It’s no surprise that liberal media hypocrisy knows no bounds or that left wing bloggers can’t bring themselves to admit that facts are facts. It’s also no surprise that the liberal media ignores the gaffes of liberal leftist politicians. It is however, astounding to me, that they are so vehemently opposed specifically to women and minority candidates in the Republican Party. These are the same people who rail against racism and gender discrimination from anyone else, yet they show no remorse in dishing it out against conservatives. Herman Cain and Alan Keyes are sell-outs and Uncle Toms; Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and Christine O’Donnell are stupid and incapable; and Mitt Romney, Glenn Beck and Jon Huntsman are crazy Mormons. So the mainstream media and left wing bloggers have attacked black candidates, women and the Mormon religion but no substantive policy differences. In fact, when they try to call these candidates on facts, it backfires or at least it WOULD if these “journalists” were honest. Take for instance, the 2010 U.S. Senate race in Delaware. At a debate at Widener University (which I attended), Republican Christine O’Donnell called out Chris Coons on the issue of separation of church and state. Coons had cited the 1st Amendment as the source of the separation between church and state:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
O’Donnell asked Coons to show her specifically where in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, the phrase separation appears. The law students, the professors, Chris Coons, the moderators, the media, everyone snickered at the question (although when I asked the law students on my left and right to locate it in my pocket Constitution, they were unable to locate it) and it was a story for days. How STUPID could she be not to see that the First Amendment guarantees a separation of church and state? As you can see from above, the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the 1st Amendment. There are two clauses relating to religion in the 1st Amendment, the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment Clause says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” meaning that Congress cannot establish any specific religion as THE religion of America (a la the Anglican Church of England). The federal Constitution applies only to the FEDERAL government (unless it specifically states otherwise) and many states in fact, established their own religions. The second clause is the Free Exercise Clause and it states, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” which means that government may not prohibit the free exercise of your religion (so long as it does not infringe on the life or liberty of another person). The phrase separation of church and state doesn’t appear in the Constitution, nor does the Constitution imply that our government officials cannot (or should not) believe in God or even openly display their faith. It simply states that the federal government can’t create a government sponsored religion and that they can’t stop you from practicing whatever religion you want. So where does it come from? The phrase “separation of church and state” appears in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a group of Baptist ministers in Connecticut who had written to him with concern over the 1st Amendment which suggested that the right of religious freedom was given by the government as opposed to God. They thought government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression (oh how right they were!). Jefferson’s response was that he envisioned a wall of separation between church and state because the right to freedom of religion was God-given (inalienable) not government given (alienable). Jefferson was saying to the ministers that the difference between God-given rights and government-given rights precluded the government from involving itself in religious matters. Since then, activist judges in the Supreme Court have simply ignored the context of the phrase and instead used it to apply to the Constitutionality of religious exercise in exactly the way those Baptist ministers had been afraid of.
You’ll never hear the explanation above, unless you look at WallBuilders, listen to Glenn Beck or read the original sources yourself. The mainstream media is too lazy, too liberal and too rigid on their agenda to tell you the truth. That’s why I say that Christine O’Donnell, Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin are Pillars of Strength. They take on the other politicians, the pundits, the bloggers AND the mainstream media with almost no help. They are their own media organizations in many cases and except for a few appearances on Beck, Hannity, Rush, Levin and a handful of other talk radio shows, they are dealing with hostile media that will not only twist their words, but completely make them up. They call them dumb, they call them incapable and they call them even worse names but what they really are, is strong. They’re strong, unabashed, unafraid and even proud of their ideological positions. Some, like O’Donnell, will tell you about their journey from left to right on some issues and they will even buck their own party when it doesn’t fit with their personal opinions. They aren’t afraid to take that step that more often than not, makes them outcasts among their own side. Christine O’Donnell has a new book coming out August 16th called “Troublemaker” and maybe that best describes these women. They’re troublemakers and THAT is why the MSM, the liberal left and the establishment Republicans can’t stand them. It’s also why Main Street Americans love them and why God blesses them.