Cliff LyonDialogue With a Mormon Republican
I’m top posting my response to the answers/response to my questions of one local, I believe LDS, who calls himself Alienated Wannabe (AW).
This discussion is important, because it illustrates the misconceived positions behind the status quo political posture here in Utah. The simplistic one informed by a hybrid of evangelism and right-wing talking points, adapted for and by the state’s majority political community.
AW: Conservatives can be intolerant of liberals, but no more so than liberals are intolerant of conservatives.
My original premise was, “I see conservatives as oppressive. I feel like they have a low tolerance for people not like them, conservative.”
Your response begs the question that liberals are intolerant of conservatives. Liberals are intolerant of the relentless drive to take away individual rights, MY rights. Roe v Wade and banning gay marriage are two of so many perfect examples. If you don’t like it, don’t do it. But do not make more laws. And please lets save the abortion debate for another time. Roe v Wade was decided on the rights of the mother and privacy.
I am not only tolerant of my conservative neighbors, I LOVE THEM, until they attempt to impose their will on me (which they have never done). This is possibly the most foundational principle of the our Constitution.
How is letting gay people marry and families decide health and reproductive issues for themselves WITHOUT government intervention liberal intolerance of conservatives?
AW: The irrational and bigoted venom spilling out against Romney’s Mormonism has been coming as much from the secular left as the religious right.
I don’t see the secularists as a group having a problem with anyone’s particular religion. You’d have to show me. If you read my own posts about Mitt, you will find that I have no problem with his being Mormon, just his character, honesty and alignment with the neocons. Do YOU align with them?
AW: Well, I think people should be free. Sometimes that means free to do things with which I disagree. But, it also means free to judge, morally, someone else’s standards.
This is where I will admonish you. Jesus was very clear on this, repeatedly. And this is what’s gotten so many Republicans in trouble lately. How many Republicans of late have pontificated on morality only to be found guilty of the very same digressions. Don’t make me quote the Bible. As a secularist, I can assure you, a Good God would have you happiest loving “your neighbor” without judgment. I don’t think there is any ecumenical debate here.
AW: The question is, when is it appropriate to go beyond merely judging someone else’s standards, and actually imposing one’s own standards upon them.
To fully appreciate the test of moral relativism vs secular law, I refer you back to justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.: “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.â€
In your example of child molestation, Holmes’ reasoning is sufficient without resorting to religion. As for cannibalism, this gets into the standard of consent which has a deep tradition in English Common Law and which informs our own. I urge you to peruse at least the first several pages of The Logic of Consent.
Then, I insist you read enough of John Stuart Mill to be able to claim at least a cursory understanding of the basis of American Law.
The principle of utility—that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happinessâ€â€”was the centerpiece of his ethical philosophy. On Liberty puts forward the “harm principle†that “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.†In The Subjection of Women, he compares the legal status of women to the status of slaves and argues for equality in marriage and under the law.
It should be noted here that the recently popularized fable that the our Constitution is rooted in Christianity has zero basis in reality. No serious, respected scholar of this subject has ever made such a claim. So rather than reminding us that some of the founding father were Christians, out of respect for me and yourself, please dig a bit deeper into the actual record of the history of our nation and accept this one challenge. Defend your statement, “In America, separation meant freedom OF religion. In France, it meant freedom FROM religion” using this one rule; reference only dead men to avoid the pall of the current radical evangelical contaminated partisanship. In other words Dude, that notion does not pre-date Karl Rove.
AW: The Republican Party came to power initially on the strength of two issues where its members felt it was appropriate to impose their standards upon others: (1) Stop slavery in the South, (2) Polygamy.
I’m not sure why you want to hang your hat on the roots of the Republican Party as they is hardly relavant today. In fact, the agendas and economic roles have arguably reversed and at the very least, bear little resemblance to the early eighteenth century. Nevertheless…
The origins of the republican party and the abolitionist movement are well documented and also not subject to serious historical debate. The “ultra Anti-Slavery radicals” were a religious fringe of the Republican party and “Never a majority within the party, the Radicals dominated the other factions.”
This article from the September 4, 1860 edition of the New York Times called Lincoln and Slavery Conservatism of the Republican Candidate includes a transcript of an interview with Lincoln from 1840 which summarizes Lincoln’s conviction to “put an end to that political power by which slavery has hitherto tyrannized over the Government of the country.”
The motivation to end slavery which bound the otherwise diverse Republican party was really political and economic because it threatened the poorer non-slave owners trying to develop the Midwest. So while it is true that abolitionism originated with the Republican Party, it cannot be argued with any honesty that it was on moral grounds except for the same radical religious fringe that so threatens the party today.
AW:...whether Mormon consenting adults have the right to marry multiple partners corresponds almost exactly to the question of whether gay consenting adults have the right to marry partners of the same gender.
You cannot defend this statement on doctrinal grounds, so I don’t see the connection. But for secularists, the Holmes doctrine applies. Both should be legal.
Here we have the benefit of the recent writings of one of the most preeminent Mormon, Biblical and Constitutional Scholars living today and right here on OneUtah (see sidebar). In this essay, Professor Firmage makes a very compelling case, replete with biblical references, that Jesus eschewed family values in favor of the higher spiritual realms. Firmage also addresses polygamy and homosexuality from both the legal and biblical perspective of Mormon royalty.
- 1. Intro & 1st Letter - Christianity Inc,
- 2. What DOES The Bible Teach Us?
- 3. Polygamy, Monogamy and Monotheism: The One and the Many
Firmage - The Pox Letters
AW: Historically, religious institutions have been the entities that have nurtured, preserved, and passed-on the great intellectual disciplines of civilization.
I reject this premise out of hand as a general truth. Only through very narrow interpretations of history can this be argued and then only in the Jewish tradition. The more widely held view is that is that intellectual/scientific pursuit was nurtured within religious political structures only to the extent that it improved the lives, wealth and power of those institutions but was forcefully and unequivocally squelched at the point where intellectualism threatened doctrine (read power). I give you Galileo, The Renaissance, and The Enlightenment.
It is easy to argue that Western civilization is founded upon the moral rules of conduct deriving from our Greek philosophical and Judeo-Christian religious traditions. That’s fine, but if you want to claim all the glory of the span of civilization for religion, than you must also own the unpleasant parts which equal the most evil, bigoted, racist, sadistic and immoral practices known on earth.
AW:The United States has consistently been the most religious of all the developed nations.
This claim can only be the result of propaganda. A 2006 online Harris Poll of U.S. adults (18 and older) found that only 26% of those surveyed attended religious services “every week or more.” The great increase in religious participation over the past century in the result of Mexican immigration.
But more to your point, during the time period spanning the American revolution through the industrial revolution, the United States was particularly NOT religious. This fact is easily verified by the vast majority of scholarly research on the subject. I will produce 3 supporting references based on primary census data for every specious claim to the contrary you can find. I can save yo the trouble however by pointing you to a set of writings on the subject that present the best data we have by a religious writer.
The men and women of the Enlightenment: Thomas Jefferson, John and Abigail Adams, Benjamin Franklin, James and Dolly Madison, Alexander Hamilton, et al, were living breathing people of the Enlightenment. This blossoming of intellectual freedom came upon the ending of the Wars of Religion, over a century of nations killing each other in the name of God. After the Treaties of Westphalia and Utrecht, ending those wars, the Enlightenment blossomed. Our Revolution and our Constitution came within this absence, for a time, of religious-inspired violence. My fear now, with America’s imperial wars against lslam, is that we may retreat into another century of religious-based wars and violence. Separating religion and government was one of the hallmarks of the Enlightenment. And the freedom of speech and conscience that are presumed in that separation.
Edwin Brown Firmage (website, bio)
Samuel D. Thurman Professor of Law, Emeritus
University of Utah College of Law Salt Lake City, Utah
I look forward to exploring these subjects further.
October 15th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
“Can’t we all just get along”?
Rodney King.
I would refer the group to Hegel, and his dailectic, it has been the means by which our peoples are divided, and concur in constant strife,for the benefit of……who has the money?
In other words the conflict is the means, is the division, is the ripeness for the gleaning.
Fight the elite, they play us all you know. Don’t be prey anymore, pray tell.
October 15th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Cliff; do yourself and your cause a favor and quit quoting englishmen. They, are, the, ENEMY!
Our Freedom and Liberty is fundamentally based on the thoughts and writings of the French Philosophs of Frances’ 1750’s. You know, Rousseau, Voltaire, and their contemporaries, Natural Rights of Man(woman, anyone) and ALL.
Englishmen define rights of property, servitude, malfeascent obligation and other material things with some exceptions, so much more obvious now, why rural New Englanders in their mostly material poverty, took up arms against their english mastered to whom they lay indentured.
October 15th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
“And his hands would plait the priest’s entrails, for want of a rope, to strangle kings.”
Denis Diderot.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:31 am
[...] the most foundational principle of the our Constitution. How is letting gay people marry source: Dialogue With a Mormon Republican, One [...]
October 16th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Dear Cliff,
Wow! I don’t know where to begin, my friend. I’m a little busy right now, so I don’t have time to respond at length to what you have posted.
Instead, for now, I would like to ask a favor of you and your readers: Please go back and re-read “the answers/response” to your questions that I originally provided. (Thank you for creating a link to them at the top of your article.)
I trust both your intelligence and your integrity to judge as to (1) how well you originally understood what I wrote, (2) whether or not you inadvertently attributed to me arguments I did not make, and (3) whether or not your criticisms of my historical examples are justified.
I think if you take a little more time you will see that, despite the haste I took in preparing my response, my comments were fairly well grounded and honorably presented. (There is a slight exception here and there where I should have been clearer, but I stand by what I have written.)
For example, if you doubt my claims regarding the historical difference between American and French approaches to freedom of/from religion, please take into consideration the fact that a Muslim woman in the United States may attend college wearing a headscarf, but not in France where it is against the law. In the United States our focus is on protecting her right to express her religious beliefs. In France the focus is on protecting the state from being influenced by her religious beliefs. Do you see the difference?
If you doubt my claims about the focus of the Republican Party to end the so-called “twin pillars of barbarism” (slavery and polygamy), then please go back and read the Republican platform from the period in question. And, please ask yourself, “If the Republicans weren’t really committed to ending slavery, then why would the South have seceded from the Union just because Abraham Lincoln (the Republican candidate) was elected president?” It doesn’t make sense does it?
Anyway, Cliff, when I have more time I will post more on my own blog. But, until then, I sincerely wish you well. Please take care, and thank you again for this conversation.
Sincerely,
A.W.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:15 am
AW, I am shocked you’re backing away. Or maybe not.
have I really misread your words?
Did you not write “In America, separation meant freedom OF religion. In France, it meant freedom FROM religion?”
Is that not in the Bill of Rights? What on Earth does French policy on head scarves have to do with your interpretation of our Constitution?
I’d be happy to read the the Republican platform from the period in question, but I would suggest the a political party platform is not exactly considered by historians to represent much more than a sale brochure of the day.
But I would assume they would perch on the immorality of slavery rather than the economic reality.
I’m sorry history is not a convenient source of support for your positions.
There are two basic approaches to knowledge.
1. Seek out people and information that validate our beliefs.
2. Seek objective knowledge and people to challenge our beliefs.
I choose number 2. I assumed you did to. My mistake.
Good luck to you too.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:41 am
The Constitution says there will be no promotion of a national religion by the Federal government, it says nothing about restricting the opinions and blatherings of elected and appointed representatives, or how they choose their personal lifestyles or run and educate their families, or what they would attempt to propel as law with a religious background.
It is the Constitutions job and its sworn officers to stop this. If they don’t the Republic changes, and I would argue, it is long gone.
Once we have an established national religion, and it is forming now under a guise of attempted enforced political belief, I will worry.
AW, the Souths’ succession was born on the notion that the Federal government had no authority to direct a States actions beyond its scope as defined by the Constitution. All other powers not defined explicitly fall to the States.
Lincoln went on to violate this(10th amendment) and broadened the scope of Federal power. As he became tyrant, and then pursued a bloody war against the South, the excesses became entrenched, which included the destruction of innocents and their property.
Shermans’ march to the sea comes to mind as a Lincoln inspired atrocity, that would equal what for example, Saddam did. After all, Lincoln was killing his own people, as is so the humor with the right and lefts cry against Saddam. What we see bush trying to do now is no different, than what Lincoln accomplished. The Republic is dead, any protections are an illusion.
Basically, the point is, the point of the gun, has decided the where the Rule of Law is headed, when push comes to shove. I expect little difference now as in line with our mostly violent history. Just ask an Indian what protection our Law, and your (our) God gave the “Savages”.
Want a blanket? , bless you my man. No vice so great as claiming God as yours, but our right to folly is preserved. It just won’t be promoted by the Feds in theory.
October 16th, 2007 at 11:59 am
One and two are the same, if your world view is subjective Sir.
What you describe is a mere exercise in politeness for the zealot.
There is no consequence to your “truth” if facts that are presented are not heeded in honesty, that offend the sensibilities of ones world view.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Dear Cliff,
Please don’t be “shocked,” my friend. I’m not backing away. Please know that I do value greatly our exchange. And, please be patient with me. I’m not perfect, but I’m not a bad guy. If I didn’t seek out people who challenged my beliefs, and if I didn’t value you and your ideas, I wouldn’t have spent so much time on you blog. I plan to respond better when I have more time. Trust me.
Your Friend,
A.W.
October 16th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
I would take AW at his word that he is not backing away, but rather is a little short on time at the moment. In my experience, AW doesn’t “back away”; he is comfortable in his views, is willing to take the time to articulate them in a respectful manner, and is an insightful participant in a nice, civilized dialog even with those (like us) whose views are diametrically opposite.
October 16th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Want to make some hay? Check this out.
kokesh.blogspot.com
Refer to Diderot on what to do.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:58 am
Thanks, VoU, the check is in the mail, bud.
October 17th, 2007 at 8:03 am
I’m glad to hear that AW is not backing down. I sort of took, “I sincerely wish you well” as a kiss off.
I don’t expect anyone to change their faith or political position. But I do wish for a world in which people are willing to examine the premises and other influencer that inform their positions and become more empowered thereby.
We must break our tribal chains in order to meet truth wherever she hangs.
October 17th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
The Christian reconstructionist movement in this country does not wish to compromise with anybody. If the Mormons think they will empower themselves by continuing to adopt their tactics they will be sorry to see their culture destroyed along with the American Indians and the 60’s youth movement. It will be hard to make bread and water illegal like medical marijuana, but they will find some way to rid themselves of you.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
The intelligent god fearing are well aware of what the “godless heathen” is capable of Larry, they will give those, all the ground they need if they have any brains at all.
Cliff, my view of history is that there are really only two forces at work politically fascism and tribalism. The only thing that has stemmed fascism is good healthy tribalism, and of the two options, I know for certain what I identify with. Hail to the Chief, or Princess or whatever. Hailing to a Federal system is like worshipping a nameless entity, like a log, or some other dumb thing, unless there is some common culture to hold it together.
A confederated arrangement with a very weak central government is the best of options given human diversity. Like Catonal Switzerland. Don’t like your discriminatory canton? You can move to one you are better suited too. Will that cause you difficulty, yes, but that is the struggle in the pursuit of happiness. When wet from standing in the way of the tide, it is best to move up off the beach, or not, you can fight and get wet. It’s is why many are moving away from this country Cliff.
As you know I believe, that diversity leads to perversity amongst those forced to live with what they don’t want to. I need only look out upon our current political landscape to desire a place for all, and to each their own. Of course their could be mixed cantons, it is why the Constitution expresses limits to Federal power.
Upon the creation of the Federal system, the aegis was,
1) Provide for the common defense
2) Conduct Foreign Policy
3) Regulate intrastate commerce
How we ended up with the Feds regulating education, abortion, and other inummerable other personal social issues, is simple.
FASCISM! May the tribes Crush it please.
October 17th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Glenn,
Then how do you explain the Age of Enlightenment and the Renaissance?
October 18th, 2007 at 12:56 am
glenn: (or whoever)
Or, he who writes sentences that contradict themselves…
Send me enough rope and I will willingly hang myself, but only if it will do some good for my country.
October 18th, 2007 at 1:02 am
Cliff:
I implore you to prevent people from posting under more then one moniker on this website. It is the least you can do to prevent more confusion then we Americans have to endure, (and, boy do we ever endure!)
October 18th, 2007 at 4:54 am
Larry,
I only post as me. A strong personal conviction. Sometimes I am too lazy to login. Is that your confusion?
Who else do you think I am?
Is it the Age of Enlightenment and the Renaissance reference? I see the potential contradiction and I thought about it. But both serve to invalidate Glenn’s claim. fascism and tribalism.
While I agree people are for the most part predictable, I believe both of those movements were hopeful breaks with that mold.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Are you kidding?
The “enlightenment” occurred during the age of Kings, and any change of that began with our own Revolution. Common people absolutely had no meaningful changes with regard their rights and station.
The Revolution of 1848, a European Revolution, in assault of the rights and priviledges of the aristocracy, and the divine right of kings was thwarted when all the kings of Europe for once joined together, and crushed the rebellions in an act of Supreme Fascism.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Larry, please point out sentences that contradict themselves. as for not really knowing who is posting, even if I did, and I am, you could never really know anyway, and indeed you have not met me, nor really know me anyway. So get over it, and stick with what’s on the page. Given your apparent suspicious nature, and your seeming disturbance of who writes these things, I cannot help you, and I don’t think Cliff can either.
Please explain Larry HOW it matters? Ben Franklin wrote his thoughts as “Poor Richard” many of those who were not willing to be known but through their thoughts founded this Country. Lest they be attached, and HANGED!
Privacy is right, you only get to know if the person wants you to. Stop being a fascist.
You two know so little history, and that you do know is specific and bears no relation to the context of the times. It is amusing to see it come out.
The E and the R were indeed movements, but certainly movements of the aristocracy (much like the controlling interests of progressivism), in the context of enlightened royalty. Our own revolution was a very tenuous prospect for a king like Louis 16, as if it succeeded, it very much threatened royal power and continuance. As it was, he had his head sliced off, and his children abused and murdered. So much for being an enlightened royal helping our fledgling “democracy”. Didn’t mean much when Robespierre entered the scene. To anyone, including Thomas Paine, whose own big mouth and known persona almost got his head sliced off in the French Revolution, only the intervention of Jefferson and others saved him.
In fact our Revolution inspired to some degree the French Revolution of 1789, which however seemingly enlightened ended crashingly with the ensconcment of the common despot Napolean. Europe was enlightened only to the extent that a person operated within royal aegis, whether dealing with France, England, or the Austro-Hungarian Empire. We will leave the Ottomans and their brand of Renaissance to another category, I think they mostly pioneered how better to torture people.
This is a huge body of history, and cannot be scoped here, but suffice it to say America started it, and then as the study goes in my experience, there is near always a return to original principles, a “thermadorian reaction” in which the best of social steps forward are reversed, and we began again, albeit from hopefully a higher step.
In my view this is what the current bush dictatorship very much represents historically. We had better fight to keep what we have gained, or lose it all in the slide of thermidore.
Now do yourself a favor and quit the social causes, and join in the fight to restore the Constitution. WE must repeal the patriot act, or there is not, or will not be any protections for anyone.
Please read an overview of the Revolutions of 1848 in Europe, and disabuse yourselves of the notion that the E and R meant any real progress for common people.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Cliff:
I didn’t mean you.
I never thought YOU were posting under different names, but glenn proudly said he posted under several different ones here. Actions like that just confuse the discussion.
There is no doubt that I have become more paranoid over the last few years of protesting, having the media twist the coverage and trying to figure out why democrats in power don’t seem to care whether we are voting in fair elections.
I know that in the sixties, subversive people were sent out to infiltrate protest groups and try to goad them into violence to harm their cause. I’m positive that is happening today also. Glenn and his constant call to arms makes me wonder about his motives.
Some blogs require that participants use their real names. I think that would be an ideal situation because it would serve to ramp up the honesty of the discourse, however, as I posted before, Brad Friedman has a good policy on his blog which allows totally free speech with just a couple of stipulations, one of which is that you always post under the same moniker or name. I assume you have the ability to determine if somebody is doing that, but maybe you don’t. Anyway, I should probably drop the subject in the future. I’m sure everybody is tired of my harping on glenn.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
glenn:
A lot of the time, I simply cannot figure out what side you’re on. Like, for instance this sentence from above in response to my post about the 60’s youth and anti-war movement being squelched:
It seemed to me that you were calling for the Christian reconstructionists to give the protesters enough rope to hang themselves. Maybe I am confused over who you are referring to as “godless heathens.”
Do you think people from Ben Franklin’s time didn’t know who “Poor Richard” was or do you think Franklin was afraid to say things under his real name. I didn’t notice Mr. Poor’s signature on the “Declaration of Independence” and that seemed to be a pretty dangerous document to sign, wouldn’t you say?
October 18th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
You don’t get to know Larry use the information and come up with your own conclusion. You are not to know. When time comes, then maybe. It doesn’t confuse the discussion, it confuses YOU.
Larry it is not a constant call to arms I make, it is a call to be armed constantly, and defend the Constitution with a militant bearing, jealously. We will be robbed of any rights we have, as those we have robbed of rights under arms, since the Indians on up through our history. If you cannot protect your Freedoms with everything at your disposal, then keep them you won’t, from tyrants under arms. Blackwater lives next door don’t you know.
Godless heathens are godless heathens, capable of wiping the armies of the god fearing out without the Almightys’ help. Ghengis Khan, Barbarians, Vikings and such. You know, godless heathens. Don’t be feeble man. This is what I meant, if it’s too much, don’t read it.
Larry many people wrote under assumed names, as to be a Patriot in tory areas could cause trouble. Pirate presses were destroyed, their operators hanged by the crown. It is common to do so in insurgent conflict. If your enemy would collect you for your expressed thoughts, would you be so stupid as to advertise? Franklin was in England during most of the insurrection of Boston, and was VERY uncomfortable, though such a man of distinction, he was safe… and no, not everyone knew who poor Richard was til later, when Franklin wanted them to.
Franklin after the Continental Congresses had proclaimed to the feuding delegates, to “hang together, as we shall surely hang seperately”. He revealed himself on his terms, not on anyone else’s. Learn some guile and cunning, it will serve you better than wearing your heart on your sleeve given the crocodiles for enemies, the Republic faces. There is a place for both, you have yours, others have theirs.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
I know I’m tired of it Larry. Talk to Cliff about the reasons for my tactics. I explained once, but you were either too slow on the uptake to notice, or acknowledge it, or you don’t care. Your privilege.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
glenn:
I’m sorry you are so afraid of your wife that you can’t use your real name.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Where the hell is Alienated Wannabe?
October 19th, 2007 at 7:45 am
Not so much her but her representation, a Ms. Screech, my lawyer is a Mr. Strain. Sounds like a bad day in the mens room foot tapping eh?
Hows’ that for humor?
Now Larry shut the hell up about it already.
October 19th, 2007 at 7:59 am
Larry,
Don’t let Glenn get to you. He is a bit eccentric and fancies himself a kind of oracle and doomsdayer. and as you can see from his writing, and quite taken with himself.
His tactics on this blog are more for his own entertainment (outlet) than to engage or discuss.
If he appears to be losing his marbles, it is because his children have been unjustly locked away from him behind foriegn borders. He is feeling helpless and outraged beyond belief.
All of which is to say, he’s not really crazy. He’s a good father and a gentle man and needs his children as much as they needs him.
October 19th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
glenn:
Cliff said some really nice things about you in his last post, now stop being so negative.
I should talk!
Here’s something uplifting!
October 19th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
I’m no oracle, but Cliff, you and I have talked many of these things out, my perspective is not wishful it is mostly reality based. Keeping track of what I once said would happen that has?
It isn’t being being taken with oneself as much as warning those that don’t see it coming to initiate self protection. I only apply the rules and lessons of history to what I see today.
No one need heed, I don’t do it for myself Cliff, for what? The volume of history I study is my favorite thing, I do not report it lightly, if it comes off as glum, well even what I foretold of bushs elites destruction of our country has exceeded even my prediction.
I know for certain that what I forecast for bush and the flip side demo inaction has come to pass.
As for my dear kids and my insane wife, thanks for the support.
October 19th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Larry; What a dream, I imagine many things, but want to be psychologically prepared for the reality of what those that would control mankind would do to enable their imaginings.
I imagine peace but with a militant bearing. Be peaceful, the rest of some of the world is busy defending themselves with more than thoughts, ours is a luxury based on a measure of violence that keeps the world at bay. In this way we are a kept populace, like a useful pet of the elites.