BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen...

Full story: Chicago Tribune

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ...
Comments
93,021 - 93,040 of 176,805 Comments Last updated 12 min ago

“Arm the homeless!”

Since: Jul 12

The internet

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104632
Sep 1, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not actually say impossible. However, so unlikely as to be virtually impossible.
Obama could have been smuggled into the USA over a land border, but of course the claim was that he was born in Kenya---which would make that difficult. He could have been taken by plane to Mexico or Canada from Kenya and then smuggled over the border---but that would be difficult, extremely expensive and extremely risky, and really truly unnecessary (since naturalizing the child would give all the advantages of his being born here except for NBC status).
So the chances of such a thing being tried would be, say, one in a trillion, and the chance of it succeeding would be one in, say, ten trillion, and the chance of it succeeding and Obama getting a birth certificate from Hawaii that said that he was born in Hawaii would be, say, one in ten trillion times another million or so.
The chance of Obama's mother even having traveled outside of the USA without her husband late in pregnancy in those days would have been perhaps one in a million.
As for the documentation. Obama's birth certificate from Hawaii does exist, as the officials of both parties there have said, and it is further confirmed by the Index Data and the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers. This would seem to be as good documentary proof of birth in a place as anyone would ever get. In addition there is the witness, the teacher, who recalls being told of Obama's birth and writing home about it (to her father, named Stanley, about the birth to a woman named Stanley), but that is not documentary.
Agreed...the word impossible was out of line.

Appologies.

“Arm the homeless!”

Since: Jul 12

The internet

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104633
Sep 1, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
It's at first strange, weird even, that a man who could write so knowingly on science, the cosmos, subjects I am not familiar with,(and thank you, I've learned so much from you, forced me to do some research too) could be so clueless and naive when it comes to politics. Your view of Obama is obviously prejudiced, nothing will change that, no more than the speed of light. From up here, and as concerns medicare, we see it as right wing politicians who want their country the only one out of step in the industrialized world. You stick up for those who more or less say " Hey, eventually, free universal health care for ALL citizens, rich, middle class and poor alike, is not a good thing and we'll cancel obamacare as soon as we're in power. And the fact that the actual fractured system in place, where 55 million have no chance to get medical care unless they are dying...and even then, their wallets
and purses rifled for Visa card numbers --- cost them more per capita than any publicly-financed medical insurance system in the world."
Obama is far from perfect, as he has done some whoppers, yes, but if you consider the list of achievements in an uncertain world and a mess that god himself could not fix in 20 years, the tally is not so bad after all. And, let's face it, consider the alternative. brrrrr
Let me clarify a few things for you J.O.

1)I think I made it abundantly clear in my last few post that I am not on a side unless you count the American people as a political party.

2)"Free" health care for all couldn't be further from the truth. You are forced to BUY said insurance UNDER PENALTY OF LAW! Exactly how does this translate to freedom?

Find me a founding father that would be cool with that.

3)I "stick up" for no group of people who don't act in the best interest of America.

It doesn't matter what people want...
It is simply inevitable that republicans will repeal this legislation. They now have the congress, if they get the presidency Obamacare will not even take affect. Hence, my statement.

4)I see no great turn about in America. More people are jobless than ever before. The unemployment statistics are fraudulent, it is not even close to a representation of what is going on. Actual unemployment hovers around 23%... more if you include under-employed.

I see no evidence of the return of industry to the U.S.

The man auto-stamped the fukin Patriot act extention for christ sake! He then went on to sign the NDAA!!!! What kind of a man signs this crap?

You are damn right I am predjudiced! Predjudiced against any man who would see our freedoms lessened.

You think I dislike Obama?
You should have heard me when Bush was in office.

American FIRST...political affiliation distant second.

“Arm the homeless!”

Since: Jul 12

The internet

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104634
Sep 1, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

You wanna make Obamacare work?

Cut out all the beuracracy...16000 new IRS agents and not one doctor?

Pay for it out of the ultra massive defense budget. We could cut defense by 75% and it would still take Nations of the world 20 years to become legitamate threats to America.

How about instead of seeing every dime of our federal income tax go directly into the pocket of Obama's cartel buddies...we use it to pay for "free universal healthcare"

When the man takes steps that are for the good of the people...he may have my support.

“Arm the homeless!”

Since: Jul 12

The internet

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104635
Sep 1, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Re "lying about his father."
No one ever really knows who their real fathers are. Even if your birth certificate and your mother tell you that George is the father, you never known.
It is highly likely that of the 43 presidents before Obama, some of them had fathers who were not the same as the ones that they thought were their fathers or that were listed on their birth certificates.
If you feel that someone else was Romney's father, as I do from time to time, you have the right to vote against him. The same, of course, for Obama. But that is all. The people that dislike Romney or Obama are likely to be the ones who think that their fathers are not their stated fathers, and they would have voted against him anyway.
But go on and dream that Davis was Obama's father if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy. I prefer to dream of Harpo Marx as Romney's father.
I never said whoever his father is would be reason to dislike him....there are plenty of other reasons.

I know you like Harpo as Romney's father. You wrote that to me under your other name.
Jacques Ottawa

Brampton, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104636
Sep 1, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me clarify a few things for you J.O.
1)I think I made it abundantly clear in my last few post that I am not on a side unless you count the American people as a political party.
2)"Free" health care for all couldn't be further from the truth. You are forced to BUY said insurance UNDER PENALTY OF LAW! Exactly how does this translate to freedom?
Find me a founding father that would be cool with that.
3)I "stick up" for no group of people who don't act in the best interest of America.
It doesn't matter what people want...
It is simply inevitable that republicans will repeal this legislation. They now have the congress, if they get the presidency Obamacare will not even take affect. Hence, my statement.
4)I see no great turn about in America. More people are jobless than ever before. The unemployment statistics are fraudulent, it is not even close to a representation of what is going on. Actual unemployment hovers around 23%... more if you include under-employed.
I see no evidence of the return of industry to the U.S.
The man auto-stamped the fukin Patriot act extention for christ sake! He then went on to sign the NDAA!!!! What kind of a man signs this crap?
You are damn right I am predjudiced! Predjudiced against any man who would see our freedoms lessened.
You think I dislike Obama?
You should have heard me when Bush was in office.
American FIRST...political affiliation distant second.
1. Agreed.I never said you were on one side or another,as I noted pretty much your dislike for most things political;
2. "Forced"? Whole Universal health care plan was "forced" to be a weak one,as a true Universal health care plan where premiums are paid via taxes would never have passed the first cttee,much less the whole House AND Senate.Universal health care plan as exists in the 33 other OECD nations is mostly funded through taxes,and everyone has access.But with the word "socialism' through ignorance and hence fear,is not to be pronounced in the US as so many,including 1940s style politicians, equate it to communism;
3. I agree.Romney, whose Mass plan Obama largely copied,will be crushed by...Romney.Go figure;
4. Your inflation estimate is a tad high,and though not an expert on the matter,would peg it more at around 15%.Still way too high. Govts have a way of toying with labour statistics.Always have.Why are you implying that Obama is doing it differently from his predecessors?;

Return of industry? Not likely.Who started the export of jobs,of industry.Do you believe that Obama,in 4 years,exported most of those plants? How about that tax break that Obama tried to repeal, a tax break given to industry that exports its jobs and manufacturing?Repub congress shot it down, as it did over 33. Read today's Doonsbury and tell me it ain't so.Even if every company that went to China, Vietnam or Mexico returned to the US,and same for us,incidentally,we CAN NO LONGR build anything electronic,the know-how has gone,no longer exists. We'd have to import advisors from China,Vietnam and Mexico.What a joke.We don't know how to manufacture stuff any more.

Extending the phoney patriot act is a mistake. The $700 billion defence budget is a joke, an unfunny joke. a 10% cut would offer zero-premium all-paid-for universal health care for every citizen. Or close.Still being in Afghanistan is a mistake,as is a presence in Iraq. Libya was a mistake. Yes,errors have been made. But you think that's bad? Elect Mitt, you'll see, soon you'll be making F-35s in Russia and China. You've already lost most of your commercial aircraft buidling ability, most 787 components or more than 70% of them coming from China and Italy, same for 747-8 and 777. As per Russia when the wall came down in 1989, all that is 100% US-built (not even sure of that) are navy ships and submarines and fighter-bomber aircraft. Signs are all there. Can Obama fix a little bit of all of that? I think so. I said a little bit. Can Romney do same? I doubt it.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104637
Sep 1, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Poppo wrote:
<quoted text>
You are perfectly free to go to your grave believing anything you wish Mr. Liars, but not only can I make that statement with a straight face so did the HDoH. That you choose to doubt those who should know in favor of those who have no way of knowing would suggest you like every other birfoon are suffering from other issues which seem to be way out of your ability to control.
Smoke Pops. Weed. Mary Jane.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104638
Sep 1, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Jacques Ottawa wrote:
Even Topix won't allow me to spell ignorant correctly when it applies to you. Ha ha.
Bush's fault right? LMAO

“Arm the homeless!”

Since: Jul 12

The internet

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104639
Sep 1, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Agreed.I never said you were on one side or another,as I noted pretty much your dislike for most things political;
2. "Forced"? Whole Universal health care plan was "forced" to be a weak one,as a true Universal health care plan where premiums are paid via taxes would never have passed the first cttee,much less the whole House AND Senate.Universal health care plan as exists in the 33 other OECD nations is mostly funded through taxes,and everyone has access.But with the word "socialism' through ignorance and hence fear,is not to be pronounced in the US as so many,including 1940s style politicians, equate it to communism;
3. I agree.Romney, whose Mass plan Obama largely copied,will be crushed by...Romney.Go figure;
4. Your inflation estimate is a tad high,and though not an expert on the matter,would peg it more at around 15%.Still way too high. Govts have a way of toying with labour statistics.Always have.Why are you implying that Obama is doing it differently from his predecessors?;
Return of industry? Not likely.Who started the export of jobs,of industry.Do you believe that Obama,in 4 years,exported most of those plants? How about that tax break that Obama tried to repeal, a tax break given to industry that exports its jobs and manufacturing?Repub congress shot it down, as it did over 33. Read today's Doonsbury and tell me it ain't so.Even if every company that went to China, Vietnam or Mexico returned to the US,and same for us,incidentally,we CAN NO LONGR build anything electronic,the know-how has gone,no longer exists. We'd have to import advisors from China,Vietnam and Mexico.What a joke.We don't know how to manufacture stuff any more.
Extending the phoney patriot act is a mistake. The $700 billion defence budget is a joke, an unfunny joke. a 10% cut would offer zero-premium all-paid-for universal health care for every citizen. Or close.Still being in Afghanistan is a mistake,as is a presence in Iraq. Libya was a mistake. Yes,errors have been made. But you think that's bad? Elect Mitt, you'll see, soon you'll be making F-35s in Russia and China. You've already lost most of your commercial aircraft buidling ability, most 787 components or more than 70% of them coming from China and Italy, same for 747-8 and 777. As per Russia when the wall came down in 1989, all that is 100% US-built (not even sure of that) are navy ships and submarines and fighter-bomber aircraft. Signs are all there. Can Obama fix a little bit of all of that? I think so. I said a little bit. Can Romney do same? I doubt it.
The way that universal health care is done elsewhere is impossible here. 100% of our federal taxes go directly to the Fed. as interest on imaginary money. Doesn't fix a pot hole, doesn't fund a welfare check, doesn't build a bridge.

There are no tax revenues.

Unemployment at 15% does not include the people who have simply stopped looking for work...as in many cases it does not exist. They would love full time work, but they are fed up with a fruitless time consuming pursuit. 23% is far more realistic.

I can agree with almost all of your last paragraph. However, making token efforts to fix things a bit is not enough.

You end the Fed or you have no where to go but down hill.

I have a video for you J.O.(I dont care if anyone else watches I am willing to go 1 at a time.)
5 parts...about 7 mins a piece, instead of futile arguments with people on this forum I ask that you view this material. See if it doesn't change your mind. Even if it doesn't the info alone is worth the time.

Part 1


Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104640
Sep 1, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
From above : "See, what you hate is that I do represent America right down to my last breath. Red, White and Blue baby."
YOU, a bloated disgusting slug, represent The United States of America? An ignorant vulgar traitor now represents such a fine country? Go back to your trailer park, oaf, and weekends at the Ronald McDonald asylum. How it must suck for such a poor specimen to think he represents even a doghouse.
Eat shat and die jokieboi.

“Arm the homeless!”

Since: Jul 12

The internet

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104642
Sep 1, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I knew that was going to happen...

Sorry for the double post.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104643
Sep 1, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct.
The natural born citizen clause replaced a previously drafted eligibility requirement:
"[H]e shall be of the age of thirty five years, and a citizen of the United States, and shall have been an inhabitant thereof for twenty one years."
On September 4, 1787, that was changed to
"No person except a natural born citizen or a Citizen of the U. S. at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President; nor shall any person be elected to that office, who shall be under the age of thirty five years, and who has not been in the whole, at least fourteen years a resident within the U. S."

The rule was modified to require a person born in the United States.
<quoted text>
There were no Constitutional Convention records of debates regarding the eligibility clause in the Constitution. James Madison who kept records of the proceedings in the Constitutional Convention made no reference in his book entitled "Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787"

Alexander Hamilton's version was:

“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States”

Constitution version:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;.....

The issue presented is what is the difference between "born a Citizen of the United States" and "natural born citizen"?

At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, it was presumed that state citizenship was primary and that federal citizenship was derivative. Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366, 377 (1918)("It is said, however, that since under the Constitution as originally framed state citizenship was primary and United States citizenship but derivative and dependent thereon").

The reason that the drafters of the constitution did not define who was a citizen was result of the drafters' desire to "avoid entanglement in the then-existing controversy between concepts of state and national citizenship and with the difficult question of the status of Negro slaves." Rogers v. Bellei, 401 US 815, 828-829,(1971)

This controversy as to who can be a citizen in the United States reached its zenith in the infamous Dred Scott decision in 1857 when Chief Justice Taney wrote:

we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393, 405 (1857)

In other words, Justice Taney believed that national citizenship is dependent upon state citizenship and that each state has the right to confer rights and privileges of citizenship upon whoever the state wishes.

With this understanding of the state/national citizenship controversy at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, the reason that Hamilton's version "born a Citizen of the United States" was rejected was because each state could determine who was its citizen.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104644
Sep 1, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
UNREAL!!!!!
Arizona should claim soverignty and secede immediately.
Watch how many states follow.
Please do and take the following states:
South Carolina
Texas
Alabama
Mississippi
Georgia
Oklahoma
Kentucky

and any other redneck/Neanderthal state
Grand Birther

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104645
Sep 1, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Feds end probe of 'America's toughest sheriff' Joe Arpaio; no charges
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/31/13...
ballantine

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104648
Sep 1, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
There were no Constitutional Convention records of debates regarding the eligibility clause in the Constitution. James Madison who kept records of the proceedings in the Constitutional Convention made no reference in his book entitled "Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787"
Alexander Hamilton's version was:
“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States”
Constitution version:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;.....
The issue presented is what is the difference between "born a Citizen of the United States" and "natural born citizen"?
At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, it was presumed that state citizenship was primary and that federal citizenship was derivative. Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366, 377 (1918)("It is said, however, that since under the Constitution as originally framed state citizenship was primary and United States citizenship but derivative and dependent thereon").
The reason that the drafters of the constitution did not define who was a citizen was result of the drafters' desire to "avoid entanglement in the then-existing controversy between concepts of state and national citizenship and with the difficult question of the status of Negro slaves." Rogers v. Bellei, 401 US 815, 828-829,(1971)
This controversy as to who can be a citizen in the United States reached its zenith in the infamous Dred Scott decision in 1857 when Chief Justice Taney wrote:
we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393, 405 (1857)
In other words, Justice Taney believed that national citizenship is dependent upon state citizenship and that each state has the right to confer rights and privileges of citizenship upon whoever the state wishes.
With this understanding of the state/national citizenship controversy at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, the reason that Hamilton's version "born a Citizen of the United States" was rejected was because each state could determine who was its citizen.
Except it wasn't rejected as far as we know. The draft that contained such language was not shown to the Convention but to Madison after the Convention. The draft Hamiton showed to the convention was little more than an outline.
Jacques Ottawa

Brampton, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104649
Sep 1, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me clarify a few things for you J.O.
1)I think I made it abundantly clear in my last few post that I am not on a side unless you count the American people as a political party.
2)"Free" health care for all couldn't be further from the truth. You are forced to BUY said insurance UNDER PENALTY OF LAW! Exactly how does this translate to freedom?
Find me a founding father that would be cool with that.
3)I "stick up" for no group of people who don't act in the best interest of America.
It doesn't matter what people want...
It is simply inevitable that republicans will repeal this legislation. They now have the congress, if they get the presidency Obamacare will not even take affect. Hence, my statement.
4)I see no great turn about in America. More people are jobless than ever before. The unemployment statistics are fraudulent, it is not even close to a representation of what is going on. Actual unemployment hovers around 23%... more if you include under-employed.
I see no evidence of the return of industry to the U.S.
The man auto-stamped the fukin Patriot act extention for christ sake! He then went on to sign the NDAA!!!! What kind of a man signs this crap?
You are damn right I am predjudiced! Predjudiced against any man who would see our freedoms lessened.
You think I dislike Obama?
You should have heard me when Bush was in office.
American FIRST...political affiliation distant second.
1. You did make that crystal clear and I pointed it out in a following post;
2. In a universal health care plan, not only is no one forced to buy health insurance, it's paid with taxes. All taxpayers (except maybe big corporations and the rich) pay taxes that go towards health care, thereby diminishing by oh so much, individual premiums. Obama was forced into an obamacare compromise, as I wager his ambition would be to have a universal health care plan that resembles that of the other 33 "have" OECD countries. As to the constitution, it's an 18th century document that does not reflect today's times. Not enough amendments since then. Justice Ginsberg was totally and 100% right. Does the constitution allow for publicly-built roads, road tolls, forced automobile 3rd-party coverage? What were the implications of universal health care in the 18th century? etc etc...;
3. 1 agree with you, whether one likes it or not;
4. I know you're a fair man and you speak with conviction. I don't however see any erosion of freedom in your country, which, incidentally, resembles ours, ;arty and government-wise. Your Dem party is almost the same as our conservative party actually in power. We have much to bitch about, yes, but change for change will bring nothing but disappointment.
Jacques Ottawa

Brampton, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104650
Sep 1, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Scrutiny wrote:
<quoted text>
The way that universal health care is done elsewhere is impossible here. 100% of our federal taxes go directly to the Fed. as interest on imaginary money. Doesn't fix a pot hole, doesn't fund a welfare check, doesn't build a bridge.
There are no tax revenues.
Unemployment at 15% does not include the people who have simply stopped looking for work...as in many cases it does not exist. They would love full time work, but they are fed up with a fruitless time consuming pursuit. 23% is far more realistic.
I can agree with almost all of your last paragraph. However, making token efforts to fix things a bit is not enough.
You end the Fed or you have no where to go but down hill.
I have a video for you J.O.(I dont care if anyone else watches I am willing to go 1 at a time.)
5 parts...about 7 mins a piece, instead of futile arguments with people on this forum I ask that you view this material. See if it doesn't change your mind. Even if it doesn't the info alone is worth the time.
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =_dmPchuXIXQXX
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Because it's from you, I'll view the material, but so sorry, will have to be later, as I gotta jump around, saturday morning and all that. Tks.
Jacques Ottawa

Brampton, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104651
Sep 1, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Scrutiny wrote:
I knew that was going to happen...
Sorry for the double post.
No problem, but I may have replied twice. Hope I didn't contradict myself lol
American Lady

Danville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104652
Sep 1, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

David Barton's new book, The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You've Always Believed about Thomas Jefferson, is not as bad as it is being made out to be.
It has very serious problems—special pleading, fundamental errors of omission, a willful misunderstanding and deliberate distortion of Jefferson's basic religious outlook, demonization of those who see Jefferson as a deist and freethinker, and the frequent use of the straw man fallacy. But Barton is right in one key respect: Thomas Jefferson was less thoroughly secular than some advocates of separation of church and state have claimed. He did not seek to remove all religious expression from the public square. Nor did he conceive the University of Virginia as an unambiguously secular institution of higher learning. For this reason, though Barton's book is not likely to win praise in any but conservative and evangelical circles, it does a service to our national conversation about the place of religion in American public life, and the debate it is generating may help to clarify both Jefferson's personal religious views and his talismanic phrase, "wall of separation between church and state."

The basic problem of Barton's book is that he approaches Jefferson not as a scholar or historian, but as an evangelical Christian propagandist and casuist with a preconceived result in mind. His life mission is to prove the Founding Fathers intended America to be a Christian nation. For many years he has combed through the lives and letters of America's founders to find whatever they wrote that appears to reinforce his fixed idea.

http://www.jeffersonhour.com/Barton%20Review....

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104653
Sep 1, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

American Lady wrote:
OBAMA BANNED THIS VIDEO - GEE, I WONDER WHY!
http://www.youtube.com/watch ...
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Who made this video?
2. Can you prove Obama banned it?
SHE did not say it was banned, that is in the title!
You do know the difference, don't you?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104654
Sep 1, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

What is sad, we taxpayers probably spent $10M on this investigation.

A Stoos Views/Hugh Betcha Exclusive
“No evidence of aquatic humanoids has ever been found.”—NOAA
In a startling, hard hitting report, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the United States government has assured an anxious public that, no, there are no mermaids. Hugh Betcha, Ace Reporter, Head of the Environmental News Bureau of the Stoos Views news conglomerate, first broke the story last month after receiving a tip from a source inside the agency who did not wish to be revealed. The source, hereinafter referred to as Deep Throat, told Hugh, the recipient of the MSNBC 2012 Most Respected Reporter award:

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••