One of these years we will finally get to see the actual Long Form Birth Certificate from Hawaii. Then all of Obama's laws and executive orders will be rescinded.

The Democrat party failed to properly vet Obama's birth certificate and Obama is culpable as well for not providing the long form birth certificate. But we have no record of the Long Form Birth certificate from the Democrat e******n commission.

Obama chose a gifted lawyer who won at least 18 court challenges and had a fantastic legal defense team Elena Kagan who has been rewarded as a Supreme Court Justice.

There are two many discrepancies with Obama's birth certificate, and when Governor Abercrombie of Hawaii sealed Obama's long form birth records from any reviewing to the allegations, the fix was in. All of Obama's College transcripts were sealed as well, the fix was in.

H**e to be blunt, It's Chicago Daley styled politics, they are two steps ahead of anybody.

But regardless of the the Birth Certificate, No one has vetted this piece of information below.

Barry Soetoro was adopted Obama's stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, from Indonesia and married Ann Dunham Obama. Barry moved to Indonesia was under Indonesian law, when a man married a woman with children, the woman’s children become Indonesian nationals, as well. Dual Citizenship ?

Ann Dunham had a daughter and returned to Hawaii with both her children.
Barry remained with his grand parents in Hawaii.

Here is the interesting facts, There are no international records of Barry Soetoro-Obama-Dunham ever returning to to Hawaii or any passport records. WHY ? They are missing ?

Barry would have needed a medical record to show immunizations to pass health laws as a foreign national. Where are the records ? Missing

As a Manchurian candidate these questions nave never been vetted by the right or the left.

I'm no "birther", but there is a strangeness to these allegations that no one has answered, and his Connecticut Social security number. Obama worked at a Baskin-Robbins ice cream stand in Hawaii, he would have needed a social security card.

Was that number a Connecticut Social security number ? IRS Records would prove that. Or Baskin-Robbins company records, it's all perfectly too strange ?

Regardless He's your un-vetted President. And it does say in the U.S. Constitution that for a US born citizen to become president, Both parents need to be US Citizens ? Barry's father was a Kenyan.

Strange and wicked weaves, the game of politics.

Doc110

Just found an article that blows away your 1% theory away

http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/07/4-liberal-myths-about-ronald-reagan-debunked/?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419229/dismantling-liberal-myths-refresher-course-ronald-reagan-lee-edwards

Liberal Myth No. 2: The ’80s were a decade of greed that benefited only the wealthy and overlooked the middle class.

Reality: Reagan inherited a dangerously weakened economy. High tax rates had severely limited jobs and investment and brought in less than expected government revenue. President Reagan reversed the process by cutting personal tax rates and government regulations, stabilizing the economy and encouraging entrepreneurs.

Following the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, unemployment in the succeeding years fell an estimated 45 percent. During the ’80s, the consumer price index rose only 17 percent, private domestic investment grew 77 percent, and economic growth averaged 4.6 percent annually. The real income of every stratum of Americans increased, and total tax collections rose from $500 billion in 1980 to $1 trillion in 1990 (in constant dollars).

At the same time, Reagan deregulated oil prices, making energy cheaper, and launched U.S.-Canadian free trade, setting the stage for NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement). Perhaps most important of all, he created IRAs (individual retirement accounts) and 401(k) programs, giving birth to what has been called “the investor class.” New industries arose in computing, software, communications, and the Internet that streamlined and t***sformed the American economy.

Liberal Myth No. 3: The federal government continued to grow and expand under Reagan, who callously tripled the national debt.

Reality: During the Reagan years, overall domestic spending did increase, as the president battled with a Democratic House of Representatives led by a fiercely partisan Speaker Tip O’Neill. Spending on education, social services, medicine, and food almost doubled. However, federal outlays on regional development, commerce, and housing credit decreased by about 22 percent. And the size of the federal civilian workforce declined by about 5 percent, because of conservative managers such as Donald Devine, described by The Washington Post as “Reagan’s terrible swift sword of the civil service.” The annual federal deficit as a share of GDP fell significantly from 6.3 percent in 1983 to 2.9 percent in 1989. As Reagan left office, the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) projected that “deficits were on a path to fall to about 1 percent of GDP” by 1993.

The near tripling of the national debt was mostly due to Reagan’s defense spending. In President Carter’s last budget, America spent just under $160 billion on national defense. In 1988, the Reagan administration spent $304 billion, including more than twice as much on military hardware. During his years in office, Reagan expended a total of $1.72 trillion on national defense, an unprecedented amount that he stoutly defended.

Challenged in a cabinet meeting that he “couldn’t spend all of this money on the military” and that it would look bad to boost spending on guns while cutting the butter, Reagan replied: “Look, I am the president of the United States, the commander-in-chief. My primary responsibility is the security of the United States. … If we don’t have security, we’ll have no need for social programs.”

The essential question was, “What price peace?” Was it worth $1.72 trillion to build up America’s defenses so that Reagan could end the Cold War at the bargaining table and not on the battlefield? Most Americans would not hesitate to emphatically answer, “Yes!”

If we examine the economic report cards of postwar presidents from Truman through Reagan, according to Harvard economist Robert Barro, Reagan easily finishes first. Using the change each year in inflation, unemployment, interest rates, and growth in gross national product, Reagan ranks first. He engineered the largest reduction in the misery index (inflation plus unemployment) in history—50 percent. The 1980s, says economist Richard B. McKenzie, were, up to then, “the most prosperous decade in American history.”

Liberal Myth No. 4: Reagan was a cynical, calculating politician who used “states’ rights” to win the 1980 e******n and paid little attention to African-Americans as president.

Reality: The African-American columnist Joseph Perkins has calculated that black unemployment fell from 19.5 percent in 1983 to 11.4 percent in 1989. The income of black-owned businesses rose almost one-third between 1982 and 1987. The black middle class grew from 3.6 million to 4.8 million during the Reagan years, while the cash income of black households (adjusted for inflation) rose by 12 percent. By contrast, the median income of black households fell by 2.2 percent during the Obama years from 2010 to 2013.

Throughout the ’70s, Reagan exhorted fellow Republicans to address the party’s failure to attract black v**ers. At the 1977 Conservative Political Action Conference, he said, “We [Republicans] believe in treating all Americans as individuals and not as stereotypes or v****g blocs.” Speaking to the Urban League in August 1980, after having won the GOP’s p**********l nomination, Reagan said, “I am committed to the protection and enforcement of the civil rights of b***k A******ns . . . into every phase of the programs I will propose.”

While marking Dr. Martin Luther King’s birthday in 1983, President Reagan drew an arresting parallel between the first Republican president and the man Americans were honoring that day. “Abraham Lincoln freed the black man,” he noted. “In many ways, Dr. King freed the white man. … Where others—white and black—preached hatred, he taught the principles of love and nonviolence.”

Who better than Ronald Reagan to have the last word about which is the myth and which is the reality about his commitment to civil rights?

This has been a consorted effort by left wing liberals socialists in our Federal government to undermine the laws of this nation.

By far this existing democrat party, and the Obama Administration is the most despicable criminal political party in this countries history. Remember what our President Obama said that he wanted to fundamentally t***sform America.

So far he is exceeding his statement and efforts on the criminal deceit, accountability, deception and undermining our countries laws with scandals and lawsuits. Remember delay, delay and delay is the Obama Administration.

The Clintons pushed the boundaries in 94 and in 96 with lawsuit after lawsuit and scandal after scandal lawsuit after lawsuit.

Hillary Clinton's whole public life and l*****t political career has been one disaster after another. From White-Water scandal in Arknasaw, as First Lady under Bill Clinton and to Secretary of State. The one exception to this was her mediocrity as a New York Senator which she was kept in check by the senate boys.

Hilary Clinton is a failure A dismal failure. What has she actually accomplished ? Do you think there will be more of the same if she gets elected in 2016 ?

The current Obama Administration is no better but even worse and has increased the deception, ten fold with scandal after scandal and corruption and lawsuits. Remember that this is the most t***sparent Administration out of any presidency. Duh.

The republicans are no better but at least there is a shred of decency and correct political discourse, fewer scandals and lawsuits under the two Bush's.

Which leadsmen back to the post-article. Here is a news article that is a little on target, on what is being done with the 55,000 Hillary Clinton emails.

But mostly this has been a delay, delay, and delay tacit from Obama and Hillary Clinton.
1. http://abcnews.go.com/US/state-department-tackling-55000-hillary-clinton-emails/story?id=31160021
2. http://dailysignal.com/2014/09/15/b******i-bombshell-clinton-state-department-official-reveals-alleged-details-document-review/

Here is the strange conflicting news from a headline report "B******i Bombshell: Clinton State Department Official Reveals Details of Alleged Document Review." There seems to be a consorted effort by the State department, the Obama administration and by Former Secretary of State Hillary clinton and the Democratic party to white wash this scandal before the 2016 p**********l e******n.

But I think the best discussion is the Federal Court lawsuit under the racketeering RICO statutes brought against Hillary clinton and will goon trial on January 20. 2016, which my opinion is the most important scandalous political story since Watergate and the 18 minutes of missing tapes.

1. http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/more-evidence-cited-in-rico-case-against-clintons/
2. http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/pdf/150324-filed%20Clinton%20RICO%20complaint.pdf

What are your thoughts ?
Doc110

Marcus, if you even took the time to view my profile you would see, I was a Corpsman (enlisted) in the U.S. Navy. Did one tour with the Marine's, Two ship overhauls and three western independent duty pacific tours, 2 Indian Ocean tours and served in the Navy Reserves.

Marines and Navy personal tend to call their corpsman, Doc, call it a medical professional affection title, and there were other negative titles also. No I'm not a Doctor.

I also have been working continuously for 50 years and am contemplating semi-retirement. And I work in Hollywood motion film productions.

I've taken the time to read all of you posts comments, to see what you have written about, your psychology, your demeanor and chose to observe your writing style, and see what makes you tick.

But I don't see and articles or issues, that you choose to post ? Why is that ?


I've come to some observations, not judgement. Do you understand this concept on your interpretation of ?

1. Your anti-religon. It's your choice, so be it. Are you agnostic, deists or an atheist, and i see you have methodist roots. You haven't said which one you are ?

But at times, you come across a little condescending, with other peoples belief systems and faith in God. I really don't see you giving them the respect they deserve, in their belief in their faith and belief in God.

Your almost judgmental in your comments, and pretty arrogant at times, in your new agnostic, deists or an atheist, belief ?

2. I actually see, no tolerance from you, for people with faith in God, but you seem to have a righteous indignation towards Christians, but you don't speak about other religions. Why is that ? Their religious faith in God is no less as strong as Christians ?

3. You appear to be anti-muslim-anti-Islamic extremist, and have distain for the Obama TTP trade agreement agreement and for multi-national corporations, and I concur with your opinions on these subjects.

4. There is one overriding factor, that can't be accounted for. When you originally joined the (OPP) web-site forum you said that your political background was independent.

There seems to be a political gravitational force, that is left of center, you said that you were an "Independent" and I observe that you align more to the to the democratic party and liberal viewpoints. In the p**********l choices for 2008, 2012, and 2016. you v**ed for Obama twice and looks like your v****g for Hillary Clinton both democrats, Can you explain ? Unless Hillary is convicted in federal court January 20, 2016.

Clearly the independent poll surveys show, the majority of these v**ers are leaning conservative. And you are leaning more liberal. As for my self I'm a registered independent constitutional party member, leaning conservative and became disillusioned with the two party big form of government. Spend, spend, spend.

5. Lastly and this is my final opinion about the "wall of Separation of Church" and State."

I've given you the historical, judicial and political perspective and see the crucial flaw in your idealism of "separation of church and state," and we will talk about the social aspects of "separation of church and state."

I ask, this question in a critical way Marcus.

Has your disillusionment with Christianity and organizes religion given you a personal zest to be over anti-religion in your comments and opinions ? And which has biases your opinions in a overt, anti-dogmatic conversing opinion about "Separation of Church and State" ?

What are the the social aspects and the term usage of "separation of church and state." And when the terms were coined and used, subsequently there after.



A. In 1644 Roger Williams, "Mr. Cotton's Letter, we see a loosely association of words and "Almost-Sermon-like." We do not see an exact phrase "Wall of separation of church and state." Instead we see this phrase being used in a religious contex. hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world

Marcus, Its not the same thing, "word for word" and It's wording is germane to that spoken word, 400 years ago and not similar to "Separation of Church and State' verbiage.



B. Jefferson was out of the country serving as America’s ambassador to France at the time that the Constitution was debated, ratified, and adopted from 1784-1789. and the Constitution was signed on July 4, 1787.

Marcus, So the phrase or the interpretation by Jefferson the "Wall of separation of church and state." Could not have been influenced, spoken, debated or ratified by congress in 1787 by Jefferson.

In fact, in 1802, Jefferson corrected Dr. Joseph Priestly who had given Jefferson too much credit in the Constitution’s formation: One passage, in the paper you enclosed me, must be corrected. It is the following, “and all say it was yourself more than any other individual, that planned and established it,” i.e., the Constitution. I was in Europe when the Constitution was planned, and never saw it till after it was established.



C. 1st Amendment: Religon an Overview: There is "No reference to Separation of church and state" Here is the progression and the final adoption of wording, of the first amendment, freedom of religion.

1. Madison's original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning religion read: ''The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.''

2. The language was altered in the House to read: ''Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.''

3. In the Senate, the section adopted read: ''Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, . . .''

4. It was in the conference committee of the two bodies, chaired by Madison, that the present language was written with its some what more indefinite ''respecting'' phraseology.

5. Debate in Congress lends little assistance in interpreting the religion clauses;

6. But the intent, insofar as there was one, of the others in Congress who v**ed for the language and those in the States who v**ed to ratify is subject to speculation.
1. http://www.wallofseparation.us/the-origins-of-wall-of-separation/



D. This was Jefferson's view concerning religious expression, here and is their reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, where he assured them that they need not fear; That the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:

"make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, "thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. It is strange to connect Jefferson’s words in this letter to the First Amendment considering the fact that Jefferson was out of the country serving as America’s ambassador to France at the time that the Constitution was debated, ratified, and adopted.

Rather we should be cite those founding fathers who were actually present at the Constitutional Convention or who framed the First Amendment, in order to find “Separation between church and state" language.

The Supreme Court relied upon the writings of someone who was not there and who used the expression over 15 years later and then 169 years later i 1947, "thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.[/b] http://thewordonpolitics.com/big-lie-separation-church-state-part-2-2/


Marcus I don't see the facts and correlation to support your viewpoints of separation of church and state and the cornerstone of our country.

Marcus this is a big stretch for this concept.


Not until Everson v. Board of Education case in 1947, when the Supreme Court made its interpretation and gave reference to Jeffersonian separation of church and state language with the establishment clause of the First Amendment. "Wall of separation of church and state."

Interestingly, only one other time in American judicial history prior to Everson had the Supreme Court ever cited Jefferson’s 1802 letter in full.

Here, the court did not connect the Jeffersonian “wall of separation of church and state” to the First Amendment’s establishment clause prohibiting a government establishment of religion.

Rather it used the phrase only in connection with government regulation of the free exercise of religion. In other words, because of the separation of church and state concept found in the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, “Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.”

The bottom line is that the so called "Separation between church and state" terminology was not part of America’s foundation and never even breathed in America’s legal history until after most of our nation’s history had already t***spired.

Even a cursory look at history shows many actions of the Founding Fathers, Jefferson included, would be considered unconstitutional by modern courts, and that the modern concept of separation of church and state has limited (if any) historical support.

So then, why do so many people (citizens, judges, legislators, educators) not understand or misapply the “wall” metaphor (and similar ideas)?

There are various reasons for this. Certainly lack of knowledge or bad history is one chief reason. As Chief Justice Rehnguist wrote (dissenting in Wallace v. Jaffree, 1985): The “wall of separation between church and State” is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.

One fundamental reason, which also explains why those who have knowledge of the founders’ actions and thinking yet still embrace a strict separationist view claiming its constitutionality, is that America has been undergoing a change in the foundation of law and a change in the view of the nature and purpose of law. Modern rulings and actions reflect this philosophical change in law.

America’s founders generally had a Christian view of law, where law is rooted in the absolutes of a Supreme Creator who reveals His will (law) to man, while modern man generally has a humanistic or evolutionary view of law, seeing that it originates in man. This is evidenced not only in the legal and political arena, but in all areas of life.

The differing views can be encapsulated by comparing the definition of immoral from the founding era with that of today. http://providencefoundation.com/?page_id=1921

Marcus all of your short one liners haven't been supportive of any fact but only conjecture and misleading opinions about the usage terminology "Wall of Separation of Church and state. I've given you countless supporting documents and facts to support my argument.

I really don't see the sincerity by you, to read these facts, and have a normal discussion of ideas, But some how I'v been really disappointed in your inability to view these facts in a different viewpoint.

Your not an independent v**er your a hard left wing party member but have a rational side.

Good luck

Doc110

Did you read the 59 page report and what the RICO charges entails.

FIOA charges Guilty.
Money laundering, Guilty.
US Constitution and Federal charges, Guilty

1/20/2016 is when the fireworks start happening.

I told you so,

RICO means the federal Government now is involved in the Law suit against the Clintons, foundation and charities.

Ignorance is bliss for Liberals. Got to love it !

You didn't read anything,

put your head in the toilet and keep flushing, till it works.

Some of us 53 % per-centers work for a living. Unlike you on food stamps and welfare.

The New Congressional Plan to Repeal and Replace Obamacare http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/05/the-new-congressional-plan-to-repeal-and-replace-obamacare/?

A group of House Republicans unveiled a 192-page health care plan that fully repeals Obamacare and replaces it with “patient-centered reforms” and “free-market solutions.”

“American citizens are suffering from the president’s broken promises under the unaffordable Obamacare law,” says @AustinScottGA08
Lawmakers released the plan Thursday as the GOP-led Congress prepares to attack the Affordable Care Act. Both houses of Congress have already signaled their intentions to repeal Obamacare by a simple majority v**e using the reconciliation process—just as the law was passed in 2010.

The new GOP plan, American Health Care Reform Act, was written by Reps. Phil Roe of Tennessee and Austin Scott of Georgia. It has the backing of the Republican Study Committee, a caucus made up of nearly 170 members of the House of Representatives.

Authors of the plan say it’s an “aspirational model” of American health care.
“This is not the perfect bill,” said Roe, who worked as a physician for more than 20 years prior to joining Congress. “We’re open for amendments.”
Highlights of the bill include removing any subsidy assistance, increasing tax benefits, expanding federal funding for state “high-risk pools,” allowing Americans to purchase policies across state lines, reforming medical liability laws, and investing in research for the most common causes of death in the United States.

There is nothing in the legislation that requires health plans to provide coverage for a******n services. Using federal funds to pay for elective a******ns is specifically prohibited, except in the case of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is jeopardized.

Rep. Phil Roe, R-Tenn., author of the Republican Study Committee’s health reform bill. (Credit: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Newscom)
While introducing the legislation to a small group of reporters, members of the Republican Study Committee slammed the Affordable Care Act.
“Access to a waiting line is not access to health care,” said Rep. Andy Barr, R-Ky. He called Obamacare a “spectacular and breathtaking failure.”

“American citizens are suffering from the president’s broken promises under the unaffordable Obamacare law,” Scott added. “That’s why today, I am proud to join my colleagues in offering a plan that fully repeals Obamacare while replacing it with a patient-centered, free-market alternative.”

The American Health Care Reform Act covers four broad areas:
1) Encouraging Competition in the Health Care Market. The Republican Study Committee criticized the Affordable Care Act for not offering competition in health care.

“There’s less competition in the health care system than ever before,” Scott said.

The proposed legislation addresses this issue by allowing Americans to purchase health insurance products across state lines. Small businesses also are permitted to merge together to coordinate better rates.
Scott said adding more insurance carriers into the health care market is paramount to providing more competition.

2) Improving Access for Vulnerable Americans. Federal support for state high-risk pools will increase to $25 billion over 10 years.
Under the bill, premiums would be capped at 200 percent of the state’s premium average. Additionally, those with pre-existing conditions can alternate between health insurance markets, provided they maintain “continuous coverage.”

Roe said veterans would be positively impacted and would receive a Veterans Choice Card, providing more health care options.

3) Supporting Medical Breakthroughs. The bill provides funding for an eight-year, $15 billion Medical Breakthrough Fund at the National Institutes of Health to develop cures for the top five causes of death in the United States: heart disease, cancer, strokes, Alzheimer’s, and diabetes. These conditions k**l more than 1.5 million people each year.
There’s also a $1 billion prize for the first FDA-approved cure or v*****e for Alzheimer’s.

“Alzheimer’s costs a lot, and I’m not talking about just dollars,” said Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., who noted that finding a v*****e for Alzheimer’s would save the government a significant amount of money.

4) Reforming Medical Liability Laws. The bill identifies several solutions to the medical liability crisis, which increases health care costs and deters physicians from practicing, according to lawmakers.
Solutions include requiring review by an independent panel prior to malpractice discovery and a “voluntary right of removal to federal court so long as there is a federal payer or a federal statute.” Barr said that this reform increases the quality of care by establishing national guidelines for physicians to follow and helps reduce “frivolous lawsuits.”

The legislation wouldn’t replace the current subsidy structure that exists under the Affordable Care Act, which provides aid to those who cannot afford health insurance.

Regardless, Barr claimed the House bill’s provisions are preferable to a subsidy.

“We are doing something better than the status quo before Obamacare and under Obamacare,” Barr said. “We give patients choices.”

The "Better Than Cash Alliance" Has An Orwellian Plan http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-04/better-cash-alliance-has-orwellian-plan

In the fall of 1910, under the pretense of a duck hunting trip, a group of powerful bankers, political figures, and businessmen met at Jekyll Island, GA to plan the creation of a central bank for the United States.

The “game” that this elite group of “h****rs” brought back to their ivory towers of Lower Manhattan and Capitol Hill was the blueprint for one of the most destructive financial institutions in modern history, the Federal Reserve.

One-hundred years later, another group of powerful bankers, political figures, and businessmen have converged to promote a cashless society, an economic system that would compel every man, woman, and child to utilize proprietary, government-monitored electronic systems to make purchases of any kind. This group, which calls itself the Better Than Cash Alliance, is as dangerous as the group of “outdoor enthusiasts” that met at Jekyll Island that fateful early-20th Century November.

And, just like the Jekyll Island group sold their grand plans based on a lie (they claimed that the Fed would guarantee liquidity in times of financial panics), the Better Than Cash Alliance is selling the idea of a cashless society based on the farce that eliminating cash would stimulate entrepreneurship among the poor. In reality, the elimination of cash would reduce a great many opportunities for entrepreneurship for people of few means.

Gone would be the informal businesses the working poor often operate: roadside produce stands, street performances, handicraft tables, and day labor. Contrary to the assertions of the BTCA, a cash-free society would limit entrepreneurship to those with the means to incorporate a business, afford the proprietary system required to accept payments, and understand the local, state, and federal tax burden the payment system would create.

Although they won’t admit it, the 12 central governments that currently support the BTCA (the U.S. is one of them) do so because a cashless society would enable them to track and tax every purchase made with sovereign currency within their borders. In addition to producing new government revenue streams, the payment systems would increase governments’ social engineering capabilities: They would compel consumers to purchase goods and services from tax-paying, licensed organizations.

Freelance service providers such as barbers, music teachers, and tutors would be forced to either jump through the hoops of incorporation or seek work with licensed businesses (which would inevitably take a cut of their earnings and subject the remainder to payroll taxes). The black market would also be squeezed, escalating the War on Drugs, and subjecting every “sin” and self-defense purchase to government scrutiny. Under the guise of “national security”, of course.

A number of financial institutions, including, but not limited to, Citi, Visa, and MasterCard, support the BTCA, for obvious reasons. In a cash-free world, these institutions would not only make profits on the front end by selling electronic payment devices and charging a fee for every t***saction, but they would also make money on the back end by compelling everyone to deposit all of their earnings and cash holdings into their coffers. The BTCA claims that a cashless society would enable the poor to “participate in the financial system”.

In reality, it would compel everyone to patronize banks. And, while a cashless society would be a windfall for the banking industry, it would place a heavy burden on the elderly, who often hold large amounts of cash and are hesitant (and, in some cases, incapable) of making electronic financial t***sactions. Among the numerous social problems the BTCA’s plan for cashless society would create, incidences of elder abuse would certainly increase.

Inevitably, some people would find a way to circumvent a government-mandated electronic payment system, at least for some purchases. Some would find ways to barter or use non-government-issued crypto or de facto currencies. (Interestingly, some black market circles use liquid Tide laundry detergent as a currency.) For some, the elimination of cash would have little material effect on their lives. But, for most, the BTCA’s agenda is a tremendous threat to their individual and economic liberties.

Like the Jekyll Island duck h****rs, the Better Than Cash Alliance is a cabal of powerful people who are pushing a dangerous agenda that would harm average Americans while increasing the elite group’s power over them. Like Georgia mallards, the BTCA’s plans must be shot down.

MORE EVIDENCE CITED IN RICO CASE AGAINST CLINTONS
Lawyer filed supplement with 'newly discovered information' http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/more-evidence-cited-in-rico-case-against-clintons/

A Washington watchdog suing Bill and Hillary Clinton and their foundation under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act is urging a federal court in Florida that already has scheduled a trial to immediately take physical custody of Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

In a supplement to his recent motion to the court to have the unit seized, attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch notes that there is new relevant information to bolster his case.

Klayman submitted copies of a Washington Times report that the Clintons’ foundation “set up a fundraising arm in Sweden that collected $26 million in donations at the same time that country was lobbying Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department to forgo sanctions that threatened its thriving business with Iran.”

Further, another article submitted by Klayman, from the Miami Herald, reported banks were paying huge fees to Bill Clinton for speeches at a delicate time.

“Many of the speeches and donations were made at times when the host banks were under Justice Department scrutiny. … All told, the same 11 banks have paid more than $81 billion – yes, that’s with a B – over the last six years to resolve federal investigations into alleged corruption,” the report said.

The case charges the Clintons schemed “to reap hundreds of millions of dollars personally and for their foundation by selling government access and influence.”

The server needs to the obtained, Klayman said, because Hillary Clinton used it in place of a required government system for all her emails as secretary of state, and it likely would contain documents pertinent to the allegations, Klayman said.
Hillary Clinton has said the drive was wiped, but he noted there are processes to recover documents.

“The gravamen of the RICO enterprise consists largely of the two major predicate acts as pled in plaintiff’s amended complaint including defendant Hillary Clinton selling waivers to companies doing business in Iran while secretary of state in exchange for donations for The Clinton Foundation and large speaking fees to her husband and later herself,” the motion continues.

“It is these documents concerning the criminal enterprise which are likely to remain on Hillary Clinton’s personal servers,” Klayman wrote. “In addition, documents concerning another major predicate act involve Hillary Clinton’s release of classified information concerning Israeli war plans.”

He explained the details were released and were “designed to thwart an Israeli preemptive strike to damage or destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons capability by revealing Israeli strategic plans to forward base military operations.”

“This is why the court must take custody of the defendants’ email hard drives to preserve this material evidence,” Klayman wrote.

“Defendants, in particular Hillary Clinton, destroyed emails which plaintiff had requested under the Freedom of Information Act, concerning her sale of waivers as secretary of state to do business with the Islamic Republic of Iran and her participation principally in the criminal release of classified government information involving American and Israeli cyber-warfare to destroy or severely cripple Iranian atomic centrifuges and also the release to New York Times reporter David Sanger of classified Israeli war plans to wage a preemptive air attack to eliminate Iranian nuclear facilities,” he said.

WND previously reported a federal judge in Florida scheduled a trial for January for the case charging the Clintons with RICO violations.

Klayman, for years a Washington watchdog, engaged Bill Clinton in court battles during his presidency. Klayman also has taken on terror interests and foreign influences in the United States. Recently, he won  a federal court judgment against the National Security Agency’s spy-on-Americans program and brought a case against Obama over his amnesty-by-executive-memo strategy.

WND’s attempts to obtain a comment from the New York office for Bill Clinton or the foundation have not been successful.

The order setting the case for trial comes from Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks, U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Florida in West Palm Beach.

Klayman told WND that it’s time for the Clintons “finally [to] be held legally accountable.”

He alleges their “criminal enterprise” dates back at least 10 years.
When the Clintons left the White House in 2000, they were “broke,” Hillary Clinton has claimed.

Estimates are that since that time, they have been paid well over $100 million, oftentimes in $250,000 and $500,000 increments for speaking. Speaking fees for Bill Clinton have been as high as $750,000.

The Clintons’ foundation also has been embroiled in scandal recently, with foreign governments making donations to the Clinton-controlled organization during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as a senior government official.

Plaintiff sues the defendant “here’s the Case 9:15-cv-80388-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket, 03/24/2015, Page 1 of 59 http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/pdf/150324-filed%20Clinton%20RICO%20complaint.pdf as individuals operating a criminal enterprise, for violating plaintiff’s statutory rights to obtain documents under the Freedom of Information Act … for violating plaintiff’s due process rights, vested property rights, constitutional rights, and for misappropriating property,” the filing says.

The complaint explains: “Plaintiff has filed many Freedom of Information Act requests for public records created or held by the U.S. Department of State … which records are of the public interest and importance to the citizens of the United States. … As it has now been revealed, a primary reason that the plaintiff did not receive the records to which the plaintiff is entitled by law is that Defendant Hillary Clinton – upon information and belief together with Cheryl Mills and Defendant Bill Clinton and other Clinton ‘loyalists’ – set up a private computer file server operating a private, stand-alone electronic mail system.”

It alleges Clinton’s “off the books” plan “concealed from the plaintiff public records to which the plaintiff was entitled to under the FOIA Act.”

It continues: “Using those concealed communications held on the private email server, upon information and belief, the defendants negotiated, arranged and implemented the sale of influence and access to U.S. government officials and decision-makers and official acts by State and other instrumentalities of the U.S. government in return for gratuitous and illegal payments – bribes – disguised as donations to defendant.

The Clinton Foundation and extraordinarily high speaking fees paid to Defendant Bill Clinton and Defendant Hillary Clinton.”

3/24/15 One More Question on Hillary Clinton E-Mails: Where Was the Watchdog?
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-24/one-more-question-on-hillary-e-mails-where-was-the-watchdog-

Inspectors General uncover waste, fraud and mismanagement in federal agencies. The State Department didn’t have an official one while Hillary Clinton worked there.

One of the many unanswered questions of the Hillary Clinton e-mail story has been: Whose job was it to raise and address concerns about her exclusive use of a private account? According to open government advocates, it would have been the agency’s permanent, independent Inspector General—someone nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate—if such a person had existed. 

For five years, including all of Clinton’s time as secretary, the State Department’s Office of Inspector General never had a confirmed inspector. Instead, it was lead by acting inspector Harold W. Geisel, a former ambassador who was accused of being too cozy to agency leadership by t***sparency groups like the Project on Government Oversight. Throughout the first half of President Obama’s first term, the absence of a State Department Inspector General while internal scandals and B******i rocked the department drew bipartisan criticism. 

“For no one to raise concerns, it’s almost impossible to believe,” said Danielle Brian, the executive director for POGO. 

“For no one to raise concerns, it’s almost impossible to believe.”
Danielle Brian, Project on Government Oversight

For years POGO has been highlighting “the frequency and the longevity of vacancies in Inspectors General offices,” as Brian put it. She added that while it was ironic that the Clinton story broke so close to last week's Sunshine Week—a time for open government advocates to raise awareness of t***sparency issues—it was also an opportunity to highlight the importance of why open government issues like Inspectors General vacancies.
“It seems like a really boring issue, but this is why it’s not,” Brian said. “These are people who … were in a position to have received tips or created a sense of there being accountability on these matters. But those vacancies scream essentially that there’s nobody whose really interested in making sure that someone is a junkyard dog in those agencies, looking for these kinds of problems.”  

Beyond the State Department

The Inspector General Act of 1978 established independent watchdog offices for every major federal agency, led by an official nominated either by the president or the agency. There are currently 11 inspector general positions open—either because President Obama or the agency have yet to nominate anyone, or because a p**********l nominee has yet to be confirmed by Congress.

Some positions have gone without nominees for years—according to a database maintained by POGO, the Department of Interior hasn’t has a permanent inspector, or p**********l nominee, since early 2009; the Agency for International Development’s OIG hasn’t had a leader or p**********l nominee since 2011. The National Archives and Records Administration hasn’t had an inspector since September 2012, when Inspector General Paul Brachfield was put on administrative leave while being investigated for racial and sexual comments.

The State Department’s permanent inspectors haven’t been above reproach—in 2007 then-IG Howard J. Krongard resigned over allegations that he’d impeded investigations into Blackwater and corruption in Iraq—but the work of vetted and confirmed officials carry more weight. In a 2011 report, the Government Accountability Office called on the State Department to address concerns regarding it independence writing that “the appointment of management and Foreign Service officials to head the State OIG in an acting capacity for extended periods of time is not consistent with professional standards for independence.”

In other words, if you wanted to inspire confidence in whistleblowers and others that the State Department is being held accountable by an independent official, that official shouldn’t be a former State Department official.

By September 2013, several months after Clinton left State, the department finally had a permanent inspector, and the department recently released a report documenting how few e-mails the State Department has saved for government records. But the long-time gap, as well as the ones at other agencies, raise questions about what other problems aren’t being investigated.

“If there was any confidence that those were robust office then people within the agency or others would have turned to them,” Brian said. “I have to believe that at some point we’ll find out that there were people who were saying ‘Why am I getting this weird email from what should obviously be state.gov?’”

Obama chained State watchdog while Clinton sent emails
1. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-chained-clintons-watchdog/article/2561288
2. http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/24/bloomberg-dont-forget-that-state-had-no-independent-ig-under-hillary/
3. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/03/25/friendly-reminder-there-was-no-inspector-general-at-state-when-hillary-was-there-n1976105
4. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/350823/missing-watchdogs-state-joseph-e-schmitz
5. http://www.wsj.com/articles/state-department-lacked-top-watchdog-during-hillary-clinton-tenure-1427239813
6. http://pumabydesign001.com/2015/04/13/state-dept-ig-investigating-huma-abedins-job-arrangement-under-hillary-clinton/
7. http://viewpointsofasagittarian.com/state-dept-ig-investigating-huma-abedins-job-arrangement-under-hillary-clinton/

The White House is saying that the State Department has responsibility for making sure their officials and staff follow the law, but the White House is responsible for making sure they have the tools to do that and they fell down on that job in making sure they have the No. 1 tool, and that's an inspector general," John Wonderlich, policy director at the Sunlight Foundation, a non-partisan open-government group, told the Washington Examiner.

That the inspector general system was broken at State during Clinton's entire time there may have discouraged whistleblowers from stepping forward to denounce Clinton's for conducting business in a suspect manner.

Jamal Ware, a spokesman for the House B******i Committee, is now encouraging whistleblowers to come forward to speak to the committee and receive full protections.

"The B******i Committee is interested in hearing from any State employee who feels they may have nonpublic information relevant to the investigation or the current issue regarding email usage," Ware told the Examiner in a statement. "Employees wishing to reach out are able to do so via the committee's website at b******i.house.gov or by calling the committee with confidence that their identity will be strictly protected."

The oversight vacuum at State during Clinton's tenure plays directly into the White House admission Monday that Obama and Clinton exchanged emails, and he knew that she was using a private account.

After saying that he learned about the private email controversy from the news, the White House said Monday that Obama and Clinton emailed during her time at State, and while Obama was aware of her use of a private email account, he didn't know the "details" of how she planned to disclose her emails to government archivists, as required by law.

"The president … did over the course of his first several years in office trade email with his secretary of state," White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Monday. "I would not describe the number of emails as large. But they did have the occasion to email one another."

Inspectors general are supposed to serve as the independent watchdogs within the federal agencies, the first line of defense against waste, corruption and officials' failure to abide by the law, while protecting whistleblowers who raise charges of wrongdoing and inefficiency.

During Obama's first four and a half years in office, the president did not name anyone to fill the top State Department inspector general slot. Instead, he acted nine months after the terrorist attacks on the U.S. consulate in B******i, resulting in the death of four Americans and harsh scrutiny of the IG vacancy.

In the aftermath of the B******i attacks, then-House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., called the vacancy a "major concern."

"When employees in any bureaucracy don't believe they will be held accountable by rigorous oversight, outdated and counterproductive thinking often overtakes common sense," Issa told Roll Call in a statement. "The State IG's visible absence of leadership in looking at what went wrong in B******i has certainly not gone unnoticed."

The Project on Government Oversight, a government accountability group, regularly tracks inspector general vacancies and was harshly critical of the long-standing vacancy at the State Department.

Michael Smallberg, a POGO investigator, said the lack of independent oversight at State naturally discouraged whistleblowers to come forward and lodge complaints because they are naturally afraid of reprisals.

"The president has a responsibility to find a qualified nominee in a timely fashion," Smallberg said. "When you are looking at a vacancy and there are questions about systemic waste, fraud and abuse, I think it's fair to ask why the president hadn't acted quickly to fulfill those obligations."

The White House did not respond to a question about whether the IG State Department vacancy during Clinton's tenure could have discouraged whistleblower complaints about her failure to use a government-issued email account, a potential violation of the Federal Records Act.

As the Examiner reported last year, whistleblowers who have turned to Congress or the media routinely say inspectors general have failed to investigate their charges of wrongdoing and then watched as their bosses retaliated against them for exposing agency secrets.

Some of the worst offenders are those inspectors general who are operating in deputy or interim positions. Only top full-fledged inspectors general have the added independence of a permanent p**********l appointment requiring Senate confirmation.

During Clinton's time at State, a career officials with several conflicts of interest served in the top post for four years even though Obama never named him to the full-fledged position and he never received Senate confirmation.

Ultimately Steve Linick was confirmed as the State IG in September 2013. For the prior five and a half years before that, Harold Geisel, the acting IG who was a career State Department official with close ties to upper-management, ran the office.

A POGO investigation found that Geisel was close personal friends with Patrick Kennedy, under secretary of state for management, and that he worked with top officials at the agency to suppress negative information in what critics argued was a multi-layered cover-up.

In one instance, the ambassador to Belgium, a big campaign bundler for President Obama, was accused of soliciting sex in a park near the U.S. Embassy in Brussels, and other State Department employees were accused of other unrelated sexual misdeeds.

Efforts to investigate the accusations were blocked by top agency managers, including Kennedy and Cheryl Mills, Clinton's chief of staff, according to whistleblower allegations. Then later, a lower-level IG investigator's report on the top brass' tactics was whitewashed, scrubbed of any damaging information before it became public, the POGO probe found.

"In a case like this there was at least the appearance of a cozy relationship with upper management, so you wonder if there were people who didn't approach the IG with information because the IG wouldn't aggressively protect them," Smallberg said.

Wonderlich agrees and says the four-and-a-half-year IG vacancy at State poses the question of why Obama failed to nominate someone for so long.
"We have to understand why the agency lapse was so long and whether it was intentional," he said.

Marcus, Read it directly from the horses mouth, direct cited historical quotations from the founding fathers and legal Supreme Court scholars.

I know this URL link, and my comments, will mean nothing to your liberal cognitive dissonance mind. Nor will you understand the below quotations from the founding fathers commentary, and will not understand because of your limited, legal historical and liberal commentary mind.

We agree to disagree, but your still wrong.

Furthermore, there seems to be liberal oxymoron approach by you, your hubris and your incapable of resolving the obvious paradox that increasing numbers of Americans are discovering you and the Liberal left. It appears that you lack critical analysis to a relevant issue.

Your premise that there is a "separation of church and state" and is the cornerstone of our Constitution. Your argument and comment (as with virtually all L*****ts' questions) is spurious, sophistic and often anti-intellectual (anti-logical).

Your thoughts proposal is based on emotional reason, and you also make baseless assumptions about others on this OPP site.

None of your personal interpretation, spin, "semantics," works here to describe what Jefferson, Monroe and Jay and the "Federalist Papers" really meant in the Constitution. Your making liberal s**t up.

Marcus you lack intellectual clarity and critical thinking sk**ls needed to understand the historical and the legal context at hand.



These are direct quotations from the founding fathers and will clarify your perceived, misconception of what is meant by "Separation of Church and State"

Marcus your the quintessential, l*****t democrat, bull-s**t talking bobble head man. http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/annotation01.html#1

These are the actual real people and their thoughts on this matter, Scholars, Lawyers, Supreme Court Justices, and obviously your name wasn't there for some reason. Hmmmm I wonder why ?

No where is your name here Marcus ! ! ! ! !

You inferred words and inability to explain, what you meant, "implied," lack of "deductive reasoning," "inferred meaning" "interpretation," "understand" and "nuanced ideals and concepts." These are all "Red-Herring literary argument fallacies.

Definition: A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion. A red herring might be intentionally used, such as in mystery fiction or as part of a rhetorical strategies (OPP Blog's e.g. in politics), or it could be inadvertently used during argumentation. The red herring tactic is a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant, and is a diversionary tactic.

Unlike the straw man fallacy, which is premised on a distortion of the other party's position.

Marcus you don't even know what a 'Red-Hering is, Your a "fucking dumb-ass Liberal." Your continued comments are all "bull-s**t" your psychological egotistical, rhetoric sucks, and your a l*****t hypocrite, more importantly, your a "Liberal dumb-ass bull-s**t talking bobble head."

But I know you will not read my comments, That's what you Liberal l*****ts do, You comment for the sake of commenting and lack clarity and reasonable critical thinking sk**ls.

Marcus, For the briefest moment, would you be able to suspend your liberal cognitive dissonance, to allow a measure of intellectual clarity and critical thinking (which is the antithesis of cognitive dissonance), to just consider the reasoned views of others outside your existential liberal progressive penitentiary.



First Amendment - U.S. Constitution
First Amendment - Religion and Expression - Amendment Text - Annotations

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Supreme Court interpretation now sets the stage for "Legal Precedent" It does not validate, vindicate or becomes the new law of the land. Their words or thoughts by Monroe, Jefferson, Jay or the "Federalist Papers, are only secondary references, for the Supreme Court to interpret the law to Everson v. Board of Education court ruling.

"The Supreme Court, borrows their words to interpret the metaphor, "Separation of Church and State" and incorporated the their metaphor, into Everson v. Board of Education decision.

As a measures to protect, other citizens claim that the display of any state sponsored Christian religious symbols. That would constitutes an infringement and a discrimination that would be hostile to secularism: i.e. Against atheist, agnostic and non-religious people and a state sponsored religion. You have no problem with this definition or statement.



RELIGION: An Overview

Madison's original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning religion read: ''The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.''

1. The language was altered in the House to read: ''Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.''

2. In the Senate, the section adopted read: ''Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, . . .''

3. It was in the conference committee of the two bodies, chaired by Madison, that the present language was written with its some what more indefinite ''respecting'' phraseology.

4. Debate in Congress lends little assistance in interpreting the religion clauses; Madison's position, as well as that of Jefferson who influenced him, is fairly clear,

5. But the intent, insofar as there was one, of the others in Congress who v**ed for the language and those in the States who v**ed to ratify is subject to speculation.



Scholarly Commentary:

The explication of the religion clauses by the scholars has followed a restrained sense of their meaning. Story, who thought that ''the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice,''

6. looked upon the prohibition simply as an exclusion from the Federal Government of all power to act upon the subject. ''The situation . . . of the different states equally proclaimed the policy, as well as the necessity of such an exclusion. In some of the states, episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others presbyterians; in others, congregationalists; in others, quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects.

It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests.

Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship.''

7. ''Probably,'' ''At the time of the adoption of the constitution and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship.

An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.''

8. The object, then, of the religion clauses in this view was not to prevent general governmental encouragement of religion, of Christianity, but to prevent religious persecution and to prevent a national establishment.

9. This interpretation has long since been abandoned by the Court, beginning, at least, with Everson v. Board of Education,

10. In which the Court, without dissent on this point, declared that the Establishment Clause forbids not only practices that ''aid one religion'' or ''prefer one religion over another,'' but as well those that ''aid all religions.'' Recently, in reliance on published scholarly research and original sources, Court dissenters have recurred to the argument that what the religion clauses, principally the Establishment Clause, prevent is ''preferential'' governmental promotion of some religions, allowing general governmental promotion of all religion in general.

11. The Court has not responded, though Justice Souter in a major concurring opinion did undertake to rebut the argument and to restate the Everson position.

[Footnote 2] The committee appointed to consider Madison's proposals, and on which Madison served, with Vining as chairman, had rewritten the religion section to read: ''No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.''

After some debate during which Madison suggested that the word ''national'' might be inserted before the word ''religion'' as ''point[ing] the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent,'' the House adopted a substitute reading: ''Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience.''

[Footnote 3] This text, taken from the Senate Journal of September 9, 1789, appears in 2 B. Schwartz (ed.), The Bill of Rights: A Documentary History 1153 (1971). It was at this point that the religion clauses were joined with the freedom of expression clauses.

[Footnote 5] During House debate, Madison told his fellow Members that ''he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their conscience.''

1. Annals of Congress 730 (August 15, 1789).
That his conception of ''establishment'' was quite broad is revealed in his veto as President in 1811 of a bill which in granting land reserved a parcel for a Baptist Church in Salem, Mississippi; the action, explained President Madison, ''comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.'''

8. The Writings of James Madison (G. Hunt. ed.) 132-33 (1904). Madison's views were no doubt influenced by the fight in the Virginia legislature in 1784-1785 in which he successfully led the opposition to a tax to support teachers of religion in Virginia and in the course of which he drafted his ''Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments'' setting forth his thoughts.

Id. at 183-91; I. Brant, James Madison--The Nationalist 1780-1787, 343-55 (1948). Acting on the momentum of this effort, Madison secured passage of Jefferson's ''Bill for Religious Liberty''. Id. at 354; D. Malone, Jefferson the Virginian 274-280 (1948). The theme of the writings of both was that it was wrong to offer public support of any religion in particular or of religion in general.

[Footnote 11] Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 91 (1985) (then-Justice Rehnquist dissenting). More recently, dissenters, including now-Chief Justice Rehnquist, have appeared reconciled to a ''constitutional tradition'' in which governmental endorsement of religion is out of bounds, even if it is not correct as a matter of history. See Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649, 2678, 2683-84 (1992) (Justice Scalia, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices White and Thomas, dissenting).

[Footnote 17] Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 16 (1947); Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 211 , 212 (1948); cf. Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 317 (1952) (Justice Black dissenting). In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 614 (1971), Chief Justice Burger remarked that ''the line of separation, far from being a 'wall,' is a blurred, indistinct and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship.

Similar observations were repeated by the Chief Justice in his opinion for the Court in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 673 (1984) (the metaphor is not ''wholly accurate''; the Constitution does not ''require complete separation of church and state [but] affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any'').

[Footnote 18] Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 314 (1952); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963); Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 305 (1963) (Justice Goldberg concurring); Walz v. Tax Comm'n, 397 U.S. 664, 694 -97 (1970) (Justice Harlan concurring). In the opinion of the Court in the latter case, Chief Justice Burger wrote: ''The course of constitutional neutrality in this area cannot be an absolutely straight line; rigidity could well defeat the basic purpose of these provisions, which is to insure that no religion be sponsored or favored, none commanded, and none inhibited.

The general principle deducible from the First Amendment and all that has been said by the Court is this: that we will not tolerate either governmentally established religion or governmental interference with religion. Short of those expressly proscribed governmental acts there is room for play in the joints productive of a benevolent neutrality which will permit religious exercise to exist without sponsorship and without interference.'' Id. at 669.

Marcus you really need to read this article, but I know you will not. "The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/06/the-mythical-wall-of-separation-how-a-mi...




Marcus the one thing missing in the [Footnote's, and in the writing of the Constitution ] Is your liberal cognitive dissonance rhetoric and your name, in flashing lights. You have "Liberal-derangement-brain-syndrom-Disorder, (LDBSD).

Marcus you don't even know what the words meaning of "Cognitive Dissonance" really understand what it means, it's a new word in your liberal repartee, but like the liberal talking parrot are, you repeat the lies of the Liberal left and the news media. It appears that you lack critical analysis to a relevant issue and clarity of a rational mind.

In a state of cognitive dissonance, people may sometimes feel "disequilibrium": frustration, hunger, dread, guilt, anger, embarrassment, anxiety, etc. which seemed to be absent from you here.

For the briefest moment Marcus I want you be able to suspend his cognitive dissonance to allow a measure of intellectual clarity and critical thinking (which is the antithesis of cognitive dissonance) to just consider the reasoned views of others outside your existential progressive penitentiary.

Eventually you will get tired of listening to the Marxist propaganda from college professors, parroted Liberal Democrats and by l*****t news media and began reading and researching on your own.



Thus Marcus, intellectual clarity and critical thinking will be birthed in your soul by using these techniques. Soon you will deduce that the political Left has a serious case of cognitive dissonance which is the discomfort experienced when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting cognitions: ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions.

Marcus try to cure your cognitive dissonance of the Democrat Socialist Party and their tens of millions of v**ers that has given us such popular cognitive dissonant policies like FDR's New Deal, LBJ's Great Society, Obama's ENDA and Obamacare – anti-American, anti-constitutional policies that have done so much to pervert, deconstruct and destroy the original intent of the constitutional Framers, Natural Law, liberty, t***h and our Judeo-Christian traditions of this once great country.

Marcus, American citizens should not be entitled to special rights above those of other American citizens under the rule of law and under a reasonable interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, unless you first separate law from morality and then you separate what the Christian constitution framers intended, then you "separate church from state."

Marcus sometimes I don't know if you are a true believer of everything L*****t, or you just love making outrageous comments to foster passionate responses? I'm prone to think it's both, but more of the former rather than the latter.

The premise of your question (as with virtually all L*****ts' questions) is spurious, sophistic and often anti-intellectual (anti-logical). "Separation of Church and State" Same-sex marriage ect. has no constitutional legitimacy whatsoever. If it did, why didn't the Framers make it plain?

Moral clarity is always greater than cognitive dissonance.

Good fucking day.

spot on, mwdegutis

Marcus, do you have "attention fucking liberal deficit disorder" (AFLDD), can you even stay focused on a subject for more than 10 seconds. Your all over the fucking place. This doesn't mean your smart, it says your a fucking scatter-brain. Thats your fucking problem with you liberals, take some fucking Ritalin.

I will be short and succinct.

In your first statement, page 20, That is really a great list of quotes. Jod well done! The United States is a nation of Christians, not a Christian nation. Separation of Church and State is a cornerstone of our Constitution. And needs to stay that way. Great job on your list of quotes.


1. You denied that you said these words. The picture say's other-wise. You Lied, you deflect and spun words. Prove that the Constitution said these words. You could not. You lied twice.

You used "semantics," to describe what Jefferson, Monroe and Jay and the "Federalist Papers" really meant in the Constitution. You inferred words to explain what you meant, "implied," "deductive reasoning," "inferred meaning" "interpretation," "understand" and "nuanced ideals and concepts." These are all "Red-Herring literary argument fallacies.


2. The 1st amendment quotation was given, "Congress shall "Make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Specifically not prohibiting the free exercise of of religion."

No where in the Constitution is it implied there is a wall of "Separation of Church and State," that this is the cornerstone of our Constitution. You could not prove this point. You lied for a third time.



3. You were given the historical background, from 1774 with the "Declaration of Independence" and ending with, Justice Black's dissertation on the Supreme Court's 1947 ruling, Everson v. Board of Education finally "Interpreted and defined" "Separation of Church and State."

The Supreme Court used secondary evidence, from the "Federalist Papers." Not the spoken words or written words by Jefferson, Monroe, Jay, and "Interprets the "Federalist Papers," after 169 years.

It is the first "Legal Precedent" terminology, defining "Separation of Church and State." [b]'Which cites the "Legal Precedent Interpretation,"[b/] and reason that the Supreme court rules this way.

The Supreme Court interpretation now sets the stage for "Legal Precedent" It does not validate, vindicate or sets their Monroe, Jefferson, Jay or the "Federalist Papers, words or thoughts."

"The Supreme Court, borrows their words to Interprets,"Separation of Church and State" and incorporated the words into Everson v. Board of Education decision.

As a measures to protect, other citizens claim that the display of any state sponsored Christian religious symbols. That would constitutes an infringement and a discrimination that would be hostile to secularism: i.e. Against atheist, agnostic and non-religious people and a state sponsored religion. You have no problem with this statement.

I gave (7) cited URL articles, you disapprove of Wikipedia, but you cited wikipedia, inferring to Justice black. A double standard here, Marcus your a "hypocrite." You didn't read one URL article. It shows in your written response to my comment. So you lied a forth time.



4. Obviously you need help with "Legal Precedent" terminology, here is "ABC's" liberal version, for you to understanding what, "Legal Precedent," really means. Since you can't comprehend United States case law and or "Legal Precedent." in one sentence, because of your "Liberal-Brain-Impairment-Disorder, (LBID).

Legal Precedent;
A court decision that is cited as an example or analogy to resolve similar questions of law in later cases and not before cases.

This is the short version of "Legal Precedent." There is a long version at, http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/precedent/

Until this Supreme Court ruling, Everson v. Board of Education, the words "Separation of Church and State" was a misused metaphor used by liberals and your self.

Justice B****s dissertation gave "Legal Precedent." This first time, that gives credibility or validity "interpretation,"to Everson v. Board of Education, and references the Federalist Papers after 169 years of United States history.

In other words, "Only after the Supreme Court interpretation." and secondary evidence, the Supreme Court "Interpreted" and gave "Legal Precedent." for the "Separation of Church and State" in "Everson v. Board of Education."

Do you now understand what "Interpreted Legal Precedent," means.

And how screwed up you liberal are. Your so full of your self, your a mere child, go crawl in a hole for a long time. You have "Liberal-derangement-brain-syndrom-Disorder, (LDBSD).

Good day.

Marcus you really need to read this article, but I know you will not. "The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/06/the-mythical-wall-of-separation-how-a-misused-metaphor-changed-church-state-law-policy-and-discourse/