Robert:

If you wish to gauge the extent of conservative fracture under Junior and his masters, check out this site:

http://www.libertypost.org/

In particular, check out the threads in this "Biker Bar" section:

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/listarticles.cgi?114

I have been sitting here thoroughly enjoying the threads on this page. In fact, some of them had me laughing so hard that I was in tears! These are almost exclusively defectors from Free Republic (aka The Kool-Aid Kanteen) who could no longer take all the pro-Bush propaganda and censorship over there. I had no idea that so many conservatives were sufficiently sick of the Big Government Bush administration that they were abandoning FreeSocialistRepublic (and Limbaugh and Hannity and all the rest). And speaking of Kool-Aid, there are posts in here showing messages from the owner and/or moderators at FreeSocialistRepublic announcing one day suspension of posting privileges (at FreeSocialistRepublic.com). The reason? FOR MAKING A REFERENCE TO KOOL-AID ON THE BOARD!!!! Hahahahahahahah! The Freepers are so wrapped up in their own fraudulence forwarding the propaganda of the phony Big Government Bush administration that they are SO paranoid about any contrary view getting heard that they will not even tolerate a reference to Kool-Aid anywhere on the site

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by David '47 Redux

... Of course, I'd like validation, but will settle for snide comments.

... Sorry about the lack of validation. Was I snide enough?

Not too bad! You forgot to make a reference to something obscure, but otherwise very commendable.

We be 3T, but the Generation that defines it is leaving us, first Mr. Rogers, now Captain Kangaroo.

Somehow the 4T seems a little closer now.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

We be 3T, but the Generation that defines it is leaving us, first Mr. Rogers, now Captain Kangaroo.

Somehow the 4T seems a little closer now.

The good Captain was my morning buddy throughout my early childhood. Such a kind, good-hearted man. And funny, too. I can still see all those Ping Pong balls raining down on his head. He will be missed. :cry:

The next saeculum may exactly duplicate ours in one respect-(reruns of) Mister Rogers and Captain Kangaroo.

(~*~)

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

We be 3T, but the Generation that defines it is leaving us, first Mr. Rogers, now Captain Kangaroo.

Somehow the 4T seems a little closer now.

I, too, feel that we still be 3T, but unlike oy veh Lamb, am also convinced that we won't be 3T for much longer. :shock:

P.S. My posting is liable to get pretty spotty for a while now, as our home PC's modem is on the blink, and I have to come to the library to get online.

Young people cutting back, slowing down in a quest to find happiness

By MARTHA IRVINE,
January 25, 2004

CHICAGO ? Sandi Garcia was living her dream ? or so she thought. With a marketing degree from the University of Wyoming, she moved to Florida, started climbing the corporate ladder and was making good money.

There was only one problem: She was miserable. Up at 6 a.m. and getting home from work in time to watch the late-night news, she often worked weekends, too.

"I got burnt out pretty quickly," says the 26-year-old, who longed for a life that was "calmer and simpler." She found it back in her native Cheyenne, Wyo., where she now has plenty of time to ski, volunteer at an animal shelter and enjoy her friends and family.

Experts say Garcia is one of a growing number of Americans ? particularly people in their 20s and 30s ? who are making a conscious decision to slow down and cut back on all that overwhelms them.

"It's true among people of all ages. But it's much stronger ? much more notable ? among the younger generations," says Bruce Tulgan, a Connecticut-based consultant who tracks generational relationships and trends in the workplace.

They're simplifying at home.

Pierce Mattie, a 28-year-old New Yorker, recently sold his car, moved out of a huge apartment and into something smaller and gave away much of his wardrobe.

"It feels great!" he says, noting that having "so much junk I don't use" was stressing him out.

And they're dramatically changing their work lives.

Gregg Steiner, a 29-year-old in Sherman Oaks, Calif., escaped the busy high-tech world to work at home, and sold his beach home near Malibu. He says he grew tired of never having time to spend there ("You'd think I would have walked out and sat by the water or swam, but I barely did"). He also couldn't stand commuting two hours a day.

"I hate traffic. I hate dressing in a suit. I hate sitting under fluorescent lighting," says Steiner, who now does customer service via the Web for Pinxav, his family's diaper rash ointment business.

Tulgan says all those gripes are common for young professionals.

"The idea of working in a particular building with certain hours seems ridiculous to them," he says.

But he and other generational experts say that doesn't mean young people are lazy. They just want flexibility.

"It's much more likely they're going to tell you that they'd like more control over their schedule ? and more time for the life part of life," says Tulgan, whose books include "Managing Generation X."

Michael Muetzel, another author who's studied twentysomethings, puts it this way.

"I might refer to it as a movement toward family and social activities," says Muetzel, Atlanta-based author of "They're Not Aloof ... Just Generation X." "Why not put your trust and resources in things that you absolutely can trust?"

Indeed, trust is an issue for many young Americans. While they're big into volunteering at a local level, they have little faith in such institutions as Social Security or government in general. And many, given recent scandals, don't believe in the political process or corporate America.

"A lot of us saw our parents or knew other people's parents who were laid off. There was loyalty to the company and people were getting huge salaries ? and all of the sudden it disappeared," says Garcia, who now works for the Wyoming Business Council.

And so while their parents' generation may have focused on trying to "have it all," many in Gen X and Y are taking a step back to reassess and prioritize.

"I see my parents; they just worked so much ? and I don't think they had much chance to enjoy stuff the way they would have liked to," Garcia says.

Katherine Josephs said she, too, had to do some soul-searching.

The 29-year-old from Miami was a journalist for Money magazine in New York but, after a road trip to the Pacific Northwest, quit her job. She found a part-time job and moved in with her parents while figuring out what to do next.

Later this year, she'll head to a small town in Colorado to write and get a degree in ecopsychology, a field that explores the connection between the environment and personal well-being.

"I'll be spending most of my time outdoors and transporting myself on a bike and letting my spirit dictate my actions ? not Madison Avenue execs," Josephs says.

For Brandon Hamm, the wish to cut back on obligations came when he realized that even volunteer activities at his church were starting to feel like work.

"I wasn't receiving the same joy I had once felt," says Hamm, who's 28 and lives in suburban Philadelphia. "I also noticed that most of my interpersonal relationships were very shallow. I had been having a tough time dating, and even maintaining friendships."

Meanwhile, Jess Bowers, a 23-year-old who works at a small college in Baltimore, says she's needed to "unplug a little" to allow brainstorming time for her true passion ? writing.

She's started volunteering at a riding stable, added yoga to her daily routine and spends her lunch hours reading or writing poetry instead of catching up on work.

Following a tradition an eastern religion professor suggested, she's even started using the no-frills ritual of using the same bowl for each evening meal, then washing it immediately after finishing.

While some religious faiths have long touted the virtues of a simpler life, researchers also are finding evidence of positive effects.

"The upshot is that people who value money and image and status are actually less happy," says Tim Kasser, a psychologist at Knox College in Galesburg, Ill., who has researched the phenomenon.

He says they often report being less satisfied with life ? and are more likely to experience depression, anxiety and such physical symptoms as back aches and headaches.

Those who weren't focused on possessions, fame and fortune were, overall, more content with life and felt better, too.

"We found this in people from age 10 to 80 ? all around the world," says Kasser, author of the book "The High Price of Materialism." He also heads the research committee for The Simplicity Forum, a group of authors, speakers and leaders in the movement.

Some refer to it as "voluntary simplicity," also the title of a 1981 book that some say is the movement's bible.

Garcia has never heard of the movement or the book. Like many others her age, she just listened to her gut and found the simpler life she craved in Wyoming, the state she once wanted to escape.

"Someone told me that you can never appreciate what you have until you've left," she says. "I never thought that was true ? but now I really do."

1. Seadog is right; based on O'Neill, there is not the slightest chance that W has read Strauss and Howe; he instinctively dislikes and distrusts smart and clever people, and won't take any interest in anything he doesn't understand. (This narrows his range of interests considerably.)

2. While Bush talks a 4T game, his behavior in office is totally 3T, avoiding any tough choices, buying off interests right and left, and focusing on false issues rather than real ones.

3. Democrats are accepting the current Administration and its policies as the enemy America must deal with if it is to remain a democracy with a modicum of economic justice. That's a view I happen to share.

4. At http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/bo...25SCHMEMT.html,
you can read a review of a series of new books from various sources on how the world views the US--rather like the world viewed the Germans and Japanese in the 1930s. That's an exaggeration, but not a very gross one.

4. The real 4T will be truly terrifying.

David K '47

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

We be 3T, but the Generation that defines it is leaving us, first Mr. Rogers, now Captain Kangaroo.

Somehow the 4T seems a little closer now.

The good Captain was my morning buddy throughout my early childhood. Such a kind, good-hearted man. And funny, too. I can still see all those Ping Pong balls raining down on his head. He will be missed. :cry:

Remember Mr. Greenjeans and his inventions?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

1. Seadog is right; based on O'Neill, there is not the slightest chance that W has read Strauss and Howe; he instinctively dislikes and distrusts smart and clever people, and won't take any interest in anything he doesn't understand. (This narrows his range of interests considerably.)

Unless, of course, O'Neill turns out to be lying or wrong. That's hardly settled yet.

4. At http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/bo...25SCHMEMT.html,
you can read a review of a series of new books from various sources on how the world views the US--rather like the world viewed the Germans and Japanese in the 1930s. That's an exaggeration, but not a very gross one.

The world is still deep in 3T, they're mostly angry at the fact that America refuses to play by their rules. They better get used to it.

4. The real 4T will be truly terrifying.

David K '47

Unfortunately, that's very likely true.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

4. At http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/bo...25SCHMEMT.html,
you can read a review of a series of new books from various sources on how the world views the US--rather like the world viewed the Germans and Japanese in the 1930s. That's an exaggeration, but not a very gross one.

The world is still deep in 3T, they're mostly angry at the fact that America refuses to play by their rules. They better get used to it.

In other words, we're right the world is wrong? Of have I got the wrong cliche... Might makes right?

Can't figure how they could possibly have gotten displeased with us...

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

4. At http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/bo...25SCHMEMT.html,
you can read a review of a series of new books from various sources on how the world views the US--rather like the world viewed the Germans and Japanese in the 1930s. That's an exaggeration, but not a very gross one.

The world is still deep in 3T, they're mostly angry at the fact that America refuses to play by their rules. They better get used to it.

In other words, we're right the world is wrong? Of have I got the wrong cliche... Might makes right?

Can't figure how they could possibly have gotten displeased with us...

America is doing precisely what any of the major Western European governments would do, given her power and position, i.e. making her own rules.

The international system the Europeans have hopes ot tying America down with was created for another time, and it just doesn't work anymore.

Seadog's post demands that we raise some basic questions. I'll start with the specific and go to the general.

1. The Bush Administration claimed Saddam had to be removed because of his WMD. The Security Council backed renewed inspections. The inspectors, after a relatively short time, reported adequate cooperation from Saddam and failed to find any weapons. WE NOW KNOW THAT THEY WERE RIGHT. The Bush Administration insisted on going to war, because the Iraqi report hadn't account for the destruction of a lot of chem-bio stuff--MOST, OR ALL OF WHICH WOULD NO LONGER HAVE BEEN TOXIC ANYWAY! (This stuff has relatively short shelf lives.) The decision by the Bush Administration has destroyed the credibility of the US, and it doesn't help that Dick Cheney keeps standing up for it.

2. The old system, Seadog says, no longer works. It no longer works, it seems to me, because the US has 1) the will and 2) the power to defy it. Is that really a good thing?

3. I spend my whole working life talking about states like 5th-century BC Athens, Napoleonic France, and imperial Germany, that had become the pre-eminent power in their part of the world and talked themselves into attempts at further conquests until they finally collapsed. The Greeks called this hubris. Unless you believe that America is uniquely virtuous and therefore unable to suffer from this vice, you have to ask yourself whether we are suffering from it now. If in fact you believe we are too virtuous to have such a problem, I would like to offer you a bridge between Manhattan and Brooklyn and some prime Florida land.
"The fault, dear Brutus. . "

David K '47

Why do the Europeans expect us to conform to rules in which we have had no voice in making?

"NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!"

(~*~)

George Bush met with some skeptical listeners in his recent State of the Union address, but he truly convinced me of something. He convinced me that the Republican Party, as the party of small government, is dead. Oh, I understand very well that in terms of electoral votes, the Republicans have seldom had a future that looked more immediately promising, but the party is nevertheless a soulless zombie of an institution.


Or rather, make that a vampire. For the Bush administration is sucking the lifeblood out of the United States with every raising of the federal debt roof, with every new federal entitlement, with every new Clintonian promise to end someone's pain somewhere, somehow. Consider the following federal spending increases:


Education, 60.8 percent

Labor, 56 percent

Interior, 23.4 percent

Defense, 27.6 percent

This is not even Clinton-lite, this is simply armed left-liberalism. Note that the increase in domestic departments dwarfs the increase in defense spending during a time of war. This is astounding!

George Delano Bush ... "That Man"-- a Lamb would love. Mr. Vox Day has lost his affection. :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

America is doing precisely what any of the major Western European governments would do, given her power and position, i.e. making her own rules.

The international system the Europeans have hopes ot tying America down with was created for another time, and it just doesn't work anymore.

That would depend on the difference between the self perception of being a superpower, and the reality of whether the supposed superpower has sufficient power to do it alone. I see Iraq as a preliminary dry run of a broader international crisis, the equivalent of Bleeding Kansas or the Spanish Civil War. Going in, Bush 43 felt confident of his 'unilateral preemptive' doctrine. Half the Middle East was concerned that their country might be invaded next. With hindsight, the 'unilateral preemptive' approach is dead. We barely have enough ground divisions to occupy a single minor power while refurbishing the rest of our divisions to take their turn at peacekeeping a year downstream. Until we are out of Iraq, we are invading nobody. Odds in Vegas are pretty even on which will happened first, US out of Iraq, or hell freezing over.

It will be different should a things blow up again. We are still on a peace time budget. If things blow up, Europe will see a real need for action, and would be more likely to act.

After WW II, the United States was just about the only significant power that hadn't been blown to bits, while the USSR never demilitarized, and thus was able to play a military superpower without the economic side. These days, Europe, China and Russia all approach the US in terms of size and economic capability. The difference is that we are the ones who are not demilitarizing from the Cold War. We are putting a large amount of our economic power into the military, while other parts of the world are operating with less 'overhead.'

Are we getting a return on our investment? Should military force be used in such a way as to seek a return on investment? (Would that be a definition of imperialism?) Must someone keep the peace? Should the objective be domination of the peace keeping burden?

Anyway, the stories about Saddam's WMD stockpiles are going poof. We've got a peacekeeping burden that is overloading our military, leaving us will little to no uncommitted capacity. Very few are saying thank you. A bit of humility and a willingness to listen might be among the lessons that might be learned.

Now, I agree that the current international system is dated, and will have to be reworked to solve the crisis. I just think the trend for the crisis will involve 'globalism,' rather than the old superpower system.

We shall see.

Tim Walker seems to have forgotten that the US founded the UN.

David K '47

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

3. I spend my whole working life talking about states like 5th-century BC Athens, Napoleonic France, and imperial Germany, that had become the pre-eminent power in their part of the world and talked themselves into attempts at further conquests until they finally collapsed. The Greeks called this hubris. Unless you believe that America is uniquely virtuous and therefore unable to suffer from this vice, you have to ask yourself whether we are suffering from it now.

Right. The whole point of the "neoconic" propaganda machine is to convince people that somehow America and Americans have some sort of special dispensation with regard to Ancestral or Original Sin. The single most paranoid poster on this board continually rants about, of all things, Bill Clinton making reference to the obviously inevitable time in the future when the US (like Britain, France, Holland, Spain, Portugal, Venice, Rome, Athens, etc. before it) will no longer be Number One (obviously, Limbaugh must have started this loony response). Personally, I cannot stand Bill Clinton but this is one of the few statements of undeniable fact he has ever made. Yet the paranoid Bushbot continually raves that the US is uniquely exempt from the same divine and/or natural laws under which the entire world has always operated.

As the argument goes, because the US is uniquely exempt from Ancestral or Original Sin (although this necessary point is never explicitly recognized), its unique destiny is to immanentize the Eschaton here on earth. This is chiliasm, pure and simple, and it is about the oldest heresy on the books. And it simply will not go away. We had the plainly chiliastic and heretical Social Gospelers of an earlier era and today we have the plainly chiliatic and heretical millennial dispensationalists of the Religious Right. Meld the humanistic neoconics with the crazed chiliasts of the Robertson/Falwell sector of the Religious Right and we have a royal freak show on our hands. As a byproduct we get the Bushbot's paranoid rantings on this board about the American Empire's unique dispensation and immunity from decline.

Wherever Hubris raises its ugly head, Nemesis waits right around the corner. This was true in the earliest recorded times; it was true in ancient Greece; it was true in apostolic Christian times; and it is true today. Some things are so clear that they are given and this is one such thing. But this will not stop chiliastic and heretical Bushbot paranoiacs from valiantly "kicking against the pricks" in their own deluded minds.

??Just when it appeared that neither intelligence operations nor inspections nor international arms and export control regimes can be relied upon to protect us from the nexus of terror and WMD proliferation, concerned citizens have received some important words of encouragement ? from an unlikely source: CBS' popular TV news magazine "60 Minutes."


????On Sunday night, "60 Minutes" called the attention of its millions of American viewers to a dirty little secret: "Just about everyone with a 401(k) pension plan or mutual fund has money invested in companies that are doing business in so-called rogue states. In other words, there are U.S. companies that are helping drive the economies of countries like Iran, Syria and Libya that have sponsored terrorists." {emphasis-VKS}


????Citing a powerful commercial data base developed by Conflict Securities Advisory Group (CSAG), the news program established that roughly 400 publicly traded companies ? some headquartered in this country, many more overseas ? are effectively enabling terrorism.


????One of those who told "60 Minutes" he felt "anger" that investors were unwittingly helping our enemies was William Thompson, New York City's comptroller, a job that makes him responsible for $80 billion in city workers' pension funds.


????Reporter Lesley Stahl spoke to Mr. Thompson about Iran, whose leaders he notes earn "most of their revenues through their oil industry." She asked: "So what is the connection between that oil business and terrorism and weapons of mass destruction?" The comptroller responded:

????"The Iranian government is receiving dollars from it. And then turning around and exporting terrorism around the world. It benefits terrorism. At least that's our belief."

Privatizing counterproliferation



Would T4Ters, the American investor, or "Capitalism" take a lower rate of return in exchange for not doing business with "terror states" such as Iran? Is the separation of an International branch of Halliburton with a post-office box in the Caymans doing business in Iran enough to cleanse the cash earned in such ventures? Is the WOT a 3T mode that should not slow down doing the business of business? :shock:

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Would T4Ters, the American investor, or "Capitalism" take a lower rate of return in exchange for not doing business with "terror states" such as Iran?

More importantly, are we not all now guilty of providing "material support" to "terrorism"? It's just a matter of time and logistics before we're all rounded up, I guess

___________________

"Freedom is not something that anybody can be given. Freedom is something people take, and people are as free as they want to be." -- James Baldwin

A sign of the 4T?


Lawmakers Push for Airwave Cleanup


By JONATHAN D. SALANT, AP

WASHINGTON (Jan. 28) -- Republicans and Democrats took turns Wednesday criticizing federal regulators who they say haven't done nearly enough to shield the public from indecent programming on radio and TV.

The lawmakers supported sharply increasing the fines which the Federal Communications Commission can level against broadcasters who air such shows.

Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., and chairman of the House telecommunications subcommittee that held a hearing on indecency, criticized what he called a ''race to the bottom'' among broadcasters.

''As a parent with two young children, I believe American families should be able to rely on the fact that - at times when their children are likely to be tuning in - broadcast television and radio programming will be free of indecency, obscenity and profanity,'' Upton said.

The hearing was held a day after the FCC proposed a record $755,000 fine against Clear Channel Communications for the ''Bubba the Love Sponge'' program aired on four of its Florida radio stations.

The top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, John Dingell of Michigan, wondered if the congressional hearing spurred the FCC to act to strongly.

''I hope it signals a heightened seriousness on the part of the agency, and I will be watching closely to see that the FCC does not backtrack on its newfound aggressiveness on this issue,'' Dingell said.

House members of both parties have sponsored legislation to increase the maximum fine for indecency from $27,500 to $275,000. The Senate Commerce Committee already has approved such an increase, and the Bush administration endorsed the House bill Wednesday in a letter by Commerce Secretary Don Evans.

FCC Chairman Michael Powell has called for the higher fines. Other commissioners have urged that stations be penalized for each individual incident rather than pay one fine per program. Commissioner Michael Copps has asked his colleagues to revoke broadcast licenses.

David Solomon, chief of the FCC's enforcement bureau, told lawmakers that the commission has stepped up its enforcement of indecency rules. It has proposed fining broadcasters $1.4 million in the last three years, compared to $850,000 in the preceding seven years.

''The commission is fully committed to vigorous enforcement of the broadcast indecency restrictions in order to protect the interests of America's children,'' Solomon said.

L. Brent Bozell III, president of the Parents Television Council, a conservative advocacy group, told the House panel that the FCC was not doing its job.

For example, the FCC had never fined a television station in the 50 states for indecency until Tuesday, when the agency proposed a $27,500 penalty against the owner of the KRON TV station in San Francisco on Tuesday for briefly airing a man exposing himself.

''Looking at the FCC's track record on indecency enforcement, it becomes painfully apparent that the FCC could care less about community standards of decency or about protecting the innocence of young children,'' Bozell said.

William Wertz, who owns four radio stations in Kalamazoo, Mich., said part of the problem is that broadcasters are no longer governed by a code of ethics. The Reagan administration forced the National Association of Broadcasters to drop the code on antitrust grounds in 1982.

''We're very concerned that we've witnessed a steady decline of over-the-air decency standards,'' Wertz said, criticizing some of his competitors' programming.

Clear Channel has called for an industry task force to develop indecency standards for radio, television, cable and satellite networks.

''We work hard every day to entertain, not offend our listeners,'' said John Hogan, head of Clear Channel Radio. ''None of us defend or encourage indecent content. It's simply not part of our corporate culture.''

01-28-04 2002EST




Posted for informational purposes only.

This follows in the line Robert was discussing. This is Baptist preacher Chuck Baldwin responding to his critics. He has been taking intense fire from Kool-Aid drinking Bushbots all over the Internet for doing nothing more than consistently saying what he has always said, even under Bill Clinton. I am not sure whether Robert would call this 3T or 4T but it is a gem regardless:

www.chuckbaldwinlive.com

(Standard disclaimers. Emphasis added.)


Why I Write These Columns: An Open Letter To Christian
Conservatives

By Chuck Baldwin
January 30, 2004


My purpose in writing these columns is to make people think, to
confront current events and trends with an intense appreciation for
truth. My desire is also to awaken a lethargic population to an ever
increasing societal, cultural, political, and spiritual departure from
America's historic Christian roots and from a commitment to
constitutional government.

When I confronted the foibles and fallacies of President Bill
Clinton, Christian conservatives hailed me a hero. I was deluged
with congratulatory emails and letters. Their appreciation for my
work could not be expressed loudly or often enough.

However, when I confront the foibles and fallacies of President
George W. Bush, those same Christian conservatives call me every
dirty name in the book. I am suddenly their enemy. Their songs of
praise for my work have turned into a cacophony of hate. But
amazingly, I am saying the same things now that I said then. So,
what has changed?

I submit that what has changed are the attitudes and principles of
vast numbers of Christian conservatives. Where once they stood
for truth, they now stand for political parties. Where once they
gave their loyalty and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Bill
of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and even the Bible,
they now swear loyalty and allegiance to G. W. Bush and the
Republican Party. It seems that many Christians have become little
more than spineless lackeys for a political machine. They seem to
have lost the ability to think critically and objectively.

Scores of readers have chastised me for criticizing President Bush,
calling him God's "anointed." Countless numbers of Christians
seem to believe that G.W. Bush deserves the kind of unquestioned
loyalty that they would give to the Apostle Paul or even to Christ
Himself. Of course, such thinking is beyond foolishness; it borders
on blasphemy!

G. W. Bush is an elected politician. He was elected President of
these United States. Nothing more; nothing less. He has no more
divine "anointing" than any other elected politician.

Where was all this "anointing" talk when Bill Clinton was elected
President? The same God that permitted Bush to become President
permitted Clinton to become President. Yet, Christian
conservatives called Clinton the Anti-Christ, whereas they now
want to add Bush to the Holy Trinity. However, they can't have it
both ways: If Bush is God's "anointed," so was Clinton.

While we are on the subject, it seems lost to most Christian
conservatives that G.W. Bush is a member of the same church
denomination as Senator Hillary Clinton. Yet, I doubt that we will
hear many of them referring to Hillary's divine "anointing."

The fact is, under our form of government, God has given to "we
the people" the right and responsibility of selecting our leaders.
Therefore, we have the President, the Congress, the courts, and the
state and local leaders that we elect.

There is no king or monarch in America! There is no "divine right"
to any political party or to any politician to any public office in this
country! In America, the people must rule themselves. They do this
through their elected lawmakers and elected chief executives.

When the people's elected leaders stray from their oaths of office,
when they violate their contracts with the people, when they
govern unjustly or unconstitutionally, it is the right and duty of the
people to openly criticize them, scold them, and replace them.

One of America's finer presidents, Theodore Roosevelt, said, "To
announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that
we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or
anyone else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant
or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

My criticisms of President Bush are consistent with my criticisms
of President Clinton. They are based on his policies, statements,
and administrative decisions. I never attempt to judge his heart, for
only God has judgment and authority there. However, I will
continue to judge his actions, or inactions, as is my constitutional
right and duty to do.

Accordingly, I charge G. W. Bush with posturing himself as a
conservative while giving us bigger government than did even Bill
Clinton. I charge him with creating the machinery with which a
police state may emerge. Furthermore, I charge President Bush
with attempting to take more freedoms away from the American
people than any president in modern memory.

I also believe that Mr. Bush has redundantly violated his oath to
support and defend the Constitution of the United States and that
he has given nothing but lip service to the pro-life and pro-family
agendas. It is also my contention that President Bush has
jeopardized the security of these United States and has made a
mockery of our nation's laws by his treacherous illegal alien
amnesty proposal. He also lied to the American people by saying
he supported the Second Amendment only later to endorse the
Clinton gun ban.

Even worse, I charge Christian conservatives with willingly
surrendering their independent thinking as well as their American
heritage in order to accommodate President Bush and the
Republican Party. I further charge them with selling their spiritual
birthright for a mess of political pottage!

We should expect more of our leaders than lip service. Indeed, if
any elected office holder talks the Christian talk, he should be held
to a higher, not lesser, standard. Beyond that, the one standard that
really matters for any elected politician is not his rhetoric, but his
loyalty and commitment to America's founding principles. This
should be the overriding determinate as to whether he or she is re-
elected or un-elected, party affiliation or denominational affiliation
notwithstanding.

Therefore, I stand by my criticisms of President Bush. And I will
continue to warn the American people of his big government,
pseudo-conservative policies. I will not be partaker of his political
sins.

Whether readers react with anger or appreciation to these columns
is not my responsibility. If, however, these columns can somehow
create a hunger for truth, a thirst for freedom, and a reverence for
America's founding principles, they will have attained their
intended purpose.

? Chuck Baldwin

Today's papers report that the Medicare Bill, which will undoubtedly be a centerpiece of GWB's campaign ("They didn't lead. .. we did!"), will cost far more than anticipated. THEY ALSO REPORT THAT DURING THE DEBATE, IN WHICH THE ADMINISTRATION MOVED HEAVEN AND EARTH TO GET THE VOTES IT NEEDED, IT REFUSED TO RELEASE ITS OWN ESTIMATES OF WHAT THE BILL WAS GOING TO COST.

If that isn't a 3T--what is? The role of the Bush Administration will be to CREATE the crisis--not solve it.

David

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Today's papers report that the Medicare Bill, which will undoubtedly be a centerpiece of GWB's campaign ("They didn't lead. .. we did!"), will cost far more than anticipated. THEY ALSO REPORT THAT DURING THE DEBATE, IN WHICH THE ADMINISTRATION MOVED HEAVEN AND EARTH TO GET THE VOTES IT NEEDED, IT REFUSED TO RELEASE ITS OWN ESTIMATES OF WHAT THE BILL WAS GOING TO COST.

If that isn't a 3T--what is? The role of the Bush Administration will be to CREATE the crisis--not solve it.

David

It sure is beginning to look that way.

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Today's papers report that the Medicare Bill, which will undoubtedly be a centerpiece of GWB's campaign ("They didn't lead. .. we did!"), will cost far more than anticipated. THEY ALSO REPORT THAT DURING THE DEBATE, IN WHICH THE ADMINISTRATION MOVED HEAVEN AND EARTH TO GET THE VOTES IT NEEDED, IT REFUSED TO RELEASE ITS OWN ESTIMATES OF WHAT THE BILL WAS GOING TO COST.

If that isn't a 3T--what is? The role of the Bush Administration will be to CREATE the crisis--not solve it.

David

It sure is beginning to look that way.

Which leaves the only remaining question: are we there yet or do we need another four years of unraveling to tip us over the edge? I think we're going to get those four years, like it or not, so make my day and tell me it's a good thing.