In my opinion such a structure should embody what the country should become, not what it was. It should be based around the idea of progress and exemplify the ideals which the country is moving towards (progressive ideals) and help educate the visitors.
If you want to see what the country was you go to a history museum.
Not to mention, "Nature's God," of Thomas Jefferson and the other heavily-Freemasonic Founding Fathers. Our country was conceived and organized along Masonic lines and principles, look into freedom of speech. They were inspired by Newton's characterization of Nature's God as a, "Clockmaker of the Universe", it's a shame not to reference Him. I guess maybe they're afraid a bunch of Masons are going to kill the cartoonists, I mean designers, and then riot months later when it's politically convenient.
So, Bruce, somewhere in the iconography of Swastikas will do it for you? And no, one does not go to a history museum to see what the country was, anymore...not since you and your kind have gotten your hands on them.
Simon: So, Bruce, somewhere in the iconography of Swastikas will do it for you?
How about the great things this country has done to help people, like free health care for children, universal education, increased life span and extensive aid to foreign countries. It shouldn't whitewash our history either, there should be good coverage of the suffering of minorities and so on.
Then there could be a exhibits towards the end that pose questions, with an animatronic sick person in a bed surrounded by crying family members, who is dying because they lack health insurance and cannot afford a life saving operation. This would help people reflect on the morals of universal health care. Then something about a poor black kid in a run down school room, with water leaking from the roof, sitting there with no hope and the sounds of hard city life in the background. Following these though, there could be exhibits about how these things are already becoming a thing of the past because of progressive ideals and government programs. People would leave with a satisfied feeling and an understanding of all the good their tax money is doing! Otherwise, these things really are very abstract - you don't see the person the government has helped, they're just normal people. You do see the person the government has failed to help though (eg. a homeless person on the street).
Just a few ideas of course.
The Left continues to try to erode and obfuscate the fact that the nature of our rights are endowed upon us because we've been given life and choose to live within a civilized society based upon the Ten Commandments.
The Left wants people to think our rights are granted to us by the government. It is their desire to RULE the people, not to govern a civilized society.
++
no need to ask "HOW STUPID ARE WE" anymore..
case closed..
oh btw.. think i (or anyone else) could make a
case against Liberalism being Unconstitutional??
==
++
U.S. Constitution Found to be Unconstitutional
excerpt:
[ By the time classical liberalism began to take hold, it was still clear to many political philosophers that religion as an arm of the state is dangerous and deleterious to human rights. When liberal ideas were imported into the new world in the 18th century, they were adopted and spread by Puritans, Anglicans, Quakers and Catholics living in colonies established by Christian English royalty. Such beliefs were eventually transmitted to the authors of the American constitution who incorporated their own ideas about human liberty into the document. Horace White once observed that the Constitution is based on "the religion of Calvin" and historian Richard Hofstadter wrote that the Founders "had a vivid Calvinistic sense of evil and damnation." By restraining government, classical liberals are acting on their beliefs that a higher power than the state exists. The Constitution is a product of these beliefs. No where else on earth did such ideas of religion, state, and liberty develop. The Constitution and its parent philosophy, liberalism are founded upon a Judeo-Christian ethic of the fallibility of the state and the need to secure natural rights. With the ratification of the Constitution, these ideals were eventually imposed on all Americans.
In their law article, Simson and Sussman want us to believe that government endorsement of any concept or program that originates in religious morals amounts to violation of the Constitution. The logical extension of this argument is that any action of government that is based on religious values must be discarded as well. By protecting human rights like life and liberty, the government would be imposing its own moral agenda on people who might not hold life and liberty as high esteem as Western, Christian philosophy traditionally has. The conclusion must be that the Constitution itself must violate its own First Amendment because it makes certain moral assumptions about the nature of mankind; assumptions which stem from religious Christian beliefs. Even Jefferson, the so-called deist and author of the Virginia statute against state religions would have never accepted the idea of an amoral government. He was able to see the foolishness of such an idea. Public policy must be based on some kind of moral and ethical foundation. The problem that Simson and Sussman really have is that they just happen to disagree with the idea of abstinence and wish to replace it with a different kind of morality: a state sponsored morality which would be constructed and enforced by the government elites. Ironically, such a plan would create the very situation that the First Amendment sought to avoid: a public morality governing private behavior to be designed and enforced by the state. It’s a situation that any ancient Persian despot would love.]
==
I'm just plain tired of Bruce and his leftist comments bashing America. Since, in his eyes, America is so bad, why doesn't he go somewhere better? Anywhere better...
.
++
(progressive ideals)
==
Just_Saying: I'm just plain tired of Bruce and his leftist comments bashing America.
I'm not bashing, I'm offering constructive criticism!
++
[I'm offering constructive criticism!]
Bruce | 12.03.08 - 11:55 am |
based on cow dung..
==
Classic leftist behavior. Not liberal. Only leftists who worship Mao and Stalin do things like that.
Funny, how leftists worship the worst mass murderers in the history of mankind. Coincidence? Not really. Socialism is fascism after all.
Brucie is a brain dead moronic moonbat. He is incapable of rational thought; his DRIVEL is completely predictable nonsense. Everyone knows brucie will say ANYTHING to smear the USA. And, laughably brucie is dumb enough to say, "I'm not bashing, I'm offering constructive criticism!" What an asshat!
I agree entirely with Just_Saying at 11:53 am. The Drivel brucie dumps here is tiring at best. His DRIVEL is never worth reading. He never adds anything meaningful to ANY post.
As one pundit observed on the opening.
It was completed four years late and at double the budget for the project.
A prime example of how our congress works.
++
re: Takekaze @ 12:18 pm
Murder by Communism..
excerpt:
[How can we understand all this killing by communists? It is the marriage of an absolutist ideology with the absolute power. Communists believed that they knew the truth, absolutely. They believed that they knew through Marxism what would bring about the greatest human welfare and happiness. And they believed that power, the dictatorship of the proletariat, must be used to tear down the old feudal or capitalist order and rebuild society and culture to realize this utopia. Nothing must stand in the way of its achievement. Government--the Communist Party--was thus above any law. All institutions, cultural norms, traditions, and sentiments were expendable. And the people were as though lumber and bricks, to be used in building the new world.
Constructing this utopia was seen as though a war on poverty, exploitation, imperialism, and inequality. And for the greater good, as in a real war, people are killed. And thus this war for the communist utopia had its necessary enemy casualties, the clergy, bourgeoisie, capitalists, wreckers, counterrevolutionaries, rightists, tyrants, rich, landlords, and noncombatants that unfortunately got caught in the battle. In a war millions may die, but the cause may be well justified, as in the defeat of Hitler and an utterly racist Nazism. And to many communists, the cause of a communist utopia was such as to justify all the deaths. The irony of this is that communism in practice, even after decades of total control, did not improve the lot of the average person, but usually made their living conditions worse than before the revolution.]
Death By Government
excerpt:
[III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS
8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan's Savage Military
9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey's Genocidal Purges
11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland's Ethnic Cleansing
13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State
14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito's Slaughterhouse]
links @ links..
"On Moral Equivalency and Cold War History"
Ethics & International Affairs, Volume 10 (1996)
excerpt:
[Where does that leave us, though, with the new evidence we have about the victims of Stalin and Mao Zedong? One recent but reliable estimate suggests that Stalin's domestic victims alone - when one totals not only the figures for the purges but also for the collectivization of agriculture and the famine that resulted from it - numbered about twenty million dead. This does not count the additional acknowledged twenty-seven million Soviet citizens who died as a result of World War II. But this is not the worst of it. Estimates of those who died in one single episode - the Chinese famine produced by Mao's ill-conceived Great Leap Forward from 1958 to 1961 - now come to some thirty million, thereby qualifying the Chairman (whose image was once a popular adornment for t-shirts and dormitory wall posters in the West) as perhaps the greatest mass murderer of all time.
[snip]
Why didn't the United States exploit its advantage to keep the Soviet Union from developing its own bomb? Or to avoid near-defeat in Korea? These are complicated questions, but one of the answers that comes up, when one looks at what American officials said to each other, is the conviction that a democracy could only use such a weapon as a last resort, and in self-defense.
But that in turn raises another interesting question of comparative morality: would an authoritarian system - one based on an ideology that explicitly justified any means necessary to achieve its ends, one that employed terror as a method of government, and one as casual about the loss of human life as were Stalin's and Mao's - have shown similar restraint had it got the bomb first?
[snip]
We need to be careful about the methodological metaphors we keep in our minds. Too much of Cold War history was written as if its major contenders were indeed featureless billiard balls, whose internal composition and character didn't much matter. In retrospect, apples and oranges might have been the better metaphor: at least it would have allowed for irregularity, asymmetry, and the possibility of internal rot.]
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein
==
Why wasn't this display checked out by our R 'friends' BEFORE it was put up!????
Our R 'friends' are always a Day LATE and A Dollar Short!
C-CS
" One recent but reliable estimate suggests that Stalin's domestic victims alone - when one totals not only the figures for the purges but also for the collectivization of agriculture and the famine that resulted from it - numbered about twenty million dead. This does not count the additional acknowledged twenty-seven million Soviet citizens who died as a result of World War II. But this is not the worst of it. Estimates of those who died in one single episode - the Chinese famine produced by Mao's ill-conceived Great Leap Forward from 1958 to 1961 - now come to some thirty million, thereby qualifying the Chairman (whose image was once a popular adornment for t-shirts and dormitory wall posters in the West) as perhaps the greatest mass murderer of all time."
Add all of the deaths together, (remember, these don't even count the murders by Castro, Chavez, Ortega, and the other current heros of the American left, then add on the millions of aborted children-killed simply because they are inconvientent to leftists. I think any memorial to progressive ideals should be a statue to the Grim Reaper.
++
caldwell @ 2:38 pm
there are no more R's in Congress..
all the R's were/are Iraqi Vets running for election!! 
==
++
pagar @ 2:52 pm
good point, and lets not forget one
of Obama etals favorite hero Ché..
excerpt:
["If the missiles had remained (in Cuba), We would have used them against the very heart of the U.S., including New York City. The victory of Socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims."
- Ernesto 'Che" Guevara, November 1962.]
thankfully the concept of Freedom is awakening in
the ME.. unfortunately, it's dying in America.. 
==
terrence44: Brucie is a brain dead moronic moonbat. He is incapable of rational thought; his DRIVEL is completely predictable nonsense. Everyone knows brucie will say ANYTHING to smear the USA. And, laughably brucie is dumb enough to say, "I'm not bashing, I'm offering constructive criticism!" What an asshat!
So a progressive democratic take on things really annoys you that much. This is the kind of vitriol that I think right wing talk radio leads to.
Thanks for the laughs brucie. That is all you are good for, even though you are STUPID and presumptuous enough claim you annoy me.
You have no clue as too what I listen to, asshat; but, that does not stop you from making a FOOL out of yourself by spewing even more of your idiocy. Grow up, you brain dead moron.
The constitution is inexerably intertwined with faith and morals. This importent document has a system in which morality is ultimatly the basis for all law.
This is not to force one religion upon every American, but to impress basic human knowlage of wrong and right to override any law or bill that denies these simple ethics.
It is a shame that the motto was not put in its rightful place of honor. Hopefuly it will be seen in the future as not a symbol of religious persecution of minorities, but a basis for the country I love.
PS- Terrence44 and Bruce,
This blog is about the American motto, not you two. I haven't been that offended by what Bruce has said, but maybe your refering to a previous blog entry.
At any rate, I think if his comments have given you good reason to name call, the stupidity would be obvious, and the best punishment would be a powerful repudiation. Your anger about his comments might be founded, but do get in the way of the topic. both of you, try to stay on topic.
You are plain silly to allege I have "anger" about brucie's comments, Colorado2993, plain silly.
And, yes, brucie's stupidity is obvious, in this and every other thread I have seen his "comments" in.
BTW, I did not know that this is your blogg; I thought it was Gateway Pundit's. He often deletes comments he does not approve of, and I support him entirely in doing so. If Gateway wants to delete any of my comments, he can do so. He can also delete brucie's "progressive" crap too; and I would support him in doing that, as well.
Terrence & Colorado, I'm not trying to make people angry. I'm just posting my honest views.
There are a few times where I've gone a little over the top. Thats the nature of it though. If you really do think my progressive views are that "stupid" then I don't see what your worried about, just point out what you think is so wrong and it otta be obvious to other people that my opinion is "stupid."
Otherwise let my argument stand and other people can reach their own conclusion!
Brucie, you can tell what others think of your "comments" by reading their responses.
Bruce, as long as your museum were not taxpayer funded, it would be the greatest entertainment we could ever hope to see. After the first day, signs and guards would have to be posted to keep people from laughing at the insipid animatronic scenes you have staged, (after citing Universal Education in the US as a SUCCESS?!):
"Then something about a poor black kid in a run down school room, with water leaking from the roof, sitting there with no hope and the sounds of hard city life in the background." Don't you mean with cash leaking from the roof and pouring into the coffers of the Teacher's Unions who refuse to educate this person despite their high salaries and benefits?
I'm with Terrence44, you are a true comedian, Bruce. Are you a real poster here or just a fun example of a postmodlib for us to laugh at freely?
++
Bruce @7:43 pm
Bruce, when & if you present an
argument, i'll back you up.. k-
==
Simon Diamond: "Then something about a poor black kid in a run down school room, with water leaking from the roof, sitting there with no hope and the sounds of hard city life in the background." Don't you mean with cash leaking from the roof and pouring into the coffers of the Teacher's Unions who refuse to educate this person despite their high salaries and benefits?
Pouring in? Once you adjust for the extra resources that poor students require urban schools almost universally have less funding per student. The myth that urban schools are "overflowing" with money seems largely based on a few big grants.
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data...80/29/d3/
c6.pdf
I'm with Terrence44, you are a true comedian, Bruce. Are you a real poster here or just a fun example of a postmodlib for us to laugh at freely?
Interesting... I was just wondering whether you are actually individuals or just part of some GROUPTHINK collective. Just one deranged conservative who posts under multiple personalities because he realized that no one agrees with him anymore!
bg: Bruce, when & if you present an
argument, i'll back you up.. k-
?? I already have...
++
Bruce @ 10:37 pm
one dingy report from 2003, and you
call that proof, of what pray tell.. 
==
++
Bruce @ 10:37 pm
pardon bg @ 11:54 pm.. 2002 not 3
[Simon Diamond: "Then something about a poor black kid in a run down school room, with water leaking from the roof, sitting there with no hope and the sounds of hard city life in the background." Don't you mean with cash leaking from the roof and pouring into the coffers of the Teacher's Unions who refuse to educate this person despite their high salaries and benefits?]
[Bruce: Pouring in? Once you adjust for the extra resources that poor students require urban schools almost universally have less funding per student. The myth that urban schools are "overflowing" with money seems largely based on a few big grants.]
one of those paragraphs are not
like the other.. not even close!!
sorry Bruce.. but even that one paragraph seems to contradict
itself, not only that.. but doesn't come close to addressing SD's
comment..
[Conclusions: Enrollment was higher in inner
city schools, and buildings were older]
==
Bruce proclaimed:
In my opinion such a structure should embody what the country should become, not what it was.
So why so afraid to show our history?
Aren't you the one who wants the Fairness Doctrine back. To keep "divisiveness" from affecting things?
Hmm... run a search for "bruce" in this thread. Seem familiar?
Well?
Figures.
You ultrasensitive christianofascists want every government undertaking to support your beliefs and protect your delicate sensibilities.
It's OK to spend Federal funds to bolster your religion?
terrentula -- let me save you some effort... I'm a STUPID, MORONIC, FOOL who plays with FECAL matter while my head's up my RECTUM!
The Left continues to try to erode and obfuscate the fact that the nature of our rights are endowed upon us because we've been given life and choose to live within a civilized society based upon the Ten Commandments.--Nyctalus Lasiopterus
If this country is "based upon the Ten Commandments," please explain how businesses are open on the Sabbath? Did God give us a dispensation for that Commandment?
How about the gazillion of people who take the name of the Lord in vain? How many times a day do you hear good Christian people say "Oh, God!" That's a no-no.
If we are a nation based on the 10 Commandments, then any violation of any of those Commandments should be met with severe punishment, no?
But the truth is that we are a nation whose laws are based on THE CONSTITUTION. NOT GOD'S COMMANDMENTS.
The Left wants people to think our rights are granted to us by the government. It is their desire to RULE the people, not to govern a civilized society.
Nyctalus Lasiopterus
Read the preamble to the Constitution, pal. It starts wtih "We the people..." Nothing in the Constitution says anything about god. Nothing.
Sorry to inform your ignorance.
We. Are. Not. A. Christian. Country.
Commenting by HaloScan
