Not So Young But Angry Conservatives Unite

Getting sick of the progressively worse slant and obvious bias of the media? Got booted out of other sites for offending too many liberals? Make this your home. If you SPAM here, you're gone. Trolling? Gone. Insult other posters I agree with. Gone. Get the pic. Private sanctum, private rules. No Fairness Doctrine and PC wussiness tolerated here..... ECCLESIASTES 10:2- The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of a fool to the left.

Monday, November 14, 2005

Newdow Strikes Again: Now He wants God off our money

Well, this is another cockroach that just won't die. We spray RAID, he lives. Use boots, he lives. And more or less emasculate him in court, for using his daughter, and he still comes back for more.

What the Freakin Crap is this?


LAW OF THE LAND'In God We Trust' to come off coins?Man seeking to change Pledge ready to challenge motto on money this week
Posted: November 14, 20051:00 a.m. Eastern

Michael Newdow, perhaps America's best known atheist, has a new target in his personal war against God in the public domain: "In God We Trust" on U.S. money.
"I am about to file to get 'In God We Trust' off the front of our currency," he told the Oklahoman. "I plan to do that this week."

Awww, is someone upset that their little attempt to ban God failed? Do you have another unknown kid you wanna leach off of? Oklahoma, good luck getting your suit through that court, you twit!

Newdow, of Sacramento, Calif., made the remarks Saturday night shortly before addressing the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma Foundation Bill of Rights Celebration.
Michael Newdow
"The key principle is that we're supposed to treat everybody equally especially in terms of religious belief," Newdow told KWTV in Oklahoma City. "Clearly it's not treating atheists equal with people who believe in God when you say 'In God We Trust' or we are a 'nation under God.'"

And this chump wants special privileges for him and the other 1-5% of the US, that does not believe in ANY god. So, where does that leave the other 95%? That's not very constitutional. That's not very considerate for the rest. And that's certainly not the BS the Founding Fathers had in mind. Like this scumsucker cares.

"People say, 'Are you an atheist activist?' And I'm not," he continued. "I couldn't care less what anyone believes. I just care that our government treats everybody equally."

Um no. You have said you would make it your life's goal to make God a footnote. Too bad, God is bigger than you and your ilk. And if you didn't care what we believed, why are you filing suit? If God does not exist, then why are you threatened by Him and His people?

In September, a federal judge in Sacramento ruled the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional.
The pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God," said U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton.

And another freakshow ruling from the 9th Circus Court of Appeals, aka 9th Jerkit Court of Shlameels, aka The Kangaroo Court of the Socialist Republic of California.

Karlton granted legal standing to two families represented by Newdow, who lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Two new families, how convenient. And no doubt friends of Newdow. Why wasn't this one thrown out? Oh, read below....

The judge, nominated to his seat by President Carter in 1979, said he was bound by the precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' in 2002, which favored Newdow.

That precedent was overruled, you twit. And it only figures that Carter and any other dumb liberal would nominate this shlameel and the rest of the red diaper doper babies.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Newdow's case 8-0 because he did not have legal standing to represent his daughter, who is under sole custody of her mother.

Translated, the kid wanted nothing to do with this jackass, and the wife had custody. Moron had no leg to stand on. Of course, leave it to the O'Connor court to NOT address the possible banning of the pledge and the mention of God. Way to lowball, you wastes of space....

In January, however, Newdow filed a complaint in federal court in Sacramento, Calif., with eight new co-plaintiffs, seeking to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance on the grounds it violates the so-called "separation of church and state."

Let's see, in what way did the USA establish a church? In what way is the USA coercing and beating them to make them recite this pledge?

As I recall the Constitution says- 'Congress shall make no laws establishing religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof, abridging the freedom of speech......'

Well, someone doesn't know their constitution, since the US has NOT established a state church, and has NOT infringed on our free speech. You don't like the pledge, don't say it. You don't like the US, move. Til then, stop trying to prohibit the majority of Americans right to exercise or not exercise that religion. Stop trying to claim being for freedom of speech, then placing your own stops on it.

I'd say cease the hypocrisy, but that's impossible. You are liberals after all. So, enjoy this battle, we ain't gonna make it easy. In fact, we're gonna win this one. Enjoy the Roberts and Alito additions, boys. America is moving BACK ON TRACK.


Post a Comment

<< Home