Before we begin...

Seems like Dan Barfer has a new friend when it comes to really bad music. Now, when it comes to rap music the least you can do is be good at it. As a minority in America I grew up listening to Hip Hop and am still a fan of it. White people got into the mix and it was mediocre at best. Not because of the color of their skin; it's just that they don't seem to have a good handle on it. People like Vanilla Ice, Brian Austin Green, and Madonna should have warned you of that! Personally, I think Eminem sucks, and if anybody is anybody within the Hip Hop community they know that Eminem is just not taken seriously as a rap artist. I guess the best you're looking at is the Beastie Boys.

Anyhoo, here comes Michael Newdow with the latest jam.

This is probably good enough argument to keep the folks of America from the "separation of church and state" peeps! Think about it, if Newdow's music is this bad, what does that suggest about his philosophy? Listen to his voice for crying out loud! Did he actually think he had a good singing voice?!

Do all you separation of church and state people feel the need to create "songs" when it comes to propagandizing your ideology? Spare us! For the good of humanity, spare us!

If you think supporting Michael Newdow will help your self-image or your cause try this - buy his CD and blare the music as loud as you can in your house, car, office, etc. See if anybody wants to hang out with you and that racket... I mean music. Will they? Probably not. You may not have too many black people hanging out with you but at least you have the infidel guy. Last I read he supports Mr. Newdow and his organization.

Why Michael Newdow is a loser #1

He unscrupulously uses his daughter as a means to an end by saying she was "offended" by the pledge with words like "under God". Last we read, his daughter is a Christian and gladly recites the pledge of allegiance. Her mother is also a Christian. If there's anything for Newdow's daughter to worry about is the indoctrination of secular humanism. Newdow is divorced and has no physical custody of the child. It would seem that if one is so concerned about what influences his child, he might have been more active in her life to begin with.

Why Michael Newdow is a loser #2

He thinks he can win the unwinnable case by having the Supreme Court take "under God" from the pledge but loses.

Why Michael Newdow is a loser #3

He believes he can stop the traditional inaugural prayer but loses.

Why Michael Newdow is a loser #4

He associates himself with fasicst atheist losers like Dan Barfer.

Why Michael Newdow is a loser #5

For some reason he thinks he is a contender for atheism but loses badly against Cliff Knechtle. Don't fret, my homey, the infidel guy, thinks he did good.

Why Michael Newdow is a loser #6

Well, you know...

July 6, 2002

Believe it or not

Bill O'Reilly

One of the best things about my job as a journalist is that I get to meet many of the world's most compelling newsmakers. And so it was a few days ago when Dr. Mike Newdow walked into the "No Spin Zone," brimming with confidence and bravado. Newdow, you may know, is the guy who won a lawsuit (temporarily) to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

While he may be the most despised man in America right now, the doctor is no fool. He's also a lawyer and an activist. His goal is to remove all traces of theism from American public life. Newdow is an atheist and says any mention of a deity makes him feel "left out."

After years of trying to get the Pledge changed, Newdow finally met his soulmates, pardon the expression, on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Widely considered the most liberal federal court in the country, the Ninth has been reversed by the Supreme Court in about 80 percent of the cases that the Supremes have accepted from this wild bunch. Clearly, the Ninth has a vision of America that doesn't quite jibe with the big outfit in Washington. Thank God (sorry again) for checks and balances.

My interview with Dr. Newdow was fascinating. First of all, I told him that he was violating my rights by trying to rewrite the history of my country. I told him that his hatred of religion was fine with me, but that the United States was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and the Founders framed the Constitution around God-given rights. Newdow told me I was full of it, but then I let him have it -- with the facts.

Fact 1: The Declaration of Independence clearly states the premise of the Constitution: "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights."

Newdow replied that the Declaration was not the Constitution and that the Founders did not want any trace of God in the public discourse.

This, of course, is fallacious. The author of the Constitution, James Madison, joined with the first Congress to pass a law paying chaplains for the House and the Senate with public monies . So, not only did the boys want a guy to lead them in prayer -- they wanted guys like Newdow to pay for it.

I also explained to the good doctor that the Supreme Court would overturn this foolish decision by the Ninth because the issue had already been decided in 1983. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court ruled in Marsh vs. Chambers that the state of Nebraska could open its legislative session with a prayer paid for by public funds (that chaplain again).

Said Chief Justice Warren Burger: "The use of prayer is embedded in the nation's history and tradition ... the Establishment Clause (in the Constitution) does not always bar a state from regulating conduct simply because it harmonizes with religious concerns."

Newdow, no slouch in the research department, shot back that Marsh vs. Chambers had been overturned by the Supreme Court in the 1992 case of Lemon vs. Kurtzman. But that is not true. The Supremes simply decided to use other standards in deciding that imposed prayers during public graduation invocations, a completely different set of circumstances, were unconstitutional. They are still praying in Nebraska.

And I hope some of those prayers are for Dr. Michael Newdow and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. These people are not looking out for their country, they are trying to impose a narrow set of secular standards on a nation that was founded on principles that are much greater.

There is no question that America was set up to allow its citizens to be free because the Framers of the Constitution believed that was why God created man -- to exercise free will. It is simply unconscionable for activist judges and fanatical atheists to intrude on the history of the United States.

In the end, the Pledge of Allegiance will be restored, the senior judge in the case has already stayed his own order, and Americans will be allowed to follow traditional values if they so choose. Christmas will remain a public holiday, "In God We Trust" will remain on the currency, and "so help me God" will stay as a legal guardian of truth in court.

But the anti-God squad will also remain with us, fighting like hell (uh-oh) to eliminate any spiritual references in public. It is what these people do. But it is not who we are.

Related links:
oBill O'Reilly speaks with the mother of Newdow's daughter, Sandra Banning
oNewdow on Hannity and Colmes
oSandra Banning's website: One Nation Under God
oMichael Newdow and US History

Note: Newdow has since written a song against O'Reilly entitled "(Won't You Play Fair) Bill O'Reilly" but we would like to thank Newdow for not giving us a sampler of this song.

Time to get jiggy with it!

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