The archetype of all modern Democrats, and unfortunately many Republicans.

We will never get anywhere near a republic if fascist hillary or socialist barrack take over. Democrats and democracy are more evil then anything the Bush haters can even fantasize he has done (which is what they seem to spend most of their time doing). And the worst he has done, he has done in concert with Democrats, most notably Kennedy.

Superb quote. A constitution is a contract between the people and the government. It can be changed (amended) by mutual consent. The interesting part is that it was commonly accepted back then, at the time of the 18th Amendment, that we would need a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit alcohol, but now, even those who know it is not true, are willing to prohibit drugs with laws; as they are willing to expand the meaning of speech while simultaneously diminishing the meaning of shall not be infringed; and conveniently call a prohibition on establishing a state sponsored religion, a separation of church and state, but virtually ignore the prohibition against restricting the free exercise there of. It does not matter if it is taught or remembered what a Constitution means or where power or rights come from, you need people willing to lay it on the line to protect and preserve it. Few of those exist. We are rapidly becoming a nation of shortsighted, self-centered, moral and physical cowards who will accept lies as long as they pad our standard of living an provide us with the illusion of security.

Excellent quote, excellent thought, excellent ideal, however reality prevails. We tried the friendly trade, and isolationism routine. the Barbary Pirates (Islamic Terrrorists) were not buying it, and they were only the first. We were forced to respond. If we gain the approval or assitance of allies we are accusted of engaging in entangling alliances, if we act unilaterally to protect ourselves we are accused of being imperialist, overbearing, and jingoistic. We are the most superior culture in existence in the world today, and we must act in our ownself interest at all times. Imposing the opportunity for freedom on people is in our self interest, and theirs. We are not, and never have been imperialists. No country in history has done so much good with its military, economic and cultural power. If you believe there is a superior culture in the world, go there and be happy. Otherwise quit with the kumbaya BS and come up with realistic solutions to realistic problems, not blanket statements about no entangling alliances that are as dated as the reason for the three mile limit.

Excellent quote, ideal summation of the intent of our republic, which was virtually destroyed by the power shifts enabled by the 16th and 17th Amendments. But Jefferson was human, and no Saint. He freely admitted he exceeded his authority with the Louisiana Purchase, which was for the "good of the country;" a popular justification for a multitude of government evils perptrated almost daily.

Robert, do you realize that “according to the current genetic and archeological evidence” scientists have concluded “Europeans crossed the Atlantic on the ice sheet” several thousand years before the Asiatics crossed the Bering Straits land bridge. And the Asiatics apparently committed genocide on the Europeans. Then they wiped out the large mammals. Where are the PETA and neolib protests? “We” were merely taking back what hade been “ours”, in a similar manner as had been done to “us”. Simple history, as history goes. To the victory goes the spoils. Oh and BTW my relatives were all 20th century legal immigrants, so the “we/us/our” thing is figurative. I have no guilt with regard to the Indians, if you do I would suggest you make reparations or get off your little rocking horse. Although, I may have had some relatives who were victims of the genocide committed by the Asiatics, so how about getting me some reparations, or at least a reservation with tax free casino rights. Barring that how about getting yourself a life.

Superb quote! Mises is an outstanding thinker and writer. Check out the Mises Institute and their email list. There is nothing ambiguous about that quote. The only ambiguity on this page is whether Reston and Dick are really Americans by accident of birth or interlopers from Cuba, the DPRK or Venezuela. And no senor reek the majority does not think it is in control, the majority does not care. Beer in the frig, brauts on the grill, soaps and wrestling on TV. Fat, dumb and happy. Why worry about politics.

Good quote regardless of who said it and Ken, Once again I concur.

Personal responsibility and restraint are essential to a society where liberty is the rule. Ken I believe they are more then half the equation. Without those you have chaos: A legal system where people can sue candy makers for making chewy candy too chewy, a legislature that holds hearings on the retirement benefits of pro football players while thousands of crimnals flood across our borders and octogenerean Medal of Honor winners must remove their shoes at TSA checkpoints.

Mike and Ken have grasped the truth of this and I concur. Great !

An eminently true statement, even if you don't like it. It is merely a restatement Clausewitz's description of war as a "continuation of politics by other means" and an irrefutable historical fact. Fuller was a smart man and scientist.

Personally, I prefer to fight on the right side, with the best available weapons and win. An absent minded, corpulent critic is not where I look for marshal spirit or advice.

I may not really believe it is correct in the current political circumstance, but I am certainly going to practice it in the future. Voting for the lesser of two evils may have gotten me less evil, but it is still evil. Perhaps we need a lot of evil before people will wake up to the effects of the nanny state. Atlas is Shrugging.

Just for the record, just because someone calls themselves a Christian does not make them such any more then calling myself an astronaut would make me one. To make such an error of logic is foolishness or a blatant attempt at propagandistic spin. One must judge the actions not the words. The popularity of my argument is irrelevant. I have no desire to save you from anything. I desire to save myself and the the culture I believe to be superior to all others in the world. True Christianity and Judaism are not at all at odds with liberty because they are not by nature coercive religions. Many, including me, believe the Rennaisance and the Enlightenment could not have happened without the strong influence of Christian ideals. Anyone can pervert an idea as you have attempted to tar religion in general with the negative fundamentalism label which can mean many things to many people. When Jefferson coined that phrase it was in a letter to a minister, and if you had actually read it and Jeffersons other writings, you would know what he was referring to as the church was a national church, not a separation of religion and state or a separation of faith and state. HE was a very cogent and concise writer as most of the founders were. If he had meant faith or religion he would have said it, and regardless it is not in the Constitution. Congress shall make no law preventing the free exercise of religion is in it. Just because you and some dictators in black robes have chosen to try to make this interpretation does not make fact, or logical any more then calling Hitler's minions Christians makes that true. Logic, not religion, dictates that if the only fear of retribution a person has is being caught and punished by his fellow man, then as long as he feels he can engage in some behavior with out getting caught and/or punished there is no disincentive to engaging in that behavior. Hitler's Germany is an example of an amoral society with many who had no fear of divine or terrestrial retribution, it was better to go along to get along. Infinite examples of this validate the logic. Your arguments are specious, your thinking turbid, and your arguments are based on loose language and looser imitations of logic. Reason is completely compatible with Christianity. Archer, as sure of myself as I am, I am not so egotistical or illogical as to make as sweepingly foolish a statement as your last one. I bow before your knowledge of all belief systems...NOT!

Happy to provide some humor Mike! It is hard to do for some one like me who tries to deal in facts not feelings, but some posts beg for humor, even if it is exceptionally cynical, if they were taken seriously one would have to cry, or wonder if the board had been invaded by a pre-Sarkozy islamic frenchman!

Archer, they were fleeing national government persecution, and then created a system that allowed the states to have a state sponsored religion, but not the federal government. They wanted no Religion of the United States, but had no problem with religion playing a major role in all areas of life including government at all levels. Separation of church and state is is a ficticious modern construct. Society, and individuals do have a right to guard against behaviors that impose a cost on that society or individual. Whether that is pedophilia which destroys the coming generations, ingesting substances like crack or PCP which engender far more then the norm of homicidal behavior, or two guys doing the bone dance with mister sphincter which is exceptionaly hazardous in spreading an incurable, expensive to treat, disease (spreading communicable didseases used to be a crime, and rightly so). It is the same as people eating themserlves to death while demanding health care, you must actually care about your health before you can legitimately even think of such a demand. All societies have set mores and enforced them. An aunt and a niece living together ought to receive what they can negotiate from a commercial provider, nothing more, nothing les, without government interference or assistance either way. Morals are a societal and individual imperative. All societies have them and enforce them and you really do not want to live in a society without them. Amoral societies Hitler's, Stalin's, Mao's, Rome, etc. are the most dangerous. I would prefer to face the crusaders then the legion, the gestapo, or the KGB any day.

Archer, I wish you were correct, but I sincerely doubt it. The majority are passed the point of no return. We are unwilling to destroy the enemy, but perfectly willing to be treated like criminals by the TSA for the illusion of security.

Just to be clear, I do not wish to prohibit homosexual behavior at a federal level, but I also do not accept it as a "natural" or "God given right" as accepted by our founding documents, to promote it as such would be ludicrous at best. Archer is quite correct in that government should not be able to remove rights at the whim of the majority, however to limit my ability to display disapproval, disgust or abhorance is just as limiting. And to have government confer special rights on constructed groups is even more costly to individual freedom. Western culture does share a vast amount of moral universality, to deny that is to deny historical truth; and it is superior to other cultures. NO culture has ever given moral or social equivalence to any same sex association as it has heterosexual marriages. And that is as universal a moral concept as you could hope to find. If homosexuals choose to be so, and act so, so be it. But it is not the prerogative of government or any individual or group to force me to accept it as normal behavior, or allow that concept to be taught to my children, any more then it would be for pedophilia or zoophilia, which are no doubt next. Regardless, we all know the push for homosexual rights is merely an attempt to get a piece of the welfare state for their group.

Robert, of course you don't like it. It is black and white! Like right and wrong, good and evil. To you an individual is someone to be manipulated. Quit with attempts at socialist apologetics, existential idiocy and proxy guilt trips. You, and all socialists have no interest in individual liberty. You can only think in groups and groupism; whether it is culture or economics, you are a Marxist who does not believe in the individual. The only difference between socialism and fascism is that fascism gives the masquerade of private ownership of the means of production while retaining complete control with the government. History is filled with conquerors and the conquered, do I need to list them for you? Get over it. If you had some hand in genocide, do your penance, I did not, and feel no guilt. Perhaps you would like to extract some reparations from the Turks who raped and pillaged my Greek ancestors for over 500 years. Get over it! It is history, don't repeat it if you don't approve of it, but regardless, quit wallowing in it, it IS over. You are a zombie of governmnet control, and an American only by accident of birth. You have no interest in the individual liberty and limited government that WAS the basis of this country. Oh and BTW, it looks like one star, not a thumbs down to me. Did your socialist voodoo master tell you that is what a thumbs down looks like?

AMEN ! HALLELUJAH! Oops sorry, overreation, wishful thinking. Does anybody still believe this? I thought nobody was responsible for anything except the government, and it is my responsibility to pay for the health care and food of every idiot who wants to be a couch potato and eat himself to death.

The quote is superb, it is antithetical to the principles of Democrats (and most democracy proponents) and their party, along with their socialist and fascist cohorts. But it only applies selectively to certain "true' liberals (almost non-existent today) and most republicans, who have completely lost touch with their parties principle. Neocons, are maybe 50/50.

Mike is right, and the we are no longer reasonable. It is good only if he is referring to government. The only protection from the consquences of your actions otherwise is to protect the person from first use of violence against him. It should not be the realm of government to protect an individual from being treated by others according to his actions. For example, if I disagree with "in your face" homsexuality (which I do), the government has no right to limit my responses other then to restrict violence. We are well into the nanny-state syndrome with this.

Quite true and thanks Ken.

Disagree. To give merit to the meritless to give moral equivalence to evil and to teach that to make judgements and discriminate is bad, is to debase freedon, truth and all that is worthwhile. It is this type of moral relativism that is destroying the ability of our society to think, decide and act properly. Evil must be confronted, fools must be disabused or disenfranchised, and judgements must be made and acted on.

Roger, thanks for the clarification. It was actually an accidental double click originally, but I do not believe in throwning barbarians scalps. Let them collect their own. Thanks for the service, I appreciate it.