Marco Rubio Doesn't Believe In Constitutional Separation Of Church And State

In a discussion with Eric Metaxas at last year’s Florida Family Policy Council summit, Sen. Marco Rubio said that the separation of church and state is a myth, arguing that the First Amendment only precludes an “officially sanctioned denomination.”

“This notion of separation between church and state, you won’t find those words in the Constitution,” Rubio said. “That doesn’t mean that we should have an officially sanctioned denomination.”

Rubio warned that “there is an effort to silence those or to crowd out of its rightful place the role of the faith community in our country. The government cannot tell you what faith to belong to but it cannot tell you that it cannot speak about your faith.”

Of course, the Constitution also doesn’t include words like “separation of powers” and “checks and balances,” but that doesn’t mean that those principles aren’t in the Constitution.

Rubio also seems to think that the drafters of the Constitution only meant to prevent the government from sanctioning one religious denomination over another. But the founders actually rejected language about “establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another” (same with “religious society” and “national church”) in favor of the more broad First Amendment’s prohibition of the “establishment of religion.”

Schlafly: Obama Using 'Handouts' To 'Break The Capitalist System'

On her Eagle Forum Live radio program Saturday, Phyllis Schlafly claimed that President Obama’s “communist training by Saul Alinsky” inspired him to try to “break the capitalist system” by giving out government “handouts.”

Schlafly made her remarks in response to a caller who demanded, “I’d like to know how many in our Congress, in our government, are really in truly Americans. I would like to see how many communists we have in there.”

“Well, I’m not ready to call them communists,” Schlafly said, “but of course the training that Obama had when he was a young man was really kind of a communist training by Saul Alinsky in Chicago. And he also had training by these people who think the way to break the capitalist system is to put so many people getting handouts from the government that you simply break it down. And I think that’s what he’s trying to do.”

Schlafly’s guest on the program was conservative radio host and speaker Mason Weaver, author of “It’s OK to Leave the Plantation.”  During the show, Weaver, who is African American, compared a number of government programs he dislikes to slavery, including of course the Affordable Care Act, which he also claimed would intentionally kill people before they can collect retirement savings.

“It’s just slavery, folks,” he said. “I mean, think about it. On the plantation, master gave you minimum wage, master gave you your working hours, master gave you low-income housing, he gave you your food, he gave you retirement. And you worked yourself to death. Obamacare and everything Obama implements is to take control over your life, work you until your work is done, tax you to death, and then allow  you to die peacefully before paying you your retirement.”

He added, oddly, that there was “no demand” for universal health care from voters.

Making Men Head Of Household Is True Women's Liberation Because It Makes Life Easier

If feminists truly want to liberate women, says author and WorldNetDaily columnist Patrice Lewis, then they should simply make their husbands head of the household so they can be free from making tough decisions.

Lewis writes today that giving her husband “the final say” is “freeing” because it “makes life easier for both my husband and me.”

The real oppressors, of course, are feminists: “If there is a dissenting opinion between us, and unless I can demonstrate why my position is superior, then I defer to his guidance. Oooh, sacrilege to the feminist cause. Feminists, presumably, must always have the last word, which I interpret as meaning feminists try to make their husbands submissive and subservient.”

In the wake of some feminist headlines this week (such as this and this), I am going to confess something so shocking, so appalling and so outrageously backward to the progressive cause that I’m certain feminists the world over will faint in horror.

Ready? Here it goes: My husband is the head of our household.

Yes, really. Here, some smelling salts will revive you.

In today’s world marinated with progressive morals and ideals, it’s tantamount to heresy for a woman to freely admit that her husband heads the household. But let’s face it: It makes life easier for both my husband and me.



As much as feminists want to deny reality, the fact remains that men and women are biologically different. (Scandalous, I know.) I like to think that God in His divine wisdom came up with the spiffy concept of a division of labor for the sake of efficiency. Divisions of labor are utilized the world over in the workplace to increase efficiency. Why not try it at home as well?

Feminists call this oppression. Homemakers call it freeing.

Why is it oppressive or subservient to look to one’s husband for guidance and strength, rather than to feminists? Why can’t it be a freeing thing for a woman to lean on her husband? Unless she’s unmarried, it’s comforting when a woman doesn’t have to “do it all.”



I am the Heart of this household, and as everyone knows, a body is no good without a heart, just as a body is no good without a head. We need both, and the fact that I view my husband as my Head in no way diminishes my importance as his Heart. But someone has to have the final say in a house for peace and order to prevail, and that job goes to my husband.

A wise Head takes advice and counsel from his Heart. My husband and I discuss all household decisions and mutually agree on nearly everything. But if there is a dissenting opinion between us, and unless I can demonstrate why my position is superior, then I defer to his guidance.

Oooh, sacrilege to the feminist cause. Feminists, presumably, must always have the last word, which I interpret as meaning feminists try to make their husbands submissive and subservient.

Preacher Rants That 'Jesus Is A Muslim' Billboard Is 'Slander'

Recently, some billboards went up around Ohio proclaiming that "Jesus Is A Muslim" and they are not sitting well with "Coach" Dave Daubenmire who organized a rally against the billboards in Columbus over the weekend.

Daubenmire has posted clips from the rally on his YouTube page and though the event was hampered by cold and rainy conditions, a small group of passionate supporters turned out to join Daubenmire and other speakers in railing against "the evil spirit of Islam" and declaring, as preacher Rusty Thomas did, that America "is the Lord's house" and no other religion has the right to come here and try undermine this nation's Christian foundation.

"Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," Thomas screamed, "he has defined himself in the sixty-six books of the Bible and HE WARNS, HE WARNS do not add, do not subtract from my book, otherwise you are a part of the den of thieves!"

Then, pointing across the street to the billboard in question, Thomas declared that if it were entered into a court of law as evidence, "it would be called perjury."

"In the court of public opinion," he continued, "it is slander! This is defamation of character. In religious circles, it is heresy and spiritually, it is blasphemy!"

Ginni Thomas And Lila Rose Discuss Cultural 'Erosion,' 'Natural Law,' 'Tyrant' In White House

Anti-choice activist Lila Rose of Live Action was Ginni Thomas’ guest this week on her Daily Caller interview show, where the two discussed how to fix the “erosion” of American culture and return to “natural law.”

Thomas, a Tea Party activist who is married to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, asked Rose, “Years from now when history books are written about this culture, what are they going to see, and how do we stop the erosion?”

The Live Action founder responded, “Years from now, when history books are written about our culture, what I pray, and what I believe they will say is that we wandered from our founding principles, but we came right back and we embraced them more boldly than ever before.”

She went on to reject the idea of secular government, warning that it leads to human rights abuses, and to call President Obama a “tyrant.”

“Secular is somehow saying there’s no God, there’s no higher power, there’s no higher law,” she said. “You can’t say that because then when you have a tyrant in power – which you often, sadly, do – and I believe there’s aspects of tyranny in who you have in power now – then whole groups of people, their rights are not respected, their rights are not protected and you have human rights abuses.”

WND: Phony Internet Scandal 'May Be The Most Historic Outrage In The History of This Country, If Not The World'

The right-wing myth that the Obama administration handed oversight of the Internet to foreign powers continues to spread, even after it has been roundly debunked. As part of a sixteen year plan, the administration relinquished government oversight to a US-backed non-profit instead of a United Nations-led organization. But conservative activists have consistently claimed that President Obama actually gave control to the UN group, even though that is completely false.

Today, WorldNetDaily pundit Gina Loudon writes in reaction to the Internet decision that Americans should “seriously consider our options” to “find a way to throw these colluders with terrorists – these traitors – out of office,” deceptively claiming that “Obama is handing the global community the ability to control our speech, and our technological advances.”

“This may be the most historic outrage in the history of this country, if not the world, and it happened while they entertained us with bread and circuses,” she writes of the non-existent scandal.

A couple of questions for the stiff-lipped statists with white gloves quietly applauding this oh so global delight: Who can you really trust? And when it comes to the Internet, how do you know that when you increase the greasy fingers meddling in your online life, that more fingers don’t increase corruption and decrease efficiency?

Free markets and private ownership work, and that’s why the American founders chose them. When you make it “global,” with appointees farther removed from the people, you inevitably remove accountability and increase corruption.

The travesty is that we Americans actually did build the Internet! (No, not you, Al! You only built the fraudulent green movement hysteria.) Even Bill Clinton said giving away control of the Internet was idiotic. We have the strongest tradition of free speech in the world. You can kiss that goodbye, Internet lovers!

We can’t say we weren’t warned about all this trickery. Our first clue was when Obama instructed the director of NASA that his goal was no longer space travel, but rather the goal of NASA was to go make friends with Muslims. The former director of NASA, Michael Griffen, called this directive “deeply flawed.”



So now Obama is handing the global community the ability to control our speech, and our technological advances. The international body will have the ability to control us by controlling our speech, and we handed it to them. What are we getting in return?

This may be the most historic outrage in the history of this country, if not the world, and it happened while they entertained us with bread and circuses.

If the country doesn’t wake up and find a way to throw these colluders with terrorists – these traitors – out of office, it will be too late. It may be time for us to seriously consider our options, very seriously.

History will record the truth. The next entity to control the Internet, space and nuclear technology will not be so good as the Americans, who have controlled it since its birth. It cannot be, because no republic shares our bedrock foundations of free speech and individual liberty. America is founded on principles that are reverent, grace-filled and believe the best in people, and for people. What will the Internet look like when it is controlled by people who believe the state comes first?

Pat Robertson Says Jews Are Too Busy Polishing Diamonds To Fix Their Cars

Conservative activist Daniel Lapin, the Religious Right’s favorite rabbi who was also tied to the Jack Abramoff corruption scandal, appeared today on the 700 Club to tell host Pat Robertson about his new book on the “ancient Jewish wisdom” of “making money.”

Robertson introduced Lapin by asking: “What is it about Jewish people that make them prosper financially? You almost never find Jews tinkering with their cars on the weekends or mowing their lawns. That’s what Daniel Lapin says and there’s a very good reason for that, and it lies within the business secrets of the Bible.”

Later in the interview, Robertson said that Jews are “polishing diamonds, not fixing cars.”

“When you correctly said in Jewish neighborhoods you do not find Jews lying under their cars on Sunday afternoons, no, I pay one of the best mechanics around to take care of my BMW, I’d be crazy to take my time doing it myself,” Lapin said. “Or for me to mow my lawn, I’m the worse lawnmower in the world, but the young man who lives down the street from me, he’s one of the best and he’s happy to do it and I’m happy.”

He added that paying for such services is all about “taking care of God’s other children.”

Lapin also repeated his claim that God doesn’t want people to retire, and commended Robertson for still hosting the 700 Club.

“There’s no Hebrew word for retirement; the general rule is when there’s no Hebrew word for something, it’s a bad idea. For instance, there’s no Hebrew word for adolescent, because when you think about it an adolescent is just somebody who wants all the privileges of adulthood with none of the responsibilities,” Lapin told Robertson. “No word for adolescent, no word for retire and I’m very happy that you’ve taken that lesson to heart.”

Robertson agreed that retirement is a violation of God’s law. Lapin added that there is also no Hebrew word for “fair.”

At the end of the interview, Lapin said that the United States has embraced a Marxist government that “turns people into slaves.”

Glenn Beck Sued for Defamation Over His '212 3B' Boston Marathon Bombing Conspiracy Theory

Following the bombing at the Boston Marathon last year, Glenn Beck went on a personal crusade to prove that the Obama administration was engaged in a massive cover-up of the role that an al Qaeda operative played in the attack and was doing so for the benefit of the Saudi Arabian government.

Beck infamously gave the US government three days to come clean about the cover-up before he exposed it on his network. When those three days passed, Beck launched into a full-scale campaign to prove that Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi, who was injured in the bombing, was actually an al Qaeda "control agent" and the "money man" who financed the operation and recruited the Tsarnaev brothers to carry it out.

Beck's theory rested on the fact that Alharbi had once been considered a "person of interest" during the investigation but was quickly cleared. Beck's network received information during the investigation that Alharbi "was set to be deported under section 212 3B" for "terrorist activities" and it was upon that piece of information that Beck built his entire campaign, as he spent days hammering away, challenging everyone to disprove his theory and warning that they would only discredit themselves if they tried to do so.

Eventually, Beck's crusade came to a grinding halt when he brought a former INS special agent onto his program to bolster his theory but, instead, watched as Bob Trent blew a hole right through it by pointing out that the 212 3B designation and Beck's entire timeline "doesn't make sense."

After that, Beck more or less abandoned the issue, though he continued to personally believe in his original conspiracy and mention it from time to time.

And now, nearly one year later, Beck and his company are being sued by Alharbi for defamation and slander:

Glenn Beck defamed on his radio show a Middle Eastern victim of last year's Boston Marathon bombing as a criminal participant in it, the man claims in Federal Court.

Abdulrahman Alharbi sued Beck, The Blaze Inc., Mercury Radio Arts and Premiere Radio Networks for defamation and slander.

Alharbi describes himself in the 6-page lawsuit as "a 20-year-old student who was a spectator at the Marathon and was injured in the bombing. Mr. Alharbi, like many others, was questioned by federal authorities investigating the events of that day. Those authorities also, with his permission, searched his apartment. The responsible officials quickly concluded that Mr. Alharbi, other then being injured in the attacks, had no involvement in the attacks. Many news outlets reported the facts of the search of an apartment and that authorities had questioned a man of Middle Eastern descent. When the authorities concluded that Mr. Alharbi had no involvement, reports ceased. The defendant Glenn Beck, with the active participation of the distributor defendants, repeatedly and falsely identified Mr. Alharbi as an active participant in the crimes that were committed on April 15, 2013, repeatedly questioned the motives of federal officials in failing to pursue or detain Mr. Alharbi and repeatedly and falsely accused Mr. Alharbi of being a criminal who had funded the attacks that took place at the Boston Marathon. Those statements were made widely and publicly. The statements were false and did grave injury to the plaintiff."

Beck, The Blaze and Mercury Radio all are based in Texas, defendant Premiere in California. Beck's show is owned by Blaze and its corporate parent Mercury, according to the complaint.

The complaint adds: "Beck falsely accused Alharbi of being a criminal who had funded the attacks that took place at the Boston Marathon.

"On or about May 8, 2013, and at repeated and diverse times thereafter, Beck stated that Alharbi was the 'money man' who had funded the attacks at the Boston Marathon.

The statements made by Beck were false."

Alharbi says he has "received numerous messages ... based on Beck's statements accusing him of being a murderer, child killer and terrorist."

He seeks punitive damages for defamation with malice.

Gordon Klingenschmitt Poised To Clinch GOP Nomination In Colorado Race

Last year, extremist pastor Gordon “Dr. Chaps” Klingenschmitt announced that he was running for a seat in the Colorado state legislature and his campaign took a step forward last weekend when he dominated a Colorado GOP caucus, where he received over seventy percent of the vote. Unfortunately for Chaps, he doesn't have the GOP nomination sewn up quite yet, as he still may face a primary opponent:

Gordon Klingenschmitt won the favor of the delegates with 71 percent of the vote, preventing two other candidates nominated from hitting the 30 percent threshold. But unlike county-wide races, it only takes 1,000 signatures to get on the ballot.

Candidate Dave Williams however, turned down his nomination saying he already has 1,000 signatures and will petition onto the ballot. A primary appears likely in that race.

The district is heavily Republican and currently represented by the GOP House Leader.

As ColoradoPols.com reports, Williams also has a long history of making extremist statements and promoting discrimination.

Klingenschmitt has made anti-LGBT activism the cornerstone of his political life. Here are just a few of his shocking statements:

Klingenschmitt: Gays 'Have Something Unhuman Inside Of Them'

Gay Soldiers Undermine The Military Because They Have To Take Breaks In The Middle Of Combat To Change Their Diapers

Klingenschmitt: Photo Of Gay Couple With A Baby 'Looks To Me A Little Bit Like Lust'

Klingenschmitt: If You Are Gay, 'Then You Should Be Discriminated Against'

Klingenschmitt: 'The Demonic Spirits Inside The Homosexual Agenda' Are Trying To Recruit Your Kids

Klingenschmitt: Gay Activists Are Trying To Force Christians To 'Participate In Their Sodomy'

New Erick Erickson-Backed Group Ousts Hardline Anti-Choice Org In Georgia

Last week, we wrote about the infighting among anti-choice groups – between those that will settle for nothing short of banning abortion with no exceptions and those that are willing to take a more incremental approach to the same goal – that’s bubbling to the surface in contentious GOP Senate primaries in Kentucky and Georgia.

Georgia’s feud is particularly dramatic: Georgia Right to Life, the state affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee, broke with the national group last year when it opposed a federal 20-week abortion ban that the national group supported, refusing to endorse the legislation because it included exceptions for rape and incest.

Republican congressman and Senate candidate Paul Broun sided with the state group and voted against the ban because of the rape and incest exceptions; his fellow representatives Jack Kingston and Phil Gingrey, who are also running for the Senate seat, sided with the national group and voted for the ban. Former Susan G. Komen executive Karen Handel, another leading Senate contender, also supports rape exceptions to abortion bans.

Georgia Right to Life’s open split with National Right to Life over the 20-week abortion ban drew the ire of Macon-based conservative pundit Erick Erickson, who called the hardline Georgia group “the Westboro Baptist Church of the pro-life movement” and declared, “we need a new pro-life group in Georgia.”

Enter Georgia Life Alliance, a brand new anti-choice group that mysteriously sprung up a few weeks ago with the goal of taking Georgia Right to Life’s spot as the state affiliate of National Right to Life. Erickson quickly acknowledged that he was involved in the new organization and would be on its board.

And this weekend, Erickson completed his coup, as National Right to Life announced that it was ending its relationship with Georgia Right to Life and taking on Georgia Life Alliance as its new affiliate. In a press release, the national organization blamed the split on Georgia Right to Life's insubordination and defended its legislative strategy, claiming it “has helped save millions of lives.”

In short, by its own actions, Georgia Right to Life ruptured its relationship with National Right to Life.

National Right to Life and its affiliates seek to restore legal protection for all unborn children from the moment of their conception. Until the Supreme Court allows broad protections for unborn children, we work to protect as many children as possible by passing the strongest possible laws at the state and federal level. That legislative strategy has helped save millions of lives – and continues to save lives today.

Georgia Right to Life then lashed out in return, calling the national group’s decision a “tragedy”:

“It’s a tragedy that a pioneering, highly successful pro-life organization is considered unworthy to remain affiliated with National Right to Life (NRLC),” Becker said. “It’s especially hard to understand, since GRTL has accomplished so much.”

Meanwhile, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Daniel Malloy caught up with Broun, who chided National Right to Life and said he wished everyone in the anti-choice movement would just get along:

“I’m saddened that those of us that believe in life are fighting amongst ourselves. We ought to be fighting to protect the lives of unborn children instead of quibbling about differences of opinion of strategy. I’m honored that Georgia Right to Life has endorsed my candidacy for U.S. Senate. …

“I know that Georgia Right to Life has been at the forefront in the state of Georgia fighting for life. What National Right to Life did is I think unfortunate for the people who have been involved with Georgia Right to Life for a long period of time.”

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious