Esoteric Diatribe
Welcome to E*D!
Feel free to look around
and share your opinion.
Yahoo News
Google News
Drudge Report
Fox News
WSJ Opinion Journal
News My Way
The White House: Current News
Waffles Campaign
Esoteric Diatribe
What is the Waffles Campaign?
Read about it:
USA Today
The Pittsburgh Tribune Review
Wired News
Guardian Unlimited
The Mercury News
San Diego Union-Tribune or check out
The Archives

The Waffles Campaign was a huge success. Thanks to all who participated!!!
Learn more about Google Bombs.
Russ Vaughn Submissions
The Russ Vaughn Collection
Site Feed
Site Feed
Tuesday, July 27, 2004

Dukakis Moments, Carter's Idiocy, THK's Bastard, and more

Blogs for Bush is talking about a Dukakis Moment for Kerry... I have seen far worse Kerry Pics.

JB Corrigan is laying the smack down on Carter.

THK called Ted Kennedy a Bastard... called the Democratic Machine "Putrid". Maybe we should ask her what she meant by putrid.... she might tell us to "Shove it"

The waffles Google Bomb is falling in the ranks on other search engines, now. I think maybe the Dems have google bombed 13 waffles sites to shove Kerry down to 14th in the ranks. This means we need a lot more support if we are ever going to get it back on top.

Monday, July 26, 2004

Waffles Google Bomb Update

Esoteric Diatribe

Google-bombs defused: Has Google gone on the counterattack against Google-bombs? At least two high-profile attempts to manipulate Google's search results -- including one that mocks Google management -- have suddenly and mysteriously gone belly up.

Google-bombs are a simple manipulation of the famous search engine that cause certain Web pages to become the top results for certain phrases.

Since March, a Google search for the phrase ``out of touch executives'' would bring back as the top result the official Google Web page of its executives' bios.

But last week, the page suddenly lost its top ranking in the Google search results, dropping completely out of sight.

Daniel Brandt, a long-time Google critic and originator of the ``out of touch executives'' Google-bomb, originally thought that thin-skinned Googlers intentionally tweaked their search engine to undo his handiwork. But at least one other Google-bomb -- which used to lead searchers to president candidate John Kerry's Web site when they typed in the word ``waffles'' -- has also stopped working.

Google would not comment on the change, though the company tweaks its search algorithm often. Brandt speculates that the changes may be related to an attempt by Google to combat spam in its search results.

There's no way to know for sure. But it's worth noting that one Google-bomb still works: the one that links the phrase ``miserable failure'' to President Bush's official biography.

Google conspiracy theorists, start your engines.

I personally don't think Google is discriminating against our google bomb... I think it is a matter of our Google bomb not having enough support. We had well over a hundred people working on this a few weeks ago, but gradualy people took the link down or didn't post a new one. Let's get this back on top. Spread the word. Make a post about it on your site once a week until it is back on top. In the mean time: waffles waffles waffles waffles waffles waffles waffles waffles waffles waffles waffles waffles waffles waffles waffles waffles waffles waffles waffles waffles waffles

More Waffles In The News

Esoteric Diatribe

E*D ocasionally likes to take a look at various waffles stories in the news. Enjoy!
Edwards rallies state supporters
Several dozen Bush supporters stood on the sidewalk outside the park, bellowing “Four more years! Four more years!” through bullhorns. Nineteen-year-old Marquette University student Brian Collar came to the rally wearing a T-shirt with five waffles glued to it, symbolizing what critics call Kerry’s changing positions.

Eateries serving up some electable delectables for DNC
BOSTON - Boston Herald
The Ritz-Carlton, Boston Common starts the day with ``Kerry very berry'' waffles and a ``dawn's early light'' selection of red, white and blue fruit juices. A Boston Tea Party follows in the afternoon. At the original Ritz-Carlton, the dining room serves a Boston Brahmin buffet with Kerry berry cobbler and Howard Dean's ``I Scream'' dessert.

Republicans Rally Against Kerry Visit
"We need to stay the course and John Kerry is not the man to lead America, it's George W. Bush," Retired Army Lt. Col. Joseph Repya, Jr. told the crowd gathered in Duluth's Canal Park for a waffle breakfast in Kerry's honor, waffles, because Kerry supposedly waffles on the issues.

"I was just wondering if they were gonna have Belgian waffles for Kerry's European wife," joked Bush supporter Kelly Cooke.

Iraq divides voters, but not candidates
Despite the erosion of support over Iraq policy, Bush’s reputation as a leader — resolute in the minds of supporters, stubborn to opponents — has kept the race even with Kerry, who suffers in some polls from the suspicion that he waffles.

The Wife Waffles Too

Esoteric Diatribe

Heinz Kerry attended a Massachusetts Statehouse reception Sunday night for fellow Pennsylvanians, telling them, "We need to turn back some of the creeping, un-Pennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits that are coming into some of our politics." She criticized the tenor of modern political campaigns without being specific.

Minutes later, the Tribune-Review's Colin McNickle questioned Heinz Kerry on what she meant by the term "un-American," according to a tape of the encounter recorded by Pittsburgh television station WTAE.

Heinz Kerry said "I didn't say that" several times to McNickle. She then turned to confer with Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell and others. When she faced McNickle again a short time later, he continued to question her, and she replied: "You said something I didn't say. Now shove it."


I printed just the facts... if you read the rest of the story you can read an enormous amount of spin... "good for you, you go girl" ?!? Give me a break... She got caught saying something she believed but did not want to come back and bite her in the end, so she tried a technique mastered by her husband... lie and waffle a bit, but no-one waffles like the Waffle Master, John Kerry, so THK resorted to telling a journalist to "shove it". How lady like! Would you want her as your first lady? I say, enequivically, "No!"

Saturday, July 24, 2004

Kerry: Right in the Middle... Ha!

With his convention two days away, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said there should be no confusion: he and vice presidential running mate John Edwards are "very much moderate."

"Right in the center," Kerry declared Friday, responding to Republicans who have labeled the Kerry-Edwards ticket the "most liberal" in history and not a reflection of the rest of the country.

Hahahahahah... Yeah... Just like Kerry is a "Pragmatic Centrist of the Clinton Mode" Hahahahahah.

Kerry - Out of Touch with Auto Workers

AURORA, Colo. — Sen. John Kerry spoke about the plight of the American worker when he traveled to Detroit earlier this week, a safe message for the blue-collar workers who build cars there.

So it was a little strange that the campaign picked as its press-pass logo for its Motor City tour the gleaming showcase car of a foreign auto company — Rolls-Royce — that makes cars priced far outside the financial reach of any middle-class voter.

"That's an insult to the auto worker, it's an insult to the American worker, it's an insult to mainstream America," said Sam Burwell from Corunna, Mich., a third-generation auto worker for General Motors. "It also shows who he's really in touch with: his European, elitist French friends and not Americans like me. A Rolls-Royce, for cryin' out loud."


A Rolls-Royce.... Ha!

Vietnam Vets to Hold Conference in Boston Tomorrow

Was Kerry Correct About Vietnam?
Are There Lessons for Iraq?

Conference of Vietnam Veterans and Scholars
to Reexamine Realities of War and Expose Common Myths
at Boston’s Simmons College, 25-29 July

From July 26-29, an unprecedented conference featuring Vietnam veterans who have authored books about the war and other scholars and educators will take place at Boston's Simmons College, just a few short miles from the Democratic National Convention.

As Senator John Kerry is about to be nominated for President, in great part based on his Vietnam service, it is important for the American people to understand what “Vietnam” was really about and to dispel some of the common misconceptions about why we went to war, what we did, what went wrong, and why it mattered.

As other prominent anti-Vietnam activists have noted, John Kerry was the most effective American war protester. His efforts as spokesman for the “Vietnam Veterans Against the War” helped turn Americans against both the war and returning veterans, and his 1971 Senate testimony contributed to the decision by Congress two years later to enact legislation prohibiting the U.S. military from further combat operations to defend the non-Communist countries of Indochina.

Three decades have passed since the last U.S. combat unit withdrew from Vietnam, and the veterans who have organized this conference believe the Kerry candidacy provides an important opportunity for the American people to reexamine the war as well as the way America treated its Vietnam veterans when they came home.

Collectively the panelists have written nearly a score of books and published numerous articles about the war.

Seventeen sessions will address a wide range of subjects, including:

Why and how did America get involved in Vietnam? Were we trying to reimpose French colonialism, to block democracy because we feared Ho Chi Minh would win a free election, or confusing Vietnamese nationalism with international Communism?

How popular was the initial commitment with Congress and the public? Did American presidents take the country to war without the support of Congress or the people?

Was that support obtained by telling “lies”? How do most veterans feel about their service—are they proud or ashamed of what they did?

Were most American servicemen in Vietnam “war criminals” who behaved like “Genghis Khan” and drug addicts who were “stoned twenty-four hours a day”?

Were we wasting American lives trying to prop up a “fascist dictatorship” that imprisoned its critics in “tiger cages,” or were we trying to protect people who wanted freedom from Communist oppression?

What were the human consequences of our decisions both in terms of human lives and human rights?

Why did we lose? Were our forces decisively beaten on the field of battle by the Viet Cong, or were there political factors involved?

What lessons did Congress draw from the experience and how has it influenced subsequent legislative behavior? Did the Church-Pike hearings and the Iran-Contra inquiry contribute to the “risk-avoidance” culture some believe contributed to the failure of the Intelligence community to prevent the 9/11 attacks? What was the impact of post-Vietnam demands by Congress to have greater control over military operations and intelligence activities?

How successfully did Vietnam veterans make the transition back to civilian life after the war? Did they wind up as drug addicts and go to prison in disproportionate numbers for violent crimes? Did any actually succeed in life?

How have our perceptions of the war affected subsequent U.S. policy and public opinion? Did our abandonment of Indochina affect the attitudes and behavior of our nation’s enemies?

How is the war being taught in our schools and colleges?

Are there meaningful parallels between what happened in Vietnam and the current situation in Iraq?

A full list of participants, description of sessions, and times can be found at

New Email Address

My New Email.

I finally decided to try out g-mail... I started the account a few weeks ago but am just now putting it up to try it out. If I like it better I might drop comcast.

Thursday, July 22, 2004

The Veterans Speak

"We resent very deeply the false war crimes charges he made coming back from Vietnam in 1971 and repeated in the book "Tour of Duty." We think those cast an aspersion on all those living and dead, from our unit and other units in Vietnam. We think that he knew he was lying when he made the charges, and we think that they're unsupportable. We intend to bring the truth about that to the American people.

We believe, based on our experience with him, that he is totally unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief."
-- John O'Neill, spokesman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact, contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography. He arrived in-country with a strong anti-Vietnam War bias and a self-serving determination to build a foundation for his political future. He was aggressive, but vain and prone to impulsive judgment, often with disregard for specific tactical assignments. He was a 'loose cannon.' In an abbreviated tour of four months and 12 days, and with his specious medals secure, Lt.(jg) Kerry bugged out and began his infamous betrayal of all United States forces in the Vietnam War. That included our soldiers, our marines, our sailors, our coast guardsmen, our airmen, and our POWs. His leadership within the so-called Vietnam Veterans Against the War and testimony before Congress in 1971 charging us with unspeakable atrocities remain an undocumented but nevertheless meticulous stain on the men and women who honorably stayed the course. Senator Kerry is not fit for command."
-- Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired), chairman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

"During Lt.(jg) Kerry's tour, he was under my command for two or three specific operations, before his rapid exit. Trust, loyalty and judgment are the key, operative words. His turncoat performance in 1971 in his grubby shirt and his medal-tossing escapade, coupled with his slanderous lines in the recent book portraying us that served, including all POWs and MIAs, as murderous war criminals, I believe, will have a lasting effect on all military veterans and their families.

Kerry would be described as devious, self-absorbing, manipulative, disdain for authority, disruptive, but the most common phrase that you'd hear is 'requires constant supervision.'"
-- Captain Charles Plumly, USN (retired)

"Thirty-five years ago, many of us fell silent when we came back to the stain of sewage that Mr. Kerry had thrown on us, and all of our colleagues who served over there. I don't intend to be silent today or ever again. Our young men and women who are serving deserve no less."
-- Andrew Horne

"In my specific, personal experience in both coastal and river patrols over a 12-month period, I never once saw or heard anything remotely resembling the atrocities described by Senator Kerry. If I had, it would have been my obligation to report them in writing to a higher authority, and I would certainly have done that. If Senator Kerry actually witnessed or participated in these atrocities or, as he described them, 'war crimes,' he was obligated to report them. That he did not until later when it suited his political purposes strikes me as opportunism of the worst kind. That he would malign my service and that of his fellow sailors with no regard for the truth makes him totally unqualified to serve as Commander-in-Chief."
-- Jeffrey Wainscott

"I signed that letter because I, too felt a deep sense of betrayal that someone who took the same oath of loyalty as I did as an officer in the United States Navy would abandon his group here (points to group photo) to join this group here (points to VVAW protest photo), and come home and attempt to rally the American public against the effort that this group was so valiantly pursuing.

It is a fact that in the entire Vietnam War we did not lose one major battle. We lost the war at home... and at home, John Kerry was the Field General."
-- Robert Elder

"My daughters and my wife have read portions of the book 'Tour of Duty.' They wanted to know if I took part in the atrocities described. I do not believe the things that are described happened.

Let me give you an example. In Brinkley's book, on pages 170 to 171, about something called the 'Bo De massacre' on November 24th of 1968... In Kerry's description of the engagement, first he claimed there were 17 servicemen that were wounded. Three of us were wounded. I was the first..."
-- Joseph Ponder

"While in Cam Rahn Bay, he trained on several 24-hour indoctrination missions, and one special skimmer operation with my most senior and trusted Lieutenant. The briefing from some members of that crew the morning after revealed that they had not received any enemy fire, and yet Lt.(jg) Kerry informed me of a wound -- he showed me a scratch on his arm and a piece of shrapnel in his hand that appeared to be from one of our own M-79s. It was later reported to me that Lt.(jg) Kerry had fired an M-79, and it had exploded off the adjacent shoreline. I do not recall being advised of any medical treatment, and probably said something like 'Forget it.' He later received a Purple Heart for that scratch, and I have no information as to how or whom.

Lt.(jg) Kerry was allowed to return to the good old USA after 4 months and a few days in-country, and then he proceeded to betray his former shipmates, calling them criminals who were committing atrocities. Today we are here to tell you that just the opposite is true. Our rules of engagement were quite strict, and the officers and men of Swift often did not even return fire when they were under fire if there was a possibility that innocent people -- fishermen, in a lot of cases -- might be hurt or injured. The rules and the good intentions of the men increased the possibility that we might take friendly casualties."
-- Commander Grant Hibbard, USN (retired)

"Lt. Kerry returned home from the war to make some outrageous statements and allegations... numerous criminal acts in violation of the law of war were cited by Kerry, disparaging those who had fought with honor in that conflict. Had war crimes been committed by US forces in Vietnam? Yes, but such acts were few and far between. Yet Lt. Kerry gave numerous speeches and testimony before Congress inappropriately leading his audiences to believe that what was only an anomaly in the conduct of America's fighting men was an epidemic. Furthermore, he suggested that they were being encouraged to violated the law of war by those within the chain of command.

Very specific orders, on file at the Vietnam archives at Texas Tech University, were issued by my father [Admiral Elmo Zumwalt] and others in his chain of command instructing subordinates to act responsibly in preserving the life and property of Vietnamese civilians."
-- Lt. Col. James Zumwalt, USMC (retired)

"We look at Vietnam... after all these years it is still languishing in isolated poverty and helplessness and tyranny. This is John Kerry's legacy. I deeply resent John Kerry's using his Swift boat experience, and his betrayal of those who fought there as a stepping-stone to his political ambitions."
-- Bernard Wolff

"In a whole year that I spent patrolling, I didn't see anything like a war crime, an atrocity, anything like that. Time and again I saw American fighting men put themselves in graver danger trying to avoid... collateral damage.

When John Kerry returned to the country, he was sworn in front of Congress. And then he told my family -- my parents, my sister, my brother, my neighbors -- he told everyone I knew and everyone I'd ever know that I and my comrades had committed unspeakable atrocities."
-- David Wallace

"I served with these guys. I went on missions with them, and these men served honorably. Up and down the chain of command there was no acquiescence to atrocities. It was not condoned, it did not happen, and it was not reported to me verbally or in writing by any of these men including Lt.(jg) Kerry.

In 1971, '72, for almost 18 months, he stood before the television audiences and claimed that the 500,000 men and women in Vietnam, and in combat, were all villains -- there were no heroes. In 2004, one hero from the Vietnam War has appeared, running for President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief. It just galls one to think about it."
-- Captain George Elliott, USN (retired)

"During the Vietnam War I was Task Force Commander at An Thoi, and my tour of duty was 13 months, from the end of Tet to the beginning of the Vietnamization of the Navy units.

Now when I went there right after Tet, I was restricted in my movements. I couldn't go much of anyplace because the Vietcong controlled most of the area. When I left, I could go anywhere I wanted, just about. Commerce was booming, the buses were running, trucks were going, the waterways were filled with sampans with goods going to market, but yet in Kerry's biography he says that our operations were a complete failure. He also mentions a formal conference with me, to try to get more air cover and so on. That conference never happened..."
-- Captain Adrian Lonsdale, USCG (retired)

"I was in An Thoi from June of '68 to June of '69, covering the whole period that John Kerry was there. I operated in every river, in every canal, and every off-shore patrol area in the 4th Corps area, from Cambodia all the way around to the Bo De River. I never saw, even heard of all of these so-called atrocities and things that we were supposed to have done.

This is not true. We're not standing for it. We want to set the record straight."
-- William Shumadine

"In 1971, when John Kerry spoke out to America, labeling all Vietnam veterans as thugs and murderers, I was shocked and almost brought to my knees, because even though I had served at the same time and same unit, I had never witnessed or participated in any of the events that the Senator had accused us of. I strongly believe that the statements made by the Senator were not only false and inaccurate, but extremely harmful to the United States' efforts in Southeast Asia and the rest of the world. Tragically, some veterans, scorned by the antiwar movement and their allies, retreated to a life of despair and suicide. Two of my crewmates were among them. For that there is no forgiveness."
-- Richard O'Mara

"My name is Steve Gardner. I served in 1966 and 1967 on my first tour of duty in Vietnam on Swift boats, and I did my second tour in '68 and '69, involved with John Kerry in the last 2 1/2 months of my tour. The John Kerry that I know is not the John Kerry that everybody else is portraying. I served alongside him and behind him, five feet away from him in a gun tub, and watched as he made indecisive moves with our boat, put our boats in jeopardy, put our crews in jeopardy... if a man like that can't handle that 6-man crew boat, how can you expect him to be our Commander-in-Chief?"
-- Steven Gardner

"I served in Vietnam as a boat officer from June of 1968 to July of 1969. My service was three months in Coastal Division 13 out of Cat Lo, and nine months with Coastal Division 11 based in An Thoi. John Kerry was in An Thoi the same time I was. I'm here today to express the anger I have harbored for over 33 years, about being accused with my fellow shipmates of war atrocities.

All I can say is when I leave here today, I'm going down to the Wall to tell my two crew members it's not true, and that they and the other 49 Swiftees who are on the Wall were then and are still now the best."
-- Robert Brant

"I never saw, heard of, or participated in any Swift boat crews killing cattle, poisoning crops, or raping and killing civilians as charged by John Kerry, both in his book and in public statements. Since we both operated at the same time, in the same general area, and on the same missions under the same commanders, it is hard to believe his claims of atrocities and poor planning of Sea Lord missions.

I signed this letter because I feel that he used Swift boat sailors to proclaim his antiwar statements after the war, and now he uses the same Swift boat sailors to support his claims of being a war hero. He cannot have it both ways, and we are here to ask for full disclosure of the proof of his claims."
-- James Steffes

The leftist media wont report it... then the right has people like Newsmax telling people they can't post the quotes...

Esoteric * Diatribe is always willing to let a soldiers voice be heard!

News Max Sucks

Yes. News Max Sucks. They deceived to me. I saw they had a story (not really a story) with the quotes of several veterans who served with Kerry. I asked premission to repost the whole story (which was only quotes). They denied me permission saying that search engines might lead people to my site before theirs (true), so I could not run the story. I didn't want to only run 50 words of the story (as per their reprint policy) so I just didn't post on what I thought was a huge and underreported story.

It turns out that Newsmax only lifted, verbatim, what was being reported at Winter Soldier. They copied from another site, reprinted it on theirs, and then told me I couldn't do the same. Amazing! Thanks to Russ for pointing this out. The story is going up today!

Waffles Google Bomb Update: Bad News

Esoteric Diatribe

Last week I noticed we started slipping in the rankings over at Google... just before the Democratic National Convention, too. Anyway, we fell to third for a week or two then off the first page completely... so that means it is time to start the Waffles Campaign up again. Lets Rock!

Oh, I am going to start some strategic google bombs on important issues to voters. I have been lazy about getting this list completed, but I will get it done sooner or later. Check back for more details and leave a sugestion if you have one.

waffles waffles waffles waffles waffles waffles waffles waffles waffles waffles waffles waffles waffles waffles waffles waffles waffles waffles waffles waffles

Thursday, July 15, 2004

Dear John (Edwards)

Hey Ken,

I know I'm hammering you, but this issue is one that needs wide dissemination. These Swift boat vets are good men and they're being shut out by the mainstream media...
Say no more, Russ. I've known about this situation and have wanted to publish more on my site about it for a long time... In fact, I would have published a piece on the swift boat veterans who came out against Kerry, but Newsmax wouldn't grant me permission to use the quotes and I haven't had time to try to track these men down. If you personally know any of the vets who served with Kerry, have them send me an email or two about what they think about Kerry and I will be sure to write a post about it.
Will you post links to the two websites?
I'll try to do even better... I will try to pull some strings and get them worked into a big google bomb that will be started in the coming days. In the mean time here are the & Winter Soldier
And now, on to Russ's Post:
Dear John,

After all you’ve been through in the past year, losing in the primaries and being unable to win reelection to your own Senate seat, I do hate to bring more uncertainty into your life; but I’ve noticed that since being named John Kerry’s new best buddy, your Two Americas stump speech now includes a challenge to voters that goes something like this: “If you don’t think John Kerry is a leader, just ask the men who served with him in Vietnam. They’ll tell you he’s a leader,” or words to that effect.

Well, OK, John, why don’t we do just that? Let’s ask them.

At a press conference in Washington this past May, an organization called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group of former sailors who served in Kerry’s unit in Vietnam, presented a letter to Kerry signed by more than 200 of his former shipmates calling on him to release his military records so that the truth about his abbreviated tour of duty, his spurious wounds and his undeserved medals could be revealed to the American public. Not surprisingly, this event and this organization were totally ignored by the major media, as they continue to be to this day.

Did you catch that press conference? No? Never heard anything about these ol’ boys at all huh, John? Well, listen up, Senator.

If you visit their website, or a sister site,, you’ll see some choice quotes from those fellows who served with your new best buddy. From Admiral Roy Hoffmann, his former commanding officer, come such phrases and characterizations as:

“Contempt for the military and authority….”

“Arrived in country with a strong anti Vietnam War bias and a self serving determination to build a foundation for his political future….”

“Aggressive, but vain and prone to impulsive judgment, often with disregard for specific tactical assignments….”

“A loose cannon….”

“Bugged out of Vietnam….”

and finally, “Not fit to command.”

I’ll bet you a Florida precinct that any good trial lawyer would consider someone of Admiral Hoffman’s stature an unimpeachable witness, wouldn’t you? Loose cannon? Bugged out? Not fit to command? I’m not causing you to have any second thoughts here, am I, John? Hmmm?

Now take a listen to retired Navy Captain, Charlie Plumly, who had Kerry,

“under my command for two or three specific operations before his rapid exit.“

Plumly is even less charitable to your new bud than the admiral. His quotes on Kerry’s service include these colorful expressions,

“Devious, self-absorbing, manipulative, disdain for authority, disruptive.”

And then he gives us this little jewel,

“But the most common phrase would have been requires constant supervision.”

Boy that’s a comforting thing to read on the resume of the guy who wants to control the world’s greatest nuclear arsenal, isn’t it? Makes it a little more understandable why your buddy was willing to swallow a Republican as his number two in command, doesn’t it, John? You do have to give him credit for knowing he needed a more experienced hand like McCain watching out for him. Sounds to me like what he really needs is Dick Cheney, hear me, John?

Then there’s Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, now deceased, Chief of Naval Operations at the time of Kerry’s service, who said,

“With Kerry’s large ambitions, his career in Vietnam will haunt him if he were ever on the national stage.”

Oh my, and just look at who’s up there on that stage with him, bringing up that career at every opportunity. Hey, John, as a trial lawyer you’ve got to know some good investigators. Why don’t you part with a few thou and check some of this out? I mean this could take the expression, “egg on your face” to a whole new dimension, know what I mean?

The Swiftvets website has several testimonials from others who served with your buddy and none are laudatory. On the contrary, they are replete with refutations of John Boy’s claims in his book, Tour of Duty, ranging from emotional denials of the war crimes Kerry depicts there to ridicule of his wearing that leather flight jacket on the campaign trail and claiming it brought him luck in Vietnam,

“No one wore such a jacket in 90+ heat.”

You sure you want to keep bringing this guy’s service record up in every speech, John? I know it’s easy for someone who never served to be a little overawed, but good grief, even a weenie liberal lawyer ought to be able to figure out you don’t wear leather jackets on jungle patrols, you know? And what’s with this flight jacket business anyway? What was John Boy flying over there? Sure as hell wasn’t a supersonic F-102 interceptor like George Bush, now was it?

But of course! Why didn’t I think of it? That jacket could explain the minor nature of his award-winning wounds; kept all that nasty flak and flying lead from really hurting him instead of just breaking the skin, you know? Guess that’s why he calls it his lucky jacket. But I got tell you, Man, speaking of breaking, I’m sitting here breaking out in a sweat just thinking about it. I mean, jungle fatigues were hot enough; but leather? With fleece lining? Whew, man, that’s hardcore!

Well, I guess I am going have to admit this, John. In this regard, you’re right; there are Two Americas: there’s the America that believes your buddy wore a fleece lined, leather aviators jacket in the jungle; the America that will mindlessly heed your impassioned challenge to listen to the bought and paid for endorsement of the half dozen or so enlisted crewmen your buddy has shanghaied into his campaign. Then there’s that other America, the one out there waiting for the media to let us hear the more than 200 voices of those who served well and honorably, both officers and enlisted, who are telling the truth about your good ol’ buddy. Somehow, some way, I believe, I pray, that will happen.

And even if it doesn’t, what those truth tellers are saying has relevance for you, John. Think about it; your oh-so-affectionate, backslapping partner bugged out on them and then libeled and slandered them viciously to serve his own political goals. So you might just want to consider this, Senator: if you guys lose in November there will be Two Americas all right. And you can bet your biggest contingency fee anyone Kerry can blame for costing him the goal of his life sure won’t be part of his America anymore. Talk about getting a “Dear John” letter.

Think, Johnnie Boy, think. Didn’t your ol’ Daddy ever teach you nuthin' bout leopards and spots?

Russ Vaughn
327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne Division
Vietnam 65-66

Wednesday, July 14, 2004

Another Submission from Michael J. Gaynor

Senator Kerry’s “I Do Believe That Life Begins at Conception, But My Conscience Tells Me To Support Legalized Abortion And Lets Me Receive Communion Too” Defense to Marc Balestrieri’s Heresy Charge Against Him Ultimately Will Be Rejected

Abraham Lincoln astutely asserted: “It is true that you can fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”

Senator Kerry’s election strategy is to fool enough of the people to be elected President of the United States this year. He is particularly trying to fool enough Catholics, disposed favorably toward him by common religion, into believing that he is a good Catholic worthy of their votes and to combine their votes with the votes of his pro-abortion supporters to win.

This strategy is plausible. John F. Kennedy, the only baptized Catholic to become President of the United States, won 80% of the votes of his fellow Catholics while winning by the narrowest margin in history in 1960.

In his first Senate speech nineteen years ago, Senator Kerry expressed his firm support for abortion “rights.” He has been consistent in supporting abortion and is now campaigning for President with the endorsements of NARAL and Planned Parenthood, pledging that any replacement for a Supreme Court Justice will be pro-abortion if he does the nominating.

But, on June 14, 2004 Marc Balestrieri filed a “denunciation” with the ecclesiastical court in the Boston archdiocese, seeking to have Senator Kerry declared to have excommunicated himself by supporting legalized abortion.

Mr. Balestrieri’s unprecedented, albeit not widely reported, filing surely has complicated Senator Kerry’s presidential campaign and prompted Senator Kerry to placate the Roman Catholic Church without upsetting his pro-abortion supporters.

Even though the Boston archdiocese had not decided whether to accept or to reject the filing, Senator Kerry needed to defend himself as best he could and block acceptance of the filing, if possible. The acceptance of the filing in itself would undermine his claim to be a good practicing Catholic and attract great public attention.

So, to the surprise of his own spokesperson, Senator Kerry volunteered during an interview he gave to an Iowa newspaper, "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."

Senator Kerry’s spokesperson commented that although Senator Kerry had often said abortion should be "safe, legal and rare," and that his religion shapes that view, she could not recall him ever publicly discussing when life begins.

A few days later, on July 8, 2004, Larry King interviewed Senator Kerry, the presumptive Democrat presidential candidate, and his wife under United States law (if not Church law), Teresa Heinz Kerry. The two of them assured King that they were Catholics. Senator Kerry solemnly said that his Catholic faith “guides” him and described it as his “rock… the bedrock of [his] sense of place, of where it all fits.” Teresa also assured King that she was “absolutely” Catholic, referring to “[n]uns, convents, from five to 18.” She did not explain why she had married Senator Kerry while he was still married to his first wife in the eyes of their Church. Nor did Senator Kerry mention that he had ignored his “rock” by entering into a civil marriage with the older, vastly wealthy widow, or that she had agreed to the civil marriage only after Senator Kerry agreed to sign a prenuptual agreement.

With respect to abortion, Senator Kerry declared not only that he would “protect that right of choice,” but also that: “I think it's far more complicated than public life allows the discussion for. I mean, being for choice does not mean you are for abortion. Neither Teresa nor I are for abortion. Abortion should be rare, but safe and legal, as President Clinton said so often, and I think appropriately.”

Senator Kerry’s position was that he was for pregnant women having a legal right to abort their unborn babies, for any reason or no reason, and he would not force his professed personal opposition to abortion upon them.

That seemingly tolerant position is theological nonsense for a Roman Catholic.

Where natural law obtains, the only legitimate choice is to obey it.

Bishop Thomas Wenski, in his homily during the annual Red Mass in connection with the opening of a session of the Florida Legislature on March 3, 2004, pointed out without mentioning them by name that “Catholic” politicians like Senator Kerry were using Pontius Pilot as their role model

“If St. Thomas More, martyred for his uncompromising devotion to his conscience informed by faith, is the role model of a politician who seeks to integrate his religious values with his commitment to public service, then today’s self described Catholic politician who in making a false distinction between his “private” beliefs and his public responsibilities votes pro-abortion can take as his patron, Pontius Pilate. He was personally opposed to the execution of Jesus but could not see himself imposing his morality on the mob. At least, though he washed his hands, Pilate did not dare to take communion.”

Senator Kerry actually dares to take Communion.

As Father James Poumade put it in a homily delivered on May 30, 2004:

“Pontius Pilate was personally opposed to executing Jesus, and may even have come to believe in Him, but didn’t wish to impose his belief on the crowd. He knew what his decision meant.It is inconsistent to claim that one can reject the faith publicly and still be Catholic. Those who try to do so are the only ones truly guilty of mixing politics and religion. Being a practicing Catholic means following the will of God as revealed to us through Scripture and Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church.”

The "separation between faith and life" that Kerry has artfully advanced was condemned by the Second Vatican Council as “among the more serious errors of our age."

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life. It stressed that “[t]here cannot be two parallel lives ... the so-called 'spiritual life', with its values and demands; and... the so-called 'secular' life, that is, life in a family, at work, in social responsibilities, in the responsibilities of public life and in culture.”

The Doctrinal Note emphasized that lay Catholics, in fulfilling civic duties, are to be “‘guided by a Christian conscience,’ in conformity with its values,” and that “their proper task [is] infusing the temporal order with Christian values, all the while respecting the nature and rightful autonomy of that order, and cooperating with other citizens according to their particular competence and responsibility.”

The Doctrinal Note categorically rejected the claims that citizens have “complete autonomy with regard to their moral choices and lawmakers…are respecting this freedom of choice by enacting laws which ignore the principles of natural ethics and yield to ephemeral cultural and moral trends, as if every possible outlook on life were of equal value.”

The Doctrinal Note distinguished legitimate and illegitimate freedom. It explicitly respected “the legitimate freedom of Catholic citizens to choose among the various political opinions that are compatible with faith and the natural moral law, and to select, according to their own criteria, what best corresponds to the needs of the common good.” (Emphasis added.)

“Political freedom is not - and cannot be - based upon the relativistic idea that all conceptions of the human person’s good have the same value and truth,” the Doctrinal Note warned.

The Doctrinal Note rejected moral relativism and related the essential basis of democracy in the clearest terms: “If Christians must ‘recognize the legitimacy of differing points of view about the organization of worldly affairs,’ they are also called to reject, as injurious to democratic life, a conception of pluralism that reflects moral relativism. Democracy must be based on the true and solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society.” (Emphasis added.)

With respect to abortion, the Doctrinal Note was categorical: “John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a ‘grave and clear obligation to oppose’ any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them.” (Emphasis added.)

Senator Kerry’s talismanic invocation of the words “separation of church and state” does not immunize him from responsibility for his heresy of promoting abortion in the eyes of God or the Church and should not be permitted to confuse his fellow Americans, especially the non-Catholics among them.

Senator Kerry assured King that he is given Communion, even though some bishops would deny that to him, because “that's not the position of the Church.”

As former President Bill Clinton might say, “That depends upon what “the Church” means.

If “the Church” means the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, then the position is that each bishop will decide for his diocese. Thus, the same person who is refused Communion in St. Louis or Colorado Springs may receive it in Washington, D.C. or Boston. As though Canon 915 is suggestive instead of mandatory and each bishop is akin to an independent warlord in his personal domain.

If “the Church” means the Vatican, then Pope John Paul II and Cardinals Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Disciple of Sacraments, then the Church’s position is that “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” to “a Catholic politician consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion” if “precautionary measures have not had their effector... were not possible” and that person, “with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist.” “Quoted Language taken from a memorandum provided by Cardinal Ratzinger as guidance to the President of the Conference and the head of the Conference’s task force on Catholics in Political Life, a memorandum that plainly should have been distributed to each bishop at the last meeting, but apparently was not.

It may well be that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops did not appreciate that it was separating itself from the Vatican when it issued its statement on Catholics in Political Life on June 18, 2004. Cardinal Ratzinger’s comprehensive and compelling memorandum on the subject used the word “must” instead of “may,” signifying that refusal under the specified circumstances was mandatory instead of discretionary, but that message was not conveyed at the meeting.

It would behoove all of the Catholic bishops of the United States to carefully study the carefully composed memorandum and then to clarify whether they are in agreement with or in rebellion against the Vatican.

Senator Kerry summarized his defense to the heresy charge against him while King interviewed him. He said that there is separation of Church and state in America and “[his] obligation as a Catholic is to examine my conscience, under the freedom of conscience under Vatican II, Pope John XXIII, and Pope Paul, and I do that.”

What that meant is that Senator Kerry is claiming that he is entitled to disregard Catholic doctrine when acting as a public person, such as United States Senator or President, because his conscience supposedly tells him to do so, and therefore he remains a faithful Catholic in a state of grace and in full communion with his Church and fit to receive Communion.

That is an unconscionable invocation of the actual right of conscience recognized during the Second Vatican Council.

Father Poumade exposed the fallacy of Senator Kerry’s superficially appealing right-of-conscience argument in readily understandable terms:

“What about the role of conscience? Doesn’t individual conscience affect this decision? In fact, some may say, didn’t Vatican II say that individual conscience had to be respected above all? The Second Vatican Council was, in fact, abundantly clear on this matter. The Council’s document Gaudium et Spes on the Church in the Modern World declares: “Nor, on the contrary, are they any less wide of the mark who think that religion consists in acts of worship alone and in the discharge of certain moral obligations, and who imagine they can plunge themselves into earthly affairs in such a way as to imply that these are altogether divorced from the religious life. This split between the faith which many profess and their daily lives deserves to be counted among the more serious errors of our age. Long since, the Prophets of the Old Testament fought vehemently against this scandal and even more so did Jesus Christ Himself in the New Testament threaten it with grave punishments. Therefore, let there be no false opposition between professional and social activities on the one part, and religious life on the other... to the Church belongs the right always and everywhere to announce moral principles, including those pertaining to the social order, and to make judgments on any human affairs to the extent that they are required by the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls.”

“For this reason,” Father Poumade continued, “the Vatican has said plainly: ‘A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals.’
“Why? Because primacy of conscience and church-state separation do not and can not mean ‘anything goes.’ If that mistaken idea were so, then if one’s conscience said it was okay to hate Jews and blacks, you could do that and it would be just fine morally. But we can’t do that. It’s wrong. And if there were an election involving whether or not Jews and blacks should be treated as human beings, then such a misunderstanding of church-state separation and the freedom of conscience, would mean that the Church could not say anything about the dignity of Jewish and African-American people, simply because a politician had mentioned it, or our consciences did not feel guilty. The Civil War and the Second World War give us ample historical proof of the folly of such a line of thought. We can only follow our conscience if it is in line with truth, with moral truth. That moral truth is expressed by the formal teachings of the Church. If our consciences are opposed to that, then our consciences are stunted. Morality is not something debated and made up. It is conformity to the will of God for us and for society. God decides what is moral, not man. No election can determine what is right and wrong - only if we as a nation will choose to follow the right path - or the wrong one.”

Senator Kerry’s position on abortion plainly is heretical. Since it is manifest and he has obstinately persisted in it for many years, Canon 915 requires that he not be admitted to Communion.

Therefore, Mr. Balestrieri’s denunciation of Senator Kerry as a heretic is soundly based.

Senator Kerry’s best hope is that the merits will not be reached and no action will be taken on it based upon a procedural defect: lack of standing.

This is the same type of approach that a majority of the Justices of the United States Supreme Court took in the Pledge of Allegiance case to avoid reaching the question of whether the inclusion of the words “under God” in The Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional or not. There, it was ruled that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge their inclusion, because the mother of his daughter was the only parent with that right under the circumstances of that case. That put of the decision on the merits for some time.

Last summer Archbishop O'Malley of Boston gave the faithful hope that the subordination of religious principal to lesser considerations that permitted the horrific clergy sex abuse scandal was over, at least in the Boston archdiocese.

He declared that pro-abortion nominally Catholic politicians "should not be receiving Communion and should refrain from doing so."

But, the Archbishop dashed that hope by disregarding Canon 915's clear mandate, as explained in detail by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, and declaring that the policy in his archdiocese is not to deny Communion and instead to leave it to the individual to decide, as though each bishop may disobey canon law that might be problematic to enforce.

Therefore, it is possible, if not likely, that Archbishop O’Malley will choose to reject Balestrieri’s denunciation for lack of standing.

Let us pray that Archbishop O’Malley recognizes that Mr. Ballestrieri has standing and proceeds to upheld his denunciation on the merits, sparing himself the embarrassment of reversal on appeal to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (of which Cardinal Ratzinger has been Prefect since 1981).

There have been about 45 million abortions in the United States since Roe v. Wade was decided more than thirty years ago. That’s approaching eight times the number of Jews slaughtered during the Holocaust.

How many more unborn babies must die before the Roman Catholic Church in the United States demonstrates that it is serious about stopping the slaughter instead of sending out conflicting signals by simultaneously condemning it and giving Holy Communion to unrepentant, nominally Catholic pro-abortion politicians of both major parties?

Michael J. Gaynor
Greenlawn, New York

The Manchurian Candidate

Another submission from Russ
The Manchurian Candidate
by Russ Vaughn

Like most Vietnam veterans, I had hoped the disgraceful spectacle of war protestors venting their hatred of government figures and policies on individual soldiers had been banished to history, like the fading memories of that distant war. Fading, that is, until resurrected by the Manchurian Candidate, that contentious liberal contender who has gratuitously ripped the scab from a national wound in furthering his own ambitions. But then, who better to do this than the man who made that wound so grievous in the first place?

According to Robert L. Jamieson, Jr., a columnist for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, a young soldier in Bainbridge Island, Washington, Jason Gilson, a 23 year old veteran of Iraq, was booed, jeered and mocked by parade watchers, and even the parade announcer, in that very liberal, very politically correct Kerry enclave. Jason, you see, had the unabashed temerity to carry a Bush poster while marching in a Fourth of July event. That’s right, a soldier was booed by Americans, in a parade celebrating the birth of this nation, simply for carrying a poster supportive of his commander-in chief. And yes, he was called, “baby killer,” perhaps the most despicable epithet hurled at veterans upon their return from combat.

For me, that was the one that truly hurt, the one that got through to me because yes, I had seen dead babies, dead not by our hands but by those of a ruthless enemy who killed anyone even suspected of supporting the South Vietnamese regime or the Americans. And yes, babies died in the arms of their mothers. My most haunting war memory is that of a young mother and her tiny infant son, lying sprawled in the dirt path at the entrance to their hamlet, their midsections horribly ripped open, probably by an AK-47 on full automatic fire. That sight fired me with an unbelievable anger and a desire to inflict a similar fate on their killers, but, as always, the enemy had retreated into their jungle hideaways and we did not find them that day. Unfortunately, such events were not rare and I am sure there are many veterans who carry memories of similar and even worse atrocities.

So imagine, if you will, the feelings of today’s soldiers, returning from the current war in Iraq where they have witnessed comparable scenes of death among the innocent, hearing some politically correct, liberal jackasses, so effete they’d never lift a finger to protect themselves, much less their country, scream curses and insults at them for exercising one of the very freedoms that these warriors have been fighting for. Imagine, young Jason hearing that most wounding charge of all, “baby killer” hurled at him by those obnoxious jerks whose very lives he served to protect.

If John Kerry has an ounce of steel in his spine, which I seriously question, he should immediately and without a moment’s equivocation, denounce this behavior by his followers on Bainbridge Island and direct all his antiwar supporters to cease and desist before this kind of behavior spreads. A more likely response will be a sanctimonious pronouncement that his followers support the troops; they just don’t support the war. I, for one, am sick of this sophistry, this liberal tap-dance of denouncing the war while still proclaiming support for the troops. It is nothing more than a disingenuous artifice they employ because they know their true, totally anti-militaristic views are unacceptable to most Americans, including many Democrats.

One need not be Mensa to deduce that if you oppose the war then it follows you want the war to end, now, without resolution, without victory. You are against the successful prosecution of the war; you do not want to win; victory is not your goal. Regardless of how nuanced your thinking may be, how, in God’s name, can you oppose victory by the troops while piously contending you support them? This is such a transparent charade that sometimes the antiwar leftists just can’t maintain it, as demonstrated on Bainbridge Island. That is when their true feelings are revealed and we see them for what they truly are, unchanged from their hateful, spiteful ways of the 60’s and 70’s. For this, we can thank the Manchurian candidate, whose ambition has unleashed these lying, leftist, phonies upon America once again.

Several weeks ago, I wrote a piece about how the citizens of Northwest Florida had pulled together to build a handicap accessible home for SSGT Justin Tuller, a double amputee veteran of the Iraq war, and his family. That community had a parade and they cheered their veteran. Given a choice, I’d rather live among those folks in Northwest Florida than those on Bainbridge Island, Washington.

I think most Americans would.

Russ Vaughn
327th Parachute Infantry
101st Airborne Division
Vietnam 65-66
It is amazing that these gutless wonders on the left have got the brass to verbally attack the men who make the ultimate sacrifices to ensure our freedom. It is funny, in a sad sort of way, that the left has no qualms with murdering babies via abortion and yet they still think they have the moral high ground to accuse honerable soldiers of murdering infants.

Monday, July 12, 2004

Yes, Blogs Can

I was reading this story on Blogs for Bush... well trying to read it. I am not registered with WP, and I don't intend to do so, either. So maybe just check out Blogs for Bush if you are like me and haven't reistered at WP.

I was also thinking about that post I wrote a while back about Kerry not having time to be briefed on terrorism threats cause he was too busy hobnobbing with his rich elitist liberal friends (who raised $7 million for the Dems... $7 mil that *could* have gone to fight hunger, clothe children, help stop the spread of aids, etc... And liberals are the compassionate ones, right?

Anyway, I was reading this post at blogs for Bush and agreeing with a sentimate that this is a really big story that isn't getting enough play in the press. We need to draw more attention to this, and we have the right, as Americans, to know what was said about our president at this liberal bush-hating orgy... a bush hating event that was more important to John Kerry than being briefed on credible terrorist threats to America.

We should demand the video be released. It is out there, we have the right to know what was said.

Sunday, July 11, 2004

Strategic Google Bombs pt 3

Bombs will be dropping any day now... in the mean time I am working on coming up with a great list:
the most liberal
Manchurian Candidate
Elect John Kerry
War For Oil
Iraq WMDs
Bush Lied
Iraq al Qaeda Connection
Bush Lied

Saturday, July 10, 2004

Strategic Google Bombs part 2

I started brainstorming potential words to Google Bomb the other day... so far I've come up with: :
register to vote
the economy
Homeland Security
National Security
Foreign Relations
Kerry Edwards
small business
Gas Prices
Kerry Economy
Jobless Recovery
middle class squeeze
Not satisfied with my list, I went over to the right nation forums to seek out some suggestions. A few people suggested that I target the some of the following words:
War for oil.
Iraq ties to terrorism
taxes for the rich
taxes for the wealthy
abu grab
iraqi war
french support
bin laden
al quida
education cuts
George Soros

Unfortunately, no one suggested any sites to attach the terms to, so I have a lot of work yet to do. I am thinking maybe 25-50 terms would be a good number to google bomb, and only the best of the best should be chosen. This is all still just planing stage, nothing official. If you have a suggestion, email me or leave a comment.

Blogs 4 Bush

Every once in a while I am gonna throw the blogroll up. Starting now:

Friday, July 09, 2004

Kerry on Larry King Live 7/8/04

Here are a few excerpts from the show I thought were worthy of mention:
KING: ...

Let's get to, first thing's first, news of the day. Tom Ridge warned today about al Qaeda plans of a large-scale attack on the United States, didn't increase the -- do you see any politics in this? What's your reaction?

KERRY: Well, I haven't been briefed yet, Larry. They have offered to brief me; I just haven't had time...
Kerry was too busy hobnobbing with celebrity Bush-Haters at a "Star Studded" Celebrity Bush Bash. It is good to know Kerry has his priorities straight... National security comes ... when he gets around to it... when he is less busy.
KING: When do you -- when do you get your briefing?

KERRY: We're arranging it. It's at the end of the week I'll get it.

KING: Should be pretty soon.

KERRY: I think it's tomorrow or the next day.

KING: And as for the vice president, he gets one, as well, right?

KERRY: I hope he will. It's presumed.
Sooner or later he will be up to the date on pressing national security issues... and as for John Edwards, Kerry hopes he will too...
KERRY: ... I think that Mr. Cheney has been the sort of ideological hardliner, and I don't believe his judgments have necessarily led America to a safer place.

KING: How will Senator Edwards fare against him in the debate...

KERRY: Well, you know...

KING: ... talk about the experience?

KERRY: I think people make a great mistake to sort of hype these debates. Overall, Dick Cheney is really very, very competent, knows how to ...
Yeah, these debates are really overrated... so when Cheney mops the floor with him, we should just ignore it.
KING: Are you given Communion?

KERRY: Absolutely.

KING: But there were some bishops who would deny that to you.

KERRY: Well, there are some bishops who have spoken out, but they -- but that's not the position of the Church, and as you know, we have a separation in America of Church and state. My obligation as a Catholic is to examine my conscience, under the freedom of conscience under Vatican II, Pope John XXIII, and Pope Paul, and I do that.
Wow... John Kerry knows the position of the church, but the Bishops in the Catholic church do not? Wow! He calls Bush arrogant!
KING: Is abortion a great moral issue to you?

KERRY: Sure it is. Absolutely. And I think it's far more complicated than public life allows the discussion for. I mean, being for choice does not mean you are for abortion....
Esoteric Diatribe
KING: Have you seen "Fahrenheit 9/11"?

KERRY: No, I haven't. I haven't.

KING: Do you plan to?

KERRY: I don't plan to, right now.

KING: Don't plan to?

KERRY: No, I don't plan to.

KING: Wouldn't you be curious to want to see it?

KERRY: I've seen it. I've watched it for the last four years.
Not only does Kerry not denounce Moore's silly little film, he actually believes the lies. Many ardent liberals can't even support the trash and lies espoused by Moore... and Kerry, instead of distancing himself from this ultra leftist garbage, says, "I've watched it for the last four years."

Thursday, July 08, 2004

When I'm feeling down...

I read the news!

Check it out:
John Kerry Cannot Win
by: Frank Salvato

For the good of the country John Kerry’s quest for the White House should remain just that, a quest, a candidacy.


John Kerry’s ability to work with others in the political arena has led to him being instrumental in a whopping eight pieces of legislation. Of those eight, five were ceremonial in nature ... For someone who has been in the Senate as long as Kerry this record proves one of two things, he is either completely ineffective as a legislator or his agenda is so far from the mainstream that even his Democratic colleagues can’t in all honesty vote for the bills he proposes.


Throughout the 2004 presidential campaign the country has seen John Kerry take both sides on a plethora of issues.


Simply put, it would be extremely difficult to take John Kerry at his word no matter what he says he supports because he is playing the political pandering game. He is saying everything to all people simply to get elected.


Full Article
Frank Salvato, you made my day.

Wednesday, July 07, 2004

The Edwards Pick: Russ Vaughn's and President Bush's Reaction

Many Esoteric * Diatribe visitors know Russ Vaughn is a Vietnam Veteran and occasional contributor to Esoteric * Diatribe. He submitted the following reaction to the "Two Johns" ticket:
How perfectly apropos that the political party that panders to those who see nothing wrong with oral sex in the oval office or prostituting the Lincoln bedroom purely for profit is now led by a couple of johns. And you can bet your boxers those johns will have their praises sung loudly for the next four months by a chorus of liberal media whores. How utterly, deliciously appropriate, hmmm?

Russ Vaughn
No Offense, Russ, but I liked President Bush's response better: (when asked by a sniveling reporter singing the praises of Edwards's sunny pretty-boy image and following up with "How does he stack up against Dick Cheney?")

Bush responded "Dick Cheney can be president. Next?"

As much as we like Russ Vaughn here at Esoteric * Diatribe, there was really no contest here... Bush takes the cake.

Speaking of cake, W. turned 58 yesterday (I knew about it but didn't have time to comment on it) so Happy Birthday President Bush!

Strategic Google Bombs

I have been brainstorming a list of potential Google Bombs that might be good to drop in the coming days... here is what I have come up with so far:
register to vote
the economy
Homeland Security
National Security
Foreign Relations
Kerry Edwards
small business
Gas Prices
Kerry Economy
Jobless Recovery
middle class squeeze
This is just brainstorming, at this point... I would love for others to add suggestions. Email me or leave a comment. Thanks.

What About John Edwards? Let's ask John Kerry!

Quotes from Kerry in the primaries:

January 2004
"In the Senate four years — and that is the full extent of public life — no international experience, no military experience,"

"When I came back from Vietnam in 1969, I don't know if John Edwards was out of diapers."

February 2004
"I think the American people want an experienced hand at the helm of state"

"This is not the time for on-the-job training in the White House on national security issues"

"Edwards says he’s the only one who can win states in the South... He can’t win his own state."
Hmm.... no international experience, no military experience, and only in the senate for four years. I agree... this guy just isn't ready yet. So why put him on a ticket? Isn't that a bit irresponsible of Senator Kerry?

“Separation of Church and State” Is Not a Defense to Heresy or a Mandate to Permit Abortion

Mr. Gaynor sent this to me via email and it is certainly post worthy:

“Separation of Church and State” Is Not a Defense to Heresy or a Mandate to Permit Abortion
by Michael J. Gaynor
Saint Thomas More, a martyr, is the Patron of Statesmen and Politicians. He gave witness to “the inalienable dignity of the human conscience,” by refusing to compromise, never forsaking the “constant fidelity to legitimate authority and institutions” which distinguished him, teaching by his life and his death that “man cannot be separated from God, nor politics from morality.”

Senator John Kerry, an ambitious politician, is no Saint Thomas More.

Kerry, presumptive Democrat presidential candidate and baptized Catholic, is trying to have it both ways on a life-and-death matter: abortion.
On one hand, like a faithful Catholic, Kerry asserts personal opposition to abortion: “I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."

On the other hand, Kerry assures abortion supporters that they can have all the abortions they want. At the dinner hosted by NARAL Pro-Choice America (formerly, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, Kerry passionately proclaimed, "We are not going to turn back the clock. There is no overturning of Roe v. Wade. There is no packing of courts with judges who will be hostile to choice."

Kerry’s rationale for preaching against abortion and legislating in favor of it: “I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist," he continued in the interview. "We have separation of church and state in the United States of America."

To the naive, Kerry’s position may make him look admirably open minded and restrained instead of arbitrary and controlling.

However, it is sheer sophistry, that is, “subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation,” of which Kerry should be ashamed,

Fortunately, it is readily exposable as such according to both Catholic thinking and American history.

What is needed is for the public to become familiar with the pertinent Catholic thinking and American history.

The "separation between faith and life" that Kerry shamefully is trying to use for political advantage was condemned long ago by the Second Vatican Council: “This split between the faith which many profess and their daily lives deserves to be counted among the more serious errors of our age."

As the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated in its Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life: “[T]he lay Catholic's duty to be morally coherent… is one and indivisible. There cannot be two parallel lives: on the one hand, the so-called 'spiritual life', with its values and demands; and on the other, the so-called 'secular' life, that is, life in a family, at work, in social responsibilities, in the responsibilities of public life and in culture.”

The Doctrinal Note emphasized that lay Catholics, in fulfilling civic duties, are to be “‘guided by a Christian conscience,’ in conformity with its values,” and that “their proper task [is] infusing the temporal order with Christian values, all the while respecting the nature and rightful autonomy of that order, and cooperating with other citizens according to their particular competence and responsibility.”

The Doctrinal Note lamented that “[a] kind of cultural relativism exists today, evident in the conceptualization and defence of an ethical pluralism, which sanctions the decadence and disintegration of reason and the principles of the natural moral law.” It categorically rejected the claims that citizens have “complete autonomy with regard to their moral choices and lawmakers…are respecting this freedom of choice by enacting laws which ignore the principles of natural ethics and yield to ephemeral cultural and moral trends, as if every possible outlook on life were of equal value.”

And the Doctrinal Note observed that “the value of tolerance is disingenuously invoked when a large number of citizens, Catholics among them, are asked not to base their contribution to society and political life - through the legitimate means available to everyone in a democracy - on their particular understanding of the human person and the common good,” and concluded that “[t]he history of the twentieth century demonstrates that those citizens were right who recognized the falsehood of relativism, and with it, the notion that there is no moral law rooted in the nature of the human person, which must govern our understanding of man, the common good and the state.”

The Doctrinal Note distinguished legitimate and illegitimate freedom. It explicitly respected “the legitimate freedom of Catholic citizens to choose among the various political opinions that are compatible with faith and the natural moral law, and to select, according to their own criteria, what best corresponds to the needs of the common good.” (Emphasis added.)

“Political freedom is not - and cannot be - based upon the relativistic idea that all conceptions of the human person’s good have the same value and truth,” the Doctrinal Note proclaimed.

“Rather,” the Doctrinal Note continued, “it is based on the fact that politics are concerned with very concrete realizations of the true human and social good in given historical, geographic, economic, technological and cultural contexts. From the specificity of the task at hand and the variety of circumstances, a plurality of morally acceptable policies and solutions arises. It is not the Church’s task to set forth specific political solutions - and even less to propose a single solution as the acceptable one - to temporal questions that God has left to the free and responsible judgment of each person. It is, however, the Church’s right and duty to provide a moral judgment on temporal matters when this is required by faith or the moral law.” (Emphasis added.)

The Doctrinal Note rejected moral relativism and related the essential basis of democracy in the clearest terms: “If Christians must ‘recognize the legitimacy of differing points of view about the organization of worldly affairs,’ they are also called to reject, as injurious to democratic life, a conception of pluralism that reflects moral relativism. Democracy must be based on the true and solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society.” (Emphasis added.)

With respect to abortion, the Doctrinal Note was categorical: “John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a ‘grave and clear obligation to oppose’ any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them.” (Emphasis added.)

A faithful Catholic politician may not compromise on fundamental matters. “When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia (not to be confused with the decision to forgo extraordinary treatments, which is morally legitimate). Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death.”

Kerry surely knows that the truth concerning the right to life of all persons from conception to natural death is not an idiosyncratic “religious” concept. It is a fundamental part of natural law for all to know and respect.

The Catholic faith informs a Catholic’s participation in every sphere of life, not only religious services. Thus, the Second Vatican Council urged all Christians “to fulfill their duties faithfully in the spirit of the Gospel” and warned that “[i]t is a mistake to think that, because we have here no lasting city, but seek the city which is to come, we are entitled to shirk our earthly responsibilities; this is to forget that by our faith we are bound all the more to fulfill these responsibilities according to the vocation of each....” It called for Christians to cherish “the opportunity to carry out their earthly activity in such a way as to integrate human, domestic, professional, scientific and technical enterprises with religious values, under whose supreme direction all things are ordered to the glory of God.”

Kerry’s talismanic invocation of the words “separation of church and state” does not immunize him from responsibility for his sin of promoting abortion in the eyes of God or the Church and should not be permitted to confuse his fellow Americans.

In addition, it wrongly implies improper interference by the Roman Catholic Church in United States affairs.

As stated in the Doctrinal Note:

“It would be a mistake to confuse the proper autonomy exercised by Catholics in political life with the claim of a principle that prescinds from the moral and social teaching of the Church.

“By its interventions in this area, the Church’s Magisterium does not wish to exercise political power or eliminate the freedom of opinion of Catholics regarding contingent questions. Instead, it intends - as is its proper function - to instruct and illuminate the consciences of the faithful, particularly those involved in political life, so that their actions may always serve the integral promotion of the human person and the common good. The social doctrine of the Church is not an intrusion into the government of individual countries. It is a question of the lay Catholic’s duty to be morally coherent, found within one’s conscience, which is one and indivisible. ’There cannot be two parallel lives in their existence: on the one hand, the so-called “spiritual life”, with its values and demands; and on the other, the so-called “secular” life, that is, life in a family, at work, in social responsibilities, in the responsibilities of public life and in culture. The branch, engrafted to the vine which is Christ, bears its fruit in every sphere of existence and activity. In fact, every area of the lay faithful’s lives, as different as they are, enters into the plan of God, who desires that these very areas be the “places in time” where the love of Christ is revealed and realized for both the glory of the Father and service of others. Every activity, every situation, every precise responsibility - as, for example, skill and solidarity in work, love and dedication in the family and the education of children, service to society and public life and the promotion of truth in the area of culture - are the occasions ordained by providence for a “continuous exercise of faith, hope and charity” (Apostolicam actuositatem, 4).’ Living and acting in conformity with one’s own conscience on questions of politics is not slavish acceptance of positions alien to politics or some kind of confessionalism, but rather the way in which Christians offer their concrete contribution so that, through political life, society will become more just and more consistent with the dignity of the human person.” (Emphasis added.)

Moreover, the United States Constitution does not require complete separation of church and state.

The words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the First Amendment. In a much-quoted letter Thomas Jefferson described the First Amendment as “building a wall of separation between church and state.” But the First Amendment did not create a wall between church and state. It prohibited Congress from making “a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The kind of separation that was intended is suggested by Pierre L’Enfant’s plan for a national cathedral. In 1791, Congress selected the site to be the capital of the United States. George Washington, previously President of the Constitutional Convention and then President of the United States, then commissioned L'Enfant to design an overall plan for the future seat of government. That plan included a church "intended for national purposes, such as public prayer, thanksgiving, funeral orations, etc., and assigned to the special use of no particular Sect of denomination, but equally open to all." The Founders and Framers favored governmental neutrality among denominations, but they never expected government to be barred from supporting religion generally to please a tiny minority.

The Founding Fathers were Christians, not secular humanists. John Adams wrote in 1813 that “[t]he general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were . . . the general principles of Christianity . . . .” America’s greatest chief justice, John Marshall, proclaimed in 1833: “The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations to it.” Marshall’s statement was not literally true, of course; Americans were not even then entirely Christian. But Marshall’s point was that Americans were a people of faith and their government should recognize it.

When Jesus spoke of rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and rendering unto God that which is God’s, He was identifying separate obligations of individuals in society, not requiring complete separation of church and state or absolving states of their duty to God.

This was generally understood and accepted. Therefore, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution each recognized God and the Articles and Constitution were dated “in the year of our Lord.”

The First Amendment did not prohibit government from acknowledging God or supporting religion generally. Only coercive or sectarian governmental acts that establish a particular faith or prohibit the free exercise of any faith were barred. And Jefferson’s “wall” was to keep government from interfering with that religious expression without excluding religious expression from public life.

Justice William Douglas put it well in Zorach v. Clauson (1952), in upholding a public school “released time” program: “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. . . . When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would prefer those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. . . . [W]e find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence.”

Now Chief Justice William Rehnquist rightly asserted in dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) that the establishment clause was intended only to stop the federal government from establishing a national church or preferring one sect over another, and certainly not to require governmental neutrality between religion and “irreligion.”

The leading legal commentators of the nineteenth century did not doubt this.

Thomas Cooley, in Constitutional Limitations, stated that recognition of God and general support for religion were governmental prerogatives: “[T]he American constitutions contain no provisions which prohibit the authorities from such solemn recognition of a superintending Providence in public transactions and exercises as the general religious sentiment of mankind inspires. . . . Whatever may be the shades of religious belief, all must acknowledge the fitness of recognizing in important human affairs the superintending care and control of the Great Governor of the Universe, and of acknowledging with thanksgiving his boundless favors, or bowing in contrition when visited with the penalties of his broken laws.”

Cooley concluded, “No principle of constitutional law is violated when thanksgiving or fast days are appointed; when chaplains are designated for the army and navy; when legislative sessions are opened with prayer or the reading of the Scriptures; or when religious teaching is encouraged by a general exemption of the houses of religious worship from taxation.”

Cooley emphasized that government needs to “foster religious worship and religious institutions, as conservators of the public morals and valuable, if not indispensable, assistants to the preservation of the public order.” “Public recognition of religious worship,” he wrote, is based on “the same reasons of state policy which induce the government to aid institutions of charity and seminaries of instruction.”

This attitude prevailed when the first Congress passed both the First Amendment and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which explicitly integrated religion and public education. Article III of the ordinance states: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” Two years later George Washington warned, “Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.”

The signers of the Declaration of Independence, the Framers of the Constitution, and the members of the first Congress and the state legislatures that enacted and ratified the First Amendment humbly recognized their dependence upon God. In lamenting the absence of daily prayers during the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin asked: “[H]ow has it happened . . . that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? . . . [H]ave we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth...that God governs in the affairs of men. . . . We have been assured . . . in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.’ “

The Declaration humbly appeals to “the Supreme Judge of the world” and proclaims “a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence,” as well as referring to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” and a “Creator” who endowed “all men . . . with certain inalienable Rights.”

The Constitution not only refers to “the Blessings of Liberty” in its preamble, but excludes Sundays in calculating the time in which a presidential veto must be issued. Further, it deliberately integrates religion into public affairs, while not compelling the unreligious to practice faith, by providing for oaths or affirmations. If the Framers had intended to separate church and state completely and embrace secularism, then they would have provided only for affirmations.

The First Amendment was adopted to afford atheists a right to not recognize God, to be sure, but not to give them a right to preclude government from doing so or from supporting religion the seminal Commentaries on the Constitution (1833) by Justice Joseph Story show.

Justice Story explained that the First Amendment’s object was “to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment.” “[T]he duty of supporting religion,” Story emphasized, was “very different from the right to force the consciences of other men, or to punish them for worshipping God in the manner which, they believe, their accountability to him requires.”

Story conceived of governmental support for religion as a responsibility, rather than a prerogative, and not less important than respect for private religious beliefs. In his words, “it is the especial duty of government to foster” religion, and this duty is “wholly distinct from that of the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and of the freedom of public worship according to the dictates of one’s conscience.”

The current notion that public recognition of God and support for religion generally must yield to “the right of private judgment” surely would have been absurd to Justice Story. In his view, “the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice.”

According to Justice Story, “Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it . . . , the general, if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship,” and that “an attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.”

This unappreciated historical record reveals the error of the Supreme Court’s ways. In its zeal to purge the public square of endorsements and even accommodations of religion, the Court has construed the Constitution’s ban on “an establishment of religion” much too broadly and thereby paved the way for lower courts to strike down the Pledge of Allegiance and to order the removal of a Ten Commandments monument from the lobby of an Alabama courthouse (while leaving undisturbed the U.S. Supreme Court’s own Ten Commandments display.

After World War II, the U.S. Supreme Court arbitrarily extended the First Amendment’s establishment clause, by judicial invention, to separate church and state in a way that inhibits the free exercise of religion required by the First Amendment’s free exercise clause but provides freedom from religion to the unreligious minority. THAT surely was not contemplated by the men who drafted and ratified the Constitution and the First Amendment, and would not have been comprehensible to them.

America was not conceived of by those men as a theocracy or a secular state, but as “one nation, under God.” The notion that under the Constitution the U.S. government cannot acknowledge God and instead must maintain a strict neutrality between religion and irreligion would have been considered absurd by virtually all the Founders, Framers, members of the First Congress and members of the state legislatures that ratified the First Amendment.

As Justice Stanley Reed related in rejecting the overbroad meaning given to the “Establishment Clause”:

“When the First Amendment was pending in Congress in substantially its present form, ‘Mr. Madison said, he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.’”

To be sure, the Constitution explicitly proscribed any religious test as a requirement for holding an office or a position of public trust under the U.S. government. But the Constitution was framed by Christian men who recognized the dependence upon religion of the government created by the Constitution as well as God. Rightly or wrongly, these people strongly believed that religion was essential to good government.

As President John Adams put it:

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Framer Gouvernor Morris explained why: “Religion is the only solid Base of morals and Morals are the only possible Support of free governments.” On that basis, Morris called for education to “teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man to God.”

The Continental Congress drafted the Articles of Confederation in 1777. They went into effect in 1781. Article II specified that Congress obtained only those powers and rights “expressly delegated” to it. The only express reference to religion was in Article III, which bound the Confederation to defend any state attacked “on account of religion.” But the Articles did state that “it has pleased the Great Governor of the world [God] to incline the hearts of the legislatures [represented by the drafters] to approve of, and to authorize [them] to ratify the said Articles.”

Notwithstanding the absence of express authority to concern itself with religion, the Continental/Confederation Congress did so without objection. It promoted a nondenominational Christianity. In 1777 the Congress ordered 20,000 Holy Bibles for distribution among the states. It appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces (in a manner designed to prevent any denomination from monopolizing government patronage), granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians, and periodically proclaimed national days of thanksgiving and of “humiliation, fasting and prayer” as the Revolutionary War proceeded. In 1776, it called for the people, “by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, to appease [God’s] righteous displeasure, and through the merits of Jesus Christ, [to] obtain his pardon and forgiveness.” Six years later, it issued a Thanksgiving proclamation calling on the people “to testify their gratitude to God for his goodness, by a cheerful obedience to his laws, and by promoting, each in his station, and by his influence, the practice of true and undefiled religion, which is the great foundation of public prosperity and national happiness.” Earlier that year, it had officially recommended a Bible edition prepared by Robert Aitken (the first English language Bible published in North America) “to the inhabitants of the United States.”

The First Congress envisioned an institutional separation of church and state, but it did not expect complete separation of church and state. The state was not to interfere with religion, but religion was expected to be part of public life. The First Congress resolved that the chaplain policy of the prior Congress be continued. It approved the First Amendment’s religious clauses to prohibit the establishment of a national church or the disestablishment of any church and to protect the right of conscience of all individuals, not to turn away from God and embrace secular humanism.

In 1789 the First Congress also re-passed the Northwest Ordinance, originally adopted two years earlier under the Articles of Confederation. The first article of that ordinance set forth the guarantee of religious freedom that was intended under the First Amendment as well: “No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory.” The third article expressly encouraged public schools, because “[r]eligion, morality, and knowledge [are] necessary to good government and to the happiness of mankind.” Patently, religious freedom was conceived of as a shield for all peaceful people and not as a sword for any minority to use to block the government from recognizing God and supporting religion generally.

In the mid nineteenth century, Congress considered a challenge to the constitutionality of the military chaplaincy. After careful study, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued a report explaining the establishment clause:

“The clause speaks of ‘an establishment of religion.’ What is meant by that expression? It referred, without doubt, to the establishment which existed in the mother country; its meaning is to be ascertained by ascertaining what that establishment was. It was the connection with the state of a particular religious society, by its endowment, at public expense, in exclusion of, or in preference to, any other, by giving to is member’s exclusive political rights, and by compelling the attendance of those who rejected its communion upon its worship, or religious observances. These three particulars constituted that union of church and state of which our ancestors were so justly jealous, and against which they so wisely and carefully provided.”

The report further stated that the Founders were “utterly opposed to any constraint upon the rights of conscience” and therefore they opposed the establishment of a religion in the same manner that the church of England was established. But, the Founders “had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people. They did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of ‘atheistic apathy.’ Not so had the battles of the revolution been fought, and the deliberations of the revolutionary Congress conducted.”

A similar House Judiciary Committee report explained that “an establishment of religion” was a term of art with a specific meaning:

“What is an establishment of religion? It must have a creed, defining what a man must believe; it must have rights and ordinances, which believers must observe; it must have ministers of defined qualifications, to teach the doctrines and administer the rites; it must have tests for the submissive, and penalties for the nonconformist. There never was an establishment of religion without all these.”

The person most likely to know what the First Amendment was intended to mean probably was George Washington, the Father of the Country, President of the Constitutional Convention and first President of the United States under the Constitution.

In 1789, at the urging of Congress, President Washington issued a Thanksgiving Proclamation. It stated that “it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.” There was no caveat to the effect that there was a higher duty to refrain if an atheist claimed that his or her sensibilities would be offended by such actions and he or she would feel like a second-class citizen.

The joint purpose of Washington and the First Congress was "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:" The Pledge of Allegiance had not yet been written, but Washington and the First Congress obviously perceived the United States as a nation “under God.”

Accordingly, Washington designated a day for devotion to God, acknowledged God as “that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be,” and called upon all Americans to “unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been able to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.”

Washington and the First Congress would have been incredulous to learn that their actions ever would be considered to be unconstitutional. After all, the Constitution had been established to secure “the Blessings of Liberty” and the federal government was calling upon all Americans to “unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations” for the purpose of having God “pardon our national and other transgressions,” “enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually,” and “render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed” as well as “to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have show[n] kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as H alone knows to be best.”

In misinterpreting the establishment clause, the U.S. Supreme Court misused a statement by Thomas Jefferson in an 1802 letter to a Baptist group that “the whole American people declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.” Jefferson’s much quoted statement has been misinterpreted as a prohibition against government acknowledging God and supporting religion generally instead of only a protection of churches from governmental interference. But the “wall of separation” that Jefferson contemplated was a wall that keeps government from interfering with religious freedom, not a wall that keeps any religious expression out of schools, courthouses and other public places. Jefferson’s own preamble to the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom explicitly acknowledged "Almighty God" as "the Holy Author of our religion" and "Lord both of body and mind."

Jefferson did not envision that the institutional separation he had in mind would ever be expanded to prohibit the United States from making reasonable accommodations to religion and recognizing God on its currency, in its courts or in its classrooms. Jefferson’s own actions as President demonstrate that his words were misinterpreted. As President, Jefferson attended voluntary and nondiscriminatory religious services held at the Capitol (as did President Madison). In 1803, Jefferson called on Congress to approve a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians that provided for the United States to pay a Catholic missionary priest $100 a year. It was not an oversight. Jefferson later recommended two other Indian treaties with similar provisions. Jefferson also extended three times a pre-Constitution act that had designated lands “[f]or the sole use of Christian Indians and the Moravian Brethen missionaries for civilizing the Indians and promoting Christianity.” If the U.S. Supreme Curt was right, then Jefferson himself repeatedly violated the establishment clause. But, as the House Judiciary Committee report set forth in detail, “an establishment of religion” requires much more.

John Kerry is no George Washington or Thomas Jefferson either.
Excellent submission... E*D is proud to post it!

Web Esoteric * Diatribe
Great Americans
Ronald Reagan
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Frederick Douglas
This list will continue to grow.
Suggest a Great American.
See rules.
Have something to say?
email me

Proud to have been assciated with:

RightNation.US America's #1 Conservative Community


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Listed on BlogShares
Blog Roll
(some of this is reciprocal, others are sites I just like to read)
Evangelical Outpost
A Perfect Contradiction
Discerning Texan
Incessant Rant
Conservative Eyes
Jeff Blanco
Tom Metzger Family
Boston Brat
Secure Liberty
Big White Hat
The View From The Core

line em up.... knock em down