This article is not listed as opinion, because it is not. It is absolutely factual, and incontrovertible, including the FACT that the ACLU regularly lies about the First Amendment, except where I specifically tell you it is opinion. And, yes, I am fully qualified to write this article. Not only did I graduate third in my class from the University of Texas School of Law in 1973, and not only did I receive the highest grade in my class in Constitutional Law (from Lino Graglia, my Constitutional Law professor), but Constitutional Law has been a lifelong study of mine. And you can tell just how good I am at studying law, and reading comprehension (back when I had decent eyesight) by the fact that my LSAT score (with not preparation and while in the United States Army out of college more than two years) was 785 out of 8000 (old scoring).
"CONGRESS shall make no law......." That is how the First Amendment read, and that is what the Founders MEANT. The First Amendment was only a limit on the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, and no limit on the states. In fact, the reason the First Amendment was not in the original Constitution ( (hence "Amendment") is that the Federal Government was not supposed to have the power to do any ting to violate the First Amendment in the first place, since the Federal Government was supposed to be a government of specifically enumerated powers (see Rand Paul). The First Amendment was never meant to have anything to do with the states, which could still have a STATE CHURCH (unless the state constitution provided otherwise). Thus, John Adams put in his first version of the Massachusetts Constitution that citizens had a DUTY to worship God. In almost NO state was there a serious effort to keep God and prayer out of the pubic schools until the Supreme Court (the Roosevelt Court) began a Federal power grab, beginning in the late 1930s,to use the 14th Amendment to apply the First Amendment to the states to the same extent it is applied to the Federal Government (despite that embarrassing--to the Supreme Court--language about "CONGRESS shall make no law.....". No, the 14th Amendment does not SAY anything about applying the First Amendment to the states. This LATER (long after the 14th Amendment was passed) action by the Supreme Court was a USURPATION of power (opinion as to this sentence only, as the rest of the paragraph cannot be disputed).
First ACLU LIE: You can see from the above that the "Founders" NEVER established any principle of complete "separation of church and state". States were free to allow religion in state institutions to the extent their own law allowed. I have HEARD spokesmen from the aCLU say time after time that the Framers of the Constitution set up an absolute principle of separation of church and state. That is a bald faced LIE. In fact, the Founders originally thought that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary, because the Federal Government did not have those powers anyway (lol--were those who distrusted the growth of Federal power, and insisted on the Bill of Rights to restrain the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, ever RIGHT).
Well, okay, but did not the Supreme Court eventually use the 14th Amendment to incorporate the First Amendment to the same extent as it applies to the Federal Government--even if you, Skip, have the opinion that was a dictatorial usurpation of power? Yes, but that does not change that the ACLU LIES when it says the Framers set up a complete separation of church and state. Further, even as to the Federal Government, the words "separation of church and state" do NOT appear in the Constitution. Even the Supreme Court has never adopted the idea that there has to be an ACLU-type COMPLETE separation of church and state. The whole idea of "separation of church and state" does come from Supreme Court opinions--NOT from the Constitution. But, even so, the Supreme Court has NEVER adopted the ACLU position--the extreme position--as the law of the land. That is ACLU LIE number two.
Now we come to Christine O'Donnell. O'Donnell evidently suggested that the concept of "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. ACLU-type leftists MADE THE PHRASE UP. The most you can say is that the Supreme Court--JUDGES, not the Constitution--has been gradually moving toward the ACLU (ridiculous) position that "God" should be completely removed from pubic life (while still never having said so in those terms).
What the Constitution says, of course, is that CONGRESS shall make no law concerning ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or interfering with the free exercise of religion. It is an incredible stretch to say the "In God We Trust", or "under God" (in the Pledge of Allegiance), or posting the Ten Commandments in a classroom, or Nativity scenes at Christmas, or Christmas itself as a national Holiday, or any number of other things really represent an "establishment" of religion--especially at a local level. In fact, I don't see that even non-denominational "moments of prayer" can reasonably be regarded as an "establishment" of religion (opinion as to this sentence alone, although a rock solid opinion).
Christine O'Donnell is RIGHT (I remain a big FAN of hers). "Separation of church and state" does NOT appear in the Constitution. The ACLU, and leftists--including the mainstream media--LIE when they suggest otherwise.
How did the CORRUPT propagandists at the Associated Press and Yahoo "News" play this story (opinion in this sentence only as to "corrupt propagandists", although that is so close to a fact that I am embarrassed to concede this)? You know. They suggest that Christine O'Donnell is so far out there that "even prominent conservatives" are criticizing her. Criticizing her for what? For CORRECTLY saying that "separation of church and state" is not in the First Amendment? that is what the AP story says O'Donnell said--although I admit that the AP is a very unreliable source. Christine O'Donnell is right. The AP and ACLU are wrong. Not only does "separation of church and state" not appear in the First Amendment, but "complete separation of church and state" is STILL not the "law of the land"--however much we have been moving in that direction, based in part on LIES of the ACLU about the real Constitutional arguments here.
Yes, I am still an agnostic (if you have read previous articles of mine). No, I don't want a state religion, and I think it is a vast mistake to "compose" prayers to be read in the public schools. I do think the latter--on a local level--is Constitutional. It has never bothered me to be at a place where other people pray--even though I have been an agnostic since at least age 12. I simply bow my head and don't pray. It is RUDE to so fanatically want someone else's religion to not even be mentioned. What do you do when you are at a private function, and there is a prayer? Do you jump up and stalk out? No, it is NOT different for these relatively minor recognitions by the state of the EXISTENCE of religious people in the country.
Again, based on the AP story, Christine O'Donnell is RIGHT about "separation of church and state" not being in the Constitution. And the ACLU--not to mention the AP--consistently LIES about the First Amendment, and how it has developed over time.
What do I think of "prominent conservatives" who are "criticizing" O'Donnell? Well, in the first place ANY conservative who criticizes O'Donnell automatically becomes Prominent for the AP and mainstream media. Conservatives are almost never quoted as "prominent" unless they are being quoted to support the AP/Yahoo/CNN/MSNBC/mainstream media agenda. To the extent there are some "real" conservatives criticizing O'Donnell, I have nothing but CONTEMPT for them (if they are criticizing her for refusing to use the "separation of church and state" as really being in the Constitution).
The very BEST reason for voting for Christine O'Donnell--beyond the fact that I become more impressed with her every single day--is that the ESTABLISHMENT of both parties--and even the conservative "establishment"--HATES her. If you want to shake these people up--and why should you want anything else?--the very best way to do that is to vote for Christine O'Donnell.
P.S. Yes, there is some obvious opinion in the last few paragraphs, but hardly as much as in the ordinary AP article, including the one referenced above. As to MSNBC, forget it. MSNBC would not know a real fact if it were jammed up you know where.