Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dad regards pledge case as his 'duty'
The Sacramento Bee ^ | 7/16/2002 | Jennifer Garza

Posted on 07/16/2002 1:33:02 PM PDT by Utah Girl

Edited on 04/12/2004 5:40:52 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

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.


(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221 next last
To: Khepera
I agree completely.
41 posted on 07/16/2002 5:13:51 PM PDT by homeschool mama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Utah Girl
Someone sent me this in an email, I didn't want to make it a "vanity" post and this is the story it belongs with. Sorry if it doesn't fit in with the arguement on the thread. I think it fits in well with the pleadge being taken from schools. Just wanted to post it.

In light of the shooting in Michigan:

Let's see, I think it started when Madeline Murray O'Hare complained she didn't want any prayer in our schools. And we said OK..

Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school, the Bible that says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself.
And we said OK..

Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave be-cause their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem.
And we said, an expert should know what he's talking about so we won't spank them anymore..

Then someone said teachers and principals better not discipline our children when they misbehave. And the school administrators said no faculty member in this school better touch a student when they misbehave because we don't want any bad publicity, and we surely don't want to be sued.
And we accepted their reasoning...

Then someone said, let's let our daughters have abortions if they want, and they won't even have to tell their parents.
And we said, that's a grand idea...

Then some wise school board member said, since boys will be boys and they're going to do it anyway, let's give our sons all the condoms they want, so they can have all the fun they desire, and we won't have to tell their parents they got them at school.
And we said, that's another great idea...

Then some of our top elected officials said it doesn't matter what we do in private as long as we do our jobs.
And agreeing with them, we said it doesn't matter to me what anyone, including the President, does in private as long as I have a job and the economy is good...

And then someone said let's print magazines with pictures of nude women and call it wholesome down-to-earth appreciation for the beauty of the female body.
And we said we have no problem with that...

And someone else took that appreciation a step further and published pictures of children and then stepped further still by making them available on the internet.
And we said they're entitled to their free speech...

And the entertainment industry said, let's make TV shows and movies that promote profanity, violence, and illicit sex. And let's record music that encourages rape, drugs, murder, suicide, and satanic themes...
And we said it's just entertainment, it has no adverse effect, and nobody takes it seriously anyway, so go right ahead...

Therefore, now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with..."WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."

Pass it on if you think it has merit! If not then just discard.....but if you discard this thought process, then don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in... VOICE YOUR OPINION HOWEVER YOU CAN!

Dear God,
Why didn't you save the little girl in Michigan?
Sincerely,
Concerned Student.

AND THE REPLY...
Dear Concerned Student:
I am not allowed in schools.
Sincerely,
God.

42 posted on 07/16/2002 5:14:48 PM PDT by knak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: homeschool mama
I don't think either of the parents have much moral high ground when it comes to the treatment of their child. However, I do wish to point out yet again that the daughter was present at the oral arguments in San Francisco.
43 posted on 07/16/2002 5:18:25 PM PDT by flyervet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Utah Girl
Newdow and his daughter when he presented oral arguments about the Pledge of Allegiance to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Newdow took his daughter for the experience

I'd say he took her as a prop.

44 posted on 07/16/2002 5:20:29 PM PDT by tet68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: flyervet
Well...I know the mother and child (in case you didn't catch that earlier). The mother is a kind and decent woman.

The father used the child as court bait.

45 posted on 07/16/2002 5:20:40 PM PDT by homeschool mama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: homeschool mama
His early demise will truly take him from his daughter. Fairly selfish on his part and I believe the mother probably has good reason for keeping him at bay. I bet he is an anal retentive individual unable to nurture a healthy relationship.

A masters degree in psychology is not needed for a diagnosis here. Where is that DSM III handbook when you need it?
46 posted on 07/16/2002 5:21:01 PM PDT by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: tet68
You would be correct.
47 posted on 07/16/2002 5:21:02 PM PDT by homeschool mama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
**I bet he is an anal retentive individual unable to nurture a healthy relationship. **

That's about the jest of it, K.

48 posted on 07/16/2002 5:21:49 PM PDT by homeschool mama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: homeschool mama
How could I miss it, you've been banging that drum all over FR.com for the last month or so. I don't know whether it's true or not and frankly I don't care. The fact of the matter is that Newdow has gone the extra mile to stay in his little girl's life and provide for her well-being. That is commendable.
49 posted on 07/16/2002 5:24:44 PM PDT by flyervet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: flyervet
You don't care because you prefer to not invest the time in the truth.

btw...it's true.

See ya toots.

50 posted on 07/16/2002 5:26:46 PM PDT by homeschool mama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: homeschool mama
It doesn't sound to me like he is doing anything to contribute to an atmosphere conducive to reconciliation between himself and his family. To rally against the core beliefs of his daughter and spouse is no way to draw them closer. Sounds like he is making his own bed here and it has hospital corners.
51 posted on 07/16/2002 5:27:50 PM PDT by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: flyervet
Michael Newdow is meeting his requirements for child support despite the fact that the mother of his child tried to remove him from his child's life by moving 3,000 miles away and despite the fact that child support is almost double his income.

He only made $15K last year because he chose to only work two days a week. By all appearances, he's obsessed. That's not a positive characteristic for a father.

IF he really wanted to see his daughter more often, he would start by moving closer to her. No, this man's a self-centered sperm donor.

52 posted on 07/16/2002 5:28:44 PM PDT by savedbygrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: homeschool mama
Actually, I prefer not to read anymore "evil man" BS, especially through the lens of someone with such an obviously hateful, anti-fatherhood agenda.

Whether you actually know the woman or not, you'll keep beating that dead horse 'til the USSC hears the case, and beyond, never once even dreaming of the fact that there are two sides to every story.
53 posted on 07/16/2002 5:32:39 PM PDT by flyervet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
Hit that nail. There may be two sides to this story. One is right and one is wrong. The right side is the one that stands with God. There is only one other side to stand on after that.
54 posted on 07/16/2002 5:39:12 PM PDT by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
He only made $15K last year because he chose to only work two days a week.

Yes and his child support is $24,000 a year. The fact that he's willing to sacrifice his future financial well-being to care for his child speaks very highly of him.

By all appearances, he's obsessed. That's not a positive characteristic for a father.

The man is far from perfect. But if every man who weren't perfect were cut out of their children's lives, well, we wouldn't have fathers at all.

IF he really wanted to see his daughter more often, he would start by moving closer to her.

The man moved 3,000 miles from Florida to California to be closer to his child. Granted, that's what Homeschool Mama says, so take it with a grain of salt, but the man uprooted his whole life to be near his child, and for an MD, that's a big deal. Getting licensed to practice in another state can take months. He's made a massive commitment of time, energy, and resources to be near his child. What more can you or anyone else ask of him?
55 posted on 07/16/2002 5:39:13 PM PDT by flyervet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: flyervet

However, I do wish to point out yet again that the daughter was present at the oral arguments in San Francisco.

For which action he should be charged with child abuse.

56 posted on 07/16/2002 5:45:44 PM PDT by garybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: flyervet
Yes and his child support is $24,000 a year. The fact that he's willing to sacrifice his future financial well-being to care for his child speaks very highly of him.

You've got it backwards. Knowing what his child support requirements are, he has purposely reduced the number of hours he works, not to better care for the girl, but to devote more time to those atheistic causes that are so important to him.

By all appearances, the causes are more important to him than the little girl. Particularly considering that he was willing to lie to the court, and to the American people. (I heard the representations this glory hound has made in many of his media appearances. He has lied.)

57 posted on 07/16/2002 5:52:35 PM PDT by savedbygrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: garybob
You have an odd notion of the meaning of child abuse.
58 posted on 07/16/2002 5:56:16 PM PDT by flyervet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
He's paying nearly double his income, sacrificing his financial well-being to pay that child support. The fact that he's paying such an onerous child support burden speaks very well of him.

Can you document where he lied to the court? Thanks.
59 posted on 07/16/2002 6:01:27 PM PDT by flyervet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

Comment #60 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson