She's putting it on a tee...

Look, I'm not so naive to assume that there aren't multiple ways to look at the separation of church and state. I, for one, am a firm believer in the principle. However, I also understand that governments dabble in religion out of necessity. A good example is allowing religious services in public parks. I have no problem with this. However, when that door is open, it needs to be opened wide, allowing for all faiths. I'm not sure your average militant Christian, who spends his day decrying the war on Christmas, is willing to have the door open that wide.

You'll notice in my previous comments that I gave her the opening for a separation discussion. Well, she took the bait.

There is no such phrase as "Separation between Church and State" in our Bill of Rights or the Constitution. The founders of our country wanted the government to stay out of religion not that religion was to stay out of government. Look at the Bill of Rights based on the Ten Commandments...

Now, the first argument is fairly common. Faulty, but common. The second argument is just plain funny. So, I gave her this...

Where should I start? You made two very interesting arguments. One of them was fairly predictable. I'll start there. You're right, those words aren't in there. Have you heard of "separation of powers" or "interstate commerce"? Like the separation of church and state, these are well established constitutional principles.

Next: The Bill of Rights is based on the 10 Commandments? I'm going to need you to clarify that. I'll be honest, it's been a while since I've read the 10 Commandments. Strangely enough, they don't mention it in church a lot. You'd think they would But, I compared the two, and I can't find any similarities...other than the number of them. Nothing about coveting, graven image, the sabbath, adultery...nothing.

I think it's funny that you called me out for a phrase that isn't in the constitution...only to make a comparison that is completely non existent.

All panic, no relief...

Well, FreeAmerica has joined the WarOnChristmas [Copyright Foxnews] defense. On this one, I actually agree with her. Thankfully, the rightwing blogosphere has struck a blow against those evil secular humanists. Thought I'd let her know:

I'm sure you would have brought it up sooner or later, but you've won this battle against the vast liberal conspiracy against Christmas. It should come as no surprise to you that I'm a huge fan of the separation of church and state [for another discussion]. I've often made the case that we Christians spend entirely too much time trying to figure out how we can insert our faith into the public sector...and then get way too defensive when governments push back.

In this case, I happen to agree with you. I wouldn't have pulled the 1st Amendment alarm quite as quickly, but I do believe San Diego Co. over reacted and handled the fallout fairly poorly. This is what happens when governments get involved with religion, regulation or otherwise. They tend to be fairly clumsy about it.

Don't get me wrong, local municipalities have a right and responsibility to zone churches appropriately. In fact, when I was growing up, one of our neighbors started a church in his garage. He probably averaged 20-50 people every Sunday...not to mention the other gatherings. It did cause a parking/traffic issues and hard feelings with the neighbors. Although, I still think they were making too big of a deal out of it, there were problems nonetheless. This is one of the reasons these zoning/usage regulations exist and churches are not immune. There's a fine line between a church [in this case, a "religious assembly"] and a bible study. I don't doubt that this is the latter but where is the line? Is it 25 people? 30? 50? 100? I'm not one that freaks out over people parking on his road [as long as I have off street parking :)]. However, there are those who do. I have a feeling that's where this issue started: a whiney neighbor and a poorly trained or over zealous code enforcement officer.

By the way...I get the idea behind this blog, but what does this topic have to do with Obama, change, or "show[ing] what a liar Obama is".

Oops...

Yes. I do make mistakes. Darn adult ADD!! Regardless, I think she might be playing possum with me.

First, let me apologize for a mistake. One of my links was directed to the wrong place. It should have taken you here My second link was correct. Thank you for your patience.

You don't know where my data came from? Let me help. First, as you may have noticed, the second [correctly linked] CQ report explained, "The table below shows how frequently House lawmakers have supported President Bush during roll-call votes this year. The 2006 support scores reflect the percentage of the time that a lawmaker's vote on the floor matched a clear presidential position." So, their methods should be fairly clear.

Next, I took that data [from both reports] and calculated the average percentage that Republicans supported president Bush. Granted, the 2007 data is pointless because he was a lame duck, Republicans were desperately trying to separate themselves from an unbelievably unpopular President, and they could do so without any repercussions because they were a politically irrelevant minority. At that point, they could have voted for his impeachment and seen a 5% bump in their polling among Rush Limbaugh listeners. Not to mention that they didn't want or need President Bush's support in 08.

However, if your observation was true, his support should have been much lower in 05 and 06. In fact, one could argue that it should have been lower in 07.

Hopefully this clears up my point and methodology.

An interesting note

Fmr. La Crosse County Chair Chris Muller has a recent post on one of FreeAmerica's blogs. I've always found Chris and his blogs fairly "interesting". As far as Chris is concerned, I always thought it was funny that he had no problem posting comments on the WIZM Forum during his tenure as the party chair. He's obviously entitled to voice his opinion. But, call me crazy; That's not the place I would choose to communicate my message as party chair.

The other thing I've noticed is that he has several blogs. Even though Chris is probably better educated, more well-spoken and politically savoy than FreeAmerica, I must say, I have way more respect for her and her blogs than I do for anything Chris has published. At a minimum, FreeAmerica has given her own spin to the conservative noise machine. At her worst, she's giving her own opinions based on a lack of any research, political blinders, or completely mindless conspiracy theories. But, they are just that: her opinions...her spin. Opinions which she writes and composes herself. The same can't be said for much of what Chris posts. His blogs, including his recent post on FreeAmerica's, amount to little more than a linkdump. In several recent posts, she's inched toward Chris' style. For her sake and my amusement, I hope she sticks with her own shenanigans. They are much more entertaining.

Research? Why bother...

She's pretty confident that those darn RINO's didn't support the good President Bush in his righteous endeavors.

I, as a Conservative, did not see one issue that the Republican Congress, Senate or House, ever stood with the President. The Republican Congress caved in to the Dems everytime on every issue. Pull my hair out? You bet, it was the most pitiful Congress ever. As for Rove and Chaney show me proof of anything they did that was illegal.

I seem to remember a fairly humorous "Rubber Stamp Congress" campaign [or something like that]. So, I figured the numbers had to be a little better than she remembered it. So I did some quick research.

That's interesting, because the data I've read indicated fairly firm support for the President and his policies by Republican legislators throughout Bush's tenure. For instance, Congressional Quarterly does a "Presidential Support" rating. By my calculations, House Republicans supported President Bush 75% of the time in 2007 and 88% of the time in 2006. In this it shows them supporting him 83% of the time in 2005. And these are the years when President Bush's approval ratings were plummeting.

In the time I have, that's as far back as I was able look. I'd be interested to see your research on these or any other years which shows that the Republican Congress never "stood with the President".

Oh, and I didn't say Rove or Cheney did anything illegal...twisted a few arms of Capital Hill, yes. Whether or not they did "anything illegal" is for another discussion.

Once again, we agree...on two things;

First, she was wrong and possibly misleading.

Of course, again you are correct, they are not picked by President Obama...

Second, it's a good thing to have checks and balances.

...however, Geitner and the rest of Obama picks for staff are corrupt as well. So I included all of the government as Obama staff because they seem to follow his every command. No checks and balances in this new and improved government. See new post

She goes on in a new post [where once again she drops my name]. Awesome.

As my friend "P" pointed out I did lump the Congress, House and Senate, as part of the Obama administration which they should not be but as I see it they are one and the same. Whatever Obama wants he gets or he punishes them.

I thought she needed an "atta-girl".

Once again, we agree on something! Checks and balances is a good thing. It's not always positive to have a legislative branch who walks in lock-step behind their President for partisan reasons.

Given your perception of this situation, you must have been pulling your hair out during the first 6 years of the Bush administration. I think Cheney/Rove made a few Republican legislators cry on more than one occasion in an effort to keep them in line.

But, wait...

...I don't think they're in the administration.

She'd done this before, so I thought I'd clarify a little something for her.

You've mentioned corruption in the administration once before. I don't expect to convince you of otherwise, so I thought I might clear one thing up for you. Rep. John Murtha is not a member of the Obama administration. He is a member of the House of Representatives, an entirely different branch of the United States Government.

Oh, and regarding the aforementioned post: neither are "Dodd, Rangle, Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, Diane Feinstein".

Just an FYI from your friend, P.

Just one more of those little details that she misses

...or does she?

A moment of civility...on my part...

It will be interesting to see how it's received. She points out a recent Gallup poll which indicates a shift in public opinion regarding abortion. I thought a little more needed to be said:

Time did an interesting article on this study. For the most part, they agree that there is a noticeable shift in public opinion. They point out to important things.

First, the "pro-life/choice" tags don't really say a whole lot about where public opinion really sits. Why? Because within those two labels there is a wide range of varying opinions on what it means to be one or the other. Combine that with the influences which push us to self-define as one or the other and you've got yourself a fairly mixed bag of data.

The other interesting fact is, while a slim majority of Americans identify themselves as "pro-life", an overwhelming majority feel that abortion should be legal in [at least] some capacity.

None of this is necessarily the fault of the pollster and it doesn't negate an obvious shift in how people identify themselves. However, it does point out that there are glaring differences within the groups who we like to paint with a fairly broad stroke...usually for our own purposes.

A history lesson?

Taking a history lesson from FreeAmerica is like taking a driving lesson from Stevie Wonder. She might understand the larger concepts, but she's missing most of the key details. Then again, you won't catch Stevie behind the wheel of a car any time soon. She seems to have forgotten that the Nazi's were slightly more subtle in their approach toward the dehumanizing Jews. So I thought she could use a little brush up on all that studying she's been doing.

I'll pass on the history lesson. Without a doubt, you're right...dehumanization was the end result we all learned about in grade school. In all your heady research, did you ever come across "Nürnberger Gesetze"? Every time you start to feel that those who disagree with you aren't "real" or "true" Americans, take a quick look at the aforementioned piece of history.

Oh, and by the way. I'm just as offended by abortion as I am by the 10 year old who has his limbs ripped off by a bomb dropped from 40,000 feet.

I still don't get it.

The article says, "Samuel Wurzelbacher, the Ohio man hailed as "Joe the Plumber" by Republican John McCain's presidential campaign last year, said he believes gays are "queer" and said he won't allow them near his children." Does he deny calling them "queer"? No. He gives us a vocab lesson.

She remains adamant, so, I thought I needed more clarification.

Huh? According to the text of the article you site, the one which you claim needs to be read in its entirety, he did call them "queer". He calls them queer, exactly as the title indicates. Of course, he tried to explain it away as meaning "odd"...but he did call them queer.

I guess you could claim that the paper used his words to make it a bigger story than it really is. In fact, you and I probably agree that this is a non story. My opinion, however, is heavily influenced by the fact that I think Joe is a non-story. But, unless I'm mistaken, this is exactly what Mr. The Plumber wanted. He could have used 100 other more common terms. He didn't. He chose a term which has been twisted into a disparaging connotation.

So, one of three things is going on.
A. He's time traveled from sometime prior to 1940.
B. He's an idiot.
C. He's a media strumpet.

Hey, how 'bout that. I used my own ancient term. Regardless, while both B and C may be true, it's probable that "C" brought us to this particular story.

Did I have a stroke?

Am I missing something. The title of the post is "Joe the Plumber calls gays "queers".

She goes on to explain that the AP title is misleading. The title of the AP article is "Joe the Plumber calls gays 'queer'". He goes on to educate us on the dictionary definition of "queer"; "

"Queer means strange and unusual. It's not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we're supposed to do - what man and woman are for."

Fair enough. I understand that to some, homosexuality is strange and unusual. But, he also tells us what he really thinks:

"I've had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn't have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they're people, and they're going to do their thing."

So, there's a couple things wrong here. The AP article never says he called homosexuals "queers"...not in the title and not in the text. Second, she claims "he is not gay bashing just saying it like it is." So, I had to comment:

Just a couple comments. The article doesn't say he called them "queers"...not in the title nor in the text. Your title is the only place it appears. There's a huge grammatical difference between calling someone "a queer" vs saying something or someone "is queer"...not to mention that the latter [Joe's explanation] is seldom used in today's vernacular. Oh, since Joe's reading the dictionary, he might also want to make note of the slang reference in most dictionary definitions...and possibly choose a different word. Unless, of course, he's simply looking for publicity. But, that doesn't sound like Joe.

As to whether he's "gay bashing"; I guess it depends on your definition of bashing. Indicating that you won't allow your children around an individual isn't exactly a term of endearment. If I said, "I don't believe people should be closed minded, fraudulent, media sponges. I wouldn't let my children around Joe", am I bashing Joe, or just "telling it like it is"

Good news!!!

I'm not dumb:

You are not dumb so you know the answer to your question. You are really quite obvious in the reasons for your questions. Not chasing that rabbit.

So, I submit my question...again:

I appreciate your confidence in my intelligence, but it's an honest question. What you wrote is very interesting and I'm hoping I'm reading it wrong. I've seen discussions about prioritizing protecting the rights of unborn children vs protecting the rights of convicted criminals. Others have pointed out that often conservatives are pro-life, except as it relates to criminals [ie many of them are pro-death penalty]. Both of those are valid arguments.

I just want to understand your argument. Are you saying that the constitution gives us permission to "torture people to death" if they have committed a crime?

Sometimes I can't help myself...

Whether it's spelling or hackery, once might be considered an unfortunate mistake, twice is a possible sign of ignorance.

Just a few things. First of all, environmentalist starts with an "E", not an "I".

Next; I didn't claim that all "all pro-life people are like him". When you re-read the comment, I'd like you to notice the word "might". This is just one more case where you take an otherwise very specific statement and claim that it's a very broad brush. Hence, the pattern I mentioned. If I were to say, quite a few houses in La Crosse are red. You'd claim, "P. thinks that every house in La Crosse is blue".

Lastly, regarding your assertion of what a "true American" is, please allow me to take a page from your playbook; Didn't Hitler try to convince the German people that the Jews weren't true Germans?

I'm nothing if not helpful...

I noted a little problem with her post about the President's birth certificate...other than the ridiculousness of it. The link doesn't work:

IS HE OR ISN'T HE THAT IS THE QUESTION

I ask again if Obama has nothing to HIDE then why doesn't he simply provide his official birth certificate. Why does he spend so much money to hide who he truly is if there is not problem. Talk about a a real illegitimate president. This is such a simple solution to the question is Obama a real "natural" born citizen or not. This is a law that needs to be added to the registration for candidate for any government position.

I thought she might appreciate my help.

Other than the worn out argument, I thought you might want to know that the link doesn't work.

Ewwwww....

I must say, I really do enjoy the back and forth with FreeAmerica. I think she's very genuine in her beliefs. Quite often she's horribly misinformed...in a humorous way. But every once in a while she's just plain disturbing. Here's one of those times:

The Constitution could not cover every single issue that could or had come up. It gave us the guidelines to be a free and independent people and freedom to live life and prosper as free human beings is very evident. Just like the Bible you can pick and choose ideas out of context to make it say anything you want it to. But the truth lies in the reason for the publication and no where in the constitution can I find anything to tell us that killing preborn children and torturing people to death unless they had committed a crime, was ok.

We'd probably both agree that The Constitution is quite clear about torture. So why did she feel the need to qualify here statement. I thought that deserved further explanation:

I'd appreciate it if you could clarify something. Let me quote you, please: "But the truth lies in the reason for the publication and no where in the constitution can I find anything to tell us that killing preborn children and torturing people to death unless they had committed a crime, was ok."

Why did you feel the need for that caveat [in bold]?

I admit that it's quite possible, given her writing "style" that I'm misunderstanding her. If she had left "unless they had committed a crime" out of that statement, it might have made sense. But...is she saying that she can find someplace in the constitution where it is ok to torture a a person to death if they "committed a crime"?

Am I the puppet master?

Once again, rather than just sticking to the thread of comments, she's decided it's a good idea to address my comments as a whole new post. I must really be getting to her. Granted, I have a whole blog dedicated to calling out her hackery...but I've never claimed it was anything else. Obviously, there are issues that she and I are not going to see eye to eye on. I know it's nearly fruitless to try to "discuss" issues with her. For someone who demands the comments on her blog be "aimed at issues and not the author or those who post the comments". She certainly does go out of her way to take very personal jabs at those who comment on her blog. Among other things, she's questioned my intelligence, questioned my humanity, and questioned my status as a "true American". So I felt it was neccesary to call her out:

I don't know where to start. Are there "environmental terrorists"? Without a doubt. Here's the thing that's interesting. The report discusses the possibility that disgruntled veterans may be targeted [key word] by fringe groups. It doesn't say they are terrorists. You know who does? You. I see a pattern of this behavior with you. Once again, I encourage you to stop propping up these straw men. It completely waters down any legitimate gripe you may have in the future.

Lastly, I find it interesting that you'd infer that I'm "inhuman" all while seemingly justifying the bombing of clinics. I doubt that you think it's a good idea to bomb clinics. As I stated in my blog, I respect your anti-abortion stance. Apparently, I shouldn't expect either of those same courtesies from you.

So, we come to her reply regarding "true Americans" and their views on abortion. Surprisingly, she admitted that she was mistaken in confusing the Declaration and the Constitution. This is fairly common. Given this, anyone who uses blogger understands that it's fairly simple to edit a post. Yet, she chooses to leave her mistake in tact. I also thought it might be a good idea to comment on U.S. History. Oh, and I still want to know what else denotes a "True American".

So you made a mistake and you don't edit your post to correct it? Trust me, I understand we can disagree on our facts, but it's crazy that even when we agree that you were wrong, you can't even bring yourself to correct the post.

I could be wrong, but I believe if you study the history of abortion laws in this country, it was widely practiced and generally legal until the mid 1800s in most states. Given that it was fairly common in colonial times, I find it interesting that the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence and/or the US Constitution were so quiet about the issue...other than, of course, your assertion of the reference to "life" in the Declaration. Then again, they didn't give you the right to vote either. They didn't prohibit slavery.

Maybe guiding our action and making assumptions based on what a group of lawmakers didn't do centuries isn't such a good idea.

Lastly, I'd like to request a subject for a post. I'd like you to list the other opinions you believe I should have to be a "True American". Obviously, I should oppose abortion. What else?