|
|||
 |
|||
| Friday, February 27, 2009 Question.. I am reading the recent email concerning the above subject and have a question I hope you can respond to. In any way is the disallowing of God in school because of equality? If God is in then all religions need to be represented, isn't this why God is kept out of school, to avoid having to allow all religions? Are you aware of the relationship between religion and the fear of death per Deepak Chopra and others? -- Bette B. People Choose To Be Offended In addition to the points you address in your commentary, "The Chimp Cartoon and the Death of Free Speech," we need to recognize that people CHOOSE to be offended as a means of gaining power and control over the offending party. This needs to be exposed as a modus operandi and seen for what it is. Thank you for your continued perseverance in the cause of religious freedom and human rights.--Andrew P. Thursday, February 26, 2009 Enter the Devil When they took GOD. out of school the devil stepped in . We have to teach our children all about GOD .--D Cartoon Is Racist "New York Post editorial cartoon by Sean Delonas depicting a chimp, alluded to as the author of the stimulus package, being gunned down by police officers." Did the chimp that was gunned down by the cops for attacking a friend of the owner, ever author a stimulus package??? That cartoon was directed at President Obama, as he has authored a stimulus package, and because as an African American he is subject to the rascist allegation that negros are closer to or more monkey like then whites. Come on John, get a life. ---- Tom B. Christians Should Enjoy Same Rights as Atheists I have just read Mr. Whitehead’s comments that God has become a four letter word in public schools. That this has occurred because elitists are imposing their will on Christians. I disagree. The elitists are willing to sue to get their way. Christians-who used to be willing to go to lions for their beliefs-have been unwilling in recent years to stand up for their beliefs. If this is truly a country of freedom of religion, Christians (who are the majority) should enjoy the same rights as atheists. It is time our rights are recognized. -- Claire P. Film Baloney I went too school. i was not the worst or the best student but i am not an idiot either. two hundred and forty six million for film makers in hollywood. A tax break so they can buy film. the average hollywood film runs ninty minutes. How much is the actual cost for film to make such a movie? how many movies does each producer make a year? one, two, three? I dont believe hollywood spends that kind of money in ten years for film. I wish someone would take a good look into this load of baloney. Something stinks to high heaven.--BOB W. Breath of Fresh Air I read your piece TAXPAYERS ARE BEING TAKEN FOR A RIDE in this week's Northend Agent....................FANTASTIC. I had to write and tell you YOU HAVE A NEW FAN........... THANK YOU FOR THE BREATHE OF FRESH AIR. -- Laurie L . Cultural Chasm I recently read your article in the santa monica daily press, (where I'm sure it wasn't popular). thank you so much. I often feel this is not the same country as it used to be. and I do believe there is a great cultural chasm present. thanks for pointing it out. --paul It's Only a Theory!? Oh, puleeeze! I used to respect your writing; in fact I told the editor of our Santa Monica Press that yours were among the few columns worth reading. But when I see: [...] "Thus, whether or not Darwin's theory of evolution is true (there's enough legitimate debate within the scientific community for it to remain a theory and not an incontrovertible fact)..." [...] I am really shocked. There is NO "legitimate debate within the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY!" The only debate is with the tiny fraction of scientists, and with the community of weirdos and born-agains (and political opportunists) who support, or are affiliated with one or another of the Creationist institutions that are hellbent on subverting our Constitution. Legitimate scientists may well be religious believers, but they do not allow their beliefs to interfere with research on well-established theories. Do you actually KNOW the difference between the word "theory" as used in science, and the same word as used in colloquial speech and -- more menacingly -- by the Dover school board types who seek to keep our children so dumbed down that they cannot function in the contemporary world. ---- "A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with 'laws of nature,' suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, 'It's only a theory.' For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because 'Gravity is only a theory.'" -- Sara M. Tuesday, February 24, 2009 Well Beneath Your Normal Standards Sir: I found your column in Sunday's papers to be well beneath your normal standards. You cite one example of a child not being allowed to use Jesus as a topic at school by some misguided but unnamed school officials, and somehow that supports a vast argument that religion is not welcome in our society. While I could point out dozens of counter examples, I am just going to mention two. One, we have rabid right wing religious extremists in Congress who wish to pass a Constitutional amendment that sets forth to abridge the right of two people to enter into a common legal contract. Religionists object to the marriage of homosexuals, which is fine, but then wish to embed their religious beliefs into the constitution, all the while ignoring the fact that marriage has two parts: a sacred religious bond, and a separate legal structure that establishes rules for joint ownership of property. If they succeed, who will they go after next? Catholics cannot own property? Atheists cannot get an LLC? Mormons cannot vote? Second, we now have publicly funded school systems which are required to present the very odd notion of creationism. What will the right wing ayatollahs want next - to teach a terracentric view of the solar system along with the heliocentric one? To teach astrology? Here again, one very small religious point of view is not only publicly available to our children, but forced upon them as well. I found it interesting that you mentioned Jefferson and his separation of state and church speech (given at a Baptist Church). However, I wish you had gone farther and explained what I think to be the greatest document Jefferson ever wrote - the Virginia Religious Freedom act. Not only does it guarantee your right to practice your religion, but it guarantees my right not to have to practice the state religion that you appear to advocate. You also overlook the fact that more than a few people came to our early country to escape state-sponsored religious persecution in their home countries. Lest you think I am some godless heathen, let me assure you that I am not. My three children attend a private Christian school, with which I am extremely well pleased. But I ask my children to reflect upon the countless violent and thoroughly anti-human rights examples of religious states in history - all the current Muslim states, and the 1000 year reign of terror perpetrated by the European Christian churches. By the way, I cringed at the irony of the fact that your article appeared alongside of a photo of a despicable man who advocates a single religious state for the world. Steve F. Spiritual Absence Thank you very much for your commentary: "Return religion to public" ... I've witnessed first hand the dysfunctional characteristics of so many young people and the absence of any spiritual guidance in their lives. I salute you for your caring and hard work. --DK Thank You for Your Efforts Needlessly Antagonistic I found your article ... needlessly antagonistic. I believe that, like myself, a large majority (at least 80%, probably much higher) of the "secular elites" that you decry would be on the same side as you in the cases of schools restraining students religious expression that are discussed in your article. The problem is that there exist, as in various religious communities, a small radical minority that seeks to restrict free speech of religious viewpoints different than their own. The schools are often controlled by cowards who would rather stifle a child's expression than risk facing a lawsuit. I suggest you consider the fact that respect for individual religious choice is at least as present among agnostics and atheists as other perspectives. Your public focus on a few crazies is as unfair and divisive as those who tar the broad communities of faith with the extremists statements of their radical extremes.-- Kevin L. Pajama Day I enjoyed reading your op-ed piece. It revived memories of [something] I experienced first hand – though with a satisfactory ending. In 1998, my daughter, as a kindergarten student, was informed about ‘Pajama Day’: students were to wear their pajamas to school, bring a blanket, pillow, and their favorite bedtime story book. When asked what favorite bedtime story book she would be bringing, she replied, “My Read Aloud Bible Stories Book!”. The teacher told her that that book was not appropriate, and she should choose another. When I picked her up from school that day and found out about this interaction, I immediately went back to the school to discuss it with the teacher. I expressed my disbelief that the school could adopt such a policy, particularly because she wasn’t going to be reading it aloud to the class, but to herself during reading time. The teacher refused to be swayed in his decision. I left a message with the Principal of the school to contact me as soon as possible. The next morning I received a phone call from [the] principal, informing me that he had discussed the issue with the teacher and my daughter was welcome to bring her chosen book to class. While we had a satisfactory end to this incident, it certainly foreshadowed that which you discussed in your article. Thanks for your attention to this matter, and your time spent reading my experience. --Carl S. Thursday, February 19, 2009 God In Schools I wanted to share with you another example of the bad that is being done to the children in our schools. When my granddaughter was in the 3rd grade she was told not to bring her bible to school to read during her free time and not to talk to her friend about joining her at church. This caused her parents to get second jobs so that they could enroll her in a private church school. In my opinion she has missed out on a lot of activities due to the fact that the private school cannot afford them and is not large enough to have them, but at the same time, she has been protected from the language, violence, sexual activities, etc that are known to abound in the public school systems. It is a shame that my daughter has to pay for the education that is free because of our taxes. They should allow parents to receiver vouchers for private christiam schools as well! -- Joyce T . Nothing More, Nothing Less I've long believed that Jefferson's words were meant to keep the government from establishing a national religion and from the "church" to steer clear of governing the people. Nothing more, nothing less. What would our country do if we (the religious) decided to shut down all of our community efforts in helping the poor with housing, food, clothing, education, child-care, shelters, jail ministries, etc? Should we closed down the hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, et al that are primarily run by religious-based entities? How many thousands of churches are also polling places in this country? And, is it time to change our money to read "In God We Trust, but Do Not Recognize?" Again, thanks for the article. -- Rick M . The Illusion of Separation of Church and State Great article; could have been titled, "The Establishment Clause, the illusion of separation of church and state, and a nation striving not to be free on any level". --PW Wednesday, February 18, 2009 Darwin, Catholicism & Columbine Saw your article in the impact of evolution in our local newspaper - The Sandusky Register - GREAT! Did you know the Roman Catholic Church is now endorsing evolution.... read.... http://shatteredparadigm.blogspot.com/2009/02/vatican-declares-that-charles-darwin.html http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/12/nasa_vatican_aliens/ Also the Columbine killers were BIG fans of evolution... Columbine Killings Columbine killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 12 people and themselves in the worst school shooting in US history. Their goal was to bring death to more than 500. Harris wrote on his website, "YOU KNOW WHAT I LOVE??? Natural SELECTION. It's the best thing that ever happened to the Earth. Getting rid of all the stupid and weak organisms."[59] The autopsy report for Harris revealed that on the day of the attack, he wore a T-shirt emblazoned with the words "Natural Selection." Harris and Klebold, who planned their rampage for a year, paid homage to their hero, Adolph Hitler by carrying out their killing spree on April 20, Hitler's birthday.[59] http://straight-talk.net/evolution/columbine.htm Gary L. The Definition of Theory You say in your article: "Thus, whether or not Darwin's theory of evolution is true (there's enough legitimate debate within the scientific community for it to remain a theory and not an incontrovertible fact), Darwin the man is not exactly whom I would choose as a role model for children to revere." You obviously don't understand the use of the term "theory" as used in science. Wikepedia defines theory as a unifying principle that explains a body of facts and the laws based on them (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory). Thus, the theory of evolution is supported by facts. Because many scientists do not agree on the methods of evolution does not mean that evolution has not occurred in the past is not occurring now (as in the case of baciteria becoming resistent to antibiotics). If you want your children to grow up believing in special creation or "intelligent design" that's fine with me. But many people in this country don't want that for their children. --Jeff S . Tuesday, February 17, 2009 Fuzzy and Blurry Kudos for the work and efforts of your self and the institute--freedom, has an authentic definition, and is being continuously whittled at by members of both parties (and freedom of thought being gnawed by countless religious institutions)! I often share your commentaries with many people; in essentially all of the rest I have read over the past1-2 years, I see clarity, well-reasoned perspectives with supporting, relevant evidence, and logical progressions to implications. I was a bit taken aback when I read the Darwin article, to be honest! Reading the title, I expected you to actually discuss Darwin's faith, and show that scientists--even those that come up with data and ideas that DISTURB the status quo--(maybe we should put Galileo Galilei in right here) can still practice in a faith based system of thought. My main problems with the article are the almost fuzzy and blurry statements that lead to inaccurate, implied inferences. For example, your writing implies that what OTHERS did with Darwin's ideas ARE exactly what Darwin thought--that is simply not fact. To say that "his work dislodged people...special creation of God" implies ONLY him, and none of the rest of scientific understandings of the previous 300 years (to Darwin). In Darwin's lifetime, how many men (especially white men) thought anything different about men and women than what Charles Darwin thought??? Your writing, once again implies that HE is politically incorrect, when in fact, essentially ALL white males thought the same! Heck, how many people (and churches) still do to this day??? To deny the "fact" of evolution is to deny a multitude of scientific discoveries!!! The disciplines that contribute to a greater understanding of the processes of change over time (sometimes great periods and sometimes astoundingly short--think climate catastrophes), by implication, should therefore ALL be called into question. Should I continue into all of the scientific disciplines that are now seen as prey with this sort of denial? Here is where a bit of "fuzziness" comes in: knowledgeable evolutionary biologists could have an interesting debate about various mechanisms of natural selection, ALL with DATA to support their findings! This, however, does not dent the validity of evolution. I believe your last paragraph is very accurate, and texts (like H. Zinn's "People's History of the US") with a multitude of primary sources do paint many of our founding fathers in a different light! The only part I have trouble with is "Children should be taught what these historical figures really believed and the ramifications of their beliefs." Often, what we think/assume the historical figures believed is, itself, the result of revisionist history ( for the quickest examples we could look at Bush post-presidency, AND Obama post-campaign). And the truth of the matter, what can a "dead guy" do when people revise his works, take his writings and or teachings and twist them into their own ways of thinking??? There was this INCREDIBLE man, who was the Son of God (as each of us is) who taught many great truths--look at what has resulted from his teachings... I think you can see where I might go with that.. I certainly feel RIDICULOUS trying to almost debate with a constitutional lawyer... I mean you no disrespect sir, just seems like this article lacks the depth and integrity that I have come to know over the last 2 years. I enjoy your articles about movies and actors and such--you can express your opinions as we all should be able to do! But, I have a bit of a problem when faith-based beliefs (and believe me I KNOW science has is own bit of "beliefs" e.g. molecules to cells) being presented as fact, and it seems like this article has a bit of that! Genesis = Evolution Please correct me if I am wrong, but, dosen't Genesis record the facts of the Creation in the same basic format that Darwin presented them? As I understand, first there is the Light, then the Planet, then the atmosphere, then the water, then the lower animals and then the mammals with homo sapien's last. --One love revtombrown Thursday, February 12, 2009 On Target Your analysis of what needs to happen (i.e. address work ethic, spending, term limits) are on target, but how do we make this happen when we need the very people who are corrupt to vote for their own limits? Ron Paul is one of the only honest (and sane) members of Congress ... and he just gets laughed at. -- Scott H . Wednesday, February 11, 2009 How Do We Get This Revolution Started? The big question, HOW DO WE GET THIS REVOLUTION STARTED. This country is so corrupted to the core, there is no fix for it in the normal fashion. It will require drastic measures. REVOLUTION, REFUSE TO PAY TAXES ON A MASSIVE SCALE, DO NOT OBEY ANY UNCONSTITUTIONAL REGULATIONS. We, in my family, already live in this manner. How do we get others on board. If we don't do something very radical, very fast, we are doomed .--Chuck M. Loss of Medical Freedom This articles tells of the provisions for loss of medical freedom that are buried in the stimulus bill. This is of great concern to me, and I hope somehow the public will respond to this assault on our right to choose our medical care for ourselves! I fear what it will mean for my mother who is 88 and living in a nursing home! -- Nancy from Iowa Another Point of View I have been a corresponding attorney for over a decade and have read your commentary on a regular basis. I write, however, to ask that you reconsider your position on our representatives to congress. First, term limits means that no one knows history or procedure except lobbyists and some bureaucrats. It takes a long time to learn the system and a long time to learn to think on a national level to the betterment of both those who elected you and those in the country as a whole. We passed term limits in our state, Montana, several years ago. The result is that it had deprived us of people who are both committed and able to serve. We are getting more marginal people, or people with extreme views setting themselves forth as candidates as we are not allowing qualified people the opportunity to continue service. This is partially a problem because we are not a populous state and our legislature meets for 8 weeks every two years. So, there are not a huge number of qualified people and, of that group, not a large number of people who can take 8 weeks away from their work. On the idea that offices should not be furnished by the people, I would point out that the people are both being served by and using the office. Many a colleague of mine and many people from this state journey to Washington to visit their representatives. The expect that the office will be furnished as is appropriate for someone they hold in such high esteem that they elected them to a very responsible and important position. Additionally, while the modern trend is in the opposite direction, if we can only elect people who are wealthy enough to be able to pay all of these costs, and I know what it costs to furnish an office, are we not again limiting our choices? The people of Montana have a tradition of electing wise, educated representatives. These would include Mike Mansfield and Pat Williams. Neither of these individuals were wealthy enough to serve had the people who elected them not shared in some of the expense. I lived in Washington DC when I attended law school. I know the cost of maintaining a house in that area is high and, of course, a representative is required to maintain a house in his own district back home. We expect them to maintain a reasonable life so that they can have time to do the people's work and not lose their families. I recently met with a former senator from Montana. He allowed as how one of his accomplishments was that he came home with the same woman he brought. Let us not lose sight of the fact that the hours that our representative put in on our behalf is significant and it is important to have time with their primary relationship, their family. I will say that I agree with your position on the three day work week. That seems to have come about when Mr. Gingrich was elected to the house from Georgia. He advised the freshman members not to bring their families to Washington, but to leave them in their districts. I believe this has one advantage under his view and several disadvantages for the country. It used to be that representatives, for all of their political maneuvering, still lived in town near each other and spent time at the barbecue of kitchen table of their neighbor, the representative from another state or party. They thus got to know each other as human beings. This, I can attest as a member of the bar, generally has the result of maintaining civility between people and ensuring a certain kind of respect which would allow on to consider the input of a colleague. If you know someone and spend time with them outside of the arena, you are less harsh in your dealings with them, and, I would submit, more open to their thoughts. Additionally, as I mentioned before, if you have your family with you, you can remain grounded in the fundamental unit of our society, the family. This begs the question of the resort meetings of which you wrote. I think we can agree that the representative getting together to discuss matters of mutual and national importance is good. I submit that a given representative, because of a lack of personal wealth, may not be able to meet at a particular location, which might be close to Washington and is therefore expensive. It might be cheaper to hold a meeting in Billing, Montana, but then they all have to fly here taking additional resources and precious time. If you agree that a meeting is a positive thing, then absent a rich man's club of representatives, there has to be a way to cover the expense. True, lobbyists should not be the answer. The President had Camp David for this purpose. I do not believe there is a suitable place, other than one for hire to host such meetings for members of Congress. The costs, while capable of abuse, are the cost of the people's business. I would contrast this to the last number of years when Vice President Cheney would fly to fish in Wyoming. I saw first hand the huge expense of his little trips with the planes, helicopters, federal and local personnel, not to mention closing vast stretches of prime fishing access. Those were not for the public good, they were for personal aggrandizement and the people should not have assumed the cost. As I began, I have appreciated the support that you and your organization provide to people who are abused in the system. An I believe that no one person has all of the answers, hence the need for real dialogue. I therefore offer these comments in the spirit of appreciation for the work that you have done and will continue to do, and ask only that you similarly consider my position.--William O. Are There Any Cowboys Left? If we pay close attention to the mainstream media and the constant drumming of their agenda - then YES! it is indeed time for another revolution. This government is way out of control and have obviously strayed from the straight and narrow a long, long time ago. The only way I see to peacefully bring about this direly needed revolution and to cripple the size and dominion of Washington, is the implementation of the Fair Tax. As a legal alien and permanent resident who has already paid more taxes than millions of American citizens, it amazes me that Americans would tolerate such oppression by their own government. So America, are there any cowboys left? You remember that type who could govern themselves as free responsible agents, as God intended. Not needing a granny state to meddle in their every affair. It's high time to save America again. Fight the good fight John. Regards, Justin G. Monday, February 09, 2009 Over the Top I love the articles,but this one sounds a bit paranoid and over the top. For example, I am glad our police officer make a lot of raids on peoples homes who have arrest warrants. The people who are victims of their crimes are grateful too. Just a thought.--DeGroot Put Up or Shut Up I read something you said from the AFA's email today. I think now is a great time for Washington Politics to be re-written! Problem is, I'm a small individual. You guys have exposure. I sent my Congressman and Senators a memo. Term limits of 8 years. I like your comment about their retirement system. Disband it and put them on Soc. Sec. like everyone else. This would show that they really want CHANGE! PUT UP OR SHUT UP! Thank you, Don B . What's Wrong With the Stimulus? First of all, it should be noted that this whole rack and ruin stimulus thing got started with Bush and Paulson. Secondly, it is the easiest thing in the world to point out what's wrong and how nuts the legislators might be; it is more difficult to then offer a better path to doing something. What do you recommend besides merely tossing out some of the more obvious foolishness which will not diminish the problem all that much either. --Joseph H . Thank You THANK YOU for standing up to the Gov't for the Veterans of this country, of which I am one of those from WW2 and Korea. I have been known to support as many as 12 Veteran organizations in the past and with being a past Commander of the Legion Org. of Ohio Post 290, I can say truthfully, my service time gave me a different perspective of our Gov't and the direction of non-supportive officials which brought shame to returning troops. and delays in payment of bonus' voted on to be honored by the State of enlistment.. I have thanked my God for you and the Institute many times with my support and will continue as long as possible with my small Social Security, which is also shameful in amount, again thanks to the bureaucrats of the USA of which we are to proud of, at least for our remaining freedoms, which are dwindling fast...--Taylor Give Credit Where Credit is Due What “lunatics” are you referring too? Give credit where credit is due. While I will never defend the Republicans for their past sins of excessive spending, I noticed your glaring hypocrisy and bias in that you never really gave them the credit they deserve for learning from their past mistakes and that they now stand virtually alone by strongly opposing the wasteful spending that is taking place today. I, like you, condemn president Bush and the past Congressional leadership, both Republican and Democrat, for increasing the debt by 1.5+ trillion over eight years. However, there was no mention from you that President Obama and the Congressional Democrats are trying to increase our debt by that amount, or more, in his first month alone. He has even admitted, although it goes unreported by the press, that more “stimulus” bills of equal or larger size are soon going to follow. I have searched your article over and over again and I’m at a loss to find where even the word “Democrat” or “President Obama” appears or any mention of their responsibility in these matters. It isn’t even suggested. Where past spending is mentioned, the word "Republican" is credited, but when you refer to the present spending fiasco, you only refer to “members of Congress.” Just what was the congressional Democrat’s role in Bush’s past spending? Did the Democrats not control Congress for the last two years? Did the Democrats not complain that every spending bill from Bush was not big enough and they wanted more? Did the Democrats not have an equal role in packing every Bush bill with PORK? And just what would you say is the Democrat’s role in today’s spending binge as the authors and pushing of this historic pork spending bill? The true revolution we so desperately need in this once great Republic is a return to the Constitutionally protected duty of the press as an unbiased government watchdog, not a big-government Democrat excusing lapdog. -- Thomas from Florida Incompetent and Conspiratorial Great commentary and very useful, but I'm not sure they are "lunatics", but rather perhaps both really incompetent and conspiratorial!! -- John M. Night is Falling... Fast Just the fact that I get an uneasy feeling for your safety upon reading this article is a sure sign that you are telling the truth. We are a nation of pleasure seeking weaklings led by power seeking weaklings. Night is falling ... fast. -- Scott H. Writing Congress Your emailings inspire me to write to my congress people. Seems like I am writing them daily based on new and more alarming things I hear. I can do little more and certainly no less. But do they hear. I hope so.--Bill Dead People Do Not Need Prison Walls You dumb yankee. Dead people do not need prison walls, guards, meals, medical care, or food. Convict a killer and in six week hang the man, woman, or child. In those six weeks, the lawyer has the responsibility -- [his] only responsibility -- to find evidence to overturn the conviction. Feeding a killer six weeks is a lot more fiscally responsible than cuddling and coddling one for 20 years. --Goodloe S. Why I Voted for Obama a) The GOP has shown over and over again that the most it will ever do for social conservatives is make promises it has no intention of keeping. That and say "God bless America" at the end of every speech. Social conservatives need a presence in both parties. b) There is absolutely no excuse for treating a ragtag bunch of Arabs as a threat comparable to the Soviet Union and attempting to occupy and remake the entire Islamic world. By constant intervention in their affairs (including endless bombings) we sow the seeds of hatred. We have essentially suspended our Constitution in the name of fighting 'Terror' -- which means fighting Arabs, basically. c) The GOP thinks conservatism is about capitalism and capitalism is about Wall Street right or wrong. Wrong. d) I guessed that as a (half) African American male Obama would not be politically correct in his heart of hearts. Most blacks believe in God, aren't into going green, feminism or gay lib. Many suspect that liberal abortion laws are aimed at holding down the black population. So if a liberal it must be, let it be a black liberal. So far I feel vindicated in that Obama's selection of whatsisname to give the inaugural prayer wouldn't even have been considered by Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. If he nationalizes the banks, good riddance. - Edmund B. |
Archive June 2004July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010
|
||
 |
|||
| The Rutherford Institute P.O. Box
7482 Charlottesville, VA 22906-7482 Phone :: 434.978.3888 (8:30 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern) | Fax :: 434.978.1789 General Inquiries:: staff@rutherford.org | Legal Assistance:: tristaff@rutherford.org Technical comments :: webmaster@rutherford.org ©2007 The Rutherford Institute | Privacy Info |
|||
