In the spirit of the holiday, I thought I would share a few controversial April Fool's day pranks.
April 1st, 2003
When Glenn Howlett, a city employee of London, Ontario, was on vacation, three other city employees sent him a letter telling him the deadline for his report had been pushed up and was due in two weeks. Howlett flew home immediately to finish his report. It was so stressful that he suffered heart palpitations that eventually forced him into retirement. When Howlett found out it was a prank, he sued, costing the city $75,000.
April 1st, 1991
The Times of London, reported the government's new traffic plan for the M25, the highway that encircles London. On Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, all traffic would travel clockwise around the city, on Tuesdays and Thursdays, traffic would travel counter-clockwise (on weekends you could travel either direction). The BBC believed the story, and even aired interviews of motorists who complained that normally 5-mile shopping trips would now be 127 miles.
April, 1994
PC Computing magazine reported Congress was considering a bill to make it illegal to surf the net while drunk, and attributed it to the term "Information Superhighway", "Congress apparently thinks it is bad to be drunk on any highway no matter which kind of highway" the magazine reported. Many people took the story seriously, the Capitol was flooded with angry phone calls. Several politicians mentioned in the story had to publicly deny it.
The Washington Post columnist Chris Cilizza' put together a list of the top state-level political blogs. Among other blogs in Oregon, the Write Idea was included.
I am writing this post as a cordial reply to Blue Oregon’s post regarding the Washington Post’s political blog roll. This morning, Vorpal Sword had this to say about the Write Idea:
I don't know what the Washington Post writer was thinking, but this Southern Neo-Confederate propaganda is the American equivalent of Holocaust Denial.How this kind of horrific, toxic crap gets picked up by a purportedly legitimate newspaper is beyond me. (Unless it was a Supreme Being's synchronistic way of making the WaPo look like idiots).Way to go, WaPo. Now everyone will be sure that Oregonians are bat-sh*t crazy.
In my post regarding the Civil War entitled American Civil War: The South Was Right I present an admittedly biased, but I would like to say somewhat intellectual article on the American Civil War. Rather than engaging in a reasonable debate, the author of the above comments prefers to present an ad hominem argument that contains outright lies. I am willing to participate in an intellectual debate with anyone who reads my blog. Thus, I see no reason for the commenter to attack me personally, or for Blue Oregon to both tolerate and to host his comments.
It has been reported that in South America, the start of winter last year was one of the coldest ever observed.
"A brutal cold wave brought record low temperatures, widespread frost, snow, and major energy disruption." In Buenos Aires, it snowed for the first time in 89 years, while in Peru the cold was so intense that hundreds of people died and the government declared a state of emergency in 14 of the country's 24 provinces. In August, Chile's agriculture minister lamented "the toughest winter we have seen in the past 50 years," which caused losses of at least $200 million in destroyed crops and livestock.
Or try this, a few months ago, New Hampshire set a new snowfall record of 44.5 inches, breaking the 1876 record of 43 inches.
University of Oklahoma geophysicist David Deming, a specialist in temperature and heat flow, notes in the Washington Times that "unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007." Johannesburg experienced its first significant snowfall in a quarter-century. Australia had its coldest ever June. New Zealand's vineyards lost much of their 2007 harvest when spring temperatures dropped to record lows.
Additionally the Canadian government is forecasting the coldest winter in 15 years. On top of all of that, an "Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations" was sent by 100 scientists with the declaration, "don't fight, adapt."
It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.
On this last November 5th, in response to global warming skeptics Al Gore declared, “There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat.” Perhaps, Mr. Gore, you forgot to read this US Senate Report authored by 400 prominent scientists.
Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. He states, "First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!"
Dr. Denis G. Rancourt, Professor of Physics and an Environmental Science researcher at the University of Ottawa, believes the global warming campaigns do a disservice to the environmental movement. "Promoting the global warming myth trains people to accept unverified, remote, and abstract dangers in the place of true problems that they can discover for themselves by becoming directly engaged in their workplace and by doing their own research and observations. It trains people to think lifestyle choices (in relation to CO2 emission) rather than to think activism in the sense of exerting an influence to change societal structures,"
A Look at the Moral and Legal Elements Surrounding the Civil War
July 23, 2007
In the Orwellian tradition, he who controls the present, controls the past, and he who controls the past, controls the future. Every political system has a myth which is used to influence the beliefs of the citizens (or subjects) of that particular government. The myth of postbellum American government is simple and yet brilliantly effective: “In the American Civil War, the North fought to end slavery, and the South to preserve it.” This statement contains one of the greatest fallacies of American history.
Unfortunately, the United States Government has applied its massive resources to propagate this myth. Schoolchildren study, some even memorize, Lincoln’s speeches—and yet—probably, they have never heard of a man by the name of Jefferson Davis. The “Battle Hymn of the Republic” myth has been engrained in the conscience of the American polity. What has been forgotten, is that there are two sides to every story. Nevertheless, in his wisdom, Abraham Lincoln foretold the result of the propagation of this American myth: “You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.”
The major argument propagated by defenders of the North is that slavery was legal in the South and (for the most part) illegal in the North. The question demanded is, “How can anyone seriously defend the South, when such an evil existed within their states?” Perhaps an examination of the history surrounding the [first] War for Independence is in order. Consider Samuel Johnson’s irritation at the American colonists who threatened secession from Britain: “[H]ow is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?” The force of this argument is impossible not to feel. One must acknowledge that slavery was a dark moral stain on the seceding American colonies, all of which allowed slavery in 1776; similarly, it was a dark stain on the seceding Southern states, all of which allowed slavery in 1861. Nevertheless, immoral actions by a certain entity do not make other actions by that entity intrinsically immoral. If this were not so, mankind would be in a sad state indeed. If the American colonies and the Southern states had a moral right to secede, than, obviously, it would be morally wrong to attempt to prevent their secession through invasion. This holds even truer in the Southern case, than in the colonial case. First, the Southern states presented a moral and legal right to secede. Second, unlike the British, the North violated the civilized rules of warfare. Third, the North had no legal, moral, or precedential argument favoring their cause.
“No subject [slavery] has been more generally misunderstood or more persistently misrepresented.” These words written by the President of the Confederate States of America ring ever so much truer today. Unbeknownst to many, Lincoln’s (so-called) Emancipation Proclamation freed only those slaves he had no control over. The proclamation stated that the slaves were freed, “within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States.” In other words, Lincoln freed those he had no control over and left those he had control over in bondage. Indeed, the proclamation specifically stipulated that those in slavery in the excepted areas (the areas that were not in rebellion) were to be, “left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.” This meant that slavery was still legal in the six parishes of Louisiana that were under Yankee control at the time and the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia. Moreover, ironic as it seems, the Northern General Ulysses S. Grant’s wife held personal slaves during the war. In fact, these slaves were not freed under Lincoln’s proclamation but rather under the Thirteenth Amendment passed after the end of the war. In an 1858 debate, Lincoln, made the following statement:
I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races…. I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
Indeed, a great deal of the Northern states and the Northern population agreed with Lincoln. The majority of Northern states passed laws prohibiting or harshly restricting
the entrance of “free blacks.” New Jersey shut out blacks; Massachusetts prescribed flogging for black nonresidents who stayed longer than two months. Ohio, at one time, passed a law expelling the entire black population. A number of states erected constitutional barriers to the immigration of free blacks. Oregon’s constitutional language was typical:
No free negro, or mulatto, not residing in this state at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall ever come, reside, or be within this state, or hold any real estate, or make any contract, or maintain any suit therein; and the legislative assembly shall provide by penal laws for the removal by public officers of all such free negroes who shall bring them into the state, or employ or harbour them therein.
Northern hands were by no means clean when it came to the issue of slavery.
Of all the justifications for war, none is greater than the economic rationale. In the War for Southern Independence, the North’s principal interest was to protect its economic well-being. Testifying to this, Thomas Cooper, president of South Carolina College stated, “We shall ere long be forced to calculate the value of our Union, to ask of what use is an unequal alliance by which the South has always been the loser and the North always the winner.”
In the founding document of our great American Nation, Thomas Jefferson eloquently made the case that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.Jefferson goes on to declare that the governed have a right to a government that disciplines itself to the will of the people. If the government does not do so, that government has no moral right to exist. Likewise, in ratifying its Constitution, Virginia clearly stated that it had the right to withdraw from the national union:
We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected,… in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them, whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression; and that every power not granted thereby, remains with them and at their will: that, therefore, no right, of any denomination, can be canceled, abridged, restrained, or modified.
In the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson again echo these thoughts:
Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government….
The argument that the South was morally and legally justified in withdrawing from the union is best summed up in the ex post facto words of General Robert E Lee,
We could have pursued no other course without dishonor. And sad as the results have been, if it had all to be done over again, we should be compelled to act in precisely the same manner.
If the colonies had lost the war with England, would that have made England right? Simply the fact that the North defeated the South, does not justify the North’s invasion. It is evident in the writings of John Locke that, “Might does not make right.” An aggressor does not gain any legitimate legal right by a successful military adventure. That is not to say the victorious North did not equate might with right. In the words of Supreme Court Justice Salmon P. Chase, “State Sovereignty died at Appomattox.”
Nearly all American historiography after 1865 is nationalist and based on the assumption that slavery was the root cause of the war between the states. This myth demands refutation. A new historical perspective holding that the prescription of secession in 1860 was morally and legally correct and that it was the only cogent and benevolent solution to all the troubles confronting the union at the time is imperative to the refutation of America’s “Battle Hymn of the Republic” myth:
When two men are about to come to blows, it is best to separate them. To write history from the assumption that the peaceful dissolution of the Union in 1860 was a good thing—nationalists, after all, assume that the dissolution of the Union under the Articles of Confederation was a good thing—would bring to light a vast array of facts, moral possibilities, and spectacular moral losses hitherto hidden from view. And it would open up political possibilities that are today closed off because the limits of politics are, in large part, the limits of historical self-understanding.
Bibliography
Ann Norton. Alternative Americas.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986.
Calhoun. John C. The Works of John C. Calhoun, vol. I, “A Discourse on the
Constitution and Government of the United States,” D. Appleton and Company,
New York, NY, 1854.
Charles Adams, When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern
Today Conservatives have a reason to celebrate: Marc Lucca's campaign for Oregon State Representative is in full swing. Marc is in District 17 (Lebanon, Sweet Home, Scio, Stayon, Sublimity, Santiam Canyon).
Also, someone started a blog for the entire purpose of support Marc. Check it out at www.Marclucca.blogspot.com
We Republicans have been betrayed over and over by politicians who promise to serve our conservative values, but then let us down. I have worked in the Capitol for years to change Salem, and I have proven they won’t change me.
That is precisely the kind of statement I want to hear from a candidate running for office. Marc Lucca has my full support. I encourage you to check out his website, or even drop by a donation.
Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. George Santayana
Wise s eigentlich gewesen.Sixty some odd years ago, something happened that is so atrociously odious that some, rather then face it, find it easier to equivocate and to subtly deny that it ever took place.While still others—either for personal or religious gain—maliciously deny that this abhorrent calamity ever took place. This single conjuncture has shown the world new levels of brutality: several countries banded together to wipe an entire people group off the face of this earth.This cataclysm is called the Holocaust.[1]
Around one hundred years ago, the first “modern” genocide took place: the Turkish (Muslim) massacre of more than a million Armenians (Christians) during the First World War.[2]The Turkish officials then in power took credit for this genocide.The current Turkish government denies that history.They say it never happened, or they seek to excuse the massacres as consequences of war.The rest of the world allows this denial to go unchallenged.Now, in the twentieth century, under the guise of “Holocaust Revisionism,” history is again being denied.
According to a Demoskopea poll, one in ten Italians believes the Holocaust never happened.[3]Moreover, the pseudohistoricial* Institute for Historical Review makes such reoccurring claims as:
Question:“How many Jews died in the concentration camps?”
Answer:“About 300,000
Question:“How did they die”?
Answer:“Mainly from recurring typhus epidemics. . . .”
Question:What about gas chambers?
Answer:There weren’t any.
The singular reoccurring question is why?Why would someone deny the Holocaust? Yehuda Bauer claims that it is because of an unthinkable sense of horror:
I believe that this [denial of the Holocaust] is the work of a growing movement, as for extremely wide circles of people the very phenomenon of the Holocaust is incomprehensible, unintelligible and untenable, and an explanation claiming that it did not happen is accepted with relief.
However unwillingly a person who has a strong opinion may admit the possibility that his opinion may be false, he ought to be moved by the consideration that however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not living truth—John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859.
John Stuart Mill reminds us that if an important issue is not habitually addressed, it will be forgotten, or it will be rewritten.We must remember and learn from the ineffable atrocities committed by the Nazis and others.A simple study reveals that the precursor to the Holocaust was a systematic reduction of rights:
the deprivation of equal civil rights, circumventing the constitution
laws recognizing different legal statuses among citizens
laws inclusively aimed at certain people groups exclusive of all others
violence against a certain people group executed by the government
laws restricting religious activity
At the heart of the Nazi seemingly mysterious millenarian weltanschauung (worldview) was the proclamation that ‘the Jews’ were the source of all evils—especially internationalism, pacifism, democracy, and Marxism. They believed Jewry was responsible for the Enlightenment, Christianity, and Freemasonry.
“The Holocaust was an unprecedented crime against humanity that aimed at the annihilation of the entire Jewish population of Europe, down to the last man, woman, and child.It was the planned, deliberate policy decision of a powerful state, the Nazi Reich, which mobilized all of its resources to destroy an entire people.The Jews were not condemned to die for their religious beliefs or for their political opinions.Nor were they an economic or military threat to the Nazi state.They were killed not for what they had done but for the simple fact of their existence.”[4]
Judaism was the antithesis of the xenophobic racist nationalism espoused by fascists and Nazis.The Holocaust was driven by a millenarian, apocalyptic ideology of Vernichtung (annihilation) that overthrew all the enlightened and utilitarian assumptions of liberal modernity.The lesson to be learned from the Holocaust is that evil can and must be resisted in its early stages.We always have choices.Racism and anti-Semitism have no place in a civilized society.Students and teachers have the responsibility to insure the accurate teaching of history.Under the guise of “academic freedom” many professors and teachers are straying further and further away from the authentic teaching of history; teaching rather what fulfills their worldview.This must be exposed and shown for what it is.In the world of academia taking a stand against someone is difficult.But this must be done by teachers and students alike.They both must audaciously stand for truth.History should be presented wise s eigentlich gewesen—as it actually happened.
[1] In religious usage, a “holocaust” is “a sacrificial offering wholly consumed by fire in exaltation of God” (Arno J. Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken? The “Final Solution” in History [New York: Pantheon, 1988], p. 16). However, in the twentieth century, this was supplanted by a secular usage, in which “holocaust” designates “a wide variety of conflagrations, massacres, wars, and disasters.” See Jon Petrie’s etymological study, “The Secular Word HOLOCAUST: Scholarly Myths, History, and 20th Century Meanings,” Journal of Genocide Research, 2: 1 (2000), pp. 31–64.
[2]Robert F. Melson, Revolution and Genocide:On the Origins of the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust (Chicago, 1992) 247-57
[3]Nov. 2, 1992, p. 2, quoting poll conducted by Demoskopea and published in L’Espresso.See also New York Times, Nov. 5, 1992.
[4]Robert S. Wistrich, Hitler and the Holocaust, xi (Modern Library Edition 2001).
With the Democratic primary battle getting longer and more divisive between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, some have suggested an alternative… Former Vice-President Al Gore.
Here is the scenario: Obama does not perform well in the remaining states, and can’t get enough Superdelegate support to secure the nomination, however, party leaders do not want to give Clinton the nod when she collected less pledged delegates than Obama. Party leaders ask Al Gore to accept the nomination and pick Obama as his running mate; Obama agrees to the deal and asks his delegates to support Gore.
While it seems highly unlikely that something like that would happen (in recent elections no one has been picked who was not even running, and there's a possibility Gore would not even accept the offer), this election year all sorts of unexpected things have happened (McCain coming back and winning the nomination, for example), so who knows?
I think that situation is unlikely… However, the Democrats may want to pick Gore to take away some of McCain’s advantages. Interestingly enough, there is actually a website dedicated to "drafting Al Gore" for President in 2008. According to the site, over 200,000 people have pledged their support, signing the following petition:
Americans from every corner of our nation are calling on you. Please listen to our plea and run for the Democratic nomination for the presidency of the United States in 2008 or accept a draft should you be called upon by your party....
America and the world need you now more than ever. Be our candidate. Run for president. And we pledge that we'll be there for you every day until the last vote is counted.
Everyone from Time Magazine to The Economist have speculated on a Gore Presidential ticket. The later article states:
Step forward AI Gore. Mr. Gore has enough of a national profile to command instant credibility. He has rich friends to finance him.
Could an Al Gore Presidential ticket become a convenient truth?
In this week's Write Idea Rankings, I will be taking a look at some of the most interesting Oregon primary races to watch in the upcoming months leading to the May 20 primary:
1.Democrat, Presidential: It looks like Obama and Clinton will still be fighting it out come Oregon's primary, Obama has already made a stop here and Clinton is planning to make a stop in the next few weeks. Obama will most likely win the popular vote, but it will be interesting to see if Clinton can keep it close, and what the delegate margin will be.
2. Democrat, Senate: In my opinion, Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick are fighting each other for the right to get beat in the general by Gordon Smith. Merkley started the favorite, he was backed by the National Democrats, and is the only Democratic candidate who has held public office, but Novick has made it a race with his clever advertising, he was also recently endorsed by former Governor John Kitzhaber. It should be interesting to see if the campaign gets any nastier.
3. Democrat, Secretary of State: Three Democrat state Senators Kate Brown, Rick Metsger, and Vicki Walker are now running (Brad Avakian dropped out after being appointed Labor Commissioner). Brown has the highest name recognition as the former Majority Leader, Metsger probably has the most appeal to moderate Democrats, and Walker is the only Democratic candidate who is not from the Portland Metro area.
4. Republican, Congressional district five: RepublicansKevin Mannix and Mike Erickson are fighting for the nomination for the seat being vacated by Democrat Darlene Hooley. Mannix is probably the favorite, with his longtime service to the state, the fact that he is the only Republican in the race with any political experience, and he has carried the district in all of his statewide runs. Erickson, however, has poured large amounts of money into the race, which should help even it out.
5. Democrat, Attorney General: Liberal Democratic Legislator Greg Macpherson is running against law professor and former U.S. Attorney John Kroger. Kroger has been endorsed by most unions so far, as well as by former Governor Kitzhaber.
Stop Gordon Smith, the Democrat attack website, was paid for by the Democrat Party of Oregon, and built by the same company that runs Blue Oregon. It has had an impressive 20,000 hits since its premier. The site looks somewhat typical of all Mandate Media sites (Blue Oregon, etc). Mandate Media's specialty seems to be creating ugly web 1.0 sites. After one minute of perusing its content, I just had to leave. [Note to Mandate Media, higher some web 2.0 programmers.]
Must Tax Merkley, the Republican attack website, was paid for by the National Republican Senatorial Committee. It sports graphically rich content, and it’s my impression it cost a boatload. Unfortunately, for the Republicans, "Must Tax Merkley," has poor rankings on every major search engine. Under the name "Jeff Merkley," it was not even in the top 20 search results on Google. Given, the site premiered just a couple of days ago, but somehow I expected better. We'll have to see how many hits it gets. Unless someone creates a large grassroots campaign supporting the site, my impression is it will be a dud.
That’s right, I don’t see ads when I browse the internet. Simply install the Firefox add on Ad Block Plus and you will never see ads or pop-ups again.
2. Customization with Plugins and Extensions
The real power of Firefox lies in its added functionality through the use of extensions and plug-ins. Thousands of developers program small additional tools for the browser that allow you to do almost whatever your heart desires, and make your life easier. Want your browser to be a different color? Want to add weather updates? The choice is yours.
3.Security
Mostmalicious bugs and viruses are programmed for Internet Explorer. Using Firefox is more secure and it could save your computer.
4. Cleaner Interface
Firefox's interface is easy to use and it’s clean. Moreover, you have the ability to customize the navigation to just about any specification, as well as easily implementing thousands of new themes to personalize Firefox.
5. Originality
In the most recent version of Internet Explorer 7, you will find many cool new features—interestingly enough—almost all of these features have been in Firefox for years (yup it’s true, Microsoft is copying Mozilla). With Firefox, you will have the latest and best features straight out of the box.
Firefox gives me a better browsing experience. I think it will give you a better experience, too.
Today, I am going to start a post that I will be doing, usually once a week towards the end of the week, called the Write Idea Rankings
Picture: 2008 Senate races Republican held Red, Democrat held blue
U.S. Senate rankings (1 being the most likely to be taken over by the other party in the next election):
10. Mississippi (Wicker-R): Appointed Senator Roger Wicker, a former Congressman, is running in the special election against Democrat Ronnie Mugrove, a former Governor who lost in 2003. If nobody receives a majority of the vote in November, a runoff will be held between the top two vote-getters.
9. Maine (Collins-R): Many Democrats where very excited when they recruited Rep. Tom Allen to run against liberal Republican Susan Collins in this Democrat-leaning state. However Collins continues to hold a twenty point lead in the polls, as well as the fundraising advantage.
8. Oregon (Smith-R): When the election season started, national Democrats tried hard to get a good challenger to run against moderate Republican Gordon Smith, all they could come up with however, was Oregon House Speaker Jeff Merkley and activist Steve Novick, who are engaged in a nasty battle for the Democratic nomination.
7. Minnesota (Coleman-R): In this moderately Democratic state, moderate Republican Senator Norm Coleman is running against comedian Al Franken. Franken has raised a lot of money, and is close in the polls, though once the election season heats up and Coleman starts running ads, Franken may have a hard time (just imagine the ads using Franken's SNL skits...).
6. Colorado (open-R): Liberal Democrat Congressman Mark Udall is running against conservative former Republican Congressman Bob Schaffer. Colorado normally leans republican, but has trended towards Democrats in recent years. Udall and Schaffer are statistically tied in most polls.
5. Louisiana (Landrieu-D): Incumbent Democrat Mary Landrieu is the Republican's best chance to gain a Democrat held seat in the Senate. State Treasurer John Kennedy is very close to Landrieu in the polls.
4. Alaska (Stevens-R): Ted Stevens, the longtime GOP Senator known for his pork-barrell spending projects, such as the bridge to nowhere, has been under investigation by the FBI for corruption. Some Republicans have talked about finding a primary challenger to Stevens. Democrat Mark Begich, the former Mayor of Anchorage, has formed an exploratory committee to run against Stevens.
3. New Hampshire (Sununu-R): Libertarian Republican Senator John Sununu is running against former Governor Jeanne Shaheen in this libertarian-leaning state. Shaheen has been leading in most polls, Sununu however seems to be a good fit for this state, and is unlikely to make many mistakes.
2. New Mexico (open-R): All three U.S. Representatives in New Mexico are running for this open seat. Democrat Tom Udall is leading republicans Steve Pearce and Heather Wilson, who are still in the primary.
1. Virginia (open-R): Former Governor Jim Gilmore, a Republican, is facing an uphill climb in his race against fellow former Gov. Democrat Mark Warner. Warner has been leading in the polls by twenty plus percent.
For all the latest polls check out Survey USA and Rasmussen Reports. Also be sure to check out The Fix, one of my blogging inspirations.
First of all, I am a devout believer. I am also an independent thinker, and I am capable of reading the Bible for myself. In my research I primarily consulted
The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop.
Easter is not a Christian name
Easter bears its Chaldean origin on its very forehead. Easter is nothing else than Astarte, one of the titles of Beltis, the queen of heaven, whose name, as pronounced by the people Nineveh, was evidently identical with that now in common use in this country. That name, as found by Layard on the Assyrian monuments, is Ishtar.
Easter is not a Christian holiday
The festival, of which we read in Church history, under the name of Easter, in the third or fourth centuries, was quite a different festival from that now observed in the Romish Church, and at that time was not known by any such name as Easter. It was called Pasch, or the Passover, and though not of Apostolic institution, * was very early observed by many professing Christians, in commemoration of the death and resurrection of Christ.
That festival agreed originally with the time of the Jewish Passover, when Christ was crucified, a period which, in the days of Tertullian, at the end of the second century, was believed to have been the 23rd of March. That festival was not idolatrous, and it was preceded by no Lent. "It ought to be known," said Cassianus, the monk of Marseilles, writing in the fifth century, and contrasting the primitive Church with the Church in his day, "that the observance of the forty days had no existence, so long as the perfection of that primitive Church remained inviolate."
*Socrates, the ancient ecclesiastical historian, after a lengthened account of the different ways in which Easter was observed in different countries in his time--i.e., the fifth century--sums up in these words: "Thus much already laid down may seem a sufficient treatise to prove that the celebration of the feast of Easter began everywhere more of custom than by any commandment either of Christ or any Apostle." (Hist. Ecclesiast.) The word Easter in the KJV of the Bible is a blatant mistranslation of the word Passover. This is one of the many places the translators should an exceedingly great bias.
The Easter traditions are pagan
The hot cross buns of Good Friday, and the dyed eggs of Pasch or Easter Sunday, figured in the Chaldean rites just as they do now. The "buns," known too by that identical name, were used in the worship of the queen of heaven, the go
