Scalia Found Dead

Jammer wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:If Obama puts forth a staunch Constitutional Conservative then I hope the Senate would confirm him/her. In order to end the political divisiveness, let's hope that is exactly what he does and both parties reach across the isle for this nation's common good. I mean isn't this exactly what the democrats have been criticizing for these past seven years? I am almost positive that this is exactly the type of situation where the democratic party can shine as bi-partisan support and working for the good of the party.

Of course these statements are purely hypothetical and have ZERO chance of coming true. Just trying to point out the lying Devil spawn that controls the media and democrat party.

Yeah, I agree.  However, I would probably not use the terminology Constitutional Conservative.  While that is indeed a correct characterization, I think we are better served by classifying the ideology in different terms.

When it comes to interpreting the Constitution, just like a coin that has two sides to it, there are two sides to this issue.  On one side are the people who believe in ORIGINAL INTENT and then on the other side are those who believe in JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION.

The people who believe in original intent, believe that the Founders put the Constitution in place to protect our rights and prevent human nature from allowing our governmental leaders to become tyrannical.  Those who believe in judicial interpretation believe that the government knows what is best for everyone and that the Constitution is nothing but a hindrance to the government evolving in a manner that allows it to do whatever it feels it needs in order take care of our every need.

As long as the person nominated is a person who believes in original intent and has an extremely long and consistent record to demonstrate that belief, I am good with them.  I don’t care what gender they are, what color they are, what size and shape they are or even what political party they belong to.  My only requirement is that the person believes in original intent and will use that methodology to rule on any and all court cases brought to the Supreme Court.

Scalia was an "originalist" and a "textualist" but rejected "original intent" methodology. He stated in his book, "A Matter of Interpretation", "What I look for in the Constitution is precisely what I look for in a statute: the original meaning of the text, not what the original draftsmen intended. But the Great Divide with regard to constitutional interpretation is not that between Framers’ intent and objective meaning, but rather that between original meaning (whether derived from Framers’ intent or not) and current meaning."

He was to speak on the "Living Constitution" at Augustana but .....

I can see why you have so much fun going back and forth with Jackoff Jones.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-scalia-remembered-locally-for-his-belief-in-original-intent-of-founding-fathers-20160213-story.html

From the article wrote:  In a 2012 visit to the University of Chicago, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who had served as a law professor at the campus from 1977 to 1982, said he tried to frame his decisions by interpreting them with the original intent of the Founding Fathers.  

-------------------------------------------------------

You can use whatever terminology that you want, original meaning - original intent - originalism - or even orgasm if you want.  But I will assure you one thing that Scalia did not believe in a Living Constitution like you alluded to above.  That is Jackoff Jones type BS.

http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2012/12/supreme_court_justice_antonin.html

The article wrote:Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia rejects idea of 'Living Constitution'

-----------------------------------------------------

Here you go, now you can use this to knit pick with your buddy Jackoff Jones:

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/05/21/original-intent-original-understanding-original-meaning/

From the article wrote:Obviously, the evidence used in prove each of the three concepts overlaps. In practice, moreover, the original intent of a provision is usually the same as the original understanding or original meaning.  

Your sources are wrong. Carlos Sandovi at the Chicago Tribune is wrong confusing disparate branches of Originalism interpretation.

And Michael Boldin at Tenth Amendment Center is not only wrong but a complete moron. This is the same guy who advocates state nullification of Federal laws. Mark Levin called him a "nullification kook" and a neo-confederate.

It is abundantly clear by Scalia's own words that there is a difference between original intent and original meaning.

"It is the law that governs, not the intent of the lawgiver.  Men may intend what they will; but it is only the laws that they enact which bind us."

"It is curious that most of those who insist that the drafter's intent gives meaning to a statute reject the drafter's intent as the criterion for interpretation of the Constitution. I reject it for both."

And once again from my original post:

"What I look for in the Constitution is precisely what I look for in a statute: the original meaning of the text, not what the original draftsmen intended."

And he was going to speak on the subject of the Living Constitution at the Boe Forum although I suspect he was going to shred that argument. I may have been a tad succinct in my description of his planned talk as the title was "Whether the U.S. Constitution is a Living Document.”

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Clicker wrote:Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/13/obama-has-rare-parliamentary-window-to-make-recess-appointment-to-succeed-scalia.html

Lock & Load....

Certainly timely in Mr. Scalia's passing...

Even if it did happen, recess appointments are only good until the next session of the Senate. That would be January 3, 2017.  If the Republicans gain control of the White House and retain control of the Senate a new appointment could be made.

Obama blinked:

"Given that the Senate is currently in recess, we don’t expect the president to rush this through this week, but instead will do so in due time once the Senate returns from their recess," White House spokesman Eric Schultz said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-scalia-obama-idUSMTZSAPEC2EK3F1WR

Dr. Jones wrote:I hate to break it to Mr McConnell, but the people have already spoken.  We already have an elected president in place to make this appointment.  I wonder how it would effect the outcome of the election if our nation's obstructionists cripple the Supreme Court for an entire year. 

With Scalia's death, replacement fight brews
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/politics/antonin-scalia-supreme-court-replacement/index.html

But But But.......now that the shoe's on the other foot, you Democrats are talking a bit differently.....

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/dems_in_senate_passed_a_resolution_in1960_against_election_year_supreme_court_appointments.html

Hey you pompous ass, I have told you before that I am not going to get into one of your games of Google Ping Pong that you and Jackoff Jones love to play.  I am going to address this latest asinine comment of yours and then I am going to mostly ignore you just like I do Jackoff Jones.  So I suggest you go play your game of Google tag or whatever you call it with him.  You two are so much alike.

First off, those are not my SOURCES.  I will go looking for links on the internet at times to use as supporting documents and proof statements on here.  However, I am mostly a book, seminar, online course, etc. type person.  As such I will post below one of the books that I do own, NOTICE THE TITLE DUMBASS.





I don’t have a clue on who this Michael Boldin guy is that you refer to.  Are you on fuching drugs?  It appears that a Robert Natelson wrote the article by the Tenth Amendment Center.  Anyhow, it was just one of a dozen links that popped up when I did one of your famous Google searches when I was looking for something to post about Original Intent versus Original Meaning.  However one person that I do read sometimes is Publius Huldah and here is what she had to say about your beloved Mark Levin.  It would appear that she does not agree with him and thinks he is the one out to lunch.

https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/?s=mark+levin+refuted

I have a lot of respect for Publius.  She is a very experienced and smart person on the subject of the Constitution.  However, she is difficult to read as she gets down into so much detail and is somewhat like you in that she loves to “split hairs”.  However, there is one huge and I do mean HUGE difference between you and her and that is she actually understands what she is talking about.


Oh yeah, interestingly in the link above it gives a quote attributed to Mark Levin about Natelson who wrote the article.  It would appear to also have the hidden meaning that pompous asses like you should spend less time using Google and actually try to understand some of this stuff you copy and paste.  Otherwise you will end up contradicting yourself like you did.

From the article wrote:Does Levin cite any authority for these claims? Words of our Framers, perhaps?
No! He cites an article written by former law professor, Robert G. Natelson, who Levin says is an “expert” on this “state convention process” (p16, notes 28 & 29).

In my personal opinion, when it comes to the Constitution, I believe that of the three people. Publius, Levin and Natelson – there is no question that Publius is the more knowledgeable.  I don’t always understand some of the minutia she gets into, but I have come to the conclusion that she really understands this stuff.

And you pompous ass who has only one goal in life and that is to show the world that you are the smartest man in it or at least the best at using Google, I agree with you when you say.  

Gomezz wrote:"What I look for in the Constitution is precisely what I look for in a statute: the original meaning of the text, not what the original draftsmen intended."

Most if not 99% of the people who use the words original intent actually mean what THE FOUNDERS WROTE.  

I think the average person accepts that, it is only hair splitters like you who make Sheldon on the Big Bang look like a reasonable person, want to argue the matter using Google.  In trying to show how smart you are, you have really exhibited what a dumbass you are.  I already said that I don’t care what you call it, original meaning - original intent - originalism - or even orgasm.   But you dumbass just like Sheldon can’t pick up on that.


And for anyone who is not familiar with Publius Huldah, here is a link to her blog.

https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/

She really is pretty smart on this stuff, but her articles can get difficult to read.  Here is what she has to say on Original Intent versus Evolving Constitution.

https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/original-intent-or-evolving-constitution/

And as for your comment:

Gomezz wrote:  He was to speak on the "Living Constitution" at Augustana but .....  

That was just you channeling Jackoff Jones.  It was a misrepresentation, distortion, misleading inference and almost an outright lie.  You and Jackoff Jones are cut from the same cloth.  

Now run along and play Google tag with your little friend Jackoff Jones and let Sleazy Slut stroke your ego by telling you that you are the smartest man on the earth.  I don’t have time for any moron who would pay money to go see the movie The Martian and then write what you did.   If somebody supporting LIBERAL Hollywood was not enough, the part about you “strolling thru the gardens” you pompous ass was just too much for me.

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:I hate to break it to Mr McConnell, but the people have already spoken.  We already have an elected president in place to make this appointment.  I wonder how it would effect the outcome of the election if our nation's obstructionists cripple the Supreme Court for an entire year. 

With Scalia's death, replacement fight brews
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/politics/antonin-scalia-supreme-court-replacement/index.html

But But But.......now that the shoe's on the other foot, you Democrats are talking a bit differently.....

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/dems_in_senate_passed_a_resolution_in1960_against_election_year_supreme_court_appointments.html

Great find! I saw that somewhere last night too. Thanks for posting it.

As such I will post below one of the books that I do own, NOTICE THE TITLE DUMBASS.

Speaking of dumbasses, I'm suppose to swallow David Barton (author of one of the least credible history books ever "The Jefferson Lies" as voted by History News Network) twaddle on original intent but ignore Antonin Scalia, one of the greatest legal minds to sit on the Supreme Court, writings? When hell freezes over.

OH MY !!!

Didn't take long for this thread to take on the appearance of:


1.)   "Dammit, when I want your opinion I will give it to you."

OR


2.)   "I am sure you think you understand what I wrote but, I am not so sure what you read is what I wrote."

OR

3.)   "It is my way or the highway."



Seems the way any discussion of differing views end up if the topic is religion or politics!

Jammer wrote:This is devastating news.  The Supreme Court has done more damage to this country than the Presidency.  I realize that everyone gets all fired up over who is going to be the next president.  However, it no longer makes a difference if a flaming liberal who will always follow their extremist left leaning ideology.

Yes presidents issue Executive Orders and spend money, but it is the Supreme Court that destroys the system.  Our Constitution is hanging by a thread and this will be the end of it.  I have always maintained that as important as it was to elect a conservative president, it is thousands of times more critical that we not lose the Supreme Court to these extremist communists.  I am deathly afraid that my concerns will soon be proven true.

I urge all conservatives to turn their disgust at their liberal neighbors, friends and relatives.  These assholes have cost us the greatest nation on earth and doomed our children and grandchildren to life in a third world country.  These pieces of dogshit are evil cretins.

yah cuz it is the fault of these folks - all of them - that a supreme court justice died this past weekend.

Jammer wrote:Hey you pompous ass, I have told you before that I am not going to get into one of your games of Google Ping Pong that you and Jackoff Jones love to play.  I am going to address this latest asinine comment of yours and then I am going to mostly ignore you just like I do Jackoff Jones.  So I suggest you go play your game of Google tag or whatever you call it with him.  You two are so much alike.

First off, those are not my SOURCES.  I will go looking for links on the internet at times to use as supporting documents and proof statements on here.  However, I am mostly a book, seminar, online course, etc. type person.  As such I will post below one of the books that I do own, NOTICE THE TITLE DUMBASS.





I don’t have a clue on who this Michael Boldin guy is that you refer to.  Are you on fuching drugs?  It appears that a Robert Natelson wrote the article by the Tenth Amendment Center.  Anyhow, it was just one of a dozen links that popped up when I did one of your famous Google searches when I was looking for something to post about Original Intent versus Original Meaning.  However one person that I do read sometimes is Publius Huldah and here is what she had to say about your beloved Mark Levin.  It would appear that she does not agree with him and thinks he is the one out to lunch.

https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/?s=mark+levin+refuted

I have a lot of respect for Publius.  She is a very experienced and smart person on the subject of the Constitution.  However, she is difficult to read as she gets down into so much detail and is somewhat like you in that she loves to “split hairs”.  However, there is one huge and I do mean HUGE difference between you and her and that is she actually understands what she is talking about.


Oh yeah, interestingly in the link above it gives a quote attributed to Mark Levin about Natelson who wrote the article.  It would appear to also have the hidden meaning that pompous asses like you should spend less time using Google and actually try to understand some of this stuff you copy and paste.  Otherwise you will end up contradicting yourself like you did.

From the article wrote:Does Levin cite any authority for these claims? Words of our Framers, perhaps?
No! He cites an article written by former law professor, Robert G. Natelson, who Levin says is an “expert” on this “state convention process” (p16, notes 28 & 29).

In my personal opinion, when it comes to the Constitution, I believe that of the three people. Publius, Levin and Natelson – there is no question that Publius is the more knowledgeable.  I don’t always understand some of the minutia she gets into, but I have come to the conclusion that she really understands this stuff.

And you pompous ass who has only one goal in life and that is to show the world that you are the smartest man in it or at least the best at using Google, I agree with you when you say.  

Gomezz wrote:"What I look for in the Constitution is precisely what I look for in a statute: the original meaning of the text, not what the original draftsmen intended."

Most if not 99% of the people who use the words original intent actually mean what THE FOUNDERS WROTE.  

I think the average person accepts that, it is only hair splitters like you who make Sheldon on the Big Bang look like a reasonable person, want to argue the matter using Google.  In trying to show how smart you are, you have really exhibited what a dumbass you are.  I already said that I don’t care what you call it, original meaning - original intent - originalism - or even orgasm.   But you dumbass just like Sheldon can’t pick up on that.


And for anyone who is not familiar with Publius Huldah, here is a link to her blog.

https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/

She really is pretty smart on this stuff, but her articles can get difficult to read.  Here is what she has to say on Original Intent versus Evolving Constitution.

https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/original-intent-or-evolving-constitution/

And as for your comment:

Gomezz wrote:  He was to speak on the "Living Constitution" at Augustana but .....  

That was just you channeling Jackoff Jones.  It was a misrepresentation, distortion, misleading inference and almost an outright lie.  You and Jackoff Jones are cut from the same cloth.  

Now run along and play Google tag with your little friend Jackoff Jones and let Sleazy Slut stroke your ego by telling you that you are the smartest man on the earth.  I don’t have time for any moron who would pay money to go see the movie The Martian and then write what you did.   If somebody supporting LIBERAL Hollywood was not enough, the part about you “strolling thru the gardens” you pompous ass was just too much for me.

Wow now biting the hand of one of the few allies which you have on JSI. dirp

And no one needs me to vouch for Gomezz's intelligence. It is obvious to anyone who scans JSI and has even half a head full of gray matter that Gomezz is one of the most scholarly posters on this site. You can always tell a guy from U of Chi.

...not to mention that Gomezz is more gentlemanly even in the face of an unwarranted attack.  You sound quite a bit like Donald Trump at the debate last Sat night.  He feels his standing slipping too.

Skeptical wrote:
OH MY !!!

Didn't take long for this thread to take on the appearance of:


1.)   "Dammit, when I want your opinion I will give it to you."

OR


2.)   "I am sure you think you understand what I wrote but, I am not so sure what you read is what I wrote."

OR

3.)   "It is my way or the highway."



Seems the way any discussion of differing views end up if the topic is religion or politics!

Hey no problem, since you, Gomezz and Sleazy Slut would like me to leave, I will soon accommodate you.

Jammer wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
OH MY !!!

Didn't take long for this thread to take on the appearance of:


1.)   "Dammit, when I want your opinion I will give it to you."

OR


2.)   "I am sure you think you understand what I wrote but, I am not so sure what you read is what I wrote."

OR

3.)   "It is my way or the highway."



Seems the way any discussion of differing views end up if the topic is religion or politics!

Hey no problem, since you, Gomezz and Sleazy Slut would like me to leave, I will soon accommodate you.

Before you go, will you give me the address of that poor woman that lives down the street from you?  Somebody needs to warn her that she has a sociopath in her neighborhood preying on her.  I would hate to read about her in the paper after it's too late....

Send it PM if you need.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

As such I will post below one of the books that I do own, NOTICE THE TITLE DUMBASS.

Speaking of dumbasses, I'm suppose to swallow David Barton (author of one of the least credible history books ever "The Jefferson Lies" as voted by History News Network) twaddle on original intent but ignore Antonin Scalia, one of the greatest legal minds to sit on the Supreme Court, writings? When hell freezes over.

Well that was interesting, another PROGRESSIVE LIBERAL tactic from you.  You and Jackoff Jones have so much in common.  I love it how you attack the messenger rather than the message.  And even more interesting, David Barton was not even delivering a message.  His name was merely on the book cover that I posted.

And you immediately singled him out and jumped right on it just like a good progressive all lined up to pile on any conservative at your first opportunity.  It is really interesting to watch the common traits of you and Jackoff Jones.  And it is so heartwarming how you cozy up to Sleazy Slut.  I suggest you help her learn how to sting two coherent grammatically correct sentences together.

First off, I never asked you to swallow anything from David Barton.  I wouldn’t even consider doing that since I know how you like to pal around with Jackoff Jones.  I can only imagine what and how much you are already swallowing.

Second, I posted the cover of the book for two reasons.   The first was to illustrate my preference for things other than you and Jackoff Jones’ favorite sources GOOLGE SEARCHES.  The other reason is that I was trying to show that it has been common practice for many years for many people to refer to the issue at hand as ORIGINAL INTENT.  But once again, that went right past you.  You had to ATTACK David Barton for no reason whatsoever.

As for your attack, I know virtually nothing about it.  However, I am going to dig into it and see what I find.  I suspect it is just more progressive liberal bullshit like you and Jackoff Jones like to spread.  But then again, from the person who tried to insinuate that Justice Scalia believed in a LIVING CONSTITUTION, you are probably capable of a lot.

I will let you know what I learn about your accusation of David Barton’s character and competence.  I am sure you can hardly wait.

Actually Mr Jammer I can. Wait that is.

Don't feel obliged to uncover a confirmation of the truth that Gomezz brought to this thread (again).

It'd be OK if you just left (as you promised). But give Dr Jones the information he requested first (about your neighbor).

Shortie's Ex wrote:  You can always tell a guy from U of Chi.

Sometimes not very much though !

Jammer wrote:Hey no problem, since you, Gomezz and Sleazy Slut would like me to leave, I will soon accommodate you.

Go ahead, cut your nose off to spite your face, it is yours to do with as you see fit !

BTW, I will ask you to apologize ... to me anyway ...if the other two you named ever mentioned they would like you to leave I missed it since I do not read every post every day but, I can say I don't recall ever writing those words.

Skeptical wrote:

Shortie's Ex wrote:  You can always tell a guy from U of Chi.

Sometimes not very much though !

LOL  

Skeptical wrote:

Shortie's Ex wrote:  You can always tell a guy from U of Chi.

Sometimes not very much though !

Oh Skeptical this is exactly the joking line that I was thinking about !

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Speaking of dumbasses, I'm suppose to swallow David Barton (author of one of the least credible history books ever "The Jefferson Lies" as voted by History News Network) twaddle on original intent but ignore Antonin Scalia, one of the greatest legal minds to sit on the Supreme Court, writings? When hell freezes over.

It seems this one disappeared for some reason.  

While I attempt to dig into this monumental task of understanding the personal attack on David Barton by Gomezz, I am completely mystified by exactly what type of person would have done this.  David Barton seems like a wonderful Christian man who has dedicated his life to understanding the Founding Fathers and the principles they followed when they created this great country.  He has amassed an immense collection of original documents (yes, many are copies of the original, but they are from the original documents) that he does much of his research from.

By all measures David Barton is a wonderful human being who deeply cares about his religion and our country.  Therefore I just keep asking myself “what type of person would make this seemingly unwarranted attack”?  But then I remember it is the same person who said:

And Michael Boldin at Tenth Amendment Center is not only wrong but a complete moron. This is the same guy who advocates state nullification of Federal laws. Mark Levin called him a "nullification kook" and a neo-confederate.

There it was again, totally out of the blue an unwarranted attack on an individual.  The real mystifying part about this attack was that it was on someone who had never even been mentioned.  I realize that I made a mistake in posting a picture of Barton’s book and that set Gomezz into a tizzy, but I had never heard this guy’s name before.  I had posted a link to an article written by a totally different person and that was the reply to it.  All a person can say is “totally bizarre.

And just like his buddy Butt Hole who likes to make outlandish claims and then never provide any answers when confronted with a challenge, the question of just why that attack was lodged at him remains unanswered.

I understand the differences between Boldin and Levin as one is a believer in Nullification and the other in an Article V convention.   And those two strategies are a little like oil and water when the supporters get together.  Both think the other is out to lunch.  

However, there was a fine young lady who is quite knowledgeable on the Constitution who posted a well written defense of Mr. Natelson who wrote the article in the link I had previously provided.  It is pretty much along the lines of what Publius Huldah has written on the matter.  You can find that rebuttal in the following link, I hope you read it.

http://northcarolina.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/10/keep-the-federal-government-in-check-with-nullification-not-liberty-amendments/

The final data point in trying to figure out just what type of person would make these types of attacks, you must consider that Gomezz also said:

He (Scalia) was to speak on the "Living Constitution" at Augustana but .....

If that is not a typical progressive liberal attempt to distort, misrepresent and deceive, I don’t know what is.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Speaking of dumbasses, I'm suppose to swallow David Barton (author of one of the least credible history books ever "The Jefferson Lies" as voted by History News Network) twaddle on original intent but ignore Antonin Scalia, one of the greatest legal minds to sit on the Supreme Court, writings? When hell freezes over.

This turned out to be one huge undertaking as it is a rather complex issue.  But here is what I have found.

First of all David Barton has dedicated his life to his work of understanding our Founding Fathers and our early American history.  He believes in doing research on the original writings of our Founding Fathers.  To that end he has amassed over 100,000 original or copies of original documents that predate 1812.  In 1987 he formed Specialty Research Associates that focuses on the historical research of issues relating to America's constitutional, moral, and religious heritage.  He has been totally committed to that passion ever since.

It appears that he is a primary target of progressive liberal groups because of how he has pushed back on their attempts to rewrite history and in particular their attempts to take religion out of America.  He has done that by using the Founders’ own words to refute the revisionist attempts to tell an inaccurate story of our Founding and thus enable people to “fundamentally transform” America.  As such, he is quite disliked by progressive liberals and is constantly in their crosshairs.  

Progressive liberals if they are to be successful in their attempt to fundamentally transform America into their socialist utopia must vilify our Founders and the principles they believed in.  They seek to remake our Founders into atheists and deists.   Of particular importance to them is Thomas Jefferson and his all important comment about the separation of church and state.

Progressive liberals must paint Jefferson as somebody who is not a Christian and believed there should be a barrier between church and state.  However, that is absolutely not what Jefferson meant with his comment.  Therefore, the progressive liberals must distort, misrepresent, deceive and outright lie about what Jefferson really said and who he was.

David Barton’s book that is in question identifies 7 specific lies the progressive liberals were perpetuating about Thomas Jefferson.  The following description is copied from a narrative about David Barton’s book:

----

“America, in so many ways, has forgotten. Its roots, its purpose, its identity―all have become shrouded behind a veil of political correctness bent on twisting the nation's founding, and its founders, to fit within a misshapen modern world.
The time has come to remember again.
In The Jefferson Lies, prominent historian David Barton sets out to correct the distorted image of a once-beloved founding father, Thomas Jefferson. To do so, Barton tackles seven myths head-on, including:
• Did Thomas Jefferson really have a child by his young slave girl, Sally Hemings?
• Did he write his own Bible, excluding the parts of Christianity with which he disagreed?
• Was he a racist who opposed civil rights and equality for black Americans?
• Did he, in his pursuit of separation of church and state, advocate the secularizing public life?

Through Jefferson's own words and the eyewitness testimony of contemporaries, Barton repaints a portrait of the man from Monticello as a visionary, an innovator, a man who revered Jesus, a classical Renaissance man―and a man whose pioneering stand for liberty and God-given inalienable rights fostered a better world for this nation and its posterity. For America, the time to remember these truths again is now.”

After Barton published his book, a psychology professor Warren Throckmorton and a colleague Michael Coulter a political science and humanities professor published an attack on the accuracy of Barton’s book.  There are several interesting things.  The first is that Barton’s book appears to be several hundred pages long with reportedly over 2,000 facts, quotes and statements about Jefferson.  It appears that Throckmorton and Coulter published their book attacking Barton in roughly 3 weeks time.  

That seems quite amazing in itself, but when you consider that neither Throckmorton or Coulter appear to have any background at all in early American history and neither had published any previous works on the subject, it really makes one wonder if they were not mere puppets in this attack.

Anyhow, Throckmorton and Coulter set out to recruit any willing participants to join them in this attack.  They found four others who were willing to join in.  Interestingly out of this group of six ONLY ONE had any prior experience in early American history.  Yes they were ACADEMICS, but quite light on the history part.  And when one considers that the vast majority of ACADEMICS are progressive liberals who do not want religion anywhere near their universities, one must wonder once again.

There is another interesting tidbit that I uncovered.  Reportedly the ONLY person in this gang of six who had any early American history and in particular religion and the American Founding apparently didn’t even read the book.  He watched a 1992 video entitled America’s Godly Heritage and may have based his assessment on that.  If that is true, what does that sound like?

At this point, the gang of six launched an all out media attack on David Barton and his book.  It appears that this attack identified ONLY 23 problem areas out of the over 2,000 facts in the book.  It looks like these 23 problems were grounded in minutia, semantics and personal interpretations.   WOW, where have we seen that recently on this forum?

I am not going to go thru all 23 issues as it is a monumental task.  I will choose one of Throckmorton’s most strenuous objections.  It was over David Barton’s assertion that Thomas Jefferson helped finance the printing of one of America’s groundbreaking bibles.  Barton had shown that Jefferson had “subscribed” to the publication of the bible.  Throckmorton objected and claimed that merely “subscribing” to a book or magazine was hardly the actual financing of the publication of the bible.

The problem is that Throckmorton used TODAY’S definition of the word “subscribed”.  However, back in those days “subscribed” meant something quite different from our understanding today.  It has been documented that Founding Father Noah Webster has clearly stated in documents of the period that a subscriber was a person who has pledged or promised a certain sum to an undertaking.

That definition would certainly be consistent with various other entries in Jefferson’s ledger which included:

I have subscribed to the building of an Episcopalian Church $200, a Presbyterian Church $60, a Baptist Church $25
Subscribed towards building an Episcopalian Church in Washington $100
Subscribed to church near Navy yard $50
Subscribed $50 towards Methodist Church in Georgetown

Another claim Throckmorton made to back up his present day interpretation was that Jefferson subscribing (his present day definition) to the bible made perfect sense since Jefferson had an extensive personal library.  Unfortunately for Throckmorton that when you analyze other information it shows that Jefferson did indeed have a library of over 6,000 books but he only SUBSCRIBED to 24 books.  That is just more confirmation that David Barton is indeed correct on his assertion that Jefferson did indeed help fund one of the first bibles in America and show that Throckmorton (along with Gomezz) has it WRONG.

Based on the time it takes to go thru this stuff, I am going to only provide one example of a problem.  It is fairly illustrative of the commonality that runs thru many of them.  It appears that many of them are even more minute and ridiculous than the one that I provided.

Based upon the material that I have read, well over 90% of the claims made by the gang of 6 are baseless.  David Barton has said that there are a few passages tht could have been more carefully worded or presented better.  He has promised to make these improvements in future editions.

In my opinion, these attacks on Barton’s book are totally unwarranted.  And while Barton has said that a few enhancements will be made to better present or clarify the material in future editions, the book is not what has been claimed by Gomezz.

My last comment on this issue is around the well orchestrated media attack on David Barton.  This was not merely a challenge by a few upset college professors.  All you have to do is Google the book and you will see how every progressive liberal outlet picked it up and pushed it out to their USEFUL IDIOTS.  At first glance one would think the entire universe was coming out against Barton’s book.  But no, it is essentially the gang of 6 and a coordinated progressive liberal attack against a person they see as a real problem for them.

Oh yeah, it was also reported that the gang of 6 were CONSERVATVES and that made this attack so believable.  Well I have done some looking including the Twitter feeds of some of them and if they are conservatives, they are noticeably to the left of Lindsay Graham.  One of them was all in a tizzy over the reporting of Muslims as a percentage of the population in several European countries.  He was screaming that these countries were intentionally over reporting the percentage of Muslims and therefore artificially making the Muslim problem in certain countries look worse than it really is.  For some reason, that did not sound like a conservative to me.  

Another Tweet was expressing that his passions were Ancient Greece and campaign finance reform.  One would have thought that it would have been early American history and our Founding Fathers.  Oh and one more thing, I checked into some teacher ratings I found on line and they were not very good.  There were a lot of comments “TERRIBLE PROFESSOR”

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:I hate to break it to Mr McConnell, but the people have already spoken.  We already have an elected president in place to make this appointment.  I wonder how it would effect the outcome of the election if our nation's obstructionists cripple the Supreme Court for an entire year. 

With Scalia's death, replacement fight brews
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/politics/antonin-scalia-supreme-court-replacement/index.html

At present the "will of the people" is divided although I would argue that the current Congress is a better representative of that will than Obama, being affirmed in the latest election in 2014. Obama can certainly appoint someone and he probably will but it is also the Senate's power to not act on or reject that nomination.

That's not a badge I would be carrying around on my chest.  A shift to the right on off years has been pretty typical the last few cycles.  With roughly 1/3 voter participation in '14, I wouldn't put too many eggs in that basket.  Also with the two GOP frontrunners bring Trump and the Baconater, Hillary is practically a shoe in.  Do you really want to risk all three seats going liberal on those two clowns?  Maybe it would be a good idea to hedge their bet and accept a moderate.

Dick for brains is sending the court fool to represent his sham of an administration at Scalia's funeral.

Love Lisa Benson's work

We now have President kluster-fudge saying he'll nominate a "moderate" as a replacement for Scalia.
Is he simply trying to make sure he gets his 3rd appointment? Or maybe just wanting to make the Reps look silly by not considering a Rep Governor? I think the sneaky bastards are trying to set a standard for replacing a like minded judge with an equally like minded candidate so that when the radical libs start disappearing from the bench a Rep Prez with a Rep congress will be compelled to do the same or face the charge of changing the game. Old scam is to set the rules then bitch when the opposition ignores them.
Any ideas?