Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


The Prayer Decision – Wrong is Wrong: The Appeals Process Moves Forward

posted by Jay Sekulow

Barry,

It’s really the beginning of the end for Judge Crabb’s faulty decision.  The Department of Justice has filed its notice of appeal in the case clearing the way for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to engage this issue.  If the appeals court doesn’t correct this – the Supreme Court will. 

I, too, discussed this issue on FOX News.  And while the decision made big news – and prompted accolades from organizations like yours – the American people really understand what’s going on here.  In fact, a new poll from Rasmussen tells the story:   64% of Americans believe that rulings by judges in recent years have been more anti-religious than the Founding Fathers intended.  Only 21% of Americans believe judges’ rulings have correctly interpreted the Constitution.

And when it comes to the National Day of Prayer specifically, 60% of Americans favor having the federal government recognize a National Day of Prayer.

There continues to be growing concern among Americans and members of Congress over what many believe this case highlights – the latest example of an activist judiciary. 

We continue to sign-up members of Congress (both Republicans and Democrats alike) who want to be part of our amicus brief to be filed at the Seventh Circuit – members of Congress who understand that the National Day of Prayer is proper and constitutional.

This National Day of Prayer decision is very likely to continue to reverberate outside the legal arena, too.  With mid-term elections fast approaching and with President Obama poised to name a Supreme Court nominee – this is the kind of case that could set the stage for important national dialogue.

Political candidates may be asked to make a choice – do you support a National Day of Prayer, or not?

And, when confirmation hearings get underway this summer – don’t be surprised to see this case surface in the Senate questioning of President Obama’s nominee.

To subscribe to “Lynn v. Sekulow” click here   

 

 



Advertisement
Comments read comments(72)
post a comment
blueenigma

posted April 26, 2010 at 4:47 pm


“And when it comes to the National Day of Prayer specifically, 60% of Americans favor having the federal government recognize a National Day of Prayer.”
Irrelevant. The Constitution provides necessary checks and protections against the tyranny of the masses.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 26, 2010 at 5:00 pm


Jay,
There is no merit in quoting any survey that shows what percentage of Americans support having a National Day of Prayer. The constitutionality of this issue is not subject to a popularity vote, it should be governed by the Constitution.
As well, I am sure you are aware that during our history the public has often supported things found to be unconstitutional. I would guess that even today in 2010 if you walked down the street with a microphone and camera crew and asked people if an atheist should be allowed to run for federal office, the vast majority would say no in spite of the clear constitutional prohibition.
If popularity votes were to determine what was constitutional we would probably have “separate but equal” drinking fountains in the South.



report abuse
 

GFine

posted April 26, 2010 at 7:22 pm


Jay, no insult intended but I would never want you to argue a case for me.
There is Freedom of Religion, and the Freedom from Religion. The Religious Right uses the first to circumvent the latter. I am not Christian.
I do not think the founding fathers decided that the Christian majority can tell me what I shall practice or believe as an individual. They left many things open top interpretation, and so far the Supreme Court has decided many decisions based on a few simple facts. The same facts Judge Crabb used in her decision.
Why would I ever use you as an attorney. Although I am not an attorney I have friends who are and each one tell me the same thing. Every first year law student is taught there is the word of law and the spirit of the law.
What you argue is neither the spirit of the law or its words. You argue that men, over two hundred years ago didn’t intend the interpretation that exists today in the court rulings about religion freedoms and expression.
What about “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” do you not understand? Our courts have extended the word ‘Congress’ to mean any state or local governing body such as a legislature, council, school board, or agency affiliated with governing.
So in this case Congress made a law, and a federal court knocked it down. Period, and of discussion, and your point of view.
Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists says it the best. It is an individual right, and not one allowed for a ‘Congress’, or a
The Lemon case was the best for the test of whether it is covered in the Constitution



report abuse
 

GFine

posted April 26, 2010 at 7:27 pm


I would be nice if there was an edit function… :) ignore the last two lines as they are part of a stream of thought..
BTW, it is ‘end of discusssion’ not ‘and of discussion’.



report abuse
 

aou d'wmvihouson

posted April 27, 2010 at 5:26 am


The Constitution also provides necessary checks and protections against the tyranny of the minority.
There is Freedom of religious worship, and the Freedom from religious worship. Those who are free from “religion” cannot rely on the First Amendment which protects worship, not non-worship. So, if you dn’t worship, the FA doesn’t apply to you; it applies to those who worship.
Nobody is forcing anybody to pray a particular prayer, nor to God, nor to a particular god. With this law, Congress doesn’t establish “religion.”
This court’s decision will be overturned. No prob.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 27, 2010 at 6:12 am


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

Where do atheists fit in there?



report abuse
 

Ross

posted April 27, 2010 at 7:59 am


While the United States may be a country full of Christians. The founders took pains to see that it was not a Christian nation. They saw what happened in Europe as a result of the religious wars and wanted to avoid sectarian strife. Our religious pluralism is even greater now than it was at the founding. We must avoid any appearance of favoring one religious belief over any other in the actions of our governing bodies. The founders knew that religious liberty is protected by government’s avoidance of promoting any set of religious beliefs or religion in general. The evidence that this is correct is clear, since we are viewed as one of the most religious countries in the world yet have no government sanctioned religion.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted April 27, 2010 at 10:12 am


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Where do atheists fit in there?
Boris says: They don’t because they have no religion. Poof.



report abuse
 

oldebabe

posted April 27, 2010 at 12:18 pm


Well, if one’s definition of religion is necessarily that one embrace some sort of belief/worship in a god or gods, I suppose then the U. S. Constitution doesn’t apply to any other beliefs. There are, however, other definitions of the word as well. See Webster’s Third New International dictionary (1961) for a plethora of same.
It seems to me that the writers of the Constitution attempted to be as open and as inclusive as possible to everyone’s views by specifically NOT stating `god’, but rather `religion’.



report abuse
 

GFine

posted April 27, 2010 at 1:04 pm


The simple answer here is that the President can declare a Proclamation (as has been done in the past) without a law passed by Congress. The law can remain struck down. When the law was made by an Act of Congress in 1952, the law was benign, but now it is being abused by the Religious Right, in this case by “The National Day of Prayer Task Force” by exclusion of those who are not Christian.
Judge Crabb struck the law down because of this abuse, and anyone reading her decision can understand how the law was abused.
Basically The National Day of Prayer Task Force reeks of religious bigotry. That was not the intention of the original law or its modification in 1988. The initial intent was for those who believed in a religion to gather and celebrate the secular nature of religion, and not make it an ‘in your face’ Christian Only celebration. However when those of us who are not Christian are excluded in the Task Force’s purpose, so, in my book that is against the Constitution, and the intent of the law.
If you read the decision that is what it says and it is not as Jay says it is. Judge Crabb describes the history of the debate, the abuse of the law, the law’s initial intent, and why she struck it down because it does not exclude the abuses.
Now there are those of you that will say there is no abuse. But I have seen the abuse, it is real, and it practices exclusion which is not what the 1952 Congress intended. The law deserves to be struck down because there are people out there practicing the worst bigotry there is. Religious Arrogance.



report abuse
 

Finalword

posted April 27, 2010 at 3:32 pm


Jay wholly misunderstands the function of the Bill of Rights, which is to protect individuals and minorities from the tyranny of the majority in certain areas of conduct and belief. It is wholly irrelevant that a majority of Americans may think that judges’ rulings about the constitution are correct, or that a majority may think that the government should promote prayer. That is precisely why the Bill of Rights exists, i.e., to protect individual rights. Thankfully, we don’t put the constitution up for a vote every Congressional session. It would fail miserably because the majority seems to want to impose its will on the minority. We allow such imposition except in the sacred areas of speech, religion, press, assembly, right to counsel, search and seizure, etc. The constitution itself would not have been ratified unless there had been a promise of a Bill of Rights. Sorry, Jay, the Bill of Rights is a restriction on government, as much as you would like to think it is not. That restriction is not subject to a popular vote.



report abuse
 

DSJulian

posted April 27, 2010 at 4:07 pm


Jay’s position on this clearly indicates that the ACLJ is not at all concerned with the Constitutional rights of idividuals but is in fact simply a fund-raising tool of the religious wrong.
The President can suggest a national day of prayer without a law or a phony “Task Force”, which is nothing more than another smokescreen trying to hide the stealth nature of the neofundamentalist faction of Evangelical Christianity.
Conservatives outnumber liberals by at least two-to-one (7 – 2 on the Supreme Court), yet ACLJ nearly always comes out on the losing end of these issues. Sekulow and Co. just don’t seem to understand that when cases are tried in public courtrooms, the justices are bound to consider the legal facts and precedents, not the percentages of public opinion.
The First Amendment clearly says that the government mayt not enact laws that even respect an establishment of religion, never mind encourage one. How the court has been ducking its responsibilities recently has been to deny “standing” to the challengers. But we all know that cannot last forever. All this religious hocus pocus that was inserted into our government in the 1950′s will eventually be removed…



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 27, 2010 at 5:34 pm


Re: DSJulian
You seem a bit bitter, towards Christians, what did they do to you?
Or, should I say, who were you wronged by that you distribute such animosity towards believers?
cc



report abuse
 

GFine

posted April 28, 2010 at 2:30 am


CC
It is not a bitterness towards Christians. It is a bitterness towards people, no matter what faith, who want to push their dogma and religious beliefs on others.
I believe but I do not push my religious belief on others. I respect those who are believers up until they try to proselytize their dogma on me, and then they receive my ire.
The religious right has no business pushing their beliefs on others. They try to shortcut, and ignore the laws we live by. Jay is mostly on the losing end because his paycheck is paid by the most arrogant and egregious person who blatantly ignores the nature and plurality of our laws regarding religion, and makes any attempt he can to subvert (or change) the laws we have.



report abuse
 

Roger Rotge

posted April 28, 2010 at 6:30 am


I am convinced that Mr. Sekulow’s position and those that support it have not considered the alternative. Imagine we atheists making up 75% of the American population. Further imagine that the President proclaimed one day every year where people of all faiths were encouraged not to pray. Would Mr. Sekulow acquiesce because he and his supporters were in the minority?
Under the current system, is the president telling people not to pray for 364 days of the year? In my mind, the most fair course to all sides is to let those that wish to pray do so on their terms. Mr. Sekulow would do his clients the greatest service, in my opinion, by letting those who support him know that religion is too important to be left to the government.



report abuse
 

curlyfester

posted April 28, 2010 at 8:06 am


Jay Suckyoulow likes to tell us what the “Founding Fathers” intended.
The Founding Fathers didn’t intend for women to vote – or anyone else who wasn’t a property owner for that matter. Neither did they intend for slaves to vote… in fact they intended for slaves to remain slaves as they we’re mostly all slave owners as well. NEither did they intend for the native people of the land to survive the night.
Americans really HAVE gotten away from what the mysogynist, racist, genocidal “Founders” intended – and I say that’s a good thing. Quite frankly, those so-called Founders should never have had the chance to ink one hypocritical word – they should have instead been slaughtered to a man in a slave/native uprising.



report abuse
 

PatBrown

posted April 28, 2010 at 3:05 pm


Christians have the right in this country to have a National Day of Prayer. I think it is called Freedom of Speech. If athiests want a national day of no prayer then go for it. We also have the right to say(or not to say) the Pledge of Allegience. I have friends(very open minded ones) who are both Athiests but sent their children to a Sunday School class at a local church so that they could make a decision when they are old enough about religion. I really respected them for that.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 28, 2010 at 3:55 pm


PatBrown,
Actually, no you don’t. You seem to confuse your personal freedom of speech with using the government as a vehicle for your personal freedom of speech. By your sad logic, a bunch of KKK folks could get together and require that the government declare a National Support Racism Day. The government is not required to carry out the private speech of citizens. I have no idea how you Christian cultists get the notion into your head that the government is your private advertising vehicle. Your inability to grasp this simple concept coupled with your willingness to regurgitate such nonsense makes we wonder about your commitment to our Constitution.
As for your atheist friends who send their kids to some religious indoctrination class, while I understand it is legal to psychologically abuse children in a religious setting, it will always seem like a stupid thing to me. A child does not have sufficient judgment and reasoning to evaluate religion, US fiscal policy, or quantum physics. The and similar topics should be deferred until the child attains adulthood. You friends are totally confused, you said it yourself “so that they could make a decision when they are old enough about religion”. If they are not old enough now to make the decision, why are they in the mini-indoctrination camp now?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 28, 2010 at 4:45 pm


Re: Gfine
As for National Prayer Day, nobody is forcing anybody to pray.
As for religion, nobody is telling you, that you must be a Christian to be within this country.
As for abortion, it is another person developing in the womb, which should be protected by way of constitutional laws. Instead of by way of killing them by laws which take away liberty of our Posterity.
So as for who supports the ACLJ, I don’t believe that the ACLJ is forcing a dogma, I believe they are protecting another persons rights of religion, of individual freedom including the unborn.
cc



report abuse
 

T Hollingsworth

posted April 28, 2010 at 5:18 pm


My husband is a high school teacher and minister and last week of school he was forced to honor a momment of silence for the gay and lesbian community. That is not the problem the problem is when the school will not allow the students to participate in a prayer for the National Day of Prayer. We do not know for sure that that will be the case, but my husband is going forward with plans and we are waiting to see the outcome.
I don’t understand how freedom of speech is free except when it comes to Christians! We are supposed to not talk about our God, our Jesus but the other person can freely talk about the sex they had last night or how drunk they got at the bar, or use the F word every other word and we are just supposed to accept it.
People should be able to stand for what they believe in but we have to have the equal rights that everybody else does! Christians have to come together our numbers are large, but we have to all come together to get a Victory in the name of Jesus!



report abuse
 

Rich

posted April 28, 2010 at 6:21 pm


T Hollingsworth,
Your statement is filled with gross misconceptions:
-A moment of silence is not a religious exercise nor is it consider the equivalent. The two are not the same thing. What you were saying was similar to “Well, they get to have a drinking fountain so we get to put a cross in every classroom.”
-The students can participate in a day of prayer but it cannot be an official program of a public school, the school employees are paid to teach specified subjects and ‘Praying to Jesus’ is not one of them.
-Christians still have freedom of speech, I know that because I just read your post.
-Students are free to talk about God all they want when not in class. When in class, they need to talk about the subject at hand and not ramble on about Jesus unless it is truly connected to the topic at hand.
-In their private conversations students will talk about their sexual activities but they are never allowed to do so in a classroom setting. C’mon, you actually do know this already.
-Students will use rough language, so what? Everybody else does too, so what? Get off your moral high horse and quite worrying about a few particular words. Words are not magical incantations that are evil unto themselves, they are just words, the context and intent are the important factors.
-I notice that you want a “Victory in the name of Jesus!”. I should probably let you know that you live in the USA, not “Jesusland”. Shouldn’t you want a Victory for the Constitution?



report abuse
 

Lee Maimone

posted April 28, 2010 at 11:28 pm


Our Government and supreme court should refer back to the first day congress opened its first session. It began with 3 hours of prayer. Today we are living under the grace of god because our forfathers founded this country by putting god first and obeying his word. We are falling hard and fast. Pray and repent my brothers and sisters and ask god for courage and conviction and compassion. Prayer is powerful.



report abuse
 

The Big Bad Scoffer

posted April 29, 2010 at 1:48 am


Lee Maimone,
re: “It began with 3 hours of prayer.”
As noted above, not true. Hopefully, truth has some value to you.
re: “forfathers founded this country by putting god first and obeying his word.”
Sounds nice, picturesque almost. When these noble men went home, rich in the spirit of the Lord, do you think they sat down and discussed the Constitution with their slaves? Just asking, I am always curious about noble Christian men who are “putting God first and obeying his word”.
re: “We are falling hard and fast”
Not to worry. See Isaac Newton’s work Principia, published 1687. You should really stay more current.
re: “Prayer is powerful”
Indeed, it is a very effective tool often used to kill the children of Christian Scientists.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 29, 2010 at 4:19 pm


Re: Boris
It appears as if you don’t like Christians very much for whatever reason. Now, if a group wants to pray for one hour, two hours, three hours, let them. It is their religious liberty. As for any foundational documents or prayers which our founding fathers decided to do regarding God, well, they had the right to do so, just like today you can not dictate to others by a dictatormentality that they can not decide to seek their God for wisdom regarding anything in government. So, if your dead set on trying to take God out of everything and somehow trying to make your opinion of what you feel is right or wrong to do so the main point about everything, then we have a real problem. Let them choose their God and how they pray. Nobody is telling you, you have to become a Christian or that you have to pray. That is a right you have in this country.
cc



report abuse
 

HG

posted April 29, 2010 at 5:05 pm


cc: “As for any foundational documents or prayers which our founding fathers decided to do regarding God, well, they had the right to…”
Yes, and Christains have the right to lie about whether or not they did, and Boris has a right to call them on their lies.
cc: “So, if your dead set on trying to take God out of everything…”
There it is again, the claim that there is an attempt to rid the country of all god belief in a legal sense. Ridiculous assertion, since it would require the enactment of a law to do so…something which CANNOT be done Constitutionally. Just don’t pass law regarding religion, that’s all; just, don’t do it. Is that so difficult?
Aside from which is the point that one cannot “take God out of” anything, because God is an imaginary being.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 30, 2010 at 5:35 am


Cara says:
Re: Boris
It appears as if you don’t like Christians very much…
Mr. Incredible says:
Cara, I can’t imagine where do you get that idea.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible says

posted April 30, 2010 at 5:37 am


Boris says:
One thing about Christian claims is they always disagree with the known facts…
Mr. Incredible says:
Whose facts?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 30, 2010 at 5:42 am


T Hollingsworth says:
My husband is a high school teacher and minister and last week of school he was forced to honor a momment of silence for the gay and lesbian community.
Mr. Incredible says:
If it were me, I would’ve told them that their trying to forcing me to do that is a violation of my worship Rights, violating the First Amendment.
T Hollingsworth says:
Christians have to come together our numbers are large, but we have to all come together to get a Victory in the name of Jesus!
Mr. Incredible says:
PRAISE GOD THROUGH CHRIST!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 30, 2010 at 5:56 am


GFine says:
It is not a bitterness towards Christians.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Have you SEEEEN Boris’ posts???
GFine says:
It is a bitterness towards people, no matter what faith, who want to push their dogma and religious beliefs on others.
Mr. Incredible says:
Including atheists on these pages.
GFine says:
I believe but I do not push my religious belief on others.
Mr. Incredible says:
Of course.
GFine says:
I respect those who are believers up until they try to proselytize their dogma on me…
Mr. Incredible says:
You mean the way you are trying to proselytize your dogma on us?
GFine says:
… and then they receive my ire.
Mr. Incredible asks:
And what form does that take?
GFine says:
The religious right has no business pushing their beliefs on others.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Where does this “pushing” come in? How is this so-called “religious right” doing this so-called “pushing”?
GFine says:
They try to shortcut, and ignore the laws we live by.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Which ones?
GFine says:
Jay is mostly on the losing end because his paycheck is paid by the most arrogant and egregious person…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Who is that?
GFine says:
…who blatantly ignores the nature and plurality of our laws regarding religion, and makes any attempt he can to subvert (or change) the laws we have.
Mr. Incredible translates:

“…who blatantly ignores my views on what I think is the nature and plurality of our laws regarding ‘religion,’ and makes any attempt he can to subvert (or change) the laws we have that I like. I just want him to shut up so we can have our way.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 30, 2010 at 6:05 am


The Constitution says:

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

Mr. Incredible asks: Where do atheists fit in there?
Boris says:
They don’t…
Mr. Incredible says:
So, the First Amendment’s “religion clause” doesn’t apply to you.
Boris says:
… because they have no religion.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except atheism.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted April 30, 2010 at 6:06 am


curlyfester says:
Jay Suckyoulow likes to tell us what the “Founding Fathers” intended.
The Founding Fathers didn’t intend for women to vote …
Mr. Incredible says:
So, now YOU are trying to tell us what the “Founding Fathers” intended.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 30, 2010 at 4:27 pm


Re: HG
Yes Boris has the right to confront lies. Although, I am not sure if he did confront any lies. I saw allot of biases towards groups and constant put downs. It is amazing what you support.
As for taking God out of country. You can’t, that is my point. God is in people, and their belief systems and you can not change them into secular people, and make them into robots who think secular only.
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted April 30, 2010 at 4:39 pm


It is interesting to note, I received an email about a year ago from belief net regarding that I can not call or should not call people who give abortions murderers and the people who have them. It is obvious that taking a life is murder. I am sorry the government decided to go the wrong route on that one and decide to make murder legal by choice, even with tax dollars to boot. Of course if the presidents order stopped that, great. I heard that it did not do a thing.
I also thought it interesting to note that belief net, let people put me down left and right for about two years. Or should I say let people chop me down. Although I can defend myself, I found that interesting that I received e-mails to not write abortion as murder and the people who do them as murderers. While they let people post, almost daily degrading comments about me. I wonder who was controlling the post. I also found it interesting how people would somehow decide to pick on my grammer on this sight if I wrote down a spelling mistake, by accident because of a headache or not proofreading it properly. I also found it interesting how some of my so called friends showed up for some sort of showdown to put me down, in order to elevate themselves above me. Which I found to be pathetic. When people are your friends they stick with you, they don’t try and one up you for a job and stab you in the back with a whole bunch of slanderous comments to neighbors and friends. What is the old sang, Karma, what comes around goes around.
I do enjoy helping people, don’t get me wrong and helping further their success, however I can. But those so called friends who chit chatted behind my back, I found it to be pathetic. That was the reason why I did not like high school or college. I found people to want to try and cut down my growing potential instead of watch me grow. Not all people for that matter, but some.
cc



report abuse
 

HG

posted April 30, 2010 at 5:08 pm


cc: “Re: HG It is amazing what you support.”
And I find what you support equally amazing.
cc: “…you can not change them into secular people…”
Neither can those who do not believe in the supernatural be changed, neither can they be encouraged to change by government action. The religious, as a general rule, seem ever so much more robotic to me than free-thinkers!
cc: “I received an email about a year ago from belief net regarding that I can not call or should not call people who give abortions murderers and the people who have them.”
Well you obviously didn’t comply, and they’ve did nothing to enforce the request? Perhaps it was as obvious to them as it is to the rest of us…you don’t hold information well.
cc: ” I found that interesting that I received e-mails to not write abortion as murder and the people who do them as murderers. While they let people post, almost daily degrading comments about me.”
Because you EARN the titles bestowed, while people who get abortions do not.
cc: “I also found it interesting how some of my so called friends showed up for some sort of showdown to put me down, in order to elevate themselves above me. Which I found to be pathetic.”
I must’ve missed that, tell me which posters and topic so I can read the showdown to which you refer.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 1, 2010 at 10:27 am


cc says:
I found that interesting that I received e-mails to not write abortion as murder and the people who do them as murderers. While they let people post, almost daily degrading comments about me.
HG says:
Because you EARN the titles bestowed, while people who get abortions do not.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that cc perceive that they do. Now what?
cc says:
I also found it interesting how some of my so called friends showed up for some sort of showdown to put me down, in order to elevate themselves above me. Which I found to be pathetic.
HG says:
I must’ve missed that…
Mr. Incredible says:
We understand you did. We didn’t.
However, the running record of it is the blogs where the posts appear. Anyone following the posts on the blogs knows what she’s talking about.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 1, 2010 at 10:36 am


cc says:
Yes Boris has the right to confront lies.
Mr. Incredible says:
And nothing stops a Boris from making it all up, then confronting those imaginations as though they are something objective.
cc says:
Although, I am not sure if he did confront any lies.
Mr. Incredible says:
He didn’t. What he confronted is what he danced up in his own head after he threw down a case-a 40s and inhaled tear gas clouds, pepper spray fumes and spray paint mists wafting constantly through his trailer park neighborhood which, itself, sits on a giant, leaking trash bin.
cc says:
I saw allot of biases towards groups and constant put downs. It is amazing what you support.
As for taking God out of country. You can’t, that is my point. God is in people, and their belief systems and you can not change them into secular people, and make them into robots who think secular only.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 1, 2010 at 10:45 am


CORRECTION
cc says:
Yes Boris has the right to confront lies.
Mr. Incredible says:
And nothing stops a Boris from making it all up, then confronting those imaginations as though they are something objective.
cc says:
Although, I am not sure if he did confront any lies.
Mr. Incredible says:
He didn’t. What he confronted is what he danced up in his own head after he threw down a case-a 40s and inhaled tear gas clouds, pepper spray fumes and spray paint mists wafting constantly through his trailer park neighborhood which, itself, sits on a giant, leaking trash bin.
cc says:
I saw allot of biases towards groups and constant put downs.
Mr. Incredible says:
You weren’t seeing things. They aren’t UFOs. They really exist in they came here and tried to take you with them.
All I can say is that, if you walk in Christ, those things will bounce off you like Superman.
cc says:
As for taking God out of country. You can’t…
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s correct, cc. Men’s “wisdom” is foolishness to God.
cc says:
God is in people…
Mr. Incredible says:
Well, not in all of them. He isn’t in those who reject Him.
cc says:
…and their belief systems and you can not change them into secular people, and make them into robots who think secular only.
Mr. Incredible says:
Though they try.



report abuse
 

The Big Bad Scoffer

posted May 1, 2010 at 11:11 am


re: “All I can say is that, if you walk in Christ, those things will bounce off you like Superman”
Another case where reason fails you. I thought Cara did walk in Christ (whatever that means) and yet apparently things aren’t bouncing off her like “Superman”. Hmmm, two possibilities:
1. Your idea is wrong, “walking in Christ” (again, whatever that means) is ineffective
2. Cara doesn’t have a true faith. If she did, she wouldn’t be bothered. Instead, she would be basking in constant glory that is the pure light of true faith in Jesus.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 1, 2010 at 11:49 am


Mr. Incredible says to cc:
All I can say is that, if you walk in Christ, those things will bounce off you like Superman.
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
Another case where reason fails you.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Whose “reason”?
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
I thought Cara did walk in Christ…
Mr. Incredible says:
She did and still does. That’s obvious to all but scoffers.
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
…(whatever that means)…
Mr. Incredible says:
1 Corinthians 2:14
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
… and yet apparently things aren’t bouncing off her like “Superman”.
Mr. Incredible says:
Well, that’s YOUR perception, perception skewed by erroneous, preconceived notions.
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
… two possibilities:
1. Your idea is wrong, “walking in Christ”…
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s not “my” idea.
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
…(again, whatever that means)…
Mr. Incredible says:
Again, 1 Corinthians 2:14
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
…is ineffective…
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that it isn’t. By studying, adhering to and expressing the Word of God, she shows herself approved, that God, through Christ, is her witness. She agrees with God, through Christ. Reference Amos 3:3. She doesn’t agree with the scoffers’ view of things, and, so, she doesn’t walk with them. She agrees with God, through Christ, and, so, she walks with Them.
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
2. Cara doesn’t have a true faith.
Mr. Incredible says:
Scoffers are in no position to know.
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
If she did, she wouldn’t be bothered.
Mr. Incredible says:
She isn’t. She expresses a concern which does not take her off the main trail.
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
Instead, she would be basking in constant glory…
Mr. Incredible says:
The definition of to “glory is to hold a high opinion of. She glorifies God, through Christ, by having a high opinion of God, through Christ.
Basking in the high opinion of God, through Christ, does not guarantee that the Devil will not come against us. Matthew 4:1-11 tells us how to deal with it. She does. That’s all that’s important.
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
… that is the pure light of true faith in Jesus.
Mr. Incredible says:
She is a pure light of true faith in God, through Christ.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 1, 2010 at 11:56 am


The Big Bad Scoffer says:
I thought Cara did walk in Christ…
Mr. Incredible asks:
As I say, she did, and she does; but how did you discern that? A scoffer wouldn’t know how to discern that, except that, by worldly standards, they would then come up with the wrong discernment.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 1, 2010 at 12:16 pm


The Big Bad Scoffer says:
… and yet apparently things aren’t bouncing off her like “Superman”.
Mr. Incredible says:
That she and I take notice of things that are happening doesn’t mean that they aren’t bouncing off of us like Superman. Being born again doesn’t mean not to take notice of things. It means not letting the World exercise a Right to have dominion over us. It means denying circumstances a Right over us.



report abuse
 

The Big Bad Scoffer

posted May 1, 2010 at 1:12 pm


Mr. I,
Well, all that sounds real good except Cara’s comments clearly show she is troubled by the comments made in response to her inane postings, she has been whining lately about how everyone is picking on her. It is clear why you would deny that simple fact.
If she wasn’t trying to force others to follow her religious beliefs, I might even feel bad for her. But given that she would gladly employ the full force of government to exact compliance with the theology of her cult, I am less than sympathetic. She is a danger to freedom in America.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 1, 2010 at 5:52 pm


I am not just talking about the postings. I was regarding personal comments which were intended to attack personally, having nothing to do with the topic at hand. The titles which are intended to hurt, only reflect your character, not my own. For I know who I am, and what is right and wrong.
You can not pass off murder as being a choice of action which is considered right.
Thanks Mr. Incredible and those who have supported me through tough times in my life. I thank each and everyone who has really been there for me and stood up for me when someone was trying to degrade my character into a a reflection of them.
God Bless,
Cara Lea



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 2, 2010 at 6:59 pm


p.s. Past friends, don’t show up with one of my x’s who your sleeping with and think your supporting me by putting it in front of my face. If you were a true friend you would have been there through the thick and the thin, instead of trying to pick up on my past relationships. Then to boot try and present yourself as a couple when I haven’t even talked to you in years. What a joke, and nobody is laughing.
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 2, 2010 at 7:13 pm


p.p.s.
And another thing, past friends, don’t show up to try and get one of my job opportunities, when you abandoned me and took the very best from me, which was a loving relationship, only to give the worst of yourself by trying to put me down in large important settings or to gossip behind my back. It is amazing to me the people you think you know, when you find out who they really are, which are your enemies, or at least a person who likes to belittle you to try and show how important they are. I am not talking about situations where I just pushed everybody away in my life, because I needed some time to take it all in what really occurred and not get too overwelmed by it all. I am sorry if I ever hurt anybody or said something which could be construed as hurtful. I have been trying to right the wrongs in my life, as well as learn how to put healthy bondaries on situations which are unhealthy or out of control. Essentially do my part for the better of the the good. Sometimes you can’t figure it all out and that is ok. Find peace in the serenity of the moment.
cc



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 3, 2010 at 8:50 am


The Big Bad Scoffer says:
Mr. I,
… Cara’s comments clearly show she is troubled by the comments…
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s YOUR interpretation of her comments.
However, even if she were troubled, as one who is born again, she gives no license to the slings and arrows over her life. Therefore, they have no authority to run her life.
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
… she has been whining lately about how everyone is picking on her.
Mr. Incredible says:
Nothing wrong with admitting that there are slings and arrows coming her way. The biblically important thing for her is that those slings and arrows have no authority over her life.
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
It is clear…
Mr. Incredible says:
Allegedly “clear” to YOU.
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
… why you would deny that simple fact.
Mr. Incredible asks:
The “simple fact” of what?
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
If she wasn’t trying to force others to follow her religious beliefs…
Mr. Incredible says:
Where is this “force”?
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
But given that she would gladly employ the full force of government to exact compliance with the theology of her cult…
Mr. Incredible says:
And, yet, you wouldn’t mind gladly implying the full force of government to exact compliance with YOUR cult.
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
… I am less than sympathetic.
Mr. Incredible asks:
So what? That has been your position all along. So, what’s changed?
The Big Bad Scoffer says:
She is a danger to freedom in America.
Mr. Incredible says:
Oh, but you’re not?
To what freedom is she a danger?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 3, 2010 at 8:55 am


The Big Bad Scoffer says:
…I might even feel bad for her.
Mr. Incredible says:
Save the phoney emotionalism for the stage.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 3, 2010 at 9:00 am


Cara says:
Thanks Mr. Incredible and those who have supported me through tough times in my life.
Mr. Incredible says:
You’re welcomed, Cara.
Jonah 2:7 — “When my soul fainted within me, I remembered the Lord.”
This squares with Matthew 4:1-11, wherein He shows you what you need to do to fight those tough times.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted May 3, 2010 at 1:11 pm


Cara,
re: “p.s. Past friends, don’t show up with one of my x’s…”
The best advice anyone can offer to you is for you to get your own house in order before you start attempting to tell others how to live.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 3, 2010 at 2:01 pm


Rich says:
Cara,
re: “p.s. Past friends, don’t show up with one of my x’s…”
The best advice anyone can offer to you is for you to get your own house in order before you start attempting to tell others how to live.
Mr. Incredible says:
You might wanna try to do the same.
Cara, if you thought you’d get any sympathy/empathy/understanding from this bunch, you thought wrong. But, really, so what? What fellowship hath we with the forces of unrighteousness? None. Zip. Nada.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted May 3, 2010 at 3:11 pm


Mr. I,
Yep, just keep giving advice to Cara. The advice predators like you have given her has really done her well so far.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 3, 2010 at 3:19 pm


Rich says:
Mr. I,
Yep, just keep giving advice to Cara.
Mr. Incredible says:
Yep, I will.
Rich says:
The advice predators like you…
Mr. Incredible asks:
I’m a “predator”??? Isn’t it a little early t’be throwin’ back 40s?
Rich says:
… have given her has really done her well so far.
Mr. Incredible says:
It doesn’t matter what YOU say.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 3, 2010 at 3:21 pm


Rich says:
Mr. I,
Yep, just keep giving advice to Cara.
Mr. Incredible says:
I don’t need your permission.



report abuse
 

HG

posted May 3, 2010 at 5:33 pm


Your Name: “You can not pass off murder as being a choice of action which is considered right.”
No, but abortion is not murder, so it is an acceptable choice of action is these United States. I commend those people whose rational decision it has been to abort an unwanted pregnancy for exercising a basic human right of the American citizen in pursuit of happiness. Those who would wrongly call them “murderer” do not have the best interest of society, or the individual, at heart. Their myopic and distorted pretention of righteousness above all others in the name of an imaginary being is as unjust as it is unfounded.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 3, 2010 at 9:21 pm


So HG you want to play Hitler and destroy people and give out salutes as if it is a right choice to murder children?
cc



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 3, 2010 at 11:03 pm


HG says:
I commend those people whose rational decision it has been to abort an unwanted pregnancy for exercising a basic human right of the American citizen in pursuit of happiness.
Mr. Incredible says:
Justice Blackmun, in Roe, itself, says “personhood” will change everything.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted May 4, 2010 at 12:12 am


Mr. I,
re: “Justice Blackmun, in Roe, itself, says “personhood” will change everything.”
Bang a different drum. That one ain’t working.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 4, 2010 at 1:40 am


Mr. Incredible says:
Justice Blackmun, in Roe, itself, says “personhood” will change everything.
Rich says:
Bang a different drum.
Mr. Incredible says:
No need.
Rich says:
That one ain’t working.
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s not that it’s not working, it’s that you’re deaf to the sweet music it makes.



report abuse
 

HG

posted May 4, 2010 at 2:20 am


cc: “So HG you want to play Hitler and destroy people and give out salutes as if it is a right choice to murder children?”
No. It takes a mind as weak as yours to even think of comparing abortion in the United States to an act of Adolph Hitler. There is no murder, you keep ignoring this basic fact.
Incred: “Justice Blackmun, in Roe, itself, says “personhood” will change everything.”
Rich responded: “Bang a different drum. That one ain’t working.”
And it never is going to work, because it’s a ridiculous argument that still makes me chuckle when I hear it. Blackmun “says” the opposite, and sets it in reinforced concrete.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 4, 2010 at 3:16 am


Mr. Incredible says:
Justice Blackmun, in Roe, itself, says “personhood” will change everything.
Rich says:
Bang a different drum. That one ain’t working.
Mr. Incredible says:
It’s not that it’s not working, it’s that you’re deaf to the sweet music it makes.
HG says:
And it never is going to work…
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that Justice Blackmun says, in Roe, itself, that it will work, that, if the suggestion of the establishment of “personhood” is brought before the Court, the Court will have-ta ruled the other way. That’s cuz the Court WOULD’VE HAD to rule the other way had the suggestion of the establishment of “personhood” been before the Court in Roe.
HG says:
…because it’s a ridiculous argument…
Mr. Incredible says:
Not to Justice Blackmun. Thus, not to us.
HG says:
…that still makes me chuckle when I hear it.
Mr. Incredible asks:
So what?
HG says:
Blackmun “says” the opposite…
Mr. Incredible says:
No, he doesn’t. He gives anti-pro-kill-the-unborn-by-choice the gift of knowing what it’ll take to get the Court to rule the other way.
HG says:
… and sets it in reinforced concrete.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that, if the suggestion of the establishment of “personhood” is brought before the Court, the Court will be required, by its own ruling, to apply the Fourteenth Amendment to the unborn. That’s what Justice Blackmun says in Roe, itself.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 4, 2010 at 3:23 am


cc says:
So HG you want to play Hitler and destroy people and give out salutes as if it is a right choice to murder children?
HG says:
It takes a mind as weak as yours to even think of comparing abortion in the United States to an act of Adolph Hitler.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that the Hitler gang just like pro-kill-the-unborn-by-choice extremists, used language to their benefit.
To the Hitler gang, the killing was merely an act of “cleansing.”
To the pro-kill-the-unborn-by-choice gang, killing the unborn is merely an act of “choice.”



report abuse
 

HG

posted May 4, 2010 at 11:19 am


“Mr. Incredible says: Except that the Hitler gang just like pro-kill-the-unborn-by-choice extremists, used language to their benefit.”
Whereas you, most assuredly, do not.
Incred: “To the pro-kill-the-unborn-by-choice gang, killing the unborn is merely an act of “choice.””
Whereas, the pro enslave women and force unwanted children on people due to a sex act crowd wrongly calls those who avail themselves of this legal option “murderers”. You’re right, they don’t use language to their benefit.
Incred: “Except that,…”
No, there was no ‘except’ in Blackmun’s decision regarding the fourteenth amendment. Your reading comprehension isn’t so hot either!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 4, 2010 at 2:40 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
Except the Hitler gang just like pro-kill-the-unborn-by-choice extremists, used language to their benefit.
HG says:
Whereas you, most assuredly, do not.
Mr. Incredible translates:

“Nothing you write it up to my standard cuz you don’t agree with me.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 4, 2010 at 2:41 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
To the pro-kill-the-unborn-by-choice gang, killing the unborn is merely an act of “choice.”
HG says:
Whereas, the pro enslave women…
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that there is nothing in what we say that promotes the enslavement of women.
HG says:
…and force unwanted children on people…
Mr. Incredible says:
“Unwanted children” translates into protecting a woman’s social life.
To YOU people, “unwanted” is justification to kill somebody. You may as well refer to abortion as “cleansing.”
HG says:
… due to a sex act crowd wrongly calls those who avail themselves of this legal option “murderers”.
Mr. Incredible says:
Cara calls’em as she sees’em.
I’m against murder, too, but I’m not gonna try to force my Morality on anybody else.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 4, 2010 at 2:42 pm


Mr. Incredible says:
Except that,…
HG says:
No, there was no ‘except’ in Blackmun’s decision regarding the fourteenth amendment.
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that there was in my post correcting you.
Justice Blackmun says that, had the suggestion of the establishment of “personhood” been before the Court, the Court would have had to rule the other way.
That does not mean that the suggestion of the establishment of “personhood” cannot be brought before the Court now and be aligned with his suggestion and what he says would happen. He gave us a gift.
HG says:
Your reading comprehension isn’t so hot either!
Mr. Incredible translates:

“Your reading comprehension isn’t so hot if you don’t agree with me.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 4, 2010 at 3:00 pm


CORRECTION
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that there was in my post correcting you. — – >
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that it was in my post to correct you.



report abuse
 

HG

posted May 4, 2010 at 3:20 pm


Incred: “Justice Blackmun says that, had the suggestion of the establishment of “personhood” been before the Court, the Court would have had to rule the other way.”
No, Justice Blackmun said the establishment of personhood under the fourteenth amendment was indeed before the Court, and the Court decided that it did not apply to the unborn. When you have any evidence to the contrary (and you never will), it will have to come from the Court. I won’t be anxious during my wait for the legal change you say is coming (but isn’t), after all, it’s already been over 37 years. The status quo continues to make my interpretation correct, hourly and annually.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted May 5, 2010 at 1:10 am


Mr. I,
This is the paragraph from Roe v. Wade:
“The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Seems to me that HG know of where he speaks. The Court considered if they could apply ‘personhood’ to a fetus, they could not and discarded that line of argument.
This is the IMPORTANT thing for you get into your skull:
You said – “Justice Blackmun says that, had the suggestion of the establishment of “personhood” been before the Court, the Court would have had to rule the other way.”
It is not even close to what you suggest, the question of personhood was before the Court, they did consider it and decided it didn’t apply. Got it, they did consider it, and decided it did not apply.
The ability to read is a valuable tool. Learn to read.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 11, 2010 at 6:29 am


Let’s take this one statement at a time.
Roe says:

“A. The appellee and certain amici argue the fetus is a ‘person’ within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Mr. Incredible says:
The State of Texas says the fetus is a person, as contemplated by the Constitution.
Roe says:

“In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development.”

Mr. Incredible says:
The State of Texas doesn’t offer legal support for its definition, rather medical support, though “personhood” is not a medical question, rather a legislative question.
Roe says:

“If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.”

Mr. Incredible says:
Justice Blackmun says that, at the suggestion of “personhood” been legally established for the Court, the Court would have had to apply the Constitution to the unborn person.
Roe says:

“The appellant conceded as much on reargument.”

Mr. Incredible says:
“Jane Roe” agrees.
Roe says:

“51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Mr. Incredible says:
The State of Texas concedes that it had no law defining the fetus as a “person.”
However, again, Justice Blackmun, in effect, told the State of Texas, and everybody else, that, if they can establish, in law, a suggestion of “personhood,” the unborn person would then be protected by the Constitution.
Again, the Court did not reject any law that defines “personhood,” rather rejected the argument by the State of Texas for “personhood” based on something other than law.
So, all it takes is the Legislative to define “person” and VOILA!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 11, 2010 at 6:43 am


Mr. Incredible says:
Justice Blackmun says , had the suggestion of the establishment of “personhood” been before the Court, the Court would have had to rule the other way.
HG says:
No…
Mr. Incredible says:
Yes.
HG says:
…Justice Blackmun said the establishment of personhood under the fourteenth amendment [sic] was indeed before the Court…
Mr. Incredible says:
It was before the Court in the way that the Court could not use it as a matter of law.
In any case, the Court could not rule the unborn is a person, under the Fourteenth Amendment, cuz the Fourteenth Amendment defines what it means to be a citizen, not a person. It says that a citizen is a born person. Therefore, an unborn person cannot be a citizen. Apparently, then, even if the unborn are considered persons, they still cannot be citizens cuz it takes birth for a person to be a citizen.
HG says:
… and the Court decided that it did not apply to the unborn.
Mr. Incredible says:
That’s cuz it takes birth for a person to be a citizen, according to the Fourteenth Amendment.
HG says:
When you have any evidence to the contrary…
Mr. Incredible says:
I’ve already presented it about a bazillion times.
HG says:
… (and you never will)…
Mr. Incredible says:
We understand — as I’ve already said about a bazillion times — that you have precluded yourself from the evidence you say you want from us.
HG says:
… it will have to come from the Court.
Mr. Incredible says:
It already has, and I have already presented it. Sorry you missed it.
HG says:
I won’t be anxious during my wait for the legal change you say is coming (but isn’t)…
Mr. Incredible says:
But it is.
HG says:
… after all, it’s already been over 37 years.
Mr. Incredible says:
A lotta things took time.
HG says:
The status quo continues to make my interpretation correct…
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that your interpretation is not correct.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 11, 2010 at 8:54 am


Rich says:
The Court considered if they could apply ‘personhood’ to a fetus, they could not and discarded that line of argument.
Mr. Incredible says:
The Court discarded the argument that Medicine proves the “personhood” of the unborn. The State did not bring a legal argument. Justice Blackmun says, in Roe, itself, that, had the State brought a suggestion of the establishment — that is, the legal basis — of “personhood,” the Court woulda had to rule the other way. This leaves the door open for that argument to be brought. It will, and those bringing it will use the Court’s ruling against itself.
Mr. Incredible says:
Justice Blackmun says that, had the suggestion of the establishment of “personhood” been before the Court, the Court would have had to rule the other way.
Rich says:
It is not even close to what you suggest…
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that it’s right on.
Rich says:
…the question of personhood was before the Court…
Mr. Incredible says:
The medical argument was made, not the legal argument.
Rich says:
… they did consider it…
Mr. Incredible says:
They considered the medical argument. Not the legal argument.
Rich says:
… and decided it didn’t apply.
Mr. Incredible says:
The Court could not apply the medical argument. It needed a legal argument. None was presented.
Rich says:
… they did consider it…
Mr. Incredible says:
Be considered the medical argument, not the legal argument.
Rich says:
… and decided it did not apply.
Mr. Incredible says:
They couldn’t apply the medical argument. They needed a legal argument they never got.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted May 11, 2010 at 8:56 am


CORRECTION
Be considered the medical argument — – > They considered the medical argument



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.