So Christine O’Donnell is being ridiculed for asking Chris Coons where in the Constitution is found the idea of “wall of separation of church and state”. Liberals always like to throw this phrase around, as if it’s actually in the U.S. Constitution. The fact is, it is not. And I think it is important to remind people just whom liberals are quoting when they bring up the “wall of separation” idea. The following is from an interview done on the Rush Limbaugh program in January 2008 with Mark Levin:
LEVIN: I mean, you have everything from Santa Claus and Christmas trees. We have a court they couldn’t muster together a majority to uphold the Pledge of Allegiance on the merits of what’s in the Pledge of Allegiance — and let’s look at that for a second. The “wall of separation.” This is annoying to a lot of people and very upsetting. The Framers did not want a government religion. They did not want what they had in England, where everybody is taxed to support that religion and has to be a member of that religion or they’re punished, and so we’ve reached the point now where it’s been twisted and turned to mean what? If I don’t like what’s on public land and it bothers me, then I have a constitutional right to sue and get an ACLU lawyer and have it removed. Well, that’s not what the Constitution says.
Now, who’s Hugo Black? Hugo Black was appointed by FDR. Before that he was a senator. Before that he was for a couple years an active member of the Klan, and after he became an active member of the Klan, he was a lawyer, a very good lawyer for some Klan members who committed very violent acts, including one who killed a Catholic priest.
Now, when he came on the court, I don’t know that he lost all those viewpoints, but in this particular decision involving public monies that incidentally would go to Catholic school children to help transport them to school, Black snuck this language into the decision: wall of separation, strict wall of separation. Now, that’s not in the Constitution. That’s nowhere in the Constitution. Black put it in the Constitution — excuse me — put it in this decision.
So now when all these pseudo-civil libertarians are running around saying, you know, “separation of church and state,” I think our audience should remind them: You’re not quoting Jefferson; you’re quoting Hugo Black, the former Klansman!
Of course, it should not surprise anyone that liberals side with a former Klansman. Afterall, they revered former Klansman Robert Byrd so much that they elected him to the U.S. Senate and kept him in office for decades.
Here is more from the interview: Men in Black — Part I
Also see this great post by Bob Ellis at The Dakota Voice: Church and State: Another MSM Hatchet Job
Here’s Rush today on this issue:
RUSH: That’s not in the Constitution. “Separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution, and the fact that people laughed about this is what’s really scary. Most of the Framers and the congressmen who were first elected to the House and Senate prayed every day and went to church in Congress on Sundays, and in fact the House is opened every day with a prayer! Apparently back in the day, the Founders didn’t know that there was separation of church and state. All the Founders said was that the state shall not establish an official religion. It does not say that people in government shall not practice or cannot practice a religion. The Senate opens with a prayer every day, as does the House. The House has a chaplain, for crying out loud!
So this story was purposely written to make it look like Christine O’Donnell does not know what’s in the First Amendment, when she was right. Nowhere in the Constitution will you find the words “separation of church and state,” and nowhere in the Constitution will you find anything written to convey the meaning that religion is not permitted to be part of government. All it says is that the government shall “establish” one. The United States government cannot proclaim, “This is a Christian nation.” It cannot proclaim, “This is a Jewish state,” cannot proclaim the official religion of our country is Islam. They cannot do it. But we can have Islamists in government, we can have Christians in government, we can have Jews in government, and they can pray while serving! This has been one of the tricks of the left for as long as I’ve been alive.
To get God out of our culture, to get God out of the schools, to get God out of everyday life. It’s to try to say that the Constitution prohibits God, that’s what they want the interpretation of the First Amendment to be. The Constitution does not prohibit God. I mean, for crying out loud, look at the Declaration, acknowledged as one of our founding documents. We are all “endowed by our Creator.” The reason for this phrase in the First Amendment was where were these people fleeing? England! The Church of England. Henry VIII established a religion so he could get divorced. Pure and simple, he wanted to get a divorce. Religion said, “No.” “Okay, I’m going to make my own religion. Screw you! I’m gonna behead somebody. Screw you!” They were fleeing religious persecution. The scary thing is that a bunch of dummkopf, dingleberry law students and audience at a law school laughed at the correct portrayal of what’s in the Constitution.
Christine O’Donnell may be as “stupid” as Justice Scalia. You want to know what he said about it? Justice Scalia: “In holding that the establishment clause prohibits invocations and benedictions at public school graduation ceremonies, the court with nary a mention that it is doing so lays waste a tradition that is as old as public school graduation ceremonies themselves and that is a component of an even more long-standing American tradition of nonsectarian prayer to God at public celebrations generally. As its instrument of destruction, the bulldozer of its social engineering, the court invents a boundless and boundlessly manipulable test of psychological coercion.” That is Justice Scalia writing about people amplifying the establishment clause to suggest that God can’t be mentioned, that prayers cannot happen at public graduations.
That was Justice Scalia writing about those on the Supreme Court who would rule that God could not be part of anything to do with government or anything public. The Constitution doesn’t say it. Christine O’Donnell was right. Chris Coons couldn’t name the five freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment. (interruption) Christine O’Donnell is… (interruption) Well, does she…? Snerdley says that Christine O’Donnell’s not slick; she doesn’t know how to say it to get past these connivers and SOBs. I guess not if you want to look at it that way. The guy says establishment of church and state. She says, “You’re telling me that’s in the First Amendment?” She knows full well it’s not. It’s not that she’s not slick enough. She’s assuming that everybody is as smart as she is. She’s assuming that everybody’s as informed as she is. That’s the mistake many of us conservatives make: We assume everybody knows what we know. We assume everybody is as informed as we are. That’s why I say it was really scary that these lamebrains at that law school laughed at the absolute correct assertion that she made.
A-freaking-men to this:
Exit Question: Who the hell cares if she thinks Intelligent Design should be taught in schools?
Coons never met a tax increase he did not like, and I am supposed to believe that one of the most important issues in the DELAWARE Senate race is some evangelical hobby horse that has zero chance of even being considered in Delaware or in the Department of Education.
WTF? She can be a snakehandling speaking-in-tongues charismatic wacko for all I care. Is she going to fight tax increases? Is she a solid vote against Obamacare?
On the Howard Kurtzian other hand: She should have just blown off the question and come back with something like “this creationism stuff is just a distraction from the real issue of how we get the Federal government out of our schools. That is something that I, as a Senator, can impact. Creationism should be decided by the local school district….”
Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at October 19, 2010 02:08 PM
The context is bad. It sounds like O’Donnell was defending the teaching of creationism as science. That’s not going to attract a lot of moderates either.Posted by: Cicero at October 19, 2010 01:39 PM
If these so called moderates are going to vote for a Marxist this year because of an establishment clause issue, then they need to get a frickin’ clue.
Posted by: Oldcat at October 19, 2010 02:07 PM
BRAVO and another A-freaking-men to this:
Can we maybe just face it? O’Donnell is an ignoramus with no business in the Senate. Her opponent is unthinkable too, of course, but that’s not much comfort. The system simply failed to produce an acceptable candidate.<<
That already happened during the last presidential election, and yet this very site declared that not pulling the lever for McCain and not overlooking his tendency to trample fellow Republicans on his way across the aisle to caucus with the democrats were acts just short of treason. I would like to see a little of that, er…support thrown the way of actual conservative candidates. If you stomached voting McCain, you can stomach shutting your hole over O’Donnell for 2 damn weeks.
Posted by: Kerry at October 19, 2010 02:10 PM
I am 100% in agreement with this as well. To anyone with a lick of common sense, it is obvious that the Left brings up these issues (“separation of church and state”, Intelligent Design/Creationism, etc) to distract from the actual important issues. However, if the American electorate is stupid enough to fall for this BS from Democrats, then we get what we deserve. The Democrats will stop pulling this BS once the American electorate finally punishes them for doing it.
What is noxious is this whole [f-ing] subject. So with 10% unemployment, deflation, crippling gubmint debt, Li’l Barry and the Demotards more than quadrupling the deficit in under two years, Obama’s socialized medicine destroying people’s medical coverage, mountains of new regulations from the EPA et al., massive voter fraud, the prospect of cap-and-tax enacted through executive order… this debate and the tools who sponsored it decided it’s a dandy time to have a bull session on religion in government?
Delaware. My God… it’s full of stupid.
Posted by: George Orwell at October 19, 2010 02:12 PM
Unfortunately, it’s not just Delaware. The Democrats and MF-ing media would pull this BS tactic anywhere in the nation they felt it would work. They have been doing it for decades. Rarely do Democrats ever focus on the actual issues of the economy and foreign policy, and when they do, they lie and mislead people. Until the American electorate stops falling for this BS from Democrats, they’re going to keep doing it.
A couple years ago, I used to blog on the Curiouser and Curiouser site run by Michael Turner. I stopped after I got burnt out on politics. However, I wanted to repost this series of posts I made of the Rush Limbaugh interview of Mark Levin on his book “Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America”.
Rush Limbaugh had lawyer F. Lee Levin, Mark Levin, on his show today to discuss his new book, “Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America”. Mr. Levin was the chief of staff to Attorney General Ed Meese during the Reagan administration. His main focus is on the law and the Constitution of the United States of America. Rush asked him why he has written his new book focusing on the Supreme Court:
LEVIN: Well, you know, the book is written for the public, not for you know, Main Street, not for Harvard square. It’s for regular Americans so they can understand what’s happening to their government, how the Supreme Court is disenfranchising them and what they can do about it. There’s really not a year that goes by, Rush — and you talk about it all the time — when there’s some case that comes down, some decision that is really shocking to the American people, whether it’s conferring rights on terrorists or conferring benefits on illegal immigrants and on and on and on. So I thought it was time to really dissect this, really get into this — especially since we’re about to have a major battle over the Supreme Court when the president nominates one, two or three justices in the future. So I’m really trying to arm people who are interested in this subject with information so they can take it to their representatives and participate in this fight. Yeah. I mean, you know, the public stands there. We watch these left-wing groups savage one outstanding judicial candidate after another. We stand there and we watch the Supreme Court issue one outrageous policy decision after another. We live in the greatest representative republic on the face of the earth. It’s time that we emphasized the “representative” part. We don’t have to leave these decisions to a small cabal of left-wing senators or small cabal of left-wing special-interest groups, or a handful of lawyers who happen to be Supreme Court justices. The Framers didn’t view it that way and we ought not to either.
Rush spent an entire hour of his show interviewing Mr. Levin and the discussion was enlightening, to say the least. I learned so much just listening to them this afternoon that I feel this information needs to get out to everyone. So I’m going to make a series of posts to share their discussion, and encourage you to read more by buying the book “Men in Black”. [I also encourage you all to subscribe to RushLimbaugh.com to have access to brilliant information and opinions such as this on a daily basis.]
RUSH: No. No. Because not only does it deserve to be, but this is a book, there are very few of these kind of books that come along that people actually need to read. This is historically informative. This is an educational yet entertaining book to read, and I want to start. You’ve perfectly cast what the court is doing now, what the left-wing groups are doing now, how a small cabal of Democrat senators can stop it. Where did this all start? What was the original intent? I know this is something we are all interested in here when we discuss the Constitution. What was the original intent of the Founders of the Supreme Court and how has it varied from that over the years?
LEVIN: Well, the Framers created basically a silhouette in the Constitution when it comes to the judiciary. It created a Supreme Court that had some specific powers not relevant to our discussion, and it left it to Congress —
RUSH: Did it name the number? Did it name the number of justices?
LEVIN: No, it did not. It was a blank slate pretty much, and it left it to Congress to decide.
RUSH: So Congress decided on nine justices.
LEVIN: Well, first there were seven. There have been a variety of numbers over the years. FDR wanted to make them 14, but it’s pretty settled now that there are nine justices. The number of justices to me doesn’t really matter. It’s what they do. The Constitution doesn’t speak of what the lower court’s going to look like. That’s left to Congress, too. So you have a situation in the Constitution where the elected branches are pretty specific about what they’re going to look like. The judiciary they’re not specific. As I say it’s a silhouette, and it’s left to Congress to paint the picture, and Congress from time to time ought to paint that picture. Early in our history it did. I mean there were judiciary acts and they changed the makeup of the court. They changed what the lower courts look like. But where everything really changed, at least the impetus, was in the election of 1800 when John Adams and the Federalists got their political clocks cleaned by Thomas Jefferson and the Republicans. Adams lost the presidency. The Federalists lost both houses of Congress, but there was a big period of time back then between the time the new president came in and the old one left. It was March. And so during that time, Adams decided that he’s going to try and make sure at least the Federalists have some say. So he tried to ram through some judges, which he did through the lame duck Federalist Senate, 16 of them, one of them being Marbury. He named his secretary of state, who was John Marshall, chief justice, and got him confirmed about five or six weeks before he left office, and so one of those judges challenged Jefferson, who said, “You know, I don’t have to put up with this. I’m not going to appoint these judges,” and he ordered his secretary of state, Madison, to sit on them and not appoint them. So you have this lawsuit, and it comes before the Supreme Court, and who’s the chief justice? John Marshall. John Marshall was also a political confidante of Adams’ over the years and a footnote, he was a distant cousin of Jefferson’s and they were frequently political adversaries in Virginia. So the bottom line is this case comes before the court — and let me cut to the chase. Marshall uses the occasion of the case to basically announce — and, of course, I paraphrase — he says, “You know what? When it comes to constitutional issues, we’ll basically have the final say here, folks. I just want to make that clear, that somebody has to do it, and we’ll do it,” and Jefferson went nuts. And for the rest of his life he was the biggest critic of what he considered a seizure of power by the Supreme Court. He called it “the despotism of an oligarchy” way back in 1820, and since then it’s gotten worse! I mean, we put this court up as if it’s an Olympian council, and I don’t know why. Let’s look at some quick facts. In 1856, the Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott that slavery is the law of the land compelled by the Constitution. It is not compelled by the Constitution. Even in the free territories, slavery is the law of the land. In 1896 the Supreme Court decided in Plessy vs. Ferguson that separate but equal is equal. That’s not what the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment says! And in 1944, the Supreme Court — by the way, I don’t give FDR and Earl Warren a pass on this. The Supreme Court upheld in a very short opinion the internment of American citizens mostly Japanese-Americans, the removal from their homes on the Pacific Coast, moving them to the interior and they upheld that. So we have slavery, segregation, the internment of American citizens. The Supreme Court was on the wrong side of all those.
RUSH: Claiming all three of those are constitutional to boot.
LEVIN: That’s correct.
RUSH: Claiming they’re constitutional when the Constitution says nothing about it. That’s one of the things here. You ask… You don’t know why they did it. I have to ask you about this. It seems to me that — whatever you want to call, Democrat, liberal, leftist, whatever label you want to attach to it — this kind of extraconstitutional power and desire for it has been around for years and years and years and years, and what you have just said is not taught anymore in the public schools. What you’ve just said, I have no doubt, is big news to a whole lot of people listening to this program, that the Supreme Court itself determined it is the final arbiter of what’s constitutional or not, that it just took that on itself. Now, that’s a brazen power ploy as you just said. It has evolved now to the point that liberals, that’s the only way they can get the vast majority of what they believe woven into the fabric our society.
RUSH: Because that stuff would never pass legislatively, and so for years — for a century, over a century — this stuff, it’s just become accepted. Now the American people have been slowly lulled into a comfortability with the notion that the Supreme Court is the final word on controversial political subjects.
LEVIN: Yeah, you know, let me be real clear about this. What are we talking about? We’re talking about today nine lawyers who are on the Supreme Court. Most people don’t know who five or six of those lawyers are, know very little about them. In our history we’ve had only about 120 justices. Some of them have been brilliant; some of them have been extremely competent; some of them have been racists; some of them have been senile, and some of them have been crooks. I mean they’re imperfect human beings, and it is time — as you wrote recently in an op-ed — to strip the veneer from the court and these justices. We shouldn’t hold them up higher than the elected branches. They’re no better and no worse than the people who serve in the elected branches. But where he we do draw the line is when they start setting policy based on their personal views or even more so-so views that are not expressed in the Constitution. In the dissent in Dred Scott in 1856 there was this Justice Curtis, and he couldn’t have put it better. If Justice Curtis were nominated by President Bush today, people like Chuck Schumer would say he’s an extremist and he’s unqualified. Justice Curtis said, speaking up against the decision of the court upholding slavery, “When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we no longer have a Constitution. We are under the government of individual men who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is according their own views of what it ought to mean.” This man could not be confirmed today to the United States Supreme Court!
RUSH: Mark Levin is with us. He’s discussing the history of the Supreme Court, what to do about where we are now in his new book Men in Black.
Mark Levin lays out the facts about the liberal record of Senator John McCain. Conservatives have no business supporting this man for President. I honestly do not understand why he is even still under consideration for the Presidency. Actually, I take that back. I know full well why people are still considering him: because they refuse to vote on conservative principles and continue to run back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, from CINO to RINO to CINO to RINO, based on polls, media reports and primary voting by Independents and Democrats, which all have the agenda of pushing the Republican Party to nominate a liberal as their Presidential candidate.
It utterly disgusts me to see this happening. People complain about the mass media all the time, yet, they turn around and do their bidding by supporting the man they are pushing. Brilliant.
[H/T to Mark Levin Fan]
There’s a reason some of John McCain’s conservative supporters avoid discussing his record. They want to talk about his personal story, his position on the surge, his supposed electability. But whenever the rest of his career comes up, the knee-jerk reply is to characterize the inquiries as attacks.
The McCain domestic record is a disaster. To say he fought spending, most particularly earmarks, is to nibble around the edges and miss the heart of the matter. For starters, consider:
McCain-Feingold — the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.
McCain-Kennedy — the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.
McCain-Lieberman — the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry — through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases — in American history.
McCain-Kennedy-Edwards — the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.
McCain-Reimportantion of Drugs — a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety (hey Rudy, pay attention, see link).
And McCain’s stated opposition to the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was largely based on socialist, class-warfare rhetoric — tax cuts for the rich, not for the middle class. The public record is full of these statements. Today, he recalls only his insistence on accompanying spending cuts.
As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, McCain was consistently hostile to American enterprise, from media and pharmaceutical companies to technology and energy companies.
McCain also led the Gang of 14, which prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule change that would have ended the systematic use (actual and threatened) of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.
And then there’s the McCain defense record.
His supporters point to essentially one policy strength, McCain’s early support for a surge and counterinsurgency. It has now evolved into McCain taking credit for forcing the president to adopt General David Petreaus’s strategy. Where’s the evidence to support such a claim?
Moreover, Iraq is an important battle in our war against the Islamo-fascist threat. But the war is a global war, and it most certainly includes the continental United States, which, after all, was struck on 9/11. How does McCain fare in that regard?
McCain-ACLU — the unprecedented granting of due-process rights to unlawful enemy combatants (terrorists).
McCain has repeatedly called for the immediate closing of Guantanamo Bay and the introduction of al-Qaeda terrorists into our own prisons — despite the legal rights they would immediately gain and the burdens of managing such a dangerous population.
While McCain proudly and repeatedly points to his battles with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who had to rebuild the U.S. military and fight a complex war, where was McCain in the lead-up to the war — when the military was being dangerously downsized by the Clinton administration and McCain’s friend, former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen? Where was McCain when the CIA was in desperate need of attention? Also, McCain was apparently in the dark about al-Qaeda like most of Washington, despite a decade of warnings.
My fingers are crossed that at the next debate, either Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney will find a way to address McCain’s record. (Mike Huckabee won’t, as he is apparently in the tank for him.)
Here is the bottom line. Stop judging this politician’s qualifications for the Presidency based on what he did 30 years ago while a member of the United States military and start looking at his career as a United States politician. You can simultaneously admire him for his career in the military and despise him for his career as a politician… and not support him for President.
I know that is my stance on Senator John McCain. He has my utmost respect as a military veteran and my utmost contempt for his career as a politician and constant betrayal of conservative values.
UPDATE at 23:58 EST on 11 JAN 2008: You can also go here to listen to Fred Thompson on the Mark Levin show as Mark gives Fred some advice on how to attack John McCain.