So why is Mitt Romney making such a big deal out of being a Moron? We already have a Moron in the White House. Not for the first time, either.
I'm not sure if we, as Americans, are ready to elect a black man or a woman (of any color) to the Presidency, but I'm absolutely certain that we are willing to vote for a Moron.
Perhaps Romney wanted to point out that not only is he a Moron, he's also unfamiliar with American history and civics in general or that he specifically doesn't know Jack* about the Constitution of the United States.
Ask anything? OK, here goes:
1 ) What legally binding document contains the following stipulation?:
"...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Hint: It's the United States Constitution.
2) How many times is God mentioned in the United States Constitution? Be specific.
3) What does the first line of the First Amendment to the Constitution say?
4)Why do you think the founders felt it necessary to include this language?
Hint: The answer is in your mirror.
Take your time with these stumpers. It's easy to become distracted when one reads the documents on which this nation was founded...I was searching for God and facts kept drawing me away on tangents...have you ever read the Declaration of Independence, for instance?
It's pretty short reading; it's not an outline for democracy; what it is, is a petition of grievances against a power-mad lunatic named George.
It mentions a 'Creator', but not 'God'. According to correspondence between James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, this was meant to include: "Jew and Gentile, [ Native Americans] heathens and infidels."
It's meant to be inclusive, not exclusionary.
From the Declaration of Independence:
"'When in the Course of human events..." is what it says.
NOT: " During the mysterious movements of God..."
OR: "...due to the capricious whim of the Almighty..."
BUT: "...human events..."
The case for the "new religion of secularism" was made on July 4, 1776.
Some of the DoI grievances against Mad George seem disturbingly current.
Does any of this sound familiar?:
-He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public goodDudes! I couldn't have put it better myself.
- He has obstructed the Administration of Justice
- He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people and eat out their substance.
- For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury
- For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
- He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
-He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and [he is] totally unworthy [as] the Head of a civilized nation.
Anyway, we eventually got rid of George, which gave us the freedom to design our own three- branched government; a system of checks and balances was used to insure that no one branch gained control over any other. Certain rights were given to specific Branches.
Congress, for example, was given the sole power to wage war. (Art. 1, Sec. 8)
Congress chose to give this power back to Mad George. The current anarchy in Iraq is the direct result of this dismantling of the American system of checks and balances.
Patrick Henry, it seems, died in vain.
Hey, check this out. It's in the Constitution too:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
When the founders wrote ..."or Invasion...", they meant foreign invasion of American soil, not American invasion of foreign soil, but BushCo suspended Habeas Corpus anyway.
The United States Constitution also contains this wording regarding the Executive Oath of Office:
"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
That parenthetical "(or affirm)" was placed there for a specific reason. It directly relates to the first question, above. It allows for the possibility that the person taking the Oath may not have the same -if any- theological beliefs as the persons who wrote the Oath.
But I am digressing.
Mitt, it's time for a hard question.
You said: " You cannot have freedom without religion".
This is in direct contradiction to the First Amendment.
Can you explain what you meant by that remark -or are there some things that your faith doesn't allow you to discuss?