When Rick Santorum falsely claims that the University of California system doesn’t offer courses in American history he doesn’t mean what you think he means. What he is saying is that those universities teach a distorted version of history in which this county was founded mainly by Protestants who displaced a preexisting native people. And some of those Protestants took their skepticism a notch or two further and started reading the philosophes and cranks like David Hume, John Locke and Adam Smith. And then they started doubting that the Baby Jesus had superpowers. And they split off the state from religious institutions, causing Santorum to suffer nausea. He can’t believe that the first president to believe in the Holy Trinity was Andrew Jackson, who only was baptized on his deathbed. And he didn’t even become president until 1829. That’s forty years of rule by people who refused to take communion. I mean, WTF? Are these professors serious? And what the hell is wrong with Wikipedia?
John Adams attended a Catholic Mass in Philadelphia one day in 1774. He praised the sermon for teaching civic duty, and enjoyed the music, but ridiculed the rituals engaged in by the parishioners.[7] In 1788, John Jay urged the New York Legislature to require office-holders to renounce the pope and foreign authorities “in all matters ecclesiastical as well as civil,” which included both the Catholic and the Anglican churches.[8] Thomas Jefferson, referring to Europe, wrote: “History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government,”[9] and, “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”
This isn’t history. It’s straight-up un-American bigotry.
You know what else they teach in those damned California schools? How about this? They say that the original Constitution had the following clause:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
They were counting felons in the census? Felons who hadn’t even fulfilled their sentence of bondage? And don’t Indians live in Asia? Obviously they should be excluded. And who were these “other Persons” who only counted for three-fifths. The whole things sounds like elitist revisionist history from eggheads who hate America.
You can’t trust this kind of information. You can’t have kids learning this stuff. But this is what happens when you let the homosexual agenda run rampant.
And not one course mentions the War Of Northern Aggression!
Poor Rick is conflicted on that one. He came back to PA the other day and held a rally in Gettysburg.
hahahahaah!
sorry, i’m still laughing at anti-Obama white “progressives” who said Obama is just like a republican.
seems off topic.
Have you never met sherifffruitfly before?
Next you’re gonna tell me that Arthur Gilroy has some thoughts to share about Ron Paul…
What is the constitutionality of denying felons a vote at the present time? I’m not aware of other countries denying felons a vote. As it stands, that provision seems to operate as yet another method of black voter suppression and seems symptomatic of a lack of respect for human rights generally.
There’s a 1974 case called Richardson v. Ramirez.
Thanks
Also there was a Womens sufferage case in the 1800s called Minor V Happersett which established that just becasue you were a citizen it does not automaticly grant you a right to vote. In that case it was about the voting rights of women but the principle had much wider implications.
It was. Almost all of these laws disallowing felons the right to vote were passed right after the 14th and 15th amendments were passed. But because the statement, “or a crime” exists in said amendments, they’re ruled constitutional.
This from Santorum the candidate who told the patently false story to a Town Hall that in the Netherlands the elderly were euthanized on a regular basis and that some wore wristbands saying, ‘do not euthanize me’ on and on. The Dutch were pretty angry at this story and called for an apology whereby Santorum’s spokesperson responded that Rick is a pro life candidate.
As Gov Sununu pronounced this morning Rick is a liar.
Course Mitt and Newt are as well, so there you go.
I hadn’t heard that story about the Dutch. Wow.
This GOP race needs to end before they cause a real international incident. Between Rick Perry calling the Turkish government terrorists, Mittens thinking we’re still in the cold war, Herman Cain not knowing WTF was going on in Libya, and now this Santorum thing, the GOP is showing that their ignorance is not just mock-worthy, it is outright dangerous.
Rachel did a whole segment on it including having a Dutch representative offer a counter and then the clip of the Santorum rep’s response. Pretty spectacular. She also did a segment on Mitt’s lies that got alot of attention but only because she wasn’t exaggerating.
Just watched it on YouTube. Holy crap, it’s even worse than I had imagined it being!
I’m officially gobsmacked.