Re: O'Donnell makes light of witchcraft comment
Yes!!Yes!!!Of course !!!:LMAOAll of them law students are dumb and this blogger is smart.:LMAOGod I love la-la land.You cannot make this shit up!!:houraO’Donnell Was Factually Right, Coons and Widener Law Students Were Shockingly Foolish
Wed, October 20, 2010 at 1:23 AM
By Yomin Postelnik
The First Amendment establishes that Congress shall declare no official nationwide religion. The First Amendment does not ban the mention of religion in public. In fact, it protects same. While far left radicals like Chris Coons may wish to knowingly distort or ignore this fact of American history, it is as shocking as it is sad that the entire student body of a supposedly “prestigious” law school seemed to be equally ignorant and/or oblivious to our founding principles.
Yes, I know that in saying so I’ve just bucked conventional wisdom, which dictates that self proclaimed Marxist aficionados such as Chris Coons, wise men like Al Franken, erudite speakers like Barney Frank and great thinkers of our times like Howard Dean are the epitome of normal, while hard working Americans and Reagan Democrats, now referred to as “Tea Party Activists,” are the “extreme.” Too bad.
The real radical in the O’Donnell-Coons race is Chris Coons, which is patently obvious to anyone who’s reviewed his positions or life experience. Pining that term on O’Donnell, in this race, is like saying that Queen Elizabeth should learn decorum from a more famous O’Donnell of a more Rosie nature. As much should be clear to all Delaware Republicans, Castlonians and Christinians alike.
The false picture portrayed by the media of the O’Donnell-Coons race in general, and of their latest exchange in particular, represents a new low even for Network News. While O’Donnell was able to enumerate the five freedoms actually guaranteed by the First Amendment, Coons was not. Too bad that factoid didn’t make its way to the “fair and balanced” Democratic media.
As to the issue at hand, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of all religions on the federal level, the ability to express thoughts in public and other similar rights. Coons’ use of the amendment as a pretext to ban speech, thought or open discussion in public classrooms is to attribute to the First Amendment all that it is truly against. In so doing, Coons may as well have continued that line of reasoning and gone on to explain how the Second Amendment demands confiscation of all firearms.
In truth, his distortion of the First Amendment should be as offensive to Americans as calling Karl Marx a capitalist would be to a guy like Coons.
A proper reading of the First Amendment would be even more shocking to Coons and Widener Law School company. The Amendment was actually established to protect statewide religious practices from federal interference. One should read the sources that Thomas E. Woods, Jr. so brilliantly brings together in his Politically Incorrect Guide to American History (among them, historian David Hackett Fischer) for more information on this subject.
And it cannot go without saying that Coons also showed a profound ignorance of science, which in its unpoliticized form (in other words, the kind no longer taught in universities), demands logic and shuns dogma; even liberal, conventional dogma. But that’s for a more indepth discussion on the gaping holes in conventional scientific theory. For now, suffice it to say that the foolish nature of liberal dogma is as far reaching as it is wrong.
The main lesson remains as follows: Congressional Democrats have made Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and Tim Geithner in charge of banking during a time of national crisis (Geithner by way of senatorial approval). Less than two short years ago, they sued to make the Grand Statesman of the Century, Mr. Al Franken himself, a full fledged Member of the United States Senate. And they have elevated to the speakership a radical who was commonly referred to as “San Fran Nan” prior to said elevation.
Yet they persist in calling us “radicals?” :doh1
