But seriously folks, this clown is dangerous

On this topic, I couldn't agree with you more. This guy's a nutcase.

 

Think of how dangerous it will be when Iraq elects a Shiite Islamic Fundamentalist government (which they have every right to do under democracy) which takes on Iran as their ally? That's a real possibility.

 

So God-blessed American democracy is not so God-blessed after all? That really stinks.

 

I don't know if the guy is a nutcase or a shrewd politician adroitly exploiting people's religious paranoia and xenophobia.

 

Remember Pat Robertson's suggestion to have the president of Venezuela murdered?
Chavez is a relatively normal elected leader (a cynical Realpolitiker), whose anti-americanism is mostly a ploy to gather votes.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the other hand is the sort of idealist who's a real threat....

 

Considering what Israel did to Iraq's nuclear facility,

I'm certain Mahmoud would just LOVE to see Israel's Air-Force moved from the Mid-East to Europe.

 

Wrong about Chávez, Mioque. I have been following him the last few months. The guy is a hard-core communist who wants to turn Taiwan over to Red China--what a bloodbath that would be. Also, he has been dabbling in the Colombian civil war and has been confiscating British and American property. He recently took over a tomato factory belonging to John Kerry's wife. In short, he is the new Castro. Dozens of people have disappeared and dozens have been arrested and held without trial. Robertson was calling for the CIA to be empowered to do what it used to do when necessary. It is too bad that someone did not get some of the 20th century thugs before WW II.

The President of Iran is anti-semitic, to put it mildly.

I guess the Democrats will "get tough" and tell those two thugs, "Naughty, naughty."

 

cmg
Missed 2 of those.
Hadn't missed Taiwan but had it chalked up as politics as usual, on the basis that he has no influence whatsoever on the China-Taiwan thing (so he get's to say whatever is conveniant for him today), combined with the other stuff he get's considerably creepier.

 

The President of Iran is saying in public what Arabs usually only say in private. He is revealing the true moderate agenda of Islam. The press will try to spin him as fringe but he is Islamic mainstream. Another one of his same stripe is US cult Nation of Islam high and mighty Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan.

 

I must say that I agree with your entire post. This must be a first.

Merry Christmas CMG & family!

 

No spin but this fella is on the fringe.

 

only a nation of spirit filled people can sustain a democracy, and we don't have that.

God really blessed us when we were a Republic, and as we pulled away toward a Democracy, God was slowly (at first) pushed aside, and now the race is on to remove Him as fast as possible so as to resemble Europe, and her self aggrandizing unbelief.

 

Reviewing the definitions of republic and democracy once again.

Republic= any national government in which the office of Head of State is not hereditary.
Modernday examples, France, Russia, Germany.

Democracy= a form of government in which the governing either directly or indirectly (through the election of representatives) is done by all full citizens.
Modernday examples, France, Belgium, Switzerland.

 

Our republic was established on Christian principals and no other republic has been thus founded, and that is what made America blessed beyond all societies in human history.

 

Forget it Hillclimber, the republic of the United Netherlands was also founded on Christian principles and was there earlier than the USA.

 

I must say that I agree with your entire post. This must be a first.

Merry Christmas CMG & family! </font>[/QUOTE]God's richest blessings to you and yours this Christmas and always, Terry! May you lack nothing! Wishing you and yours the great joy of the birth of Our Lord And Saviour Jesus Christ!

 

Since when is self-government a Christian principle?

How does our blessedness compare to that of the Swiss or the Canadians?

 

Since when is self-government a Christian principle? </font>[/QUOTE]Since under grace God made man responsible for himself. He moved from national salvation through the theocracy of the OT to personal salvation through the NT kingdom.

If each individual is a "royal priest" and will "rule and reign" with Christ then our founders rightly recognized a) that they were sovereign before God and b) the imposition of a king as sovereign over men was wrong.

Of course under this principle government was minimized. The Founders were pretty much in line with modern day libertarians... except more morally conservative.

Every constitutional right has its root in the notion of the sovereignty of the individual... thus we should have a free conscience (even if others don't approve), property rights (even if others don't like our employment practices), free speech (even if others are "offended" by what we say), etc. The only limitation should be that my rights end at the tip or your nose or border of your property... and yes it is yours and not the government's.