Here is the entire sentence from the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. So many people want to only quote a particular phrase from it. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects.

The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an "individual rights" (persons are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation), and a "states' rights" (Individual states have authority to maintain formal, organized militia units).

Whatever the Amendment may actually mean, it is a bar only to FEDERAL action, not extending to state or even private restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case (Miller)in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.

My only reasons for posting this was to show how a phrase can be taken out of context to support a particular view and to show everyone the ENTIRE sentence as written by our forefathers.

-- Gary in Indiana (gk6854@aol.com), September 28, 2001

Answers

The only problem with this argument is that if you infer that the people in amendment two are neither individuals nor due their right on a state and local level, then you also must infer that the "people" in amendment one are not due their right to Peacefully assemble too. If you infer one then you must infer the other. In addition, if you choose to infer it this way, you must ignore the historic tradition that completely wipes this theory out. You also must ignore The tenth Amendment which says Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The Bill of Rights prohibits the States from infringing on not only our 2nd Amendment rights, but also our first, third, fourth...Etc. This is why you have free speech in all the states. Your rights cannot be infringed. The Bill of Rights does not only protects you from the central national government( we see that it does in amendment one), it also protects you from the individual states as well. Lets look at the whole 2nd Amendment again. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " Who was the Militia during the Revolution? Was it a paid and trained army? No, if you go and read the quote from Thomas Paine in the other post on this subject you can see that it was not. The Militia was farmers, shopkeepers, and other free men with guns. Thomas Paine says that the Militia was good for sudden uprisings. Why? Because they could be called to arms from their homes to protect their neighbors. He also said that they would not do for a long campaign. Why? Because they were not trained in military strategy, and lacked the knowledge a prolonged conflict would entail. They were farmers with guns after all, not soldiers. Farmers with no or limited training. Some people want to say that the word regulated means that they were national guardsmen. Yet the word regulated does not imply this. This word implies that the militia be available to be called. In fact the word Militia at that time meant Every able bodied man. Our Forefathers knew that unless a man had access to weapons they would not be well regulated when called upon. But this phrase means nothing, because the phrase that follows it all is the right of who? The right of the Militia? No it doesn't say that. It says, the right of the "people" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The "people" come into play several times in the Bill of Rights. The first time is in Amendment one. Funny enough there is a better case to say that Amendment one is only speaking to the federal government than there is to say amendment two is. This is because A1 specifically orders : Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Funny how It is Congress who is ordered to "make no law" in A1, but it is the second where people say that this is only for the federal government.

The second place being the Actual 2nd Amendment we will skip on to A4. A4 says:

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Once again in Amendment four we have no mention of federal government nor congress. Here we are told the right of the people without clarification of government office. And yet there is no one who assumes that the state or local police have the right to raid you house and search through your belongings without probable cause. Why is that? The reason is, that it is completely insupportable to claim that ALL of the Bill of Rights does not hold not only the federal government in check but also state and local governments as well.

In addition, Historically we see that throughout US History the local governments have been expected to abide by not only the Bill of Rights, but indeed the whole Constitution as well. The "people" in the Constitution are the same "people" throughout the Bill of Rights. Indeed the Bill of Rights are Articles of the Constitution, holding the same weight as the original document. After the Bill of Rights the remaining amendments since have not been articles. You can see this for yourself in this High resolutions version of the original. http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/billrights/bill.jpg Yes folks you heard it here. It is not the second amendment, it is the second Article. Just as each section of the constitution was called Articles. You can see that here: http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/constitution/constitution.html . This is a transcription. Now why do you suppose we don't hear that the Bill of Rights are not Amendments, but Articles? Is it possible that someone out there doesn't want us to know? Is it possible that the only way to dilute the Bill of Rights is to separate it from the Constitution which it is directly connected to?

Yes folks these arguments against our foundational liberties are baseless distortions of the truth. They are the manipulations of liberal revisionists who want a socialist/communist world and Not a Democratic Republic.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit farm (littleBit@compworldnet.com), September 28, 2001.

While not making an "argument" on this subject at all (as I clearly stated in my original post), once again I'm fascinated by the way zealots on either side argue it. The above effort to frame the other side's argument for them in a manner that's then easy to take apart is a classic example. As I opened this post with a disclaimer I'll close the same way. I have no side in this debate whatsoever. My post only dealt with the current LEGAL interpretation and nothing more.

-- Gary in Indiana (gk6854@aol.com), September 29, 2001.

Actually I fully recognize that you were not arguing a point. Simply expressing what your interpretation of current legal position is on the subject. I however was making an argument, for how ridiculous the current legal position is and how wrong the arguments that produced this position are. Actually I believe that when the court begins forming new laws by destroying old ones they are breaking the very laws they are sworn to uphold. Incidentally I was not framing someone elses argument, I was framing my own.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit farm (littleBit@compworldnet.com), September 29, 2001.

Just finished watching a progam on CNN. It was about a woman who went recently to Afghanistan and reported on the atrocities going on there at the present time. It was eye opening to say the least.

Anyway

One sentence she said made my blood run cold regarding on the issue discussed above.

AFTER THE POPULATION WAS DISARMED the Taliban began with its reign of terror on the people of Afghanistan. No one could resist. So many were slaughtered by these zealots of Islam.

No one needs to say anything else about gun control after realizing the implications of this.

Talk to you later.

-- Bob in WI (bjwick@hotmail.com), September 30, 2001.

Bob in WI, I am stunned that a reporter was actually allowed to say that on national television.

That is how a whole lot of dictatorships are formed. Hitler in Germany prior to World War II, Castro in Cuba, they knew what am armed populace would mean to their cause.

Thoreau had an appropriate quote for this situation, "Question authority". Edward Abbey said to add the word "all" between those two words.

-- j.r. guerra (jrguerra@boultinghousesimpson.com), October 01, 2001.

jr

Yes it is amazing that this was allowed. Somebody must have goofed up. I was so shocked at hearing this that I had to ask my wife what was said. She had heard the same thing as I did.

At least there is some truth in the news, albeit accidental.

Talk to you later.

-- Bob in WI (bjwick@hotmail.com), October 01, 2001.

Last night on the news it was reported that gun sales in CALIFORNIA (!) were up 42%!

-- Lenette (kigervixen@webtv.net), October 02, 2001.

Our President

greenspun.com : LUSENET : ACountryPlace : One Thread User FAQ

I do not know who wrote this. It was sent to me without the author's name. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This was the same man who came within a hair's breadth of losing an election in November, who withstood the political chicanery of the Florida Democratic machine to fix the vote count.

This was the same man who admitted to having a drinking problem in younger years, and whose happy-go-lucky lifestyle led him to mediocre grades in college and an ill-fated oil venture.

This was the same man who mangled syntax even more than his father, and whose speaking missteps became known as "Bushisms."

And on Friday, this was the man who bore the weight of the world and the responsibilities of a generation with dignity, class, confidence, appropriate solemnity, and even much-needed wit.

One thing struck me during the campaign, that difficult, roller- coaster campaign that now seems years ago. It was that George W. Bush never seemed to get ruffled. Whether the theft of a campaign debate video or the sudden (some would say, vicious) release of a DUI arrest two decades ago at a key moment, "W" did not lose his cool.

At times, his staff seemed overconfident, as did many of us. A 350-electoral-vote win, they quietly implied . . . and we optimistically believed. Then they counted the votes, miscounted others, and re-counted still others. At the end, he was still there. Whereas Al Gore almost frantically huffed and puffed, trying to gin up something out of nothing, Bush quietly but confidently waited at his ranch.

He didn't do nothing: that is the mistake people have constantly made with this man, confusing lack of bluster for absence of action. No, his team of attorneys and the iron-willed James Baker were carrying out his orders, but W stayed in the background, confident and faithful.

You see, it is this faith business that confounded everyone. We have had such actors and liars in public office that we have looked skeptically whenever anyone used the term faith. But this was the same man who was the first politician ever in recent memory to name Jesus Christ as the Lord of his life on public TV. Not an oblique reference to being "born-again" or having a "life change." He said the un-PC-like phrase, "Jesus Christ," to which his handlers and advisors, no doubt, off stage, were also saying, "Jesus Christ" in a much different tone.

God has a way of honoring those who honor Him. David learned that while he was on the run from Saul's armies. Job learned that after his time of horrible tribulation. The Messiah said so Himself, many times.

So this was the man who actually put faith into practice. He actually loves those who hate him. It is a staggering concept, so foreign in daily occurrence that few thought it anything but grandstanding. Even one of W's biggest supporters chided the President for adhering to his "new tone." Yet there he was, again and again, thanking the Democrats, appointing his enemies to high places in his government, inviting his former foes and their wives to private movie screenings, and (I know, this is hard to stomach) even treating them with dignity. See, this was the man who learned early on how faith worked: by praying for his enemies, you "heap burning coals upon their heads."

This was the man who named the absolute top people in national security and defense, then caught barbs from the politically righteous that this one didn't have the right views on abortion or that one didn't have the right position on guns.

And on September 11, at mid-morning, this was the man thrust into a position only known by Roosevelt, Churchill, Lincoln, and Washington. The weight of the world was on his shoulders, and the responsibility of a generation was on his soul. So this same man---the one that the media repeatedly attempted to tarnish with charges of "illegitimacy," and the one whose political opponents desperately sought to stonewall until mid-term elections---walked to his seat at the front of the National Cathedral just three days after the two most impressive symbols of American capitalism and prosperity virtually evaporated, along with, perhaps, thousands of Americans.

As he sat down next to his wife, immediately I knew that even if his faith ever faltered, hers didn't. I have never seen a more peaceful face than Laura Bush, whose eyes seemed as though they were already gazing at the final outcome . . . not just of this conflict, but of her reward in Heaven itself. In this marriage, you indeed got two for the price of one.

Then came the defining moment of our generation. Some people fondly recall their Woodstock days. Others mark with grim sadness November 22, 1963, as the day America lost her innocence. But I firmly believe when the history of this time is written, it will be acknowledged by friend and foe alike that President George W. Bush came of age in that cathedral and lifted a nation off its knees. It wasn't so much his words, though read a decade later, they will indeed be as stirring as any. This conflict would end, he noted, ". . . at a time of our choosing." It certainly wasn't his emotion. What had to have been one of the most stunning exhibitions of self-control in presidential history, W was able to deliver his remarks without losing either his resolve or his focus, or, more important, his confidence. It was as if God's hand, which had guided him through that sliver-thin election, now rested fully on him.

His quiet confidence let our enemies know . . . and believe me, they know. . . that they made a grave miscalculation. Now, this same man who practiced his faith through a tough election, who steeled his convictions even more in a drawn-out Florida battle, and who never once gave in to the temptation to get in the gutter with his foes this same man now lifted the weight of the world and the responsibility of a generation and put it on his modest shoulders as though it were another unpleasant duty.

As he walked back to his seat, the camera angle was appropriate. He was virtually alone in the scene, alone in that massive place of God, just him and the Lord. But that's the way it's always been in his life recently. In that brief time it took him to return to his seat, I believe he heard words to the effect of, "You can do this, George. I am with you always. And you can do this well, because I am going before you. And don't worry about the weight. I've got it." And I saw in his eyes a quiet acknowledgement. "I know. Thank you, Lord."

Back at his seat, when W sat down, George H. W. Bush reached over and took his son's hand. The elder Bush always struck me as a religious man, but not someone who shared his life on a daily basis with the Lord. George H. W. treats the Father like a respected uncle, visiting Him on appropriate holidays and knowing the relationship is real, but not constant.

Anyway, I believe that in that fatherly squeeze George H. W. said, "I wish I could do this for you, son, but I can't. You have to do this on your own."

W squeezed back and gave him that look of peace that Laura had kept throughout. It said, "I don't have to do it alone, dad. I've got help."

*******************

What a blessing to have a professing Christian as President - one who is not ashamed to admit it! Please take a moment after you read this to pray for him - he truly does have the weight of the world on his shoulders. Pray that God will sustain him and give him wisdom and discernment in his decisions. Make no mistake about it - the decisions he makes in the coming days, weeks and months will literally define the future of our country and the free world. Pray for his protection and that of his family.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit farm (littleBit@compworldnet.com), October 05, 2001

Answers

A recent article in the Deseret News(SLC)speaks of President Bush meeting with religious leaders prior to one of those important meetings, and states, "One minister asked the president about the specifics of how he would like people to pray for him... He asked for prayers that we would have wisdom, strength, and clarity of thought and for prayers for his family" http://www.rulds2.com/news/view.asp?id=2001- 82122183144&i=0

-- mary (marylgarcia@aol.com), October 05, 2001.

Our President

greenspun.com : LUSENET : ACountryPlace : One Thread User FAQ

I do not know who wrote this. It was sent to me without the author's name. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This was the same man who came within a hair's breadth of losing an election in November, who withstood the political chicanery of the Florida Democratic machine to fix the vote count.

This was the same man who admitted to having a drinking problem in younger years, and whose happy-go-lucky lifestyle led him to mediocre grades in college and an ill-fated oil venture.

This was the same man who mangled syntax even more than his father, and whose speaking missteps became known as "Bushisms."

And on Friday, this was the man who bore the weight of the world and the responsibilities of a generation with dignity, class, confidence, appropriate solemnity, and even much-needed wit.

One thing struck me during the campaign, that difficult, roller- coaster campaign that now seems years ago. It was that George W. Bush never seemed to get ruffled. Whether the theft of a campaign debate video or the sudden (some would say, vicious) release of a DUI arrest two decades ago at a key moment, "W" did not lose his cool.

At times, his staff seemed overconfident, as did many of us. A 350-electoral-vote win, they quietly implied . . . and we optimistically believed. Then they counted the votes, miscounted others, and re-counted still others. At the end, he was still there. Whereas Al Gore almost frantically huffed and puffed, trying to gin up something out of nothing, Bush quietly but confidently waited at his ranch.

He didn't do nothing: that is the mistake people have constantly made with this man, confusing lack of bluster for absence of action. No, his team of attorneys and the iron-willed James Baker were carrying out his orders, but W stayed in the background, confident and faithful.

You see, it is this faith business that confounded everyone. We have had such actors and liars in public office that we have looked skeptically whenever anyone used the term

-- (bin jr @ laden.com), October 05, 2001.

Our President

greenspun.com : LUSENET : ACountryPlace : One Thread User FAQ

I do not know who wrote this. It was sent to me without the author's name. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This was the same man who came within a hair's breadth of losing an election in November, who withstood the political chicanery of the Florida Democratic machine to fix the vote count.

This was the same man who admitted to having a drinking problem in younger years, and whose happy-go-lucky lifestyle led him to mediocre grades in college and an ill-fated oil venture.

This was the same man who mangled syntax even more than his father, and whose speaking missteps became known as "Bushisms."

And on Friday, this was the man who bore the weight of the world and the responsibilities of a generation with dignity, class, confidence, appropriate solemnity, and even much-needed wit.

One thing struck me during the campaign, that difficult, roller- coaster campaign that now seems years ago. It was that George W. Bush never seemed to get ruffled. Whether the theft of a campaign debate video or the sudden (some would say, vicious) release of a DUI arrest two decades ago at a key moment, "W" did not lose his cool.

At times, his staff seemed overconfident, as did many of us. A 350-electoral-vote win, they quietly implied . . . and we optimistically believed. Then they counted the votes, miscounted others, and re-counted still others. At the end, he was still there. Whereas Al Gore almost frantically huffed and puffed, trying to gin up something out of nothing, Bush quietly but confidently waited at his ranch.

He didn't do nothing: that is the mistake people have constantly made with this man, confusing lack of bluster for absence of action. No, his team of attorneys and the iron-willed James Baker were carrying out his orders, but W stayed in the background, confident and faithful.

You see, it is this faith business that confounded everyone. We have had such actors and liars in public office that we have looked skeptically whenever anyone used the term faith. But this was the same man who was the first politician ever in recent memory to name Jesus Christ as the Lord of his life on public TV. Not an oblique reference to being "born-again" or having a "life change." He said the un-PC-like phrase, "Jesus Christ," to which his handlers and advisors, no doubt, off stage, were also saying, "Jesus Christ" in a much different tone.

God has a way of honoring those who honor Him. David learned that while he was on the run from Saul's armies. Job learned that after his time of horrible tribulation. The Messiah said so Himself, many times.

So this was the man who actually put faith into practice. He actually loves those who hate him. It is a staggering concept, so foreign in daily occurrence that few thought it anything but grandstanding. Even one of W's biggest supporters chided the President for adhering to his "new tone." Yet there he was, again and again, thanking the Democrats, appointing his enemies to high places in his government, inviting his former foes and their wives to private movie screenings, and (I know, this is hard to stomach) even treating them with dignity. See, this was the man who learned early on how faith worked: by praying for his enemies, you "heap burning coals upon their heads."

This was the man who named the absolute top people in national security and defense, then caught barbs from the politically righteous that this one didn't have the right views on abortion or that one didn't have the right position on guns.

And on September 11, at mid-morning, this was the man thrust into a position only known by Roosevelt, Churchill, Lincoln, and Washington. The weight of the world was on his shoulders, and the responsibility of a generation was on his soul. So this same man---the one that the media repeatedly attempted to tarnish with charges of "illegitimacy," and the one whose political opponents desperately sought to stonewall until mid-term elections---walked to his seat at the front of the National Cathedral just three days after the two most impressive symbols of American capitalism and prosperity virtually evaporated, along with, perhaps, thousands of Americans.

As he sat down next to his wife, immediately I knew that even if his faith ever faltered, hers didn't. I have never seen a more peaceful face than Laura Bush, whose eyes seemed as though they were already gazing at the final outcome . . . not just of this conflict, but of her reward in Heaven itself. In this marriage, you indeed got two for the price of one.

Then came the defining moment of our generation. Some people fondly recall their Woodstock days. Others mark with grim sadness November 22, 1963, as the day America lost her innocence. But I firmly believe when the history of this time is written, it will be acknowledged by friend and foe alike that President George W. Bush came of age in that cathedral and lifted a nation off its knees. It wasn't so much his words, though read a decade later, they will indeed be as stirring as any. This conflict would end, he noted, ". . . at a time of our choosing." It certainly wasn't his emotion. What had to have been one of the most stunning exhibitions of self-control in presidential history, W was able to deliver his remarks without losing either his resolve or his focus, or, more important, his confidence. It was as if God's hand, which had guided him through that sliver-thin election, now rested fully on him.

His quiet confidence let our enemies know . . . and believe me, they know. . . that they made a grave miscalculation. Now, this same man who practiced his faith through a tough election, who steeled his convictions even more in a drawn-out Florida battle, and who never once gave in to the temptation to get in the gutter with his foes this same man now lifted the weight of the world and the responsibility of a generation and put it on his modest shoulders as though it were another unpleasant duty.

As he walked back to his seat, the camera angle was appropriate. He was virtually alone in the scene, alone in that massive place of God, just him and the Lord. But that's the way it's always been in his life recently. In that brief time it took him to return to his seat, I believe he heard words to the effect of, "You can do this, George. I am with you always. And you can do this well, because I am going before you. And don't worry about the weight. I've got it." And I saw in his eyes a quiet acknowledgement. "I know. Thank you, Lord."

Back at his seat, when W sat down, George H. W. Bush reached over and took his son's hand. The elder Bush always struck me as a religious man, but not someone who shared his life on a daily basis with the Lord. George H. W. treats the Father like a respected uncle, visiting Him on appropriate holidays and knowing the relationship is real, but not constant.

Anyway, I believe that in that fatherly squeeze George H. W. said, "I wish I could do this for you, son, but I can't. You have to do this on your own."

W squeezed back and gave him that look of peace that Laura had kept throughout. It said, "I don't have to do it alone, dad. I've got help."

*******************

What a blessing to have a professing Christian as President - one who is not ashamed to admit it! Please take a moment after you read this to pray for him - he truly does have the weight of the world on his shoulders. Pray that God will sustain him and give him wisdom and discernment in his decisions. Make no mistake about it - the decisions he makes in the coming days, weeks and months will literally define the future of our country and the free world. Pray for his protection and that of his family.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit farm (littleBit@compworldnet.com), October 05, 2001

Answers

A recent article in the Deseret News(SLC)speaks of President Bush meeting with religious leaders prior to one of those important meetings, and states, "One minister asked the president about the specifics of how he would like people to pray for him... He asked for prayers that we would have wisdom, strength, and clarity of thought and for prayers for his family" http://www.rulds2.com/news/view.asp?id=2001- 82122183144&i=0

-- mary (marylgarcia@aol.com), October 05, 2001.

Our President

greenspun.com : LUSENET : ACountryPlace : One Thread User FAQ

I do not know who wrote this. It was sent to me without the author's name. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This was the same man who came within a hair's breadth of losing an election in November, who withstood the political chicanery of the Florida Democratic machine to fix the vote count.

This was the same man who admitted to having a drinking problem in younger years, and whose happy-go-lucky lifestyle led him to mediocre grades in college and an ill-fated oil venture.

This was the same man who mangled syntax even more than his father, and whose speaking missteps became known as "Bushisms."

And on Friday, this was the man who bore the weight of the world and the responsibilities of a generation with dignity, class, confidence, appropriate solemnity, and even much-needed wit.

One thing struck me during the campaign, that difficult, roller- coaster campaign that now seems years ago. It was that George W. Bush never seemed to get ruffled. Whether the theft of a campaign debate video or the sudden (some would say, vicious) release of a DUI arrest two decades ago at a key moment, "W" did not lose his cool.

At times, his staff seemed overconfident, as did many of us. A 350-electoral-vote win, they quietly implied . . . and we optimistically believed. Then they counted the votes, miscounted others, and re-counted still others. At the end, he was still there. Whereas Al Gore almost frantically huffed and puffed, trying to gin up something out of nothing, Bush quietly but confidently waited at his ranch.

He didn't do nothing: that is the mistake people have constantly made with this man, confusing lack of bluster for absence of action. No, his team of attorneys and the iron-willed James Baker were carrying out his orders, but W stayed in the background, confident and faithful.

You see, it is this faith business that confounded everyone. We have had such actors and liars in public office that we have looked skeptically whenever anyone used the term

-- (ww@w.com), October 05, 2001.

Our President

greenspun.com : LUSENET : ACountryPlace : One Thread User FAQ

I do not know who wrote this. It was sent to me without the author's name. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This was the same man who came within a hair's breadth of losing an election in November, who withstood the political chicanery of the Florida Democratic machine to fix the vote count.

This was the same man who admitted to having a drinking problem in younger years, and whose happy-go-lucky lifestyle led him to mediocre grades in college and an ill-fated oil venture.

This was the same man who mangled syntax even more than his father, and whose speaking missteps became known as "Bushisms."

And on Friday, this was the man who bore the weight of the world and the responsibilities of a generation with dignity, class, confidence, appropriate solemnity, and even much-needed wit.

One thing struck me during the campaign, that difficult, roller- coaster campaign that now seems years ago. It was that George W. Bush never seemed to get ruffled. Whether the theft of a campaign debate video or the sudden (some would say, vicious) release of a DUI arrest two decades ago at a key moment, "W" did not lose his cool.

At times, his staff seemed overconfident, as did many of us. A 350-electoral-vote win, they quietly implied . . . and we optimistically believed. Then they counted the votes, miscounted others, and re-counted still others. At the end, he was still there. Whereas Al Gore almost frantically huffed and puffed, trying to gin up something out of nothing, Bush quietly but confidently waited at his ranch.

He didn't do nothing: that is the mistake people have constantly made with this man, confusing lack of bluster for absence of action. No, his team of attorneys and the iron-willed James Baker were carrying out his orders, but W stayed in the background, confident and faithful.

You see, it is this faith business that confounded everyone. We have had such actors and liars in public office that we have looked skeptically whenever anyone used the term faith. But this was the same man who was the first politician ever in recent memory to name Jesus Christ as the Lord of his life on public TV. Not an oblique reference to being "born-again" or having a "life change." He said the un-PC-like phrase, "Jesus Christ," to which his handlers and advisors, no doubt, off stage, were also saying, "Jesus Christ" in a much different tone.

God has a way of honoring those who honor Him. David learned that while he was on the run from Saul's armies. Job learned that after his time of horrible tribulation. The Messiah said so Himself, many times.

So this was the man who actually put faith into practice. He actually loves those who hate him. It is a staggering concept, so foreign in daily occurrence that few thought it anything but grandstanding. Even one of W's biggest supporters chided the President for adhering to his "new tone." Yet there he was, again and again, thanking the Democrats, appointing his enemies to high places in his government, inviting his former foes and their wives to private movie screenings, and (I know, this is hard to stomach) even treating them with dignity. See, this was the man who learned early on how faith worked: by praying for his enemies, you "heap burning coals upon their heads."

This was the man who named the absolute top people in national security and defense, then caught barbs from the politically righteous that this one didn't have the right views on abortion or that one didn't have the right position on guns.

And on September 11, at mid-morning, this was the man thrust into a position only known by Roosevelt, Churchill, Lincoln, and Washington. The weight of the world was on his shoulders, and the responsibility of a generation was on his soul. So this same man---the one that the media repeatedly attempted to tarnish with charges of "illegitimacy," and the one whose political opponents desperately sought to stonewall until mid-term elections---walked to his seat at the front of the National Cathedral just three days after the two most impressive symbols of American capitalism and prosperity virtually evaporated, along with, perhaps, thousands of Americans.

As he sat down next to his wife, immediately I knew that even if his faith ever faltered, hers didn't. I have never seen a more peaceful face than Laura Bush, whose eyes seemed as though they were already gazing at the final outcome . . . not just of this conflict, but of her reward in Heaven itself. In this marriage, you indeed got two for the price of one.

Then came the defining moment of our generation. Some people fondly recall their Woodstock days. Others mark with grim sadness November 22, 1963, as the day America lost her innocence. But I firmly believe when the history of this time is written, it will be acknowledged by friend and foe alike that President George W. Bush came of age in that cathedral and lifted a nation off its knees. It wasn't so much his words, though read a decade later, they will indeed be as stirring as any. This conflict would end, he noted, ". . . at a time of our choosing." It certainly wasn't his emotion. What had to have been one of the most stunning exhibitions of self-control in presidential history, W was able to deliver his remarks without losing either his resolve or his focus, or, more important, his confidence. It was as if God's hand, which had guided him through that sliver-thin election, now rested fully on him.

His quiet confidence let our enemies know . . . and believe me, they know. . . that they made a grave miscalculation. Now, this same man who practiced his faith through a tough election, who steeled his convictions even more in a drawn-out Florida battle, and who never once gave in to the temptation to get in the gutter with his foes this same man now lifted the weight of the world and the responsibility of a generation and put it on his modest shoulders as though it were another unpleasant duty.

As he walked back to his seat, the camera angle was appropriate. He was virtually alone in the scene, alone in that massive place of God, just him and the Lord. But that's the way it's always been in his life recently. In that brief time it took him to return to his seat, I believe he heard words to the effect of, "You can do this, George. I am with you always. And you can do this well, because I am going before you. And don't worry about the weight. I've got it." And I saw in his eyes a quiet acknowledgement. "I know. Thank you, Lord."

Back at his seat, when W sat down, George H. W. Bush reached over and took his son's hand. The elder Bush always struck me as a religious man, but not someone who shared his life on a daily basis with the Lord. George H. W. treats the Father like a respected uncle, visiting Him on appropriate holidays and knowing the relationship is real, but not constant.

Anyway, I believe that in that fatherly squeeze George H. W. said, "I wish I could do this for you, son, but I can't. You have to do this on your own."

W squeezed back and gave him that look of peace that Laura had kept throughout. It said, "I don't have to do it alone, dad. I've got help."

*******************

What a blessing to have a professing Christian as President - one who is not ashamed to admit it! Please take a moment after you read this to pray for him - he truly does have the weight of the world on his shoulders. Pray that God will sustain him and give him wisdom and discernment in his decisions. Make no mistake about it - the decisions he makes in the coming days, weeks and months will literally define the future of our country and the free world. Pray for his protection and that of his family.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit farm (littleBit@compworldnet.com), October 05, 2001

Answers

A recent article in the Deseret News(SLC)speaks of President Bush meeting with religious leaders prior to one of those important meetings, and states, "One minister asked the president about the specifics of how he would like people to pray for him... He asked for prayers that we would have wisdom, strength, and clarity of thought and for prayers for his family" http://www.rulds2.com/news/view.asp?id=2001- 82122183144&i=0

-- mary (marylgarcia@aol.com), October 05, 2001.

Our President

greenspun.com : LUSENET : ACountryPlace : One Thread User FAQ

I do not know who wrote this. It was sent to me without the author's name. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This was the same man who came within a hair's breadth of losing an election in November, who withstood the political chicanery of the Florida Democratic machine to fix the vote count.

This was the same man who admitted to having a drinking problem in younger years, and whose happy-go-lucky lifestyle led him to mediocre grades in college and an ill-fated oil venture.

This was the same man who mangled syntax even more than his father, and whose speaking missteps became known as "Bushisms."

And on Friday, this was the man who bore the weight of the world and the responsibilities of a generation with dignity, class, confidence, appropriate solemnity, and even much-needed wit.

One thing struck me during the campaign, that difficult, roller- coaster campaign that now seems years ago. It was that George W. Bush never seemed to get ruffled. Whether the theft of a campaign debate video or the sudden (some would say, vicious) release of a DUI arrest two decades ago at a key moment, "W" did not lose his cool.

At times, his staff seemed overconfident, as did many of us. A 350-electoral-vote win, they quietly implied . . . and we optimistically believed. Then they counted the votes, miscounted others, and re-counted still others. At the end, he was still there. Whereas Al Gore almost frantically huffed and puffed, trying to gin up something out of nothing, Bush quietly but confidently waited at his ranch.

He didn't do nothing: that is the mistake people have constantly made with this man, confusing lack of bluster for absence of action. No, his team of attorneys and the iron-willed James Baker were carrying out his orders, but W stayed in the background, confident and faithful.

You see, it is this faith business that confounded everyone. We have had such actors and liars in public office that we have looked skeptically whenever anyone used the term

-- (1@1.com), October 05, 2001.