President George W. Bush REVEALED!

_________________________________

Are We Witnessing The Rise Of The Fourth Reich?

By Chuck Baldwin

February 7, 2006

Without a doubt, comparisons to Hitler have been overdone. It seems that when a writer disagrees with the policies of a sitting president, be he Republican or Democrat, there exists a ubiquitous temptation to compare him with the ignoble German leader. Some will no doubt charge this author with having succumbed to this temptation. Perhaps I have.

However, as a student of both the Bible and history, I believe we in America are living in times that are eerily reminiscent of the days leading up to the rise of the Third Reich. If after reviewing this thesis, the reader wants to dismiss its conclusions as insipid and irrelevant, he or she is certainly free to do so.

On the other hand, it would do the reader good to heed the words of George Santayana who said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." If America is truly flirting with any semblance of the fallacious and fallen Reich (which I believe it is), it is incumbent upon each and every true American (especially Christians) to renounce, reject, and repudiate such flirtations as early and as vociferously as possible!

There are many facets and aspects of the Third Reich which could and should be analyzed. For the purpose of this column, however, I want to focus on the attitude and actions of the ministers and churches of Germany at the time of Hitler's rise.

My focus upon the German church is predicated upon the fact that as a Christian pastor (I have been the pastor of an Independent Baptist Church for more than 30 years), it is my studied opinion that any western nation will rise or fall according to the attitudes and actions of its Christian leaders and churches. Scripture says, "Judgment must begin at the house of God." Therefore, while any nation might survive corrupt politicians, greedy merchants, and sinful citizens, it cannot survive cowardly, compromising churches! As the churches go, so goes the country!

In the case of Nazi Germany, it was the German churches first and foremost that failed their country. It was the churches that provided Hitler with moral and spiritual cover. It was the ministers and churches that allowed Hitler to seduce the nation. Some ministers were no doubt deceived themselves. Many others, like Adam, partook of the forbidden fruit with their eyes wide open. Either way, without the help and assistance of Germany's churches, the Nazi Party could never have become such a horrible leviathan. Therefore, let's examine the attitudes and actions of Germany's ministers and churches and compare them to America's ministers and churches today to see if there is any similarity.

As we delve into this material, I want to strongly recommend that the reader purchase and devour a book to which I will repeatedly refer. The book is entitled, "Hitler's Cross." It is written by Erwin Lutzer and published by Moody Press. The book is absolutely phenomenal! If you do not read any other book this year (beside the Bible), read "Hitler's Cross."

Now, let's examine the evidence. It is a fact that when Adolph Hitler began his ascent to power, many, if not most, of Germany's Christians believed he was an answer to their prayers. Lutzer says many Christians replaced pictures of Christ in their homes with pictures of Hitler. They truly believed Hitler was "God's man" for Germany. They believed that to resist Hitler was to resist God. And why not?

As Lutzer notes, Hitler revived Germany's collapsed economy. He eradicated the shame of Germany's defeat in WWI by reclaiming the Rhineland. He gave generous vacations to the German people. He created numerous trade schools that trained and equipped Germany's workers. Thus, almost overnight, Germany's vast unskilled labor force was replaced with highly skilled workers. In fact, under Hitler, Germany had virtually no unemployment. Furthermore, Hitler brought crime under control. He built freeways and highways that were the envy of Europe. He literally brought the German people out of poverty and despair and made them a great and proud people once again. As a result, the German people, including German Christians, loved him!

Unfortunately, as Hitler was building Germany's economy and strengthening its military, he was also taking away the rights and liberties of the German people. Remember, Germany was a republic before Hitler came along. The principles of individual freedom and constitutional government were at one time precious to Germans. However, most German people were willing to gladly trade their liberty and freedoms for Hitler's promise of security and strength. It was a bad trade then. It is a bad trade now!

Lutzer documents the fact that at the time of Hitler's rise, there were some 14,000 evangelical churches in Germany. To win the support of these churches, Hitler literally wrapped himself and the Nazi Party in the Cross of Jesus Christ. Even today, one can view photos from Nazi parades showing the Cross of Christ highlighted in the heart of the Nazi Swastika.

In short order, Germany's pastors and churches were convinced that the Nazi Party was God's party and Hitler was God's man. By the time Hitler consolidated power and became Germany's Fuhrer, the Nazi Swastika was displayed proudly on the walls and halls of Germany's churches, both Catholic and Protestant.

Germany's pastors often preached sermons supporting Hitler and the Nazi Party. They told their congregants that to support any other party or any other potential leader was to "fight against God." Very soon, congregants who refused to swear loyalty to Hitler were denied last rites and Holy Communion by Catholic priests, while Protestant pastors excommunicated such members. Romans chapter 13 was often quoted from Germany's pulpits as scriptural justification for demanding loyalty to Hitler.

Even the famous Canadian pastor, Oswald J. Smith (Pastor of the People's Church in Toronto), was taken with Hitler. In 1936 Smith wrote, "What, you ask is the real attitude of the German people toward Hitler? There is but one answer. They love him. Yes, from the highest to the lowest, children and parents, old and young alike, they love their new leader. They trust him to a man.

"What about your elections? I asked. 'We don't want another party. We are satisfied with Hitler.' And that feeling exists everywhere. Every true Christian is for Hitler. I know, for it was from the Christians I got most of my information, and right or wrong, they endorse Adolph Hitler." (Source: "Hitler's Cross" by Erwin Lutzer, pp. 109, 110)

One German pastor, Julius Leutherser gushed, "Christ has come to us through Hitler. [T]hrough his honesty, his faith and his idealism, the Redeemer found us." (Source "Hitler's Cross" by Lutzer, p.101)

Lutzer writes on page 102 of his book, "[I]n Hitler's day being a good Christian involved being a good German nationalist. God and country were practically one and the same."

Germany's Christians forgot that Christ's kingdom "is not of this world." Their desire to restore Germany's greatness and their patriotism somehow dwarfed their commitment to Christ and their fidelity to republican principles. Accordingly, their trust in God was supplanted with trust in Hitler, and their allegiance to principles of freedom was replaced with allegiance to the Nazi Party.

Of course, Hitler knew exactly what he was doing. He knew he needed the support of Germany's churches and pastors and he played the role of Christian leader magnificently. Privately, however, he despised Germany's clergymen. He said, "The parsons will dig their own graves. They will betray their God to us. They will betray anything for the sake of their miserable jobs and incomes." How right he was!

Out of 14,000 German ministers, all but 800 gave Hitler their unequivocal and unflinching loyalty. Among the 800 was the great Christian patriot Dietrich Bonhoeffer who was later assassinated by Hitler's henchmen. Virtually all of the 800 courageous pastors who refused to support Hitler were sent to concentration camps.

What would have happened had 10,000 ministers in Germany resisted Hitler? What would have happened if 10,000 ministers would have refused to compromise their loyalty to Jesus Christ, their commitment to republican principles, and their devotion to sacred duty? What would have happened if 10,000 Christian ministers had not allowed the National Socialist Party to supplant their loyalty to God's Word?

It seems clear to me that the attitudes and actions of Nazi Germany's ministers and churches are being repeated in the United States today. To a large degree, Evangelicals have wrapped the Cross of Christ in the banner of the Republican Party. They quote Romans chapter 13 to justify their unflinching, yes, even blind support for President Bush. They are willing to surrender their freedoms and liberties so that President Bush might protect them. Pictures of the president almost universally line the halls and walls of our churches, Christian schools, and pastors' offices. They castigate and denigrate in the most caustic terms anyone who dares to challenge or even question President Bush. They are willing to let the president lead them into multiple wars, even wars of aggression, based solely on Bush's word. They refuse to hold the president accountable to the principles of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. It seems to me that President Bush has taken on the aura of an American Fuhrer in the minds of many Evangelicals.

Just how far are Evangelicals willing to allow Bush to go? They already support unbridled spying on American citizens. They have gladly surrendered their Fourth Amendment rights. Would they be willing to support the imprisonment of fellow Christians who don't support Bush if the Department of Homeland Security ordered it? I believe many would. And if so, how is that different from the attitudes of Christians in Nazi Germany?

Again, readers may dismiss my observations as inane if they want to. However, please notice that the focus of this column was not so much on Hitler but on the attitudes and actions of Germany's ministers and churches.

If the reader can honestly and objectively look at the history of Germany's ministers and churches and see no similarity to the attitudes and actions of America's ministers and churches today, so be it. To me, however, the similarities are striking!

____________________________

Cracks in White House

James N. Clymer

Constitution Party National Chairman

After almost five years in office, the Bush welcome in Washington is beginning to wear thin. More than four years after the event which set the tone for his presidency – 9/11 – the evidence is mounting that both President Bush’s grassroots base and his political allies in Washington are wearying of a one-note presidency apparently more interested in destroying and rebuilding Iraq than in protecting our own borders, and with perpetuating the big-government, anti-constitutional agenda of his predecessor instead of reducing the size of the federal government.

In the immediate wake of 9/11, President Bush and his handlers refocused all of America’s attention on hunting down the enemies who had committed the worst act of mass murder in American history. As our bombs began raining on Afghanistan and later, Iraq, many Americans seemed content to applaud the war effort and ignore other aspects of the Bush agenda. President Bush’s enthusiasm for opening our already porous southern border even further by granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, and for propelling America into the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), went almost unnoticed. His pandering to environmental extremists in the proposed Clear Skies Initiative – which would have provided a framework for regulating American industry even more severely than the Kyoto Pact – was virtually ignored. President Bush has made it very clear he is a fervent supporter of more and more federal involvement in education, health care, and a host of other sectors where the federal government has no constitutional authorization to legislate. Yet, because of the aw-shucks, down-home, church-going persona crafted by his sophisticated team of handlers, many among his conservative base have continued to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Until recently. Suddenly, with U.S. war deaths in Iraq over 2000, and no end in sight for the bloody mess we’ve helped to create in that tragic land, the gung-ho boosterism of the war hawks is losing credibility. Americans are beginning to realize that George Bush has no exit strategy and fully intends to stay in Iraq for the duration of his administration, leaving the mess he created for his successors to clean up. Bush’s economic policies, which have consisted mostly of a series of temporary tax cuts with no corresponding cuts in the size of government, have been losing their luster thanks to a stagnant stock market, soaring gasoline prices, and stunning numbers of job losses. The recent Hurricane Katrina debacle showed the country that Bush is more committed to policing and rebuilding Iraq, half a world away, than with protecting our homeland against natural disasters. The levees that failed to protect New Orleans were denied an upgrade, which might have enabled them to withstand a Category Five hurricane, because the money was diverted to Iraq. Finally, the now-withdrawn nomination of Harriet Miers, a stealth attempt to replace Sandra O’Connor with another liberal on the Supreme Court, shows that Bush is no conservative on social issues either. In short, in President George W. Bush we have, as we had with his father, a big-government conservative with no interest in upholding his constitutional oath of office. Bush’s well-meaning but ultimately misguided base is finally beginning to wake up to the fact. But what is to be done about it?

It is important that everyone interested in returning our federal government to America’s constitutional and moral roots understand that the Republican Party is never going to do the job. They had a chance during the Reagan years, when we had a president who at least made great speeches about the Constitution, the value of truly free markets, the evils of communism, and so forth. But they blew it because party insiders and the liberal Democrat majority in Congress made sure that Reagan never had a chance to implement serious reforms. The GOP had another, even better chance to show they were serious about reforming the federal government in 1994 when, for the first time in decades, they captured both houses of Congress. Now, in control of both houses of Congress and the White House, instead of showing leadership in the face of predictably shrill opposition to any intention to trim government fat, they have lapsed into muttering me-tooisms. Most of those conservative, avowedly constitutionalist warriors from the grassroots who got elected in 1994 are either gone or have, in quaint beltway parlance, “grown in office,” happy now to play the game they were elected to stop.

While the conservative Republican base has waited – for the right Supreme Court nominee, who never seems to come along; for an elected leadership that will finally abolish unconstitutional departments like the Department of Education; and for a President and Congress who will finally get serious about both cutting taxes and balancing the budget by genuinely reducing government spending – America continues to lurch further and further down the road to serfdom. The national debt continues to soar, the American military is stretched more and more thinly across the globe, hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants continue to pour into the United States, and the usurped, unconstitutional powers of the federal government continue to expand at an alarming rate.

Sooner or later (and we pray it will be sooner), grassroots conservatives will fully awaken to the fact that they have been sold a bill of goods by the Republican Party. They will recognize that the American ship of state will not be returned to her proper course without true constitutionalists at the helm. And true constitutionalists – who will cut taxes, eliminate government waste, avoid unnecessary military entanglements, defend our borders, and appoint fellow constitutionalists to the Supreme Court – are to be found in only one political party, the Constitution Party. As the Bush Administration continues to founder and the scales fall from the eyes of our well-meaning Republican friends, let’s take advantage of this wonderful opportunity to see that, in the next elections, we send some Constitution Party candidates to Washington, and begin to win back our electorate and our country from the entrenched bipartisan elites.

______________________________________

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS:

BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The Blame Game

Posted on: 12/8/2005 5:25:00 PM - Columnist

Our country faces major problems. No longer can they remain hidden from the American people. Most Americans are aware the federal budget is in dismal shape. Whether it’s Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or even the private pension system, most Americans realize we’re in debt over our heads.

The welfare state is unmanageable and severely overextended. In spite of hopes that supposed reform would restore sound financing and provide for all the needs of the people, it’s becoming more apparent every day that the entire system of entitlements is in a precarious state and may well collapse. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that increasing the national debt by over six hundred billion dollars per year is not sustainable. Raising taxes to make up the shortfall is unacceptable, while continuing to print the money needed will only accelerate the erosion of the dollar’s value.

Our foreign policy is no less of a threat to us. Our worldwide military presence and our obsession with remaking the entire Middle East frightens a lot of people both here and abroad. Our role as world policeman and nation builder places undue burdens on the American taxpayer. Our enormous overseas military expenditures -- literally hundreds of billion of dollars -- are a huge drain on the American economy.

All wars invite abuses of civil liberties at home, and the vague declaration of war against terrorism is worse than most in this regard. As our liberties here at home are diminished by the Patriot Act and national ID card legislation, we succumb to the temptation of all empires to neglect habeas corpus, employ torture tactics, and use secret imprisonment. These domestic and foreign policy trends reflect a morally bankrupt philosophy, devoid of any concern for liberty and the rule of law.

The American people are becoming more aware of the serious crisis this country faces. Their deep concern is reflected in the current mood in Congress. The recent debate over Iraq shows the parties are now looking for someone to blame for the mess we’re in. It’s a high stakes political game. The fact that a majority of both parties and their leadership endorsed the war, and accept the same approach toward Iran and Syria, does nothing to tone down the accusatory nature of the current blame game.

The argument in Washington is over tactics, quality of intelligence, war management, and diplomacy, except for the few who admit that tragic mistakes were made and now sincerely want to establish a new course for Iraq. Thank goodness for those who are willing to reassess and admit to these mistakes. Those of us who have opposed the war all along welcome them to the cause of peace.

If we hope to pursue a more sensible foreign policy, it is imperative that Congress face up to its explicit constitutional responsibility to declare war. It’s easy to condemn the management of a war one endorsed, while deferring the final decision about whether to deploy troops to the president. When Congress accepts and assumes its awesome responsibility to declare war, as directed by the Constitution, fewer wars will be fought.

Sadly, the acrimonious blame game is motivated by the leadership of both parties for the purpose of gaining, or retaining, political power. It doesn’t approach a true debate over the wisdom, or lack thereof, of foreign military interventionism and pre-emptive war.

Polls indicate ordinary Americans are becoming uneasy with our prolonged war in Iraq, which has no end in sight. The fact that no one can define victory precisely, and most American see us staying in Iraq for years to come, contribute to the erosion of support for this war. Currently 63% of Americans disapprove of the handling of the war, and 52% say it’s time to come home. 42% say we need a foreign policy of minding our own business. This is very encouraging.

The percentages are even higher for the Iraqis. 82% want us to leave, while 67% claim they are less secure with our troops there. Ironically, our involvement has produced an unusual agreement among the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis, the three factions at odds with each other. At the recent 22-member Arab League meeting in Cairo, the three groups agreed on one issue: they all want foreign troops to leave. At the end of the meeting an explicit communiqué was released: “We demand the withdrawal of foreign forces in accordance with a timetable, and the establishment of a national and immediate program for rebuilding the armed forces… that will allow them to guard Iraq’s borders and get control of the security situation.” Since the administration is so enamored with democracy, why not have a national referendum in Iraq to see if the people want us to leave?

After we left Lebanon in the 1980s, the Arab League was instrumental in brokering an end to that country’s 15-year civil war. Its chances of helping to stop the fighting in Iraq are far better than depending on the UN, NATO, or the United States. This is a regional dispute that we stirred up but cannot settle. The Arab League needs to assume a lot more responsibility for the mess that our invasion has caused. We need to get out of the way and let them solve their own problems.

Remember, once we left Lebanon suicide terrorism stopped and peace finally came. The same could happen in Iraq.

Everyone is talking about the downside of us leaving, and the civil war that might erupt. Possibly so, but no one knows with certainty what will happen. There was no downside when we left Vietnam. But one thing for sure, after a painful decade of killing in the 1960s, the killing stopped and no more Americans died once we left. We now trade with Vietnam and enjoy friendly relations with them. This was achieved through peaceful means, not military force. The real question is how many more Americans must be sacrificed for a policy that is not working? Are we going to fight until we go broke and the American people are impoverished? Common sense tells us it’s time to reassess the politics of military intervention and not just look for someone to blame for falling once again into the trap of a military quagmire.

The blame game is a political event, designed to avoid the serious philosophic debate over our foreign policy of interventionism. The mistakes made by both parties in dragging us into an unwise war are obvious, but the effort to blame one group over the other confuses the real issue. Obviously Congress failed to meet its constitutional obligation regarding war. Debate over prewar intelligence elicits charges of errors, lies, and complicity. It is now argued that those who are critical of the outcome in Iraq are just as much at fault, since they too accepted flawed intelligence when deciding to support the war. This charge is leveled at previous administrations, foreign governments, Members of Congress, and the United Nations-- all who made the same mistake of blindly accepting the prewar intelligence. Complicity, errors of judgment, and malice are hardly an excuse for such a serious commitment as a pre-emptive war against a non-existent enemy.

Both sides accepted the evidence supposedly justifying the war, evidence that was not credible. No weapons of mass destruction were found. Iraq had no military capabilities. Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were not allies (remember, we were allies of both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden), and Saddam Hussein posed no threat whatsoever to the United States or his neighbors.

We hear constantly that we must continue the fight in Iraq, and possibly in Iran and Syria, because, “It’s better to fight the terrorists over there than here.” Merely repeating this justification, if it is based on a major analytical error, cannot make it so. All evidence shows that our presence in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim countries benefits al Qaeda in its recruiting efforts, especially in its search for suicide terrorists. This one fact prompts a rare agreement among all religious and secular Muslim factions; namely, that the U.S. should leave all Arab lands. Denying this will not keep terrorists from attacking us, it will do the opposite.

The fighting and terrorist attacks are happening overseas because of a publicly stated al Qaeda policy that they will go for soft targets -- our allies whose citizens object to the war like Spain and Italy. They will attack Americans who are more exposed in Iraq. It is a serious error to conclude that “fighting them over there” keeps them from fighting us “over here,” or that we’re winning the war against terrorism. As long as our occupation continues, and American forces continue killing Muslims, the incentive to attack us will grow. It shouldn’t be hard to understand that the responsibility for violence in Iraq-- even violence between Iraqis -- is blamed on our occupation. It is more accurate to say, “the longer we fight them over there the longer we will be threatened over here.”

The final rhetorical refuge for those who defend the war, not yet refuted, is the dismissive statement that “the world is better off without Saddam Hussein.” It implies no one can question anything we have done because of this fact. Instead of an automatic concession it should be legitimate, though politically incorrect, to challenge this disarming assumption. No one has to like or defend Saddam Hussein to point out we won’t know whether the world is better off until someone has taken Saddam Hussein’s place.

This argument was never used to justify removing murderous dictators with much more notoriety than Saddam Hussein, such as our ally Stalin; Pol Pot, whom we helped get into power; or Mao Tse Tung. Certainly the Soviets, with their bloody history and thousands of nuclear weapons aimed at us, were many times over a greater threat to us than Saddam Hussein ever was. If containment worked with the Soviets and the Chinese, why is it assumed without question that deposing Saddam Hussein is obviously and without question a better approach for us than containment?

The “we’re all better off without Saddam Hussein” cliché doesn’t address the question of whether the 2,100 troops killed or the 20,000 wounded and sick troops are better off. We refuse to acknowledge the hatred generated by the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens who are written off as collateral damage. Are the Middle East and Israel better off with the turmoil our occupation has generated? Hardly! Honesty would have us conclude that conditions in the Middle East are worse since the war started: the killing never stops, and the cost is more than we can bear-- both in lives and limbs lost and dollars spent.

In spite of the potential problems that may or may not come with our withdrawal, the greater mistake was going in the first place. We need to think more about how to avoid these military encounters, rather than dwelling on the complications that result when we meddle in the affairs of others with no moral or legal authority to do so. We need less blame game and more reflection about the root cause of our aggressive foreign policy.

By limiting the debate to technical points over intelligence, strategy, the number of troops, and how to get out of the mess, we ignore our continued policy of sanctions, threats, and intimidation of Iraq’s neighbors, Iran and Syria. Even as Congress pretends to argue about how or when we might come home, leaders from both parties continue to support the policy of spreading the war by precipitating a crisis with these two countries.

The likelihood of agreeing about who deliberately or innocently misled Congress, the media, and the American people is virtually nil. Maybe historians at a later date will sort out the whole mess. The debate over tactics and diplomacy will go on, but that only serves to distract from the important issue of policy. Few today in Congress are interested in changing from our current accepted policy of intervention to one of strategic independence: No nation building, no policing the world, no dangerous alliances.

But the results of our latest military incursion into a foreign country should not be ignored. Those who dwell on pragmatic matters should pay close attention to the results so far.

Since March 2003 we have seen:

Death and destruction; 2,100 Americans killed and nearly 20,000 sick or wounded, plus tens of thousands of Iraqis caught in the crossfire;

A Shiite theocracy has been planted;

A civil war has erupted;

Iran’s arch nemesis, Saddam Hussein, has been removed;

Osama bin Laden’s arch nemesis, Saddam Hussein, has been removed;

Al Qaeda now operates freely in Iraq, enjoying a fertile training field not previously available to them;

Suicide terrorism, spurred on by our occupation, has significantly increased;

Our military industrial complex thrives in Iraq without competitive bids;

True national defense and the voluntary army have been undermined;

Personal liberty at home is under attack; assaults on free speech and privacy, national ID cards, the Patriot Act, National Security letters, and challenges to habeas corpus all have been promoted;

Values have changed, with more Americans supporting torture and secret prisons;

Domestic strife, as recently reflected in arguments over the war on the House floor, is on the upswing;

Pre-emptive war has been codified and accepted as legitimate and necessary, a bleak policy for our future;

The Middle East is far more unstable, and oil supplies are less secure, not more;

Historic relics of civilization protected for thousands of years have been lost in a flash while oil wells were secured;

U. S. credibility in the world has been severely damaged; and

The national debt has increased enormously, and our dependence on China has increased significantly as our federal government borrows more and more money.

How many more years will it take for civilized people to realize that war has no economic or political value for the people who fight and pay for it? Wars are always started by governments, and individual soldiers on each side are conditioned to take up arms and travel great distances to shoot and kill individuals that never meant them harm. Both sides drive their people into an hysterical frenzy to overcome their natural instinct to live and let live. False patriotism is used to embarrass the good-hearted into succumbing to the wishes of the financial and other special interests who agitate for war.

War reflects the weakness of a civilization that refuses to offer peace as an alternative.

This does not mean we should isolate ourselves from the world. On the contrary, we need more rather than less interaction with our world neighbors. We should encourage travel, foreign commerce, friendship, and exchange of ideas-- this would far surpass our misplaced effort to make the world like us through armed force. And this can be achieved without increasing the power of the state or accepting the notion that some world government is needed to enforce the rules of exchange. Governments should just get out of the way and let individuals make their own decisions about how they want to relate to the world.

Defending the country against aggression is a very limited and proper function of government. Our military involvement in the world over the past 60 years has not met this test, and we’re paying the price for it.

A policy that endorses peace over war, trade over sanctions, courtesy over arrogance, and liberty over coercion is in the tradition of the American Constitution and American idealism. It deserves consideration.