Dad regards pledge case as his 'duty'

The Sacramento Bee ^ | 7/16/2002 | Jennifer Garza

[Utah Girl]

Of all the names he's been called in the past few weeks -- and there have been plenty -- Mike Newdow can't quite understand how someone could call him a bad father. Or a traitor.

Newdow is the Sacramento man who challenged the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance -- and won.

[Wondervixen]

>>Then the guy's a bum.

He's either a bum, a scam artist, or a run of the mill liar. In any case, I think the IRS should look a little closer at him.

[Tired of Taxes]

"PS. Newdow lied about his own daughter....in court. "

You and others have repeated over and over that this man lied. You may not like him, but you haven't shown a "lie" yet. And I don't think you can.

[syriacus]

Again, where was the "lie"?

Precisely where I quoted it up above. Newdow said she was harmed by watching others recite the pledge.

When he realized it was public knowledge that she didn't mind saying the pledge, he began to say the anti-pledge suit was really about himself, not about her.

It's obvious that, like many liberals and many ne'er-do-wells, he realizes when he's been caught in a lie and needs to change the topic in order to avoid punishment or to avoid facing up to the fact he has lost an argument.

Again...why hasn't some ethical atheist won a suit against the pledge?

[Wondervixen]

You don't think we can show you a lie???

How about telling the 9th Circuit that his daughter is a PRACTICING ATHEIST and that saying & hearing the words "Under God" were injurious and offensive to her???

FACT: The little girl HERSELF says she goes to a Christian Church, believes in God, and IS NOT OFFENDED IN ANY WAY with the Pledge of Allegience!!!

TAKE OFF THE DAMN BLINDERS!!! NEWDOW LIED!!!

[syriacus]

You want an example of his lies?

How about this quote from the original post at the head of this thread?

According to media reports, Newdow said his daughter was "injured" by the pledge. Courts can only hear cases where there has been an injured party, legal experts say

"I never said that, and I don't believe it's in the brief," Newdow said.

In the brief, he says she was injured, as you can see by reading post 95 (or by reading any one of 100's of old newspapers)

I'm getting tired of proving what is merely common sense, by the way. Newdow might win in the end, but he's still a liar. Even his backtracking shows he's a liar.

He'd probably like to rewrite the history of his lawsuits and he is lucky his brief is "disappearing" from the web. When it's all gone, it will be harder to prove he lies.

[Tired of Taxes]

Syriacus... you're assuming that an eight-year-old child can decide whether or not she is "harmed". Do you think 16-year-old boys think they're harmed when they receive free condoms at school? No. It's up to the parent to file these complaints. Some parents think their children are harmed by a pro-abortion agenda in public schools. Others disagree; because those others disagree, does that mean there is no "harm"? Of course not. It's up to the parent to decide. Hence, Newdow filed a complaint based on his rights as a PARENT. As her parent, his position is that she is "harmed" (though I don't remember if that's the exact word HE used). Claiming "harm" does not constitute a "lie" simply because you or even the mother thinks that the child wasn't harmed. He, as the father, thinks that she was.

Wondervixen... show me in his actual brief - I'm looking for a direct quote - where he says that his daughter is an "atheist". I just went through his original complaint, and he doesn't state ANYWHERE in there that his daughter is an atheist. He states that HE as the PLAINTIFF is an atheist, and that he doesn't want his daughter to recite the Pledge with "under God" included in it. Again, THAT is not a "lie".

I think the press has distorted the truth here. The media seems to be using creative license with this story, as they do with so many others. And you all were quick to believe the mother as soon as you discovered she's a practicing Christian.

[Tired of Taxes]

The quote in number 95 doesn't appear to be from Newdow's "brief". You may be confusing his "brief" with the "ruling" made by the court.

Your quote in number 95 was:

Newdow does not allege that his daughter's teacher or school district requires his daughter to participate in reciting the Pledge. Rather, he claims that his daughter is injured when she is compelled to "watch and listen as her state-employed teacher in her state-run school leads her class mates in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God, and that our's [sic] is 'one nation under God.'"

That doesn't sound like it's from Newdow's brief.

Furthermore, again, your opinion that the girl wasn't "injured" doesn't mean that she wasn't, but I already addressed that in my last post.

[glory]

"How can a judge who has never met my daughter and who doesn't know anything about her decide what is in her best interest?" Newdow said.



Ummm, earth to Newdow. Probably 80 percent of the parents out there who support the pledge are saying this about you!


This guy is a sick bastard. The phrase misery loves company is what comes to mind when I read this. He plans not only to make his ex "wife" pay, but the whole country.
Here's a clue you fool. You are skeptical of the Bible, but chances are if you had followed it's tenets you would have found a woman willing to marry before having children who would have been loyal to you and you would have been a husband worth staying with. YOu need to direct that anger back at your parents who failed you miserably, at yourself, or better yet crack open the Bible again with an open heart and let it wash away your misery.

[glory]

Yes and the fact of the matter is if he was working full time in EITHER of his professions, 24K a year probably does not make a big dent in his yearly earnings. Judging of course by what he makes on 2 days a month than multiply that by about 10 and you are at 150K and my guess is it's a bit more than that since I'm only going on 20 days of work. Not to mention if he's living off of savings, then the guy is probably pulling in the average salary in the US on interest no doubt. Guy pays out 24K and STILL makes more than most Americans--sorry, I'm not feeling sorry for this fool. My guess is that he doesn't like that he has to work at all. Child support is putting a cramp in someone whose preference it probably is to be a lifelong "student". Grow up Newdow! This guy is a selfish liberal hag who I don't think cares a whip for his daughter. His story changes whenever it suits HIM. No one is buying it Newdow. Perhaps you would have got more support for your victimhood if you had joined the dads rights groups out there advocating positive change instead of badgering every American with your mistakes and misery. This guy could be doing so much good if he'd lay aside his bitterness at the world and God.

[glory]

Good observation.

[glory]

**Michael Newdow, whatever else he may be, should serve as a walking advertisement to American men to be careful whom they open their lives to, in case they end up sharing a child with a fatherhood hating feminazi. **

LOL and I dare say that Newdow is a walking advertisement to Christian women like the mother to take the unequally yolked verse very seriously!

[glory]

Let her know many have her and her daughter in thier prayers!

[glory]

heard the representations this GLORY hound has made in many of his media appearances. He has lied>> No relation of course;-)

[glory]

Your post is precisely the reason many freepers are skeptical that athiests can be conservatives. You are exemplifying how athiests make knee jerk POSITIVE reactions about other athiests even when said athiest is an extremist nutjob. Yeah, real freethinkers you bunch.

Gosh, when will people understand that athiest can be every bit as dogmatic as folks who subscribe to a religion. Thing is though they are the most dishonest and hide behind the moniker "free thinker" when they are just as narrow minded as any hell and brimstone pastor. At least with Christians you can look in a book and know what to expect. Where is the athiests manual so we know what to expect. Oh wait, Newdow, flyervet, ToT(and many others like them)are writing it before our eyes and it doesn't paint the rational picture they would like.

[glory]

Guess he doesn't mind infringing on the president's 1st amendment rights?

[glory]

Well said.

[glory]

No maybe it just means that you are wrong and the mother is allowing visitation, and generous visitation at that that they can go on a 4 hour car trip. So much for your theory of totally writing off dad.
As I see it, as a Christian woman, she is probably very forgiving and hoping that somehow this man will change. What you see in that he even has any visitation under the circumstances, is that she is a very generous person who is willing to work with him even though he is clearly a nutjob. If it were me, I'd be half a world away again.

[glory]

She seems to be a lady who may not have been particularly religious before when she met him, but when she had the child, she decided to go back to church, and became more conservative in her faith. Who knows what happened, that's my guess. I've known some women, and men to have done that.
>>

Count me in. Fortunately, I didn't marry a nutjob though!