Quote: "Let’s drop the hyperbole and the name calling. Let’s work together to make this nation work for all Americans, regardless of their political or religious persuasion."
Question - Just how do people holding mutually exclusive values accomplish this unless one side abandons its principles and conforms to the demands of the other? I would be delighted to work with any Democrat or other liberal willing to abandon his principles for the sake of the country.
It is not a "difference of opinion" to say that after 4 years of totalitarian-progressive governance by President Obama and his Junta of Czars, that we are not poorer and weaker for it. It is a fact. Sadly, there is enough blame to embrace both parties. As for criticizing and demonizing, Americans are more likely to consider Democrats merely wrong, while Democrats consider Americans to be evil. Just look at the hyperbole the Democrats are employing in the gun control debate - look at what they have said about the NRA; see how they accuse gun owners of supporting mass murder and unsafe streets knowing full well that nothing could be further from the truth.
As for Supreme Court Justices flirting with foreign legal opinion - they are not hired to contemplate the experiences of others. They are sworn exclusively to the Constitution, right or wrong, perfect or imperfect.
As for the UN - apparently you have not read the onerous (and odious) clauses in the aborted Law of The Sea Treaty, or the UN Arms Treaty. Along with many other Treaties, all are structured to compel policies among the signatories, or to seek, from the UN, exemptions and allowances. The World Court is even worse. George Washington was right when he said stay clear of foreign entanglements.
I was unaware the Roman Catholic Church received federal funds for employee health insurance. Maybe for some of the services it affords the poor and needy through its charities, but to my knowledge most Catholic agencies are entirely self-insured, and it is against their religious liberty that this administration has directed its fury.
We agree that the Declaration of Independence credits God with the gifts of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, among others, and that these rights are unalienable, and that the essential role of government is to secure them. Period. Just secure. Never to abridge or infringe. Never to deny, sell or transfer. Secure means to preserve and protect. By the simple acceptance of the limitations imposed by "unalienable" and "secure", the supremacy of God over the State is obvious and undeniable.
Jews and Muslims, Hindoos (I love that 18th century spelling) and other pagans all believe in a higher power(s) - belief in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the Holy Trinity is not required. Any god(s) will do. Atheists of course have fought and died for this country, and for that I thank them and honor their service. But that begs the question: Without a belief in an uncorruptible higher power, what entity would have the legitimate standing to constrain the state, especially if the people are disarmed, and further reduced by dependency and obedience? I have no desire to impose my faith on anyone - feel free to believe or not as you please. I am a big fan of the 1st Amendment. Even for atheists, agnostics, heretics, apostates, blasphemers and reprobates.
There are two traditionally viable political parties, and a host of pretenders. The electoral fact of life is this - a vote cast for a 3rd or 4th party candidate is a vote against the Democrat or Republican that most closely follows the trends and directions you would like the nation to take. Right or wrong, for better or worse, like it or not, it's just the way it is. You cannot multiply something by dividing it. Splitting your side's vote is a sure way to elect the Party whose support was unified.
As for the unambiguous choice I offered to Mr. Cargill, I stand by it. The existence of a small minority of moderate or conservative rogue Democrats, acknowledged by "probably" and "usually" does not change the fact that choosing to be a Democrat means directly or indirectly supporting, by default, the Party's orthodox majority. And I still hold to the belief that the Democratic Party Platform and the actions and statements of Democratic Party leaders constitutes an ideology completely foreign to original Americana.
So, my dearest 8uLiebr, have you decided to be a Democrat, or an American?