Sunday, February 25, 2007

How Can the GOP Get Moving Again

Stuck in the Mud
How Can the GOP Get Moving Again? Drop the Dirty Politics and Get Real.

By Frank Luntz
Sunday, February 25, 2007; B01

"Don't be afraid to see what you see," Ronald Reagan once said.

Today, many of his disciples are choosing not to see the obvious. Republicans in Congress cannot regain their majority merely by relying on a coalition of traditional conservatives and evangelicals. They must reach out to what I call "the fed-ups" -- a large and growing constituency of independent voters who have held the balance of power in every election since 1992, and will hold it again in 2008.

It was only 14 years ago that nearly 20 million voters rejected both Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush in favor of H. Ross Perot, a little man with big ears and a big idea. Perot's principal claim on their allegiance in the presidential election of 1992 was his insistence that government should be competent, sensible and honest about its finances. His supporters were mad as hell and weren't going to take it anymore. Those voters -- 19 percent of the electorate -- demonstrated that there was a potent political movement of fed-up Americans.

Two years later, millions of Perot voters switched to the Republicans and helped them grab control of Congress. They stayed with the GOP for a decade because the party represented "good government." But red ink budgets, earmarked appropriations for bridges to nowhere, endless ethics scandals and a debacle of a war made them mad once again. In 2006 they deserted the GOP in droves and turned control of Congress back to the Democrats.

How incredible that the antidote to what ails the Republicans can be found in the words of a famous Democrat. In his tragic run for the presidency in 1968, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy said, "Some men see things as they are and say, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and say, 'Why not?' " The magnificent poetry of that challenge -- to do more and to do better -- is at the core of who we are as a society, what we want for America and for ourselves. Here is the reason why the Republican Party has faded from relevance in the past two years.

Despite its many problems, the United States remains a nation of dreamers. The American psyche is genetically wired to see possibilities. Faith in the future is in our DNA. It's why we historically vote for the more positive, hopeful, upbeat candidates.

Yet my recent public opinion research has recorded unprecedented anxiety about the country's direction. Just 34 percent of the voting public believe that the America of tomorrow will be better than the America of today, while 57 percent think it will be worse.

This explains why so many people have lost patience with the current U.S. leadership. It is no wonder that 52 percent of voters in my election night survey said they were "mad as hell" about politics and politicians. Can you blame them? It doesn't matter whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, the outlook is grim: a war with no end in sight, rising costs of health care, borders that are poorly patrolled, schools that are failing, manufacturing that is disappearing, and a culture that is coarsening.

Congressional Republicans didn't seem to notice in 2006, and certainly didn't seem to care. For the all-important swing voter in the center -- the current version of those 19-plus millionPerot voters -- Republicans came to represent the politics of hypocrisy and failure. They didn't have a message. They didn't have an agenda. They didn't have a purpose. And so on Election Day, these voters -- now about 16 percent of the electorate -- went elsewhere.

It is unfortunate that the Republican Party is currently dominated by hyperpartisan, gut-punching professional politicians and expert technicians whom I wouldn't want to face at the dark end of the electoral alley. They specialize in the flawless execution of "wedge" politics. That may have worked well in past elections, but no longer. The latest gimmick is "branding" -- a Madison Avenue technique -- to reverse the Republican slide. But political parties are not brands, slogans are not a replacement for ideas and you don't sell leaders the way you sell widgets.

Many rank-and-file Republicans agree. But the party apparatus still doesn't get it. Over the years, I have become unpopular with the GOP hierarchy by telling the apparatchiks what they needed to know, not what they wanted to hear. Nowadays my work is far from the day-to-day grind of political partisanship. But if I were still in the thick of it, my guidance would be just 20 words long: Be bold, return to basics, stop telling, start asking, focus on results, abolish "earmarks" and embrace a permanent balanced budget.

Shortly after the Republican landslide of 1994, Rep. Jim Nussle of Iowa said: "I hope none of us lose the backbencher point of view. We should always look to make changes." Nussle was one of a cadre of passionate Republican reformers who railed against Democratic improprieties. (He gave up his House seat to run unsuccessfully for governor of Iowa last year.) The Republican Party still has its share of outsiders, crusaders, people unwilling to accept politics or governing-as-usual. I think of lawmakers such as Rep. Paul D. Ryan (Wis.) and Sen. Jon Kyl (Ariz.), who want to get back to balanced budgets, fiscal accountability and causes that appeal to centrist voters.

They understand that Republicans lost the majority because Americans wanted change. But they need to step up now, speak out and demand a public role in reforming the party and Washington in the same way that former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) demanded that well-meaning but failed Republican leaders step aside in 1994.

There are some hopeful signs.

Both the early front-runners for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008 have appeal beyond the party's base of conservative supporters. Arizona Sen. John McCain tapped into the old Perot constituency in his bid for the nomination in 2000, and former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani is doing that now.

In Florida, a group of Republican legislators stepped back from partisan bickering to try something novel: They asked the people for ideas.

Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio challenged his colleagues to create an agenda for the future with "100 Innovative Ideas" from ordinary people around the state. Instead of fundraisers, they held "idea raisers." Republicans, Democrats and independents were all welcome -- any idea that advanced the principles of good government and political accountability was considered.

It wasn't a political ploy. They released their "100 Innovative Ideas for Florida's Future" after the election. And Republican legislators got back in touch with constituents.

But what did national Republicans do as the new Congress convened and Democrats began pushing through their "Six for '06" proposals in the first 100 hours? They called a news conference not to present counter-proposals to guide the minority over the next two years, but to complain that the Democrats were treating them unfairly. They objected that the committee process was being skirted and members were denied opportunities to offer amendments.

Were Republicans standing up for retirement security, control over health-care decisions or economic freedom? No. They were upset over who was or was not allowed to offer amendments on the floor. (Note to Republicans: Americans don't care.)

The path to a GOP majority must be paved with solutions to the real problems of real people. Republicans should talk about expanding health savings accounts and educating Americans about the benefits they offer. They should commit to sunsetting government programs every four years unless continuing them can be justified. They should pledge the investment necessary to develop renewable fuels and alternative energy. They should challenge Democrats to tackle the burgeoning tax code and fight for tax simplification on behalf of hardworking taxpayers.

Republicans need a spirited, intellectually based rebuttal to every piece of Democratic legislation and an alternative to every policy -- not a new parliamentary maneuver.

My polls show that Democrats now hold a perceived advantage with voters not just on reducing deficits and balancing the budget but on an issue long seen as a GOP strength: ending wasteful spending. That alone should jar Republicans into taking a fresh approach.

Step one should be the abolition of earmarks for hometown and home-state projects. Nothing will undermine the lobbyist culture more than a clear and definitive statement that there will never again be a highway project like the Alaskan "bridge to nowhere."

Step two is to once again stand for accountability, a principle abandoned in the last Congress. If Republicans are serious about demonstrating that they understand what America wants, they will support a balanced-budget amendment -- but with an important twist: The declining Social Security surplus couldn't be used as a numbers game to "reduce" shortfalls, and there would be a clause making it difficult to raise taxes.

Republicans lost their congressional majority because they lost touch with what Americans really want. As a pollster, I rarely hear voters call for smaller government. They tell me that they want more efficient and more effective government. (Note to Republicans: There is no starker symbol of Washington's inefficiency and ineffectiveness than the federal government's inability to control our borders and prevent illegal immigration.) Last year, Republicans campaigned locally and lost nationally. Relying on local issues to define elections at a time when national matters dominate public concerns is a losing strategy. With 20 months until the next election, Republicans have a responsibility as the minority party, as the opposition party, to prove themselves as once again worthy of public trust. They must adopt a bold agenda to mirror the public's desire for bold change. Anything less and they will fail not only themselves but also the country.

Frank Luntz, a corporate communications adviser, was pollster for the GOP's 1994 "Contract With America" and advised House and Senate Republicans from 1994 through 1999. He is the author of the new book "Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear" (Hyperion).

Friday, February 23, 2007

RADICAL CHRISTIANITY VS. ISLAM

RADICAL CHRISTIANITY VS. ISLAM

by Richard Rivette

Rosie O'Donnell claims that radical Christianity is just as bad as
Islam. Let's put that to the test.

Here is a short summary that should help Ms. O'Donnell and others
learn more about "radical Christianity" as they call it, versus
Islam, even what some call "moderate Islam." When asked how they
would react to certain conditions/situatio

ns we find the two
philosophies DO actually differ in their response. Here is what you
might hear in response to each question:

What is your reaction.
1. If someone professes they are gay?
RADICAL CHRISTIANITY:
Have them seek counseling. Lecture them on the Biblical foundation
against homosexuality. Invite them to attend church and learn more.
Pray for them. Give them the name of a support group in their area to
help them deal with their feelings. Hate the activity, but love the
person. Feel sorry for their despair that they feel compelled to
defile themselves. Feel pity. Counsel their own children so that they
don't fall into despair and fall from grace. No special rights for
any gay person, but the same protections as any person to keep them
from being attacked.

ISLAM:
Put them to death by beheading. If really moderate, ostracize them.
Deny their existence and any relation. Accept the death sentence
others impose.

2. If someone tells you they are an atheist?
RC:
Talk to them about one's faith in God. Show them through examples why
you believe God exists and how God has and can work in their lives.
Invite them to church. Pray for them. Pray that even though they
might never accept God, let them know that God loves them anyway.

ISLAM:
Give them the opportunity to accept Allah and his prophet and then,
if after they have been educated, they reject the teachings, put them
to death by beheading. OR If they accept the teaching but later
denounce it, put them to death by beheading as apostates.

3. If someone steals from you?
RC:
Pray for their soul. Invite them to church. Ask what else they might
need to help support themselves, a job, clothing, training. Invite
them to come to your food bank and take what they need to tide them
over. Try to help them see that criminality is not a path to heaven.
Help them find support to cure their impulse to harm others or take
what is not theirs. Read them the commandments about not stealing.
Tell the God loves them regardless and welcomes them in his heart.
Ask to have them join you in prayer.

ISLAM:
Cut off their hands. If it persists, cut off their head.
(Videos of current atrocities are found on the internet today.)

4. If a girl wears a revealing blouse and skirt to go to the grocery
store?
RC:
Shield the eyes of those younger children who might be influenced by
such behavior. Stop and talk to the girl about her self-esteem and
that she does not really need to attract that kind of attention to be
loved. Invite her to church. Give here examples by showing that your
daughters/nieces are perfectly happy without feeling the need to
display their sexuality in that manner. Explain it may invite
unwanted attention or even be dangerous since some men have
difficulty controlling their actions.

ISLAM:
Accuse her of adultery. Allow older men to rape her. Bury her up to
her neck in dirt then stone her to death for either crime. Restore
her family's honor by doing so. Explain to her own male relatives
that they must rape her to teach her not to be like that. She is a
disgrace to Allah, kill her by hanging from the gallows.

5. If a person listens to music?
RC:
Should the music contain lyrics glorifying destruction, death,
violence, sex, or hatred, then they will ask you to play it in
private so they don't have to listen to it. They will not allow their
children to listen to it. Invite you to church. Talk about how such
self-denigrating behavior is not healthy to your spirit. Ask you to
leave their presence. Turn it off. Change the station. Go away.

ISLAM:
No music allowed. Destroy all music and behead anyone who refuses to
cooperate. Only chanting of prayers is allowed.

6. If a person is Jewish?
RC:
Invite them to church. Share your ideas about the Bible, history,
Jewish culture and tradition, Jesus. Enjoy dinner together. Have you
families play together to learn more about each other. Welcome them
for their contribution to Judeo-Christian beliefs. Pray for each
other. Invite them to a social function at church just to have fun,
no sermons given. Treat each other with respect. Talk about your
faith in God and in Jesus. Tell them why you love Jesus and what he
did for you.

ISLAM:
Kill them. They are apes and pigs. They are filth. Lie to them, steal
from them. Do whatever is necessary to destroy them. Hitler was right
and if we only had more time Islamic countries would have been able
to assist in completing the final solution by gassing all Jews to death.

7. If a person lives in a non-Muslim country?
RC:
Welcome to freedom. You may believe as you desire. Invite others to
church. Pray as your beliefs dictate. Love your neighbor as yourself.
Follow the commandments as best you can and serve as an example to
others.

ISLAM:
Non-Muslim countries are Dar-al-Harb, the land of war. Make war on
the unbelievers. Kill all infidels. Enslave their children, rape
their women and girls and put the heads of the men on pikes. Use
whatever means necessary to complete your duty of jihad. Lie, steal,
infiltrate, kill, use their own systems against them. Kill them until
all are believers and live in Dar-al-Islam, the "land of
peace." (Islam literally means "submission" not peace. So you must
submit.)

8. If a person creates artwork?
RC:
Art is just one of the beautiful gifts God gives us. Use your art to
glorify God. Paint, draw or create work which shows the miracle of
life and joy God can bring into your life. Again, violent, hateful or
hurtful images are not welcome for their children to view, but will
most likely incur a lecture about self-determination and freedom to
choose. Talk about how God gives us all the power to create our
reality and that we should make it a positive one.

ISLAM:
Only geometric pictures or decoration are allowed. Any depiction of
God, his prophet or anything construed as an insult to Islam will
result in imprisonment. If the image is critical of Islam then death
by beheading or hanging is indicated.

9. If someone writes negatively about your beliefs?
RC:
Pray for them. Pray at church. Ask God to help them know Him better.
Explain to them that what they have said has hurt your spirit. To
please stop assaulting you. To write material in contradiction of
their claims against you. Invite them to church. Invite them to meet
your family to understand your lifestyle better. Bless them that they
may grow as individuals.

ISLAM:
Death by beheading. Death by any means necessary. Official fatwah
will be issued so that any Muslim worldwide is empowered to kill you
and be absolved of their actions, because it was done in the name of
God. Imprisonment for lesser sentences until the perpetrator learns
of their error and submits to authority to never again write anything
critical about religion or politics. Do not discuss such things, ever.

CONCLUDING THE COMPARISON
So, Ms. O'Donnell can now understand better that NO radical Christian
seeks her death. Ever. In fact, if someone tried to harm her they
would stand up to protect her for her life has value.

No true Christian would try or should try to hurt her. That is
antithetical to their beliefs. They must and will pray for her, for
as long as it takes that she sees she is loved by God. Christians
will bless her and ask her to be blessed. They will condemn those
practices she engages in which they consider unnatural. They will ask
that God come into her soul and show her divine grace. They will
invite her to church. They will love her soul as they love their own
families, for that is what God requires. Even though it is hard. They
must.

Those in Islam have a slightly different view Rosie. You are to be
killed for your abomination. And they don't want to hear any more on
the subject. You are less than human to them. Every Islamic example
given here is available currently on the internet. You can witness
the brutal torture, rape, beheading and violent death of those in
question.

Now. Please tell us again how radical Christians are just as bad as
Muslims.

When you go on your next trip to a Muslim country, please return to
tell us how well you were received there. That is, if you return home
alive to the United States, where you truly are free to be yourself.

If someone here shows they hate you, then they are foolish. For
hatred only leads to violence. And no Christian can support violence
against you. Since we all have a soul, God would condemn them for the
attack. They will pray for you but they will not harm you.

Millions of Christians are praying right now that you see the
difference. And if you don't, they will not condemn your soul, they
will continue to pray for you since they are in no position to judge.
That is God's domain exclusively.

If you are interested in learning more about God and his total love
for you, then please speak with friends or relatives who love you. Or
go to any church or synagogue and ask to speak with the pastor,
minister or rabbi. They will hold your hand if desired and freely
give you a message of love from God.

-Richard Rivette
blog.360.yahoo.com/rarivette
www.rivettegroup.com
Authority is granted to reproduce this article at will provided the
notice is given that the contents are copyright 2007 Richard Rivette.
-30-

How Secular Progressive Socialists Indoctrinate America's Kids

It really get eye opening around 6 minutes into the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDyDtYy2I0M

Charlotte Iserbyt served as Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education, during the first Reagan Administration, where she first blew the whistle on a major technology initiative which would control curriculum in America's classrooms.

www.deliberatedumbingdown.com - www.americandeception.com

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free. ~Ronald Reagan, 40th president of U.S.

USA vs. US: www.gemworld.com/USAvsUS.htm

See Also

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-737320 1783240489827

www.jonathangullible.com - youtube.com/watch?v=1NMJox-MZ4c

From the DVD "One Nation Under Siege" www.undersiegemovie.com

More Americans killed by illegal aliens than Iraq war, study says

More Americans killed by illegal aliens than Iraq war, study says


Jim Brown
OneNewsNow.com
February 22, 2007


Illegal Aliens Claim They Are Not Criminals<>

Illegal aliens are killing more Americans than the Iraq war, says a new report from Family Security Matters that estimates some 2,158 murders are committed every year by illegal aliens in the U.S. The group says that number is more than 15 percent of all the murders reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the U.S. and about three times the representation of illegal aliens in the general population.

Mike Cutler, a former senior special agent with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (the former INS), is a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies and an advisor to Family Security Matters (FSM). He says the high number of Americans being killed by illegal aliens is just part of the collateral damage that comes with tolerating illegal immigration.

"The military actually called for the BORTAC team, ... the elite unit of the Border Patrol, to be detailed to Iraq to help to secure the Iraqi border," Cutler notes. "Now, if our military can understand that Iraq's security depends in measure on the ability to protect its border against insurgents and terrorists, then why isn't our country similarly protecting our own borders?" he asks.

"We are not five and a half years, nearly, after 9/11, and yet our borders remain open," the Center for Immigration Studies fellow observes. "We have National Guardsmen assigned on the border, but it turns out they are unarmed," he points out. "Their rules of engagement are very simple: if armed intruders head your way, run in the other direction."

This situation would "almost be comical if it wasn't so tragic," Cutler asserts. "If our borders are wide open, this means that drugs, criminals, and terrorists are entering our country just as easily as the dishwashers," he says.

The report from FSM estimates that the 267,000 illegal aliens currently incarcerated in the nation are responsible for nearly 1,300,000 crimes, ranging from drug arrests to rape and murder. Such statistics, Cutler contends, debunk the claim that illegal immigration is a victimless crime. "Then we even have another problem," he adds, "and that's the Visa Waiver Program."

The federal government's Visa Waiver Program enables nationals of certain countries to travel to the United States for tourism or business for stays of 90 days or less without obtaining a visa. According to the U.S. State Department website, the waiver program was established in 1986 with the objective of "eliminating unnecessary barriers to travel," stimulating America's tourism industry, and allowing the government to focus consular resources in other areas.

Cutler says the U.S. retains the Visa Waiver Program because the nation's travel, tourism, and hospitality industries want America's borders wide open. In other words, the former INS official contends, the nation's security is being compromised in the name of trade.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/02/more_americans_killed_by_illeg.php

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Tom Brady & Bridget Moynahan's Irresponsible Behavior

Tom (not so) Terrific clearly out of bounds

February 21, 2007
Tom Brady, Mr. All-American, says he's ''excited.''

You bet.

Informed that actress and ex-girlfriend Bridget Moynahan is three months pregnant and he is the impregnator, the three-time Super Bowl champion quarterback and purest man in the world -- or rather, his agent, Tom Yee -- said, ''Tom and his family are excited about the pregnancy.''

Wow.

They're not excited about the mother or a possible marriage or any kind of meaningful union between copulators.

They're excited about the fact their son/brother/relative has active sperm.

Maybe the Brady family also is excited about the late-night talk-show jokes that are brewing as I type this.

Maybe they're excited about Brady's current squeeze, pouty-lipped Brazilian lingerie model Gisele Bundchen, who could become the nanny for the baby, if not the actual stepmother.

Not that Moynahan is giving this child up.

She made no secret of the fact she wanted a baby when she and Brady were hooking up, excuse me, dating.

''I've been on this career thing for so long, and you look at all your friends who are finally getting married and having kids,'' she told Boston Common magazine last fall. ''I believe in balance in life, so I think I can do it all.''

No dad doesn't cut it
Never mind the oxymoronic essence of that last statement, the part Moynahan is missing is that pesky part about family.

Having a baby is one thing. Having a baby without a legitimate father is another, entirely.

For years that province -- of children born out of wedlock or raised without a married birth father -- has been perceived as the province of the poor and the minority.

Read, at its most vexing, black.

To a degree, this is fact.

Without getting into the sociological and economic elements that create such a trend, know that about 16 percent of white kids grow up without fathers but a stunning 51 percent of black children do.

Brady, 29, named one of People magazine's ''50 Most Beautiful People'' in 2002, is not the marrying kind. At least not now.

Hope that doesn't shock you, Bridget and Gisele.

But the shocking part to the world is that here is Tom Brady of the New England Patriots with those twinkling blue eyes and Cleaver-family upbringing -- Charles Pierce's recent biography, Moving the Chains: Tom Brady and the Pursuit of Everything, all but anoints the young man -- and he's just out there sowing seed like every other irresponsible rascal.

We'll leave it to Madison Avenue to decide whether Brady's action will affect his endorsement deals -- with Nike, Visa, Sirius, among others -- that bring him an estimated $9 million a year beyond his large Patriots contract.

The troubling part is not the gossip and all the rest of the giggle-inducing tawdriness of this little scene.

It is that babies in our modern American world have become items and baubles, things to have or not have, depending on the whim, mood, naivete, intoxication level, desperation and silliness of the two people involved.

That Britney Spears is the mother of two children, with her shaved head and utter instability, is about all we need to know of the children-as-accessories mental state.

Moynahan said, via her publicist Christine Papadopoulous (this is how rich celebs communicate, you know), that she is ''healthy and excited.''

Of course, no mention was made as to whether the fetus was equally as thrilled.

It was back on Dec. 14 that Brady and Moynahan announced, through a (what else?) statement, that they had parted ways ''several weeks'' earlier.

It's easy to joke about
Doing a little language and math work, I see that several means more than two but not many, so the pair must have broken up sometime around, say, mid to late November.

This being late February means Tom Terrific gave three-months-pregnant Bridget a last-fling going-away present.

One could laugh at all this.

Just as one could laugh at fellow superstar -- and equally white and All-American -- quarterback Matt Leinart, who impregnated a fellow student in his last year at USC and never had much interest in her, beyond the obvious.

But the devaluation of children is the real issue, the carelessness with which they too often are brought into the world.

And the current thought espoused by many that little boys don't really need dads in their lives at all -- that loving women and maybe a thoughtful male coach at the rec center will suffice -- is pure nonsense.

As syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts wrote recently, there is this pernicious idea among certain headstrong females and careless males ''that the father is unnecessary, that so long as there's some uncle around to show the boy how to hit the mark in the toilet, everything is hunky-dory.''

It's not.

Witness our jails and our poverty lines. Witness our schools.

Tom Brady has shown that the real issue is not race or wealth at all, but personal responsibility.

If I were a member of black America, I wouldn't exactly be laughing at Brady's sexual mistake.

But I'd be hard-pressed not to smirk.

Letters to our sports columnists appear Sunday. Send e-mail to inbox@suntimes.com. Include your full name, hometown and a daytime phone number.

Can a good Muslim be a good American?

For your information.

American Muslims

Can a good Muslim be a good American? ..

For research on our part also.

. . . Can a good Muslim be a good American?

I forwarded that question to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia
for 20 years .

The following is his forwarded reply:

Theologically - no.
. . . Because his allegiance is to Allah,
the moon God of Arabia.

Religiously - no.
. . . Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except
Islam (Qu ran),

Scripturally - no.
. . . Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and
the
Qu ran
(Koran).

Geographically - no.
.. . . Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns
in prayer five times a day.

Socially - n o.
. . Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make
friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically - no.
.. . . Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual
leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America, the great Satan.

Domestically - no.
. . . Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and
scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34 ).

Intellectually - no.
. . . Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since
it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically - no.
. . . Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow
freedom of religion and expression.

.. . Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim
government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually - no.
. . . Because when we declare "one nation under God,"&
nbsp;the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly
father, nor loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor
is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.

- - - Therefore after much study and deliberation.... perhaps
we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country.

- - - They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans.

Call it what you wish..it's still the truth.

You had better believe it.
The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future.
Pass it on Fellow Americans.

The religious war is bigger than we know or
understand.

. . . And Barack Hussein Obama, a Muslim, wants to be our
president?

Barack Obama has professed to being a Christian, in the denomination of the Christ of Christ.

Identify the N.C. electorate

Rick Martinez:
Published: Feb 21, 2007 12:30 AM
Modified: Feb 21, 2007 07:49 AM

Identify the N.C. electorate

Normally I restrict my credit card use to buying fuel for my gas-guzzling SUV. But one afternoon a week or so ago I whipped out the plastic to pick up a few big-ticket items. For each purchase that cost more than a tank of gas, the bank that issued the card required the clerk to verify my identity.

At the last stop -- a sporting goods store -- photo ID wasn't good enough. I had to get on the horn and answer a battery of questions before I could take legal possession of a treadmill. The clerk was so embarrassed. But I assured her that the scrutiny was welcome, even if did cause other shoppers to look at me as if I were a parolee. I appreciated the bank's effort to protect my identity and money.

Too bad North Carolina isn't that serious about protecting my vote.

Although I had to show ID when I registered more than a decade ago, I've never been asked to verify my identity before voting. While some see this laxness as barrier-free voting, to me it's an open invitation for fraud. To steal my vote, all a person needs to know is my name. Everything else that's needed to fraudulently cast my vote -- my address and polling place -- is only a few clicks away on the State Board of Elections' Web site. It's that easy.

State Rep. Tim Moore of Cleveland County wants to change that. He and Rep. William Current of Gaston County have introduced a bill that would require North Carolina voters to identify themselves before casting a ballot. Under this legislation, proving one's identity would be a snap. In addition to accepting a valid and current photo ID, such as a driver's license, poll workers could also accept a current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check or other government-issued document that displays the voter's name and address. No photo required.

This is hardly a radical requirement. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 24 states ask voters to identify themselves before voting. Seven require a photo ID.

In Congress there's a proposal that goes even further. The Federal Election Integrity Act (HR 4844), currently sitting in a Senate committee, would establish a national voter photo ID card that would be presented before a citizen could vote in a federal election. While ballot fraud hasn't proven a problem in North Carolina so far, the potential is there and growing, given population growth and expanded voting periods because of No Excuse Voting.

Many voting rights advocates and some misguided federal judges equate voter identification with disenfranchisement of the poor, elderly and minorities. Baloney. The poll tax ghost was exorcised a long time ago. While allegations of targeted voter disenfranchisement are common, actual verifiable present-day cases are virtually nonexistent. The genuine protections the Moore-Current bill would provide North Carolina's legitimate voters far outweigh the imagined wrongdoings of poll workers asking for ID.

Unfortunately, support for the bill appears lukewarm. To my disappointment, opposition exists among the government reform crowd. Bob Phillips of Common Cause worries that the ID requirement would add time to the voting process. That could keep people away from the polls. He also notes that many poll workers know voters in their district, making ID unnecessary.

Bob Hall of Democracy North Carolina -- a man who deserves a medal for his work in exposing the corruption of former House Speaker Jim Black -- adamantly opposes any form of voter identification. He doesn't want Big Brother looking over anyone's shoulder in the voting booth.

As he told me, the fact that voter fraud is a felony is deterrent enough to keep voters clean.

Yeah, right. Sometimes the threat of a felony conviction isn't a big enough restraint when it comes to political power. It sure didn't keep Black from going into restaurant bathrooms to accept illegal contributions.

The reforms that Hall, Phillips and others are tirelessly pursuing in an effort to rid North Carolina of the pay-to-play mentality shouldn't be limited to the halls of state government. It makes little sense to focus so much time and energy on potential corruption on the legislative and executive sectors of government, only to ignore the potential for fraud on the electoral side.

The sunshine that reformers want to bring to Jones Street can do just as much good at the polls -- maybe even more.

Contributing columnist Rick Martinez can be reached at rickjmartinez2@verizon.net
http://www.newsobserver.com/567/story/545243.html

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

History of Democrats & Racsim

A few places to find information that Mrs Rice touched on throughout
her speech:

North Carolina State Commissioned Report:

http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/1898-wrrc/report/report.htm

UNCA Libraries have this book online- look for
"The Life and Speeches of Charles Brantly Aycock"

Very informative! Link to the Charlotte Observer Special Edition "The
Ghosts of 1898"

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/special_packages/wilmingto
n/

"Something monstrous engulfed the port city of Wilmington 108 years
ago. This event unleashed a racist culture that would set back
generations of African Americans in North Carolina, as well as the
entire South.

And yet, an accurate account of the so-called "Wilmington Race Riot
of 1898" never found its way into our history books, much less our
consciousness. Even now, most people who were born in this state know
little to nothing about it.

The Charlotte Observer and the News & Observer of Raleigh will
jointly publish a special section, called "The Ghosts of 1898," to
help fill this gap in North Carolina's history.

We do this now because a commission appointed by the N.C. legislature
in 2000 has just completed the most exhaustive research to date on
the facts surrounding the events in Wilmington.

We also do it because our newspapers failed to report the truth the
first time. Even worse, history shows that both newspapers avidly
supported the powerful white supremacy movement that triggered the
violence and ultimately overthrew Wilmington's elected city
government."

http://www.ncculture.com

The 1898 May 12th, keynote speech by Aycock that was the kickoff to
the "white supremacy" Democrat Campaign at Laurinburg, NC along with
fellow white supremacist and speaker- Asheville native Locke Craig.

Link leads to Political Cartoons and Ads
http://www.lib.unc.edu/ncc/1898/sources.html

http://www.lib.unc.edu/ncc/1898/glossary.html

http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/1898-wrrc/

All the above links are excellent sources. Hope they are helpful in
making your conclusions.
===========================================

> Col. Rice implied during her speech at the YMI Drugstore that most of her claims were
> supported by the research contained in the books UNFOUNDED LOYALTY and A SHORT
> HISTORY OF RECONSTRUCTION.

MORE:

From "A Brief History of the Original Ku Klux Klan: 1865 - 1869"

The removal of the old pre-war governments helped the Klan to get to power in Southern states. Because Klan adherents were politically orientated to Democrats, they defeated the Republicans, the Reconstruction and its governments.
With Tennessee being the exception, the Democratic Party soon was lifted up to the executive. The political instability after the Civil War increased the fascination of the Klan within Southern population. With its Klan program it seemed to solve the Southern problems.

http://www.hausarbeiten.de/faecher/hausarbeit/eni/22284.html

------------
From "Hooded Progressivism: The secret reformist history of the Ku Klux Klan"


The Klan controlled the governments of Indiana, Oregon, and Colorado, elected other politicians across the country, and played a major role in the Democratic convention of 1924;

Some progressives had been antiwar as well, of course, among them the Wisconsin senator Robert LaFollette, and any argument connecting the Klan to the progressive impulse should take account of the fact that it opposed him strenuously when he ran for president on a third-party ticket in 1924. In fact, the 1924 election indicates the extent to which the Klan was entangled with the progressives. For that was the year of the Democrats' infamous "klanbake" convention, when Klansmen participated heavily as delegates and blocked a platform plank that would have condemned their order. They also entered the presidential race, mostly to oppose the candidacy of Al Smith, who as an anti-prohibitionist and a Catholic was anathema to the group, but also to back a candidate of their own. There was a southern conservative in the race, Sen. Oscar Underwood of Alabama, but he was a critic of the Klan. Instead they endorsed the Californian William McAdoo, son-in-law to the late President Wilson. The convention was deadlocked, and the Democrats wound up picking a compromise candidate, John Davis, whose other claim to fame would be to argue the segregationist side in Brown v. Board of Education three decades later.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34134.html