Liberals fail to realize which documents are actually legally binding. So in the words of their liberal hero: What difference does it make?
Check it out:

She “claims that the removal of a long assumed to be present period at a critical point in the Declaration of Independence [would] radically change the document’s meaning from its common understanding. Naturally, the period’s removal supposedly provides government with powers at least on par with those of the people.”

In other words, her point is that the Declaration of Independence (and the Constitution, by the way, in association) was never meant to limit government to the extent that we all thought. She’s also been “aided by a left-leaning professor’s failure to comprehend the English language.” I found this at NewsBusters and then I looked it up on my own, and the New York Times story is this:

“If Only Thomas Jefferson Could Settle the Issue — A Period Is Questioned in the Declaration of Independence. … A scholar is now saying that the official transcript of the document produced by the National Archives and Records Administration contains a significant error — smack in the middle of the sentence beginning ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident,’ no less.

“The error, according to Danielle Allen, a professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, NJ, concerns a period that appears right after the phrase ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ in the transcript, but almost certainly not, she maintains, on the badly faded parchment original.” In other words, a period has been added, and it is her contention that adding the period serves to change the original meaning.

Now, it’s absurd on its face.

Continue reading on