas Jefferson," Clarkson N. Potter, Inc., 1964

Seldes, George, ed., "The Great Quotations," Pocket Books, New York, 1967

Sweet, William W., "Revivalism in America, its origin, growth and decline," C. Scribner's Sons, New York, 1944

Woodress, James, "A Yankee's Odyssey, the Life of Joel Barlow," J. P. Lippincott Co., 1958

Encyclopedia sources:

Common law: Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 6, "William Benton, Publisher, 1969

Declaration of Independence: MicroSoft Encarta 1996 Encyclopedia, MicroSoft Corp., Funk & Wagnalls Corporation.

In God We Trust: MicroSoft Encarta 1996 Encyclopedia, MicroSoft Corp., Funk & Wagnalls Corporation.

Pledge of Allegiance: Academic American Encyclopedia, Vol. 15, Grolier Incorporated, Danbury, Conn., 1988

Special thanks to Ed Buckner, Robert Boston, Selena Brewington and Lion G. Miles, for help in providing me with source materials.

Insanity is...

I am an independent voter. In the past I have voted for republicans or democrats based on their positions on issues that concern me. Frankly I am worn out by the current state of American politics.

Having said that I love this country deeply and I must make a rational decision on which party will preserve this country's heritage. Therefore I will not be voting for any Republicans for the following reasons:

1. They seem more intent on their own personal political agendas and retaining power than on the welfare of this nation. I am always suspicious of power hungry people. Instead of embracing the new president's offer of working in a bipartisan manner—time and time again—they rejected it and became obstructionist in demeanor and tactics, even when their ideas were incorporated into legislation, hoping for his failure so they could say, "I told you so."

2. The Republicans held a monopoly on power for nearly fourteen years. They were handed a 84 billion dollar surplus* at the end of Bill Clinton's presidency and a fairly stable economy. They squandered it. * http://www.factcheck.org/askfactche /during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html

3.In American history there has never been a pre-emptive war, yet they chose to start one by lying to the American public about their motives, which had nothing to do with American National Security and WMDs, as they claimed. That war in Iraq has consumed nine years nearly, 4,300 American lives, plus 30,000 casualties who will require care into the foreseeable future, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and nearly a trillion dollars—and counting—that are unfunded, the equivalent of 20,000 dollars pre household. Now we are committed to rebuilding the Iraqi nation while our nations drifts into financial chaos.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

4. They cut the revenue of the government by handing the wealthiest among us an unprecedented tax cut while increasing spending on lavish corporate welfare programs. How do you cut taxes in time of war? You cut food assistance to Americans and education programs for future generations. And label those programs as "entitlements" to generate animosity towards people that need them thus creating a underclass who by inference are leeching the life blood of America.

5. The republicans have precipitated and encouraged a bitter, underhanded and fostered a disingenuous political climate in this country from Lee Atwater to Karl Rove, that has Machiavellian undertones. They have rendered the term "loyal opposition", totally meaningless."

6. They have stacked the Supreme Court with hand picked political ideologues who have undermined the Constitution and tilted it to the far right. Their announced aim was to "shrink the government to such an extent that they could drowned it in a bath tub".

7. They preach that government is the problem, forgetting that the founding fathers although suspicious of any government were also aware that left unchecked powerful private interests would trample the individual human rights that they had fought for. Eisenhower, a republican president warned us about the dangers of allowing the military/industrial complex to become too powerful. e.g. Haliburton

8. They ran huge deficits that weakened this country to such an extent that at the very end of their rein they had to call for a bailout of the American Banking system and turned around and blamed the democrats. They left this country in shambles yet they want to take over again and return to the policies that got us into this mess in the first place, their recent "Contract with America" is a prime example of their intentions.

9. Their party has been highjacked by hate mongering far right radicals who are bought and paid for by corporate powers. They have driven out most moderates and have coalesced around fanatical faction calling themselves the Tea Party.

10. They have undermined the sense of Civic Duty that ever American was taught in my generation, that while we don't like paying taxes we do so for the well being of our country.

11. They deny some groups in our society the human rights that our Constitution sets forth as bedrock and cater to the xenophobic tendencies in us. All the while expressing an undying love for the self same document and insisting on its infallibility as the arbiter of the law. Ignoring the fact or not understanding that the Constitution is the document that protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

12. They have rewritten American history and twisted it to suite they political agendas, e.g. America was founded as a Christian Nation. I am a Christian and in my reading of the Constitution have found no reasonable attempt by the founders to, in any way to incorporate Christianity as the basis for human rights. Their mention of a creator does not make this a Christian Nation, if anything it implies that the founders were Deists who recognized that a higher power made men free from birth, but there is no absolutely no mention of salvation or redemption which is a fundamental theologic argument that distinguishes Christianity from Deists. They go even further by proclaiming this a Christian Nation and then subvert and deny the fundamental rights of select group that are different. Their ability to reason is therefore in my opinion suspect at least.

13. The republicans no longer speak to the aspiration and dreams of this Nation but appeal to the most negative aspects of human nature that divide us rather than unite us.

Please search your memories and consider what the Republicans have done to this country in the fourteen years they had unchecked power, and ask yourself if you you want more of the same? I for one do not and urge you to vote democratic this election and the next. Send them a message that we reject their negativity and mean spirited pronouncements, tell them that this country is better than their short sighted doom and gloom scenarios and policies of scarcity, that we can recover from their cynical and divisive policies.

Commentary: If insanity is to repeat a failed behavior and expect different results, then in the immortal words of that far right intellectual Sarah Palin—I say—'Thanks but no thanks".