Mainstream Media Ignorant of First Amendment to Constitution

Fifty years of faulty public education has been exposed by "tea party" candidate Christine O'Donnell running for U.S. Senate in Delaware, as she seemed to be the only person in the debate hall who knew the REAL First Amendment language.

UPDATE 10/21/10 (video): ABC News reports what other media has not on First Amendment debate (begins at time mark 2:10)




-- From "Coons, O’Donnell Debate the Constitution" by Jess Bravin, Wall Street Journal 10/19/10

Ms. O’Donnell attacked her Democratic opponent, Chris Coons, for insisting that public schools teach evolution but not “intelligent design,” which posits that life forms are too complex to have evolved through natural processes and must have been created by a conscious being such as God. Mr. Coons, the New Castle County executive, said that public schools could not teach intelligent design or similar theories, like creationism and creation science, because they were “religious doctrine” rather than science.

“That is a blatant violation of our Constitution,” Ms. O’Donnell said. “The Supreme Court has always said it is up to the local communities to decide their standards.”

When Mr. Coons interjected that “one of those indispensible principles is the separation of church and state,” Ms. O’Donnell demanded, “Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?”

The audience exploded in laughter.

The moderator moved on, but Ms. O’Donnell later returned to this question, demanding of Mr. Coons, “So you’re telling me the phrase, ‘the separation of church and state,’ is found in the Constitution.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Mr. Coons claimed the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as his source. It reads:

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.

From "The Separation of Church and State" by David Barton, WallBuilders, January 2001

In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." The "separation of church and state" phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.

[After the] election of Jefferson . . . a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling . . . Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for "the free exercise of religion" . . .

Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression.

. . . in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, [Jefferson] assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:

Gentlemen, – The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem.

In summary, the "separation" phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson's explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. "Separation of church and state" currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Mainstream Media Hide News Detrimental to Gay Agenda

When a Duke University administrator is arrested for selling his adopted 5-year-old son for deviant sex, it makes the news nationwide, except if the man is homosexual. After more than a week, one local news source has covered the story.

-- From "Health director Lombard faces child sex charges" by Julius Jones, The Duke Chronicle 7/1/09

A University employee was charged by the FBI with child sex abuse June 24 in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Frank Lombard, 42, associate director for the Health Inequalities Program at the Center for Heath Policy, is charged with enticing an undercover police officer over the Internet to take part in interstate travel in order to engage in an illegal sex act with a minor . . .

After the sting operation began, the officer alleges that over the course of a Yahoo! Instant Messenger conversation June 23, Lombard-using the display name "F L"-confessed to multiple acts of sexual abuse online using the ICUii video chat program. Lombard identified the minor he had molested as his 5-year-old, black adopted child.

Lombard also offered to allow the undercover officer to watch him perform sexual acts on the child via ICUii and fly to Lombard's home to have sex with the child himself, according to the affidavit.

"He further told your affiant that he lived in Durham, North Carolina with his live-in homosexual partner," Palchak wrote in his affidavit.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "News agencies gagging 'gay' factor in boy's rape" by Joe Kovacs © 2009 WorldNetDaily 7/1/09

The arrest affidavit goes into graphic detail of Lombard's alleged actions, including alleged performance of oral sex with the child in front of a webcam, and sodomizing the boy with his finger and tongue. It also prominently cites the fact that Lombard is a homosexual living with another "gay" man.

In his online profile, Lombard reportedly describes himself as "perv dad for fun."

But days after the case broke, there have been few, if any, mentions in news stories that Lombard is part of a homosexual couple raising children.

In reports by the Associated Press, CNN and ABC News, for instance, the "gay" factor is never brought up.

A Lexis-Nexis news database search by WND using search terms "Frank Lombard" and "homosexual" or "gay" resulted in just four results, none of which were any major media.

Radio host Rush Limbaugh commented today on the apparent double standard [compared to the high-profile case of Duke lacrosse players who were wrongly accused of a rape that never happened], stating, "Did you hear there has been an actual rape at Duke University? An actual rape in Durham, North Carolina. It's not a phony one. Not a false charge. An actual rape. A guy sold his adopted 5-year-old son to a sex practitioner. A 5-year-old kid, yeah. There's a problem with this, too, because the guy is gay, a gay adoption.

"This is why you haven't heard about it. This does not fit the template. A false charge of rape at Duke when you had the poor, black, down-on-her-luck dancer and the rich, white, lacrosse players, oh, that fit the template. They were guilty before any evidence. This you haven't heard about because this doesn't fit the template here of what we're trying to accomplish." [Referring to the mainstream media being complicit in the Gay Agenda.]

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Gay Episcopal Activist Arrested on Pedophile Charges He Molested Own Children" by David W. Virtue, virtueonline.org 7/1/2009

A gay Episcopal activist who is a fan of New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson and a Duke University official has been charged in federal court with offering his 5-year-old adopted son up for sex.

When news of this story broke, VOL sent an e-mail to Robinson asking for clarification about his relationship with Lombard, but got no response. "It is reported that he is a fan of yours," VOL wrote to Robinson.

VOL phoned The Episcopal Church of The Advocate, a pro-gay "welcoming" parish located in Carrboro, North Carolina, where Lombard worships and sought comment from the rector, Lisa G. Fischbeck, a deputy to General Convention. She did not respond.

The diocese did (finally) release a statement with Bishop Michael B. Curry responding to the arrest of the Duke researcher, "Frank Lombard is a parishioner of a congregation in the diocese of North Carolina. It is the bishop's policy that in matters such as these, clergy will cooperate fully with law enforcement and allow the judicial process to run its course. In keeping with this same policy, clergy will not comment on investigations which are still in progress. The bishops and clergy of this diocese are committed to making certain that all of our churches remain safe places where all may worship and serve God. The Church is providing pastoral care and spiritual guidance for all parishioners who have been affected by this painful situation."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Principal Warns Teacher About Bullying Students for being Conservative

A Michigan high school is investigating allegations that one of its teachers berated and belittled a student for taking part in what the teacher considered an unacceptable activity: reading FOXNews.com.

-- From "Student Says Teacher Scolded Him for Viewing FOXNews.com" posted at FOX News, 5/1/09

The teacher of [the student's] video production class saw what he was looking at and "proceeded to give me a 10-minute lecture on why I can't read FOX News ... and that I can only listen to BBC and other news venues," the student said.

James Feil, superintendent of Traverse City Area Public Schools, told FOXNews.com that any attempts to pressure students politically would go against his schools' policies.

. . . school officials said the student hadn't violated any computer-use rules in his class.

But the school has a strict policy against bullying, which it says "may in circumstances be a violation of federal or state law" and goes against its commitment to provide a safe learning environment.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

San Fran. Launches Homosexual School Indoctrination Website

"All children deal with LGBTQ issues, possibly at home and/or at school. Children watch TV and movies that discuss, satirize, and ridicule LGBTQ people. Our obligation as educators is to confront stereotypes and address inappropriate language . . ."

-- From "Only in San Francisco, literally" posted by Jill Tucker on the San Francisco Chronicle blog 4/20/09

San Francisco school officials have created a new Web site with resources to support lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth. It's apparently the only site of its kind in the country.

. . . It also includes this note (perhaps just in case Rush Limbaugh or is listening):

"A discussion about gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning people does not constitute a discussion about human sexuality or family life education and does NOT require parent notification according to the California Education Code."

From "Teaching homosexuality, no parents needed" by Drew Zahn © 2009 WorldNetDaily 4/20/09

"April is Gay Pride Celebration!" touts the website's home page. "Check out some of the event options in our 'Host an Activity' section."

In addition to the "Host an Activity" section, loaded with suggestions on how teachers can celebrate Gay Pride Month in their classrooms, the website includes dozens of resources, including district policies on sexual expression and discrimination issues, curriculum for teaching on LGBTQ issues, a list of district-approved speakers and presentations, studies, and testimonials from school officials on how they're making their schools more friendly to LGBTQ students.

The site includes links to other organizations supportive of LGBTQ students and families, a glossary defining various vocabulary terms on sexual diversity, and detailed policies on handling LGBTQ issues – including an anti-slur policy, parental notification policies, and policies on dealing with transgender issues, such as how to address transgender students and which bathrooms and locker rooms they are allowed to use.

To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.

Fight to Protect Freedom of Speech on the Airwaves Just Beginning

Public reaction to the amnesty proposal has made both sides angry with talk radio.

From "Fairness Doctrine, R.I.P." by James L. Gattuaso, posted 7/5/07, at NationalReview.com

on broadcasters. The vote almost certainly means that the long-dead rule will not be revived anytime soon. That’s good news. But the celebrations should be tempered: the real battle over media regulation is still to come, and won’t involve the words “Fairness Doctrine.”


The Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to air contrasting points of view on controversial issues. It was repealed some 20 years ago, after the commission concluded that the rule was actually stifling, rather than fostering, coverage of disputatious issues.

And history proved the FCC right. The years following repeal saw the birth of modern talk radio, a phenomenon that brings brash public debate into the homes of America daily.

Not all have been pleased with this development. The greatest successes in talk radio have been unapologetically conservative voices. And that has made talk radio made a thorn in the side of the left.

Not surprising, then, that almost immediately after liberals regained power in Congress, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) called for restoring the long-dead Fairness Doctrine. The “idea of uninhibited exchange of ideas in the marketplace” he said, “needs to be looked at in the era of media consolidation”.

Kucinich’s call attracted much media attention, and more than a little criticism, but little was actually done to advance the idea legislatively. It probably would still be on the back burner were it not for — of all things — illegal immigration. During the acrimonious debate over immigration reform, “AM armies” roused by conservative talk-show hosts proved to be a powerful — and to many legislators, unwelcome — force.

Angered by this, a number of amnesty opponents — from both sides of the aisle lashed out against talk radio. Liberal leaders seized the moment to call for the Fairness Doctrine’s return.

It was a political mistake of the first order. Conservative radio-talk-show hosts from Rush Limbaugh to the smallest local personality hit back hard against the idea. It seemed near impossible to turn on your car radio without hearing about the issue. But it wasn’t just incensed conservative talkers who quashed the idea. No one seemed to like it. Even the normally liberal-leaning blogosphere produced few defenders of a Fairness Doctrine revival. It was just too obviously an attempt to stifle speech.

...So is it time for conservatives to celebrate? Not quite yet. The real battle over American media has hardly begun.

The odd Dennis Kucinich aside, few on the Left ever seriously thought the Fairness Doctrine could be reinstituted. Last week’s win was mostly over undefended ground. But the Left has been very active in promoting a number of much more subtle “reforms” meant to alter what broadcasters do and say.

Read the whole article.