You shouldnt even have to answer the "he" in your statements about canidates. In English, the masculine includes the feminine. One needs not always say "he or she" as that is just a waste of time. It is completely proper to say "he" regardless of what liberal feminists would have you beleive.

*candidates

"Reid to Republicans, drop the Tea Party 'extremism.'" Fox News.Com

Republicans to Reid and Liberals, only if you and your party drop Socialism and idiocy.

Too bad he stayed in this long. What a hypocrite to back Romney after all his criticism of him and his tax plan.

Huntsman may very well be a good candidate for the Vice President's slot.

yes he should have dropped out - far too liberal to hoping to replace obama (the marxist)as president.

Huntsman should have dropped out.

We need a fire-breather to get the electorate behind rolling back the last 3 years.

He is a lightweight on economic issues who would take constitutionally questionable positions toward the statist side.

In terms of policy and performance, Huntsman made nore sense and was far and away the best

Message to the RNC: I DON’T INTEND TO HOLD MY NOSE ANYMORE! I am not a socialist. I wasn’t raised in a socialist country. I will not vote for a socialist candidate REGARDLESS OF THE PARTY HE CLAIMS TO REPRESENT. When you ran John McCain, I didn’t leave your party, you left me. I voted for the Constitution Party. If you run Mitt Romney, you will have left me for good. If you want to give Obrain-dead another term, just run another socialist against him. There are other parties that don’t just say what I want to hear, but actually do what they say they will do. Unlike the Republican Party that so far has talked big, but since Reagan, your candidates have left the elections behind, taken an oath, and then continued progressive/socialist policies as though they had never opened their mouths once during their campaigns. You are about to strategize yourselves right out of existence and, believe me, you will not be missed! If the Tea Party made an error in judgment, it was in ever believing that you could be trusted to speak for conservatives.

Should Huntsman have dropped out? YES!

Bob Apjok's comment is absolutely correct! "It is completely proper to say "he" regardless of what liberal feminists would have you believe." Perhaps they should spend less time looking for something to cricize, and more time learning proper English.

It doesn't matter to me that Huntsman is out of the race. I was never a supporter. However, I hope his supporters don't go to Romney or Paul. Paul is a libertarian in GOP disguise. Romney reminds me too much of Bush II.

No, I wish Jon Huntsman had not dropped out of the race. While unsure of his electability, I found myself liking him more and more with each debate. He had a solid conservative record as governor of Utah and was laying out an attractive agenda in his presidential run. I would have preferred to have Rick Perry drop out to narrow the Republican field before South Carolina.

Yes, he should drop out, but done it sooner. Perry, Gingrich and Santorum should also bow out, immediately, and quit clogging up the debate.

Bob Apjok,

The use of he or she has become the new political correctness even as you are absolutely correct. It shows how far down that road we have actually gone.

What conservatives need remember is that perception is reality in politics. The left will demonize anyone in order to win. Unfortunately Mitt Romney can easily be morphed into the image of a wall street insider. The OWS crowd is just itching to jump on it. BHO isn't stupid. Nor is the media people who want him to win re-election. I strongly suspect that the establishment shots at Gingrich are to ensure a Romney nomination and another 4 years of Obama.

Huntsman should never have been there in the first place. I don't think his endorsement of Romney will be valuable, at least SC.

What is wrong with the Republican Party??? It is so sad to watch the party repeat the failure of the McCain nomination. If Romney, the man without principles, is nominated then it is proof that Republicans are not really serious about winning. At this time it is a waste of good money to donate to the Republican party that does not want to win . Romney is very likely to fail far worse than McCain. Romney is a clone of John Kerry and neither is a trustworthy person. I do not want Flip Romney in the White House and will not vote for him in November. If we must have only the coice between bad people then lets keep the bad one we have.

To Terxas Cooke --- AMEN

The forthcoming presidential election is not the time for a "not as bad as__" President. We desperately need a real leader, a confirmed statesman, once who loves his country and knows how to be a true President, not a paper cutout of one.

Huntsman may have a future if he runs as himself, but not this year. I think it is good that he dropped out.

Utahns were happy when Mr. Huntsman left the governors mansion to go to China for Pres. Obama. Mr. Huntsman ran as a conservative, but we quickly learned he is a Progressive Moderate as he dramatically increased the size of state government during his tenure.

No loss to the nation that he dropped out of the race.

Yes, he should drop out for two reasons. one, even though he is emimently qualified, he will not be able to complete with the money machine known as Mitt Romney.

Two, he will not be able to compete against the billon dollar Obama socialist machine without money.

I not sure Romney can do it ethier. My choice is Santorun since in my view he is the most conservative of the ones that are in the race.

I also think the Republican party ought to shut down the debates. They have destroyed the party position on many issues and given Obaaaaama more fuel.

Clay Lawrence-Patriot

Comments about Romney being evil because of his Bain operations are hollow. Try to remember why Sen. Harry Truman was selected to be Vice President. He was a fiscal hatchetman from the beginning. No government agency wanted him to ever look in to their spending matters. He was death on wasteful spending. We need such an attitude now more than then.

Since you printed only my first comment and your intentionally misleading response, I refer any interested readers to Thursday's comments section for the full exchange of ideas on the faith issue.

I never liked him. He was lackluster, at the best, and clearly just somebody thrown into the race to take up time in the debates and now throwing his support to the one the establishment wants to win the nomination. If this is what we get whether we want it or not, I hope it is enough to beat Obama which should have been the focus of all this primary stuff to start with. I hope the conservative voters go into the post wisely and cast their votes to the best candidate. We don't want to JUST BEAT OBAMA, we want to turn this country around and eliminate all the damage done by Obama and the democrats.

Q.) Should Hunstman dropped out of the GOP race?

A.) No! He should have run for the Democrats against Osama Hussein Obama who cannot win the the election in 2012. That is why there will not be a free election in November of this year.

I would suggest the TEA party movement has slowed the growth and speed of the left's agenda, and even a "moderate" like Romney can help to further slow down the socialist onslaught. What we need is "TEA Party II, The Wrath of Conservatives."

Huntsman was a joke from the start. The idea here is to defeat Obama at all costs. There are only 2 candidates that can debate Obama one on one, Gingrich and Paul. The democrats will grind the rest of them to powder. Newt's record is mixed and shows that he can be bought. Ron Paul is straight as an arrow and cannot be bought. The Washington insiders are obviously scared to death of Ron Paul. An honest man that cannot be bought is anathema to them.

I am a life long Reb. My first vote was for Ike. I am so fed up with the actions of those running for Prexy. Whoever ends up surviving will be destroyed and Obama will stay put. What a disgusting mess! For a brief time I supported Newt. That's over. And Santorum. Forget it. Mitt could have won but now, he will be so damaged. And Perry just isn't catching on. And yes, then there is Dr. Crazy. My party was temporarily damaged by the Birch Society and now we have the Libertarians. What more can we do for Obama?

Yes, he should. He had some good ideas but there is no way he could have won. Now some of his people, with any luck, will realize that Newt is the best man, most qualified candidate, to lead this Nation out of it's quagmire. He did it in the 80's and 90's,- he can do it again...Go Newt!!! God Bless America...

I read Huntsman's economic platform in the WSJ and it was conservative and an excellent plan for this country. Very conservative, anti-Obama if you will. I only wondered that if he did get elected, would he doggedly pursue this purported agenda. Hec, if got half of what he said, it would have been huge. Somehow though he couldn't close.

Huntsman should have never entered the race. He was meaningless from the outset..Personally I had never heard of him before this. AND who cares who he is supporting now. I don't get people of "power" telling everyone who they support. I don't care. They only have one vote just like the rest of us. People should learn to research and think for themselves and follow their instincts, not blowhards !!!

I am a conservative. I came from another country at a very young age. I am not happy with the current crop of candidates either. But by voting any other party will just guarantee the current occupant to be put back in. I am very concern about my grand childrens future, that they will never experience what I have experienced. America has been good to me. And I want the same for future generations. God Bless America!

I am not at all sure that Mitt, whos strongest qualification for persident is that he's not Obama, will lose against Obama. He just has to very tactfully point out Obama's failed presidency. The good news is that the proof of Obama's failure is not subjective, it's in the numbers and in the black & white newsprint. Obama's failure is so large, I would argue one could use the MSM's own Obama-lovin' words to indict his presidency.

Thank you for posting the quote from economist Henry Hazlitt (of whom I confess I was ignorant until today.)

I'm struck by how marvelously descriptive it was of the "gospel of Karl Marx." It's illuminating that if one were to replace the words "Karl Marx" with "modern Democrats" or "the Occupy movement," not only would the paragraph remain completely accurate, but I suspect even few of those thus described would disagree.

Huntsman would be a much better choice were he a Deemer, he is out of place as a true platform Republican because his social views dominate his commonsense in the fiscal area and he again is just another that would run to shake the hand of the party that would emasculate him and his viewpoints in public in order to co-opt them for their own.

Politics is a contact sport and giving the opposition a chance to penetrate your defense is a stupid way to make real potent and effective change.

Jon who?

Those of you pulling for Ron Paul are correct that he is probably the straightest arrow in the race. And he is the only one properly sounding the alarm about the perilous state of the economy to which so much constitutionally-unauthorized spending has brought us.

But so much of what he says (about subjects other than the economy) is rightly perceived by many on both the left and the right as frikkin' nuts: the 9-11 Truther sentiments, the "who are we to oppose an Iranian nuke?" question, the "legalize all drugs immediately" position, just to name three.

The problem is not that anyone thinks he doesn't mean what he says; it's that we're afraid he DOES.

Huntisman is a liberal and he and his friend Romney should both back out. You might as well call Romney, McCain the second. We don't want to get stuck with Obama for another term and Romney is right up Obama's back. We need real conservatives and there are only two left.

Look guys, as much as I hate saying this, if we don't ALL get behind WHOEVER the GOP nominates and get fired up about getting him elected, Obama is going to walk away with this election. All this petty bickering between the Paulbots, the Romneyites, and the Santorumists is just handing the Democrats the election on a silver platter! We have to work together, whether or not OUR guy gets the nomination. To paraphrase Franklin, "We must all hang together, or we will surely hang separately." C'mon guys, surely you can see the truth of this, yes? We have ONE LAST CHANCE to begin turning things around, and we cannot afford to snipe at each other because this guy is not conservative enough, or that guy hasn't got enough governing experience. We simply cannot afford the bickering.

Huntsman probably figured out he would share the same fate as Paul - a cold shoulder

from the Major Media. How Sad that that the voters of this country will pick our next Commander in Chief from the Siren Song of the Media, Listening to the TALK in stead of looking at the WALK !.......D W TX

While Jon Huntsman was a very good governor in Utah and is an honorable man with good ideas, a third place finish in New Hampshire after practically moving to the Live Free or Die State should have been enough for him to withdraw from the GOP race last Tuesday night on the spot.

Offer your "thank yous" before the national audience like a mensch, and declare your intent to edorse in the near future.

Best wishes to Jon Huntsman and his family with thanks for putting themselves "out there" before the vox populus.

If we want to win regardless of who gets the nod, we need to bring Ron Paul on-board.

VP, SEC DEF, SEC STATE, or equal recognizable position.

Ron Paul will pull so many of the young votes away from Obama, that he won't have a chance.

To the good ol' boy Republican clic: get and keep Ron Paul in the fold and offer him a cabinet level position.

That is of course if you care about Americ's future and want to win the White House.

Huntsman? Was he in the GOP race?

I've said it a million times and I will keep saying that all of the problems we are facing are moral problems and therefore, caused by ourselves.

Government cannot bail us out of our lack of practicing virtue.

Our entire society is permeated with making the unimportant and meaningless our priorities and at the same time valuing sin and vice.

Our hearts have been hardened to the point our minds are closed to the truth and our souls are lacking the graces from God necessary to act in a way pleasing to Him, according to his will, and in our own best interests.

We are clearly self-destructing and on the road to nation-suicide.

It's good that another phony drops out. Ultimately,

it's good.

Yes, and all the rest should too for they are becoming a laughing stock. Bring in the young people, Paul Ryan and Mario Rubio and that sharp, smart Black congressman from Florida who used to be in the military.

I like to have ideas in the race. The cost is unfortunate. Am sorry to see him leave.

I have an extremely difficult time seeing Standard and Poors worthy of any position to cast a downgrade

rating on even an outhouse after their complicty with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage(subprime)

escapade. Too big to fail? More likely powerful government friends.

Describing Mitt Romney's work at Bain Capital, the following was a key sentence in Linda Chavez's piece: "Bain Capital's model was to identify underperforming companies; tighten or replace management; and make them profitable as quickly as possible -- which often meant cutting jobs, at least initially."

If you accept that description as accurate, then I have to ask, why all the criticism of Romney?

Here in Illinois, we have a company called Illinois Tool Works, which effectively, has long done the same thing as Romney. They buy floundering or failing niche businesses that they think have growth potential. They restructure them, improve their business model, streamline their product line and operations, and then turn them loose to run themselves as separate business divisions under the ITW banner.

The result is a host of well-run companies that provide desirable products and services, employ people in meaningful jobs, earning good wages, and providing for their future. ITW employees make good salaries. The company has an admirable balance sheet; and is currently ranked #156 in the Fortune 500. Yea, I'm sure that during restructuring, some people lose jobs. But in the process, they make way for others to get better jobs. And they lay the foundation for these companies to survive and flourish. And that means ITW people keep their jobs.

I ask everyone, what has Obama and the Democrats done to enhance the private sector business climate, so that we get more jobs, that pay more?

By the sound of things, Romney has created jobs just like ITW. If his work has enhanced the economy and provided jobs, thereby enriching private sector workers, I can only conclude this criticism is political, inaccurate and despicable.

No! I liked him more than the others.

Mr Barone says:

'The tension between the anti-conservative aura he gives off and his genuinely conservative positions seems to have left Huntsman between two stools and struggling to achieve the solid third place finish in New Hampshire that might plausibly give him a ticket to other states.'

Accordingly, Huntsman did the appropriate thing - and flushed. Certainly must feel much better now.

The remainder of GOP candidates should do the same, except Dr Ron Paul and Mr. Santorum. I am thinking that with these two, the GOP debates may continue with focus, substance and perhaps even respectable statesmanlike applomb.

The question is "Should Huntsman have gotten into the GOP primary race in the first place?". I said, "No" from the beginning; he should have challenged 0 for the Democrats' nomination.

I have noticed the change at the bottom of the page regarding The Right Opinion. If this is an experiment and you are looking for input, go back to the way it was. I have tried it the past week or so and I am not impressed. To me it is not as handy to use. I enjoyed looking at the list for an interesting title and go to it if I wanted to. Now I have to go there to see if there is an article I want to read. It takes more time and the layout is not as easy as it once was...........

Why has no one remarked about the number of jobs that would have been lost if Bain Capital had NOT bought the companies it did and,instead, those companies had failed and closed?

Insight

"The whole gospel of Karl Marx can be summed up in a single sentence: Hate the man who is better off than you are. Never under any circumstances admit that his success may be due to his own efforts, to the productive contribution he has made to the whole community. Always attribute his success to the exploitation, the cheating, the more or less open robbery of others. Never under any circumstances admit that your own failure may be owing to your own weakness, or that the failure of anyone else may be due to his own defects -- his laziness, incompetence, improvidence, or stupidity." --American economist Henry Hazlitt (1894-1993)

According to the research of Charles Darwin, the fittest and most adaptable in any scenario will most likely survive. Those species that are able to adapt to the local environment, and changing conditions, will be able to live, reproduce, and further their species. This is no longer considered a 'theory' but has been proven by mountains of research.

Those that are unable to adapt will not be able to reproduce their kind in the numbers needed for sustainability, will eventually cease to exist as a species, and will be replaced by the adaptable in that locale. Since life existed on Earth, many thousands of species have become extinct because of their inability to adapt to changing conditions.

It may appear to be cruel in the natural environment that no quarter is given for the unsuitable. None of Darwin's finches with the adaptable beak for the existing conditions, gave pause to consider opening a few seeds for their cousins whose beaks did not fit the environmental changes of the Galapagos. The weak beaked cousin finches that could not adapt-- eventually perished.

Serious consideration of Darwin's work will lead the 'thinker' to the conclusion that the 'survival of the fittest' means just that. Those species that are weaned out, will no longer be using the resources that will lead to a stronger and more survivable adaptable species. Evolving giraffes with short necks that were unable to reach the fruit of the tall trees in the environment, lived poorly and eventually that sub-species died out. Only the giraffes with necks long enough to reach the fruit prospered and reproduced. Consider that there was a 'miraculous event' that occurred,[ of Biblical proportions, bear with me on this] and that these short necked giraffes were somehow being fed. No longer a need to strive to reach the highest branches! They would survive, breed with long 'neckers' and short 'neckers' alike, and in a few generations the length of the necks of nearly all giraffes would decrease. Not to worry, fruit continues to appear for all the creatures no matter the neck length. Alas, the 'miraculous event' ceases! and now only those few that have the longest of the necks will be able to reach the fruit on the trees. The rest will not survive. Once again the fittest will survive and reproduce leading to a strengthened species. Not conjecture[except for the miracle part], just the way life and survival works. Nothing 'anti-religion' here...just science fact. God knew enough to create, [not that I would judge God's wisdom] and let the various forms of life make their own way - or not!

Our country is becoming a society that continues to weaken the species of Homo Sapiens by providing unreasonably for the 'short necked giraffes'. Our 'president' demands that the strong beaked finches contribute their labors to their cousins who cannot or will not open their own seeds; and that the giraffes pick the fruit from the highest branches and drop it on the ground for those unable, for whatever cause, to get their own fruit. This of course means that the most adaptable and competent of our species will be forced to have less resources for themselves. The general level of ability and accomplishment of our species will continue to degenerate as the weakest, laziest, least intelligent, and uninspired, continue to thrive biologically and continue to reproduce offspring who will genetically be the image of their biological parents. Again not conjecture but scientific fact. Should the artificial support of those unable to adapt to the conditions and environment of our society continue on its present course, eventually the entire species of Homo Sapiens will have short necks and weak beaks, and will no longer be able to provide for all. Eventually nature will wean our species, only the most adaptable and fittest will survive, and perhaps the species will strengthen again! Perhaps. Sound cruel and harsh? Maybe it does, but it is scientifically accurate, considering all of Darwin's fantastic research and those that have expanded upon it. A weak, unadaptable species is not sustainable! Fact.

OK! How do we ameliorate this looming disaster for OUR species? There are many ways, some of which may have a moral and ethical conundrum accompanying them. Our society is not about to abandon all of those in need, for a variety of reasons. Understandable. 'We' consider ourselves too advanced for that. Agreed.

However one clear and simple solution would be to stop funding women who continue to have children, sometimes at the rate of one per year, and are unable to provide support and care for them. The identity of the 'biological father or sperm donor' is often 'not available' from the mother. Their 'culture' encourages this behavior, as for each child there will be an increased monthly allowance, and a variety of other financial rewards. These rewards will be diminished if there is any earned income, so remaining unemployed is a major accomplice to this way of life. This follows to the offspring as they become of age to work, but are still being funded by public funds.[ In my own profession I encountered a number of 'special needs' teens who were able to work. Jobs were found for them, but whose parents adamantly refused to allow this, as it would reduce their public assistance checks. Prolonging and perpetuating the culture of public support.

So how do we stop funding the most fecund of our citizens, and stop encouraging them to beget more offspring ? We provide a condition that they will continue to get the 'gifts' from the state if they continue to get regular 'free' birth control injections, as determined by the medical profession. Should they miss a scheduled injection the scheduled 'gift' from the state for the following pay period will be rescinded. When the injections continue, if there has been no pregnancy, the payments will restart.

There are dozens of other programs that provide free resources to the short necked, weak billed members of our society, where changes could be implemented; the above is but one solution to one problem to an ever growing situation.

This approach will bring a loud scream of outrage, and claims that this is a 'RACIST' policy. There has been no mention of race, and this program would be implemented in the most non-racial of methods. It would apply to ANY member of our society who seeks public support for their child. Any color, race, legal or illegal status, citizenship or not. There is not a suggestion of sterilization or encouraged abortion. Those that 'earn' their way from the program, with changed behaviors and perhaps education or employment, will be encouraged to rejoin a productive society.

Should the sacrosanct among us claim that birth control is against their religious beliefs, and that only God should determine who gives birth, I ask them to remember that natural selection has wiped out many thousands of species, and the all intelligent Creator did not intervene. HE isn't going to intervene now. HE started the ball rolling and it is up to us to insure that it keeps progressing in a natural way. For those whose beliefs do not include a creator, or who are not averse to birth control, this type of solution is even less problematic, perhaps.

I would appreciate hearing from those who may have other ideas, likely very different ideas or objections; or solutions as to how to insure that our species progresses and survives .

--American Pragmatist, Jim Morrissey....[1942----?]

Yes - another RINO gone. He is NOT Conservative as the pundents would want us to believe.

Search the dictionary as hard as I might I can't find "unalienable" anywhere in it, which I have noted to Mark Levin to no avail twice...and where is the 'FORWARD" in this post?

I join many others sentiments in this status in the electorate, and have been since Herman Cain was forced to drop out. None of the remaining candidates get me excited. The GOP Establishment is determined to run their moderate/liberal next-in-line to keep the media happy (never works). Have we not learned from the Dole and McCain campaigns? A lackluster, moderate candidate with indeterminate core values willing to fight for the Constitution and against its enemies, foreign and domestic. The voters have been trying to send a message to the GOP since 2006 - stop trying to be Democrat-Lite, be Conservative Ultra. The Leftist establishment is willing to lie, distort, cheat, steal, and swindle to accomplish their means. When the GOP puts up a me-too, but cheaper, watered down statist approach, willing to ignore the Constitution and blow taxpayer money on their pet projects, there really isn't a choice any more, just a question of degree. The GOP leadership has a real existential decision to make here. If the Tea Party coalition is ignored, they will be a rump party that will go the way of the Whigs. Yes, many of us will hold our noses once again and vote for whomever the media and the GOP Establishment put before us to do electoral battle against the forces of Obama and fundamental transformation. But the proof will be in the aftermath of this national election. If Obama is re-elected after a lackluster milquetoast campaign against the egregious violations of the Constitution he has put up, there won't be a lot left to argue about after he subverts the Constitution in a second term. If the GOP nominee wins, and fails to govern according to his platform, he will be a one-termer. Conservatism,in particular the Tea Party sentiment, is on the ascendancy, and the GOP ignores it at its own peril, for a third party consisting of the Reagan majority will arise, the Tea Party, the working middle class aka Reagan Democrats, and social AND fiscal conservatives will bolt away from those like Romney, Lindsay Graham, McCain moderates with few convictions except that they aren't as liberal as their Democrats across the aisle.

The Texas Cooke said:

“Message to the RNC: I DON’T INTEND TO HOLD MY NOSE ANYMORE! I am not a socialist. I wasn’t raised in a socialist country. I will not vote for a socialist candidate REGARDLESS OF THE PARTY HE CLAIMS TO REPRESENT. When you ran John McCain, I didn’t leave your party, you left me.”

Message to The Texas Cooke: I will vote for the candidate that comes CLOSEST to my “conservative” principles. Even if that candidate is McCain-like in his politics. To not vote for the Republican nominee is to put Mr. Obama one vote closer to reelection. Feel free to cut off your nose to spite your face, but I will vote for the lesser of two evils (and not a third-party candidate that has no chance of winning) and live with the fact that I live in an imperfect world where the person that represents me is a poor reflection of my principles.

The very first post, Mr.Apjok, is quite correct. As noted well following. Which should give Marc a note to find another forum.

Thank you, Mr. Krauthammer! Though I agree with P3Orion, on all three points.

Dr. Bill Choby comments are quite thoughtful. More than once the thought that the boost of Romney was to provide a victory (a la McCain) for BHO. Maybe not, the comments in re Bain make sense, what would the unemployment have been if those buy ups had been left to fail? There is a sense that if there was validity in Romney (for the folks) he would have won in a previous go. Wha' hoppen?

I look for a leader, and have not seen one, yet. At least, none that I would willingly follow into a hot zone. I am not alone in that. Thank you Patriot Post for the forum you provide. Very helpful. The Republican Party seems to have entered the Bermuda Triangle, lost compass and focus. Huntsman might have done well on the Democrat Platform. Though I believe the "party of compassion" (no longer) is doomed. Semper Fi!

NO

Yes, he was right to drop out. Huntsman didn't have even a remote chance of winning. Like father - like son. Not in this case.

One may see the word "inflammable" on the sides of tank trailers. Why not just "flammable"? Both mean the same, hmmm? Unalienable? Makes no sense. Should it not be "inalienable"? I believe so.

Major Stu certainly makes sense. Well,and quite properly said. Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain---casualties of the political wars. Why, oh why, does the Party Republican keep picking losers such as McCain, and the current crop? Our only hope is a Republican majority in both Houses. Let us pray.

Agree with Will in Phoenix! If the Repubs run a turnip, I will vote for that turnip!

Not voting for the lesser evil, voting against the greater danger!

Donald Trump may well toss some grit in the grease, I hope not! He seems to be making third party noises. No third party! That will guarantee a BHO victory

To P3orion:

Regarding: the 9-11 Truther sentiments, the "who are we to oppose an Iranian nuke?" question, the "legalize all drugs immediately" position, just to name three.

The problem is: your thinking is lacking a larger outlook. ** 911 - don't knock it as crazy until you have at least read 'The Assisnation of JFK'. **So, Iran has the nuke. How long do you think they could restrain from using it? ... or attempting to do so, thus ensuring their own annihilation? Not a loss in my book, and it could send quite a message to those who think MAD still functions as a deterrent. ** Legalize Drugs? I think that is the best idea yet. Reduce criminal activity, improve everyones revenue stream while at the same time hopefully reduce the need for excessive taxation. I mean, let's face it, honest, hard working, family oriented conservatives would most likely moderate or abstain completely from use of drugs. As much as they do excessive alcohol and other vice. But the big bonus could be that Liberals, Leftists, and those addicted to social programs, are exactly the one's who would over indulge in drugs. Fortunately it takes far less drug addiction to put one into the 'no return zone'. Institutionals might proliferate, but overall, it would be cheaper than supporting this jobless society. Hey, we might be lucky enough to get an epidemic of OD's. We should even consider issuing free cocaine to everyone in prison. All in all, free drugs could really lead the useless freeloaders in our society in a transition from just plain stupid, to just plain stupified ... lol! Oh, the ramifications of that, hey!! By the way, I don't use drugs, never have, never will.

Ok, now I'm going to get deadly serious. Whatever it is that progressive liberals are snorting to maintain their destructive ideology, has to be treated with real chemical dependence, or outright amputated from this ailing body of society. I'm inclined to try letting the socialist groupthink idiots have what they want, and hope they will just self-destruct.

'Be careful what you ask for, you just may get it',

can work both ways.

He was just a Obama lackey trying to take votes away from Romney and he never offered us anything that would be accepted and would aid the country...

Yes. Huntsman is no conservative.

Yes, I think it's good that he dropped out. He has never gone up in the polls very much, and we need to start getting down to one or two that are likely to be at the top. I hope Santorum won't drop out. I think he still has a chance. Romney is too liberal for me.

Romney Clone....had to go

To: The Editor and Marc

Editor:

Not to be insulting but I feel that you've insulted Marc. Just because he doesn't believe in a God, doesn't mean that he doesn't serve any higher universal order than the one he sees in the mirror every morning.

You don't know that perhaps your God's purpose for Marc is simply for Marc to strive to be the best person he can be. You don't know that your God's purpose for Marc might have nothing to do with Marc worshipping, or even believing in, your God. Maybe your God has no interest in your worship, yet you worship him just the same (OMG, I used "him" instead of "her" or "it"). In fact, it might just be that your purpose in life is every bit as trivial and self-serving as you insinuate Marc's is, because you haven't proven the existence of your God, nor have you proven his purpose for us all. It may simply be that in reality, your God just doesn't exist. So how can you insinuate with such authority that your purpose is higher than Marc's? Drawing conclusions based on unproven assertions is a logical fallacy.

I find it typically a bit distressing to argue religion with religious people because, from my experience, they usually won't yield even though they can't prove their faith. Of course they can't - because it's not fact; it's faith! But then they also have no qualms about denigrating those who don't share their faith, simply because those people don't see the invisible; they don't hear the inaudible, and they won't speak to silence.

And do you wonder why Marc refer's to gods in terms that refer to imaginary entities?

If today, God opened up a window in the heavens, showed his face, and spoke to all mankind ... but his name wasn't Jehovah, or Ra, or Zeus, or Mohammad, or any number of Man's gods, what would you do? Let's say he identifies himself as Kronk the caveman who is also our God. Would you apologize to Marc or should he apologize to you?

Huntsman seems like a nice man, but not Presidental

material. Not forceable enough for our Pres.

Not only Yes, but why was that loon running in the first place. A "conservative" who could not utter an unkind word about Obama or his policies?????? Give me a break, this dude was nothing but a leftist pig.

"Will in Phoenix".............well stated, and I completely agree. I find myself grumbling and complaining about the LACK of what I would consider viable candidates. Then I remember that Reagan wasn't really THAT popular the first time he threw his hat in the ring as a GOP candidate for POTUS. There were folks who had reservations concerning his genuine conversion to the Republican Party. Folks who thought he was too old. Folks who didn't take him serious since he had been an actor. All that to say this, ANYONE is better than the pretender we are stuck with now!!!! ANYONE......and I WILL hold my nose--again--if I have to do so. My hope is that perhaps there will be another "Sarah Palin" brought into the picture as VP candidate........hope, hope, hope.

You have stated that you never endorse a candidate. Will that time come when the caucuses and primaries are over.

tom “Bring in the young people, Paul Ryan and Mario Rubio and that sharp, smart Black congressman from Florida who used to be in the military” Good tho impractical idea. Intelligent, energetic youngsters led by a fire-breathing Colonel West could invigorate a near moribund GOP. If the RNC, pseudo-candidates, and the Tea Party would unite strongly behind them, it would give the Demo-n’s a real run for their money, and have the public benefit of replacing a disaster with some good leadership.

Huntsman out? Yes!

The only ones who should STILL be there are... Bachman, Gingrich, Perry & Romney. In that order. And whom ever gets the Republican nod, he/she should turn around and say to the runners up... "I want ALL of you in my administration!" I.e. Vice President, Secretary of State, Defence, Labor, Attorney General, etc. etc.

J.J.B.Jr.(USN.RET.)

Maryland.

Huntsman is not a conservative who ran as a liberal. Such a statement shows how ignorant many of you conservatives are. He is actually a constitutionalist who looks for freedom to be given to all Americans, not just the side each of us is on.

Why in the world was he ridiculed for taking the ambassador position? He was not serving Obama, he was serving his country. Anyone from Utah knows what a decent job he did as governor. He would have done the same as president of the US.

So...all you "my way or the highway" voters out there, ask yourself why such a competent ex-candidate has endorsed Romney? Wake up.

Yes, I believe he should have dropped out. The Republican Party, so far as I know, is not the party divided between center and left, it is the party solely of the right.

W.T. Door (watertight?) Agreed, though I see a problem. That is? They are not stepping up. No way, I know of, to "draft" them, though I agree that any one of them indicates promise of better than what is offered. Most of the current contenders seem to be on a path of self-destruct. the Party Republican really needs to sweep the porch. No matter, I will vote for whoever is put up against Brother Obama. Even though it is beginning to appear futile. The "conservative" strength, it seems, lies in reducing the Democrat population in the Congress. Hmmm?

Hamilton:

You seem like a calm and reasoned person, so please don’t take this as an insult… But most people of faith don’t view it as a belief in “supernatural spirits, ghouls, gods, demons, and the like.” This is a disparaging comment at best.

While Mr. Alexander definitely doesn’t need me to defend his remarks, I believe he did nothing more than defend his opinion from a pointed insult delivered by Marc. While I think it might have been wiser to turn the other cheek, I defend his right to return fire.

If romney is nominated then it is time to bring an end to the Republican party and consider a new party. Oh but we have the Constitution party already in place. All we need to do is re enforce it.

To: Will in phoenix

Yes, I know most people of faith don't view it as a belief in imaginary entities. They view it as fact. That is precisely my point; perhaps you didn't understand. As people of faith interact with others not of faith, and in particular, when people of faith have faith-based expectations of those without faith, the burden of proof is on the faithful. I believe that this is where Marc is coming from. He doesn't approve of faith being a criterion for a good candidate, and he's afraid that a faithful person could inappropriately bring his faith into office. I think that if a person of faith is going to view their faith as fact, then the burden of proof is on them, particularly if they're going to hold others to some sort of faith-based standard. I hope you can understand this.

I'm sorry but I could have missed Marc's pointed insult, so I can't agree or disagree with you. My only other comment on this would be that we don't know for certain that in Marc's case, the Editor is actually Mr. Alexander.

Hamilton:

Marc’s full quote from Jan 12, 2012:

“It is regrettable that your ideal candidate be "a man of strong faith." Aside from the fact that the candidate need not be a male, strong faith in supernatural spirits, ghouls, gods, demons, and the like should be a red flag warning against a lack-of-touch with reality, and is particularly repugnant if said candidate believes he should use his office to impose his irrational beliefs on the rest of the nation.”

To me this issue is more about civil debate and less about the existence of God and which religion is the most true to “reality.” Many people in this country have religious faith. What purpose is served by stating that a strong faith “should be a red flag warning against a lack-of-touch with reality, and is particularly repugnant if said candidate believes he should use his office to impose his irrational beliefs on the rest of the nation.”

No President can impose his “irrational beliefs on the rest of the nation,” at least not his irrational religious beliefs. The Founders dealt with this issue via the first sentence of the First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

Mr. Alexander is not required to defend his faith, after all how could he in fact defend “faith”? In America a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. If Marc wishes to condemn Mr. Alexander, he has the burden of proof.

Jon Savage Affirmative. The old WWII Navy faceless individual that was needed to grace the pages of instruction manuals. The party political machine is ignoring the talented individuals that are desperately needed to jump start it into real action; e.g. Colonel West’s justifiably angry response (no John Boehner, pc wimp, he) to the bleeding heart USMC incident critics. In so doing they are not only jeopardizing their further existence (the RNC won’t survive another McCain type campaign), but depriving conservatives of an electable champion.

Hamilton. But that’s exactly the point. If it were a matter of proof, faith would be unnecessary. Everybody would see, “and turn and be healed”. The Bible says, “faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen”. The Bible in its entirety is sufficient “proof” for those who have had their spiritual blindness cured.

In the crucial terms of actual policy proposals, and experience serving this country under Republican and Democrat Presidents, Jon Huntsman is clearly a values and economic conservative and might well have been the best qualified candidate in the race, on both economic, international, and values issues. I, for one, hope that he remains active in conservative and Republican politics, and that whoever, hopefully a Republican, who wins the White House in 2012 uses him in a prominent role or roles.

Jon Huntsman had a few major problems in this race. “John who?” Not even my politically concerned wife knew who Huntsman was. He has the same problem with many other Christians insisting that Mormons are not Christians that Romney is facing. That’s between him and God, the largely Christian Framers of the Constitution wisely barred religious tests for office.

Like Romney, he was born with a very big silver spoon in his mouth and, like most politicians of either party, has offered no real evidence publicly that he has any significant contact with, and any genuine concern and respect for, anybody among the working poor, the middle class, the disabled, or anyone else affected by normal life. A small businessman in solo law practice until forced to retire, I wish some of these candidates had just once not just met, but really sweated making, a payroll. His published list of supporters, a good start on which a candidate would normally have when he announced, remained minimal, with none I could find from here in Texas. As an inherited billionaire, he needed not only a good list of recognized conservatives but of regular Joes and Janes, and he had no such lists. Too late in his campaign, he announced that (to rebut the charge of being a “RINO”), he was seeking five thousand recognized conservatives as public endorsers. He publicly announced one. His campaign failed to leverage deservedly favorable coverage of his economic plan by the Wall Street Journal. He borrowed trouble with a single short announcement that he believes in global warning and evolution, both of which “might tend to incriminate” him among many conservatives but without telling us anything about his real thoughts on either subject. I would be much more interested in other facets of his political and strategic thinking. I realize that, from a tactical standpoint, “anything [he says] can and will be used against him,” but he does have the burden of proof and risk of non-persuasion and we, his potential employers, needed more even to be able to do anything to support him.

The real question is whether anyone can unite the Republican party, and enough others who would also prefer to actually win the election and perform the duties of the office. The biggest news out of Iowa was the exit polling showing that 48% of the Republican activists who participated in the Iowa caucuses said they did not consider winning the election to be the most important purpose of the party and the process. It has become painfully clear that too much of the hard-shelled activist “base” of the GOP, and of its various bitterly warring factions, some of the largest of whom say openly that they would prefer to throw the others out rather than grow and win, does not consider winning the Republican nomination competent evidence, much less proof, of what the party and its voters believe and stand for. If the party’s duly nominated candidates for President is, or can even remotely logically be argued to be Republicans in Name Only (RINO), it raises a real question how they can decide upon and agree to accept, much less unite behind, support, and elect, their party’s nomination as representative of the party’s values.

The best evidence I have seen indicates that we lost Ohio, for example, in 2008 not because of the six-figure number of new, mostly young and black, voters mobilized by Obama and the Democrats, but because a larger group of former Bush voters stayed home and didn’t vote for anybody. A significantly large number and percentage of the people I know, from grocery checkers to the daughters, sisters, and nieces of elected and high appointed officials palmed off on us by both parties, are so thoroughly disgusted and frustrated with the legal and political systems that I can’t get them to vote for anybody.

The awful truth is that, when it comes to trying to make an intelligent and informed decision about candidates in the party nomination process and the general election, we voters get the mushroom treatment: the parties, the candidates, the media, and the system keep us in the dark and feed us organic fertilizer. What can the average voter actually learn and know with certainty about the true character, genuine values and convictions, if any, or much about the capacity, temperament, management and political style, personal and business relations, of a candidate.

What else would we expect, Huntsman was the Governor of the Holy land, and therefore a Mormon, if either one dropped out, they would be expected to endorse the other Mormon

John Huntsman was deluding himself from the outset. It was clear after the 2010 Elections that "part time" Conservatives were never going to make it through the 2012 Republican Primary cycle. New Hampshire was not accurate indicator of the larger national mood.

Charles

He was the only class act in this race and really had the experience to take on the Presidency. And he was the only one with a moderate and positive outlook that actually could have united the USA. Instead, we are projecting rancor and division more than ever and it will only degenerate further in the general election. There are reasons why he didn't gain traction - his late entry in April due to the commitment of his China post, then the GOP circus, gaffes and scandals grabbing the spotlight all summer. But he had the most positive message and the best credentials to move us forward. Hope we have not seen the last of him.

To: Will in phoenix

Yes, I can see how you could consider Marc's words a bit strong, but I understand what he means, and I think he's a bit frustrated. I think he's frustrated for the same reason as I stated above, that people of faith consider their faith to be fact, and many of them expect others to agree, without proof.

Regarding your statement that no president can impose his religious doctrine onto us, I think you're being idealistic. Despite the First Amendment, Obama has been very imposing as president, no doubt. He has stretched legal bounds in his position, and he has crossed moral end ethical bounds that other presidents have not crossed. It appears that we can't stop him because he must not have broken any laws, because since other presidents haven't crossed those lines, law hasn't been created to prevent it. I think Marc would wonder about the direction of impositions should an Islamist become president.

I still see this the other way per my reply to the Editor, above. To supplement your thoughts, consider the end result of Islamicism in the Arabic countries. If you violate any of their doctrine, you insult Allah, or Mohammad, and we all know what the punishments are. Yet there is no Arab on the face of the planet who can prove their God's existence. Therefore the punishment is unjustifiable, and any command to submit to the doctrine is also unjustifiable. This is where Marc is coming from. Reread what I wrote to the Editor, about God opening a window in the heavens.

To: W.T. Door

The Bible may be sufficient proof for those of faith, but that is because they believe, based on faith.

What we're talking about here is the imposition of faith-based actions onto everyone, regardless of faith. Please reread my reply to the Editor and Marc, above.

Are the words in the Koran sufficient proof for you to be ordered around in any way, shape, or form, by an individual or a cadre of individuals who maintain faith in that book? I would presume not. This is also where Marc is coming from.

Hamilton, thanks, I think you are representing the position of rational thought quite well. I noted above that the editor just posted my initial comment and his misleading response, so I referred readers to the full exchange. I believe in an open exchange of ideas, my beliefs, based in science and reason, will triumph over ideas based on faith in the supernatural or dark-ages literature.

As far as burden of proof, the atheist makes no claim of anything, we simply require evidence before we accept something as true. No evidence, no belief. It is those who make the extraordinary claim that an all-powerful supreme being created existence. Oh, but you can't see him, hear him, smell him, taste him, touch him, or even comprehend him; you must take that on faith, and faith in those who made that extraordinary claim is a virtue. How convenient and air-tight.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

correction - "It is those who make the extraordinary claim that an all-powerful supreme being created existence, that bear the burden of proof to support their claim."

I don't think Huntsman should have dropped out. I think if he had become more Rou Paul in his message, he would have been a good alternative to Romney.

Yes, Huntsman should have dropped out...weeks ago. As should Perry. As much as I like Perry in the WH.. (and OUT of Texas- ;-) )- He is wasting $$ and space. I see Romney, Gingrich and Santorum. Paul ? he is a lunatic- a racist, separatist, anti-Semite. When the Jewish World Review endorses Paul, I will still not consider him.

Romney thinks that he is THE defacto nominee because the GOP, the Democrats and the MSM want him as the candidate against Obama. Sadly, all three think Obama will win. Gingrich and Santorum can beat Obama in debates.. hell, I could beat Obama in debates. he cant talk without a script.. I could BS my way through it.

it is too early yet..

...about 25 years too late.. the EU is a huge Socialist experiment, doomed to fail from the beginning.. but, likely will continue until there is virtually no Europe left and the Communists and Muslims run the continent.

Hamilton:

We are fortunate (some might even say blessed) to live in a country that allows us to choose our religion (or abstain therefrom), and I for one truly respect what our forefathers sacrificed to give us this choice. I assume you are not advocating for a country where religion is prohibited, or one where a national religion is prescribed. The last thing we need is a bunch of bureaucrats (or scientists) telling us what our values should be.

As for the Sharia Law that prevails in much of the Arab world, this is as much about their form of government as it is about Islam. The fact that certain of the beliefs advanced by these religions are repugnant to us, does not mean that there is nothing in the religion that is virtuous or of value.. Dictators and Kings rule the roost in many of these countries and religious law fills the vacuum left by the lack of concern for the average citizen’s welfare and the ephemeral ruler laws that do exist. What does that have to do with qualities one would like to see in a prospective U.S. president?

To: Marc

Ditto to you. I think you represent your point of view well too. The last paragraph in your reply to me is very well done. In the past, I've had similar discussions with other Patriot Post readers. I hope we can all learn from this.

I noticed you seemed to refer to yourself as an atheist. In a past reply, I said that I didn't know whether you were atheist or agnostic, but that it was irrelevant. If I were to classify myself anything, I think agnostic would be my choice. In the American vernacular, I think atheist implies more of a disbelief whereas agnostic implies a non-commital position for lack of evidence. For this reason and on this one point, I acknowledge that I and those of faith are on equal footing; I have no more ability to disprove God than they have to prove God.

However we are not on an equal footing when it comes to practice. If, for example, the word of God as found in the Bible, says do "X", then it is not valid to do "X" simply because God says so. This is because God hasn't been proven to exist and to have superior knowledge. If on the other hand, John Q. Public stands up and suggests that we do "X", and then a preponderance of his fellow citizens stand up and say yes, let's do "X" because we all see value to doing "X", then we've got humanity standing up for itself, making it's own decisions. What can be wrong with that?

To: Will in Phoenix

I agree. The freedom of choice is paramount. I do not advocate an official religion nor do I advocate for a prohibition of religion. Both these measures would be antithetical to freedom and would corrupt what our Founders worked for on our behalf. I simply do not want to be ruled by an individual or a government that forms binding policy from the pages of a "holy book" or from some religious giant who waves around a staff.

In my reply to W.T. Door, above, I asked him the following: "Are the words in the Koran sufficient proof for you to be ordered around in any way, shape, or form, by an individual or a cadre of individuals who maintain faith in that book?" That question applies here because I presume his answer would be "no". His book is the Bible, not the Koran. His faith doesn't connect with the Koran. If W.T. Door wouldn't want to be ruled by Islam, then why should he expect for me, or Marc, to be ok with being ruled by Christianity?

When you drive across a bridge, does your confidence that the bridge won't collapse, come from your faith in God? ... Or maybe it comes from the fact that in the back of your mind, you know that the bridge was designed by structural engineers, experts in their field, using high level structural analysis formulae - the same science that keeps the Sears Tower from falling down, and that keeps an aircraft carrier from collapsing under its own weight as soon as it is launched.

Hamilton to Marc says:

“However we are not on an equal footing when it comes to practice. If, for example, the word of God as found in the Bible, says do "X", then it is not valid to do "X" simply because God says so. This is because God hasn't been proven to exist and to have superior knowledge. If on the other hand, John Q. Public stands up and suggests that we do "X", and then a preponderance of his fellow citizens stand up and say yes, let's do "X" because we all see value to doing "X", then we've got humanity standing up for itself, making it's own decisions. What can be wrong with that?”

What could be wrong with the citizens in your community ALL deciding that you are a threat to their good health and that you should be driven out of the community or burned at the stake? What could be wrong with the German people accepting Hitler’s genocide of German Jews? I could go on and on. These actions would all be contrary to what the Founders referred to as the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” This concept came to them from Cicero:

“But the most foolish notion of all is the belief that everything is just which is found in the customs or laws of nations…What of the many deadly, the many pestilential statutes which nations put in force? These no more deserve to be called laws than the rules a band of robbers might pass in their assembly. For if ignorant and unskillful men have prescribed deadly poisons instead of healing drugs, these cannot possibly be called physicians’ prescriptions; neither in a nation can a statute of any sort be called a law, even though the nation, in spite of being a ruinous regulation has accepted it.” Cicero

“When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these end, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” The Declaration of Independence

I fear this whole dialogue about faith is a waste of time. You and Marc seem to be hung up on the fact that you can’t prove the existence of God. Even if I wanted to convince you one way or the other, which I do not, I am not qualified to defend any particular religious faith. Believe as you like. As I said before in this blog:

“For those of you who denigrate faith, I would suggest that this country was founded by people who believed all human beings had natural rights that were endowed to them by their creator. (This creator could be a monkey, if it makes you feel better.) And while most of these people were Judeo-Christians, they did not require others to have the same beliefs. However, the system of limited government that was established by the Constitution will only work if the governed are virtuous and moral people.

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” Benjamin Franklin

If you are someone that promotes atheism, please tell me where the people that elect politicians should get their virtues and morals from…Karl Marx perhaps?

I get annoyed when party candidates drop out early in the election year because a couple candidates show strongly at the beginning. Four years ago I never had the opportunity to vote for the candidate of my choice because he dropped out - because early on it looked like such-and-so was a shoo-in. I say, if a candidate still has the money and is serious about presenting his views, keep running till you run out of dinero.

Also regarding the whole faith debate in the comments: when discussing faith and reason, it is false to claim that atheism is the view of rationality and fact, since the belief that God does not exist is as much a choice as the belief that God does exist. It matters which authorities you choose to accept as credible. Saying you are atheist does not therefore mean you have no religious belief: your religious belief is that there is no God, and you defend that with as much zeal as any other religionist. After all, EVERY religious group (or philosophical persuasion, if you will) calls its own practices and beliefs "right" and "proper" and "fact," and superstition is "whatever those people over there do that we think is bizarre."

It is as morally objectionable to impose atheist beliefs on the nation as it would be for anyone else to impose their own religious views on someone. Insisting that a person of faith (Evangelical, Catholic, Mormon, Jew, Muslim, etc.) box their religious beliefs up and set them in a cupboard while they fill their public roles is absurd and unjust - a violation of their right to the free exercise of their own conscience. It would be as absurd to expect an atheist to set aside his [or her!!] own views and not let them inform his public acts. That cuts a person loose from their moral anchor and destroys any character they may hope to have.

So please, try thinking outside your box. It's no use denigrating someone else's faith, for insults rarely persuade anyone.

Shoulld Huntsman drop out of the race? Should Huntsman have refrained from entering the race? The answer to both questions is a resounding "Y E S" !!!!! Now if we can get his cousin RINO Romney out of the race we can get back to the basics. Romney is the bane to the Republicans and a boon to the Constitution Party.

to Hamilton - I may disagree with you slightly on one point. I think atheists and those of faith are the ones on equal footing. To be intellectually honest, we are all agnostic - that is, none of us really knows the truth for certain. As an atheist, due to lack of evidence, it is my belief that there is no god. Those of faith have the equal but opposite position that, based on faith, they believe there is a god. I think evidence, or lack thereof, is a better standard by which to develop one's beliefs than is blind faith in what other men tell them.

I make a similar case about the use of "In God We Trust" on our currency. I, of course, believe that money is not a forum for a statement about god. Those who do not respect the Constitution believe that its OK to be there because the majority of Americans believe in god. They claim that if the god statement is removed, atheists "win". But, for atheism to "win" there would need to be an affirmation of atheist belief on the currency, such as "God Is A Myth". Most atheists do not advocate that such a statement be added to our currency, they simply want no statement about god on money. This principle holds true for most issues about the mixing of religion and politics.

to Will in Phoenix - you repost the same things, but the issue is very simple - it comes down to a basic respect for the Constitution and for your fellow American, even if he does not share your religious beliefs. The founding fathers were brilliant men. They did not forget to make Christianity the national religion. They did not accidentally omit any reference to god or Jesus from the Constitution. They debated long and hard about what to include and not include in the supreme law of the land, and they chose wisely. They chose to prohibit any law respecting an establishment of religion, and any prohibition of the free exercise thereof. And, in Article VI, they prohibited the use of any religious test as a requirement for office. That's it. Those are the rules. I respect those rules. And, I suspect, if a day came when your beliefs were not in the majority, you would develop a respect for those rules, as well. You, and The Patriot Post, are blinded by the bias resulting from the fact that your beliefs enjoy majority status in this country, at this time in history. Through this bias, you turn a self-serving blind eye to the words of the Constitution, and blur those clear words with arguments about majority beliefs and "Christian nation". The brilliance of the Constitution is that is protects ALL beliefs, not just those of the majority, and, perhaps more importantly, it protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Rebecca E - atheism is NOT a religious belief. It holds no dogma, has no churches, no scriptures. It has no philosophy about life, meaning, existence, politics. It is simply a lack of belief in a god. That's it, no more, no less.

See my comments above, but summarized - everyone in this nation is free to practice their beliefs and most atheists do not want to stifle anyone's religious beliefs. What we do advocate is that no one use their office to impose their beliefs on others; that the government not use its power to promote (or stifle) any particular set of beliefs; that taxpayer dollars are not allocated to pick the beliefs that are winners and losers. Simply put, that we follow our brilliant Constitution and not try to change its meaning with biased concepts such as "Christian nation".

Rebecca E - and Rebecca, I wanted to add something else that you seem to overlook. You say that I should think out of the box and not denigrate someone else's faith. But, can't you see that that is precisely what The Patriot Post does when they state that the candidate for President should be "a man of faith". That says the candidate should not be an atheist, followed by the reasoning in their editorial comments that atheists only serve themselves, and in other comments, that atheists have no morality. You can't see that slander because you are programmed to revile atheists. But, switch it out with, say, race... "The candidate should be white, because non-white people only serve themselves and have no morality." Whoa. But that sentiment seems to be OK when used to describe us contemptible atheists. Perhaps it is you who should think outside the box of religious prejudice.

To: Will in Phoenix

To answer your multiple “what could be wrong with” questions, I would answer “humanity”. You seem to ignore human development throughout history. Man’s humanity to Man doesn’t come from a book, written by some men, espousing a holy way of life promoted by a saintly icon, but from philosophical development and growth down through the ages. Civility has reached our present standard by our struggle against our own incivility, and our repeated repulsion to it. We've scratched and clawed our way to it, shedding a lot of blood in the process, that obviously hasn't ended. Along the way, in my opinion, the various religions have co-opted civil philosophy and codified it into their texts. And governments have codified it into law.

I’m glad you brought up Cicero, Benjamin Franklin, and Karl Marx. None of them were God, yet you cite them as examples. Why? Answer: their philosophy. If only Obama and the Democrats adhered more to the ideas of Cicero and Franklin instead of Karl Marx.

To: Marc

I won’t debate the semantics of the differences between the definitions of atheist and agnostic. Indeed, they can almost be used interchangeably. They are shown as synonyms in some references. This is why I mentioned “the American vernacular” in my comments.

I wonder what you would say to me and my position about “In God We Trust” on our currency. I fully respect the Constitution but FEEL indifferent about those words. I guess I've just used our currency without actually bothering to worry about what's written on it. But otherwise, you make an excellent case. I can find no fault in your logic. In other words, and perhaps as another way for Will in Phoenix and Rebecca E to see this, given a lack of proof of God, our default position should actually be neutral. There should be no “In God We Trust” nor “God Is a Myth” language on our currency.

I hope a lot of other readers tuned into these comments about religion. Fairness and equitable treatment for all, are ideals that we should all pursue. And it begins by everyone seeing how they appear to others - seeing how their ideas affect others - searching for their own inconsistencies and hypocrisies. Your explanations and analogies, above, are compelling. Good.

Hamilton, thanks for weighing in on this. Exactly right about "In God We Trust" on our currency. It's money. It should include USA, denomination, a date, perhaps a serial number, great American, historic US place. It is not a forum for a statement about belief in god, either for or against.

To all those who may question my motives with my commentary on faith and separation of church and state, here's the answer: It was reported today by the BBC that a man in Indonesia was beaten by an angry mob and arrested for posting "there is no god" on facebook. He may face up to 5 years in jail and is expected to lose his government job. This sort of thing happens around the world; one of the many things that makes the USA great is that it doesn't happen here.

no

I ask: Why was Sowell's diatribe regarding taxpayers footing the bill for the post office regurgitated? On the contrary, the U.S. Postal Service was FORCED to overpay billions into the retirement system---money which should be returned. Although parks require admission fees and some agencies require fees for permits, etc., NO OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY is remotely close to being self-sufficient. It is also the only agency that serves every single person throughout their stages of life, not just limited to tax-supported welfare during youth or tax-supported Medicare during the retirement years. Postal budgets have been defined and confined by the sales of their products: postage fees and packaging products. Period. NO TAXPAYER HANDOUTS! Obviously, a high percentage of readers didn't question the veracity of Sowell's statements. It is unconscionable that any responsible or sane person would consider the vagaries of commercial enterprise to be an acceptable mode of delivering the mail to all in this country, whether residents or visitors.

As far as "Doesn't anybody get the connection between the social issues and economics issues?" goes. The political rhetoric goes on and on. Because a candidate finds some great quote or just comes up with an obvious view on this country's climate does not mean very much. Just as Obama is no superman so he does not have to fulfill his promises neither does any Congressman, I find it just naive. I want to hear just how they are going to do it not there political wishes, though better than none. They think because they are Republican they can do better? If you want to convince me of your reform to fix the country tell me just how you are going to do that and quit the BULL! When are we going to wakeup and not accept a rhetorical answer? These guys have no plans but to fit in to the mold already there.

To: Marc

Ditto to you. All the best.