Acura MDX SUV Forums banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
355 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
My un-American Democratic Party

By Bob Just

Imagine you've got a Muslim neighbor who is actually a radical, but hasn't yet revealed to you his inner radical thoughts. He may seem like a nice family-oriented, hard-working, reliable guy, but then at a barbecue he tells his private view that the "worldwide Jewish movement" is the embodiment of evil, and that Israel must be destroyed.

One moment you think he's a reasonably normal guy, and a moment later you realize he lives in a very dark world. Still, there he is, smiling at you while he flips a burger and offers you another cold soda.

That's what it felt like for me recently to read a quote by the French ambassador to Britain. According to Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post, the ambassador said Israel was a "[expletive] little country ... why should the world be in danger of World War III because of those people?"

With this as the sentiment of a major ambassador from a major Western country, could a global betrayal of Israel be far off? Indeed, a European Commission poll reported that 59 percent of its democracies thought that Israel was the greatest threat to world peace.

Skeptics might ask how the world could possibly turn against Israel with America as her staunch ally? After all, we are the world's only superpower. The answer lies within America itself, specifically the Democratic Party – the "blue state" half of the country. A paradigm shift is occurring – one that will affect not only Israel's security, but America's as well. Howard Dean's famous comment about not taking sides between Israel and the Palestinians was directed at the many radical Palestinian sympathizers in the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," a group that will become increasingly vocal as the war on terror continues.

Make no mistake, anti-Semitism is alive and well as a political force – and so is appeasement. The two will combine, and my Democratic Party will soon betray Israel. It may not be an overt betrayal. It may come in a thousand cuts rather than with a single blow. But it will come.

All this is more than a hunch on my part. It has to do with core values. One party has them, and the other doesn't. The Democratic Party's leaders may look like traditional Americans. They may say they support Israel. They may "stand with our troops" in Iraq. They may go to church and take communion. They may even sing, "God Bless America" on the Capitol steps – but increasingly their inner thought life is not what it seems to be.

Inside they seethe at "red state" America. We watch the weird, angry behavior of prominent Democrats like Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean or even John Kerry and we scratch our heads in wonder. Who are these people? What are they thinking? What caused all this anger, and why is it directed at fellow Americans? The furious fringe is taking over the party. They are solidified in their sense of victimhood. They aren't looking for compromise, but for total victory – revenge almost – in fulfilling their vision for a new America, one that has nothing to do with biblical Christianity or Judaism, the pumping heart of true Americanism.

Last November, famous Soviet Jewish dissident Natan Sharansky wrote a piece for Commentary Magazine in which he made clear that anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism were related. Both express hostility toward the "moral clarity" of Jews and Christians and their shared love of liberty. Anti-Americanism, like anti-Semitism, is increasingly evident both globally and locally – and you'll find them both in my angry Democratic Party!

Now here's the sobering reality: Defeating "angry leftists" at the polls does not solve our problem any more than disarming a crazy person makes him a safe roommate. If I am right that the Democrats (under current leadership) are no longer an American party in any traditional sense, then this has massive implications for our two-party system – which depends on mutual respect and common goals. It's as if Israel were forced to accept radical Palestinians from Gaza as voting members of the Jewish state. Needless to say, shared power combined with radically opposing agendas would spell disaster.

Democracy is too vulnerable a system to withstand an entrenched and determined hostility, serving no higher purpose than itself. Whether or not you call this treachery hardly matters. The end result is the same – conflict, not compromise.

Everyone is talking about the growing red-state /blue-state divide in America. The words "parallel universe" have even been used to describe the two ethics that dominate our political scene. To put it simply, the red side believes in "one nation, under God," and the blue side doesn't. We think rights come from our Creator, they think rights come from our government. We think there are moral absolutes, they think everything is relative, including the Constitution.

Yes, a paradigm shift is in process, a change in national political character that could destroy any hope of national security – from winning the global war on terror to defending our interests in the Middle East, including Israel, to defending our borders right here at home. The "PC" movement that Newsweek famously called "totalitarian" in 1990 is alive and well – and now controls one of our two major parties.

In "Fascism, corruption and my 'Democratic' Party" – written before the 2000 election – I use expressions like "fascism" and "cold civil war" to make the point that America faces an immediate and very real danger from within – a growing anti-traditional, "party first" mentality among "Clinton Democrats" that would stop at nothing to achieve power and remake America in their politically correct image. Although the attacks of 9-11 seemed to inspire the "new patriotism" Ronald Reagan sought, in the end nothing really changed.

Witness how my party acted during the Iraq War – undermining the president at every opportunity – even while knowing America's terrorist enemies were taking comfort in words like "liar" and "fraud" and "regime change." It was a very sad thing to watch for those of us who remember a different Democratic Party. At this point, our only hope is for the public to wake up to what is happening. It won't be easy – for reasons I'll explain – but traditional Democrats can turn the tide by blowing the whistle on our own party.

Mainstream Democrats, especially Jews, better start understanding what is at work here. Time is running out. This political party, which still smiles at you and offers you "a cold soda," sadly no longer thinks like you do, or shares the same loyalties.

Now here is our big problem. These Democrats don't need to win elections the usual way. All they need to do is solidify their angry base – then entrench like an occupying army – and wait until Americans are desperate for a political "change." No one can break the stranglehold of a party that has a solid 40-45 percent base (as some experts claim), and few moral limits.

First, there's no oxygen for a third party, at least not for one that has any chance of winning the presidency. But, meanwhile, these anti-traditional Democrats can undermine the system. They can quietly block legitimate votes in the Senate; they can noisily filibuster judges; they can emotionalize debate, use their power to politicize and subvert committees, force damaging scandal hearings – and do all this while networking with their secular media allies to pressure the public. They can campaign perpetually, wage the politics of personal destruction – they can infiltrate, obfuscate, accuse, demoralize and defeat at every opportunity. Call it permanent gridlock – a wrestling stranglehold just waiting for the pin.

It doesn't sound very American, does it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
572 Posts
Just another idiot claiming you can't be a patriot without being a Christian. This has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever read. Where do you get this trash?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
355 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
neide said:
Just another idiot claiming you can't be a patriot without being a Christian. This has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever read. Where do you get this trash?
Why are you so offended?

Like it or not, American values are based on Judeo-Christian values and morals. Of course, there are those in power trying and succeeding to undo that foundation to the detriment of this country. You watch, the more they succeed at erasing Judeo-Christian values, the more chaotic our society will become. But you will not see/acknowledge the linkage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
572 Posts
hhwc said:


Why are you so offended?

Like it or not, American values are based on Judeo-Christian values and morals. Of course, there are those in power trying and succeeding to undo that foundation to the detriment of this country. You watch, the more they succeed at erasing Judeo-Christian values, the more chaotic our society will become. But you will not see/acknowledge the linkage.
I'm not offended.

You're no better then the Muslim extermists. You try to force religon and your narrow view of the world down others throats. Your message might be cloaked differently, and claim to be the "basis" of our country (this is bunk, by the way) but it leads down the same path. The fact that you buy into stuff like this helps complete the picture of you and lets me really understand where you are coming from. I wish I could say you were alone, but there is a small, perhaps 10% or so, percentage of our country that buys into this radical right way of thinking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
355 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
neide said:


I'm not offended.

You're no better then the Muslim extermists. You try to force religon and your narrow view of the world down others throats. Your message might be cloaked differently, and claim to be the "basis" of our country (this is bunk, by the way) but it leads down the same path. The fact that you buy into stuff like this helps complete the picture of you and lets me really understand where you are coming from. I wish I could say you were alone, but there is a small, perhaps 10% or so, percentage of our country that buys into this radical right way of thinking.
I'm not forcing anything down your throat. The US is not a theocracy and it shouldn't be. But to deny that American values are based on Judeo-Christian values and morals shows a lack of historical knowledge. Go read AND UNDERSTAND the founding documents. It's all there.

On the other hand, certain democrats and liberals ARE forcing their values down people's throats through their social experimentation/legislation, but that's another topic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,732 Posts
".....shows a lack of historical knowledge.."

Best put our forefathers in the same category. Hardly a religious bunch by any stretch of the imagination. But they were principled for the most part, and understood the meaning of freedom and fought for it every way they could. For that we have to be forever grateful. The original idea was to create a country that ALLOWED the freedom to practice any religion.

Judeo-Christian values were intended to form a basis for our system of laws together with parts of the structure they took from english law.

I guess the original concept of freedom is not enough for the more zealous. To the point of some wanting to put the Ten Commandments in government buildings which would really have George, Sam, and Ben scratching their heads.

"Is it not enough we gave you the freedom to practice your religion in your own way, are you now suggesting everyone do the same as you? "

The freedom to practice religion is also the freedom to practice it differently, or not at all...how difficult it is for some to understand that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
522 Posts
What is truly frightning is that he actually believes this... Even more frightning is that some in a position of power do...

Tom


hhwc said:
My un-American Democratic Party

By Bob Just
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,282 Posts
hhwc said:


But to deny that American values are based on Judeo-Christian values and morals shows a lack of historical knowledge.
Well if that's true then the Founding Fathers wanted the associated religions ( Judeo-Christian ) to have a leg up on all the other religions. That's why the Constitution was set up with a separation between church and state - yeah, that's it. I guess it's not incongruent to you. :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
355 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
DaleB said:
".....shows a lack of historical knowledge.."

Best put our forefathers in the same category. Hardly a religious bunch by any stretch of the imagination. But they were principled for the most part, and understood the meaning of freedom and fought for it every way they could. For that we have to be forever grateful. The original idea was to create a country that ALLOWED the freedom to practice any religion.
Freedom without structure is chaos. What I am saying is where was the structure derived from? The Declaration of Independence is very much in line with Christian thinking.

DaleB said:

Judeo-Christian values were intended to form a basis for our system of laws together with parts of the structure they took from english law.
Isn't that what I said? English law was also based on Judeo-Christian values.

DaleB said:

I guess the original concept of freedom is not enough for the more zealous. To the point of some wanting to put the Ten Commandments in government buildings which would really have George, Sam, and Ben scratching their heads.
There are Ten Commandments tablets represented in and outside the Supreme Court building today. If it's ok there, why not other buildings? But, this is off subject now...

DaleB said:

"Is it not enough we gave you the freedom to practice your religion in your own way, are you now suggesting everyone do the same as you? "

The freedom to practice religion is also the freedom to practice it differently, or not at all...how difficult it is for some to understand that.
Like I said, the US is not a theocracy which means you can practice a religion or not. Believe it or not, Christianity gives you the freedom to believe or not.

The argument here is whether or not Judeo-Christian values formed the American value system. I argue it did and from your earlier comment, you would agree to that statement as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,282 Posts
hhwc said:


The argument here is whether or not Judeo-Christian values formed the American value system. I argue it did and from your earlier comment, you would agree to that statement as well.
That's it! The soldiers abusing the Iraqi prisoners were expressing Judeo-Christian values and celebrating the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition by the way they treated their charges.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,732 Posts
Freedom without structure is chaos. What I am saying is where was the structure derived from? The Declaration of Independence is very much in line with Christian thinking.

It is line with treating each other justly. Of course it is written within the experience of the authors. Do you really believe before Chrisitianity that man did not know the right way to treat his fellow man?
Parallels to the same principles can be found in ancient eastern religions.

Isn't that what I said? English law was also based on Judeo-Christian values.

Yes, but religious freedom is a concpet beyond any one religion, whether it be Christian, Judiasm, Muslilm, etc. etc. Freedom of religion alone is not a Christian ideal. Certainly not based on it's history! It is human principle and value. One can be an agnostic or atheist and you can say they are acting Christian if that comforts you.
Indeed, the Chruch of England, a Christian religion, was well in place when the english denied other religions the same freedom.
As was Martin Luther who denied Jews equality.

There are Ten Commandments tablets represented in and outside the Supreme Court building today. If it's ok there, why not other buildings? But, this is off subject now..

Like I said, the US is not a theocracy which means you can practice a religion or not. Believe it or not, Christianity gives you the freedom to believe or not.

Oh but it's history does not. Our forefathers gave us that freedom not Christianity. And in many Catholic countries even today, governments are held back from progressing beyond a patriarch society that shows little respect for women unless they are born into privelege.

The argument here is whether or not Judeo-Christian values formed the American value system. I argue it did and from your earlier comment, you would agree to that statement as well.

Yes, because that was the 'experience' of those who came before us. So it is largely developed within that concept. About that we can agree. But to say it is the sole reason is very misleading.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
355 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
oceanMDX said:

That's why the Constitution was set up with a separation between church and state - yeah, that's it. I guess it's not incongruent to you. :rolleyes:
Show me where it says that in the Constitution. Here's a hint, it's not there. :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,732 Posts
hhwc said:


Show me where it says that in the Constitution. Here's a hint, it's not there. :rolleyes:

"...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to an Office or public Trust under the United States.”

“….Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”


There is enough material at this website (and others) to make for good argument in either direction. Choose what works for you, I say.
Like most things in life it is open to interpretation if you need it fit your belief system.


http://members.tripod.com/~candst/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
"Show me where it says that in the Constitution. Here's a hint, it's not there."

Yep!

Not there now and never was! It's just a figment of some black robed thugs (judges) imagination.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
355 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
DaleB said:

“….Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”
Let me quote the entire first amendment...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Do you see the words "separation of church and state"? I don't.

"...make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." This was twisted by judicial activism to mean separation of church and state, but when you read it, it says no such thing.

Posting the Ten Commandments, having voluntary prayer in schools, and saying "under God" in the voluntary pledge is NOT MAKING A LAW.

The prohibition was inserted by the Founders to prevent an official Church/religion of the United States like they had in England.

What the separation of church and state crowd seems to ignore is the next clause "...prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." You can not prohibit the free exercise of religion which exactly what they are doing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,160 Posts
DaleB said:
No one is claiming it has those exact words in it. It all has to do with interpretation.


kinda like religions.


Like I said, it means different things to different people. It's the fact people can have DIFFERENT views that are not the same as yours that really bothers you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,282 Posts
DaleB said:
No one is claiming it has those exact words in it. It all has to do with interpretation.



Like I said, it means different things to different people. It's the fact people can have DIFFERENT views that are not the same as yours that really bothers you.
Exactly right, but the only view that counts is that of the Supreme Court of the United States, and their statements have been pretty clear on the matter of separation of church and state.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
355 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
oceanMDX said:
Exactly right, but the only view that counts is that of the Supreme Court of the United States, and their statements have been pretty clear on the matter of separation of church and state.
I guess you don't believe in government by the people for the people. What you just said reeks of judicial tyranny and it's ok with you?

Here's what Reagan had to say on the issue....

http://lib0131.lib.msu.edu/vvl/011259/public/all/01-1259-107.mp3
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top