You know gimpel I have to agree that slavery was and is wrong, not only in this country but in any country. Yet the Bible (capitalized) that the republican candidates are so fond of thumping seems to find absolutely nothing wrong with it. In fact that is what the white southerners pointed to as proof back then that there was absolutely nothing wrong with it.

HMMMM!!! I wonder if some of these Bible thumpers in todays "MORAL MAJORITY" might decide the same thing. I mean the Bible does say it is OK. I guess if you're going to believe one part of the Bible you have to believe it all.

Ephesians 6:5 says "Slaves be obediant to those who are your masters according to the flesh with fear and trembling in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ."

I have to wonder how long it will be before they decide since it is OK with God why aren't we doing it.

Sort of like the preacher up in Watertown, N.Y. The minister of the First Baptist Chuch in Watertown N.Y. just dismissed a Sunday School teacher who had taught for 54 years because of what it says in the Bible? The letter quoted the first epistle to Timothy: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

Yep sounds like we may be getting off to a start on that theocracy some of the people in this country seem to want.

Gimpel you really are an idiot! Comparing Lincoln to Bush is like comparing apples to oranges. At least the civil war had a cause, (and the good guys won!). This "War on Terror" will only end when that loser gets out of office.

mydtwc, it seems I am always picking on you, but you give more rebuttals than anyone else on these blogs. I'm sure you don't mind the feedback, though. I would like to respond to your view on Biblical slavery issue.

When Paul wrote this epistle - Ephesians 6:5 - slavery was very common in Israel under Roman rule. There are two dynamics that Paul speaks of. The flesh part of man and the spiritual part of man. The flesh is spoke of in writing and the spiritual is implied. One of the problems they were having in that time period was that masters and slaves were both becoming Christians. The masters didn't want to give up their slaves and the slaves were wanting their freedom.

Paul was addressing the slaves and telling them to be obedient to their masters and to consider it as service to Christ.

This passage isn't endorsing slavery but telling the slave to be obedient to his master. Paul understood that new Christians don't change all of their disobedient ways overnight and that the masters would have to grow to the point in understanding that slavery was wrong.

In verse 8 Paul goes on to say, "...whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free."

In verse 9, "And you, masters, do the same thing to them..." Paul was encouraging the slave owners to treat the slaves well.

The book of Philemon is a letter written by Paul to Philemon. Onesimus is a runaway slave of a Christian named Philemon and has a church in his home. Onesimus winds up in prison with Paul and becomes a Christian. Paul sends Onesimus back to Philemon with this letter. In verses 15-16 Paul writes, "...he (Onesimus) departed for a while for this purpose, that you might receive him forever no longer as a slave but more than a slave - a beloved brother..."

Paul was asking Philemon for Onesimus's freedom. The Bible does not endorse slavery, it encourages freedom.

Gimpel, basic common knowledge of history would show you that the Republican Party of Lincoln's era was the progressive more northern party of its time as is today's Democratic Party. Bush would have been the leader of the Democratic Party back then. Trying to keep things the same rather than moving forward, sucking up to the rich white elite. Doing things in the name of "God." So to compare Lincoln to Bush is totally moronic.

imdstuf, what are you thinking? Where did Gimpel talk about: Republicans and Democrats? Sucking up? Rich white people? Doing things in the name of God? All Gimpel did was draw a parallel saying Lincoln had similar problem that Bush is.

Since you brought up the idea of totally moronic I would agree but it isn't about what Gimpel's blog.

For those who think that Lincoln started and fought the War Between the States for the sole purpose of freeing/ending slavery, you have a poor understanding of history. There is no question that the slavery played a key part in the primary issue of states rights versus a strong centralized government, but a simple study of Lincoln's documented speeches reveals that his feeling about slavery were far removed from the public personna created during and after the struggle.

Lincoln's war was as unpopular in the North as the South. Riots in New York City opposing the war had to be subdued by Union troops. In order to be reelected in 1864, Lincoln played the trump card and finally embraced the abolition of slavery as the great "cause." Most people want to ignore the fact that the "great" Emancipation Proclamation did not free slaves in the North, nor for that fact the South where Lincoln had no authority.

"He denounced “equality between the white and black races” in his August 21, 1858 debate with Stephen Douglas; stated in his 1852 eulogy to Henry Clay that as monstrous as slavery was, eliminating it would supposedly produce “a greater evil, even to the cause of human liberty itself;” and in his February 27, 1860 Cooper Union speech advocated deporting black people so that “their places be . . . filled up by free white laborers.”"

Lincoln to his credit (if you agree with him) sought to save the Union above all else and did not consider ending slavery more important than saving the Union. Slavery, certainly the most polarizing issue of the day, served Lincoln well in both his election of 1860 and 1864.

"Add to this Lincoln’s extraordinary disregard for the Constitution during his entire administration, and it seems absurd for Quackenbush or anyone else to portray him as a champion of the Constitution who was pestered by “political zealots.” Among Lincoln’s unconstitutional acts were launching an invasion without the consent of Congress, blockading Southern ports before formally declaring war, unilaterally suspending the writ of habeas corpus and arresting and imprisoning thousands of Northern citizens without a warrant, censoring telegraph communications, confiscating private property, including firearms, and effectively gutting the Ninth and Tenth Amendments."

Quoted comments from - Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail] is the author of the LRC #1 bestseller, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (Forum/Random House 2002) and professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland.

In conclusion: Slavery was a great cancer that should have never have existed, nor should it exist today as it does in Africa. It's hard to believe that Blacks are still selling Blacks yet where is our outrage to end the dispicable act. Our country was almost destroyed so the"priveleged" few could enjoy inexpensive labor. Slavery was wrong - period. Nowever, the War Between the States was far more complicated that a noble attempt by Lincoln to rid the country of slavery. It is my opinon that the war prompogated the seeds of racial hatred that has and continues to exist in this country.

g_dog_blog, I know Gimpel Bread's subtle ideology and why she made the comparison. She loves all things Republican. Admit it. If George Bush turned the cannons on NY like Lincoln Gimpel's Bread would find a way to defend it.

FrozenOne, no one said terrorism was going to completely end. It has been going on forever. Just like wars in the middle east. Predicting them is like predicting rain. Why do those people hate us? It is not because they are jealous of our freedom, trust me. They hate us because we interfere with their lives. If we did not stick our noses in other people's business, we would not create enemies. Other presidents would have common sense to work diplomatically as well as militarily to resolve matters. Bush wants to be Billy Bad Ass. He is a peice of trailor trash off of the show cops, but he wears a suite. He is like the rednecks who are always outside in the yard fighting not matter the issue. "YEEEHAAW, I remember my parents and teachers told us to talk and not fight...forget dem, I am gonna whoop some ass cuz I am W. Get 'er done!!!"

I apologize for being harsh. W. is trailor trash in a suite however. I see no reason why someone feels the need to defend him at every turn just because he is president. Again, he works for us. We elected him. He is not a king, nor dictator. He does not have unlimited power to do as he chooses without our knowledge. He seems to think he does. If that is the case, then the terrorists have won already. We have lost our freedom. I think it is kind of funny, watching Star Wars: Clone Wars again last night. I saw a little parellel in there. The Senator who eventually become the emporer sowed his seeds for power by secretly stirring up a war, then taking on leadership powers and creating an army to fight the supposed enemy. I know W. is not looking to become a permanent emporer, but he wants to be one while in office.

If conservative means wanting more state control, less federal government, then I would be for it, but that is only in theory. So far I have seen neither party do anything to shrink the government. It keeps growing and trying to stick its arms in everything.

I say obolish the party system. Let politicians vote on what they think is right. There should be no pressure to vote along party lines. This would also let voters vote by who they think is right. No one would have to feel allegiance to a particular candidate because who he is affiliated with. Heck, maybe corporations would not so easily influence the politicians because they could not just buy them off as a group. Who knows, maybe then we would not see so much outsourcing. I am just dreaming now though...

imdstuf, that position could be defendable only if the cannons were aimed at the liberal democrats in NY;-) The previous sentence was written only to show how ridiculous imdstuf's comment about turning the cannon to NY was.

The terrorists hate us for 3 reasons. 1. We support Israel. 2. We are a powerful nation. 3. We are not Muslim. What were we doing when they blew up the World Trade Center? How were we sticking our nose into their business when they blew up the World Trade Center? When has President Bush not used diplomacy with Afghanistan or Iraq prior to war?

Did President Kennedy try diplomacy with North Vietnam? Yes, and it failed.

Did President Clinton try diplomacy with Iraq? Yes, and nothing happened except more rebelliousness from Saddam Hussein toward America and the UN who brokered an agreement with Hussein to stop making weapons.

Trailer trash? Ann Richards, an extremely liberal Texas democrat, as a keynote speaker for the Democratic convention, accused President Bush Sr. of being born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Now his son is trailer trash. Notice the “e” in trailer. From silver spoon to trailer trash in one generation.

Most people attack like this when they have no evidence and nothing better to say about a person.

Consider the absolute hypocrisy of the Democratic leaders after reading a public announcement given by President Clinton on December 19, 1998

“Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. ... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

"Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. ... Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. ... Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection."

"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. ... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.”

"The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. ... Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. ... But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."

What has happened since 1998 to change the minds of Mr. Clinton and the Democrats? Who stuck their nose in someone elses business?

I first thought after reading imdstuf's reply that I would say that imdstuff may not be a Democrat but he/she regurgitates the liberal bias and that some people cannot be convinced even when logic and evidence are given. I was doing my usual study of learning more of the facts as they are about the world when I ran across the next essay I will pass along to those who are interested after my response to imdstuff.

This will be the last thing I say about this subject because I have come to the conclusion that there is no convincing imdstuf and mydtcw. They don't want to be convinced to believe anything other than what they already believe. So I am not ending this to hide but to say why waste my efforts. The good news in all of this is that they are in the extreme minority.

For the rest of you I found this letter by an attorney written to his sons very interesting and found it at www.snopes.com. I will not print it in its entirety but you too may want to check it out and put it into your arsenal of evidence that America is on the right course. Now if we could just get the liberal boneheads to understand it.

"This was written on May 19, 2004."

"This WAR is for REAL !"

"To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII)."

"The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means."

"First, let's examine a few basics:

"1. When did the threat to us start?

"Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:

* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.

(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).

"2. Why were we attacked?

"Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

3. Who were the attackers?

In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.

5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?

Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm )

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others.

Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

6. So who are we at war with?

There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:

1. Can we lose this war?

2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.

We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them.

We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims.

If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?

The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war?

Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?

No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.

And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.

And still more recently, the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.

Can this be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years.

Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States, but throughout the world.

We are the last bastion of defense.

We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world!

We can't!

If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.

And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.

And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.

They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.

After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country and the world.

Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal and that includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world!

Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our "leaders" in Congress ought to read it, too.

There are those that find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE!

g_dog_blog, I voted for Bush the first time around. I thought his father was a good president. I bashed Clinton at ever turn. I used to love listening to Rush Limbaugh. So tell me why it is I need convincing? Apparently watching how our president handles business is what already convinced me to change my mind previously. Earlier at the end of my comments above you will see what I think we need. Obolish the party system. Let ideas stand independently of a party line. I really want to believe politicians mean well, but when I hear about how Vietnam dragged on for the support of munitian manufactures and about how much Halibertan has made in Iraq of course I get suspicious. Not to mention seeing jobs outsourced thanks to guys like Clinton supporting it, and many other politicians on both sides of the isle.

Us pulling out of Iraq does not mean we have lost. I see it as us allowing them to finally start their new life. If it is meant to be that they are a democracy then it will flourish. I am against the war, but I will be the positive one here: Have faith the Iraqis do not need us babysitting them. Then we can focus our forces elsewhere.

When are people going to realize that division is destroying this country? We are going to be too busy bickering with one another while more terrorists slip right in and attack us again. Some people use that strategy- divide and conquer. We are saving them the trouble and helping them out by dividing ourselves. And who are the liberals that are against the war on terrorism going to blame if we are attacked again? You can be sure they won't take any part of that blame!

What happened to the UNITED States of America?
United we conquer, Divided we fall.