The irony of Newt
Newt Gingrich is a man who, as speaker of the House of Representatives, pushed for WTO membership and was instrumental in passing NAFTA and CAFTA. As a result of those free-trade agreements, the U.S. has accumulated an estimated $6 trillion in trade deficit and has lost 6.5 million manufacturing jobs and yet Gingrich has the nerve to campaign as a job creator.
Gingrich made over $3 million last year, much of that coming from lobbying. In 2003 Gingrich lobbied members of Congress in an effort to convince “conservatives” to support a bill expanding Medicare to include prescription-drug subsidies for the pharmaceutical industry. He would have American taxpayers subsidize one of the most profitable industries in the world. All the while, he claims he is a “free-market capitalist” and is opposed to welfare.
Gingrich says, “Obama put more people on food stamps than any president in history.” Isn’t it ironic that the job-killing, free-trade agreements that he fought so hard for are a big part of the reason many Americans are out of work and need the food stamp program to feed their family?
John Hafford
Medway
Ross made honorable choice
The suicide of Bob Carlson affected many. I knew, worked with and respected him. It continues to be difficult to reconcile the conflicting thoughts and feelings that arise with each new report — none more so than when questions arose about Sheriff Glenn Ross’ decision to speak with him the night of his death.
Sheriff Ross had conflicting relationships and responsibilities: He was a long-standing friend, a sheriff, a leader in the Bangor community and a man who had worked with the Rev. Bob for many years.
Dual relationships are common. They mean weighing competing ethical demands and making decisions that are complex. There are no simple answers; things are not black or white — they are gray.
I have known and worked with Sheriff Ross for over 10 years. His dedication to the community is unflagging. The manner in which he balances the needs of law enforcement and public safety and the care of inmates is evidence of his leadership skills, ethics and strength of character. I have seen him shoulder significant difficulty in his job as sheriff. I know him to be both thoughtful and ethical.
The BDN quotes him saying it took him days to decide what to do. He had only poor choices available to him — nothing was black and white. He made the most honorable decision he could. What a shame it would be to allow the circumstances of Rev. Bob’s death to compromise the standing of this wonderful and dedicated public servant.
Carol Carothers
Executive Director
NAMI Maine
Pray on your own time
To Gov. LePage and the two dozen lawmakers who signed the document “A Call to Prayer for Maine” ( BDN, Jan. 18), I would say that I don’t care if they pray on your own time, but they shouldn’t waste precious legislative time, ink and paper on what is not government business.
Sixteen percent of Americans are not religiously affiliated. Substantial numbers are of religions other than “Judeo-Christian.” Even if our citizens were 99 percent Christian, it wouldn’t mean that we are a theocracy: Our government was designed to be secular — for good reasons.
Christians are not being persecuted! In reality, our freedom to believe whatever we want is under constant assault, from seemingly benign but ridiculous actions like this one, to more serious ones by our own Christian Right.
Trying to impose even the beliefs of the majority’s religion on the rest of us is un-American. As for the motto “In God We Trust,” I propose that we return to our original motto, “E Pluribus Unum” — Out of Many, One. That is, if we actually want to be inclusive, are not trying to impose our beliefs on others and honestly believe in the First Amendment and freedom for all citizens.
Instead of bloviating about “plunging headlong into the post-modern void … a value-neutral and amoral vacuum,” etc., why don’t lawmakers and the governor do the work for which they were elected: improve the economy, promote jobs and provide for the common good? If that can be accomplished through prayer, what do we need them for?
Nancy Glista
Franklin
Get over it Nancy. You are going to have a stroke and meet your maker a little earlier than the plan calls for.
As for , “E Pluribus Unum” — Out of Many, One.” That was in reference to the “many” states not anything else.
I disagree in some ways with Nancy Glista, who I understand to be anti-religious. At the same time, I appreciate her concerns.
Conservative Christians believe they are being persecuted by secular humanists. Secular humanists, on the other hand, point out that their organizations (like the American Humanist Association) are tiny compared to any single Evangelical Christian Mega-Church. The humanists say they are the ones being persecuted by a giagantic right-wing Fundamentalist movement. The truth might be somewhere in between.
Humanists point out that Christianity gets one month (or more) out of twelve in which to celebrate Christmas, a Christian holiday. Evangelical Christians point out that most of what we are bombarded with during that month is secular music and empty consumerism that has nothing at all to do with the birth of Jesus.
Getting back to the Governor’s message about prayer, I was surprised to see his prayer group promoting “Judeo-Christian” prayer. I’ve met many Jews, and many Christians. However, I don’t think I’ve ever met a Judeo-Christian.
And I, for one, feel our nation is more united by the motto our Founding Fathers gave us, “E Pluribus Unum,” than by the one that came out of the anti-Communist hysteria of the Cold War: “In God we Trust.”
Penzance, I myself am an atheist but not for a moment do I begrudge anyone their deeply held beliefs as Nancy seems to. When I am inconvenienced by a cluster of traffic in front of a church on a Sunday morning I simply shrug my shoulders and wait for traffic to clear.
When a prayer is held be it in Congress the White House or Augusta I feel much the same way. It only makes sense in a predominately christian country we are all going to have to suffer through numerous Christian rituals. Let them happen I say. It’s nothing to me.
We non-Christians are a minority and I don’t believe those rituals are intended as a personal affront. Why should I take them that way?
When in the suburbs of Detroit that are predominantly Muslim they perform their public “Calls to Prayer” several times per day. I feel the same way.
As for Judeo -hristians, there may not be many of those. But there is a Judeo-Christian tradition. A commonality of history and traditions.
Perhaps a simple refresher course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian
I have no problem with “E Pluribus Unum” as long as people realize the founders meant “the many states” and not some Progressive rewrite.
This time you and I agree about quite a lot (although I am a Christian and a liberal, and you identify as an atheist and, I believe, a conservative).
I’m a bit of a stickler on the over-use of “Judeo-Christian,” however. Despite the frequent use of this term, I think it is generally used more by Christians who think they are being inclusive, and yet they really mean “Christian” without much thought given to “Judeo”.
Still, I find myself surprisingly in agreement with you.
My “meet your maker” comment to Nancy was meant tongue in cheek.
Yep Conservative atheist. Usually I stay out of religious discussions but I couldn’t help myself this time.
honestly, you are one of the last people on this site who I would think is an atheist. I would have guessed Penzance before you.
I expect that both my reading of the US Constitution regarding religion and respect for others personal religious beliefs confuses some folks. I as a Caucasian out of the Judeo-Christian ethic who respects the Constitution, despite what others believe, means I have a code that demands that.
Hats off to you!
Would that there was some respect for others’ ideas.
Yep, I’m a liberal Christian, and she calls herself a conservative atheist. Will wonders never cease?
look up Messianic Judaism. Basically, someone who is culturally Jewish, but beileves that Jesus is the Messiah.
Saying “Judeo-Christian” in not being PC, its just recognizing that some are Jewish Christians, and also recognizing that the Christian Messiah is in fact Jewish Himself.
No, that’s not how the term is used. Yes, there are Christians who call themselves “Messianic Jews,” although Jews do not recognize them as Jewish; and in fact most Jews feel greatly insulted by the tiny “Messianic Judaism” movement. They see it as just one more way to wipe out Judaism. But I digress.
The way “Judeo-Christian” is used, as in “Our Judeo-Christian heritage,” refers to the ieda that we can blur the distinctions between Judaism and Christianity and come up with an ethical or moral consensus that all Americans, as part of the “Judeo-Christian traditon,” agree on. It’s one of those ideas that was popular in the 1950s before we figured out that the United States is more diverse than that.
Yes, we are 80% or so Christian, and a few % Jewish, but we also have a growing number of non-religious people, and growing numbers of Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, etc. The term “Judeo-Christian” is not only inaccurate; it also excludes a lot of Americans.
A dictionary can be very helpful in this type of discussion. Judeo-Christian means “of or pertaining to the religious writings, beliefs, values, or traditions held in common by Judaism and Christianity.” To me that means the Old Testament. I can’t think of any New Testament writings, etc., that might be embraced by Jews.
Actually, what we call “the Lord’s Prayer,” spoken by Jesus in the New Testament, is very Jewish in nature, if one simply looks at the content of the prayer itself. That’s because jesus was Jewish, and never so much as met a Christian. But Jews have been hit over the head with “Jesus” so many times they’d rather not have this discussion, and most Christians don’t realize that Jesus wasn’t a Christian.
I just don’t like the use of the term “Judeo-Christian” because of the way it has been used to blur distinctions between Christians and Jews; that it is used in a way that really doesn’t include Jews to any great extent; and that it excludes the rest of Americans who might be non-religious, Buddhist, Muslim, etc.
P.S. I try to avoid the term “Old Testament,” as it assumes that there is a “New Testament” that supercedes the old. A better term, in my opinion, is “The Hebrew Bible.” it was written in Hebrew, and is used by Jews (the Hebrew people) as their Bible.
Progressive rewrite? Oh contrair …. growing up (which was a long long time ago) I understood it to mean from many people one country, nothing about from many states. Most likely I had that understanding because some teacher or text book along the line said that was what it meant, or maybe my father (who could put a lot of armchair conservatives to shame) told me that. That my understanding may have been wrong is irrelevant as you level the accusation that it’s a “progressive rewrite”. Instead it’s an understanding that a lot of people have had for a lot of reasons, probably none of which have a thing to do with their current political inclinations.
Whatever the reason Progressives of another era chose to pass on this misinformation is between you and them. Perhaps others repeat this false information and it get twisted into some other meaning. Obviously you did not learn they were incorrect and now you believe it heart and soul.
Sort of like a politician of a few years ago that said the Preamble of Constitution said “Provide for the Common Welfare” instead of “Promote the Common Welfare.” They used this as a means for promoting the extension of welfare benefits. Is this ignorance or intent?
How about Ms LaMarche who claimed that individuals had no right to vote for a person because of their religion or lack of it? Referring to the no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States, in the Constitution. Is she ignorant or is this with intent?
Or how about the Progressive political line of thought that says the First Ten amendments of the Constitution defines what the limitations of the people have not what the limits of the government are. Progressive sheep are made in such ways. Is this ignorance or intent?
Symbology is important. In this case the seal of the United States clearly means the many states being one country. If you need a little history remember the founders were desperately trying to connect our disparate states together into one union. One of the many ways they did it was by building common symbols. National Bird etc. One can’t help but wonder what is the purpose of Progressives redefining our national symbols.
Can’t say I’ve heard of too many Humanists who have a problem with people celebrating their religious holidays no matter how often they come around on the calendar. I have noticed the concerns raised when govt. agencies and officials get involved. That’s a good thing to keep an eye on as far as I’m concerned.
You are right that some Christians try to assert that empty consumerism and non-religious music are somehow part of an organized secular humanist agenda to persecute them. Problem is… it’s not and as far as I know never has been. The situation is much more a case of these people feeling under attack because they are, in some cases, no longer being granted the special considerations they have become used to recieving from their fellow citizens. These folks would probably benefit from a little “shoe on the other foot” thought experiment.
You can guess which national motto is my choice.
Actually, “E Pluribus Unum” on our currency is more likely a reflection of America being formed by “we the people” to quote the Constitution’s first three words. It did not appear on American national currency until 1795 but had appeared on state currencies such as New Jersey before the Constitution. This is an important distinction, as the Articles of Confederation reflected a union of states, which union proved unworkable.
See, already the rewrite begins… Progressives!!! A pox on your houses!!!!!
1782 http://www.greatseal.com/symbols/explanation.html
http://www.greatseal.com/mottoes/unum.html
You need to look more deeply into the history of the Seal of the United States. All three Latin phrases (the other two being annuit coeptis and novus ordo seclorum) are borrowings from Virgil or poems thought to have been written by Virgil. I gently suggest that Virgil was not thinking of thirteen colonies when he used the phrase, which was in wide use for many purposes by the late 18th Century. I would agree that the person who created the Seal intended the phrase to refer to the 13 states, but that doesn’t mean that this was Congress’ intent when it adopted the Seal. Congress was more literate then and most of its members were likely schooled in Virgil. Today, a majority of the House of Representatives is schooled in Limbaugh. It has been a sad devolution.
Dust off your Latin and re-read Virgil. I still remember my high school Latin teacher taking us through the meanings of the words on our money.
I don’t rewrite history.
I do understand it.
I gently refer you to…
The only official explanation of the symbolism of the great seal was given by Charles
Thomson upon presenting the final design for adoption by Congress.
He wrote:
The Escutcheon is composed of the chief & pale, the two most
honorable ordinaries. The Pieces, paly, represent the several states all
joined in one solid compact entire, supporting a Chief, which unites
the whole & represents Congress. The Motto alludes to this union.
The pales in the arms are kept closely united by the chief and the Chief
depends upon that union & the strength resulting from it for its
support, to denote the Confederacy of the United States of America &
the preservation of their union through Congress.
The colours of the pales are those used in the flag of the United
States of America; White signifies purity and innocence, Red, hardiness
& valor, and Blue, the colour of the Chief signifies vigilance,
perseverance & justice. The Olive branch and arrows denote the power
of peace & war which is exclusively vested in Congress. The
Constellation denotes a new State taking its place and rank among other
sovereign powers. The Escutcheon is born on the breast of an American
Eagle without any other supporters to denote that the United States of
America ought to rely on their own Virtue.
Reverse. The pyramid signifies Strength and Duration: The Eye over it
& the Motto allude to the many signal interpositions of providence
in favour of the American cause. The date underneath is that of the
Declaration of Independence and the words under it signify the beginning
of the new American Æra, which commences from that date.[5]
Again upon its presentation to “CONGRESS.”
Why is this so difficult for you? It suggests you are either denying history, rewriting it or possibly not understanding it.
I read your link and in my post noted “I would agree that the person who created the Seal intended the phrase to refer to the thirteen states.” You then repeat what I had already read from your link. The rest of my sentence then reads: “but this doesn’t mean that this was Congress’ intent when it adopted the seal.”
Determining the intent of any collection of individuals is a different matter than determining the intent of one. By your logic, a President who proposes a bill for one purpose defines the intent of a Congress that enacts it for another purpose. The Wikipedia cite on this motto states that it was in wide use before Thompson proposed it. A magazine even used it on its masthead for every issue.
No reader of our respective posts would question the depth of my analysis; they might wonder why you can only go back to the same source with which you began. “Beware a man who reads only one book, be it the Torah, the Bible, or the Koran.”
IT is the only OFFICIAL authoritative source.
Your suppositions are nothing but suppositions. That hardly qualifies as analysis as you completely disregard the Congressional record.
You should be better than this. I expect you rewrite history and call it analysis.
You do understand that the creator of the Great Seal was Secretary to Congress?
The primary source used by the courts to determine the intent of any Congress are the committee reports and the debates preceding passage. The secondary source is prior acts of Congress and the generally accepted meanings of words and phrases at the time of a statute’s enactment. There is no such thing as an “only OFFICIAL authoritative source” for determining Congressional intent.
This has become an idee fixe for you. I find that sad.
I see, Congress doesn’t count but only subcommittee reports…. Jeesh.
The word of a single Secretary of the Congress is certainly part of the mix any court would review, but only a part. Enjoy your Manichean world. I enjoy mine in living color.
Not even in a black and white world is a state not a people.
I thought only corporations were people.
I see now what the problem is. Cheesecake wants to make darn sure that no one misconstrues the motto to mean something like “we’re all in this together,” or “all for one and one for all,” because then that might mean we’re all responsible for each other, heaven forbid.
Understand the basic Cheesecake tenet: corporations are people; human beings are cannon fodder for corporations.
We are going to hear more of that “we’re not responsible of anyone but ourselves” now that President Obama said, “Teamwork made this country great” The day after the State of the Union speech, Rush Limbaugh got positively apoplectic about that line. He went on and on and on and on, spluttering how teamwork had absolutely, positively no part in the greatness of the US. It was all done by individuals, individuals that didn’t believe in teamwork. I had to wipe the spittle of of the speaker halfway through his tirade.
Point to a law that says Corporations are people.
My goodness you are feisty (antagonistic) today. Did someone put Geritol in your oatmeal?
Nice to see you are challenged. Perhaps you could provide a link to a law that makes Corporations people. Or is that all hyperbole. Law Please.
I will cast some more pearls your way against my better judgment.
A host of laws define the word “person” as a corporation for ease of usage. I cite but one example: the Maine Human Rights Act defines “person” as including a corporation. Title 5, section 4553 (7). Look at the definitions section of almost any regulatory act and you will see that a person is defined as including a corporation.
The US Supreme Court in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railway in 1886 is purported to have held that corporations were entitled to the benefit of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which, by its terms, affords that protection only to “any person.” I say “purported” because that language appears in the reporter’s notes, not in the actual opinion itself. It would be similar to assuming that a Secretary of Congress spoke for the institution.
In Citizens United in 2010, the Roberts Supreme Court chose to decide the case on an issue that neither party had raised: whether Congress could properly limit how corporations spent money in a political campaign in view of the First Amendment. It held that corporations or any association of citizens enjoy the same First Amendment protection as people and could not be limited in their electioneering. It fully or partially overruled two decisions of recent vintage. So much for stare decisis and a conservative respect for precedent.
I hope you absorb these pearls as if they were truffles.
I was with you until your last arrogant statement.
If it walks like a duck…
you are correct he is arrogant.
LOL You are arrogant and “he” is correct.
I was dumbfounded by an imperious request that I show you a law that says corporations are people. It had the sense of demanding that I show you a law that says a red traffic light means stop.
By definition a state is “a politically unified people occupying a definite territory.” So cheesecake is incorrect because he doesn’t recognize a state as a people.
Virgil had no place in the creation of the Great Seal.
Do you know what an “ipse dixit” is?
Do you know what the Congressional Record is?
You teacher may have been incorrect. It happens. Out of one many yes. But, in the case of the great seal “Out of many (states), One (country).
Repetition is not a substitute for analysis.
Most famous sayings can illustrate many situations.
I still like “Out of many, one” “In God we trust” seems so fatalistic.
What “plan”?
You need to work on that sense of humor.
I am surprised that you intended for your puerile, overly familiar and vaguely threatening remark to be humorous. I find it sickening and very inappropriate, particularly for a man your age.
Cheesecake is a man!!!!!!!
Omigosh yes.
Glen Ross, like Bob Carlson, may have done outstanding things for our community. They are both fallible and to believe otherwise is just wishful thinking. Would Ross have gone to a stranger and requested the keys back? I think not. Requesting the keys and denying access to the jail could have waited until Carlson tried to do so.
JOHN,
The truth is it will,and most of the time comes down to voting for the best of two evils. It’s the American way. In that case I pick Newt over Barack.
NANCY,
Praying to the who controls all is never a waste of time!
If you want to pray to the god of your choice (and there are plenty of these storied deities to choose from), have at it! But lawmakers should be doing the work of the people, not that of the church.
It would be so nice to see political leaders stop wrapping themselves up in religion in order to pander for votes.
Why would i pray to Bill Gates?
Carol Corothers comments about Glenn Ross sound eerily familiar to the praise that was heeped upon Carlson after the world found out about his “mistake”. Both made horrible choices and dangerous mistakes that put people’s lives in danger and undermined the trust that is neccessary in both those positions. What is truly disturbing is that he gave himself days to ponder what to do with the information, and what was the right thing for him to do, and in spite of telling the State Police that he would keep it quiet, he still decided to inform Carlson of the charges. I submit that he showed an egregious lack of good judgement-good judgement that is neccessary in that position.
Ms. Glista, thank you for your voice of reason. When someone brags of his honesty, I always check my back pocket to see if I still have my wallet. When someone makes a show of his religiosity, I wonder what sins he is trying to cover up. Our Governor’s call to prayer helps him cover up a very unchristian savaging of healthcare coverage that belies the notion that “blessed are the poor.” The poor may not inherit the kingdom of heaven, but they have surely inherited the Governor’s wrath.
It must be hard for you meeting new people and taking them at face value with all your preconceived ideas about them. re: “When someone makes a show of his religiosity, I wonder what sins he is trying to cover up. ”
Would you say the same about a devout Muslim?
Talking that way about a Muslim would be discrimination. Christians, however, are fair game for any form of hatred, slander, or prejudice. Jesus told us it would be this way. chenard and others on these comment threads are just showing us that Jesus was right.
It really makes no difference to me what religion. Usually, in my life experience, I have found that those who trot out their particular brand of religion as a means of intorduction are usually hollow.
I would much rather emulate those who show real compassion for their fellow human beings by their actions. They don’t need to flaunt their brand.
Playing the victim, EJ?
He belongs to the worlds most persecuted religion, didn’t you know? His little Voice of the Martyrs club tells him that. They even have a map showing where all the martyrs live.
Wouldn’t Jesus find you just another self-promoting pharisee?
LOL !!!! good one!!!
There are no preconceptions: I judge a person by what they say and do. I have been fortunate enough to meet people of many faiths and people of no faith. I know devout Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists and Hindus. A devout Muslim gave me a copy of the Koran and devout Christians have given me a copy of the Bible. I have no problem with Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons coming to my door: I treat them with great respect because I know the First Amendment protects their attempts to gain converts. I politely tell them that their efforts would be better directed with another person.
What I do react to is someone bragging of his honesty or bragging of his faith. Re-read my post. Wear your cross, your veil or your Star of David and you win my admiration. Tell me that you are holier than me and you lose my respect.
Do you respect the Dalai Lama or is he also a religious fanatic
I respect every human being, whatever his religion. I distrust the sincerity of anyone who brags about how religious he is. My feelings about them are similar to Christ’s feelings about the Pharisees.
There is nothing unusual about “Call to Prayers” historically. Many political office holders have done this for the decades that I’ve been alive and I imagine even before. You come off as a bigot objecting to them now.
They date from the early 1950s and have been used by the religious right ever since.
I understand that people used them then but are you certain never before?
Politicians never before got together with their constituents for prayer?
How can you be so certain?
Do you have multiple sources?
You’re a single source guy, Cheesecake, judging from our exchange on “e pluribus unum.” You wouldn’t even accept Wikipedia’s more nuanced history of the term. Why should I throw “pearls before swine” in the words of the Bible?
I see your standards do not apply when words come from you.
ipse dixit
I generally agree with you, but I think Cheesecake is correct this time. Political figures from Washington to Lincoln and onwards issued proclamations calling on people to engage in prayer and even fasting.
Of course, you also have a good point: in modern times, a conservative reaction to the events of the Cold War of the 1950s resulted in calls to prayer, inserting “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, and putting “In God We Trust” on paper money.
I believe Wikipedia reflects three different Presidents issuing a call for a national day of fasting or prayer, but no organized annual proclamation.
The right pushed hard for this in the middle of Cold War hysteria, at about the same time “under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance. The Nation published an article explaining how that campaign began in the 30s as a reaction to the New Deal. I think Truman may have signed legislation requiring this annual proclamation of future Presidents. It is all for show and no President dares say that it is a violation of the Establishment Clause to do this.
As I say, you are partly right; so is Cheesecake.
That doesn’t make “it” right. A state-endorsed Call for Prayer invoking our “Judeo-Christian heritage” at the State House on the taxpayer’s dime is a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
Just by having a religious ceremony on public grounds does not establish it as the state religion. The first amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion or impeding the free exercise of religion.
There has been no establishment of a State religion by a bunch of people praying. It is in no way the Official religion. If there were a law prohibiting the event that would fall under the second provision above “impeding the free exercise of religion.”
Governments can do neither. It is plain as day.
Let’s hear your discourse on the difference between “establish” and “endorse.”
The First Amendment is very specific. “Establish” means pass a law that creates a state religion. I not sure what the relevance is of your term “endorse”…. it is meaningless in this context. Theoretically you could have a Muslim day of Prayer at the State House and that would not be an endorsement of nor an establishment of Islam as the state
religion.
So, dare I ask… Let’s hear your discourse on the difference between “establish” and “endorse.” But most of all make it it relevant to the First Amendment.
You wrote, ” ‘Establish’ means pass a law that creates a state religion.” Source?
It is the language of the 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.
We all know the colonist feared a state church like they had in England. The Church of England established by law.
That’s not what I asked. Define “establish.”
Never mind. All you need is right there. Family time.
John and Nancy… thanks.
John ,Obama and his borrowing and printing of money putting the us dollar in danger is what has ruined this country time to wake up. Things are far worse than when he took office and he is somehow still blaming the former administration saying “things are worse than we knew” what a joke!!!
The reason the libs have not passed a budget in 3 years is it would prevent manufacturing of money, which is Obama’s covert way of buying reelection. The constant manufacturing of money increases the debt trillions at a time and causes nationwide inflation, that is why prices in all commodities are increasing…especially food and gas. If Obama gets reelected 90% of us will be on food stamps, securing his place in history as “the food stamp president.”
As per law, Obama has submitted a budget for each fiscal year he’s been president — fiscal years 2010, 2011 and 2012. You can go to the Government Printing Office’s website, where the documents are posted.
Yep and in two years out of three it has been delivered unlawfully late.
“Early ……. late …….. on time ………. we ain’t gonna do nuthin’ that might help that commie, socialist, Marxist, dictator foreigner, “boy” to look good”
I’m guessing a late budget was not the reason Congress didn’t get anything done.
I am not sure I said all that.
I said that.
ok
Congress is the reason it was late.
John Hafford, Nancy Glista: good letters.
One anti-Newt letter (full of misinformation), and one anti-prayer letter (also full of misinformation). Should be an interesting day.
Gee, I saw nothing but facts in the “anti-Newt” letter. He had a hand in helping to send all the jobs to China and putting our economy in the dumpster. It is really a moot point anyway, he is about as non electable as they come. If you compiled a list of people most likely to hand Obama another four years, Newtie and Oven Mitt would be at the very top.
Since there is so little “opposition” media left I feel that for the most part we would be far better off electing people that the media has an ax to gring with than someone that the media fawns over.
The elected official would get far more scrutiny that way, and be far more likely to be less likely to be corrupt.
Normally, I agree with you, but Newt is a dirty, evil man. Don’t support the guy.
If you listen to the left, you would be right. But, if you go through his entire career, he’s just another politician. What the left hates about him is that he cares about this country and will do whatever is necessary to do the best for the country and the people. Sometimes he had to get his hands dirty, but who in politics hasn’t?
Gingrich has done far more good than most other politicians. And he knows how to get things done on both sides of the aisle.
Did you know that there were more than 80 ethics charges bought up against Newt while he was the Speaker? And did you know that all but one was dropped? The one that they got to stick that cost him 300K he was later acquitted of after he left politics.
All of his dirty laundry has been aired. And he’s learned from his past mistakes.
His Republican colleagues dumped him because he was a disorganized, mouthy, egotistical embarrassment to the Republican Party. Those Republicans who knew him in Congress are generally horrified at the thought that he could become the Republican nominee, but Democrats are hopeful that Newt will get the nomination.
Obama is disorganized, mouthy and egotistical. Guess Newt should fit right in.
And uppity too, right????? EJ you are so transparent!
Please bring back Herman Cain. I so want him to run against President Obama! Can you bring back Cain please? Pretty please?
So, Newtie the serial adulterer the ignorer of biblical commandments is forgiven and he is now washed in the blood of Christ, the darling of the Christian conservatives. And you do not see how strange you look to the rest of the sentient world?
No wonder charlatans and snake oil salesmen can sell their products.
I’m sure you’ve completely forgiven Clinton and Obama of their transgressions. Right? Oh, I forgot, they’re Democrats, so they can do no wrong.
Clinton’s transgressions are known world wide. But Obama’s? Presiding While Being an African-American?
Did he ask for forgiveness?
I’m not listening to “the left,” dude. I heard what his wife said, and I’ve heard/read his own words contradicting himself. Newt is not an underdog, and he’s not anti-establishment. He’s a pretender, a poser, a worm.
This is why I like, yes, Ron Paul. He hasn’t changed much, if at all, on any issue. He’s been married to the same woman all these years. He’s healthy despite his age. He’s just a likeable guy, in my opinion. I wouldn’t mind having a beer with him, if he drinks anyway.
Ron Paul is a likable guy, but not fit to be the President. He just has too many quirky issues that really won’t work for this country.
We agree considerably when it comes to Ron Paul. And there is just no way the Republican Party will ever nominate Congressman Paul.
I know a lot of people I would enjoy having a beer with but very few I would want as a president.
“In God We Trust” always seemed like a passive motto for a people that consider themselves to be very active, go getting, make things happen, types. “Out of many, one” implies activity, people creating something.
“Out of many, one” implies activity, people creating something.
It means no such thing. Find a legitimate source for that we will discuss it.
I’m waiting for her to quote some obscure part of the communist manifesto.
Отмена собственности на землю и применение всех земельной ренты на покрытие государственных расходов.Высокий прогрессивный подоходный налог.Отменить все права наследования.Конфискация имущества всех эмигрантов и мятежников.Централизация кредита в руках государства посредствомнационального банка с государственным капиталом и с исключительной монополией.Централизация средств связи и транспорта в руках государства.Расширение фабрик, орудий производства, принадлежащих государству; приведение в выращивании сточных земель и улучшенияпочвы в целом в соответствии с общим планом.Одинаковая обязательность труда для всех. , Учреждение промышленных армий, в особенности для сельского хозяйства.Соединение земледелия с обрабатывающей промышленности;постепенной отмене различия между городом и деревней, на более справедливое распределение населения по всей стране.Бесплатное образование для всех детей в государственных школах.Устранение фабричного труда детей в современной его форме исочетание воспитания с материальным производством.
Cancelling of the landed property and application of all of the ground rent on a covering of the State expenditure. High progressive surtax. To cancel all rights of succession. Confiscation of property of all emigrants and rebels. Centralization of the credit in hands of the state bank with the state capital and with exclusive
monopoly. Centralization of a communication facility and transport in hands of the state. Expansion of factories, the instruments of production belonging the state; reduction cultivation of the waste grounds and as a whole according to a general plan. Identical compulsion of work for all., establishment of industrial armies, in particular for an agriculture. Connection of agriculture with a manufacturing industry; to a gradual cancelling of distinction between city and village, on more fair distribution of the population on all country. Free-of-charge formation for all children in comprehensive schools. Elimination of factory work of children in its modern form education with production of goods.
best i could do
Googled this and Wikipedia had this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_pluribus_unum
That is regarding currency.
Try this in regards to the Seal of The United States and notes by the man who put the great seal together.
http://www.greatseal.com/symbols/explanation.html
Remarks and Explanation –
The Escutcheon is composed of the chief & pale, the two most
honorable ordinaries. The
Pieces, paly, represent the several states all
joined in one solid compact entire, supporting a Chief, which unites
the whole & represents Congress. The Motto alludes to this union.
~~~~~~ Charles Thomson June 20 1782
Motto = E Pluribus Unum
“Out of many, one,” does imply action. What else could it mean other than “Out of many things, one thing is created.” — or, “out of many things, one thing comes into being.” ? The phrase implies an active verb. I’m just looking at sentence structure here; citing a “source” about sentence structure seems unnecessary.
“seemed” “implies” Not stating facts. Just stating rambling thoughts.
I’ll accept that.
Carol Carothers, please do not refer to Bob as Rev. It is offensive. He was not qualified nor did he earn the title.
Still talking about this Glenn Ross thingy…
Move along…..Must be something better to talk about..
People who abuse their position of power, rather it be Doctors, Psychologists, or members of the clergy leave much carnage after their abuse is revealed. There will undoubtedly be more carnage from the alledged clergy sexual abuse of a child or children by Carlson. Members of the clergy, like any other professional, are hired to do a job and when they abuse that position, they must be fired. May the many survivors of clergy sexual abuse, whether they be children or adults find justice each time a clergy sexual abuser is brought out into the spotlight. For too long pastors, rabbis and priests have been protected by their position, may it be no longer. http://www.snapnetwork.org is a good resource for children who have been abused by clergy members (althougn it relates to the Catholic priest child abuse, clergy sexual abuse of children know no denominations) and http://www.thehopeofsurvivors.org is a good resource for women who have been sexually abused by clergy. May Carlson’s story continue to be revealed for what it is, and from what was intended for evil to in some way produce the opposite in the days to come.
….
Another interesting and little known fact about Newtie: he couldn’t get tenured, even at the third tier college where he taught.
There are only a few reasons for this to have happened.He was too dumb to know that even a third rate college requires tenure.
He wasn’t smart enough to know what he had to do to get tenure
He wasn’t smart enough to get his articles published in juried magazines.
He acted like a pompous, posturing bloviating pedant with the morals of a tom cat and his peers didn’t want him around for ever and wouldn’t support his tenure request.
I’m betting on the last reason. LOL
….
John Hafford,
I agree 100%. Newt is an affront to intelectual honesty.
Nancy Glista,
“Christians are not being persecuted!” is simply not true. It happens on a small scale here in America, and happens to non-Christians as well. Granted, we aren’t being thrown to the lions (at the moment), but in other countries around the world I think Christians would rather be thrown to lions than go through what they are going through. I don’t have numbers, but Christians are murdered every year in regions such as Asia, the mid-east, and all over Africa — simply because of their believe in Jesus as Messiah!
Aside from that, I don’t think there are very many politicians who are truly Christian to begin with. Most of politics is a sham job, see who can feed the public the most bull $#!^ and get re-elected.
Carol Carothers, I have no doubt Ross is a good guy. However, he tipped off a “friend” that he was being investigated. When you do that, you give the one being investigated the opportunity to destroy evidence, tamper with witnesses, or in this case, well…we all know what happened.
The bottom line is did ross do anything illegal, if not, then thats that. He is an elected official, the voters will have to decide how they feel about his ethics.