Peggy Noonan: The Paragraph- Help the White House make the case for re-election

How is it that I'm failing to connect w/ you?

You are posting lunacy.

A) You pinged me to your first post on this thread (with no mention of why) in which you made it clear that you are the Supreme Judge of what makes a good and what makes a bad Campaign Paragraph for the Bush Administration in response to Peggy Noonan's call to action. It particularly irked me that you singled out a list of FReepers to commend who were all using the same old rhetoric, in some cases the very same words, to say that a vote for anyone but Bush is a vote for death and destruction. This does not in any sense pass the "how to make it new" test which the author of the article qualified her request with.

President Bush's insistence, or his administration's insistence, or vapid FReeper My-Bush-Right-Or-Wrong posters' insistence that the War on Terror is the only thing that matters in this election or in life in America in 2004, that this War on Terror is a gun to our head forcing us to vote for President Bush or vote for the terrorists, is the worst sort of campaign message imaginable. That message screams, "Vote for Bush or DIE!" and doesn't sit well with thinking (as opposed to feeling) Americans, whether conservative, liberal, libertarian, or disaffected. I will not vote for any man to save my life. I will, however, cast my vote to save the life of my country. The terrorists can not destroy America, only wound her; it is only the citizens of America that can completely destroy her, especially those citizens voted into positions of power in our government.

If the President in power on 9-11 had been a Democrat, and he had done everything exactly as President Bush has done since then as regards the War on Terror, and funded the NEA, gave the U. N. 1.2 billion tax dollars for redecorating, passed a bloated Education and socialist Medicaid bill, signed Campaign Finance Reform into law with no thought to the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment, threatened to renew the assault on my weapons in disregard of the Second Amendment, and managed to get millions of illegal aliens forgiven and on welfare in his first four years, I would not vote for him...nor would any FReeper.

President Bush needs a new, back-to-our-basis message.

"Bush has one HUGE advantage over Kerry. He knows who he is and he knows what he stands for."

Unfortunately, if you think that's all he's going to need to shut up the mobs, I'm afraid you'll be bitterly disappointed. Bush is trying to be ALL things to ALL people, a democrat and a republican, a social justice freak and a free market guy, a space explorer and an NEA supporter, and on and on. He reminds me of Clinton these days, running around with his hair on fire, making sure he touches each and every subject and cause at least once so no one can say he missed something. The man doesn't have time to THINK, he's so damned busy. Personally I wish he'd take more time to think. I wish we'd get back to being that firm, determined, passionate guy who rose up after 9/11. Now his conversations are wimpy and inarticulate. He looks cornered all the time now. The man has lost something, somewhere along the way, and it's not just people who didn't realize they'd put a stealth democrat in office.

I liked Bush, I still want to like him. But I'm afraid he's throwing it all away. And there will be - as we all know too well from the hell-born Clintons - hell to pay.

I also like Peggy Noonan. She writes some articles asking what the hell is going on and suddenly everyone is skinning her alive. Come on folks - Bush IS being inconsistent. He IS letting down a lot of conservatives. He IS building an even BIGGER government. Just because it's a "republican" bigger government doesn't mean sh*t. It will be handed back over to the Clinton RATS, and they'll have us all for lunch.

We're going to have some serious problems down the road if Bush doesn't figure out what the heck he wants and who he wants to be.

What you said! Apparently, the potential fallout from such an attack has begun to affect this guy's brain already.

How is it that I'm failing to connect w/ you?

You are posting lunacy.

B) The 'mommies' are the key swing block, you said. You're working with an old playbook in a new century. If there is any comparison in this election to one last century, it is in a President (Bush) turning on his base.

You mention in another post, Conservatives failed to keep Hoover in power. I ask, where in left field did the name Hoover pop up from? And how is it you say that conservatives failed Hoover, not the more apt obverse, Hoover failed conservatives?

Are you intentionally calling up images of depression and tete-a-tete with der Fuhrer? It was Hoover's first election which was won in a landslide, not his second, so there's no comparison to Bush 43 there that I can see you drawing out. Hoover was a Quaker, said to be motivated by humanitarian concerns, arguably similar to Bush, yet Hoover was opposed to government handouts believing that they weakened traditional American individualism, and Bush wants to give a handout to every American and most of Africa. Hoover turned vicious on America's veterans while Bush has led, encouraged, and supported them.

Hoover was beat handily by a candidate promising a New Deal. The liberal democrats have been calling for "regime change" in Washington since Florida, and conservatives who voted Republican in 2000 are now pleading for a new deal of their own after seeing 3 years of Compassionate Conservatism. If President Bush could come up with a new deal - as Peggy Noonan recommends, and as opposed to this old deal of his advisors - this ghost from the past named Hoover would not haunt him...or you.

And it might not be a bad thing if people in the South stopped inbreeding.

If would be even better if Yankees like you weren't arrogant bigots towards southerners.

Barbra Streisand!

If you had bothered to actually do a thorough research job, instead of a cursory one, you would have found that I have liked and disliked Peggy's columns for years, have never been all that enamored of her,to the point of sycophant status ( which many here hold ),and have said that she goes from treacly Catholic school girl, to polished speech writer ( much less of that in her columns, than in her former life, prepunditry),to feckless talking head.

OTOH, you're just up for baiting me, now, because of recent disagreements on another thread. If anyone has opened up a door for further scrutiny, as to motive and agenda, it is you. Unlike you, I don't play that silly, childish gamed.

BRAVO !

Best post I have ever seen you write! You've come a very long way, in a very short time. It's cogent, factual,and makes your points well. :-)

How is it that I'm failing to connect w/ you?

You are posting lunacy.

C) And the following are the most grievous examples of it I have ever seen on this forum:

If your faith is in the 'law', no wonder you're upset.

America's Founders, and every single founding document, were born and bred in 1) the Law of the Almighty, 2) the examples of democracic law in Greece and Rome and 3) Lex Rex. Our Founders steeped themselves in law and the history of cultures from which godly laws sprang. They concluded that law was of God, and from God, as individual freedom is, and that the one could only exist under the divine and inspired protection of the other. Freedom without law is anarchy. Law without freedom is tyranny. An unjust law, said Mahatma Gandhi, and later Martin Luther King, Jr., is not to be obeyed, but actively opposed for the sake of righteousness and justice. "A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void," said Chief Justice Marshall. Are Americans upset that the just law of the land is not paid heed, not enforced, and in fact trampled underfoot like a welcome mat to criminals, while unjust and ungodly law is made up out of thin air daily in the courts? You yourself admit that if the faith of Americans rests in the law, which was established by God and secured by our Founders to defend the natural rights given Man by God, and that law is ignored, impugned, maligned, destroyed and replaced with some false substitute, we have every reason to be, to say the least, upset. How much more ungodly and repugnant that the practice is defended by the ignorant.

Bottom line, I don't know a SINGLE SOUL who 'obeys' the law in the full sense.

As I said previously, this is just plain Clintonesque, self-evidently so.

But I do know this: an awful huge number of leftists
want to sell everyone on the idea that 'laws' are the highest moral product of man.
This idea is distilled mental poison.

You are saying that it is mental poison to promote the idea that law keeps the world sane. I beg to differ. It is mental poison to profess such lunacy and to believe it. You believe that liberals believe in law and in obeying law? Au contraire, my FRiend, the liberals want only new rulings that do away with established law, and licentiousness (rather than freedom) like condoms for everyone, including murderers, baby killers, terrorists, adulterers, liars, and flag-burners.

The 'point' is this: freedom is not a function of law.

Law exists in America to secure the freedoms of the people (ref. Declaration of Independence) and limit the reach of the law-keepers.

The U.S. constitution is NOT, NOT a document of laws.

I dealt with this before, and I'll deal with it again, in the very same way, hoping that repetition will serve as a teacher where logic and fact itself do not:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby...
U.S. Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 2.

You then have the temerity to say, in the very same post,

You have a valid point that certain laws are being totally ignored ....

You spent your whole post denying the validity of law, then claim that the person to whom you are speaking makes a valid point when they put forth the idea that 'laws' are being 'broken.' Total lunacy.

Excellent response -- and photo! Once again, you ride to the rescue. ;)

If the President in power on 9-11 had been a Democrat, and he had done everything exactly as President Bush has done since then as regards the War on Terror, and funded the NEA, gave the U. N. 1.2 billion tax dollars for redecorating, passed a bloated Education and socialist Medicaid bill, signed Campaign Finance Reform into law with no thought to the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment, threatened to renew the assault on my weapons in disregard of the Second Amendment, and managed to get millions of illegal aliens forgiven and on welfare in his first four years, I would not vote for him...nor would any FReeper.

Good points you make. However, a hypothetical 'rat POTUS running for re-election would presumably be facing a Republican who's at least as good as he is on the anti-terrorism stuff.

total lunacy

Ok - I'm looking over these posts of yours, and I'm going to have to think about them a bit.

My initial thought is that from a purely debate POV, you outclass me, evidently, and I'm not too pig-headed to concede that. OTOH, I'm not, for some reason (other than lunacy ... for if I'm a lunatic, then you must be thinking roughly 70 percent of FREEPERS have no brain), getting my own point across at all. So, I'm going to think about this too.

Thanks for A, B, C, and D posts - I'm chuckling inwardly, because I do, in truth, love Free Republic. Where else on earth can I risk all this and not catch unreal amounts of incoming grief? Thanks for spending the time and treating the responses with some patience ... that needs to be more common around here.

It now seems that honest and open dialogue between competing POV's within conservative/Republican circles has come to an end.

Well, here at least, I don't see that. The flame wars b/t conservatives (true) and conservatives (what, sort of 'true'?) is exceeded in heat only on the religion threads.

Now, as for your reference to banning, that I have followed this a bit.

It appears that in most cases, criticism of Bush was not the 'bannable' offense. In my short experience, it is due to posters who flat out simply spend time eating up resources of FR by posting any kind of 'personal' attack that will rile up someone. These posters, trolls, haters, whatever, should be banned.

FR is just what it sounds like, and there are folks who clearly want to keep the folks in the dark to remain there, simply by generating smoke and flames and noise. I don't think the threads are moderated enough, esp the ones about Bush. I freely confess I'm one of those just emerging from the darkness of higher than average ignorance, fwiw.

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
Paul Wolfowitz
May 28, 2003

WMD Quotes Before & After The Invasion (UPDATED)
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney
August 26, 2002
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
George W. Bush
September 12, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
Ari Fleischer
December 2, 2002

The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it.
Ari Fleischer December 6, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.
George W. Bush
January 28, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
Colin Powell
February 5, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
George W. Bush
February 8, 2003

So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not.
Colin Powell
March 7, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
George W. Bush
March 17, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
Ari Fleisher
March 21, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
Gen. Tommy Franks
March 22, 2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.
Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
March 23, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.
Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
Donald Rumsfeld
March 30, 2003

Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.
Neocon scholar Robert Kagan
April 9, 2003

I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found.
Ari Fleischer
April 10, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
George W. Bush
April 24, 2003

There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld
April 25, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.
George W. Bush
May 3, 2003

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.
Colin Powell
May 4, 2003

We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld
May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.
George W. Bush
May 6, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.
Condoleeza Rice
May 12, 2003

I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.
Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne
May 13, 2003

Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.
Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
May 21, 2003

Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.
Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
May 26, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
Donald Rumsfeld
May 27, 2003

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
Paul Wolfowitz
May 28, 2003

It was a surprise to me then — it remains a surprise to me now — that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.
Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
May 30, 2003

But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.
George W. Bush Interview with TVP Poland
5/30/2003

You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons ...They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two...And we'll find more weapons as time goes on And we'll find more weapons as time goes on.
George W. Bush Press Briefing
5/30/2003

"We are going to assemble that evidence and present it properly to people… a complete picture." (Of a new intelligence dossier with fresh evidence about Iraq's illegal arsenal)
Prime Minister Blair - London Daily Telegraph - June 2, 2003

"We've made sure Iraq is not going to be used as an arsenal for terrorist groups. We're going to look. We'll reveal the truth. But one thing is certain: no terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime because the Iraqi regime is no more."
President Bush - New York Times - June 5, 2003

"We didn't just make them up one night. Those were eyewitness accounts of people who had worked in the program and knew it was going on, multiple accounts. 'Oh, it was a hydrogen-making thing for balloons. ' No, There's no question in my mind what it was designed for."
Secretary Powell - Time - June 9, 2003

"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz - Vanity Fair - July 2003

"Iraq had a weapons program. Intelligence throughout the decade showed they had a weapons program. I am absolutely convinced with time we'll find out that they did have a weapons program." (From a Cabinet meeting on June 9)
President Bush - Washington Post - June 10, 2003

"The president, in saying programs, also applies that to weapons. The president had repeatedly said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that includes everything knowable up to the opening shots of the war. We still have confidence in that information. You could say Iraq continues to have weapons of mass destruction. We have confidence we're going to find them. They're still there."
Press Secretary Fleischer - Washington Post - June 10, 2003

"We did not know at the time – maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency – but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery. Of course it was information that was mistaken." (From Sunday interview)
National Security - Advisor Rice - Los Angeles Times

“I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons… I don't know anybody in any government or any intelligence agency who suggested that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons. That's fact number one.”
Donald Rumsfeld June 2003
LISTEN To MP3 Clip
“The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his ‘nuclear mujahideen’.... his nuclear holy warriors… Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof.... the smoking gun.... that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”
George W. Bush October 2002
LISTEN To MP3 Clip

"This nation acted to a threat from the dictator of Iraq. Now there are some who would like to rewrite history; revisionist historians is what I like to call them" - George W. Bush

I'm looking over these posts of yours, and I'm going to have to think about them a bit....Thanks for spending the time and treating the responses with some patience ... that needs to be more common around here.

Proverbs 9:9-10 describes your response to my posts last night:

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you;
rebuke a wise man and he will love you.
Instruct a wise man and he will be wiser still;
teach a righteous man and he will add to his learning.

Good for you, gobucks, because I wasn't gentle. One of my strongest character flaws is that I am honest to a fault. The truth is so important to me that I sometimes forget to speak it in love. Love takes more time; getting straight to the point is not preferable to gentleness. I am capable of gentleness, when I am willing to take the time. This is my way of saying that I, too, am capable of learning from rebuke.

My initial thought is that from a purely debate POV, you outclass me, evidently, and I'm not too pig-headed to concede that.

I gave no thought to out-classing you, only to dissecting what you had said and responding to it frame by frame so that I could convey to you why it was that you were failing to connect with me. You asked me to do it. It is supremely important to me that when I convey a thought in writing I express it in such a way that the reader clearly understands my point. I do not want to be misinterpreted. I believe in truth, and that truth can be conveyed with words, because words have meaning. There is no one-upmanship in this; it is to our mutual benefit to communicate well.

OTOH, I'm not, for some reason (other than lunacy ... for if I'm a lunatic, then you must be thinking roughly 70 percent of FREEPERS have no brain), getting my own point across at all. So, I'm going to think about this too.

Without trying to be priggish or proud, let me suggest that the above thoughts might have been better conveyed with the following sentence structure:

"OTOH, I'm not, for some reason, getting my own point across at all. I'm going to think about this, too.
If I'm a lunatic, then you must think roughly 70 percent of FReepers have no brain."

My reply:

A) I can only respond to what you have written. Words have meaning. It is helpful to use simple sentence structure, to double-check word meanings using a dictionary, and to support one's theories with fact and example. It is also helpful to stick to one point (usually the main thrust of the thread), making that the center of your argument to which you continually return.

B) I never said you were a lunatic. I stridently presented a case that what you were posting was lunacy. You yourself used the term "mental poison" when speaking to another FReeper. While the word I used, lunacy, implies illogical thought processes without guilt, the expression you chose, mental poison, implies intentional corruption of otherwise wholesome thought processes. I never once assumed you were a lunatic: it was beyond me to try to discover what your motives were, or what your excuse was, for posting the way you did, for making arguments in the way you did.

By bringing to the table a suggestion that I "must" be thinking of "70 percent of FReepers" a certain way, in this case as having "no brain," you are misdirecting the conversation by an accusation that is unfounded in truth. What I thought about any other FReepers was already posted in Answer A, and could be addressed quote by quote and line by line. If I were of the sort to do so, I might have responded to this accusation by saying, "Where did I say that I think 70 percent of FReepers have no brain?" You would have been hard-pressed to find such a quote, thus proving the accusation false and discrediting the rest of your argument, and the meat of our conversation would have been set aside for a side-dish of bitter herbs.

There is an Answer D waiting in the wings yet, though you have already thanked me for it. Perhaps you were thanking me for holding it in abeyance? ( ;

I have liked and disliked Peggy's columns for years, have never been all that enamored of her,to the point of sycophant status ( which many here hold ),and have said that she goes from treacly Catholic school girl, to polished speech writer ( much less of that in her columns, than in her former life, prepunditry),to feckless talking head.

Then perhaps you should've described her as such on this thread, as opposed to calling her a hack. Surely you recognize that "hack" carries a different meaning than your above comments, right?

She's a " hack ". Some hacks write things we agree with, others don't. Some do both, at various times.

You're just trying to start something and it won't work. LOL

Perhaps you were thanking me for holding it in abeyance? ( ;

LOL!! Well, one could think I was doing so, given how I'm still digesting what you've provided so far. Bring it (D) on!! (ouch...that play on words won't sell a ticket.) That said, the scope and content of your responses are very fair.

Among the bottom lines, as I read between the lines, you're stating that words are important - and your responses are proportionate to the importance I accord to my own words.

By extension, one could say you're inferring that I should quit being lazy in the wording of my posts.

(btw, Eph4:29 is my favorite verse ... which I don't follow often enough).

I believe in truth, and that truth can be conveyed with words, because words have meaning.

I too believe in truth. Words, however, are symbols that by internal force of will must undergo a mental translation for meaning to manifest itself.

Now, I've got some other things I sense about this line of thinking ... but, I'll wait a bit. Looking forward to D.

So in your mind Peggy Noonan is little more than a mercenary. Even though she's authored some of the greatest speeches delivered by conservatives in history, written columns highly complimentary of GWB, authored books that advance the cause of conservatism, and appeared on TV defending conservatives.

One slight criticism of Bush, and she's a hack. Think you tolerance level might need some tweaking?

(btw, Eph4:29 is my favorite verse ... which I don't follow often enough). I too believe in truth. Words, however, are symbols that by internal force of will must undergo a mental translation for meaning to manifest itself.

You profess that you agree with the Biblical admonition to not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouth, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen, yet you have posted lies. You have spent most of your posts on this thread attempting to tear down the less educated readers of this forum by taking a bowel movement on the Constitution. That you profess to believe in wholesome speech is the greatest indication that your motive behind the lunacy you have posted is malicious deception. Lies do not build others up and it is a Christian imperative to reveal lies by truth, so that is what I have done with the slop you've presented here, post by post and line by line.

D)
1) The spirit of the constitution is a)protect the sovereignty of the nation-state of the US and b) protect the religious freedom in the US. BOTH. But, both are being attacked by a thousand paper cuts.

The very words of that sacred document declare openly what its intended purpose is. Your interpretation of its 'spirit' is not required.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

2) Article I, Section 8, beginning in paragraph 9 is where you will find the Constitutional Law regarding the specifics of how Congress may declare war, raise and support Armies (but no appropriation of funds shall be for more than 2 years), provide and maintain a Navy and land forces, call forth the Militia, erect forts, arsenals, etc., and make all laws necessary and proper to the execution of the foregoing powers.

Article II, Section 2, paragraph 1 names the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and of the Militia of the several states when called into service of the United States.

3) These specifics in the body of the United States Constitution addressing war and the protection of our borders, sovereignty, and lands notwithstanding, that sacred document's intended and clearly written purpose is to establish our unique form of government, define how powers of the United States government are divided into three coequal branches, what specific powers each of those branches holds, and what checks and balances are available when one branch seeks to usurp more power than it is Constitutionally allowed.

4) The freedom of religion is not addressed in any Article of the Constitution's body, but rather in the Amendments known as the Bill of Rights. Arguably, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have not since their ratification existed as separate or independent documents, but exist as one whole, defining the Law of the Land, and it is generally accepted that the reference to the one includes by inference the reference to the other.

5) The freedom of religion which is man's right by birth (see Declaration of Independence) is protected as a natural right under the Laws of these United States specifically addressed in Amendment I of the Bill of Rights. No "spirit" of any law is needed; the plain words of the written law are there for all to read.

6) My point it this: leftist have used LEGAL LAWS to OUTLAW RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION. They have twisted the spirit of the constitution, succesfully, through worshipping legalism. Ditto with regards to the multi-national organizations, esp the U.N.

Such filth you have spewed on this forum concerning the sacred text of our Constitution!

a) There is no such thing as a "legal law" in the United States which can "outlaw religious expression" short of a Constitutional Amendment. Any ruling attempting to do so is by its nature in opposition to the very clearly worded law of the U. S. Constitution/Bill of Rights and therefore void. Even should an Amendment to the U. S. Constitution be passed which in any way abridges the human right to freedom of religion it would, according to the organic law of the Declaration of Independence, be null, and subject to that founding document's provision for the right of the people to alter or abolish any form of government which becomes destructive of its intended institution to secure the God-given rights of the people.
b) Leftists do not worship legalism. I have addressed this in a previous post. Because repetition makes such an excellent teacher I will say again that the liberal democrats have not sought and do not seek to enforce current U. S. law; they have not sought and do not seek to change the law of the land by Amendment, which is the only legal path to doing so; and they have no intention, method, consensus, or majority by which to seek future changes in law. They have not used legal means in their attempts to make new law and/or nullify the old, rather they have usurped powers not granted them in the courts, and the Constitution provides a very clear check to this usurpation: impeachment of judges by Congress. The leftists have also made use of their propaganda machine known as the Mainstream Media. Saying a thing is so does not make it so; as you have demonstrated, any liar can do that. For this very reason our Founders sealed in writing and with the consent of the governed our very specific laws pertaining to the form and function of our government and the freedoms of our people.
c) Organizations such as the United Nations have authority over our nation and her laws only insofar as Congress gives it to them by treaty. No treaty made with any nation or conglomerate of nations can by fiat or force nullify the Law of the Land of the United States of America. The only legal means by which our Constitution and our sovereignty can by changed is by amendment, with the consent of the governed. Any word or claim to the contrary is at best a lie and at worst treason according to our charters.

7) The 'true' conservatives who hate Bush over the immigration issue, are using legalisms to justify their hatred of Bush. They are, in an unintentional way, following the model of the trojan horse islamo/communists that are DESPERATELY trying to bring on a major economic meltdown on earth.

con·ser·va·tism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-sûrv-tzm)
n.
The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.
______________________________________________________

8) I don't know any conservatives that "hate Bush over the immigration issue." I know many conservatives (as well as liberals, libertarians and disaffected voters) who disagree with him stridently on that issue and are opposed to the implementation by Congress of the President's proposal.

9) As far as using "legalisms" to justify one's position for or against Illegal Alien Forgiveness, the Law of the Land is the Law of the Land and if a proposal does not come in line with the Law of the Land it can not be made into law without amending the Law of the Land. You have a very unhealthy disrespect for Law, gobucks, evidenced by every reference to 'legalisms.' The Law is the Law and there are very specific ways to change Law legally, or to make new Law legally. If it is illegal for immigrants to enter the United States in any way other than that prescribed by Congress, and if there are laws in place by which this illegal behavior is punished, the only way the breaking of the law can be forgiven is by a Presidential pardon. Presidents pardon criminals all the time. As Americans we have the protected right of disagreeing with this practice. As Americans living in a century of terrorist attacks upon our soil we would be remiss in failing to disagree with such a practice.

10) RE: Trojan Horse
n.
1: a subversive group that supports the enemy and engages in espionage or sabotage; an enemy in your midst [syn: fifth column]
__________________________________________________________

You have a very unhealthy disrespect for Law, gobucks, evidenced by every reference to 'legalisms.'.

1) Your inferences need to be reformulated. But, I say a lot which indicates I disrespect lawyers, yes. You really sound like a lawyer, fwiw.

2) Instead of baldly concluding that I disrespect the 'law', you should consider stating that you are inferring I do so. However, feel free to baldly conclude I don't write well .... but, I already conceded that earlier.

Building up you, according to your need .... what words are wholesome, such that you will heed them? Oh, wait - the truth seems to be there, at the bottom of your post.

In a not-so-subtle way, you indicate that I'm not really a Laocoon after all ... but a Trojan horse in Laocoon drag.

You imply that I am the enemy hidden within our midst. Though clearly a transparent enemy according to your superior education. After all, you can well discern how I tear down the less educated, so we should defer to you on that, right?

In fact, one could infer you're the genuine Laocoon, the priest who is warning the 'less educated' as you chuck your spear toward me. Well at least you make the effort ... too many are silent regardless of their beliefs. In that, at the least, you set a worthy example.

And it's a also a fact that from the enemy unwholesome words are all that are to be expected, right?

Are my inferences and facts on target .30Carbine?

FWIW, our exchange so far deepens my view regarding the commitment of legalists to legalisms. And, I think you're now trying to merely bait me. I don't really think you desire to change my view, or even 'get' yours. I believe you desire to merely nod your head as you precisely proclaim yours, and to witness the rod tip dip, and hear the reel whine. I bet you fish, a lot.

I think that you associating me with the Franco lovers of Madrid in the holy leftist bloodbath, the prequel to WWII, the Spanish Civil War, is bait.

I think the concomitant veiled accusation of treason against me, a gold crew member who voluntarily experienced a Soviet submarine hunting my ship during my 6 Trident Strategic Nuclear Deterrent Patrols, is bait.

Here's what I also think. I don't think you know how to fish very well, and I don't think you know how to recognize a fish very well. But, you are a bait expert, I'll grant.

That all said, I'll overlook your bait, and look over the non-baited points in ABC and D ... and get back to you later. And I will, your unwholesome talk and your false prophecies notwithstanding.