The following should help everyone understand why in America....we are seeing the beginning of the end.........

The Fall Of A Republic:

When the thirteen colonies were still a part of England, Professor Alexander Tyler wrote about the fall of the Athenian republic over two thousand years previous to that time: A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.

Alexander Tyler

-- Anonymous, November 28, 2000

Answers

Jennie....

I guess it depends on what your defintion of "is"...is....don't it??

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000

Yeah....doing the "Wild Money Dance" in the Oval Office....that was sure trying to keep it private!!!

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

ACLU.....Anti Christian Lover's Union

-- Anonymous, December 18, 2000

Danny,

It would appear that the USA is somewhere in between the complacency/apathy and apathy/dependency phases of that equation.

Have you noticed that 140 years ago, people weren't as apathetic as today. Then, a Civil War was fought over very similar circumstances as we are faced with today - the federal people trying to force it's own will over the States. And 224 years ago, a Revolution was fought because the people were having the will of a soverign pressed upon them, without having any input as to what happened. (Point of interest - did you know that the English made peace and gave Independence to each individual State and Not to the United States as a whole after the Revolution? So, yes the States were given quite a few rights by the Founding Fathers, many of which have been taken away, and many more of which AlGore wishes to take away.)

That all sounds very similar to today, doesn't it? But you would be hard pressed to find enough people to raise a good protest - let alone a revolution. The people have become too desensitized and apathetic to do anything.

Unfortunately, this attitude is brought with them into the Church on Sunday. Is there any wonder then why most churches stagnate and influence no one in their communities - and why their members either don't vote or else vote with their wallets instead of their Bibles?

-- Anonymous, November 28, 2000

Mark- maybe they're voiting with their conscience. And maybe America isn't in decline. I think we have an amazing system here. When Clinton was being impeached, he claimed a standing pres. Couldn't be sued. the supreme court said he could be. Technically, Clinton controls the army. He had the power to do what he wanted. it happens in other countries all the time. But in America, time again it has proved the checks and balances work, because of people's respect for the law. And besides, even if we lapsed into a stagnant society where everyone just votes their purses, democray wouldn't disapear, it would just be a democracy where people voted based on money. Just because you're heavily influenced by money doesn't mean you were forced. And if you weren't forced, its a democracy.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2000

Jennie,

I would agree that we have an amazing country still today. It is still the best in the world. However, that does not mean it is always in the right and that it is not in decline.

History and the law of Thermodynamics bears witness of the decline I think. Simply put, the law of Thermodynamics states that all intities move from fullness to emptiness, from right to wrong, from complete to empty. By the nature of things, everything (except a good wife) tends to get worse with age.

Clinton's impeachment is a good example of this. When I was young (30 years ago), Nixon was impeached for wrong doing. He actions shamed him into resigning before a vote to remove him took place. But due to attitude, politics, & probably money, Clinton stuck it out and was able to stay in power and force himself (and his perverted life) on America for the remainder of his term. Democracy failed that day. And if the Supreme Court can't keep from failing Democracy during this count/recount junk - I don't see much hope down the road.

I'm really trying not to be pessimistic on this, but as a student of History I've seen this road traveled way too often in the past. The Egyptians did it, the Babylonions did it, the Greeks did it, and the Romans did it - all of the great Civilizations of the past went this same direction. As Solomon put it, "there is nothing new under the sun".

America needs a Ton of prayer right now - and a lot of action too if it is to survive in any form similar to what the founding fathers envisioned.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000

Mark- which law of thermodynamics were you refering to? I know of several. But based on the rest of your answer, I will asume that you were discussing the second, which states that entropy (disorder) increases--for a CLOSED SYSTEM IN EQUILIBRIUM. Regardless of whether you are talking about America or the planet, neither is a closed system or in equilibrium, and the laws of thermodynamics don't apply to social civilization anyway, so you're a bit off the mark. If you want to pray for reduced entropy, then go ahead. But don't get to disappointed when nothing happens. As for Clinton- sure he stuck it out. Yeah, he should have resigned. But no, he didn't force his perverted life on America. He actually did everything he could to keep it private. Maybe he tried to keep it private because of politics, but nontheless, he didn't flaunt it. I never, for one second, felt like he was pushing anything on me. Maybe the great civilizations of the past failed (I'm a student of history too!)but they were based on forced power, and armies. America is based on law. The supreme court may loose a lot of respect and credibility over this election circus, but it still we have the say of the constitution as the highest court. For example, consider what didn't happen when Clinton was impeached: Clinton had control of the army, he could've done it the way they do in Africa and South America, and taken the army and control of the country. Of course this suggestion seems redicolous, because we can't fathom that happening in this country- our respect for the law is too great. It wouldn't occur to us to be afraid that the president wouldn't accept the surpeme court. It has happened (Andy Jackson ignored the court in regard to native americans) but on the whole, our system has been highly effective at preserving the rights of its citizens, although for some more slowly than others. Yet, we are reaching equality, and now, more than ever, I think we are a strong country, that has kinks to work out, yes, but we are certainly not on the brink of total meltdown. So relax.

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2000

Danny- yeah, he was. Maybe for political expediancy, maybe because he thinks his private life, immoral or moral, should be out of the public eye.

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2000

Jennie;

Supposing it was in a private eye? Supposing that what the President did in the privacy of his own chambers was spied upon by a power hostile to the United States. If that had happened, and thank God it didn't, the President could have easily been blackmailed and the country held for ransom and its security and defense compromised without us even knowing about it. That's why it wasn't just his personal business. It was a National Security issue at the highest level. When the President of the United States let his pants down, he let his country down and could very well have sold it down the river had circumstances been different.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2000

Give me a break! The president would come out, sheepishly, admit what he did, I mean, he managed to admit, and still have public support, He would never let the country be blackmailed. Besides which, if someone were spying on the pres., we should be concerned that secret service is sleeping on the job. Just because improbable wild scenarios can be imagined doesn't mean they'd happen. Maybe all people named Mike are in a conspiracy to take over the world. Thats as likely as what you're suggesting!

-- Anonymous, December 16, 2000

Jenny:

You have sought to gain respect for Mr. Clinton as follows: "For example, consider what didn't happen when Clinton was impeached: Clinton had control of the army, he could've done it the way they do in Africa and South America, and taken the army and control of the country." When you say that Clinton had control of the Army you imply a terrible misconception of what it takes to control an army. And you are extremely nieve about the nature of the American military who are not under the sole control of the president of the United States but rather are sworn to defend the constitution against all enemies both "foriegn and domestic". Clinton therefore does not deserve any credit for not using the military for not taking control of the country. For any attempt to do so would have shown him to be a domestic enemy of the constitution that the military is sworn to fight against. An attempt on his part to do such a thing would have only resulted in his bringing the military against his own house and would have ended with his imprisonment and possible execution. One must have more than a position of authority to exersize authority over anyone. If Clinton ever told the military to behave as the military in Africa and south America, just to protect himself from being kicked out of office legally because of his high crimes and misdomeanors, (of which he was without question guilty) he would find a military that was impossible for him to control. But one should be able to see that Clinton is indeed the kind of man that would use the military as is often seen in Africa and South America if he thought that he could get by with it. This is seen in how he did use our military to draw attention away from himself during the impeachment proceedings. And if he had not been directing the military toward genuine enemies of the U. S. he would have failed even in these attempts. Anyone who believes that our military will follow any order given by the Commander in Chief, whether it is a lawful order or not, is totally ignorant of how our military system works.

Then you say:

"Of course this suggestion seems redicolous, because we can't fathom that happening in this country- our respect for the law is too great. It wouldn't occur to us to be afraid that the president wouldn't accept the surpeme court."

No, Jenny, this suggestion of yours not only sounds rediculous it is without question not only rediculous it is absurd in the highest degree. It most certianly was not "respect for the law" that kept President Clinton from using the military to control this nation. He spit upon our laws and defied them and for now he has escaped the proper punishment he should have received. But it is not over yet. His time is rapidly approaching when he will pay for these crimes that he has committed.

Then you say to us:

"Yet, we are reaching equality, and now, more than ever, I think we are a strong country, that has kinks to work out, yes, but we are certainly not on the brink of total meltdown. So relax."

Now this stament is filled with pure hogwash! We are not even beginning to "reach equality" and we should not even be attempting to reach such an unnatural state of affairs. Communist countries pride themselves on having made great progress toward equality and their people do share equal poverty but their leaders are not equal. And what kind of equality is it that allows no one to break the law except the President of the United States and get by with it? And those who speak the most about equality have no real genuine interest in it. I doubt very seriously if you would really want equality if you understood just what that meant. No, Jenny, we do not want equality in all things. What we want is equality in the things that do not require any obedience, submission, or self-sacrifice. Most of the talk in this country about equality is pure highbrowed hypocracy. Your talk of it is no different.

I do agree with you however that we are not on the verge of a meltdown. But we have no reason to just "relax" and not pay attention to what is going on around us. If it were not for those like Danny and Mark who are paying attention and sounding alarms, that may on occassion appear to be as ridiculous as your absurd contention that Clinton deserves some kind of Credit for not taking military control of this country during his impeachment proceedings, there would indeed be reason for us to be alarmed.

Then you show how nieve you are about what Clinton would do if he was blackmailed by a foriegn power as follows:

"Give me a break! The president would come out, sheepishly, admit what he did, I mean, he managed to admit, and still have public support, He would never let the country be blackmailed."

Now how could you know and prove that Clinton would never allow this country to be blackmailed? He was afraid to just come out and tell us the truth about what happened between him and Monica and did not do so until those who were accused of "prying into his personal life" forced him to come out and tell the truth. And even then he did not do it "sheepishly" but defiantly and arrogantly and held back as much as he could until it was finally squeezed out of him. If he were being blackmailed about Monica by a foriegn power we have no reason to believe that if his adversaries were not hotly pursuing the truth with diligence that he would just "come out and sheepishly" tell us the whole truth before he would allow this country to be blackmailed.

You claim that he would "never allow this country to be blackmailed". Can you prove it? No, you cannot. You have no way of knowing what he would do in this situation. Neither do we know that he would allow it to be blackmailed but we do have more reason to suspect that he would than you have for your "certianty" that he would not.

And your idea that Clinton still had general public support after he admitted what he had done is not exactly true. There were millions who did not support him and though they were less in number than those who did continue to support him they were sufficent in number to make it impossible for anyone to honestly claim that he had any kind of broad based support. Even those who claimed to support him did not support what he did and when it was time for his Vice President to run for the office he had to "distance" himself from Clinton because he knew that Clinton was not really "supported" as much as the spin doctors claimed. And one of the reasons Mr. Gore will not be our President for the next four years is because the Silent Majority" were fed up with the things that occured during a CLinton administration.

Now, while I agree that we should not be negative about the prospects of our country's future simply because their is the hope yet that we can bring many to come to Christ, but I do not believe that it is useful to follow you and others like you who are so nieve about men like Clinton.

Your Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

First of all, if any one who replies to me would like me to consider them seriously, please take the time to spell my name right. JENNIE. Second, I don't think I'm nieve at all about the military, and the way it is controlled. The pres. is commander in chief. The real reason Clinton couldn't use the army for self-purpose is not the chain of command, but that the American people have such an implicit respect for the law, that they would never stand for it. Clinton may have arrogantly replied against the republicans about monica, but I cannot beleive he would hold out against foreign blackmail. ALl scandals surface eventually. Clinton is concerned about his legacy (as hyporcritical as that sounds, it is true, he is trying, for ex. to make the middle-east peace process his legacy) and if he submitted to foreign blackmail, when it was made public, he'd never be able to show his face again. He is a Rhodes scholar, even if he made dumb personal choices, he wouldn't make that big of a political blunder. Don't get to cocky- you have no more reason to beleive that he would be blackmailed than I have that he wouldn't. We'll have to agree to disagree about that point. The silent majority? You extremists (leftists and rightists) love to tout the silent majority. Regardless of who won the presidency, (I think it was so close, I'm unsure who I think should have won) the majority is satisfied with the status quo. The economy is good, we have money, unemployment is low, the county is the ultimate superpower of the world. I think the problem is not that the "silent Majority" is fed up, but that too many people are complacent, apathetic. If there is any silent majority, it is the half of this country that were so silent they didn't even bother to vote, and so we have no idea if they supported gore or bush. And while you're busy offending people, trying to convert people to your version of Christ, and claiming supperiority (if I'm so nieve, where did you get all your verified info from?) I'll be busy reaping the benefits of capitalism and Judaism. I'm going to be a lawyer for the ACLU, make money, and support a dozen charities. Thats a good, moral way to live, so if your Christ doesn't approve, screw it.

-- Anonymous, December 18, 2000

Hi, Jennie,

I am sad that you have become so alienated from Christ, because He is your Messiah, and he is my Savior.

Don't let imperfect people such as we all are make you to stumble. Don't look at us; look at Christ Himself. Read the New Testament and judge its words by its words.

We are supposed to exhibit the love of Christ and the fruit of the Spirit, and fail terribly when we do not.

I wanted to make sure I spelled your name correctly, and I would like to point out that Christ, also, would like to have His Name honored in the way He desires.

Which is as the Son of Yahuweh, and as the Messiah.

I hope you don't mind if I point out some misspelled words, either, because misspelled words jump out from the page at me.

First, your December 6th post to Mark:

voting (not 'voiting')

and December 12;

referring (2 'rs')

too disappointed (not 'to diappointed')

lose (not 'loose')

ridiculous (not 'rediculous')

expediency (not 'expediancy')

On the 13th:

That's (not Thats)

and today;

hypocritical (not 'hyporcritical')

I thought I probably shouldn't point those out, but I imagine it will help you out when you are writing briefs and such.

-- Anonymous, December 18, 2000

Also....Anti Christian Lawyer's Union

I guess it's a good thing that you have already labeled me an anti- Semite - otherwise I might get offended by your words.

Hey, I have an idea. If you want to be the defender of Civil Rights in this country, will you represent me when I sue you for the derogatory and discriminatory remarks you have made against me personally and against Texans and Christians in general?

-- Anonymous, December 18, 2000

I heard of a case this week in Oregon, where the ACLU is helping a small town sue a couple for holding a Bible study and prayer meeting of about 25 people in their home (the lame excuse was something like the area was residential and not zoned as a parking lot). This is not an unusual case for the ACLU, instead, more and more it is the norm. Kids are taken to court by the ACLU for taking their Bibles to school, or writing a history paper on Jesus. Is this the kind of "civil rights" you wish to defend and promote, the kind where people who practice their religious convictions are attacked by the government? It must be, since you label people who are not afraid to say they have religious convictions as being "extremists." How terribly sad for you.

-- Anonymous, December 18, 2000

Although they have fought for the free speech and expression "rights" of pornographers, witches, abortionists, homosexuals, convicted criminals, child molesters (recently supporting the North American Man-Boy Love Association's "right" to have a website describing how to seduce minors), occultists, Communists, lesbians, Nazis, illegal aliens, AIDS patients, and Satanists, the ACLU has resolutely attempted to deny those same privileges to Christians.

Their bias and discriminatory intolerance against Christians is a matter of record. Recently, they have sought to:

Halt the singing of Christmas carols like "Silent Night" and "Away in a Manger" in public facilities;

Deny the tax-exempt status of all churches--yet maintaining it for themselves as well as for various occult groups;

Disallow prayer--not just in the public school classrooms, but in locker rooms, sports arenas, graduation exercises, and legislative assemblies;

Terminate all military and prison chaplains;

Deny Christian school children access to publicly funded services;

Eliminate nativity scenes, crosses, and other Christian symbols from public property;

Prohibit voluntary Bible reading in public schools--even during free time or after classes;

Remove the words In God We Trust from our coins;

Deny accreditation to science departments at Bible-believing Christian Universities;

Prevent the posting of the Ten Commandments in classrooms;

Terminate all voucher programs and tuition tax credits;

Prohibit census questions about religious affiliation; and

Purge the words under God from the Pledge of Allegiance.

So much for the civil liberties of Christians. I guess all religions and points of view count, no matter how perverse ... except for Christianity. Of course, since you are so openly hostile toward Christianity, without even having read the Bible or examined its claims, perhaps the ACLU is the perfect place for you. A good lawyer would examine the evidence first, though. I just pray that the Judge you will eventually have to face has mercy on you.

-- Anonymous, December 18, 2000

I am reminded of another incident:

Above the heads of the members of the Supreme Court is the Ten Commandments, the core of the Jewish Torah and also the core of our legal system.

Yet last year, I believe, a judge in Arkansas (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) was taken to court with the help of the ACLU because he dared to display the Ten Commandments on his bench. He was told he was showing "religious bias" and that it was a breach of the so-called "constitutional separation of church and state" (which doesn't even exist!).

Although several higher courts ruled against him, he resolutely refused to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom. The governor of that state came to his aide saying he would call out the state's National Guard if anyone attempted to remove the document from the courtroom. The case was apparently dropped, only because of the public outcry.

This past November, that judge was elected to his state's Supreme Court (where they probably follow the US Court's lead and have a copy of the Ten Commandments displayed) in a landslide victory.

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2000

Brother John:

THat Judge was in Alabama, a place where the ACLU has rarely succeeded. Judge Moore took a stand and it is interesting that you point out to Jennie that if she were an ACLU lawyer she might even have to fight against her own Jewish religion. In the case of Judge Moore she would have been fighting against the very heart of the TORAH.

I am amazed at how many Jewish persons are so fond of the ACLU which could easily become an oppressor of their religion as well as the CHristian faith. Neither Christians nor Jews are unfamiliar with persecution but that either of those two groups of people should ever be involved in persecution is a disgrace to all that either of them claim to believe. I am also shocked at the apparent antisemetic sentiments of those who hate Christ as much as some Jews do today. For he was of the seed of David, which would phisically make Him definately Jewish by race. Any one who hates Christ is not only Anti semetic but is also Anti God for Christ was "God with us". (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:21-23). He was the suffering servant (Isa. 53) who wept over the very people who to this day hate Him. The Hatred for Christ is clearly heard in Jennie's voice. Such shameful anti- semitism.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2000

JENNIE:

You have said:

"First of all, if any one who replies to me would like me to consider them seriously, please take the time to spell my name right. JENNIE."

First of all I apologize for misspelling your name it was not intentional. It is much like the many mispellings found in your post to which I responded. At least I attempted to refer to you by name which you did not "take the time" to do in your response to me. It is entirely up to you, and of little consequence to me, whether you take anything seriously. It is your choice. One who intends to be a lawyer must learn to look past emotional feelings about her "name not being spelled right" if she is to learn to give objective consideration to both sides of any issue. You have a long way to go before you can even remotely begin to seriously consider the practice of Law.

Then you tell us:

"Second, I don't think I'm nieve at all about the military, and the way it is controlled. The pres. is commander in chief. The real reason Clinton couldn't use the army for self-purpose is not the chain of command, but that the American people have such an implicit respect for the law, that they would never stand for it."

Your woeful ignorance of the military is evident to anyone who has served any length of time in the military. If you ever expect to be a lawyer you should learn to gather all of your facts before presenting them. And you must not be afraid to consider seriously arguments that may be strong against your case. For if you ignore them and do not look them squarely in the eye you will fail miserably as a Lawyer. If this is how you intend to practice law, we can only pray that the ACLU will hire you for then we will have far less trouble out of them. The President is the Commander -in -Chief but this does not mean that he has the power to give and expect any unlawful orders to be obeyed. In fact, the military is taken from among the very people that you have admitted "would never stand" for any President to use the Army for any "self-purpose". Therefore by your own words you admit that he does not have the ability to use the Military as they are used in Africa and South America as you originally cliamed that he could have done.

Then you say:

"Clinton may have arrogantly replied against the republicans about monica, but I cannot beleive he would hold out against foreign blackmail."

Why can't you believe it that it is at least possible? Are you so blinded by your respect for the man that you cannot even admit that it is even remotely possible for him to do such a thing, especially since you have no good evidence to offer as proof that it is not possible for him to do such? A Lawyer would do far better than that in any argument. And his address concerning the affair with Monica was not addressed to the "republicans" alone. It was "arrogantly" addressed to all of the American people. You are nieve indeed! I talked with many of my friends who are democrates that were discussed by the entire thing and they did not like his arrogance either and never once considered that it was addressed to republicans.

Then you say:

"ALl scandals surface eventually."

I believe that a good lawyer would say only that "most" scandals surface eventually. In fact more of them surface in America than in many other Countries. You have no way of knowing how many scandals have never seen the light of day, especially in communist countries where it is often impossible to pursue the truth. We should be thankful for those who will not stop pursuing the truth in this country. Because of them scandals have at least the possiblity of being exposed. Clinton did not want to be exposed and he was willing to break our laws and commit purjury in order to protect HIMSELF. A man like him is a good potential target of any foriegn power that might like to blackmail him. In fact, any man that had his crimes in their background would have trouble passing a background check to work for the federal government.

Then you finally tell us the truth:

"Clinton is concerned about his legacy (as hyporcritical as that sounds, it is true, he is trying, for ex. to make the middle-east peace process his legacy) and if he submitted to foreign blackmail, when it was made public, he'd never be able to show his face again."

Yes Clinton is concerned about HIS legacy when he was elected to be concerned about OUR country. He will never be able to make middle east peace his legacy because he does not have the ability to do anything about the middle east. He ignorantly fails even now to know that his true legacy has already been established. He will be remembered for his crimes for which he will eventually face punishment. As far as his ability to "show his face again" he has no shame and he will show his face regardless of how much evil he does. And your assumption is that if he submitted to blackmail of a foriegn power that it would evenually come to be known. In fact, it may have happened and none of us know about it, including you, a rising ACLU legal star.

Then you seem to think that scholarship equals integrity as follows:

" He is a Rhodes scholar, even if he made dumb personal choices, he wouldn't make that big of a political blunder."

His being a "Rhodes Scholar" did not prevent him from making the extremely "dumb personal choice" of having sex with Monica L. while at the same time pretending to be the great defender of women's rights, now did it? and this turned out to be a very "big political blunder", now didn't it? I do not have much confidence that scholarship protects a man from making blunders both personal and political but a good measure of personal integrity would prevent such blunders and Mr. Clinton just does not have it, now does he?

Then you say:

"Don't get to cocky- you have no more reason to beleive that he would be blackmailed than I have that he wouldn't. We'll have to agree to disagree about that point."

I have not been very cocky, but I have shown that we at least have evidence that Mr. Clinton will hide the truth to protect himself and therefore it is likely that he would submit to blackmail for the same reason. But you have presented no evidence that even remotely indicates that Mr. Clinton would never do such a thing. Therefore we do have more reason to believe that he could be blackmailed than you have that he couldn't. Thus I do not "agree to disagree" about that point. We do not need to agree on disagreeing. For we already disagree and agreeing to do what we are already doing is pure nonsense. Then you do not seem to believe much in a silent majority:

" The silent majority? You extremists (leftists and rightists) love to tout the silent majority. Regardless of who won the presidency, (I think it was so close, I'm unsure who I think should have won) the majority is satisfied with the status quo."

Now, You label me an extremist without any evidence to support your claim that I am extreme. In fact, your own comments seem to make you appear rather "extreme" yourself. Yet at the same time you are not even sure who "should have won" the election. But in your confusion you are more than certian that the majority is satisfied with the status quo. You neglect to notice that the number of people voting in this election was higher than in the past and a large number of those were people who had never voted before. These are the one's that I am referring to when I speak of the "silent majority". I am referring to the people who seldom vote that you spoke about.

Then you give us more of the "montra":

"The economy is good, we have money, unemployment is low, the county is the ultimate superpower of the world. I think the problem is not that the "silent Majority" is fed up, but that too many people are complacent, apathetic."

The economy is good, but you fail to realize that the President of the United States does very little to effect the economy but he gets the blame if it goes bad and the credit if it goes good. The hard working people and our abundance of men and women with the entrepenurial spirit are the real heros and makers of our good economy and Clinton and his supporters trying to take the credit for their hard work is a shame and a disgrace. It is as shameful as Gore claiming to have "invented the internet". It is just simply a lie.

Then you say:

"If there is any silent majority, it is the half of this country that were so silent they didn't even bother to vote, and so we have no idea if they supported gore or bush."

Yes, there is a silent majority and even you have correctly identified them. It is the "half of the country" that are so silent that they do not vote. And politicians had better pay close attention to them because when they think all is well a sufficent number of this group, if they are aroused with anger and disgust, will come in and dash their dreams of winning the white house. If you do not believe it just ask your friend Gore. This is what happened to him. Enough of that silent majority came in, voted and sent Gore scurrying and stiring around in Florida scrapping for votes and finally Bush is our President. This group of people have done this again and again but few even notice them. They do not march down the street telling the world their "view" and trying to persuade others to see it their way. They simply wait until something makes them really mad and they just patiently wait for election day and they wonder down to the polls and vote. They do it so rarely that they are of little interest to politicians. Politicians do not even know their views. They are quite and they can swing an election anytime they want to. And no liberal or conservative can sway them. I do not expect you, or anyone else to understand the silent majority but even you admit that those who do not vote are in the majority and you admit that they are silent. Thus you at least admit that their is a silent majority even though you do not even consider the possiblitiy that they may, on occassion, vote when the regular voters decide to stay home.

Then you seem to be offended as follows:

"And while you're busy offending people, trying to convert people to your version of Christ, and claiming supperiority (if I'm so nieve, where did you get all your verified info from?) I'll be busy reaping the benefits of capitalism and Judaism."

Now you act as if you are offended and that I would be concerned about your taking offense. It never occured to you that your words could have been offesive to those who hold views opposite to yours. I am not in the least trying to convert you to Christ by having a political discussion with you. I would be interested in converting you to Christ Our Lord but I have said nothing about that to you thus far, now have I? And I do not have a "version of Christ" and you have not offered any evidence to prove that I do, now have you? I have no doubts that you are even now reaping the benefits of capitalism and Judaism. I believe that there are many good benefits to be derived from them both. Just as my Chinese friends reap the benefits of communism and buddhism and there are some benefits to be derived from both of them. But neither capitalism, Judaism, communism, or Buddhism can give the only benefit that matters in this life. None of them will give salvation and forgiveness of sins and eternal life in heaven. If you are interested in these things you must come to Christ for He, and he alone can give this to anyone. He raised from the dead that he might give eternal life to us all as even the Jewish Scriptures predicted that he would. He is your Messiah and if you were to really accept the truth taught in the Jewish scriptures you would be a Christian even this very day. For Christ our Lord is the Jewish Messiah, whom the Jews crucified with their own wicked hands. How foolish. But God took their evil deed and reversed it by raising Christ from the dead and he is alive forevermore and is indeed the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 and the Emannuel of Isa. 7:14. He is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and every kneee shall bow to him one day. I pray that you will come to know your own Messiah spoken of in your own Jewish scriptures.

Then you say:

" I'm going to be a lawyer for the ACLU, make money, and support a dozen charities."

I am glad to know that you are so "special" that you will take all that money you earn fighting with the ACLU against the "ten Commandments" and all Christian people where ever they chose to pray, and striving to nullify our very constitution and seeking to persuade the courts and the people to deny liberty to Jewish and Christian alike and you will use it to help us poor Christians and Jews whom you will help to lead into poverty because you will make the rules against religion in the work place so unbearable that no good Christian or Jew can find gainful employment. I suppose that one like yourself could only live with your actions if you supported a dozen charities. Your hypocracy is indeed appauling and pathetic.

But we are not fortunate enough to have you as a Lawyer for the ACLU. For if we could only persuade them to argue as falaciously as you do in their contentions with us we would have endless victories. Unfortunately for us, they are far better than you at making their case.

Then you show us just how a faithful Jewish girl should use fowl language and then I am beginning to think you just might make it as an anti-semetic ACLU Lawyer after all. These are your words:

"Thats a good, moral way to live, so if your Christ doesn't approve, screw it. "

I suppose that your fowl language is a "good moral way" to talk to others especially if they hold a different religion and a different view of politics than you do.

I know that you think it is that easy to ignore Christ and refuse to obey Him. If you were to meet your Messiah and he told you to not be an ACLU Lawyer would you tell him to "screw it"? If you sincerely look at the the Jewish Scriptures you will find that Christ is your Messiah. There are plenty of Jews who have surrendered to Christ as their Messiah after having studied their own scriptures. But it does appear that you simply insist that we all hold to your view of politics and you do not want anyone to ever be disrepectful toward the Jews but you can spit in the Christian's face and ridicule all that he believes and at the same time piously condemn those who speak against the Jewish people and their religion. I have great respect for the Jews for they were once God's people. I was raised to imitate Moses, Joseph, Enoch, Jacob, and even Christ My Lord was of Jewish descent. The last people on this earth to have disrespect for the Jews is the Christians. Simply because their Lord is your Messiah. And Your Holy and Inspired Scriptures of the Old Testament is their school master that lead them to Christ, the Messiah. Your Messiah does not approve of the deceptions and lies of the ACLU or anyone else. But you do not care, do you?

So you use language that most Jews would not use to ridicule Christ. I sincerely believe that most Jews would not appreciate your Anti -Christian sentiments and language any more than they appreciate anti-semitism. If you do not like anti-semitism and if you want the "equality" that you so hypocritically pretended to want and if you truly want to teach "tolerance" you might begin with accepting the fact that Christians are equal to Jews in the eyes of God (unless you think God is not one who believes in equality) and learn to tone down your anti-christian rehetoric! Ha! The legs of the lame are indeed unequal!

If you think that I am concerned about offending you, you are woefully mistaken. One who enters this forum with the deliberate intent to insult and appear superior to all who have made comments that she does not like should not whine when she is "offended" by a reply to her ignorance and arrogance.

For the Messiah,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2000