Posted on 07/21/2009 11:42:28 AM PDT by EveningStar
...Like Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and almost every other so-called GOP “frontrunner,” Pawlenty is a creationist, who’s in favor of teaching “intelligent design” creationism to children as science...
(Excerpt) Read more at littlegreenfootballs.com ...
If he sees any equivalence between the threats of Islamic theocratic rule and propaganda he had been exposing and the “Christian right” or the watchdogs of Islamic jihad, then he truly has gone off the deep end.
And if he’s given up exposing examples of media bias and threats from muslim extremists (and he personally had received threats), then he’s given up the fight and it’d be interesting to learn why.
All the postings are by Charles. Lately, he’s been treating dissenters like the liberals treat anyone who questions them.
That eliminates Rosie O'Donnell and Whoopi Goldberg from your consideration.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
If we have to “believe in science,” then “science” is a faith, rather than simply a method of obtaining factual knowledge.
Jindal was a U.S. citizen at birth, thus a “natural born citizen”.
Are there people out there that still care what Charles Johnson says?
But the way I think Carles Johnson and Allahpundit are one and the same.
Thanks, Tax-chick. I am a conservative Christian and a scientist by training and by career experience. I don't believe in science out of faith, but because it shows us facts, even though it is sometimes wrong. Similarly, the faith I have in God is not the kind of blind faith of believing in something one hopes to be true, but may not be true. It is placing my faith in something that I already know to be true.
Jindal is a creationist? I thought he was Catholic.
No since neither of his parents were citizens that makes him and anchor baby! And I don't recall anything about anchor babies in the constitution.
He was a Hindu until about 17 are so!!
Jindal is a creationist? I thought he was Catholic.
He was a Hindu until about 17 are so!!
Didn't they tell him that Catholics are forbidden to believe in creationism (that's strictly for "those people")? The Catholic Church's position to creationism is just about identical to its position on a Third Jewish Temple--it's allergic to the idea!
He'd better keep quiet or he'll be excommunicated. The Catholic Church will tolerate gays, abortionists, Marxist liberation theologians, and syncretists who mix Catholicism with voodoo and totem poles, but you go to believing the stuff in the Bible actually happened and you're outta there!
Exactly - a process of obtaining knowledge. You don't have to "believe in" the existence of a means of learning facts: it's just there. You can "believe" that specific facts presented are correct or incorrect. Accusations of "X doesn't believe in 'science'" just mean that X believes certain facts are incorrect, or wrongly interpreted, vis-a-vis what the accuser believes.
That's because you're not familiar with either the Consitution or long-standing Supreme Court rulings:
- Article 2, Section 1: "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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
- 14th Amendment -- "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.[emphasis mine]"
- United States v. Kim Wong Ark -- "The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [citizen and natural born citizen], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
If you are really a conservative, you need to become familiar with the constitution.
Thanks for the Palin ping ST!
Ah, Mr. Johnson. Can you direct us to any specific time during the ‘06 or ‘08 campaigns where the ID v. evolution dispute was the, or even a, major point of contention between the parties, let alone an observable factor in the GOP’s losses? Because your memory seems to diverge greatly from mine.
You’re welcome... :-)
SITREP
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.