Presidential politics, express your views, and please be polite about it

Most of you probably don’t know how much I love Presidential elections, probably because I was still pretty young the last time we had one. November of 2004 I was 16, and not old enough to vote, but I followed it very closely. I had a very strong opinion of who I wanted to win, and wasn't afraid to voice it.

As the South Carolina primary draws closer and closer I'm interested in seeing what people actually thing. I sit back and look at the polls constantly, and some show some results, others paint it differently, so I'm just wondering what my fellow Beaufortonians think. You don’t necessarily have to disclose who you will be voting for in the primary, just talk about who you like and why you like them, or talk about somebody and why you don’t like them or their views.

I myself, 19, am not yet a registered voter. I have the application filled out, I just have to drop it off and get my voters registration card. I keep forgetting to drop it off. I was disappointed when the paper printed the story saying that the last day to register in order to vote in the primary had passed, but I cant blame the paper for my apathy. But I will be registered for the election in November.

Please don’t use this as a chance to bad mouth people here for their views. Attack the candidates, not the posters here please. Show your maturity. This is politics and everybody has a different opinion, so please respect their opinions. Instead of attacking somebody for their views, try to politely enlighten them.

As I cant vote for the primary, I will start, and I will touch a little bit on each of the candidates. My views tend to be more republican, but that doesn’t mean that just because I’m a republican that I have to vote republican. I am still undecided.

Hillary Clinton: I’m not sure what to think. I don’t think it’s the governments roll to pay for health coverage. I believe in a smaller, less expensive government. She wants to begin a withdrawal from Iraq within 60 days of taking the presidency and I believe that it would just spread the violence. She doesn’t have a lot going for her that makes me want to vote for her other than the fact that she wants to revisit the don’t ask don’t tell policy that we now have and she is in favor of civil unions. I certainly think that its worth a shot to let a woman to be the president.

Barrack Obama: Here again I’m not sure what to think. No to government health care. No to leaving Iraq behind. Not that I don’t want to get out of there, I do. Each death is one too many, but in my eyes, we started this mess so we need to come up with a way to fix it. If you want to be president, show us some diplomacy skills and come up with a real plan on how to fix things instead of just turning and running with your tail between your legs. For some reason Oprah is publican campaigning for Obama. I don’t know if its just because he is black or if its because she really believes in his ideas, or both. I don’t believe that a person should vote for somebody just because of their race or gender. Not much going for him in my eyes except for what I noted with Hillary when it comes to don’t ask don’t tell and civil unions. I, like with Hillary, don’t see anything wrong with a black man running the country.

John Edwards: Now here is a candidate that catches my eye. There was something about him that caught my eye in 2004 but the fact that he was teamed up with Kerry turned me away from him. But he is a good southern gentleman. The fact that he is from South Carolina gives him points in my book. But there’s something personal there, like he said last night in the debates. He kept saying that for him its personal. He has put a big emphasis on helping the middle class. That’s a big part of the country, including myself, and I definitely know what its like to live on a limited budget because when I was younger my house burned to the ground and we lost almost virtually everything, and we struggled for a long time after that. I wouldn’t wish that on anybody and would love to see Edwards do something, anything, to help the middle class. Also, as with Obama and Clinton both, he is in favor of revisiting don’t ask don’t tell and civil unions.

Rudy Giuliani: Here is a candidate that I like. There are a few things that I don’t agree with, but hardly ever do you find a candidate that you agree with 100% on every single thing. I like his policies toward illegal immigration, minus the “tamper proof ID card”. I’m not sure how you would give one of those to illegal aliens, or even where you would get the money to pay for them, but I don’t agree with them. But I do believe in a border fence and a tough stance on immigration. He wants to expand the country’s military by ten combat brigades, which I agree with. I agree with a large, strong military. The world is changed, and so must we if we want to stay competitive. I like his record in NYC of turning welfare into jobs and creating a surplus from a deficit. He has a history of being gay friendly, and has dressed in drag (for some strange reason) publicly three times. But the thing I don’t like about him is that he has changed some. There was a buzz about him in the beginning and a lot of people were saying that he wasn’t conservative enough for the nomination. Then he was ahead in the national polls, and he still is. But since then he has tried to become a little more conservative and slipped some in the polls. But I know that in an election people will change to let everybody hear what they want to, then do something else in office. I’m leaning toward Giuliani for 08.

Mitt Romney: Not really sure what to say. Um. He was governor of Massachusetts, the only state that allows gay marriage, when gay marriage became law, but he is against any gay rights. A little contradictory to me. I do refuse to vote for Mitt Romney, a man who has publicly stated that he believes that dead parents are better than gay parents. He has a history of flip flopping as well. He wont get my vote.

John McCain: This man has a long history of serving this country and serving it greatly. I respect him a whole lot and wouldn’t complain if he were elected tomorrow. But I’m not sure if I would vote for him tomorrow. He has a history of working with both sides of the isle which I believe is important. You cant have a president who comes in saying this are my beliefs and this is the only way this country is going to run. I liked how he pushed for the troop surge, because now its working.

Mike Huckabee: …..A minister….as president? I was watching foxnews here tonight as they were discussing the forum they just had on foxnews, and a woman said something that made me smile, because its something like I have been saying for a while now. A minister…We aren’t voting for the leader of a church, we are voting for the leader of a country. A country that has a separation of church and state I mind you. I’m not saying that the president cant believe in god. Huckabee is a religious man, and I respect that. But you don’t rule the country with the hand of god. The constitution gives us a separation of church and state. I don’t believe that a minister should be president because he is going to run the country with his views only. There’s no way a minister is going to allow gay marriage or repeal don’t ask don’t tell. I’m not sure why because the bible preaches tolerance, but such is life. He wont get my vote either.

Ron Paul: A little out there, but has some valid points. He is the only republican who wants to withdrawal from Iraq immediately. I do like the idea of backing the dollar with gold, because the dollar is deteriorating very quickly. He has achieved campaigning history with raking in $6 million in a single day for his campaign financing, so apparently there’s a lot of people out there that agree with him. I’m not sure if I’m one of them. He does support gay marriage though, so that’s a plus in my book.

I’m really split in this election. As many of you may or may not know, I am gay. I have a struggle going on here. I’m a republican in most aspects, but it just so happens that the party that I identify with the most doesn’t wish me to have the same rights as everybody else. So do I vote for the candidate that will give me my personal rights, or do I vote for the candidate that I think will do best for the country. Or do I try to find a candidate that I believe will do both if there is one? Folks, I’m still an undecided voter


Comments

Joseph, I knew you were gay from your previous postings, so it was a surprise that you tend to lean to the republicans. To stereotype, that is something of an anomaly. I admire your independent streak.

While I'm not a registered Republican, I vote that way. If I were a Democrat, I would vote for Obama. As a Democrat, I would like his ideas and fresh perspective. There is no way in God's green earth I would EVER vote for Hillary....woman or no woman. I don't trust her and have never liked her. In my opinion, she is doing this for herself, not the country. From what I've read about her, I think she has had her eye on this since college and leeched on to Bill when she saw his political potential. Edwards: I have read interviews where he says his inspiration for doing this is his dead son. He ran for the Senate shortly after Wade's death to "make a difference" and this is in Wade's memory as a way of honoring him. I am not for big government interventions and I don't want my taxes to skyrocket under the Democrats. Like you, I don't feel it is up to the government to provide health coverage.

Right now I'm leaning toward either McCain or Huckabee. I don't like Romney; there is something about him I don't trust. And....I don't like the negativity he and Hillary have already produced. I like the fact that McCain can work with the Dems., but I don't like that he may sacrifice Republican ideals to pander to them.


Posted by gwg4544 - Mon, 2008-01-07 07:14

For some interesting background information on McCain try reading his bio on wikipedia.

And, yes, I'd never vote for Hillary Clinton, she's been a user from the getgo.

I'm an independent voter, and will probably go with Obama if he gets the nomination. Otherwise, Guiliani.


Posted by elida987 - Mon, 2008-01-07 08:04

Actually it seems as though several gay politicians and activists "lean to the republicans." Here is a link complete with humor and information:

http://www.badmouth.net/top-five-republican-gay-sex-scandals/


Posted by Shadows - Mon, 2008-01-07 10:21

No one on the Dem ticket is someone I would even want for dog catcher. I don't like their personal values OR politics.

Giuliani...won't even stand on his own personal values, what makes me think he would stand on mine?

McCain...a dipswitch...has contradicted himself on several ocassions...which qualifies him as a Dem (see first paragraph).

Romney...I like most of his values but, like gwg, just something about him hangs in my throat.

Paul...I like his politics, hate his values.

Huckabee...like his values, hate his politics.

I notice you left out Hunter and Thompson and I understand why...too far back in the pack at this point to possibly be viable. But being the contrary one that I am, I will post my thoughts anyway:

Thompson...very capable of making executive decisions and taking the heat for those decisions...I like that in him...however, personal values somewhat lacking.

Hunter...THE MAN...great personal values, great politics...I wish he was leading the pack.


Posted by scnative - Mon, 2008-01-07 07:58

Thanks for starting this thread, josephstepp. We have to vote in a couple of weeks, and I'm still undecided, too.

Just wanted to clear up something you said, earlier, about Mitt Romney. He DOES oppose gay marriage (which I believe all the candidates do), but has been very supportive of gay rights. As governor, he supported hate crimes legislation, supported benefits for gay partners, and has always been strong on equality in the work place. (This isn't my pet issue, but I thought YOU should know that, Joseph.) Most people I talk to don't like Mitt - just sort of a "gut reaction." I think he'd make a great president, mainly because he's incredibly smart and a terrific manager. He's also a solid family man, which I like. BUT, if you don't like somebody in your "gut," you can't vote for him. I think Mitt's probably the best candidate that NOBODY likes!

Speaking of the gut factor... I've always had a visceral gut reaction against John Edwards. He just feels like a phony to me. He sets himself up as a "man of the people," and champion of the poor, then goes and builds a 28,000 sq ft house. Even if you don't think that's hypocritical, you have to admit it's a little tone deaf, politically speaking. And now he's got this populist, rage-against-the-machine, all-corporations-are-evil message going. I think he's unrealistic and way too angry.

I could vote for Obama. I think his politics are too liberal, but I respect him immensely. And America needs a uniter desperately. That need may even trump politics at this point in history. I WILL say that I find his debate performances less impressive than his oratory. But he may get better.

I REALLY like Huckabee. I watched him (along with the other R nominees) on a Fox panel last night. The rap on Huck is that he's too fiscally liberal and that he doesn't "know enough" to be president. For me, he went a long way toward beating BOTH those accusations last night. He came across as strong, knowledgeable, and conservative. Those who would paint him as a dumb Preacher Man who only appeals to evangelicals are missing the point. Huck is appealing to middle class working people like me. Like Edwards, he cares more about Main Street than Wall Street, but unlike Edwards, he believes that big government is the problem, not big business. Huckabee may need to "policy up" a bit, but I think he's more capable than people give him credit for.

Fred Thompson is smart as a whip and would make a fine president. But I'm afraid his day has passed. I'd love to be proven wrong, but that's my feeling.

I'm torn on John McCain. I thought he was my favorite - I like his independent streak and admire his character. But in this weekend's debate, he came across to me as a cranky old man. His timing was a little off. I just wonder if maybe he's... past his prime?

Rudy hasn't captured my heart. He goes on and on about 9/11, and how great he was during that crisis, but he almost seems like a one trick pony. And his handling of his own personal life reflects such poor judgment and character, it's almost impossible to ignore. I'm one of those people who believes that character counts.


Posted by margjeff - Mon, 2008-01-07 08:57

margjeff wrote:

Thanks for starting this thread, josephstepp. We have to vote in a couple of weeks, and I'm still undecided, too.

Just wanted to clear up something you said, earlier, about Mitt Romney. He DOES oppose gay marriage (which I believe all the candidates do), but has been very supportive of gay rights. As governor, he supported hate crimes legislation, supported benefits for gay partners, and has always been strong on equality in the work place. (This isn't my pet issue, but I thought YOU should know that, Joseph.) Most people I talk to don't like Mitt - just sort of a "gut reaction." I think he'd make a great president, mainly because he's incredibly smart and a terrific manager. He's also a solid family man, which I like. BUT, if you don't like somebody in your "gut," you can't vote for him. I think Mitt's probably the best candidate that NOBODY likes!

I'm suprised to see that your definition of gay rights is publicly stating that dead parents are better than gay parents. Thats pretty much saying he would rather me, a human being, to be dead than share the joy of having a child, which I plan to do. Thats not equal rights.

He is also against repealing dont ask dont tell. Tell me how thats supporting gay rights?


Posted by josephstepp - Mon, 2008-01-07 13:52

I'll say what I've said before . . .

When it comes to 2 people living together in the civil aspects of marriage, ALL the state can do is create a contract establishing financial and health care responsibilities. Thats all the marriage license is; a contract. Divorce terminates the contract, and sets the financial responsbility of the parties. Marriage traditionally has involved joint financial relationship and child rearing; both critical state interests.

Marriage is a state of grace endorsed and created for man and woman by God.

When it comes to the civil aspects of marriage, calling it marriage or a civil union is a semantic argument; it is only about children and money. As a conservative, and Christian, I see homosexuality as a sin, but no more of a sin than theft, gluttony, premarital sex or any one of the multifarious sins we live in every day.

It is NOT for ME to determine a punishment for the sin of homosexuality. Just as it is not for me to create punishments for other sins, like premarital sex, excessive drinking, 'recreational' drugs, adultery, etc etc. It is NOT for me to bar homosexuals from the rights of the contract of civil union. I believe we should ALL get a civil union from the state, and that all the same rights for anything the state creates.

Marriage is something that happens before God and family, whether in a synagogue, mosque or church.


joefarrell's picture
Posted by joefarrell - Mon, 2008-01-07 16:19

I respect your opinion and I understand your stance, and I'm happy that you leave it up to others to decide my fate, I respect you for that. However, Marriage is more than a civil union. There are over a thousand rights that are given to a couple when they are married that I cannot obtain. Even in a civil union I do not recieve all of the same benefits of a marriage. Its been coined with the seperate but equal catch, but thats ironic because its both seperate and NOT equal.

I'm not at all saying that I'm demanding special treatment. But I, as a human being should be able to love any person of my choosing.


Posted by josephstepp - Mon, 2008-01-07 20:00

I said EVERYONE gets a civil union - strike the word married or spouse from every statute and replace it with civil union . . . if you only get married in a church, how are you legal rights any difference from mine as a married hetero? I am not seeing that one . . .


joefarrell's picture
Posted by joefarrell - Mon, 2008-01-07 20:41

Civil unions only take effect on the state level. They do NOT include any FEDERAL rights. If we get rid of marriage Mr. Farrell, are you ready and willing to give up some of your rights?


Posted by josephstepp - Mon, 2008-01-07 20:54

when I say we change marriage to civil union that is ALL marriage. I am not giving up any rights, we all have the SAME rights. any two people unrelated to the third level of consanguity can agreed to be bound to the civil rights and benefits conferred upon them by statute.

The STATE [and by state I mean government, state and federal] does not CARE if we get married. Don't you see that the marriage officiated by a JP or at the county clerk's office is NOT a 'marriage' in the eyes of God, only of the STATE. And the STATE only cares about money and children.

Joe, you need to remove the blinders that hate and jealousy is putting over your eyes - when I say that EVERYONE gets a civil union that is what I mean - EVERYONE. Thus, from the perspective of 'civil' rights and obligations, there is no difference, simply because, there is none now. You may think there is but the feds have defined the rules differently than many states.

I got married before my God and my friends and family - I stood in line for 30 minutes to get a license that is a written contract under state law - it did not 'marry' me and my wife. The feds have decided to limit their contractual rights, they cannot limit the joy found in marriage ordained by God, nor should you define YOUR spiritual and family life by what a government decides to 'give you.' That is pretty sad.

But, as I said, I'm for eliminating EVERY restriction so that any two people who are not related to the level of second cousins, can receive the civil union paperwork. Then there is NO marriage codified by a government's laws. Then there is NO problem with 'gay' marriage, since most mainline Christian churches will not 'marry' same sex couples, and no mosque or synagogue in the world will either. However, those who find it valuable can still have that civil union attested to by a minister, mullah or rabbi in their church as a marriage under their religious beliefs, or not.

I want to TAKE AWAY this silly weapon homosexuals think they have - if everyone gets the civil contract then no one gets married. This takes away a divisive weapon that the militant gay community wields in the political arena and stops Christians who have a heart from feeling torn. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, which is the right to control civil laws and civil life, and render unto God that which is rightfully God's, i.e., the consecration of a marriage between a man and woman.


joefarrell's picture
Posted by joefarrell - Tue, 2008-01-08 08:49

This is an interesting discussion. So interesting, in fact, it pushed me to do some research. Joseph, it seems that the latest studies on homosexual attraction suggest that it is probably caused (nobody's quite sure) by a mix of genetics and environment. It seems sexuality is much more fluid than scientists once believed; we are all on a "sliding scale" of sorts, with most of us leaning heavily toward heterosexuality, a few of us leaning heavily your way, and some of us in the middle. There is some research showing that dissatisfied gays can actually change their sexual orientation through therapy. Other researchers believe they can't. It's such a hot button issue, it's sometimes hard to separate the scientific results from the politics driving them.

I am talking strictly about science here, discounting religion altogether. You are certainly free to do the same. As you've noted, America is a free country and we are all free to practice any religion or NO religion. If you discount the Bible as a source of truth and morality, AND discount natural law (which would suggest that sexuality is for procreation and bonding mates together for the good of their children and society), then you can easily live the way you want to live without guilt or shame. You'll have plenty of support. Western society is becoming increasingly more tolerant of the gay lifestyle and increasingly LESS tolerant of those who would look to an ancient book for truth, wisdom, and guidelines for virtuous living. However, having read over your responses in this thread, it's clear to me that you're trying very hard to reconcile your lifestyle with the teachings in that book. I'm not sure you're as confident in your position as your think you are. You still have some soul-searching to do, I'm afraid. As a fellow seeker, I sincerely wish you well.

Meanwhile, Joefarrell's idea about "civil unions for all" seems like a good solution to me.


Posted by margjeff - Tue, 2008-01-08 09:48

margjeff wrote:

Just wanted to clear up something you said, earlier, about Mitt Romney. He DOES oppose gay marriage (which I believe all the candidates do),

wrong one canidate does... unfortunately he doesn't has a chance, but... Dennis is great!


Posted by zoo - Mon, 2008-01-07 14:20

zoo wrote:
margjeff wrote:

Just wanted to clear up something you said, earlier, about Mitt Romney. He DOES oppose gay marriage (which I believe all the candidates do),

wrong one canidate does... unfortunately he doesn't has a chance, but... Dennis is great!

Actually there are 3 candidates that support gay marriage. Dennis, Ron Paul and Mike Gravel. Its a shame that neither of them really have a shot at either nomination.


Posted by josephstepp - Mon, 2008-01-07 20:39


as I refer to her as old bait and switch. I have no objection to a woman being president. Sometimes the best man for a job is a woman........just not that one. She touts her experience, yet has none that I can see.(being married to a brain surgeon, doesn't make you a doctor)......I have yet to talk to anyone who will vote for her, yet she remains in the top three. Hopefully this week will end that.


Posted by aplebeian - Mon, 2008-01-07 08:56

aplebeian wrote:


as I refer to her as old bait and switch. I have no objection to a woman being president. Sometimes the best man for a job is a woman........just not that one. She touts her experience, yet has none that I can see.(being married to a brain surgeon, doesn't make you a doctor)......I have yet to talk to anyone who will vote for her, yet she remains in the top three. Hopefully this week will end that.

35 years of change
What change? Watching Bill as governor.
What change? Watching Bill as president.
And as senator, has she written any bill that has passed?


djv1255's picture
Posted by djv1255 - Mon, 2008-01-07 09:26

I am really hoping that the country is crazy enough to nominate both of these men. I actively look forward to their positive campaigns for President. Would it not be WONDERFUL to leave swiftboating and the Clinton hardball politics in the dust this year? To discuss issues instead of hairstyles?

The fact that the core of both parties hates each of them is a positive in my book. What good has the liberal core of the democrats done for this nation in the last 40 years? Same question for the Republicans. They make deals for bridges to nowhere, have spent TRILLIONs on nothing meaningful, and crafted and maintained programs guaranteed to destroy families.

Huckabee is a Christian - the fact that he is a minister is relevant only as to his speaking style. However inartfully his campaign is positioning him, I cannot understand how, if you listen to what he says, you can come to the opinion you are voting for the leader of the church? His 'liberal' leanings are not truly liberal, they are Christianity manifesting itself in his actions. The knock on Republicans is how heartless they are, mean spirited and how they would leave starving, wounded puppies lying on the side ofthe road.

Gessh, now here is a Republican who would not do that. Why? Because of his faith - he SPENDS money on social programs designed to educate and give people opportunity. The Republicans attack him for being kind to people. And the Dems attack him for. . . .being kind to people the result of his faith. How does THAT make sense?

Huckabee pardoned lots of people; he gave people a second chance. Of 1000 people he pardoned TWO went on to further crime. Thats a .2% error rate. Can he pick stocks with that level of accuracy? Can YOU pick friends and employees with that level of accuracy? There are 998 people whose lives he SAVED from the constant poverty of being a ex-con. He should be rewarded by us, not criticized for it.

Huckabee has a dark side - we ALL have a dark side. Lets realize that. We are not electing a minister - he is NOT a minister - he is a former governor [and former minister] and presently unemployed. I used to be a Teamster as a teen moving furniture in the summer - does that mean that I am forever a democrat - give us all a break here.

On to Obama - gee - can a man with a good and decent heart not run for president as a democrat. Hill and Bill are just dying to go after him, but, if they do, they'll lose. Don't we ALL not want the politics of personal destruction? So, Obama has no foreign policy experience, neither did George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Jack Kennedy, LBJ, or Reagan. Yet they ALL managed. Thats why you pick people as SecState and NSA who HAVE that experience.

Presidents do not operate in a vacuum. Obama has little experience doing anything presidential, but look at Carter. Carter was elected for CHANGE. And he DID change the poisonous atmosphere of DC - until he failed miserably at economics and foreign policy. But his soul and kindness are revered in Presidential history.

People are tired of the same old Clinton Bush nasty politics.

I'd LOVE to see a new spirit in DC. I'm voting for Huckabee because he MAKES SENSE. Obama would make sense if I were a Dem.

Just remember, no matter who wins, if it is Obama, or Huck, or Edwards or even McCain, they will bring new people to the big jobs, and the bureaucracy will still be there to do 99% of the stuff behind scenes that no one ever sees.


joefarrell's picture
Posted by joefarrell - Mon, 2008-01-07 09:15

Wonderful comments! Thank you! As I said, I'm leaning toward Huckabee and I'm tired of the media referring to him as the "minister". They didn't do that with Jesse Jackson when he was running. He has always carried the title "reverend" and that's it. Nobody made a big deal of it as they are with Huckabee. Huck is a former governor, and people should look at his record. He has as much experience as Bill did when he was elected in '92.


Posted by gwg4544 - Mon, 2008-01-07 09:24

You just pushed me even further toward Huckabee. Great comments about Obama, too. I would love to see these two decent, inspiring men run for president. For more on the subject, read my blog at www.lcweekly.com (Am I allowed to do that, Mr. Blust? If not, I apologize in advance. Just take it down!)


Posted by margjeff - Mon, 2008-01-07 09:48

. . is always a bad thing in politics. No good deed goes unpunished, right?

As a Christian myself I can see why Huckabee spent money on so-called liberal programs. I can SEE that it is his 'do unto others' and 'what you do for the least of them, you do for me' mentality. Again, the fact that the 'Press' is hammering him for being 'inconsistent' as a 'Republican' is laughable.

The Press plays gotcha politics; and a person who is a Christian and taking what are perceived to be liberal actions because it is the 'right thing to do' is pilloried for it by the media who expect everyone to fit THEIR little box of who people are, based on what side they are on.

You know, most good people would help others. Most good people would not leave children suffering with poor education; they FIX IT if they could. Huckabee increased taxes because Arkansas education system needed fixing, and sometimes, money is a big part of fixing things. For one, money is needed for higher teacher salaries, because higher salaries bring [attract and retain] better teachers - talent follows money.

Huckabee raised taxes to change a truly depressing and unperforming state - in every area. If YOU had a choice of a job in Beaufort or a job in Hot Springs, where would you move your family?

Obama has the same rep. Instead of going the Jesse Jackson route of politics and kissing up to the democrats, he served as a community organizer. He graduated from Harvard Law MAGNA - he had his PICK of $200k starting jobs with fancy law firms and he goes into public service helping people. He could have EASILY gone the dem fancy law firm route, making rich friends and feathering his nest, but he didn't. That shows CHARACTER. He could have done EVERYTHING he did as community organizer from the 76th floor office of a fancy law firm, but he did not. You don't think that the biggest DC lobbying law firm would have scooped up the only BLACK president of Harvard Law Review in 104 years?

Here is a man whose heart is absolutely in the right place - he motivates people. That is one of the rarest commodities in the world. Anybody can be a lawyer for the most part - it is hard to motivate people to love you, when you are a lawyer! Obama inspires people. He reminds me ALOT of Robert Kennedy in 1968. The President in the modern age needs to inspire and lead, not to do the work. . . . thats what the Cabinet ministers are for. Bush led after Sept 11th, then he deteriorated into forcing us to live with his vision of a 'secure America,' where pumpkin pies and kids sippy cups are potential weapons, and the elderly in wheelchairs are searched as if Osama is hiding in their chairs.

I do not know about you, but I am ready for a little inspiration.


joefarrell's picture
Posted by joefarrell - Mon, 2008-01-07 09:51

I received this article this morning as a forward, and thought it was interesting enought to post here. Just a few more tidbits on Hillary:
--------------------------------------

When former FBI Agent, Gary Aldrich, wrote his book, "Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside The Clinton White House", he strenuously wanted to expose the Clinton's actions which endangered National Security. Little did he realize, when he was reporting personal observations of Clinton behavior, he was providing iron-clad proof that Bill and Hillary are, indeed, powerful Illuminist witches.
The New World Order is coming! Are you ready? Once you understand what this New World Order really is, and how it is being gradually implemented, you will be able to see it progressing in your daily news!!

Learn how to protect yourself, your loved ones!

Stand by for insights so startling you will never look at the news the same way again.

YOU ARE NOW ON

THE CUTTING EDGE

In 1933, a funny looking man with a moustache swayed enough Germans so that he was first elected, and then allowed to rise, to the post of absolute dictatorship -- Adolf Hitler. But, he was the most popular man in Germany, and remained so until just before Germany collapsed under allied firepower in 1945. At the very beginning, in 1933, certain White Magic Occultists recognized that Hitler was demonically possessed, and that he was a practitioner of the Black Magick Arts. Their vigorous attempts to warn people absolutely fell on deaf ears. Nobody believed him, and many of those who refused to believe died in Hitler's Holocaust. If only more people had believed the warnings that Hitler had a dark, black, demonic side. Now, in 1998, we are issuing the same type of warnings about Bill and Hillary Clinton. Listen carefully to our proofs.

Gary Aldrich, former FBI Agent assigned to the Bush White House as the FBI Liaison, was retained in that position by the Clinton White House. This practice of having an FBI Agent keeping an office within the White House complex, was a tradition dating back six presidents, to Lyndon Johnson. The purpose of this FBI White House office was to maintain a "comprehensive and effective security system ... to protect national security, the president, the taxpayer, and the White House itself". ["Unlimited Access", by Gary Aldrich, p. 5-6] The FBI traditionally assigned one of its very best and finest to occupy this position. FBI agents are trained investigators, able to not only solve complex and difficult criminal cases, but to be able to testify in a court of law about the findings of their investigations. Agents such as Aldrich are thoroughly trained observers of all that is occurring before their eyes, as well as to pick up tiny fragments of evidence in a crime scene. Therefore, when an FBI agent observes something, he does so in a way that will stand up in a court of law. Aldrich notes this fact most succinctly. "Most people with any knowledge of criminal investigations agree that FBI agents are the best investigators in the world." [p. 213]

Agent Aldrich observed much in the course of the nearly 3 years he spent at the Clinton White House [1993-1995] that led him to a sobering conclusion: "... the Clinton Administration was a corrupt disaster, beyond redemption or repair". [p. 154] What Agent Aldrich was referring to as "corrupt" were the deliberate attempts to block standard FBI background checks on White House staffers, to the blatant drug use by staffers, to the deliberate policy of allowing people without high security clearances to read Top Secret [and above] material, and to the deliberate lapses of National Security policy at the highest level, actions that Aldrich feared could lead to an attack on the United States by either Russia or China.

However, Aldrich unwittingly gave us information, based upon his personal observances of behavior by Bill and Hillary Clinton that absolutely identifies them as the powerful, practicing Illuminist witches we have always said they were. Of course, since Aldrich was not trained in Black Magick Occult, he did not realize that these observations were so damning. Aldrich did not realize he had just opened the door to confirming Doc Marquis'[Former Illuminist Witch] assertion that Bill and Hillary were powerful practicing witches, and that Hillary was the most powerful. Since Agent Aldrich has provided so much material from his book, we shall have to devote several articles to this subject. We have discussed the occult nature of Aldrich's observations with Doc Marquis, former Illuminist witch, now a Born Again Christian, in preparing for this article.

THE SMOKING GUN -- PROOF POSITIVE THAT HILLARY CLINTON IS AN ILLUMINIST WITCH

In Christmas, 1993, and again in 1994, the First Lady directed the decoration of the Christmas Tree in the Blue Room, in accordance with a long-standing White House tradition. Aldrich noted that this Tradition had become so pronounced that the tree which the First Lady set up became a reflection of who she was. We want to allow Aldrich the opportunity to speak for himself. "If the ornament is especially well-made, there is a good chance it will be selected for the tree in the Blue Room, the first lady's tree. The first lady's tree is the 'Mother of All Trees', and the one that's supposed to capture the 'message' of the first lady herself." [p. 100] In other words, this tree was supposed to capture the essence of the soul of the First Lady, and for the things important to her.

Therefore, Aldrich was terribly shocked when he participated in the unpacking of the ornaments which were to go on the First Lady's Christmas tree. Aldrich described these ornaments as "pornographic"; however, we immediately recognized them as being standard occultic symbols, and Black Magick symbols at that! The fact that Hillary put such a tree up two years in a row (1993-1994) is proof positive that she is a deep occultist! Only a Black Magick occultist would conceive of such "decorations" to adorn her Christmas Tree. We list these occultic ornaments, below, in black; we show Marquis' explanation in red; if we add explanation to his, our explanation will be in blue . We will be quoting from Aldrich's book, "Unlimited Access", p. 102-6.

OCCULTIC ORNAMENTS ADORNING HILLARY'S CHRISTMAS TREE

1) "Fertility god, made of carved dark wood, and put together so they look like stick figures." -- The male Fertility god is in authority during this time of the year. Sex is paramount in the religion of the occultist, and its celebration is one of the highest activities in which occultists can participate. From September 21 to March 21, the male Fertility god is in control of the earth. From March 21 to September 21, the Female goddess assumes supreme leadership. Therefore, the occultist will celebrate either the sex act or the male sex organs at this time of year, preponderantly.

2) "Twelve Lords a-leaping. The ornament consisted of tiny clay male figurines. Each was naked and had a large erection." Once again, you can see the predominance of the male sex organ on display. This associates directly with the male fertility god, above. Human sacrifice is also required on December 21, Yule. During the next 12 days, until Jan 1, this is the transition between the Old Year to the New Year in the American occult world. Notice that there are precisely 12 days from the occult holiday, December 21, to the New Year of January 1. Most people do not realize that this part of our Christmas celebration has such a Satanic foundation.

3) "Two Turtle Doves, but they didn't have shells this time -- they were joined together in an act of bird fornication." This represents the sexual union of the god and goddess. Usually the two preferred times of sexual union are during the two times of the Equinox when the transfer of authority is occurring. This act is also symbol of the sex rite. Once again, you can see the occultic obsession with the sex act. This is totally occultic, and is totally revealing of the type of person Hillary and Bill truly are, in their heart of inner hearts -- witches. This image shows the general occult theme of the male god and female goddess in the tantric sex act. Tantric sex is the occult belief that the energy inherent in the act of sexual climax can be used for occultic purposes, like casting of spells. We later refer to this belief as "Sex Magick", in paragraph 7.

4) "Five Golden rings -- sex toys known as 'cock rings' " This is emblematic of the phallic god. Sex worship is a major part of the occult religion. Occultists are big into the veneration of phallic objects [for the uninitiated among you, a phallic object is a stylistic representation of the male penis. "The phallus is a Pagan fertility symbol which represents generation, virility, and aggression." [Anton LaVey, "Satanic Bible", p. 139].

The most venerated phallic object is the Obelisk, because it is believed to be the place where the spirit of the Egyptian Sun God, Ra, resides. Each dedicated occultist is supposed to bow several times daily to the obelisk. Rather than describing the shape of the obelisk to you, I shall just tell you that the most famous obelisk in modern history is the Washington Monument. For a full disclosure of the significance of the Washington Monument, read NEWS1081, "Freemason Site Confirms Government Center In Washington, D.C., Was Deliberately Created With Freemason Occult Symbols".

5) "Another mystery ornament was the gingerbread man. There were five small, gold rings: one in his ear, one in his nose, one through his nipple, one through his belly button, and of course, the ever-popular cock ring." [Read above for description of the cock ring]. These are the five places where the occult five-fold kiss is given during a ritual. This kiss is a simple blessing in the occult, a recognition, and a welcoming. During an occult ceremony, a man gets his penis kissed; [Sounds kind of what Bill Clinton wanted all these girls, like Paula Jones, to do to him].

"This is part of the Legend, or Myth, of the god and goddess of witchcraft. The goddess had never loved, but she wanted to solve all mysteries, even death, and so she journeyed to the Netherworld. When she was challenged by the Guardians of the Netherworld, she was forced to disrobe and give up all her jewelry. But, since she was so beautiful, the god of the Netherworld fell in love with her, and kissed her. He wanted her to abide with him in Death, but she would not. Because she refused, she was made to suffer the symbolic scourge of death. Her beauty remained, so the god of the Netherworld taught her all the mysteries. He then gave her the Five-Fold Kiss", which is still practiced among the occult today.

Only a dedicated occultist would conceive of such an "ornament"! Hillary is now to be recognized as the powerful witch she truly is. She and Bill have often talked about operating a "Co-Presidency", about which we shall speak in another article. Here, she is approving occult ornaments which clearly depict the duality of the god and goddess of the occult, male and female, with a typical emphasis on sex and sex organs!

6) "Here was another five golden rings ornament -- five gold-wrapped condoms" Once again, we have sex on display, but this time, we see a slightly different picture, a picture of the completed sex act. A condom is designed to catch the male sperm upon ejaculation; therefore, a condom can be viewed as a symbol of the completed sex act. The significance of this revelation will become apparent after we share a similar ornament, in paragraph 7, followed by Marquis' explanation.

7) "There were other condom ornaments, some still in the wrapper, some not. Two sets had been 'blown' into balloons and tied to small trees." This is eemblematic of the Fertility Rites of 'Sexual Magick'. Sexual Magick is defined as that part of the occult belief that the energy of the sexual organism can be used for spell casting. T his the most obvious fulfillment of Paul's definition of a pagan in Romans 1:25, "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." Whenever anyone asks you what your definition of pagan is, quote this Scripture. Even self-confessed pagans will agree with it!

In this surprising occult belief, pagans are taught that they can achieve great power in the casting of spells if they can use the energy they believe is inherent in the precise moment of the climax of the sex act. Thus, it is very common for witches who are casting spells to engage in a sex act at the precise moment they are climaxing. This energy from a sexual organism can be realized from a heterosexual act, a lesbian act, or a homosexual act! Remember, occultists teach a "Duality In Nature" doctrine, which means that Nature can only be healthy if it is "balanced". Therefore, the occultist will believe that the highest level in witchcraft must involve sex acts that are both heterosexual and homosexual!

8) On top of the tree, there was a large stainless-steel ball pierced by colored shafts. This is the "orb" of the "Sun god". The Winter god is a personification of the god of the dead. This is because this god is a successor to the Celtic god of the dead -- Samoan -- worshipped during Halloween. The male Winter god begins his reign during the Autumnal Equinox, Mabon [Sept 21], and ends March 21, when the goddess comes to life during the Spring Equinox. March 21st is manifested as the Spring goddess at first, and then on May 1st, the night of Beltain, she is fully manifested as the Earth Mother, called among other names, Diana, and Gaia. Both March 21 and May 1 call for human sacrifice. The third manifestation of the goddess is Sept 21st and she is called the Crone. Human sacrifice is called for on Sept 21, March 21, and May 1. When Hillary put up this Sun Orb, she is passing her supreme authority to the male Sun god, until March 21st when the goddess takes this supreme authority back. This means that, throughout the occult year, the male god rules for six months, and the female goddess rules for the other six months, another example of the Duality of Nature principle.

When Hillary placed the orb on top of this tree, she is yielding to the male god [Bill Clinton] until March 21. I find it interesting, also, that Hillary placed a similar stainless steel orb on top the traditional Christmas tree on the lawn of the White House. Thus, she was flashing a signal to the entire occult world that the Illuminists control the White House.

This action of placing the orb on top of the tree must be done by the female. Therefore, I find it entirely logical that Hillary put this orb on top of her tree in the Blue Room, and then have it reported that she placed the similar orb on top of the Christmas tree outside of the White House. Once again, she was sending a signal through an occult symbol, that no one except those familiar with the occult, would recognize. This orb then became an occult "Magic Symbol". Listen to the importance the occultist places on these type of symbols. "What is a magical symbol? The true magic symbol is an image which hides an inner meaning. This meaning is usually cunningly hidden behind a form which most people think they can understand immediately." ["Magic Symbols", by Frederick Goodman, page 6. Note: this book was bought in an occult bookstore].

After describing the various attributes of the "magic symbol" as the communicator of occult knowledge among the adepts, while simultaneously hiding such knowledge from the "vulgar", or non-occultist, Goodman finishes the chapter with an interesting sentence. "It is sufficient for us to note that within the details of Figure 9, there are numerous small details of symbolism which might be easily missed by casual observation, but which, once perceived, acts as visual parables on the nature of the image as a whole. This is the very essence of magical symbolism." [Ibid., p. 14]

I reiterate: Occult symbols act as the communicator of occult knowledge among the adepts, while simultaneously hiding such knowledge from the "vulgar", or non-occultist person. Thus, while the vast, vast majority of American citizens had no idea what to make of these "pornographic" ornaments, Hillary was sending a coded message to all fellow occultists. Believe me, these other occultists had no difficulty understanding the message: The Presidency was under the control of two powerful witches, the god and goddess, Co-Presidents. The Illuminati was fully in charge.

Now, let us return to the type of ornaments Hillary chose for her Christmas tree in the Blue Room. We shall return back to the subject of the Co-Presidency later in another article.

9) "Crack pipes hung on a string." Once you understand the significance of this type of symbol, you will understand that, not only are Bill and Hillary deeply occultic and powerful witches, you will also understand that they are Luciferian Illuminists, not your ordinary Satanists. Listen to Marquis' explanation. Remember, you are going to be reading the interpretation and teaching of a Luciferian, not a Bible scholar. Marquis is speaking here as a Luciferian would be speaking, even though he now is a Christian and does not believe this.

Crack pipes are indicative of Lucifer's built-in vocal chord pipes, cracked when he fell, when he was defeated by God; Lucifer was created as God's angel of Music, even to the point of being created with "tabrets and "pipes" being built into his vocal cords {Ezekiel 28:13} so he could sing the more beautifully for God's glory. When Lucifer fell, his beauty and his wisdom were corrupted. These pipes were actually cracked, because his former glorified body was destroyed. Therefore, the Illuminist envisions the "crack pipes hung on a string" as being representative of Lucifer.

There can be no stronger proof than this one that Bill and Hillary are practicing witches, and Luciferian witches, at that! This is absolute proof, what FBI Agent Aldrich calls, "Moosehead truth" or truth that is inherently indisputable and requires no explanation. Listen to Aldrich's illustration. "Water is wet, fire burns, con men con." [p. 2-3] Well, this article represents the "Moosehead Truth" that Bill and Hillary are practicing Illuminist witches. But, this one type of ornament -- if it was all we had to go on -- would be the Moosehead Truth. Only a practicing Luciferian would use crack pipes on her Christmas tree!

At this point, I feel the need to explain what separates a Satanist from a Luciferian Illuminist. The Luciferian Illuminist looks with disdain upon the "inferior" Satanist. If you even call a Luciferian Illuminist a Satanist, he or she will likely kill you. The Satanist derives his or her power from the animal energy through animal sacrifices. But, the Luciferian Illuminist derives his or her power from the energy derived from the human, through human sacrifices. Thus, the Luciferian Illuminist is a more power brand of Black Magick than the Satanist. The force driving the world to the New World Order Kingdom of Antichrist is the Luciferian Illuminist. Bill and Hillary Clinton are Luciferian Illuminists.

10) "Three French hens were French-kissing in a menage a trois." This represents the 3 faces of the goddess, the Spring Maid, the Earth Mother, and the Fall Crone. Once again, only an occultist would put such an object on her Christmas tree. French-kissing is itself a very strong symbol of the sex act, as it does only one thing -- strongly stimulate sexual lust so that both partners want only one thing, sexual union.

11) "So many of the ornaments didn't celebrate Christmas as much as they celebrated sex, drugs, and rock and roll." When I shared this statement by Agent Aldrich about the general characteristics of Hillary's Christmas tree ornaments, Marquis simply said, "You expected something else from a witch?"

12) " 'Have you seen Bertha?', one FBI agent asked Gary Aldrich during the time they were 'decorating' Hillary's Blue Room Christmas tree. "Yes, I had seen Bertha -- big, ebony Bertha. Bertha was a statue that Hillary had selected to be placed along the public tour line ... Bertha was twice life-size and was very naked. Bertha had enormous buttocks, far out of proportion to the rest of her body. This is why the permanent White House staff named her Bertha, which is short for 'Bertha's Big Butt'. This is what the first lady considered appropriate for the eyes of thousands and thousands of visitors who toured the White House -- Bertha's Big Butt." [p. 102] While 99.999% of all people who saw this monstrosity would have no idea what it meant, and what Hillary was trying to do, all practicing witches would know immediately what "Bertha's Big Butt" statute meant. Listen to Doc Marquis' explanation.

This statue is obviously Lilith, whom occultists believe was Adam's first wife. Lilith is thought of as the Hebrew female devil. It is she who taught Adam all about witchcraft, since she was a sorceress. Lilith can be shown as any race, however. In this image, she is shown part black and part white

Thus, Hillary placed a statute of a black sorceress, Lilith, out in the public reviewing line. Once again, Hillary was sending a signal to fellow occultists that the White House was now in control of the deepest, blackest, practicing witches possible, Illuminist witches.

There is another possible explanation for this big black statue of a female that is "twice life-size" [p. 102]. Why would this statute be twice as large as a normal human being? Instead of this statue standing up, think of her as lying on her back. If she were lying on her back, she could be an altar in a Satanic ceremony! Listen to Anton LaVey, in his book, "The Satanic Bible". "Satanism is a religion of the flesh, rather than of the spirit; therefore, an altar of flesh is used in Satanic ceremonies. The purpose of an altar is to serve as a focal point towards which all attention is focused during a ceremony. A nude woman is used as the altar in Satanic rituals because the woman is the natural passive receptor, and represents the earth mother." [p. 135-136]

If Hillary intended for this statue to represent a Satanic altar of a nude woman, it would make sense for it to be "twice life-size". Further, since the objective of the nude woman as the altar is to "focus attention" during the Satanic ceremony, it would also make sense for her to have oversized buttocks, the better to focus your attention!

13) "Some ornaments were constructed out of various drug paraphernalia, like syringes, heroin spoons, or roach clips ... used to hold marijuana joints." [Ibid.] This is classic for an occultist. The drug paraphernalia is commonly used by an occultist. Illuminists can use all kinds of drugs except mind altering drugs. Drugs are used to close the Conscious Mind, open the Subconscious Mind, and allow them to maintain communication with their Spirit Guides. Witches wear pentagrams because it allows them to maintain communication with the spirit world.]

Once again, this type of Christmas tree ornament could only have been conceived by a practicing occultist! No one on earth not involved in the occult would ever, ever even think of hanging drug paranphernalia like this on their Christmas tree. Once again, we can only conclude that Hillary and Bill are, indeed, practicing witches.

Once again, the truth about the occultic nature of Hillary Clinton comes through very loud and very clear! As disgusting as all this detail is, you cannot any longer deny that she is what Doc Marquis said she is, a practicing witch that is more powerful than Bill Clinton!

You simply cannot ignore the fact that Bill and Hillary Clinton are powerful practising Illuminist witches, just as Doc Marquis recognized in November, 1992, after closly observing the two of them on television. Yet, why should we be surprised, since world events are clearly flashing the signal that the End of the Age Kingdom of Antichrist is close at hand? We would naturally expect that the final American president would be one that would be of the same type of person as Antichrist [Read NEWS1215 , "Clinton Identifiable In Prophecy As One of the 10 Kings of Daniel and Revelation].

Since the Antichrist is going to be a most powerful Illuminist witch, we should not be surprised that the final president is an Illuminist witch, as well. I have long thought that the fact that Clinton is our 42nd President carries great prophetic significance. The number, 42, is one of the Biblical numbers for the Antichrist and his kingdom. Why? Because the Antichrist will serve only 7 Jewish years once he confirms the Covenant with the spiritual leaders of Israel. But, this 84 month period will be equally divided into two parts, each 42 months long. Further, the last 3 1/2 years of the Tribulation will be the most violent and destructive in world history, as God pours His wrath of Judgment upon the wicked world at the same time Satan is wreaking unparalleled havoc through Antichrist. When I did a word study on the number 42 in Scripture ['forty and two' in the KJV], you will notice that each usage is in connection with some kind of judgment.

I do believe Clinton -- America's 42nd President -- might be the last President; therefore, I believe it is also of tremendous importance that he is an Illuminist witch.

Truly, the End of the Age is upon us.


Posted by Buzzzzzzz - Mon, 2008-01-07 10:43

Yes, great comments but I have to take exception with his Christianity manifesting itself in liberal actions. Christianity is actually a very balanced mixture of liberalism and conservativism. "He who will not work, neither shall he eat." American liberalism wants to feed everybody who's hungry. Huck approaches that. He bears watching...now and in the Oval Office should he win. (I guess that's true of anybody. ;-) )


Posted by scnative - Mon, 2008-01-07 10:32

. . .and is that not what we see with Huckabee? He's entirely consistent in that regard.


joefarrell's picture
Posted by joefarrell - Mon, 2008-01-07 10:36

Not exactly. His very liberal view of the immigrant situation is just that...very liberal. There are ways ("...render unto Caesar...") to gain legal documentation. The problem is not that we need to legalize those who are here. The problem is we need to streamline the immigration laws so that those who have been trying to legally wade through all the redtape don't have to wait so long. I don't know what specifically that would take but blanket citizenship to all immigrants is insanity.


Posted by scnative - Mon, 2008-01-07 12:29

scnative wrote:

Not exactly. His very liberal view of the immigrant situation is just that...very liberal.

This is the biggest reason why I am not voting for Huckabee. That, and he seems to be too much of a people pleaser.

Hunter was my pick from the get go, but unfortunately he and Thompson don't have a chance. They were my top picks.

Who will I vote for in the primary? Most likely Romney.

Mrs.S


Posted by swampgator - Mon, 2008-01-07 22:05

scnative wrote:

Yes, great comments but I have to take exception with his Christianity manifesting itself in liberal actions. Christianity is actually a very balanced mixture of liberalism and conservativism. "He who will not work, neither shall he eat." American liberalism wants to feed everybody who's hungry. Huck approaches that. He bears watching...now and in the Oval Office should he win. (I guess that's true of anybody. ;-) )

Maybe it should be reworded:

American liberalism wants to feed everybody who's hungry - and wants free or cheap health insurance.


Posted by Buzzzzzzz - Mon, 2008-01-07 11:36

Government subsidized healthcare is a disaster in every nation that has trod that path.


Posted by scnative - Mon, 2008-01-07 12:30

Our military and veterans hopitals are a shambles.


Posted by adracer1 - Mon, 2008-01-07 13:06

joefarrell wrote:

Huckabee is a Christian - the fact that he is a minister is relevant only as to his speaking style. However inartfully his campaign is positioning him, I cannot understand how, if you listen to what he says, you can come to the opinion you are voting for the leader of the church? His 'liberal' leanings are not truly liberal, they are Christianity manifesting itself in his actions. The knock on Republicans is how heartless they are, mean spirited and how they would leave starving, wounded puppies lying on the side ofthe road.

Huckabee has a dark side - we ALL have a dark side. Lets realize that. We are not electing a minister - he is NOT a minister - he is a former governor [and former minister] and presently unemployed. I used to be a Teamster as a teen moving furniture in the summer - does that mean that I am forever a democrat - give us all a break here.

First things first, Huckabee is a Christian. I respect that as I respect everybody's religion and do not look down on him for it. Everybody has the right to believe what they wish, its one of the things that makes our country great. And you are right, you can listen to him speak, hear how he pauses and then continues on in a certain form, and it sounds terribly a lot like church. I'm not at all saying that’s a bad thing either.

My quarrel with Huckabee is not just that he was (or is...) a minister. Once a minister, always a minister, as long as he is ordained. Whether Huckabee is or not, I'm not 100% sure. Its like being a president, you are stuck with the title forever. Even when Jesse Jackson dies, he will still be the Reverend Jackson. My quarrel with Huckabee is the fact that as a minister, he made the bible his rule of law. As a governor he came to know the constitution. it’s a hard thing to explain, but as a minister, the bible is what you go by. You get all of your beliefs from the bible, and you run your church and breach what the bible tells you. I find it odd that the bible preaches tolerance and acceptance and Huckabee is anti gay. He bluntly told the Log Cabin Republicans that he would love to have there support, but there’s nothing that he would do to help them? Why? Because the BIBLE says that homosexuality is wrong. The president should not turn to the bible to decide what’s best for the country. He should turn to the constitution. One of our most prized possessions as a people. It grants everybody the same rights and liberties. My problem with Huckabee is that his policy towards gays is because of the bible. The president doesn’t go by what the bible says, but what the constitution says. However, I do not hate the man for his religion, I do not wish him any harm at all. However, he will not get my vote because he gets his views, and wants to run the country based on rules and principles laid down in the bible and not solely the constitution. He doesn’t believe in gay marriage because the BIBLE says that its between a man and a woman. He says GOD created Adam and Eve and that’s the way it should be. Show me where it says that in our constitution friend, and then I’ll accept it. Get congress to amend the constriction and write inequality and injustice into it, then I’ll accept it. Until then, I will always fight it.


Posted by josephstepp - Mon, 2008-01-07 20:29

Ooooo! And God forbid we should do what the bible says.


Posted by scnative - Mon, 2008-01-07 20:48

scnative did you just say "God forbid we do what the bible says"???
Quit messin' with my head man!!!


Posted by adracer1 - Mon, 2008-01-07 20:54

Haha! Mission accomplished.


Posted by scnative - Mon, 2008-01-07 21:14

scnative wrote:

Ooooo! And God forbid we should do what the bible says.

Please dont take me in the wrong since. I'm not talking down about the bible. I'm simply saying that as the President of the United States, you rule a country with a freedom of religion. Our laws come from the constitution. In a country where every religion is equal, who is Huckabee, or anybody else running for president,to say that his book will be the one that rules the country? Our founding fathers created the seperation of church and state to keep out any god from government.

Its funny how the bible also once stated that it was an abomination to eat shellfish and an abomination to approach the altar of God with a defect in your eye, and that you shouldnt plant 2 crops in the same field. When they were removed, why did homosexuality stay?

I'm also wondering why you would simply limit your reply to "Ooooo! And God forbid we should do what the bible says." Why not try to challenge my views, politely of course. Afterall, this is politics.


Posted by josephstepp - Mon, 2008-01-07 21:04

But our bible says its a sin and therefore it's not real popular with God. Now it's just a sin, not THE SIN but a sin nonetheless.
And the one thing you got to remember about sin is that it really ticks God off. He'd prefer you seek forgiveness and turn away from sin. Now that's darn near impossible for most of us humans so we just keep asking for forgiveness and praying and trying to do better and hope for a better day. It's coming.
Oh and Joe if you ask me..I think folks who like to smear God's Holy Word with their politics, well I think that really ticks him off too.


Posted by adracer1 - Mon, 2008-01-07 21:11

Can you define "smear" as used here?


Posted by scnative - Mon, 2008-01-07 21:13

scnative wrote:

Can you define "smear" as used here?

I used it in regards to those who would use God's word to further their political agenda and use the Holy Word as a wedge to separate God's children. God's wish is for us to be one, but there are those who would rather use his word to divide. You see it every day and especially now that it's the political season. By the way I apply it equally to politicians and to those ministers who are nothing more than modern day pharisees, wrapping themselves in their pious political suits of false holiness rather than in the sackcloth of the humble and contrite.
Have a good night and Geaux Tigers.


Posted by adracer1 - Tue, 2008-01-08 01:02

Then, of course, I agree. However, neither should one deny the Word of God in any facet of life. To do that would also anger Him, I'm quite sure.


Posted by scnative - Tue, 2008-01-08 08:18

adracer1 wrote:

But our bible says its a sin and therefore it's not real popular with God. Now it's just a sin, not THE SIN but a sin nonetheless.
And the one thing you got to remember about sin is that it really ticks God off. He'd prefer you seek forgiveness and turn away from sin. Now that's darn near impossible for most of us humans so we just keep asking for forgiveness and praying and trying to do better and hope for a better day. It's coming.
Oh and Joe if you ask me..I think folks who like to smear God's Holy Word with their politics, well I think that really ticks him off too.

Wow. see. All of that is a religion, it has no place in our government, as established by our founding fathers. This may be your religion, however you cannot force it, or its views upon me. I'm sorry, and I apologize if I "tick off" God. When you boil it all down, politics and religion dont mix, because what a relgion says is not always what is best for a country. Thankfully our esteemed leaders of the revolution realized this and created a country which had a multitude of relgion, but also a country where there was no single religion, no relgion to be pushed onto the people. And no religion to rule the country with.


Posted by josephstepp - Mon, 2008-01-07 21:18

Actually, there was a SINGLE "religion". It is called Christianity.


Posted by scnative - Mon, 2008-01-07 21:26

scnative wrote:

Actually, there was a SINGLE "religion". It is called Christianity.

There are other religions in our world, and they were around that the birth of our nation. The seperation of Church and State was formed to protect the government from representing, or repressing the country with any religion, ever.


Posted by josephstepp - Mon, 2008-01-07 21:38

Of course, there were other "religions" world-wide. But Christianity was the "religion" of the Founding Fathers. There wasn't a Muslim (which, BTW, would have you impaled for your personal beliefs about sexual preference...count your blessings), Hindu, Tsao, or any other "religion" represented in the bunch.


Posted by scnative - Mon, 2008-01-07 21:52

josephstepp wrote:
scnative wrote:

Actually, there was a SINGLE "religion". It is called Christianity.

There are other religions in our world, and they were around that the birth of our nation. The seperation of Church and State was formed to protect the government from representing, or repressing the country with any religion, ever.

The first congress while writing the BIll of Rigths discussed jews, muslims and hindus.


djv1255's picture
Posted by djv1255 - Tue, 2008-01-08 09:59

Were any of those "religions" represented at the first congress?


Posted by scnative - Tue, 2008-01-08 12:54

scnative wrote:

Were any of those "religions" represented at the first congress?

I'm not an expert on that, so I couldnt tell you. I do know that Jefferson had a copy of the Kuran (sp?). I doubt that constitutes as "representation" but I know its true.


Posted by josephstepp - Tue, 2008-01-08 13:20

The question was rhetorical anyway. The only reperesented "religion" was Christianity.

That should tell you something.


Posted by scnative - Tue, 2008-01-08 13:45

re·li·gion [ ri líjjən ] (plural re·li·gions) noun

1. beliefs and worship: people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life

2. system: an institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine

3. personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by

4. obsession: an object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by
The danger is that you start to make fitness a religion

[12th century. Via French< Latin religion- "obligation, reverence" re·lig·ion·less adjective (get religion )

1. U.S. to stop flouting the rules, regulations, customs, and expectations of society

Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition] © & (P)2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

Unless my understanding of these words is wrong, we need religion in government. Our founding fathers did not say separation of religion and government. They said separation of Church and State. Religion as you can see is moral code of ethics – lacking in Washington. The Church can not be governed, manipulated, or altered by man. With church, it is either right or wrong.


Posted by RodChristy - Tue, 2008-01-08 07:38

The ONLY reference to separation of church and state was made by T. Jefferson to a Baptist group concerned about the government infringing on their right to evangelize and worship as led by Holy Scripture.

Anyplace else you see this phrase is a political ploy to remove Christian values from government, which was NOT the intent of tehe Founding Fathers.


Posted by scnative - Tue, 2008-01-08 08:21

Thanks for clarifying that for people. We have "In God We Trust" on our money, a chaplain for Congress (begun in 1789), Moses in the Supreme Court building, and this from the first Supreme Court Justice:

"The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said, "Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."-The exact quote is "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
Jay wrote it in a private letter to Jedidiah Morse in 1797.


Posted by gwg4544 - Tue, 2008-01-08 09:05

the idea of the separation of church and state arose during the 1960 presidential primaries and election when there was the kerfuffle over Kenneedy being Catholic. The Episcopalians who ran the nation then were all worried about Kennedy taking orders from the Pope in Rome. Seems silly now, but that was the deal. So, he talked about the eternal separation of church and state 'in his administration.'

Certainly not a soul EVER considered that the phrase would be used to REMOVE God from all the places it is now being removed . . . .


joefarrell's picture
Posted by joefarrell - Tue, 2008-01-08 09:23

joefarrell wrote:

the idea of the separation of church and state arose during the 1960 presidential primaries and election when there was the kerfuffle over Kenneedy being Catholic. The Episcopalians who ran the nation then were all worried about Kennedy taking orders from the Pope in Rome. Seems silly now, but that was the deal. So, he talked about the eternal separation of church and state 'in his administration.'

Certainly not a soul EVER considered that the phrase would be used to REMOVE God from all the places it is now being removed . . . .

Wow, as an American who grew up in Philadelphia's public schools your message quoted above REALLY grates on my nerves!
Please read:
www.theocracywatch.org/separation_church_state2.htm


Posted by elida987 - Tue, 2008-01-08 09:49

. . . separation of church and state.

Certainly there was the concept of not having an official religion in this nation and the intent was to preserve religious liberty. . . .

HOWEVER, Kennedy was the first one to use the phrase "separation of church and state" in the manner in which it is presently being used, which is to EXPUNGE religion from public institutions and grounds. I think your Philadelphia education is safe . . . as is my Pac10 education.


joefarrell's picture
Posted by joefarrell - Tue, 2008-01-08 13:45

BTW, Rod, Scripture has defined "religion", I think in James. It's nowhere close to what is mentioned in Encarta.


Posted by scnative - Tue, 2008-01-08 08:23

josephstepp wrote:
adracer1 wrote:

...omitted....

Oh and Joe if you ask me..I think folks who like to smear God's Holy Word with their politics, well I think that really ticks him off too.

Wow. see. All of that is a religion, it has no place in our government, as established by our founding fathers. This may be your religion, however you cannot force it, or its views upon me. I'm sorry, and I apologize if I "tick off" God. When you boil it all down, politics and religion dont mix, because what a relgion says is not always what is best for a country. Thankfully our esteemed leaders of the revolution realized this and created a country which had a multitude of relgion, but also a country where there was no single religion, no relgion to be pushed onto the people. And no religion to rule the country with.

Yes, there is more religion tied into US Government now than in earlier times. Much of this began during the 1950's in the Presidency of Eisenhower and it still continues, contradicting the intentions of our founding fathers.
We have many good, solid Americans in this country who do not follow the teachings of the Christian Church. Christianity is just one system of worship that has a goal of helping us humans to live a better life, to follow the "straight and narrow" to have a better world for all of us here, humans, animals, trees, plants, - everything here.
The Christian Right has been very much in our presence in recent decades, but their power seems to be eroding a bit of late, but that is the nature of things - the pendulum swings back and forth until it finds a center resting place.


Posted by elida987 - Tue, 2008-01-08 08:31

Actually, Joseph, our laws come from Scripture.

Imagine that!


Posted by scnative - Mon, 2008-01-07 21:12

scnative wrote:

Actually, Joseph, our laws come from Scripture.

Imagine that!

Yes, some of them do. I know that. The common sence ones like not killing and so on and so forth. But I wonder why some were picked and some were not? Maybe this is because those who wrote the constitution and were aroudn to signed it realized that some of what the bible said would not go over well in ruling a religous free country.


Posted by josephstepp - Mon, 2008-01-07 21:22

Which ones were and which ones were not?


Posted by scnative - Mon, 2008-01-07 21:24

Its funny how the bible also once stated that it was an abomination to eat shellfish...

Book/chapter/verse if you please. That way I can do exactly as you request below.

...and an abomination to approach the altar of God with a defect in your eye,

Book/chapter/verse, please.

and that you shouldn't plant 2 crops in the same field. When they were removed, why did homosexuality stay?

Huh? I don't follow what yo are asking.

I'm also wondering why you would simply limit your reply to "Ooooo! And God forbid we should do what the bible says." Why not try to challenge my views, politely of course. After all, this is politics.

Okie-dokie. Let's talk about these things. Politely, of course. I promise to not get angry or call you names. I expect the same from you.


Posted by scnative - Mon, 2008-01-07 21:21

Surely I will, friend. We have had our dissagreements in the past, but I'm glad we can talk like civilized people.

"Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you." (Leviticus 11:12)

"...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)

"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

"If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people." (Leviticus 20:18)

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45)

"...and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you." (Leviticus 11:7)

"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)

And lastly, Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight.

According to my knowledge, all of these verses were removed from the King James version of the bible (but I may be wrong, some may still exist in the King James Version), the one that is widely used today if I'm correct. They left behind these two, Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Thats why I wonder, why were others removed, but these ones stayed?


Posted by josephstepp - Mon, 2008-01-07 21:35

Take note, Joseph, that each of your examples are from Levitical law. These laws were written specifically for the Jews to protect them as a "race", as it were, that they might remain on the earth to complete the will of God. That is that Israel would be the genetic root of the Messiah. (This was done to authenticate Jesus as Christ). I don't know how aware you are of seafood. Typically, fish with no scales have to be treated differently than fish with scales. Any seafood is consumable but care must be taken so as not to pose a health risk. Such steps were unavailable in Biblical times. Things have changed since that time. Even pork became permissible during Christ's time, per His own word.

The laws of our nation come from Mosaic law, specifically the so-called "ten commandments".

And if you also would take note, homosexuality is listed as an abomination in both the OT and NT. And we know that when God repeats Himself, He wants us to be very sure of what He is saying.


Posted by scnative - Mon, 2008-01-07 21:49
Why

scnative wrote:

Take note, Joseph, that each of your examples are from Levitical law. These laws were written specifically for the Jews to protect them as a "race", as it were, that they might remain on the earth to complete the will of God. That is that Israel would be the genetic root of the Messiah. (This was done to authenticate Jesus as Christ). I don't know how aware you are of seafood. Typically, fish with no scales have to be treated differently than fish with scales. Any seafood is consumable but care must be taken so as not to pose a health risk. Such steps were unavailable in Biblical times. Things have changed since that time. Even pork became permissible during Christ's time, per His own word.

The laws of our nation come from Mosaic law, specifically the so-called "ten commandments".

And if you also would take note, homosexuality is listed as an abomination in both the OT and NT. And we know that when God repeats Himself, He wants us to be very sure of what He is saying.

You're right, they were from Levitical law. Where it states homosexuality is an abomination as well as those that I stated. And you're right, times have changed. the other "abominations" are now forgiveable and no longer considered abominations, so why is homosexuality. I would see what you were saying about God repeating himself, if he wrote the bible. But he didnt. And dont say he told people what to say, because most people now a days call people who claim god speak to them crazy. I still want an answer for my question. Why, when the new testement(sp?) was written were the other laws taken out by homosexuality stayed?


Posted by josephstepp - Mon, 2008-01-07 21:59