You know when Republicans get desperate for the GOP presidential nod when: Former Gov. of Arkansas Huckabee finally, finally waxes hotly critical of GW in an op-ed piece about his arrogance and hubris re domestic and foreign policies. (Maybe he was reading this blog that often did discuss graphically that very hubris. LOL!) And Romney demands hotly that Huckabee should apologize for his remarks--source material: CNN. When "The Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" put Gov. Huckabee on to get some kind of clarification, the former Baptist Minister went up a notch for this Druid to actually consider voting for him or even Ron Paul. He actually sounded like a guy who is beginning to care about the country and the people as opposed to the current crop of GOP presidential wannabes who care about running as another Reagan while continuing GW's arrogant and hubristic domestic and foreign policies. After Huckabee, Blitzer had Pat Buchannan on who touted his latest book on what he thought of the current administration. Buchannan said he'd also have to apologize for what he wrote about GW! I don't have much cause to agree with Buchannan on much of anything, but I will agree that there is no use apologizing for telling the truth. And it took all of 7 years for the GOP to finally get around to recognizing the truth. Except of course for most of the GOP wannabes who wish to succeed GW in office.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Found on Huckleberries on-line (Spokesman-Review.com) 17 December 2007, World Net Daily Service wants to know how people would vote for president. First on the list, his or her stance on abortion, to go on from there to include honesty and trustworthiness, global warming, etc. My pick, honesty and trustworthiness, considering that is not what is present in the current administration.
Recent letter in the Spokesman-Review. The writer in question says that he does not find the words separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution. No, but that is the explanation given by no less than James Madison in the Federalist papers for what is found in the first clause of the first Amendment, Congress shall make no law... that makes a specific religion a state religion and certainly makes no law that prohibits its free exercise. Which is why anyone who makes use of James Madison's explanation on the separation of church and state stands in fact on much more solid ground than those who'd overturn the first amendment for particularly partisan and yes, religious interests.
Of further note, and directly relating to the above: also found on HBO (spokesmanreview.com) Moscow, Idaho is moving to grant health insurance to domestic partnerships. Merely letting Dave Oliveria who runs this blog know that the religious activists "Idaho Values Alliance" don't themselves support the Constitution as they push Idaho toward a situation that only recognizes one religion, their own. A constitution that insists on a state religion, their own. However, Idaho is home to more than one religion, I am a native of Idaho and I am a Druid. So, shouldn't the Idaho state constitution support all religious beliefs rather than becoming a special interest document? So, who acts more illegally? Moscow, Idaho's city council or the religious activists who deem that the constitution should reflect their world view?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Found on Huckleberries on-line (Spokesman-Review.com) 17 December 2007, World Net Daily Service wants to know how people would vote for president. First on the list, his or her stance on abortion, to go on from there to include honesty and trustworthiness, global warming, etc. My pick, honesty and trustworthiness, considering that is not what is present in the current administration.
Recent letter in the Spokesman-Review. The writer in question says that he does not find the words separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution. No, but that is the explanation given by no less than James Madison in the Federalist papers for what is found in the first clause of the first Amendment, Congress shall make no law... that makes a specific religion a state religion and certainly makes no law that prohibits its free exercise. Which is why anyone who makes use of James Madison's explanation on the separation of church and state stands in fact on much more solid ground than those who'd overturn the first amendment for particularly partisan and yes, religious interests.
Of further note, and directly relating to the above: also found on HBO (spokesmanreview.com) Moscow, Idaho is moving to grant health insurance to domestic partnerships. Merely letting Dave Oliveria who runs this blog know that the religious activists "Idaho Values Alliance" don't themselves support the Constitution as they push Idaho toward a situation that only recognizes one religion, their own. A constitution that insists on a state religion, their own. However, Idaho is home to more than one religion, I am a native of Idaho and I am a Druid. So, shouldn't the Idaho state constitution support all religious beliefs rather than becoming a special interest document? So, who acts more illegally? Moscow, Idaho's city council or the religious activists who deem that the constitution should reflect their world view?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment