Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


Purging Religious References: If at First You Don’t Succeed . . .

posted by Jay Sekulow

Barry, you pose an interesting question.  I believe that end of life decisions should be made primarily between an individual and that individual’s family and trusted advisors, including spiritual counselors.  An individual should certainly be able to consult his physician, if the individual so chooses.  I would imagine that most health care plans would cover an annual physical exam during which a person could consult with his physician. 

 

I do think it is inappropriate for the government to give physicians an incentive to initiate this conversation and mandate what should be covered in the counseling.  That could all too easily lead to a scenario where the federal government makes care decisions based on life expectancy.

 

And, now from the category… if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.  That’s exactly what Michael Newdow, an atheist, and his fellow plaintiffs are doing – this time in a federal appeals court – this time appealing a lower court decision that dismissed their lawsuit challenging prayers offered at the presidential inauguration – including the phrase used in the oath, “So help me God.”

Barry, this is the latest chapter in a relentless crusade to purge all religious references and observances from American public life.  He failed in his latest attempt in January when a federal district court dismissed the lawsuit and refused to block the inaugural prayer saying the plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to show harm that would result from the prayers taking place. 

 

We filed an amicus brief at the time and argued that Newdow’s suit “must not be permitted to move forward” noting that references to God at inaugurations date back to the very origins of this country.  Our brief recognized that references to God at inaugurations date back to the very origins of this country.

 

According to the brief:  “In his first inaugural address, President Washington proclaimed that ‘no people can be bound to knowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States,’ because ‘every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.’  Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, S. Doc. No. 10, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1989).  Thus, the Inauguration of the man who was ‘first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen,’ was blessed with an invocation of Divine Aid by the very Chief Executive.  Every subsequent Inaugural has likewise afforded the Chief Executive the opportunity to expressly invoke Divine Aid, or to acknowledge the working of the Divine Hands in the enterprise that is this great Nation.”

 

The latest appeal from Newdow is taking place in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and in an amicus brief just filed with the appeals court we urge that the lower court decision be upheld and argue the challenge lacks legal standing.

 

We see no reason why the federal appeals court will not reach the same and proper conclusion as did the federal district court. 

 

Barry, I’m all for persistence and standing up for your position in court, but this continuing legal challenge is without merit.  By our count, this is the 9th lawsuit filed by Newdow over the years – his third suit challenging presidential inaugural prayer.

 

While it is certainly within his right to continue this flawed legal strategy, to me it’s clear that he’s wasted untold judicial resources – resources that are clearly needed in cases involving real threats to American liberties.

 

To subscribe to “Lynn v. Sekulow” click here.

 

 



Advertisement
Comments read comments(48)
post a comment
Ray Soller

posted October 18, 2009 at 2:28 pm


Jay, do you remember the February 4, 2005 radio broadcast, “Jay Sekulow Live!”, that featured a debate between yourself and Michael Newdow? Here’s a snippet from the exchange between you and Newdow that took place on that date:
Newdow: “It turns out, that … at least in my research, nobody has been able to verify that George Washington said, ‘so help me God.’ I’m already up to James Monroe, and nobody has ever been able to say that any of those presidents have ever said, ‘so help me God.’”
Sekulow countered: “I’ve got some history books I’ll show you that will help.”[end snippet]
As far as I know you have not produced a single firsthand document to support the notion that our first president repeated anything other than the presidential oath as spelled out by the Constitution, which, as you know, does not include the tagline, “So help me God.”
Furthermore, you might want to know your assertion that “Every subsequent Inaugural has likewise afforded the Chief Executive the opportunity to expressly invoke Divine Aid, or to acknowledge the working of the Divine Hands in the enterprise that is this great Nation,” was completely ignored by George Washington at his second inauguration. Your skipping over that exception is being less than forthright.



report abuse
 

N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted October 18, 2009 at 7:28 pm


Dear Ray:
Your accusation of Dr. Jay not being forthright because Pres. Washington did not make reference to God in his second inauguration is not telling at all. If you analyze closely what Dr. Jay stated, he expressed that “every subsequent inaugural has likewise afforded the Chief Executive THE OPPORTUNITY to expressly invoke Divine Aid”, not that every inaugural HAS ACTUALLY DONE SO. There’s a big difference between the incorrect meaning you imposed on the contents of what Dr. Jay stated and the true intent of what was said.
Second, in reference to your comment that the words “So help me God” are required in the Oath of Office for the President, in reality, unlike other offices, this phrase is NOT REQUIRED in the Presidential Oath of Office according to the Constitution http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/oaths_of_office.htm
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
References found to support the fact that Pres. Washington added the words “So help me God” to this oath, and kissed the Bible, can be found in Forrest Church’s book: So help me God: the founding fathers and the first great battle over church and state (or here): http://books.google.com/books?id=YOWX0jLPbkwC&pg=PA445&dq=George+Washington+so+help+me+god#v=onepage&q=George%20Washington%20so%20help%20me%20god&f=false



report abuse
 

DSJulian

posted October 18, 2009 at 11:45 pm


The Constitution was written by Deist Freemasons and their like-minded Enlightenment friends. Many of the delgations refused to sign without the Bill of Rights including the famous Establishment Clause of the First Amendment which states that the Federal Government may not pass any law that so much as respects (that means acknowledges the existence of) any religious institution.
This Supreme Court, way overbalanced with Republican appointees, keeps welching out of its responsibility to interpret the Constitution by ducking under this “the challenger lacks legal standing to bring the suit” cover. Any US citizen should have the right to challenge the constitutionality of Federal (and by 14th Amendment extension to state and local) statutes, rules, and mandates. It is ridiculous for the court to treat constitutional questions like they were personal injury cases requiring consideration (like monetary payments).
Finally, Sekulow is a great example of why some attorneys have a bad reputation. Although his legal duty is to vigorously represent his client, it is beneath his level of intelligence to continue this “since the beginning” charade. “under God” was not a part of the Pledge of Allegiance until the 1950’s. Nor was the National Motto “In God We Trust”. Nor was the Star Spangled Banner our original National Anthem, including it’s second verse line “And this be our motto: In God is our trust.”
Jay, you and your clients have a right to your own opinion and can put whatever you want in your amicus curiae brief. But it is beneath your dignity to pretend David Barton’s revisionist history has even the slightest semblance to the real facts.



report abuse
 

Zol

posted October 18, 2009 at 11:56 pm


Did I just read this right? Sekulow thinks end of life care conversations with your physician could be covered by an annual physical. When you’re dying, it’s way beyond the annual physical stage.
How dismissive. These are real people facing their own death that are slightly more pressing and important than whether we’re excused from presidential oath prayers every 4 years.
I guess if you’re saved, it doesn’t matter how you die. God will provide comfort. And if you’re not saved, then the hell with you anyway.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted October 19, 2009 at 10:12 am


Sekulow’s sons are worse liars than he is.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 19, 2009 at 1:13 pm


Out of balenced republicans?
Curious as to why you state it like that?
Stick to the issue, will you please. That way I can see in your blogs exactly what you want to convey.
Do you fear the Republican party or something?
Is that why you point it out so reguarily, as if they are the problem.



report abuse
 

nicholas

posted October 19, 2009 at 3:59 pm


“If at first…” would make a fine 11th commandment



report abuse
 

Vas

posted October 19, 2009 at 4:16 pm


“I would imagine that most health care plans would cover an annual physical exam during which a person could consult with his physician.”
Typical conservative response. Take a topic with a very real, very desperate need for a solution, dismiss it with something completely inadequate and quickly change the subject.
If I am dying and in need of “end of life” counseling, I am not going to wait for my next annual checkup. If I am going to my annual physical exam, then I am most likely healthy enough to not need “end of life” counseling. Try again, Mr. Sekulow. Maybe if you showed the tenacity of Michael Newdow, you’d eventually stumble upon something that may just solve the problem Mr. Lynn suggested you take a look at.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 19, 2009 at 6:33 pm


If at first you don’t succeed then try, try, again?
Is that what your saying Nicholas?
Where does the sensativity begin?
When does your family love you?
When do people realize that you need to be loved too?
What ever happenned to courtship?
When your family members stab you in the back and the people you thought were there for you to lean on for support, and found pain. What do you do, when your own family members are out for themselves and they make a whole bunch of lies up and gossip behind your back?
Do you turn to the bottle? Do you seek professional help? When the leadership you thought you were under turns out not to be what you exspected, do you critisize?
I don’t know, just don’t end your life. Move on and see what you can do with what you have. I just can’t believe what happenned. What did they do to hurt me? When the dodge the bullet, only to show you what? How they dated the girls your x-boyfriend cheated on you with.
Don’t ask me why I am writing this. I suppose I have had it with society and the people I thought truely loved me, didn’t. Those who were there to support me, I don’t know, where did they go? If they had money or ways of helping you why didn’t they?
I don’t understand how all those people could have done what they did. They smerk with a smile on their face as they drive off with a pair of sunglasses. God knows, and you can’t hide behind the church. I don’t care how many white suits you where, your still did what you did.



report abuse
 

N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted October 19, 2009 at 8:58 pm


http://www.discoveringjesusfishing.net
I agree that Newdow’s old challenge is indeed a waste of taxpayer money and time. Since historically the words “So help me God” have been included in the Presidential Inaugural Address, commenced first by Pres. Washington, then this phrase should be allowed to continue. This saying does not establish a religion, is not a religious prayer, or is not a part of a religious exercise. Thus, so help me God, these words should stand and I stand with them again.



report abuse
 

James

posted October 20, 2009 at 12:08 pm


“Furthermore, you might want to know your assertion that “Every subsequent Inaugural has likewise afforded the Chief Executive the opportunity to expressly invoke Divine Aid, or to acknowledge the working of the Divine Hands in the enterprise that is this great Nation,” was completely ignored by George Washington at his second inauguration. Your skipping over that exception is being less than forthright.”
– Since Washington’s 2nd address was only 134 words (the shortest in US history), probably because his 1,427 words of the 1st Inaugural stated his true intentions well enough. Also, I took Jay’s “subsequent Inaugural” comments as “subsequent President’s Inaugurals”…which would be the truth. I think Jay was being forthright.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 20, 2009 at 6:25 pm


Your name, Only because you invoked my name in your rather desperate plea for help I guess I owe you a reply. First of all, I’m sure there are many self-help blogs in cyberspace you could try. Can you see your own irrationality in venting in this forum? Could it be possible the whole world is against you? Not to be cruel but you’re swamped in self-pity. I can’t imagine you’re much fun to be around in this state. Try thinking of love as something you give and any you recieve a blessing. It can seem like the world is a cold and cruel place sometimes but there is also much beauty and joy. I wish you the best. Keep up with the professional help. Not many people can pull off a white suit – I can think of about 5.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 20, 2009 at 9:55 pm


Ow you must be my brother. The lack of sympathy and utter contempt shows your true character. You truely are a selfish little person, now aren’t you? Your cruelty shows? When somebody hits you, you don’t celebrate the abuse with a smile on your face.
Your buddies must be like you.. birds of a feather flock together.
Don’t worry I can tell the people who truely love me. Who don’t go on-line and celebrate their cruelty. That is why, your not my family
member. It is truely obvious that you are what you are. True family, shows love and compasion. They don’t smile when there sticking you out on the street with not enough money to get a place.
Don’t worry, I know the difference, of who is realy there for me in the end. It is quite obvious by your last blog, what you represent.
Whey you love your brother and your sister you don’t write blogs like that with you buddies, my friend.
p.s. My friends read these blogs, so you might not want to show your true character by that last entry.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted October 20, 2009 at 10:03 pm


And now for the Twilight Zone music….



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 20, 2009 at 10:06 pm


Well they know who they are, Nicholas. You sound a bit bitter. Yes, people can where a white suit, but it does not make them good people. Nor, does it give them grounds to abuse or mock in a public situation. I’ll leave it at that. Go get some chow mein or something. Your seeming a bit frightful to have such a harsh blog towards somebody who is actually reaching out. That certainly is not the church, now is it? I’ll leave it at that. Go put on your white suit, maybe you can act, but your not a good………



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 20, 2009 at 10:31 pm


Ow Boris, I missed your critism. It was getting a bit boring seeing the no name people who critisize. At least when you do it, you attach your name to it.
Cara
p.s. Too bad , you still don’t believe in higher power as of yet.
By the way, I love the Twilight Zone.
Great show.



report abuse
 

Thom Hunter

posted October 21, 2009 at 4:05 pm


Surely Newdow can find some useful purpose for all this energy he is expending. And surely the judges can, with all due respect, put an end to this misguided attempt to erase God — the creator of all things — from creation. Newdow envisions himself on a crusade, but it has all the impact of a fly at a picnic. Annoying, but not particularly hard to dismiss. Americans are confronted with real issues now and the patience afforded to the Newdows among us is in shirty supply. His ability to cash in is quickly fading also, as atheist books are not big sellers in times when people are feeling less hopeful. We tend to turn to God.



report abuse
 

nicholas

posted October 21, 2009 at 4:28 pm


No harm intended. Id love to meet your friends. Bring em on.



report abuse
 

James

posted October 21, 2009 at 4:32 pm


“And now for the Twilight Zone music….”
LOL Boris! Good to see you’ve lightened up a bit! :)



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 22, 2009 at 11:15 pm


I feel like I am reading the same argument over and over again. Basically I feel that Christian beliefs are being put under attack. And the people who wish to defend saving children are being persecuted. How sad.
Meanwhile the people who want to murder children through policy are being able to do just that.
c



report abuse
 

Boris

posted October 25, 2009 at 1:39 am


What is under attack these days is ignorance and Christian beliefs are about as ignorant as ignorance gets.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted October 26, 2009 at 5:58 pm


Your Name
October 22, 2009 11:15 PM
I feel like I am reading the same argument over and over again.
————————————-
It’s no illusion. They ARE making the same one over and over.
Your Name
October 22, 2009 11:15 PM
Basically I feel that Christian beliefs are being put under attack.
————————————-
Your feelings are confirmed and justified by the reality.
Your Name
October 22, 2009 11:15 PM
And the people who wish to defend saving children are being persecuted.
—————————————
Except, in Los Angeles, authorities have arrested a man who is suspectedf of having killed an unborn child. $2 mil bond. Kahlifornia yet. Heh.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted October 26, 2009 at 6:02 pm


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/10/25/state/n193421D23.DTL
They arrest a man suspected of murdering an unborn child.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted October 26, 2009 at 6:04 pm


Boris
October 25, 2009 1:39 AM
What is under attack these days is ignorance and Christian beliefs are about as ignorant as ignorance gets.
——————————————–
That’s the Devil’s cry, too. We don’t listen to him, either.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted October 26, 2009 at 6:08 pm


Thom Hunter
October 21, 2009 4:05 PM
http://thom-signsofastruggle.blogspot.com/
…surely the judges can, with all due respect, put an end to this misguided attempt to erase God — the creator of all things — from creation.
———————————–
Well, God is STILL on His Throne, and the ungodly are STILL performing according to prophecy, and they are STILL utterly stupified and ignorant of the part they are playing.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted October 26, 2009 at 11:39 pm


That’s the Devil’s cry, too. We don’t listen to him, either.
Boris says: But you do believe in him which proves my point.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted October 27, 2009 at 1:18 am


Boris
October 26, 2009 11:39 PM
^^That’s the Devil’s cry, too. We don’t listen to him, either.^^
Boris says: But you do believe in him which proves my point.
———————————————————–
For all the intelligence you claim, you still don’t know the difference between “believe that” and “believe in.”
I don’t believe in the Devil. If I did, I’d be his disciple. I believe that he can save me. Of course, he can’t.
However, I know the Devil exists. In other words, I BELIEVE THAT he exists. That doesn’t mean that I believe in [trust] him.
So, once again, you miss the mark.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted October 27, 2009 at 1:20 am


I believe that he can save me.—-> I’d believe that he can save me.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted October 27, 2009 at 1:26 am


^^But you do believe in him which proves my point.^^
However, as I said, since I don’t believe in the Devil — that is, I don’t trust the Devil — you don’t have a point.
We’ve come to expect a lack of a point in your posts.



report abuse
 

nicholas

posted October 27, 2009 at 7:02 pm


Get real incred. We know u dont believe IN him. its u who miss the point.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted October 27, 2009 at 10:51 pm


nicholas
October 27, 2009 7:02 PM
Get real incred.
———————————————————–
Already am.
nicholas
October 27, 2009 7:02 PM
We know u dont believe IN him.
———————————————————–
That’s good that you know that I don’t believe IN the Devil. Now, if you could only convince Bizarro Boris.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted October 27, 2009 at 11:35 pm


No, I changed my mind.
DON’T try to convince Bizarro Boris, the wrongheaded, wrong way, contrary Boris. I’m having too much fun with this one. I just hope that the real Boris who knows better doesn’t show up and chase Bizarro Boris away and ruin it all.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted October 28, 2009 at 5:45 am


Boris
October 25, 2009 1:39 AM
What is under attack these days is ignorance…
———————————————————–
“Ignorance” of what?
Boris
October 25, 2009 1:39 AM
… and Christian beliefs are about as ignorant as ignorance gets.
———————————————————–
Again, “ignorance” of what?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted October 28, 2009 at 5:52 am


DSJulian
October 18, 2009 11:45 PM
… [The] Establishment Clause of the First Amendment which states that the Federal Government may not pass any law that so much as respects (that means acknowledges the existence of) any religious institution.
———————————————————–
Nothing in the Constitution stops the government from recognizing the existence of a so-called “religious” institution.
The word, “respecting,” may, contrary to YOUR version, mean, “regarding.” “Regarding” puts a different spin on it, doesn’t it.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted October 28, 2009 at 9:30 pm


Incredible you believe there is a devil. You have no evidence but you believe because other people convinced you to. Then you ask ignorance of what. Amazing.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted October 28, 2009 at 10:27 pm


Boris
October 28, 2009 9:30 PM
Incredible you believe there is a devil.
———————————————————–
Whether I believe the Devil exists, or not, the Devil exists.
Boris
October 28, 2009 9:30 PM
You have no evidence…
———————————————————–
None that YOU’LL believe, anyway.
Boris
October 28, 2009 9:30 PM
… but you believe because other people convinced you to.
———————————————————–
I didn’t need anybody else to tell me that the Devil exists.
Boris
October 28, 2009 9:30 PM
Then you ask ignorance of what. Amazing.
———————————————————–
You still haven’t told us “ignorant” of what. What specifically?
It should be easy for you, if you know what you’re talking about.
How do you know that YOU aren’t the one who’s ignorant?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted October 28, 2009 at 10:31 pm


Boris
October 28, 2009 9:30 PM
… but you believe because other people convinced you to.
———————————————————–
Sorta like you say you believe that the Devil does not exist; other people have convinced you to do so. Somebody needs to check your place for pods.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted October 28, 2009 at 10:33 pm


Either pods, or open paint thinner cans, or the nuke waste dump site next door.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted October 28, 2009 at 10:38 pm


Whether I believe the Devil exists, or not, the Devil exists.
Boris says: You base this claim on what exactly?
None that YOU’LL believe, anyway.
Boris says: What is your evidence for the devil exactly?
I didn’t need anybody else to tell me that the Devil exists.
Boris says: Yes you did. Just like you needed someone to tell you the Bible was the Word of God.
You still haven’t told us “ignorant” of what. What specifically?
It should be easy for you, if you know what you’re talking about.
Boris says: Ignorant of the lies of Christianity.
How do you know that YOU aren’t the one who’s ignorant?
Boris says: Because I don’t believe there is a God.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted October 28, 2009 at 11:14 pm


Boris
October 28, 2009 10:38 PM
Whether I believe the Devil exists, or not, the Devil exists.
Boris says: You base this claim on what exactly?
———————————————————–
Experience that serves to confirm what God says about the Devil.
Boris
October 28, 2009 10:38 PM
None that YOU’LL believe, anyway.
Boris says: What is your evidence for the devil exactly?
———————————————————–
My experience and the experience of great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great multitudes through the eons.
Boris
October 28, 2009 10:38 PM
I didn’t need anybody else to tell me that the Devil exists.
Boris says: Yes you did.
———————————————————–
No, I didn’t.
Boris
October 28, 2009 10:38 PM
Just like you needed someone to tell you the Bible was the Word of God.
———————————————————–
Yes, I needed God, through Christ, to tell me that.
Boris
October 28, 2009 10:38 PM
You still haven’t told us “ignorant” of what. What specifically?
It should be easy for you, if you know what you’re talking about.
Boris says: Ignorant of the lies of Christianity.
———————————————————–
How do you know that you’re not ignorant of the Truth of Christianity?
Boris
October 28, 2009 10:38 PM
How do you know that YOU aren’t the one who’s ignorant?
Boris says: Because I don’t believe there is a God.
———————————————————–
So, you have a belief. You believe there is no God. Somebody told you that, and you believed it. So, you have a belief.
That you believe that there is no God is no proof that you aren’t the one who’s ignorant. You happen to be ignorant of the Truth. That’s cuz you refuse to do the experiment that will lead you to the Truth.
It would be scientific, logical and empirical to lookit what the great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great multitudes did to find God, and repeat their experiment. Of course, we know you’re afraid to do so. You’re afraid of what you’ll find, that what THEY found is true. Avoiding such an experiment is not very scientific, not logical and, certainly, not empirical.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted October 28, 2009 at 11:22 pm


Boris
October 28, 2009 10:38 PM
Just like you needed someone to tell you the Bible was the Word of God.
———————————————————–
Which Bible?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted October 28, 2009 at 11:29 pm


Boris
October 28, 2009 10:38 PM
How do you know that YOU aren’t the one who’s ignorant?
Boris says: Because I don’t believe there is a God.
———————————————————–
God says that it is people like YOU who are ignorant.
God says that only the fool says, “There is no God.”
Do the math.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted October 29, 2009 at 2:28 am


Boris
October 28, 2009 10:38 PM
Just like you needed someone to tell you the Bible was the Word of God.
———————————————————–
Yes, I needed God, through Christ, to tell me that.
So, I did the experiment, plugged it all in and POOF! It lit up! Worked! He performed! Just as He said it would!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted October 29, 2009 at 2:35 am


Your Name
October 20, 2009 10:06 PM
Well they know who they are, Nicholas. You sound a bit bitter. Yes, people can where a white suit, but it does not make them good people.
———————————————————–
If I wanna be a “good people,” what kind-a people do I gotta be? What’s passing? What, 70%? 80%? Do you grade on a curve?
God says that when His Son makes one Righteous, one wears white raiment.
So, are you sayin’ that God doesn’t know what He’s talking about?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted October 29, 2009 at 2:36 am


What’s good enough to be “good people”?



report abuse
 

Jimmy Changa and Stripper Wife, Shimmy

posted October 29, 2009 at 2:46 am


we just wana say that mr incredible is wondrful. he should call himsef mr wonderful becuzz he is.



report abuse
 

Joe Mamma

posted October 29, 2009 at 2:48 am


i agree with jimmy and shimmy changa!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted November 4, 2009 at 11:15 am


Would “God dammit!” and “Oh, my God!” also be purged so we don’t have-ta listen to them??



report abuse
 



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting LynnvSekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow: Faith and Justice  Happy Reading!

posted 11:26:38am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Another blog to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Lynn V. Sekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow's Faith and Justice Happy Reading!!!

posted 10:36:04am Jul. 06, 2012 | read full post »

More to Come
Barry,   It's hard to believe that we've been debating these constitutional issues for more than two years now in this space.  I have tremendous respect for you and wish you all the best in your new endeavors.   My friend, I'm sure we will continue to square off in other forums - on n

posted 4:52:22pm Dec. 02, 2010 | read full post »

Thanks for the Memories
Well Jay, the time has come for me to say goodbye. Note to people who are really happy about this: I'm not leaving the planet, just this blog.As I noted in a personal email, after much thought, I have decided to end my participation and contribution to Lynn v. Sekulow and will be doing some blogging

posted 12:24:43pm Nov. 21, 2010 | read full post »

President Obama: Does He Get It?
Barry,   I would not use that label to identify the President.  I will say, however, that President Obama continues to embrace and promote pro-abortion policies that many Americans strongly disagree with.   Take the outcome of the election - an unmistakable repudiation of the Preside

posted 11:46:49am Nov. 05, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.