Eagles Up!
nutmeg & zelig
Posted on 06/26/2002 2:38:26 PM PDT by Jeff Head
I'm in the middle of the final edits, formatting and what-not for volume II of my book series, so I don't have the time to run it down specifically right now ... but that is where I have heard it and why I stated in my post that from my perspective that it appears to be true.
Eagles Up!
nutmeg & zelig
It is a story from Conservative Truth dated June 30th, by Tom Barrett. Here is the link to that entire article on that site ---> HERE
The relevent portion regarding the father's use of the child follows:
Now let’s look at the truth. In 1998 Michael Newdow, a physician with a law degree, brought a similar suit to the one in Sacramento against the school board in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro-Benages dismissed that case, stating that the Supreme Court had previously ruled that children could "sit out„ the recitation of the Pledge if they or their parents desired. In 1998, Newdow’s daughter was not even old enough to attend school.The quotes from this activist aethist are attributed to an Interview on CNN's "Talkback Live" and the tracnscript and story for that are ---> HERE
Apparently Newdow decided that California, known for its affinity for all things strange, would provide more fertile ground for his anti-God crusade. He relocated to the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit, known for its socialist bent and its many downright ridiculous rulings. By the way, this Court has the distinction of having more rulings reversed by the High Court than any other in the nation. Most of its judges are Democrats or Socialists; many are Clinton or Carter appointees.
Newdow’s daughter was never forced to recite the Pledge, according to everyone involved in the case. When questioned on CNN, even her father was forced to admit that she did not mind reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. "My daughter is in the lawsuit because you need that for standing. I brought this case because I am an atheist and this offends me, and I have the right to bring up my daughter without God being imposed into her life by her schoolteachers. So she did not come and say she was ostracized."
In other words, Newdow’s daughter was never ridiculed or ostracized as the liberal media initially claimed. To the contrary, in advancing his own evil agenda, Newdow has now placed his daughter in a position whereby she will be forced to carry the burden of his misguided actions for the rest of her life. Because he couldn’t get the case into court any other way, Newdow pretended to be motivated by defending his daughter’s rights. But his own statement on national television proves how false that is. Although she never had a problem with reciting the Pledge, Newdow has used his own daughter for political purposes, opening this little seven-year-old child up to the very ridicule from which he claimed he wanted to protect her. I wonder if she will ever forgive his cowardice and duplicity?
To better understand his motivation, read another Newdow quote from the same CNN interview (see the link in the Resources section below): "One day I was just looking at the coins (that) is what brought this up. I saw ‘In God We Trust’ on my coins. I said, ‘I don't trust in God,’ what is this? And I recalled there was something in the Constitution that said you're not allowed to do that and so I did some research. And as soon as I did the research, I realized the law seemed to be on my side and I filed the suit. It's a cool thing to do. Everyone should try it."
In addition to having all references to God removed from our money and public buildings, Newdow wants America to be an atheist nation: "When atheists become the majority in this country, I don't think the theists are going to be glad to have 'one nation under no God' inserted in the Pledge of Allegiance."
The guy is an abject activist with a mission to take God out of this nation. He would remove any mention from our coinage, probably bar the National Anthem because of its last vers, bar the song "God bless America", remove the Declaration of Independence, etc., etc. The very fabric tand foundation that the nation was built upon, he would destroy.
Hope that helps ... don't have time for more.
Need a LOT more. Please forward to all of your email list asking them to sign and forward on themselves.
We cannot allow this to stand. We cannot allow a vocal, dedicated individual who wants to strip this nation of its underlying fabric and foundation to use activist judges to accomplish that aim. That's what is happening here and it is up to us to stand up and put a stop to it.
Set it aside, over turn it ... IGNORE IT!
Also, Tom Jipping wrote an effective booklet to this sam,e point: "The First Amendment: Does the Free Speech Clause Conflict with the Establishment Clause?" [Approximate title.] [His answer was "no," based upon historical adn legal scholarship. In fact, for years in the early 19th Century 12 of the 13 Colonies had official Staate religions: the Library of Congress did an xtensive exhibit on this a few eyars ago called "religion and the Foounding of the American Republic"; Maryland was Catholic; NJ was Presbyterian, other states were Congregationalist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Baptist, Methodist, and several other denominations. Thi\us the First Aemndment was intended to prohibit ONLY the establishemtn of a National Religion or National Church.]
Hamburger's book shows that today's radical reinterpretation of the Extablishment Clause, which effectively limitis much religious speech in public forums, was formualted int the mid-19th Century in a period of paradoid anti-Catholic sentiment.
Jefferson was the soel "eccentiric" Founder who wanted to limit the speech of Federalist preachers who were preaching against him, Jefferson.
The 1805(?) letter to the Danbury Baptists, written by Jefferson, only became part of the "constitution" in the mid_late !(th century due to rising antti_cathoilic political views broought into the courtroom>
The very fabric and foundation that the nation was built upon, he would destroy.
And many others just like him who have yet to see the light. What are believers to do with these people? Seems as though doing our best to be examples, and sharing the "good news" is not getting it done. Reminds me of an earlier time some 2000 years ago...
FGS
Of course it doesn't. You can't have a mandatory national religion, and you cannot prevent the free exercise of any religion.--The latter in fact implies the former, as imposing a national religion would prevent the free exercise of any other religion.
So all Americans are free to exercise their religion--as long as it doesn't conflict with the law, of course. "Comrade" Newdow seems to have a religion whose "free exercise" would require Christians to shut up. And that just isn't legal. The First Amendment at work.
The PLEDGE IS NOT "CONSERVATIVE"!!!!!
"One nation, under God, indivisible" ... says to me that our Nation Under God is indivisible. In this sense, it is consistant with the Declaration ... at least to me.
Clearly, with 80 million of us armed, there is always the potential for rebellion ... I don't need a founding document, or anything else to tell me that. There is always the potential for rebeliion if tyrants push too hard.
If they ever do (and last year in Klamath it came close IMHO as it has in a number of other places the last few years), then it will sprout its own legs and grow. I pray that doesn't happen but it will depend on what those globalist/elitist/socio-narxist tyrants do ... and I will remain armed to insure they know that Jefferson's words about watering the liberty tree remain in effect today.
Having said all of that ... I will continue with this effort because I care about the pledge and do not see it as the nefarious instrument with its current wording that some would like to ascribe to it.
Indivisible in the sense that no state may legally secede. If the government becomes oppressive--that is, fails to abide by the law--then it has forfeited its own protections under the law. Then states may secede.
It is analogous to how people may not legally kill you--but if you break the law by, say, becoming a traitor or killing an innocent person, then you have forfeited your protections under the law and may be sentenced to death.
So, IMHO, saying that the nation is indivisible is like saying that you are "unkillable."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.