Response to “Things you have to believe to be a Republican today” (with story)

This is for anyone needing a good laugh, a good rant, something to email to ruin a liberal's day or just a distraction to ease the pre-election nerves. Hope you enjoy.

How I first received this ridiculous email starts with a wedding. I was happy for my sister when she was getting married… right up until I found out that the reception was in Chappaqua and that my brother-in-law’s friends from France were coming. Think about that—a wedding in Chappaqua with French people.

I have a history of good natured humorous debates with one of my sister’s liberal friends, Aileen. She’s a bit of a feminist, or at least college made her think she is. Mind you, these aren’t really serious debates, they can’t be. To give you an idea, one day she came over and was talking about this fascinating Women’s Studies class she was taking. It was about how women getting manicures, pedicures, facials, etc was really only “Fake Love.” In our male dominated society, we condition women from birth to believe that they need love from men. Then the men deliberately deprive women of this love that we’ve engineered them to need thereby forcing them to seek out love in the form of elaborate grooming—thus the “Fake Love.” All of this is supposedly done so that men can overcharge women for these grooming services, forcing them to feed the very capitalist system that is enslaving them while forcing them to live outside of their natural harmonistic state and preventing them from rising to their rightful place of dominance. See what I mean about the “can’t be serious” part.

So the day of the wedding, Aileen has forgone the dress she’s wearing to the reception for a pantsuit that’s “more appropriate for reading Ecclesiastes.” While we’re waiting in the considerable July heat for the pictures to be taken, she looks at me and says, “This is unbearable, I don’t how you men wear suits all the time.” Not able to resist, I said, “Oh Really! How do you like your equal rights now, babe?” This turned out to be the opening foray into several rounds of debates over the course of the day. Since liberals tend to be shy on facts, most of the retorts involved reminding me of where the Clintons lived. Since she lost every round she felt obligated to follow up the next day with the email. So I took the time to write a reply:

I am unaware of any Republican whether an elected leader or merely pro-Republican columnist or talk show host who has ever claimed that Jesus hates Hillary Clinton or has ever even referenced Jesus as a reason not to place the public trust in Hillary. If you are aware of any such statement please enlighten me. Is this humor or is this an example of how liberals meticulously reason through issues? Wait, I know, this is one of those “nuance” things John Kerry talks about that he tells me I’m not smart enough to understand.

PS I actually do get the nuance. The statement makes perfect sense if you believe that only backwater ignorant hicks believe in silly fairy tales like Jesus and you elevate the importance Hillary Clinton enough to fill the void left in your own psyche by the arrogant belief that you are above the fundamental human need to recognize a higher power at play in the universe and your own life. If you doubt this reread your Jungian psychology.

First a little foundation work. Contrary to what you hear and might believe, there is no such thing as a separation of church and state in the Constitution. There is the establishment clause (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion) and the free exercise clause (or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.) The phrase “separation of church and state” comes from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a pastor in Massachusetts not from the Constitution. The Free Exercise clause is based on the “right of conscience” that existed under English common law. The Catholic Church as an institution has no Constitutional protection (it actually has the same legal protections and obligations as most secular non-profit organizations do.) The priest has no right of his own to withhold information obtained in the confessional; this right stems from the American citizen who confesses through his or her first amendment free exercise rights. Each individual in America has a right to follow one’s own conscience.

Based on this why does one need to be a Republican to believe that Jesus, or whatever you conceive God to be, loves you? Have you ever been to a funeral? Have ever seen the comfort the notion that “Jesus loves you” has brought to those mourners whose lives have just been shattered? Silly me, I always thought this was part of a universal human condition to spiritually grow and evolve. I had no idea funerals were only a tool of the Republican propaganda campaign.

Today’s radical leftist Democrats want to replace God as the ultimate moral authority with government. In a free country if some preacher on a pulpit says you’re doing something wrong you can ignore him. When the government tells you that you’ve done wrong they throw you in a cell.

Actually, this statement is the height of elitist arrogance. It presupposes that only idiots follow religion, it has as a premise that if you disagree in any way with the political agenda of the leaders of leftist gay activist groups that the disagreement could only stem from a hatred of homosexuals, and that the only reason for this hatred is that the person is blindly following a silly religion because they are too stupid to think on their own. Of course, only a similar line of thinking could possibly lead anyone to disagree with Hillary.

I suggest you look into www.lcr.org. The group is called Log Cabin Republicans. They are gay and lesbian Republicans. They recognize that it was the Republican Party that freed the slaves. It was the Republican Party that pioneered and passed Women’s suffrage, and it was the Republican Party that passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960’s despite a 72 day long filibuster led by Al Gore’s dad. But I suppose they’re only Republicans because they believe Jesus shares their hatred of homosexuals.

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

Saddam was always a bad guy—still is. Reagan never armed Saddam. Democrats can scream and yell that he did, but no matter how loud and often they say it, or how many people are naïve enough to believe it when Democrats lie to them, it won’t create a time machine to go back and alter what actually happened. The only thing the United States supplied Saddam with was intelligence information on Iranian troop movements. Zero weapons, zero bullets, only information on where Iranian troops were. If we did not give Iraq this information all military experts agreed that Iran would conquer Iraq. If you recall, a small incident known as the Iranian Hostage Crisis had recently occurred. It was believed that an Iran that had conquered Iraq would be more of a threat to the region and the world and to us than an Iran and an Iraq would pose separately. The Democrats on the House and Senate armed services and Intelligence committees said so too at the time. I know, the facts are not important.

Oh wait, you’re talking about the chemical weapons we supplied to Saddam, right? Yes it’s true. Iraq and some 80 other countries got an anthrax vaccine from the Center for Disease Control in the early to mid eighties. I think we armed them with a polio vaccine too.

By Cheney I assume you mean Halliburton. If Cheney did business with Saddam, he would be in jail. No US Company or individual was allowed to do business with Saddam. It was a felony. Oh, you mean the contracts that the Clinton Administration gave to Halliburton. Halliburton is one of the only companies on the face of the planet that does what they do on the scale that they do it. If you need one oil fire put out, you can go to a couple of places. If you need 125 oil fires put out you pretty much have to go to Halliburton. Are suggesting we just let the Iraqi oil wells that Saddam lit on fire burn until they went out by themselves? Maybe you think the Iraqi local fire department could just spray some water on a burning oil rig and that would do the job? I know the facts don’t matter. That those oil fires would still be burning today if Halliburton didn’t extinguish them isn’t relevant. That Clinton is the only one who could give the OK for Halliburton to go into Iraq and do work is part of some Republican conspiracy, right?

As for your Iraq is a “Can’t find Bin Laden diversion.” I suppose you object to the President saying things like this: "we have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein. Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

Well these are from your favorite President Bill Clinton in 1998. Here’s Hillary on the same subject in 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Oh, I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 12/14/01)

I could do an extensive analysis but I think your Democrats speak for themselves.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because they deprive their citizens of basic human rights—the rights that form the basis and moral foundation of our government. Petty things like free speech, right to trial, and the right not to be executed because some guy feels like killing you. China and Vietnam are communist and do these things too. So we didn’t trade with them. But they agreed to start treating their citizens better, to make concessions on human rights and free speech issues. In exchange for agreeing to treat their people better we agreed to trade with them. If Cuba was willing to start giving basic rights and freedoms to their people we would start trading with them too. What’s so difficult to understand about this? And what’s your point? Should we be refusing any relationship with any Communist country? Should we be invading every Communist country to free the people? Should we assume that governments don’t really oppress people and that Communism is just this moral relativism thing that evil Republicans have no right to be judgmental about?

The motto of Communism is “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Sounds great on paper. But the problem is that somebody has to decide what your ability is and what your needs are. In other words a bunch of elitists wind up deciding how much you can own, what you can do for a living, what is appropriate for you to read, what is appropriate for you to see hear and say. This is what happened to everyone living in the Soviet Union and behind the Iron Curtain. This is the nature of Communism as a form of government. There is no individual, only a vague collection of people called the masses that need to be told how to run their lives. Have you ever talked with someone who fled from Communism during Soviet rule? Have you ever talked with someone from Cuba about US policy towards Cuba? How about China or Vietnam? I have. They didn’t seem to find the same problems with our trade policy. They must have been brainwashed by Republicans when they went to a funeral for one of their family members executed by the Communist government.

The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq Read the US Constitution and then read the UN Charter and compare the two.

Do you like and/or respect the United Nations? Let’s look at a couple facts. You can muster a two-thirds majority vote on the floor of the General Assembly of the UN and represent less than 10% of the population of the world. If every free country voted one way and every dictatorship voted the other, the free countries would lose every election in the General Assembly. This doesn’t really matter because the General Assembly is one of the five branches of the UN that can only write non-binding resolutions. In other words they can write editorials. That’s right, they can do just what every newspaper in this country can do, put their opinion on paper. Any government in this world is just as obligated to obey the UN as it is to obey an editorial in the Wichita Falls Gazette.

The only one of the 6 branches of the UN that can actually do anything is the Security Council. It has fifteen members, 5 permanent and ten rotating. Rotating members sit for 2 year terms. You need 9 votes to pass something but if one of the 5 permanent members votes no than the resolution is vetoed. You call things that come out of this organization “World Opinion” and “the will of the International Community?” 190 members can be for something and France alone can vote “no” and France gets its way. In other cases 9 countries can vote yes on an issue that 182 countries oppose and the 9 countries get their way. What a shining example of Democracy.

How many troops does the UN have? That right, zero. So even if the UN votes to do something it is utterly incapable of any action unless some country like the US steps in to actually do it. Actually UN peacekeepers from France and Belgium were in Rwanda when people started killing each other. It was violent so they left and over a million people died. How about that Oil for Palaces – uh I mean Food—Program? Can you name any successful operation undertaken by the UN? Didn’t think so. But the organization means well and has such nice intentions, so Republicans are evil and mean for not wanting to surrender their sovereignty to an organization that has yet to succeed in anything and is comprised of a majority of dictatorships. I know, talking about sovereignty is such an arrogant Republican thing to do. Think about this— you get to vote for your leaders in America you don’t get to vote for anyone in the UN. If your elected Congressional representatives vote against sending US troops some place, but the UN votes to go there would you like to see us subjugate our system of government to their authority and send the troops? Every single decision the US government defers to the UN is a decision you have lost your right to vote on. Couldn’t imagine why that might bother some of us.

A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

Have you ever read Roe v. Wade? Didn’t think so. For the record I think outlawing abortion falls well beyond the reach of government. That doesn’t make this statement any less absurd.

First “trust” has nothing to do with the issue. Second we are talking about “decision” in the singular. Third every corporation has a home country regardless of how many countries they transact business in and our government only has say over the US corporations. We do have a say over individual foreign business transactions inside this country but have no say over what they do anywhere else in the world. As for “without regulation” you actually make me laugh. If you started to read the all of the regulations that apply only to the US Steel industry today and you succeeded in breaking the Guinness Book of World Records for longevity you would still die before you finished. There are tens of millions of pages of regulations that affect every industry in this country. Try and ship a package to Europe and see how much paperwork you have to fill out, realize the shipping company fills out ten times the paperwork you do and then the recipient has to fill out more paperwork before they can pick it up. Oh I get it, that’s all voluntary paperwork we fill out for fun, it’s not due to any burdensome government regulations.

Again, I don’t think the government has the right to outlaw abortion. But the argument of those who oppose abortion is that its murder. 51% of the people in America believe that abortion is murder. You probably don’t like that and think I wrote it because I’m an evil Republican, but it’s just a harmless little fact. So the argument for banning abortion is based on the murder belief and has nothing to do with trust. It is typical of a Democrat to dodge the issue at hand and try and obfuscate the facts. It’s not about murder it’s about trust, it’s not about affecting one individual’s life in the ultimate way by ending it, it’s about these other people who are affecting everyone on the planet. Do you or do you not believe that an 8 month fetus is a life? If you do, on what basis is a woman’s right to choose more important than that life? This isn’t an easy question to answer. But it is the question in play when it comes to abortion. Why won’t the left actually answer the question and state their case?

Let’s look at a woman’s right to choose and how well that right is being defended by the leftist male hating blame America first groups that so arrogantly claim to be feminists. They oppose fetal murder laws. Hmmm… so I guess a woman has no right to choose to actually have a baby, she can only choose not to have it. Some choice. So if a man kicks an 8 month pregnant woman who actually wants to have a child and she has a stillbirth on the spot, he is not guilty of any crime more serious than if he kicked me in a bar. I would like to try and claim to be morally outraged by that but I suppose that since I’m a Republican I won’t be able to fool you because I’m only secretly trying to outlaw abortion.

Talk to someone who’s had an abortion. Watch some video of a partial birth abortion. Talk to someone who had a miscarriage after two months and really wanted a child. Then listen to your leftist femi-nazi friends and see how reasonable they sound. Then maybe you can buy a Planned Parenthood “I had an Abortion” t-shirt.

The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

Reality check please. John Kerry voted against pay raises for the military more than a dozen times. He has never, not once in twenty years in Congress, seen fit to vote for an increase in military pay. Bush has given the military two raises since he’s been in office.

Since the 1980’s the number of Veterans in this country has steadily declined but the Veteran’s Administrations budget has only grown and never, ever gotten smaller. We still continue to build new VA hospitals despite the fact the current ones are used at a small fraction of their capacity. Who on earth told you we were cutting VA benefits?

Here’s a John Kerry speech upon returning from Vietnam. Is this a Democrat’s idea of boosting morale? I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do. They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country. The fact that some of the “honorably discharged” vets never served in the military much less Vietnam, and that the only four people who had actually seen combat out of those 150 people were not in Detroit and never said those things was just a little hyperbole to boost troop morale, right?

Actually Republicans just don’t want condoms handed out to kids without parental permission, period. I really like the way the fact that it gets done with taxpayer money seems to be conveniently ignored here. The cause and effect logic here is all liberal reasoning and therefore, of course, completely wrong.

Do we give kids alcohol in school? So people who don’t believe in giving out alcohol to kids in school don’t believe in it because they think that not passing out Jack Daniels in school will stop kids from drinking, right? Not passing out cheat notes will stop kids from cheating too, right? No, really, wow. So why aren’t we passing out bottles of Jack with cheat note labels and sending the taxpayers (you and me) the bill?

Did anyone you went to school with graduate a virgin? Thought so. So something out there can stop adolescents from having sex. Like maybe their own choices based on things their parents and families and friends have taught them. Teachings that might be somewhat undermined by a fifth period condom-fest. Imagine those psychotic Republicans actually thinking that if a fifth grader’s teacher hands him a condom he might think there’s some implicit approval for him to actually use that condom—so paranoid.

A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money

I suppose when the French said if you don’t promise to subjugate the laws of America to the laws of France and not charge Zacarias Moussaoui with the death penalty we won’t share any intelligence with you, that was us belittling the French. And when Gerhard Schroeder’s justice minister, Herta Daeubler-Gmelin compared Bush to Hitler (that’s right a German comparing an American President to Hitler) that was us belittling the Germans. When a Canadian Cabinet member called Bush a moron, not in private but in a public statement, that was Bush belittling the Canadians. I suppose all those French made weapons with 2003 manufacturing dates that were used against our soldiers in Iraq are just more of us belittling France?

Apparently I need to get the Democrat Dictionary. Then I can learn all about how “to belittle” can take on the passive voice or be a reflexive verb depending on whether the subject or object of the sentence is a Republican President or an elitist, socialist European leader. I’m sure this will help me understand the world better because my intelligence is so limited because I believe in God. I’m sure the definition of “ally” will explain the French weapons too.

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

When the government provides and runs health care it is socialism. What did you think it was? Sort of like taking flour and milk and eggs and mixing it up and then putting it in a metal container and placing it in the oven is called baking—its baking whether you do it in Iraq or in America. Government provided and run health care is socialism whether it is done by the new Iraqi government or by the US government. I’m sure this Democrat Dictionary is going to be a very interesting book.

Have you read the Iraqi interim Constitution? Didn’t think so. I know the facts aren’t important. I’ll type slowly so you can follow along, this shouldn’t be too hard for someone whose brain is not burdened by a belief in God. Here is the Health Care part: It is article 15: The individual has the right to security, education, health care, and social security. The Iraqi State and its governmental units, including the federal government, the regions, governorates, municipalities, and local administrations, within the limits of their resources and with due regard to other vital needs, shall strive to provide prosperity and employment opportunities to the people.

Iraq is being founded as a new country, a free country. The government is recognizing that the only legitimate source of power the government has comes from the sovereign people. A central part of being free is private property rights. This is a difficult concept for Democrats but it involves working hard and earning things; you really aren’t free to pursue happiness without it. There are things the government owns that it will slowly transfer to individuals—plots of land for example. But who gets to own the oil?

When America was founded we were blessed with lots of oil, we just didn’t know it or know we needed it. Bright hard working creative individuals realized oil was useful. Other bright hard working individuals figured out ways to drill down and get oil. These people invested their time and their personal fortunes. They took risks, sacrificed financial stability and security for the opportunity to try and become more successful. So in America, those people who worked hard, took risks, sacrificed, and were blessed with a little bit of luck own the oil that was obtained through their own hard work.

In Iraq this fortune exists at the founding of the country. No individual owns it or can legitimately claim to own it. It is considered a resource of the sovereign people-- not unlike our public airwaves. One of the uses the Iraqi interim government has seen fit to use that oil money for is health care. (If the government runs healthcare, its still socialism, that hasn’t changed.)

The difference between America and Iraq is that Iraq has a resource owned by the sovereign people that generates enough money on its own through market forces (that’s capitalism) to pay for things without taking hard earned money from individuals through taxation. (Again don’t let the oil money from capitalism throw you, government provided and run health care is still socialism- even in Iraq.)

The line “within the limits of their resources” means that the Iraqi government will not be taking individual Iraqi’s hard earned money to pay for this health care. When you do that, it is a form of redistributing wealth, which is Socialism. Additionally, regardless of how the health care is paid for, if the Iraq government runs the health care system like the British or the Canadians do it will not be a sound policy at all. Plattsburgh Hospital opened an oncology wing to meet the demand of Canadians coming across the border to New York for cancer treatment. That must be some great system up there if people are choosing to travel outside the country to pay for something that they can get free at home.

If you don’t let individuals choose their own doctors and reward good doctors that provide quality care, and let doctors use their own ingenuity and reward them for it to improve and innovate medical care, your health care system is anything but sound policy no matter how you pay for it.

HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

Actually Republicans back Medical Savings Accounts not HMOs. That’s where people get to use their own money to go to whatever doctors they want. They also back a thing called competition. They know companies don’t have the public’s best interests at heart. So if you have companies competing with each other, people reward the companies that offer policies and services that meet their needs and desires. Competition protects the consumer; an overpowering intrusive all-controlling centralized government does not.

Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools Tobacco’s link to cancer is not junk science and no Republican ever said it was. Does this have something to do with the Tobacco company lawsuits? Philip Morris made me smoke and forced me to keep smoking, I have no responsibility for my own actions. Maybe this is about second hand smoke. Forgive me I have trouble understanding how second hand smoke is more damaging than smoking itself. How do you get a smoker who has never inhaled his own secondary smoke to make that measurement? Have you ever read the studies on second hand smoke? Have you ever read one that debunks the second hand smoke alarmists? Didn’t think so. For liberals facts just don’t matter.

Global warming is not science. It is utterly bogus. The earth wobbles on its axis in 25,000 year cycles. This causes changes in our climate. The “scientists” who claim Global Warming exists base this on looking at the massive amount of data culled from satellites and crunched by super-computers over the last 25 years. They extrapolate this 25 years of information to infer what happened over the 4.6 billion years the earth has existed to draw their conclusions. The earth’s magnetic poles have shifted multiple times before humans ever evolved. I believe the most recent shift was about 300,000 years ago. Ever hear about solar winds? Think they might influence the temperature by a degree or two? The whole planet moving and changing its angle to the sun has no effect on our climate, but hairspray will destroy the Earth. Ever read the science behind global warming? Ever read a scientific report debunking it? Didn’t think so.

A president lying about an extramarital affair is a impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy

A President lying about anything is a breach of the public trust, but not an impeachable offense. A President committing the crime of perjury, which is lying under oath, is an impeachable offense. Clinton waved his finger at the country and bold faced lied about Monica Lewinski. Is this the lie he was impeached for? No. If Bill Clinton told the truth about his affair when he was testifying under oath, would he have been impeached for the affair? No. So was he impeached for lying about an affair? No. He was impeached for perjury, lying under oath. Why do you always defend the affair and never mention the perjury? I know an oath is no big deal. Inauguration Day is all about taking an Oath of Office, an oath mandated and defined in the Constitution. That’s just a silly holiday we don’t even get a day off for.

If a man was arrested for killing a truck driver and stealing the truck, and the truck was filled with jelly beans, was he deprived of his liberty over jelly beans? Of course he was, it’s not about robbery or murder it’s only about jelly beans.

Taking illegal campaign contributions from Chinese intelligence and telling them he wants them to feel like they are a part of his administration is about sex too, right? How many felony convictions came out of the Whitewater Investigation? They were about sex too I suppose. The Pardons were about sex as well, right? The FBI files of political opponents that made their way into the White House must have been about sex too. We have a system of criminal justice that says it is far better to let a guilty man go free than to imprison an innocent man. I thought we were allowed to hold our elected leaders to a slightly higher standard than our felons. I must be mistaken.

Bush lied? Really. I’d like to see the quote and the proof. Oh wait, I have seen Bush lie. It was when he said that Yassar Arafat was not a terrorist.

I refer you to the section above on the Bin laden distraction. I suppose those were all lies too.

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

I suppose you believe that the government does not have to limit itself to the powers given to it by the Constitution?

Republicans are not the ones talking about censoring the Internet. Oh, are you talking about the ones who take issue when kiddie-porn websites register hundreds of spelling variations of Harry Potter websites? Couldn’t imagine why anyone would have a problem with that. I suppose that the Sydney Blumenthal lawsuit against Matt Drudge, that was approved by Clinton and Gore while they were in office doesn’t qualify as an attempt to censor the Internet.

Personally I have no problem with Gay marriage. I do have a huge problem with judges bypassing the legislative process that is the heart of our system of government to impose their will on the American people.

If I hit on a married woman everyone knows exactly what to think of me. If a gay man hits on a married gay man does that carry the same connotation? One aspect of marriage is a publicly recognized union that communicates a wealth of things to the general public. What percentage of the population knows what to expect from a gay marriage? If you think it’s the same as a heterosexual marriage you need to have some talks with gay people about their relationships-- similar in so many ways but also quite different.

If gays and lesbians showed up and testified about their relationships and their wants and needs in terms of legal recognition in public hearings in front of legislatures the public would start to become familiar. We have 50 different sets of marriage and divorce laws in this country. There are also adoption and custody laws. If you reviewed these laws with the gay community do think they might want some changes? Do you think there might be some laws that might be incompatible or unfavorable relating to gay marriage that need to be addressed?

Marriage predates recorded history and has existed in every culture. In its thousands of years of existence no culture has ever recognized gay marriage. Some people think this carries weight. Can’t imagine why. California had a ballot initiative on gay marriage. It lost by 64%, so a judge in San Francisco declared it legal anyway. I suppose that’s Democracy. The 64% of Californians who voted against gay marriage are all brainwashed by the evil Republicans? Have you looked at the voter registration statistics in California? Oh, that would be a fact so it can’t possibly matter.

The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business

I thought Hillary was a great business woman. Why aren’t you proud that she made a good investment and made money? How come her cattle trades aren’t a fine example for little girls aspiring to be business women to follow? Why would she want to hide such an ethical business example from all those aspiring young American women? I must be confused by my belief in God.

No one ever argued that the Bush DWI was none of anyone’s business. He has repeatedly publicly admitted that he had a drinking problem. He admitted he did bad things when he drank. So a DWI at age 27 when he had a drinking problem is news? Now if he said he drank the alcohol but didn’t swallow I could imagine it being an interesting story.

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

Here’s a piece of the Rush Limbaugh statement about entering rehab. What in this statement do you find problematic?

“I am not making any excuses. You know, over the years athletes and celebrities have emerged from treatment centers to great fanfare and praise for conquering great demons.

They are said to be great role models and examples for others. Well, I am no role model. I refuse to let anyone think I am doing something great here, when there are people you never hear about, who face long odds and never resort to such escapes.

They are the role models. I am no victim and do not portray myself as such. I take full responsibility for my problem.”

I don’t suppose you ever bothered to listen to Rush to form your own opinion like I took time to listen to Air America before making judgments.

You support states' rights, but Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.

This is the tenth amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The tenth amendment means that States cannot have voter initiatives on those things that are powers delegated specifically to the Federal Government by the Constitution. What about this is so hard to understand?

I’m not up on my Ashcroft Black Helicopter Theories or I would be happy to explain why whatever issue you’re referring to falls under the powers given to the Federal government by the Constitution.

What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant Neither is of vital national interest. But being a draft dodger is relevant to one’s qualification to be Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces. Clinton was drafted, got a deferment, and then nullified his deferment and ducked service. They’re all public records, all documented. Look it up.

Who accused Bush of using cocaine? When did he supposedly use it? Is there a shred of evidence? Sorry, we’re talking facts again.

Oh, now you want to call Bush a draft dodger now for serving in the National Guard. A base commander who admits that he didn’t know all the officers that served on the base and also says he is in the early stages of Alzheimers doesn’t recall seeing Bush. The doctor who gave him a physical recalls seeing him as do officers who were there, but those are just annoying facts.

First a little foundation work. Contrary to what you hear and might believe, there is no such thing as a separation of church and state in the Constitution.

You're mistaken. The left knows that the Separation of Church and State is clearly articulated in Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution.

Article 52 [Religion]

(1) Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited.
(2) In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.

It's all a matter of knowing what constitution the libs are reading. ;-)

gitmo

Welcome to Free Republic. Great post, BTW. I believe I'll save it, for future reference. Good job articulating these undeniable truths... if these were as widely disseminated as any random fake memos that are anti-Republican, the democRAT party would be a dim memory.

I probably oversimplified that one too much. The priest as an individual and a citizen certainly has the right, and obligation, to protect the sanctity of Confession. The right is purely an individual one stemming from the Constitution, not from the Church as an institution. Should have said "The church has no right of its own..."

Great post.

Like you, I drew a blank on what the Ashcroft accusation was about. Anybody have a clue what they're babbling about? ("You support states' rights, but Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.")

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.