[Rhodes22-list] Mark's political instigation aggravated
Rik Sandberg
sanderico at earthlink.net
Sat Apr 24 00:28:18 EDT 2004
Bill,
As i said before, I am not going to try to debate anyone on the fine points of
diplomacy or foreign policy. I will give my feeling on some of your points.
On Fri, Apr 23 2004 09:31 pm, Bill Effros wrote:
> Rik,
>
> With regard to your statement "My only regret on this issue is that it
> wasn't taken care of in 1991, when it should have been finished in the
> first place. I cannot imagine the amount of human suffering this would have
> saved."
>
> Here is what Vice President Cheney had to say on that issue at that time
> (BBC interiew in 1992):
>
> "If we'd gone to Baghdad and got rid of Saddam Hussein - assuming we
> could have found him - we'd have had to put a lot of forces in and run him
> to ground someplace. He would not have been easy to capture. Then you've
> got to put a new government in his place, and then you're faced with the
> question of what kind of government are you going to establish in Iraq?"
>
>
> "Is it going to be a Kurdish government, or a Shia government or a Sunni
> government? How many forces are you going to have to leave there to keep
> it propped up, how many casualties are you going to take through the course
> of this operation?"
>
> I think he was right then and wrong now.
____________________________________________
Yes, there is no doubt that taking the country is the easy quick part and
establishing a new gov't is the difficult long winded part. But the fact
remains, we are there now doing just that. How much better would it have been
to have had the forsight to realize in 91 that we were going to end up doing
this anyway and just gotten it over with then. We had to do the same thing
anyway, we just had to make two trips.
_______________________________________________________________
>
> Col. Qaddafi? We let him give us a couple of bucks to buy his way out of a
> hole. Ronald Reagan said "We know that this mad dog of the Middle East has
> a goal of a world revolution." What happened to that evaluation.
>
> I think Reagan was right, and making up with Qaddafi was wrong. I don't
> believe for a minute Qaddafi had any sort of "epiphany", and I'll bet if
> Ronald Reagan still had all his marbles he wouldn't think so either.
_________________________________________________________________________
I believe Mr. Qaddafi's epiphany happened the day Ronald Reagan dropped a bomb
in his kitchen. That was the last we heard from him....for a long time. Hey,
if you want to blow up Libia too, I can live with that. You have to admit
though, that Qaddafi isn't standing there flipping us off like Hussein was.
He seems to have figured out that what happened to Hussein could very easily
happen to him too and just as damned quick. People do sometimes learn by
example.
_________________________________________________
>
> And as far as Afghanistan was concerned, even though I thought the method
> was wrong, we had him, and we let him get away. Once again we simply had
> no plan to accompany the tough talk.
_____________________________________________
I'm sorry they missed him too, but I don't know what they could have done
differently to guarantee Bin Laden's capture. Like I said before, this man is
not stupid.
_________________________________________________
>
> And don't forget, the Republicans backed Osama against the Russians, and
> Saddam against the Iranians notwithstanding their already well known human
> rights atrocities. Quotes available on request. I was aware of, and
> opposed those actions at the time. What was your position when these
> things were happening?
________________________________________
As I understand it and I don't remember all the names or details, Osama and
Hussein were the lesser of two evils at the time. Things changed.
_________________________________________
>
> I thought Kerry and Clinton were wrong when they supported regime change in
> Iraq, and nationbuilding in Kosovo, Haiti, and elsewhere. I thought Bush 1
> was right when he said "Beware of Mission Creep" and Bush 2 was right when
> he said:
>
> "I think there needs to be a clear statement of when and if we'll commit
> troops. I worry about Rwanda. I didn't like what went on in Rwanda, but I
> don't think we should commit troops to Rwanda, nor do I think we ought to
> try to be the peace-keepers all around the world. I intend to tell our
> allies that America will help make the peace, but you get the troops on the
> ground to keep warring parties apart. One of the reasons we have such low
> morale in the military today is because we're over deployed and under
> trained."
>
> GOP Presidential Debate
> February 16, 2000
___________________________________________
Clearly, we had no postwar treaties with Rwanda. It hurt me more than I can
say to see the incredible hardships those poor people were going through. A
bomb in that asshole's kitchen might have helped that situation too. We did
however have postwar treaties with Iraq that Saddam Hussein was blatantly and
continually ignoring for ten years. This was giving the rest of the area the
impression that they could do what ever the hell they wanted and the good old
US would just say... NO, NO, you must play nice with the other children. For
me, when a man like this steps on your toes, you step on his head. Then
everyone else sees the example and gets some manners in a hurry.
_______________________________________________
>
>
> Rik, I stand for certain principles, and I don't think all Democrats are
> right and all Republicans are wrong. I call em as I see them, and I have
> always thought you do the same.
_________________________________________
Thanks, Same here.
_______________________________________
>
> George W. Bush does not seem to have any consistent set of principles, and
> that worries me. It makes him unpredictable, and I think that's very bad
> for this country. As President of the United States he has an enormous
> amount of power, and I don't think anyone can guess from day to day how he
> will use it.
____________________________________
President Bush may be unpredictable, as you say. I think he is a pretty
sincere guy though, as is his father. We have to admit that some of the
things that have happened during Bush's presidency are things that the world
has never seen before. Some unexpected reactions might be expected
considering these extraordinary events. I do believe that we haven't seen
unpredictable yet compared to what we will have if we elect John Kerry. I'm
talking the man now, not the Democrat. I'm not, nor will I ever be, a big fan
of anybody that would hold hands with Jane Fonda. The hair on the back of my
neck stands up every time he opens his mouth. I think Gore would have been a
much better candidate than Kerry. I may not have voted for him either, but
I'd have been a hell of a lot less scared of seeing him elected.
Take care,
Rik
______________________________________
>
> Back to work. Thanks, again, for the quotes.
>
> Bill Effros
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rik Sandberg
> To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 11:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Mark's political instigation aggravated
>
>
> Bill,
>
> Obviously, there are many opinions on the subject of Iraq and WMD. I can
> only speak for myself. My feeling on the WMD issue is that all of the
> hub-bub from the Dems that bush was lying about WMDs is just a way to
> discredit him before the next election. This should be pretty obvious by
> now. Note especially, Senator Kerry's quotes in that list and compare
> that to what you hear from him now. I don't believe you can trust this man
> any further than you could throw a bull by the tail!! Whether anyone was
> lying or not, it seems that either everyone was, Dems included, OR they
> weren't. This list (it seems it would be a long one) of liars/non-liars
> would have to include President Bush. How convenient is it now for the Dems
> to all decide that now it was only President Bush who was lying?
>
> I would have been in favor of "dethroning" Saddam Hussein whether he had
> WMD or not. He has proven himself to be an active supporter of terrorists
> and has been practically daring us, for years, to put our money where our
> mouth is. He was torturing and killing his citizens by the thousands and
> those he wasn't were starving to death due to our sanctions and embargos
> while Saddam sat, fat and happy, in his 56 palaces. Most of our actions
> up to the point of the start of the war were hurting the wrong people and
> doing no good at all. My only regret on this issue is that it wasn't taken
> care of in 1991, when it should have been finished in the first place. I
> cannot imagine the amount of human suffering this would have saved.
>
> I keep hearing about the UN this or that. JEEZ, has anybody looked at
> just who is running the UN these days??? Talk about the fox running the
> henhouse!!
>
> On the Afghanistan thing; Yes, we weren't able to catch Bin Laden. I have
> to admit, he is a pretty clever guy who seems to have a lot of friends
> willing to help him. Does this mean we shouldn't have tried??? The man
> has as much as admitted killing several thousand of our citizens and has as
> much as promised to kill more when he gets another chance. At least if we
> haven't been able to catch him, we have certainly made it more difficult
> for him to operate. I have no doubt that we will catch him eventually. Do
> the Dems have some magic plan for getting this done??? If so, I'd love to
> hear it. My guess is they want to return to the policies of the Clinton
> era, where he told those nasty guys how bad they were and lobbed a missile
> over there once in a while. Again, it should be pretty obvious by now,
> where those policies got us.
>
> Talk is nice, when it works, and Lord knows, I would rather talk than
> fight. Trouble is, if people don't believe that you will back up your
> words with your big stick, sometimes they have a tendency to not take you
> very seriously. This has been the case in the middle east for quite some
> time now. At least 10 years for sure for Saddam Hussein. I think we have
> made some believers over there now. Even Muammar Qaddafi (sp) seems to have
> had an "epiphany".
>
> I will not even attempt to debate anyone on the finer points of diplomacy
> and foreign policy. All I know is what I can see. Diplomacy wasn't
> working and more talk wasn't going to make the situation any better.
>
> Rik
>
> At 08:23 AM 4/23/2004, you wrote:
> >Rick,
> >
> >Great quotes! I'll check them out, but I have every reason to believe
> >they are accurate.
> >
> >The point is that the UN weapons inspectors, who were on the ground just
> >prior to the start of the war, said unequivocally that they had been
> > given access to everything they needed to be sure that Saddam Hussein
> > no longer had WMD. The Bush administration claimed to have evidence
> > that Saddam Hussein currently had WMD in staggering quantities, and
> > they claimed to know exactly where it was hidden, how and where it had
> > been made, and who made it.
> >
> >They told the world they could not trust the UN weapons inspectors with
> >this information, or anyone else for that matter. It was a matter of
> >national security. They said Saddam Hussein was continuing to
> > manufacture this stuff, and it was urgently necessary for the world to
> > invade Iraq to rid him of these weapons.
> >
> >The world told the Bush administration they did not believe our
> >intelligence, our assessment of it, or our remedy to the problem if one
> >actually existed. Bush invaded Iraq.
> >
> >I have the exact quotes to back up all of the above statements, and will
> >publish them shortly.
> >
> >If you still believe Saddam Hussein had WMD in 2003, and they vanished
> >without a trace despite our campaign of "shock and awe" and
> > "decapitation" then you must agree that the method used by the Bush
> > Administration to rid the world of this threat has failed. We still
> > don't know where they are, and we still don't know who has them. If
> > they exist, they are a greater threat to us now than they were when we
> > knew where they were.
> >
> >Similarly with Afghanistan. As you may remember, I opposed the invasion
> >of Afghanistan as well. The entire rational for that invasion was to
> >capture Osama. He is still making tapes and bombing all over the
> >world. We failed in the mission. Meanwhile Afghanistan has descended
> >back into total anarchy--it has again become a narco-terrorist state,
> > and has regained its status as the leading producer of opium in the
> > world--with our help. Meanwhile Americans continue to die in that
> > country for no understandable reason.
> >
> >If you come across more quotes of the type you posted, I would
> > appreciate your sending them along. You have saved me a lot of work.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Bill Effros
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Rik Sandberg
> > To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> > Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 9:44 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Mark's political instigation aggravated
> >
> >
> > Take a read here guys, then maybe talk about who is BSing who in
> > regards to
> > WMDs.
> >
> > Rik
> > ______________________________________________________
> > I ran across this recently and found it very good reading.
> >
> > If you really believe that President BUSH lied,THAT THERE NEVER WERE
> > ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ AND HE TOOK US TO WAR SOLELY
> > FOR HIS OIL
> > BUDDIES -- The truth and nothing but the truth should be known!!!
> >
> > "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
> > develop
> > weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is
> > our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
> >
> > "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
> > clear. We
> > want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
> > destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
> >
> > "Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a
> > great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will
> > use nuclear,
> > chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
> > greatest security threat we face." -Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
> >
> > "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
> > times since 1983." -Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser,
> > Feb, 18,1998
> >
> > "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
> > U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
> > appropriate,air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
> > effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
> > mass
> > destruction programs." -Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens.
> > Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
> >
> > "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of
> > mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the
> > region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
> > -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D,
> > CA), Dec. 16, 1998
> >
> > "Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
> > destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright,
> > Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
> >
> > "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his
> > weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and
> > nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status.
> > In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is
> > doubtless using the cover of a
> > licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will
> > threaten the
> > United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by
> > Sen. Bob
> > Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
> >
> > "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and
> > a threat
> > to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated
> > of the
> > United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the
> > means of
> > delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
> >
> > "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and
> > chemical weapons
> > throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
> >
> > "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible
> > to deter
> > and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is
> > in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
> >
> > "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
> > developing
> > weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27,
> > 2002
> >
> > "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
> > confident
> > that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
> > biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
> > build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
> > reports indicate
> > that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV),
> > Oct. 3, 2002
> >
> > "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
> > authority to
> > use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
> > that a
> > deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
> > and grave threat to our security." -Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,
> > 2002
> >
> > "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
> > aggressively to
> > develop nuclear weapons an d will likely have nuclear weapons within
> > the next
> > five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
> > the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass
> > destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
> >
> > "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11
> > years, every
> > significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
> > destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
> > This he has refused to do" Rep.- Henry Waxman (D, CA) , Oct. 10, 2002
> >
> > "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
> > show that
> > Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
> > weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear
> > program. He has also
> > given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda
> > members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam
> > Hussein will
> > continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical
> > warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen.
> > Hillary Clinton (D,
> > NY), Oct 10, 2002
> >
> > "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
> > Saddam
> > Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity
> > for the
> > production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob
> > Graham (D,
> > FL), Dec. 8, 2002
> >
> > "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
> > murderous
> > dictator, leading an oppressive regime .. He presents a particularly
> > grievous
> > threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And
> > now he
> > is is cal culating America's response to his continued deceit and his
> > consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of
> > Saddam
> > Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real - Sen. John F. Kerry
> > (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
> >
> > SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE
> > ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL
> > BUDDIES???
> >
> > So who's bullshitting who here????
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 22 2004 10:18 am, Steve wrote:
> > > I still find it funny that the below comments still
> > > come up. We still don't know what happen to Iraq
> > > WMDs. We know he made missles that were cabible of
> > > going past the UN limit. Warheads were cabable of
> > > carring chemical agents. That 20+ tons of Mustard gas
> > > that Libia gave up may be Irag. We are still finding
> > > Jets & all other kinds of stuff hid under the sand in
> > > Irag. UN thought Iraq had WMDs, Briton, US and most
> > > of the free world thought Irag had them. I believe
> > > the real question is not whether Iraq had WMDs but
> > > WHERE are the WMDs! Sylia, Iran? Two very good
> > > possibities!!!!!!!!!!!
> > >
> > > As for Nation Building, when a country such as our
> > > looses 3,000 people; a President must change, policy
> > > must change; to protect the people that are still
> > > alive. Otherwise, the US would have had more Deaths
> > > on it hands. And the President would have been blamed
> > > for NOT changeing policies to protect this country.
> > >
> > > I had a great weekend sailing last weekend also.
> > > Perfect wind, some fairly good wave action. It was
> > > even white capping most of the day Saturday.
> > > Steve
> > >
> > > --- Wally Buck <tnrhodey at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Ed,
> > > >
> > > > The answer to your questions are easy, I am just not
> > > > sure why people care so
> > > > much. Yes there is a sucker born every minute! It is
> > > > clear that Clinton lied
> > > > to cover up his sucker. The guy got caught messing
> > > > around and lied about it.
> > > > Not exactly uncommon in our society or from our
> > > > elected officials. Please
> > > > note I did not vote for Clinton and agree the guy
> > > > was sleezy.
> > > >
> > > > On the other hand we have a sitting president that
> > > > claimed while running for
> > > > office that he was against Nation Building. Once
> > > > elected he spread around a
> > > > bunch of rumors as facts leading us into war against
> > > > a nation that posed no
> > > > real threat to our National Security. This pisses me
> > > > off much more.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding the Baker's, they are clowns and are only
> > > > here for us to make fun
> > > > of. :-)
> > > >
> > > > We had an awesome weekend last week! More of the
> > > > same coming this weekend. I
> > > > hope someone else besides me is going sailing.
> > > >
> > > > Wally
> > > >
> > > > >From: "ed kroposki" <ekroposki at charter.net>
> > > > >Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> > > >
> > > > <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > > >
> > > > >To: "'The Rhodes 22 mail list'"
> > > >
> > > > <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > > >
> > > > >Subject: [Rhodes22-list] Mark's political
> > > >
> > > > instigation aggravated Date: Wed,
> > > >
> > > > >21 Apr 2004 15:10:16 -0400
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Mark,
> > > > > If you like the what she says then surely you
> > > >
> > > > believed Bill when he
> > > >
> > > > >said "I did not ................................."
> > > > > What did that famous circus guy say, "one born
> > > >
> > > > every day and two to
> > > >
> > > > >take him." You have found your two. And I bet you
> > > >
> > > > sat in the front row of
> > > >
> > > > >Jim Baker's audiences.
> > > > > And if Bill is as smart as Rummy's email says he
> > > >
> > > > is, how come he
> > > >
> > > > >does not know right from wrong? Or the complete
> > > >
> > > > definitions of everyday
> > > >
> > > > >terms. Why is it acceptable for him to define
> > > >
> > > > words to suit himself and
> > > >
> > > > >then all the national news media accepts his
> > > >
> > > > definition as correct? Is
> > > >
> > > > >that
> > > > >intelligence or an old fashion 'con job'.
> > > > > And, according to Rummy's email, Bush is not smart
> > > >
> > > > enough to 'con'
> > > >
> > > > >us :-) :-(
> > > > >
> > > > >~~~~~ _/) ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~
> > > > >
> > > > > Ed K
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > > >From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
> > > > >[mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org] On
> > > >
> > > > Behalf Of Mark Kaynor
> > > >
> > > > >Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 9:37 PM
> > > > >To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> > > > >Subject: RE: [Rhodes22-list] Rummy's political
> > > >
> > > > instigation aggravated
> > > >
> > > > >This oughtta do it. I just watched Hillary Clinton
> > > >
> > > > on Larry King Live. I
> > > >
> > > > >keep finding that I like what she has to say.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > > >From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
> > > > >[mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org]On
> > > >
> > > > Behalf Of Michael Meltzer
> > > >
> > > > >Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 8:35 PM
> > > > >To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> > > > >Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Rummy's political
> > > >
> > > > instigation aggravated
> > > >
> > > > >good point, I am not getting any, so why not bring
> > > >
> > > > up sex, thats different.
> > > >
> > > > >MJM
> > > > >
> > > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > >From: "Mark Kaynor" <mark at kaynor.org>
> > > > >To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list"
> > > >
> > > > <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > > >
> > > > >Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 8:35 PM
> > > > >Subject: RE: [Rhodes22-list] Rummy's political
> > > >
> > > > instigation aggravated
> > > >
> > > > > > Ed, Rummy,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <Yawn> <Ho hum> How about bringing up something
> > > >
> > > > controversial? <g>
> > > >
> > > > > > Mark
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
> > > > > > [mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org]On
> > > >
> > > > Behalf Of ed kroposki
> > > >
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 6:41 PM
> > > > > > To: 'The Rhodes 22 mail list'
> > > > > > Subject: [Rhodes22-list] Rummy's political
> > > >
> > > > instigation aggravated
> > > >
> > > > > > Rummy,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would suggest that your data is biased.
> > > >
> > > > Let me change the subject
> > > >
> > > > >to
> > > > >
> > > > > > a more controversial one, Religion:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > DID YOU KNOW
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As you walk up the steps to the
> > > > > > building which houses the
> > > > > > U.S. Supreme Court you can see
> > > > > > near the top of the building a row of the
> > > > > > world's law givers and each one
> > > > > > is facing one in the middle who
> > > > > > is facing forward with a full frontal
> > > > > > view - it is Moses and he is holding the Ten
> > > >
> > > > Commandments!
> > > >
> > > > > > DID YOU KNOW?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As you enter the Supreme Court
> > > > > > courtroom, the two huge oak doors
> > > > > > have the Ten Commandments engraved
> > > > > > on each lower portion of each door.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > DID YOU KNOW?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As you sit inside the courtroom, you can
> > > > > > see the wall, right above where the
> > > > > > Supreme Court judges sit, a display of the Ten
> > > >
> > > > Commandments!
> > > >
> > > > > > DID YOU KNOW?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are Bible verses etched in stone
> > > > > > all over the Federal Buildings
> > > > > > and Monuments in Washington, D.C.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > DID YOU KNOW?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > James Madison, the fourth president,
> > > > > > known as "The Father of Our Constitution"
> > > > > > made the following statement
> > > > > > "We have staked the whole of
> > > > > > all our political institutions upon the
> > > > > > capacity of mankind for self-government,
> > > > > > upon the capacity of each and all of us
> > > > > > to govern ourselves, to control ourselves,
> > > > > > to sustain ourselves according to the Ten
> > > >
> > > > Commandments of God."
> > > >
> > > > > > DID YOU KNOW?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Patrick Henry, that patriot and
> > > > > > Founding Father of our country said,
> > > > > > "It cannot be emphasized too strongly
> > > > > > or too often that this great nation was
> > > > > > founded not by religionists but by Christians,
> > > > > > not on religions but on the
> > > > > > Gospel of Jesus Christ."
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > DID YOU KNOW?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Every session of Congress begins with
> > > > > > a prayer by a paid preacher, whose
> > > > > > salary has been paid by the
> > > > > > taxpayer since 1777.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > DID YOU KNOW?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the
> > > > > > Constitution were members of
> > > > > > the established orthodox churches
> > > > > > in the colonies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > DID YOU KNOW?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thomas Jefferson worried that
> > > > > > the Courts would overstep their
> > > > > > authority and instead of interpreting
> > > > > > the law would begin making
> > > > > > law....an oligarchy....the rule of few over
> > > >
> > > > many.
> > > >
> > > > > > Ed K (throwing gas on Rummy's wood fire)
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________________________
> > > >
> > > > > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> > > >
> > > > www.rhodes22.org/list
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________________________
> > > >
> > > > > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> > > >
> > > > www.rhodes22.org/list
> > > >
> > > > >__________________________________________________
> > > > >Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> > > >
> > > > www.rhodes22.org/list
> > > >
> > > > >__________________________________________________
> > > > >Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> > > >
> > > > www.rhodes22.org/list
> > > >
> > > > >Name:
> > > >
> > > > !cid_008701c343d6$e7c781e0$6402a8c0 at desktop.gif
> > > >
> > > > Type: image/gif Size:
> > > > >5747 bytes Desc: not available
> > > > >Url:
> > > >
> > > >http://www.rhodes22.org/pipermail/rhodes22-list/attch/200404/21/cid
> > > >_008701
> > > >
> > > >c343d6e7c781e06402a8c0desktop.gif
> > > >
> > > > >__________________________________________________
> > > > >Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> > > >
> > > > www.rhodes22.org/list
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > >
> > > > FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get
> > > > it now!
> > > > http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> > >
> > > www.rhodes22.org/list
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
> > > http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
More information about the Rhodes22-list
mailing list