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

Skip to comments.

High School Valedictorian Refuse to Bow Down; Has speech censored -
American Family Action ^ | June 22, 2006

Posted on 06/22/2006 10:46:58 AM PDT by UnklGene

High School Valedictorian Refuses to Bow Down; Has Speech Censored

June 21, 2006

Brittany McComb was the valedictorian at Foothill High School recently. She graduated with a 4.7 GPA. She earned the right to address the other graduates at Foothill, located in Henderson, Nevada.

She gave a copy of her graduating speech to the school administrators. It contained some Biblical references and even mentioned (one time) the name “Christ.” The school administrators censored some of the Biblical references. They also censored the single reference to Christ.

Then the school officials handed the speech over to the ACLU for approval and/or more censoring. After getting the OK from the ACLU, Brittany’s speech (minus the censored references to the Bible and Christ) was approved. Brittany was warned that if she deviated from the ACLU approved language, her mike would be cut off.

Then came the moment for the big decision. She would not bow down, she decided. She would go with her original version. She stepped to the mike and began her speech. But just before she could utter the name “Christ,” her mike went dead. School officials silenced her. The crowd of 400 jeered for several minutes, angry at the action of the school officials. The ACLU was happy. They had silenced another Christian.

“I went through four years of school at Foothill and they taught me logic and they taught me freedom of speech. God’s the biggest part of my life. Just like other valedictorians thank their parents, I wanted to thank my lord and savior,” Brittany said.

Because she refused to bow down to the ACLU’s idol of gold, she did not get her wish. She was censored.

This young heroine deserves praise and a thank you from those who believe in free speech.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; US: Nevada
KEYWORDS: 1stamendment; aclu; antichrist; antichristian; bigotry; bowsdowntoaclu; christianstudents; constitution; educashun; education; firstamendment; freedomofspeech; freespeech; freespeechbashing; publicschools; publicscrewl
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-181 last
To: HitmanLV

Ahhh...The School Board broke their vow to uphold the Constitution of the US. It was do as we say..., Constitution --Constipation.


151 posted on 06/22/2006 9:11:16 PM PDT by UnklGene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe

I am surprised others here would find her situation in the wrong.

From Wiki,

[...] Thomas Paine in his pamphlet, Common Sense (1776):

"As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all government, to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith . . .

The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was written in 1779 by Thomas Jefferson. It proclaimed:

"[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

In U.S. law, freedom of religion is codified in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which declares:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"


152 posted on 06/22/2006 9:12:48 PM PDT by A0ri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: abercrombie_guy_38
If the valedictorian were Muslim at my child's school, I sure as hell wouldn't want to be hearing "praise Allah" during his speech. I doubt any of you would either.

If a muslim gets to the top of his class, he has earned the right to say "praise Allah" before his graduating class. I may not want to hear it either, but as Patrick Henry said, I will defend to the death his right to say it.

153 posted on 06/22/2006 9:23:58 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (((172 * 3.141592653589793238462) / 180) * 10 = 30.0196631)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: A0ri
True and Jefferson is considered the original libertarian and Unitarian. His religious beliefs in his later years were that of a deist. It was Jefferson's and others beliefs as you also stated that while the government could not establish a mandated church { another Church of England as established by the crown with compulsory membership or sole church}, no prohibitions were made upon the conscience of man to express professed beliefs in GOD or a denial of in any capacity in their life public or private. Their personal actions made this quite unmistakeably clear. The government is prohibited from infringing upon that right.

There is a book co-written by Peter and Catherine Marshall's son called "The Light and the Glory" the first of a three part series where the personal letters, official documents, private writings, and speeches, of the framers and founders are explored.

It's an excellent history book showing the moral struggle of an early nation in failures and success. Ironically IIRC the first one was the two authors college thesis. It's also among the banned from school libraries. I didn't read it till my adult life but I had a deeper appreciation and understanding of the founding fathers efforts and intent. Those men would be at personal war with the decisions of our courts and call the judges the tyrants they truly are. They would not have put up with it.

154 posted on 06/23/2006 3:21:07 AM PDT by cva66snipe (If it was wrong for Clinton why do some support it for Bush? Party over nation destroys the nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: dollar_dog
Ok. I think you live in a bubble, but ok, let's say I accept your point.

I see, so you accept the point but don't really accept it? You just "say" you accept it. OR you accept it but want to toss an insult in there just for giggles? Very odd comment in my view.

I can assure you I don't live in a bubble.

For the very "few" whom you acknowledge cannot afford private school, what would you suggest be done with them?

Right now? I suggest they send their children to these government "schools" while constantly monitoring each and every thing they are being taught. You must "unteach" them some things, and fill in the myriad blanks left by the imbeciles who choose to spend the precious time filling the kids heads with politically correct BS instead of important life lessons.

Another option would be home schooling, which obviously cannot be done by many.

If not "right now", but in a much better world, government could subsidize the cost for those truly needy in other ways.

Once you get used to the idea that "free" education for all, rich and poor alike, is not the only way to assure that the populace is at least minimally educated, you can begin to explore other options.

155 posted on 06/23/2006 6:22:22 AM PDT by Protagoras ("A real decision is measured by the fact that you have taken a new action"... Tony Robbins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: dollar_dog
For the very "few" whom you acknowledge cannot afford private school, what would you suggest be done with them?

BTW, I hope you don't think for a second that I didn't notice this dishonest attempt to change what I said by changing it to "VERY FEW" from what I actually said, referenced below word for actual word.

"I can appreciate that. But many are. Many more than you would think. Of course it would require them to cut spending in other areas."

156 posted on 06/23/2006 6:27:23 AM PDT by Protagoras ("A real decision is measured by the fact that you have taken a new action"... Tony Robbins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: UnklGene

God’s the biggest part of my life. Just like other valedictorians thank their parents, I wanted to thank my lord and savior,” Brittany said.



Obviously not if you are in public school. If God was really a part of your life as you say, you would be in a Christian school.


157 posted on 06/23/2006 7:01:23 AM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
If God was really a part of your life as you say, you would be in a Christian school.

Nonsense.

158 posted on 06/23/2006 7:04:29 AM PDT by Protagoras ("A real decision is measured by the fact that you have taken a new action"... Tony Robbins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
You only agree with the power to censor, if the censorship is something that disagrees with you. Like that of a Christian taking a stand against the cultural excesses of modern government approved secularism by stating facts about her faith. When was that ever against the law before the left ignored all previous meaning of the first amendment.

Your point of view is the polar opposite of the good will view of the American people and the understanding of the Constitution for two centuries. Americans never voted free Christian speech out of schools, that was the act of an ignorant court based only upon an ignorant whim. What do you think triggered the Conservative uprising against activist judges. It was the obvious mishandling of the Constitution and make believe justifications at the hands of opportunistic judges who saw political opportunity.

You are a willing victim of deranged ACLU thought and newspeak. You will continue fighting conservatives as a loyal allie of the far left.

Your view of the Constitution never agreed with more than a handful of American citizens and was forced into the first amendment only by some judges who ignored American history. Everyone knows this illogical, unhistorical reinvention of the first amendment is false, even the liberals agreed that is was. For years they tried to justify it on the grounds of a legal positivist approach, now they don't even do that, they just lie about it. That is why the court didn't rule that way for about fifteen decades.

The reason why you like the ignorance of the ACLU viewpoint is because you have a well displayed dislike of Christianity. Of course you want to ignore history and censor free speech of a Christian because it is really just the message you dislike.

The marxist and immoral speech by youngsters in the radical movements of the 1960s was defended tooth and nail by the same ACLU that now attacks Christian speech that was never deemed unlawful for two centuries of American free will. So don't give us any more of your laughing gas, we know better.

I was born long ago and have watched the legal atrocities of the fringe marxists who led the charge to undo the Constitution so it could be soiled by an ACLU scribe. You don't mind their acts of treason one bit because their baseless rewrite agrees with your biases. You know I'm right, just like they know I'm right, but like them, you just don't care.

159 posted on 06/23/2006 7:58:24 AM PDT by Old Landmarks (No fear of man, none!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Old Landmarks
You, like so many others on this thread, fail to see that schools may restrict students. Minor children do not enjoy free speech rights. And even students who have turned 18 are still under the jurisdiction of the school.

I just have the feeling that, had this girl been Muslim, and had wanted to get up and give praise to Allah, you would be all for the actions of the administrators.

160 posted on 06/23/2006 8:03:41 AM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Old Landmarks
You fail to see government is our overlord. Government tells us what to do because it is always right. We should all love Big Brother. Big Brothers raises our kids to be good servants of Big Brother. Big Brother is never wrong. Big Brothers court decisions are wise.

You are not supposed to question Big Brother nor teach your children values that contradict those taught by Big Brother in Big Brothers class room. Did I say how wise Big Brother is? Oh how I protect Big Brother because I love Big Government. Big Brother helps bring me cheap labor. I love Big Brother. You know why? Because Big Brother is like a Big Brother to me and when you love Big Brother for all things nothing is better than a Big Brother overseen world... /Sarcasm off but I think you get the idea.. LOL :>}

161 posted on 06/23/2006 9:18:05 AM PDT by cva66snipe (If it was wrong for Clinton why do some support it for Bush? Party over nation destroys the nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: HitmanLV

You had better read up on the mental reservation principle. By allowing the authorities to stop her from expressing her free exercise of her protected speech rights by refusing to speak because of their censorship gives them the win. An agreement coerced is no agreement at all.

I kind of like the following post that said she should have proposed a bland speech and then delivered the real text, so they could not be ready to cut off the mike. Devious, but perfectly acceptable.


162 posted on 06/23/2006 9:26:47 AM PDT by foghornleghorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
She was intimidated? Then she should have refused to give her speech at all.

So, you've never had a child? Apparently not, or at least you've not dealt with teens.

163 posted on 06/23/2006 10:03:48 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: foghornleghorn
By allowing the authorities to stop her from expressing her free exercise of her protected speech rights by refusing to speak because of their censorship gives them the win. An agreement coerced is no agreement at all.

You make a few assumptions there, and in addition there's a lot of evidentiary matters to get that 'win.'

Wait and see. I have no doubt she won't prevail.

164 posted on 06/23/2006 10:19:11 AM PDT by HitmanLV ("5 Minute Penalty for #40, Ann Theresa Calvello!" - RIP 1929-2006)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: foghornleghorn
By allowing the authorities to stop her from expressing her free exercise of her protected speech rights by refusing to speak because of their censorship gives them the win. An agreement coerced is no agreement at all.

How was the agreement coerced? She had a choice: give the edited speech, or don't give a speech at all. If her integrity and faith were the most important thing here, she would have simply walked away from speaking.

Once again, students in schools do not have protected speech rights! Court decision after court decision has backed school administrators when they regulate the speech or expression of students.

165 posted on 06/23/2006 10:25:34 AM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
So, you've never had a child? Apparently not, or at least you've not dealt with teens.

I've had two. And they would not have given the speech Brittany gave anyway because they would not have focused it on themselves.

166 posted on 06/23/2006 10:27:13 AM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I've had two.

Who were apparently never in a situation where they were intimidated by adults, or at least, they never told you about it.

"And they would not have given the speech Brittany gave anyway because they would not have focused it on themselves."

Where does the article say the speech was focused on the speaker?

167 posted on 06/23/2006 10:37:11 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
Where does the article say the speech was focused on the speaker?

Isn't the controversy about her wanting to mention that God was behind all her academic success? If she's not talking about herself, then why the need to mention that?

168 posted on 06/23/2006 10:53:25 AM PDT by sinkspur (Today, we settled all family business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras

Nonsense.


Your opinion but I must say that I am surprised a person on this conservative website would say that. Don't you think the most selfless act could be getting a descent christian education. Although, I value your opinion on this, I do disagree with you.


169 posted on 06/23/2006 10:53:37 AM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
Your opinion but I must say that I am surprised a person on this conservative website would say that.

I am not sure what conservatism has to do with a perceived connection between Christianity and Christian education. The world is literally filled with Christians of every denomination who accept Christ as their lord and savior who neither have the opportunity or the means to be enrolled in any formal Christian education.

Don't you think the most selfless act could be getting a descent christian education.

I think that being able to receive a Christian education is a privilege, not a selfless act.

Although, I value your opinion on this, I do disagree

Perfectly acceptable to disagree. I disagreed with you and feel confident it was acceptable to do so.

170 posted on 06/23/2006 11:07:20 AM PDT by Protagoras ("A real decision is measured by the fact that you have taken a new action"... Tony Robbins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Isn't the controversy about her wanting to mention that God was behind all her academic success? If she's not talking about herself, then why the need to mention that?

Read what you wrote. LOL Oh my. You'll do absolutely anything to defend government authority over all. To whom did she give the glory of her success? Herself or GOD there is you answer. Now keep in mind this woman is the most successful academic achiever of her class.

Her personal achievements earned her that place at the podium. An honor of achievement {which is what her position actually was} most of the times involves a speech from the achiever to basically give the people insight as to what drove them or their secret of success so to speak. It also involves most of the time naming persons who inspired them thanking them. GOD and Christ to many of us is a Living Person a Divine Being. This type of speech is true in high school as well as company award dinners etc.

171 posted on 06/23/2006 11:26:14 AM PDT by cva66snipe (If it was wrong for Clinton why do some support it for Bush? Party over nation destroys the nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: HitmanLV

What speech isn't about her? The speech she did not make? What, exactly, is it that you suppose I don't know?


172 posted on 06/23/2006 12:17:08 PM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard

She started talking about the role of God and Jesus in her life, and her path to Salvation. Nice topic, but the speech isn't about her.


173 posted on 06/23/2006 12:23:12 PM PDT by HitmanLV ("5 Minute Penalty for #40, Ann Theresa Calvello!" - RIP 1929-2006)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Isn't the controversy about her wanting to mention that God was behind all her academic success?

Good grief. She said like many graduates want to thank their parents, she wants to thank her Lord and Savior. That doesn't make her speech all about herself.

If she's not talking about herself, then why the need to mention that?

If you have consistent standards, then you'd have to say that a student who thanks his/her parents for helping him/her, then he/she is being 'focused on the speaker.'

So tell me, are your standards consistent?

174 posted on 06/23/2006 12:38:02 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: HitmanLV

If they didn't want to hear what she had to say, why did they pick her to speak?


175 posted on 06/23/2006 1:26:27 PM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard
I think she is chosen to speak based on her status of having the highest GPA in her class, and not some kind of popularity contest or endorsement of her personally on the part of the school, which kind of makes your point out of place and silly.

This does demonstrate that a person with a high GPA and plenty of scholastic ability can be an obnoxious jerk. It also shows how obnoxious jerks can have short sighted fan-followings.

If she wants to turn graduation into Brother Love's Traveling Salvation Show, in defiance of her schools order regarding her speech, she deserved to get her mike cut. People like her make Christians look bad, not good.

Think about that.
176 posted on 06/23/2006 1:30:32 PM PDT by HitmanLV ("5 Minute Penalty for #40, Ann Theresa Calvello!" - RIP 1929-2006)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: HitmanLV
This does demonstrate that a person with a high GPA and plenty of scholastic ability can be an obnoxious jerk. It also shows how obnoxious jerks can have short sighted fan-followings.

I started school right as one woman decided that since she didn't want the name of GOD mentioned in the class room. She would trample all over the U.S. Constitution and others rights using a court system ran by upcoming Marxist to end the mentioning of GOD's name. The year was 1963.

In elementary schools I attended it was ignored. As a matter of fast {Gasp} a preacher came by about once a month to talk to kids in the gym no one was forced to attend. The Bible and prayer was said before class every morning No One DIED. Next came high graduation school in the mid 70's. Our Valedictorian chose the song "Because He Lives" {Oh the nerve of her}. The principal knew us all by first and last name. He himself was also a Baptist preacher. {call the ACLU}

Many of his graduates called upon him to officiate their marriages as well. He was highly thought of loved and respected by all who knew him. It was called community. No drugs, no teen pregnancy, very few fights, no vandalism to school property. The worse event was some boys pulling down the gym shorts of another in a shared gym. That was the event of the year.

Let's address the record of the ACLU loving secularist who insisted GOD's name be prohibited from schools and other venues and see what they have accomplished shall we?

I came back home after a hitch in the Navy and three years after that took a temporary job with the school system. The old high school was a Middle School and a new one built combining two high schools and of course a new principal. In my three weeks as a maintenance man I saw the school set on fire, vandalism faster than I could repair it, and a complete lack of control by the principal or the teachers. Today the Middle School has sexually active children pregnant. Teacher can take them for abortions without parents consent but can not say what you are doing is sin.

So before you go condemning this young woman think about these facts. Nature fills voids. GOD Lord of all representing good and Satan being evil. GOD despite being the creator and ruler of heaven and earth will not be where he isn't asked to be. Either something is there or nature fills the void. The absence {void} of the freedom to worship in class has been filled by the opposite of good and has taken over our schools. Think about it. Even many most devout atheist understand how the benefits Christian values taught at home and enforced in school have a positive outcome for society as a whole.

She was an example for other students. No Gothic, no teen pregnancy, hard work to achieve a goal in life, and a lot more guts than the overseer's of her school system. Of course to some family values was watching Ozzy Osborne or South Park together. It shows too.

I'll take the America I grew up in over what the ACLU and Marxist infested courts have turned it into any day. My guess is so would many others over the age of 45 who remember it. I remember when taking a gun to school was to refinish the stock in wood shop.

Think about these people. Madalyn Murray was one of the most self centered, vulgar, and foul mouth woman, in the modern age. Her lone lawsuit changed the course of the nation in national morality. Tim Leary the king of Acid. How many did he kill? Dr. Ben Spock who's teachings were spanking was wrong.there are others and you know the names. You tell me their positive contributions to our society? I can't find any but I see the damage they did. Yet some think this woman taking a stand for what was once considered a standard of conduct among our nations youth is a scandal? Even Madalyn Murray now knows the truth. But then again the sad irony so does her son which she used as a tool for destruction. He is a Christian and a minister despite his mom.

There are plenty out there to make Christians look bad but that young woman is not one of them. To be exact several who happen to call themselves Reverend and lead the crusades against Christianity now that makes Christianity look bad because their churches like the United Church of Christ refuse to defrock them yet have the nerve to call themselves Christians.

177 posted on 06/23/2006 4:31:11 PM PDT by cva66snipe (If it was wrong for Clinton why do some support it for Bush? Party over nation destroys the nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
You, like so many others on this thread, fail to see that schools may restrict students.

Are you really so blind? Of course the school can restrict students. But this is where you should be able to think it through and understand where the battle is raging and why.

It was not until quite recently that a complete rewrite of the traditional meaning of the First Amendment was coerced into the Constitution. This is the battle. As a conservative who actually supports the Constitution and rejects all improper and political assaults to the Constitution, I still reject the leftist revolutionary deconstruction and rewrite of the original understanding of the Constitution.

I hope that sinks in, even into all the irrational and close minded Jacobins who still think anything a leftist court wants to force into the Constitution is progress.

In order to overturn two centuries of understanding and precedent, the liberal judges changed the meaning of the first amendment and then forced it upon America against their will. This is the battle, do you understand yet.

The battle is against the liberal and radical revisers who intimidate any and all school districts to ignore American history and the Constitution and instead obey the modern radical viewpoint of the first amendment which stemmed from anti-American radicals such as inhabit left wing cesspools like the ACLU.

Before the radical humanistic rewrite of the First Amendment, children could have voluntary group prayer in school, voluntary Bible readings, a view of reality that included a creator God , and the textbooks often referred to the faith of some of our greatest citizens and leaders. Also, before the humanist rewrite, teachers never promoted the acceptance of abominations such homosexuality, abortion and other vile depravities.

Once the incredibly biased and treasoness rewrite of the First Amendment was driven home by social engineering collectives like the ACLU and others, they can and do fanatically enslave all public school children and the parents who pay for it, to accept the revision as if it were fair and just. It has become the leftist's hammer.

Some of us were alive when the ACLU view was so far left that they only whispered it in their drug parties and whore houses. Their view is still insane, but now the American people have undergone quite a few years of radical reconditioning. You are ignorant of American history and the methods and lies of the ACLU and the Constitution breaking court. I will never accept their nonsense, but the left has the power to indoctrinate by law, and they use it by force every day of the week, just like the old Soviet Union.

Parents have had their influence taken away, unless they have bought the perverse views of the radicals. Radicals are the ones who say what goes in the modern public school, not parents.

If parents have bought the politically correct view that you push, that only means that they have been pushed to accept a radical unConstitutional rewrite.

178 posted on 06/25/2006 11:06:10 AM PDT by Old Landmarks (No fear of man, none!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Old Landmarks
You make many important, no, critical, points to further this discussion.

If the school in question were a private Jewish school, IMO, they would have the right which this school is claiming. They would teach that Jesus was NOT the Messiah of Israel, and that he either did not exist at all, or was a fraud. They would have the right to proscribe speech which tended to impugn or discredit the religious purpose of the school.

But this was not a yeshiva, this was a US public school, open to all including Christians.

And the right this girl was trying to use is guaranteed by the First Amendment, as expanded to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, and that right is the Free Exercise of Religion.

You are right that Everson and its progeny have, by using a blatently false definition of "Establishment of Religion", succeeded in extinguishing Free Exercise.

But the Constitution cannot contradict itself in this way.

If a new definition of "establishment" bans "free exercise", then the problem is not with either disestablishment OR free exercise, but with the new definition.

179 posted on 06/25/2006 11:18:47 AM PDT by Jim Noble (And you know what I'm talkin' 'bout!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
I was already a grown man in 1947 when the radicals ignored history and went by their feelings instead of the existing Constitution. Some of us that were aware of Everson at the time, were assured that it was an strange aberation and any further obvious judical tampering would not follow because Everson did not square with any honest man's understanding of the first amendment.

Anyone with any sanity left knows that the fourteenth amendment was never intended to be the tool for revolution that the left expanded it to be.

Well placed liberals have done their damage and now they pretend it was all on the up and up. It wasn't and it isn't. The men who gave us the fourteeth did not intend for it to outlaw Christianity from school and public life. That was always the radical's goal and they had to find the necessary tool as a pretense for their revolution, the fourteenth amendment was handy and made a good cover story to hide their radical activism from the bench.

After decades of denial that they ignored truth, now they openly admit that truth, history and precedent is not needed since we don't need approval by the American people and the necessary amendments. Afterall, to the radical left, the Constitution is living, breathing, and really has no connection with what it ever meant before. In fact all it really means now is whatever activist liberals want it to mean.

180 posted on 06/25/2006 1:02:11 PM PDT by Old Landmarks (No fear of man, none!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: UnklGene; All

Any progress on this? Is she going to sue their socks off?


181 posted on 06/25/2006 1:20:41 PM PDT by Quix (PRAY AND WORK WHILE THERE'S DAY! Many very dark nights are looming. Thankfully, God is still God!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-181 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