finds this "preeminent symbol of the melting pot, proof of this country's charitable nature, its warm invitation to the world and its social mobility" to be a sham.

Sure, the statue is iconic to "some Americans," he says, but it is "just as meaningless or foreign to others, a sign without significance, or worse, a symbol of hypocrisy or unfulfilled promises."

Right. This is not the Garden of Eden before the Fall and never will be. Besides, that was heteronormative, which would infuriate our cultural elites.

In any case, failure at achieving perfection is offered repeatedly as a premise to sweep away the old order and anything viewed as natural.  Which means leftists will never, ever be happy no matter what we do.  To them, America is a wretched place where progress gets no traction.  To put it another way, it's 1619 all over again, when the first slaves arrived, and isn't much better.

We're all supposed to buy into Critical Race Theory – the idea that America cannot make any progress because it was founded to enable slavery, is still systemically racist and is unfortunately full of white people who are evil by nature.  That's pretty much what the teachers unions – the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers – endorse by their actions, despite denials.  They also enthusiastically embrace the full LGBTQ agenda for schools.

Given that these lunatic unions combined represent about three million teachers and other educators, their clout poses a problem for parents, even those who insist that "our schools are okay." It's summer right now, so perhaps many parents can find alternative schools for their children this fall or figure out homeschooling. At the least, they might want to stage an open revolt like the outraged parents in Loudoun County, Virginia, who are busy recalling six radical school board members.

Anyway, getting back to the Post, this once-great paper has become so hopelessly "woke" and whiney that even the Bee's superb writers may find it impossible to satirize.

thenewstalkers

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

 somehow that just doesn't sound like it would ever translate to "Build that wall"...

amazing how some folks are so easily able to find loopholes that fit their [Deleted.]

It does actually.  The wall only keeps out people determined to come here against our will illegally.  The statue represents our willingness to take in legal immigrants and give them the opportunity to become Americans and join the welcoming nation so many aspire to become a part of.  

Get out from in front of that mirror!  We conservatives are not the narrow minded ones here. 

LOL.   Who is claiming (to this day) that Trump won the election??   That goes beyond narrow-mindedness into flat-out denial of reality.

Because people cannot climb over or dig under a wall, especially those determined to come here, right? >sarc<

deleted

If managed and patrolled properly few will find success with that.  

how does one effectively manage and patrol a 3,100 mile (assuming there was a complete wall) wall? 

What dies that have to do with the topic of the Statue of Liberty and immigration , legal and illegal. 

Oh I know you just had to get trump in somewhere. 

So what is your answer? Let anyone and everyone who wants to come here in regardless of health issues criminal background or skill sets?

I was responding to XX's comment which had nothing to do with the topic.   Is this the best you can offer, grade school hall monitor pettiness?

His comment had nothing to do with trump either. 

Come up with a better complaint.   Trump was used as an illustration.   Look, arkpdx, if you cannot see that in my comment then there is no point trying to explain to you the simple concept of illustration.

When dealing with XX —an individual who actually believes Trump won the election— you will find people using Trump in their responses to him.  

Get used to it.  

You will also see me note XX's declaration that evolution is a worldwide hoax perpetrated by godless scientists to diminish Christian faith.

Get used to that to.

As long as absurd claims are made, those claims will be used as illustrations.

Electronic sensors, lighting, and cameras along with parallel dirt road, all planned to be part of the wall but likely won’t be added to sections not already installed until the next Republican President is in office.  

Unless they are Cuban then all measures will be taken to prevent their entry.  They also prefer to avoid Nicaraguans and Venezuelans though there’s no water to keep the latter two out.  Evidence: 

Biden’s DHS Sec. Threatens Cuban Refugees Fleeing Communism: Do Not Come Here ‘Illegally’

by Kyle Becker about 2 hours ago

The Biden administration has never met a political refugee it didn’t like. That is, of course, Cuban refugees fleeing a disastrous communist dictatorship.

On Tuesday, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas issued a warning to Cubans seeking to come to the United States: Do not come here “illegally.”

“Allow me to be clear, if you take to the sea, you will not come to the United States,” Mayorkas said. “Again, I repeat, do not risk your life attempting to enter the United States illegally. You will not come to the United States.”

The Biden administration has rolled out a welcome mat for illegal migrants at the U.S. southern border. It has dangled welfare benefits like free healthcare, legal services, and transportation all across the U.S. Biden has personally met with illegal aliens in the Oval Office on multiple occasions. The White House is even pushing for millions of immigrants to apply for U.S. citizenship.

These policies have fueled the ongoing border crisis, despite Kamala Harris’s lip service to Guatemalans ‘do not come here.’ The New York Post recently put the explosion of illegal migrants in historical perspective.

“In January 2021, the CBP took 78,442 migrants into custody. In February, the figure climbed to 100,441,” Karol Markowicz points out . “Then came the real spikes. In March, there were 173,337; in April, 178,854; May, 180,034. These astronomical numbers represent a massive increase in the number of migrants coming in over previous years. The 2021 figures are up 25 percent to 35 percent from pre-pandemic 2019. Indeed, the total for this year is on pace to be higher than we have seen in 20 years.”

In June, the Department of Homeland Security actually changed asylum rules to literally fly in migrants from Central American countries.

“The Biden administration this week changed immigration policies to allow children from Central American countries to fly to the US on the taxpayers’ dime, and will allow migrants to seek asylum if they claim they are the victims of violence or crime — actions that come amid the backdrop of a record-smashing surge of migrants arriving at the border,” Mark Moore reporte d.

“The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department on Tuesday announced that they have expanded the Obama-era Central American Minors program that ​allows children under 21 from the Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador with pending asylum claims to fly to the US to be reunited with a family member,” the report added.

That’s quite a remarkable contrast in selective application of asylum. While Cuban refugees undoubtedly qualify for political refugee status is in the clearest application of the law, the Biden administration is shunning them from coming to America.

On the other hand, the administration has stretched refugee status those for whom it is not intended; namely, those simply facing hardship due to their country’s poor economic policies.

When combined with the Biden administration’s refusal to condemn the Cuban government for its communist rule by name, one is led to conclude that DHS’s hostility towards the fleeing Cuban refugees is providing aid and cover to a dictatorial socialist regime. But it is more than that: It is providing aid to the Democratic Party’s increasingly authoritarian regime by keeping out potential migrants and future U.S. citizens who would be hostile to its socialist agenda.

Once again, the Democratic Party is looking at its own bottom line over that of the morally right thing to do. When it views Cubans fleeing a communist regime to come to Florida, they see possible future voters who will keep the state red. In the Republican sense, of course.

read more: trendingpolitics

I’m glad that you unlike some here recognized that.  

And both topics are off topic.  It is your responsibility to stick to the topic of the seeded article or at least stay with a given related thread. It is not your right to air your other grievances with the seeder on those issues on every one of the seeders seeds regardless of topic due to your  personal contempt for the seeder over those two issues.  

You will never learn will you?   If you go off topic you cannot complain when people respond to your off topic comment.

Electronic sensors, lighting, and cameras along with parallel dirt road, all planned to be part of the wall but likely won’t be added to sections not already installed until the next Republican President is in office.  

That's not going to mean much if one isn't actually there to enforce no entry. An especially difficult task given the sheer distance to cover.

So what is your answer?

I have none to give right now. I'm not a politician having to deal with this. 

Let anyone and everyone who wants to come here in regardless of health issues criminal background or skill sets?

Did I say that? I think not! I don't see you addressing the logistical difficulty of monitoring a 3,100 mile long wall 24/7, much less proposing a practical solution. 

The wall has been climbed over, cut through, gone around, and has even been driven over.

Walls were obsolete since The Dark Ages...

Millions go back and forth across a border.

I used a transporter, nothing to it, just a short buzz.

Robert Knight is a contributor to The Washington Times. His latest book is " The Coming Communist Wave:  What Happens If the Left Captures All Three Branches of Government ".

Crackpot neo-McCarthyite.

This is why the right wants to call everything "critical race theory". Because they believe they can peg CRT as "communist". 

It is Marxist as is the 1619 project as well as BLM and Antifa.  

It is Marxist as is the 1619 project as well as BLM and Antifa.  

What, specifically, do you find to be 'Marxist' in CRT?   Note, I am not defending CRT in schools.   Rather, I am asking you, based on your sound understanding of what Karl Marx actually wrote, to identify the positions of Marx that make CRT 'Marxist'.

Don't just quote Mark Levin, et.al.   Make a statement with your own words that actually answers the question.

If you are capable of doing so.

Mark Levins words are mine as well we are in complete agreement on this and so many other issues.  Levin is a great American! 🇺🇸🦅🗽

Yeah it figures ... you do the 'whatever he says' routine.    Letting others do one's thinking is bad enough, but using parroting as the means of communication is even worse.

I really don’t care.  Have a nice day!  

I really don’t care.  Have a nice day!  

In other words "I can't keep up".

Texas is leading the way on voter suppression. 

This is a state whose very founding was predicated on protection of slavery and on withholding rights to even free people of color. 

Who can put two and two together? 

This is why we need things like the 1619 Project. So everyone , not just those who follow history as a hobby, can understand why certain states have developed the way they have. 

It won’t happen because 1619 project and CRT will only happen in your states and counties and they will be outlawed and banned in ours.  We will not be poisoned or poison our youth with that filth.  

Thank goodness there is a ''woke'' crowd, it's a great offset to the ''slept'' crowd which Knight seems to be a charter member of.

The Left wanted a culture war. It got one. Now it’s upset.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Student.Upset_.Shutterstock-135x88.jpg 135w, thecollegefix 560w, thecollegefix 580w" sizes="(max-width: 370px) 100vw, 370px" >

Many Americans think the current cultural craze regarding critical race theory, aka CRT, began last year after George Floyd was murdered by a police officer.

The truth is that Floyd’s death, along with visceral hatred for Donald Trump and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, merely served as a golden opportunity for race-obsessed educationists to jumpstart their already-obsessive dogma.

But the noxious CRT has been around for many years, albeit under different appellations. My former school district used (the ridiculously misnamed) “ Courageous Conversations ” which comes right from the CRT playbook. Many like-minded programs used at schools across the country do as well, with similarly clever, and purposely incorrect, monikers.

Just like how progressives are claiming they never called for defunding police ( the GOP did!), they are claiming that 1) CRT opponents don’t even know what the theory is (see MSNBC’s Joy Reid below) , and 2) since CRT is a college law school concept, it’s not being used in lower education.

If this is the case, then why did the National Education Association recently adopt a measure noting it will “research the organizations attacking educators doing anti-racist work,” and then will make recommendations to local affiliates regarding counter-measures?

“The attacks on anti-racist teachers are increasing, coordinated by well-funded organizations such as the Heritage Foundation,” the NEA’s “rationale” reads. “We need to be better prepared to respond to these attacks so that our members can continue this important work.”

MORE: CRT, ‘whiteness’ reach new absurd and inane heights

In a June 30 Education Week story titled “Four Things Schools Won’t Be Able to Do Under ‘Critical Race Theory’ Laws,” author Eesha Pendharkar writes the CRT debate “has driven the passage of laws restricting how teachers talk with students about America’s racist past.” Many states’ bills are “vague and myopic,” she says. (More on that in a bit.)

Pendharkar laments that language in the bills prohibit making students feel “discomfort, guilt [or] anguish” about their race or sex. As has been documented by The Fix and elsewhere, this is because CRT-based teachings blame white people — or “whiteness” or whatever type of “white” you can think of — for virtually every ill in the world today. This used to be known as “racism.”

(Ironically, students’ “discomfort,” “guilt” etc. are a big deal when it comes to teaching classics like “ To Kill a Mockingbird ” and having school resource officers in school buildings.)

Another article by Andrew Ujifusa says Republicans are using CRT as “a cudgel in their attack on teaching and curricula,” and quotes a state teacher of the year as alleging the reaction against CRT is “white backlash plus moral panic.”

The far-left Zinn Education Project goes much further , with teachers vowing to disregard any anti-CRT law in order to teach the “truth”: that the United States “was founded on dispossession of Native Americans, slavery, structural racism and oppression; and structural racism is a defining characteristic of our society today.”

https://www.thecollegefix.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/RobbySoave-99x110.jpg 99w, thecollegefix 180w, thecollegefix 343w" sizes="(max-width: 180px) 100vw, 180px" > Robby Soave (left), a former College Fix editor and now senior editor at Reason, says CRT “can’t be banned” but should be “exposed” and “mocked.” I agree with his concerns regarding freedom of expression; some anti-CRT bill language is overly broad and could lead to First Amendment hassles. However, Soave’s definition of CRT is overly simplistic (“the idea that structural racism is embedded in many U.S. institutions”), and he appears to underestimate the grasp and reach of CRT-inspired efforts. Consider how former Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner defined critical race theory:

[CRT] turns its back on the Western tradition of rational inquiry, forswearing analysis for narrative. Rather than marshal logical arguments and empirical data, critical race theorists tell stories — fictional, science-fictional, quasi-fictional, autobiographical, anecdotal—designed to expose the pervasive and debilitating racism of America today. By repudiating reasoned argumentation, the storytellers reinforce stereotypes about the intellectual capacities of nonwhites.

Soave admits that prominent and not-so-prominent (anti-)racism activists are “clearly inspired by critical race theory,” and whether or not these folks admit this “is almost beside the point.” Which brings us to this: If progressive educationists like Ibram Kendi and Robin DiAngelo get to define concepts like “whiteness,” “white supremacy” and “white privilege” however they wish — expanding meanings to absurd lengths — why is there such an outcry when CRT opponents like Chris Rufo (see video above)   voice their much more accurate definitions of CRT’s antics?

MORE: It doesn’t matter how nicely one sells it. CRT is terrible.

thecollegefix

When someone says America was "founded on" slavery , it is sort of a mixed message. The Declaration of Independence is not founded on slavery, certainly not if you go by the words in the document. And yet Jefferson, Washington and Madison, three of the most prominent "founding fathers",  owned slaves, and none of the three freed their slaves during their lifetimes.  So in the sense that founding fathers owned slaves at the time of the founding, and slavery is definitely racism, one can quite easily say that America was founded on racism. 

We should simply stop teaching schoolchildren that these were great men. If they want to read more on the lives of the founding fathers in college or on their own as adults, more power to them. 

But what America was NOT founded on was God or religion! At least the Founding Fathers made sure of that. Just saying.

I'm not upset at all, I rather enjoy seeing the ongoing stupidity of the right and some of the total nonsense that you post.

Our founders were men of their times.   As such, their views were shaped by same.   Just as we are products of our times.

I am sure most (likely all) of them recognized the hypocrisy of 'all men are created equal' while condoning slavery, violence against indigenous peoples, etc.   Their inability or lack of desire to address this makes them fallible men;  they were imperfect — human beings are imperfect.

What made our founders great —albeit flawed— men were the positive things they accomplished.   Our kids should be taught in a way that helps them understand the culture of our founders and their failure to break free of the bigotry and racism of same and thus their failure to found a nation where all human beings are indeed recognized as being created equal.   They should be taught that while our founders failed in that regard, the nation they founded and designed has since made major corrections and is continuing on the path of approximating the ideal expressed in the DoI.   And our kids should be taught of the remarkable sacrifices and ultimate accomplishments of our founders ... that which enabled the modern USA to come into existence.

Not too long ago I read an anecdote , more or less, about Jefferson. While was in Europe representing the US (1784-1789) Jefferson came to the decision that he would free his slaves when he came back to America, because it was time for him to put his money where his mouth was so to speak. But when he did come back and he saw the financial difficulty his estate was in , and the debt he had, he changed his mind and did not free his slaves. 

Slavery was still wrong of course, but his personal interests were served by keeping those people as property. 

Sorry, I have no sympathy for that.  We can teach kids about the Declaration of Independence without giving personal praise to Thomas Jefferson.

The founding fathers were great men.  They were not perfect men.  But then again neither are we.  They created the greatest founding document, the greatest constitution, and the greatest and most exceptional nation ever in their time.  They gave us all we needed with which to over time build a more perfect Union.  So yes we will honor and venerate these founders and our 1776 America come what may. We will not yield on that point except by losing by coerced force.  

It was most certainly founded on exactly that.  That is the basis of our very existence and the source of all our rights and the One our nation is under and in whom we trust.  The day to day government is secular and neutral in its outlook toward religion and taking no sides between different religious ideas.  

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.…

…We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

exactly right!  

I want to see my new state named after him.  The State of Jefferson!  

You can't even get it on the ballot. What's it been 5, 6, 7 years and still a flat balloon.

People like you have an unsolvable problem. When it comes to slavery, you want to say it was a long time ago and not relevant to today, but when it comes to praising the founding fathers you act as if their achievements were only yesterday. 

You dont get to have it both ways. 

I am not saying we should write Jefferson out of the history books, but we certainly should stop acting as if he deserves great admiration as a human being. 

That is the basis of our very existence and the source of all our rights

The Declaration of Independence is not the source of your rights. Not even conservatives believe that. 

Slavery was still wrong of course, but his personal interests were served by keeping those people as property. 

Yup, I am aware of that history.   Flawed men.

Sorry, I have no sympathy for that. 

I have no sympathy for it either.   This is not about sympathy but rather a proper teaching of history.   But I am against teaching kids to withhold respect of our founders.   Teach them the truth;  give them a balanced perspective to understand these men as products of their times.   It is far too easy to, by modern standards, depict our founders as horrible men.   By modern standards alone, they are horrible men.   However, IMO men like Jefferson, living in the 21^st century, would very likely conduct their lives worthy of great respect.

Make a point.   Quoting words conceived by other human beings is meaningless unless you note the reason for the quote.   What point are you trying to make? 

ut when it comes to praising the founding fathers you act as if their achievements were only yesterday. 

That would be true if anyone was claiming the descendants of the founders are oracles who deserve special status because of the things that their ancestors did.  That's the comparison you are looking for.

I hate to break it to you, but the founders, like any inventors, are important to it's history. You are basically arguing that histories of Facebook should ignore Zuckerberg in favor of more politically palpable storylines.

I don't know what you think is being taugth in schools, but the idea that teachers are telling kids Jefferson was a "great human" hasn't been true for decades, if at all. I'd bet if the average American could even identify Jefferson as anything other than a "dead President" about as many would credit him with authoring the declaration of independence as fathering children with slaves. That's again, if they could identify him at all. 

Demonstrably false! If the government is secular (it is by design), then clearly there can be no religious basis for its founding and formation. That would also make any notion of religious founding rather moot too.

My comments stand. Whatever kids are taught about Jefferson and Washington, they should not be taught these were great men. Their personal qualities are irrelevant to US history other than as myth making.

early there can be no religious basis for its founding and formation

You should probably read the Declaration of Independence. It is self evident that you are wrong.

hatever kids are taught about Jefferson and Washington, they should not be taught these were great men

Are there any Americans who kids should be taught were great men?

I could probably come up with a list. There wouldnt be any slaveowners on it. 

''men of their times''

That is an interesting expression. In the 1700s/ early 1800s there were abolitionists so are they really men of their times or men that made a choice to keep slavery in place when they did have a choice? 

Religion at that time both fought slavery and dealt in the slave trade. The Quakers were abolitionists and on the other hand the Jesuits (RCC) were involved in the slave trade. 

So who really were men of their times?

I never said it was.  I said that God was, is, and will be.  That is what our founders knew to be the ultimate self evident truth and said so in our founding document.  

The DoI does not mention "God." Neither does it establish our system of laws and government. 

I just read the Declaration of Independence and found at four instances the refer to God or a supreme being in it. 

DoI does not mention "God.

LOL. It does.  But besides that, I'm sure you won't have a problem with schools dedicating a moment each morning to praise the Creator. 

ther does it establish our system of laws and government

It did more than that, it established our nation and the principles upon which our government could be based, namely that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Any government that does not protect  the rights given to us by our Creator, is not a legitimate government of the American people.  

This is all basic stuff.

So who really were men of their times?

Every human being is a product of their times.   The cultures in which we operate (especially when growing up) have a profound effect on all of us.

The concept does not mean that everyone in the 18th century, for example, held the exact same mores & values.   Clearly people differed by other factors including genetics, family tradition, sub-cultures, ethnicity, etc.   The 'of the times' speaks more about the views of a society at a particular point in time.

The 'of the times' speaks more about the views of a society at a particular point in time.

Yes, of course, but each of these men had the opportunity to make a personal decision to be, for example, a slaver or an abolitionist, but in the case of some of the founders they chose slavery and what is more questionable is that the religious, the Jesuits dealt in the slave trade so are we saying that the Jesuits were a product of their times when supposedly they were to have a higher moral standard than the rest of the non-clergy. 

It would seem that ''a product of their times'' had more to do with power, money, and a feeling of superiority than anything else. 

JMO

Certainly.  They most definitely made personal decisions.   John noted, for example, that Thomas Jefferson chose to continue owning slaves.   Clearly hypocritical.

Note that in the 18th century people were brought up with slavery being normal.   That is one of the cultural aspects of the times.   Nowadays only the most extreme nutcases would not hold slavery to be profoundly immoral.   This is a product of our times.

If Jefferson were living in the 21st century, and thus a product of our times, I suspect strongly he would not be one of those nutcases who would choose to own slaves.   Projecting the man from the 18th to the 21st century, I would expect Jefferson to be a leader of some sort.   CEO, PotUS, etc.   He would be flawed as is everyone, but I suspect a 21st century produced Jefferson would be above average in terms of character, morality and ethics.

Note that in the 18th century people were brought up with slavery being normal. 

Yes, that is probably true but I have a problem with some of the founders who were supposed to be visionaries to favor slavery. Not at all in keeping with ''all men are created equal''. 

What is even more hypocritical is the RCC and Jesuits and other sects dealing in the slave trade. I suppose enforcing/following the Doctrine of Discovery and the Papal Bull, "Inter Caetera," slavery was acceptable, actually encouraged to insure money and power to the RCC. Sadly they used it into the 1990s. 

It was never been rescinded by the RCC, even though it was been requested of them on many occasions.

As far as Jefferson goes, I don't know what he would have been in today's world, the options are many. Many complex and contradictory thoughts and actions on his part.

Not at all in keeping with ''all men are created equal''. 

Absolutely.   It was staggering hypocrisy.   I wish there was a way to ask them how they managed to reconcile their words with their deeds.

I wish there was a way to ask them how they managed to reconcile their words with their deeds.

One can only dream of such a chance. Personally, I'd love to ask Pope Francis the same question. 

No one said it would happen overnight. Puerto Rico and DC will never become states without balancing Republican states and a balance in incoming senators.   Also some of us in the far north have a back up option.  I’d be totally happy living where I am in Redding and becoming a part of Greater Idaho. greateridaho

The reasons were in bold so you know my point regarding the source of our human rights and nationhood.  

No point is made by plopping an out-of-context quote into a comment.   To make a point one needs to make a claim (actually write something) and then maybe use a quote as support.    The words would then establish a context for interpreting the quote.

In short:

• Make a point
• Optionally back it up with a quote

Your practice causes people to skip over your comments.   Another comment from XX where he simply quotes words of others without any framing.

LOL. It does. 

No, it doesn't. It ambiguously and purposefully references "Nature's god" and such. But not actual "God."

But besides that, I'm sure you won't have a problem with schools dedicating a moment each morning to praise the Creator. 

Schools already have a "moment of silence" in the morning. Whether a student chooses to silently praise a creator or not is up to them. But a school cannot direct any praise towards a deity. You know, that whole separation of church and state thing.

It did more than that, it established our nation and the principles upon which our government could be based,

Wrong! It established our sovereignty as a nation, away from England. That was it. It did not establish the government. The Constitution did that.

Any government that does not protect  the rights given to us by our Creator, is not a legitimate government of the American people.  

The Constitution enumerates our rights and establishes limitations on the government with respect to those rights.

This is all basic stuff.

Yes it is. But you don't seem to get it.

I’d be totally happy living where I am in Redding and becoming a part of Greater Idaho.

Nice pipedream but not only a non-starter but delusional as well.

. It ambiguously and purposefully references "Nature's god" and such. But not actual "God."

If Nature's god isn't the "Actual" God, what sort of God is it?  Which other God did the founders think they were referencing? 

 It must be tough to be so emotionally invested in your evangelical atheism that you are reduced to making arguments that defy the evidence before your own eyes. 

You know, that whole separation of church and state thing.

But the Creator isn't God. You said so yourself. So there's no reason, if your twisted assault on the English language made any sense, that a school couldn't direct it's students to honor and reflect upon the Creator every morning. 

rong! It established our sovereignty as a nation, away from England. That was it. It did not establish the government.

Please try and respond to what I wrote, rather than strawmen of your own creation. 

The Constitution enumerates our rights and establishes limitations on the government with respect to those rights.

It does? You should read it..

Our nation is founded upon the principle that we have inalienable rights granted to us by our creator that no government can take away.  No matter how many deflections and strawmen you throw up, you can't  deflect from that basic truth.  It's there in plain English for you. 

If Nature's god isn't the "Actual" God, what sort of God is it?  Which other God did the founders think they were referencing?

Any god you want. Funny how they didn't actually specify "God."

It must be tough to be so emotionally invested in your evangelical atheism that you are reduced to making arguments that defy the evidence before your own eyes. 

Can't argue the point without trying to get personal, eh?

But the Creator isn't God. You said so yourself.

It can be any deity/religion. It doesn't have to be specifically the God. 

Please try and respond to what I wrote, rather than strawmen of your own creation. 

What strawman? I provided a fact. Please try to refrain from trying to deflect.

It does? You should read it..

The Bill of Rights.

Our nation is founded upon the principle that we have inalienable rights granted to us by our creator that no government can take away. 

Except rights can be taken away by any government with enough authority. The Founders were trying to appeal to the King og England, who was also the head of the Church of England.

No matter how many deflections and strawmen you throw up, you can't  deflect from that basic truth.  It's there in plain English for you.

Speak for yourself!

Any god you want. ."

Lol.. Then you've lost the debate. If you want to pretend, against all reason and evidence, that the terms they use to describe God, just happen to coincidentally describe a God with the same two major attributes of the Judeo-Christian God,  God as Judge and God as creator, be my guest.  

The point, is of course, that the DOI expressly states our fundamental rights as Americans are not man made or given,  but come from the Creator. If you want to pretend the founders were describing Zues, go right ahead. It makes no difference to my argument.  

What strawman? I provided a fact. Please try to refrain from trying to deflec

Do you know what a strawman is? You should look it up so you aren't confused.  Providing an irrelevant  "fact" is a textbook strawman argument. I've noticed that's how you deflect when your argument is exposed. Rather then responding to the point at issue, you provide an irrelevant fact and pretend that's what's being discussed.   

The Bill of Rights.

I'm glad you are aware of them. Have you read them? 

xcept rights can be taken away by any government with enough authority.

Then that government is no longer legitimate and has forfeited the right to rule. That's the obvious argument of the DOI. 

Exactly.  That’s a key reason that the founders rebelled against the king in the 1st place.  Though it says we should take the action lightly for insufficient cause, there is permission there from the founders to do it again.  Biden said we’d need F-15’s and nukes if we wanted to go against his government over gun rights.  

It must be tough to be so emotionally invested in your evangelical atheism

and sadly he can proselytize freely for that religion.  

The plan has the the advantages of no new state and thus no new Senators and the existing Republican house members would be from Idaho instead of the current occupier state.  California and Oregon have advantages to be gained from this.  Both claim to pay more into the region than the taxes they raise from us.  Also California is losing a house seat and by deleting half of the conservative 1st district, they can keep all elected democrats in the House in office and preserve their hold on the reapportioned state legislative seats.  Oregon’s new district is certain to be Republican so they can keep all democrats in office by giving the seat to Idaho along with the one who represents most of the leaving areas. The Oregon democrats woukd all have safe seats.  

Not my term but it seems to mean one who is an evangelist in favor of the advancement of the religion of atheism.  

Exactly.  That’s a key reason that the founders rebelled against the king in the 1st place.  Though it says we should Not take the action lightly for insufficient cause, there is permission there from the founders to do it again.  Biden said we’d need F-15’s and nukes if we wanted to go against his government over gun rights.  

Lol.. Then you've lost the debate.

A declaration of a faux victory is meaningless.

If you want to pretend, against all reason and evidence, that the terms they use to describe God, just happen to coincidentally describe a God with the same two major attributes of the Judeo-Christian God,  God as Judge and God as creator, be my guest.  

Funny how they didn't actually use the term "God" and instead used terms which can apply to a variety of deities, depending on personal views or beliefs. 

The point, is of course, that the DOI expressly states our fundamental rights as Americans are not man made or given,  but come from the Creator. If you want to pretend the founders were describing Zues, go right ahead. It makes no difference to my argument.  

You fail to understand the context in which it was written. The language used was meant to appeal to and relate with the King of England. 

Providing an irrelevant  "fact" is a textbook strawman argument.

I provided an actual fact, which you attempt to ignore with a declaration of a strawman. That is a dishonest tactic when one cannot refute what is presented. I said the DoI "established our sovereignty as a nation, away from England. That was it. It did not establish the government." That is fact! 

I'm glad you are aware of them. 

Apparently you are not familiar with them if you question whether the Constitution enumerates our rights.

Then that government is no longer legitimate and has forfeited the right to rule. That's the obvious argument of the DOI. 

You miss the point that governments historically have determined what rights people had. The Founders knew this. The point of the DoI was for the colonies to break away form a repressive form of government at the time.

the religion of atheism.  

An oxymoron. Atheism isn't a religion.

Yes it is.  You proselytize for it on a regular basis here.  

Wrong on both counts. Also an outright lie.

It's no secret that America's leftists wake up perpetually sour and ready to whine.

Comical considering this piece is a big whine...

The real truth hurts progressive culture warriors…🧀🍷

Every single seed and post every day.  

Isn't it always?

Comical considering this piece is a big whine...

As are the vast majority of the seeder's seeds.

Thanks for the badge of honor!  🏅

Happy to oblige. 

No problem. Happy to seed articles you disagree with and I agree with anytime! 

It's impossible to disagree with the articles you post since there are generally no facts involved. Only unsupported BS. 

So feel free to keep posting nonsense. 

Anytime.  Always happy to oblige such requests.  

That you and your ideology sees it that was is proof positive of the great intelligence, wisdom, and truth of my seeds and posts.  

" .... enjoy the read and consider the words there as if they were mine if only I could say them here."

A copy/paste will suffice.

The authors of seeded articles have more leeway to say things here than mere members do.  The section above is for my own words, not quoting from the brilliant seed.  [Deleted]

I wouldn't dream of censoring you. It would serve no purpose. I've been here for quite a while and have yet to flag anyone.

Thank you for being an exception in that regard.

Do it in a civil manner with rational calm dialogue in a spirit of comity and there won’t be any issues.  

You and others on the left really should stop flagging everyone who has a different opinion than yours, you know, those of us here who are the ones that tell the truth on the issues of the day.  

The title of my seeded article is so fitting of Americans it describes within…

I've lived in NC, CA and travelled throughout the US several times, your article defines no one I have met.

It describes plenty I’ve met.  Particularly in my own state. 

So many of the posts in response here so well fit the seeds title.  

Is suddenly the only thing important about historical figures how they treated blacks?

Yes, nothing else they did in their lives can in any way offset their being on the wrong side of that issue.  To them George Washington and Thomas Jefferson can never be considered great Americans even though without them there would be no America 🇺🇸 today.  Of course to a progressive that there is the America as we know her today is their greatest failure as human beings.  

The final word!