Political Punch

Well, for one... Visiting a conservative college to speak about ones campaign doesnt been one has changed their liberal opinion.
For two... It just shows respect. Although these colleges are conservative and have really bad taste in making impulsive and hyprocritical decisions, they should hear the liberal view. they may have a change in heart!

If Obama can't win with working class white voters why should he be the nominee? If he cannot win PA or Ohio why should he be the nominee? If he can’t win in Florida, Michigan, California, or the states that really matters what good is he? Why can’t he close the deal? The argument that the person who wins the most states is garbage. In November the winner takes all Electoral College heavily favors Clinton. "Super Dems" be smart and choose the hill that is where you will fine a win for the houses.

Heterosexuals need to get their act straight to not act-up. Sacred vows of marriage should be protected from adultery, lying, & defilement. The Judeo-Christian definition of marriage: the God ordained & established pre-existing precedent of Holy matrimony only between 1 man & 1 woman. Holy matrimony in marriage needs to be rediscovered not redefined. In regards to a vow or an Oath note the quote of existing Law for politicians (policyticians), ..."all officers shall take an Oath closing with the declaration, so help me God...THIS IS A CHRISTIAN NATION" from Holy Trinity Church vs. U.S. Supreme Court's NEVER OVERTURNED UNANIMOUS DECISION 2-29-1892. The truth is "so help me God" reaffirms The Truth of this nation's Ordained Establishment of the Judeo-Christian Religion & not that counterfeit religion of Darwinian secular humanism. Failing the Judeo-Christian Religious Test proves a Commander-in-Chief Officer (CINCO) is not fit for office to adMINISTER The Truth in Law. "Willful Deception" would best describe someone who persists in making ridiculous claims despite of all Self-Evidence & evidence to the contrary. Is "Willful Deception" like lying & perjury or does it depend on what the meaning of the word is...IS!

What is this "protect marriage between one man and one woman" about? Protect from what???

What Congressional Act or U.S. Supreme Court decision overturned the UNANIMOUS decision of Holy Trinity Church vs U.S. Supreme Court 2-29-1892?
Can people be trusted to read the decision & decide for themselves?

A nation desiring to be ignorant & free wishes something that can never be...willful or not.

If the Congress voted unanimously all the time there would that make a supreme court or presidency obsolete Conventionally speaking of the Constitution from a Constitutional Convention perspective?

Real eyes realize real lies©®™ & that's nothing but The Truth..."so help me God"!

Holy Trinity Church v. U.S. Supreme Court has nothing to do with the presidential oath. It does NOT provide legal support supplementing the ending phrase of "so help me God" to the presidential oath. The requirements of the presidential oath are spelled out in the Constitution. In fact, it is highly likely that should any court in this country ever rule that the phrase "so help me God" MUST be included in an oath of office it would be overturned as a violation of the Constitution's ban on a "religious test."

When taking an oath of office, the deponent is allowed to choose to "affirm" rather than "swear." Even in those oaths, other than the presidential oath, that include the phrase "so help me God," the deponent is permitted to drop the "so help me God" if he or she chooses to affirm rather than swear.

It has been common practice for decades that presidents-elect choose to add the phrase "so help me God" to their oath of office but that is NOT a requirement and it has NEVER been a requirement, just as it is not now and never has been a requirement that the Bible be used.

No amount of quoting irrelevant Supreme Court rulings or citing the height of buildings in the nation's capital will change the requirements set forth in the Constitution for the presidential oath.

In summation, the never overturned UNANIMOUSLY decided case in Holy Trinity Church vs U.S. Supreme Court February 29, 1892
has the legal support supplementing the ending phrase of "so help me God" of the Oath Pledge of the President-elect. In fact, let's end the date to settle the debate once & for all with a civil union & have a Constitutional Convention to protect the pre-existing precedent of marriage between one man & one woman.
If legislation is to be surreptitiously passed by judicial fiat like some legal coup the final arbiter on the matter is the Highest Court Building in the land which is The U.S. Congress with the Final Supreme Court being that of The People held by Constitutional Convention.

"Willful ignorance" would best describe someone who persists in making ridiculous claims in spite of all evidence to the contrary. To claim that the State Department's official website is wrong on the requirements of the presidential oath is ludicrous.

In fact, let's end the date to settle the debate once & for all with a civil union & have a Constitutional Convention to protect marriage between one man & one woman.

Checkmate! Better questions, better answers, better facts!

It's not surprising most haven't read the Constitution & do not understand the Judeo-Christian history of our laws. The swearing in ceremony is unconstitutionally incomplete if the President-elect has not completely affirmed the oath pledge with "So help me God" by the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789. The legal reason this legal requirement of "So help me God" is so legally important is once Elected, the President of the U.S.; while not a member of the Judiciary, also has the Constitutional Authority & Power to disband, remove, increase, or decrease the number of members of the Judiciary sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court which is the primary reason any judicial oligarchy would fear the authority & powers of a strong President who decided to disband the Supreme Court with the U.S. Congress (The People) being the actual SUPREME COURT! The U.S. Congressional building is taller than the executive & judicial branch buildings to show the dominance of The People to have the final say over all branches or one. The President also has the power of pardon which is both an executive & judicial act, however with a consistent two-thirds majority vote Congress could nullify any Presidency.

If someone tries to disparage Me by calling Me an idiot, would that behavior reveal bigotry towards the mentally handicapped/challenged? If I am an idiot, is that genetic or environmental and can I change if I am a born idiot? Let's pass a law to fix it! Let's get a law passed to make stupid illegal & outlaw idiocy. Oops! I forget, you can't fix stupid...stupid things like adulterous behavior as people never learn & never change, right? Am I a born liar too? Can I be a liar in my private life but be trusted with the public life of the Presidency? Does the best liar get to be President?

Where did you find this nonsense? Probably Regent or Liberty, right?

For the last time, you have no clue what you are talking about. There is absolutely no requirement that the presidential oath include the phrase "so help me God."

In fact, even a federal judge can eliminate the "so help me God" phrase from the oath if they choose to "affirm" instead of "swear." They are only required to include the "so help me God" phrase at the end of their oath if they choose to "swear" rather than "affirm."

Many presidents have chosen to include the phrase "so help me God" at the end of their oath but it is NOT a requirment and NEVER has been.

The language of the presidential oath is specified in Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." However, the swearing in ceremony is unconstitutionally incomplete if the President-elect has not completely affirmed the oath pledge with "So help me God" by the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789. The legal reason this legal requirement of "So help me God" is so legally important is once Elected, the President of the U.S.; while not a member of the Judiciary, also has the Constitutional Authority & Power to disband, remove, increase, or decrease the number of members of the Judiciary sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court.

ONLY not mentioned... whereas the Obscure time this Judeo-Christian Tradition was not adMinistered was 1901 with Theodore Roosevelt. Polysexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and all human sexuality like polygamy or adultery are behavioral choices. People are responsible for their actions & choices even when they choose to engage in or not to engage in an act by choice. Sex is an act by choice.

Society has a right to prohibit consenting adults from choosing to engage in any private or public behavior or act. The U.S. Constitution can even be used to deprive people of life or limb under due process of law for an illegal act. Federal law supersedes any misquoted policy from the State Department. The Federal Judiciary Act of 1789 Legally Requires the Oath Pledge of "so help me God" by the President-elect to do otherwise is a violation of the oath to uphold it & the swearing in would be unconstitutional if not said.

Lets keep the facts straight, shall we? The same person who has been wrong about everything he or she has written in these comments is now asserting that Theodore Roosevelt was the ONLY president who was not sworn in on a Bible. That statement is false!

Lyndon Johnson did NOT use a Bible when he was sworn in in 1963 following the death of John F. Kennedy. He used a missal.

It is quite likely that several early presidents did not use a Bible but the record is unclear. The record is clear in Lyndon Johnson's case. He used a missal in 1963 and a Bible in 1965.