Raving Conservative


Monday, November 28, 2005

The Biggest 'Tard in America

And the winner is . . .

Michael Newdow!

This was a tough post to write initially just because there are so many ‘tards to choose from. Ted Kennedy, both Clintons, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore, Cyndi Sheehan, the entire ACLU, I hardly knew where to start! Then I saw this headline:

Michael Newdow Sues to Have “In God We Trust” Taken Off of US Currency.

That settled it.

The same reject who is about to get his legal clock cleaned at the Supreme Court when his attempt to have the words “Under God” banished from the Pledge of Allegiance is now trying to have OUR NATIONAL MOTTO removed from our currency. The next step, of course, is to try to get the courts to force us to change our national motto to something atheistic just to please a vast minority of Americans.

Not only do some 85% of Americans call themselves Christian, around 95% profess some kind of belief in God or gods. Surprise folks! This makes America a very religious nation! It is only natural that a religious nation SHOULD acknowledge God in some general way, and in a Nation that is 85% Christian it is only natural that this nation would acknowledge God in the Judeo-Christian sense specifically.

Are we not “The nation of the people, by the people, for the people”? Are we not a representative republic designed to reflect the values, opinions, and beliefs of the majority of our citizens? This being the case what gives a fraction of the 5% of the country who are Atheists the right to assault our religious heritage? Not the Constitution, that’s for damn sure!

It was Baptist theology stating that man should have no king other than Jesus as much as it was “No taxation without representation” that sparked and fueled the Revolutionary war. It was the Bible that was referenced, though not directly quoted, when the Declaration of independence, Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were drafted and ratified. It was the Bible, and the Ten Commandments in particular, that was used to give the US our first laws as an independent nation; the laws that named murder, theft, adultery, sodomy, and most of the rest of our earliest outlawed activities. Anyone who says otherwise is either misinformed or a liar.

Michael Newdow is a man on a mission to deny us our heritage, and he is doing mostly on his own, with moral support from organizations like the ACLU.

He had this ridiculous claim to make: “My organization wants to raise funds, but we can’t because we don’t believe in God and ‘In God We Trust’ is printed on our money. That’s discriminating against Atheists.” In almost precisely those words.

WHAT? He can’t have money because his Atheism won’t allow him to have it because God is on it? What an amazing ‘tard!

Wait, it gets better!


So he can’t raise money because “In God We Trust” is on our money, and that’s discrimination against Atheists, but he’s raising money anyway so he can get our national motto banned? How stupid does he think we are? The fact that he is raising money at all totally invalidates his argument!

Of course, being a Californian, he will almost certainly win his case all the way up to the federal appeals court level. Then he will get smacked down with extreme derision at the Supreme Court. Then again, if the activists judges out in California decide to respect Supreme Court precedent he will get smacked down at every level, and waste all of his time and money fighting the bad fight and losing.

If he comes out of this thing totally broke I won’t be able to contain my laughter.

So, for these reasons I crown Michael Newdow the biggest ‘tard in America, at least until someone even more retarded makes the news.


  • He's already broke, and running fund raisers to support his habit of litigation.

    He ought to move to Virginia, where the 4th circuit would just toss his ass at the door everytime he filed another suit.

    By Blogger Crazy Politico, at 2:07 PM  

  • If he objects to the phrase on the money, he can just forward all of his to me. I'll make sure he never has to see another legal tender.

    There's no shorteage of morons in the world. I here they're actually breeding them.

    By Blogger Phantom_Driver, USNR, Ret., at 3:14 PM  

  • This guy is either a publicity hog that will do anything for fifteen minutes of fame, or a complete nut. I think he's a little of both.
    I'd not be surprised if he sued to go back in time and convert our founders to atheism. After all, the fact that nearly ALL our founders were Christians is certainly discrimination, isn't it?

    By Blogger Rebekah, at 3:21 PM  

  • Remove "In God We Trust"?

    I think Rebekah is right and this guy "will do anything for fifteen minutes of fame".
    Obviously he ran out of any even remotely decent political stunts.

    By Anonymous Felis, at 4:01 PM  

  • i think this guy probably would embarrass any self-respecting 'tard, if they ever knew why this guy got that nickname...
    kinda makes me think of the song "you give 'tards a bad name..."
    BoUnCeS!! LibbY!

    By Blogger Libby, at 4:56 PM  

  • What I find interesting is that he is taking this to court.Isn't that the place where there are judges? And are not judges a fabrication of Christainity? Just curious.

    By Blogger Justthinkin, at 6:08 PM  

  • I've never investigated but I'll bet there are a bunch of countries without "In God We Trust" on their money. I'd be willing to kick in a few bucks for a one way ticket for this yo-yo to the country of his choice.

    By Blogger Fish, at 7:14 PM  

  • I s'pose he can still take checks, right? And use credit cards . . .

    I doubt this is about fame or 'tardliness, except tangentially. This guy strikes me as the athiest version of Pat Robertson. Something tells me he's not about to send back any "offensive" currency that other nutballs might send him after reading about his latest campaign.

    Oh -- Happy Thanksgiving, Daniel! (I was out of town, away from glowing boxes and power lines.

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 9:50 PM  

  • Justthinkin,

    I really don't know about the history of judges that much. I know that the first recorded judges are from the book of Judges in the Bible. Other than that the administration of justice was largely the responsiblity of rulers and local magistrates. As to exactly when and where judges showed up in their currrent form I have no idea.

    I may have to research that.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 10:19 PM  

  • Good to see you posting regularly again Daniel.

    I like your choice of 'Tard.' Poor Cindy... she can't even win a "Tard" contest! :)

    Cindy Sheehan and Michael Newdow should get married. No, wait a minute... that wouldn't work because they are too much alike. They would always be arguing over who gets the most media attention! Because that is exactly what they are in this for... they need attention like we need air. I can't bring myself to feel anything for either of them but disgust.

    I'm going to post a reference to your "Tard" contest on one of my blogs, probably "My Republican Blog."

    By Blogger Gayle, at 6:04 AM  

  • Our national motto is actually "E Pluribus Unum". "In God We Trust" was added in the 1950's at the behest of both the Knights of Columbus and the McCarthy Senate as an ideoligical foil to the forced humanism of the Soviet Union.
    This issue has been fought in the courts before. The Freedom From Religion Foundation sued the government in 1994 to have it removed and the case was dismissed on the grounds that "In God We Trust" is cultural and not religious. Not sure where the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals got that notion, given that neither Christians nor athiests believe "In God We Trust" to be a secular statement, but the courts move in mysterious ways. The SCOTUS declined to hear the appeal, which is what I imagine will happen to Newdow's case.

    I wonder what Jesus would say about "In God We Trust" being printed on our money?

    By Blogger Samurai Sam, at 7:35 AM  

  • "I wonder what Jesus would say about 'In God We Trust' being printed on our money?"

    I don't see why He would have a problem with it. At least it shows that this country honors God. I believe even Jesus recognizes the need for a bartering system. It's the way money is sometimes missused that would bother him. Honoring "God" is always a good thing. Jesus didn't throw money lenders off of the Temple steps because they were dealing in money. He threw them off the Temple steps because it was the "Temple". The "Temple" had great significance. Also, because they were cheating people.

    By Blogger Gayle, at 8:09 AM  

  • In God We trust was aded in 1864, not the 1950's. Under God was aded to the Pledge to in the 1950's.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 9:10 AM  

  • You do realize that you have now insulted real 'retards' everywhere with this comparison, right? I mean come on, what have retards ever done to you to warrent being placed in the same catagory as this ...well I can't really think of an appropriate word because anything I use, would just be an insult to the others who bear that title.

    By Blogger wanda, at 12:17 PM  

  • Wanda,

    That's why I left the "re" out of tard. A 'tard is below a retard.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 12:57 PM  

  • The post
    "It is only natural that a religious nation SHOULD acknowledge God in some general way,"

    The bill of rights
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

    By Anonymous Tom Conerly, at 8:00 PM  

  • Emphasis on CONGRESS.

    This does not resptrict any other government body in any way, and it does not restrict the ability of the people to make it so through ballot initiatives.

    Not that I want any official state religion. That woud be a tragedy.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 8:09 PM  

  • Please excuse me if I'm wrong but didn't we fight the Brit's for Religious freedom.

    To be able to worship as we want?

    Is it fair to say that I might not agree with your Religion and that is why I came to America?

    By Blogger Ranando, at 8:16 PM  

  • It is true, and it is fair. However, we have a tradition of cultural deism in America that refers to God not only in the Christian sense, but in a general sense. It is this culture, NOT any state sponsorship of religion that is being reflected in opur national motto bein gon money and "Under God" being in the Pledge.

    Was this done by Christians? Duh, yes! We are a country that is massively dominated by Christians. Atheists ure wouldn't have done such a thing.

    Now, had they used the name "Jesus" or "Jehova" or "Yahweh", all of whic directly refer to the Christian God then it would be a direct state sponsorship off religion. However, simply saying "God" does not specify Christianity. Therfore Seperation of Church and State is not violated.

    All of this is agreed upon by top historians, constitutional lawyers, most of our politicians, and the Supreme Court itself.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 8:25 PM  

  • "Separation between church and state" is not violated when the government *acknowledges* religion and faith, it's violated when one religion is *established* and *enforced* i.e. you are actively punished for not following that particular religion. If we look at where the entire "Church and State" idea came from, we need look no further than England where people were put to death for being Catholic or Protestant depending on who was in power. This is what the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid, and they have. The government is absolutely free to acknowledge any and all religions and faiths that it chooses, and actually stopping people from praying in publicly owned buildings is a violation of their rights to freely practice their religions. The public building is paid for by taxpayers, and one group can not insist that another give up its Constitutional rights to freedom just because it makes them uncomfortable. Banning prayer from school is unConstitutional. We have a right to freely practice our religion; there is no such right to "separation between church and state". And anyway, you need a state license to marry in a church. So what's THAT all about?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:45 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares