Watch: Fox News Host Coming Under Fire For Saying This During Kim Davis Rally Broadcast

Usually, the daytime hours at Fox News are reserved for the hosts reporting on the news; during the prime time hours, the hosts engage in commentary. However, Shepherd Smith decided to go on an anti-religious liberty rant during his network’s live coverage of a Kim Davis rally, concluding: “Haters gonna hate.”

As Davis’ attorney began to address the crowd, Smith spoke over him. “They set this up as a religious play again,” he said. “This is the same crowd that says, ‘We don’t want Sharia law, don’t let them tell us what to do, keep their religion out of our lives and out of our government.’ Well, here we go again.”

Smith continued: “When this started, this lawyer said he needed an accommodation for a woman who wanted one. She said she didn’t want her name on a license for gay people.” He went on: “Now they’ve come up with one, they’ve let her out of jail… But it’s not what they want.”

What Smith is referring to is not clear. Davis is not seeking to impose her views on others, and the federal court has not granted her accommodation request yet; her appeal is pending at the 6th Circuit. Mat Staver, her attorney, explained on Tuesday: “We’ve asked for a simple solution — get her name and authority off the [marriage] certificate. The judge could order that.”

Davis’ co-counsel, Roger Gannan, also pointed out that Kentucky Democrat Gov. Steve Beshear has the authority and the legal duty to accommodate Davis’ religious beliefs under the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The “law prohibits the state government from substantially burdening a person’s freedom of religion unless the government both proves it has a compelling interest in doing so and has used the least restrictive means to do it,” according to CNN.  

Smith appeared to have his mind made up concerning the matter. “This is what they want, what you’re hearing now and this what they’re going to get: stirred up argument and a couple of days in the news cycle, and they’re going to be able to make these claims,” he said. 

Smith compared the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding same-sex marriage to its decision in the 1960s that people of different races have the right to marry. “This is not unprecedented,” he said. “They did it when they said black and white people couldn’t marry.”

The court, in reaching its unanimous decision in favor of interracial couples’ right to marry, clearly had the weight of the post Civil War 14th Amendment behind it, which was passed specifically to address racial equality in the United States.

Its applicability to the right of same-sex couples to marry under the Amendment was not nearly as clear, as evidenced by the court’s 5-4 ruling.

Nonetheless, the matter was clear for Shepherd Smith. “Haters are going to hate. We thought what this woman wanted was an accommodation, which they’ve granted her, something that worked for everybody. But it’s not what they want,” he concluded

Smith’s comments leave one wondering who “they” are and what “they want.”

h/t: TheRightScoop

What do you think of Shepherd Smith’s remarks? Please share your thoughts below. 

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

The Founding Fathers Agree With Kim Davis 100%

Many self-described conservatives are claiming that Kentucky marriage clerk Kim Davis should either “follow the law” and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples or “find another job” since, of course, the Obergefell opinion that there is a supposed Constitutional right to so-called “same-sex marriage” is now the “law of the land.” (At least according to the Bush appointee federal judge who threw Kim Davis in jail for not agreeing to violate her oath and also according to all the Judicial Supremacist blond bimbos and talking heads over at Faux News)

Jefferson, Hamilton, and Lincoln, however, would beg to differ (by their own words below) with the toxic liberal lie that Supreme Court (SC) opinions immediately and without exception “invalidate” Constitutionally enacted laws and statutes.

The SC is not King, and their opinions aren’t the “law of the land” the very moment they are issued.

We have flouted the grave warnings of the likes of Thomas Jefferson, who wrote:

To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. …The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.

Not even Hamilton imagined that the right to opine is a power to rule. Courts, he pointed out, have intentionally been given no means of enforcing their opinions — making it obvious that the executive and legislative branches are not compelled to “obey” false or even dubious opinions. Therefore, he wrote:

“…the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution. … [T]he judiciary … has no influence over either the sword or purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL…”

Lincoln acknowledged that court opinions are binding on the specific parties named and “entitled to very high respect and consideration (by) other departments of the government.” But like the Founding Fathers, he utterly rejected the claim that judges’ opinions are the law of the land:

“..if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased, to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government, into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

Americans must reject the Orwellian Lie that is cancelling self-government in the United States. Lincoln said on the battlefield at Gettysburg:

“Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether … any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure… It is for us the living…to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us… we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

The Supreme Court issues administrative opinions that the other two superior branches (legislative and executive) should strongly consider. But any change in the laws must be made via the Constitutionally proscribed process (by the legislative branch and signed into law by the executive).

Judicial opinions are only legally binding on the parties in the case being heard insofar as they comply with the Constitution.

Any law or court opinion contrary to the Constitution is legally null and void on its face and must be ignored and rejected by every civil magistrate at every level and branch of government.

The problem is that many Americans have been brainwashed to believe the lie that COTUS and POTUS must always obey SCOTUS no matter how immoral, illegal and unconstitutional their opinions may be.

The truth is that COTUS and POTUS and every civil magistrate at every level and branch of government has a moral and Constitutional duty (per the oath they swear) to ignore/reject ALL anti-Constitutional court opinions (such as Obergefell, for example).

The Supreme Court is no more “supreme” over the other 2 branches or the people than the Federal Reserve or Federal Express is part of the Federal Government. The Framers intentionally designed the Judiciary to be “the weakest of the 3 branches” for a reason. (See Federalist #78 for more.)

The Democrat governor of Kentucky is blatantly violating his oath by allowing marriage licenses to be issued (and illegally altered) to same sex couples since the marriage statutes in Kentucky have never been altered or amended in any way and still limit marriage to one man and one woman.

And every single marriage licence that has been issued to a same-sex couple in Kentucky is legally null and void.

He is the one who should be in jail.

Not Kim Davis, who has a far superior understanding of the oath of office, the rule of law, our Constitutional Republican form of government and God’s Immutable Word than 99.9% of our elected representatives. (including virtually every GOP presidential candidate)

All unconstitutional judicial opinions must be ignored and rejected by every civil magistrate at every level and branch of government.


Roe should have been. Lawrence should have been. Dred Scott should have been. And Obergefell should be ignored and rejected by every governor of every sovereign state in the union for the immoral and unconstitutional abomination it is.

That is how our Representative Republican form of government was originally designed to work.

Ever hear of the term “checks and balances?”

Sadly, all 50 governors are violating their oaths by treating a toothless and totally immoral opinion as if it were the “law of the land” by issuing marriage licences to same sex couples despite the fact the SC can’t make, amend or “overturn” laws–and in spite of the fact that in virtually every state in the Union, the Constitutionally enacted marriage statutes still define marriage as the exclusive union of one man and one woman AND in spite of the fact that no majority of jurists, legislators or voters possesses the authority to re-define what God Almighty Himself has once and for all explicitly ordained, defined, and established (i.e., that marriage is the EXCLUSIVE union of one man and one woman!)

Including the state of Kentucky, where the marriage statute that limits marriage as the union of one man and one woman is still the “law of the land!”

Gregg Jackson is the author of the new book “40 Things to Teach Your Children Before You Die: The Simple American Truths About Life, Family & Faith” (Dunham Books)

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Trump Just Made A Surprise Statement About Kim Davis That’ll Have Many People Furious

Although many Republican presidential candidates this week defended or praised Kentucky clerk Kim Davis for refusing to violate her faith and principles by issuing licenses to same-sex couples seeking marriage, Donald Trump will not.

“The Supreme Court has ruled,” Trump said Friday. “It is the law of the land.”

Trump’s comments differed sharply from those of GOP candidate Mike Huckabee, who Thursday tweeted his defense of Davis, who has been jailed for her stand.

“Kim Davis in federal custody removes all doubts about the criminalization of Christianity in this country. We must defend ‪#ReligiousLiberty!” Huckabee tweeted.

“I’m a believer in both sides of the picture,” Trump said Friday on MSNBC’s Morning Joe.

Trump said Davis need not have become personally involved and could have allowed her deputy clerks to issue the licenses.

“She (Davis) can take a pass and let somebody else in the office do it in terms of religious, so you know, it’s a very … tough situation, but we are a nation, as I said yesterday, we’re a nation of laws,” he said.

Licenses were being issued Friday, although Davis, the clerk of Rowan County, had said she would not authorize any employees to issue the licenses in her absence.

“My conscience will not allow it,” Davis said. “God’s moral law convicts me and conflicts with my duties.”

Trump said the issue could have been handled differently to avoid a showdown over principles.

“The other simple answer is rather than going through this, it’s really a very, very sticky situation, a terrible situation — 30 miles away they have other places, they have many other places where you get licensed, and you have them actually quite nearby,” Trump said. “That’s another alternative. I hate to see her being put in jail. I understand what they’re doing.”

h/t: Reuters

Do you support Kim Davis? Defend religious liberty and sign the petition to free her from wrongful imprisonment!

button (1)

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Christian Football Coach’s Perfect Response To The Atheists Attacking Him Earns Him New Fans

University of Georgia head football coach Mark Richt has come under fire from the atheist group Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF). The group is demanding the coach stop pushing his Christian beliefs on players and that the university eliminate the team chaplain position.

The FFRF charges that Richt, along with chaplain Kevin “Chappy” Hynes (who is his brother-in-law), is “on a mission to win souls” for Christ. 

The group reported that Coach Richt “fundraises for his brother-in-law’s chaplain position and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. At a gala event in the Butts-Mehre football complex in July of 2014, Richt helped bring in big money for the FCA.”

“We’re at a secular university, I understand that,” the coach responded to the accusation earlier this week. “I don’t try to make anyone believe a certain way at all. Anything that has to do with the spirit is strictly voluntary and never has any bearing on someone’s availability to play at Georgia. It’s always been that way.”

He went on to explain: “I think we’re made of our body, we’re made of our mind, we’re made of spirit. We work hard on our bodies as far as getting them in shape. We’re working on schemes, plays, lifting, running, nutrition, sleep. When we work on the mind, we care very much about them getting their degrees, tutoring, academic appointments, classes and all, meetings. All those things are mandatory.”

Richt noted that he would be ignoring a key component in his players’ development if he did not take into account their spirits. “I encourage our guys to grow spiritually, I believe our spirit is going to live beyond our body. I encourage them to grow spiritually but I don’t tell them what to believe in. Everything we do is strictly voluntary in that regard,” he reiterated.

Interestingly, Gen. George S. Patton made a similar observation to his unit’s chaplain during the height of World War II. Third Army Chaplain James O’Neill reported him saying: “A good soldier is not made merely by making him think and work. There is something in every soldier that goes deeper than thinking or working—it’s his ‘guts.’ It is something that he has built in there: it is a world of truth and power that is higher than himself. Great living is not all output of thought and work. A man must have intake as well. I don’t know what you call it, but I call it Religion, Prayer, or God.”

As reported by Western Journalism, FFRF sent letters to multiple public universities demanding that they end their sports team chaplaincies or face possible legal action. Among them were Auburn, University of South Carolina, University of Missouri, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Clemson and the University of Georgia, reports.

The group is actively seeking plaintiffs to step forward among targeted schools in order to bring a lawsuit to challenge chaplain programs at public universities. To that end, the FFRF sent packets to players on several teams, including Georgia, South Carolina, Auburn, Alabama, Tennessee, Missouri, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, North Carolina State, Wisconsin and Illinois. 

How successful the FFRF would be if it were able to bring its suit is not clear. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of having taxpayer-funded chaplains for legislative bodies such as the U.S. Congress, and federal courts have done so for the military.

The Supreme Court has also recognized the right of students to voluntarily gather and pray at public school sporting events and during the school day, under the First Amendment’s free exercise clause, though the court has ruled students cannot offer corporate prayers at sporting events over public address systems.

h/t: TheBlaze

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Refusal To Issue A Same Sex Marriage License Is A Civic Duty

Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk Kim Davis has just lost her application in the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay of a federal court order requiring her to issue a marriage license to a couple of the same sex. Denial of the stay puts Clerk Davis in a difficult situation. She is being called back before the District Court on Thursday morning to give an account for her behavior. Although the nation’s press has portrayed her as lawless, this one courageous lady is standing in the gap, defending the rule of law against judicial tyranny.  

As an elected official faced with an obviously illegitimate Supreme Court opinion, in a better time, a President could have explained to the American people why the Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, and protected her. Failing that, Clerk Davis should have been able to call on her state’s Governor to protect her — to interpose between her and the five Justices. However, Democrat Governor Steven Lynn Beshear is demanding she make a choice – either resign, or comply with his lawless instructions to implement the Supreme Court decision sanctifying same sex marriage. The Governor apparently believes in the unconstitutional Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy — that by a stroke of the pen, five elite lawyers wearing black robes can rewrite the Constitution, and that no one may question their decisions. Even worse, the Governor apparently cares nothing about the created order. He has no problem with a Court that had the audacity to try to change the Creator’s definition of marriage for all America — by pretending to find the issue hidden in the penumbras and emanations of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

Clerk Davis’ position is quite different. She stands on God’s law and Kentucky’s law. God’s law is clear. See Genesis 2:18-24 and Matthew 19:4-6. And, according to Kentucky law, and notwithstanding the Governor’s action unilaterally preempting the authority of the Kentucky legislature, same-sex couples simply are not eligible to obtain a marriage license. Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1 was passed by 75 percent of the voters in 2004. It states: “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

Must Clerk Davis conform her practices as Clerk to those of a lawless Supreme Court and a capitulated Governor? Surely not. She cannot turn back now. Having stated that her behavior is constrained by her understanding of God’s law, any retreat would do damage to the name and reputation of the Lord. She could resign. But resignation would be the equivalent to admitting that in the wake of the Supreme Court’s folly, no Bible-believing Christian or Jew can serve in public office in America. Efforts are already beginning to use the Obergefell decision to remove Christian judges across America.  

Clerk Davis is constrained by her civic duty as an elected official in Kentucky, sworn to uphold the Constitution. As a lower civil magistrate, there is only one course of action – to refuse to issue the marriage license to the same-sex couple BECAUSE the federal court order requiring her to issue the license is based upon a wholly illegitimate decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that same-sex couples are constitutionally entitled to marry. Although some have tried to muddy the waters as to her reasons for resisting, this case is not a matter of her conscience or her personal religious scruples. It is about her civic duty as a civil government official. She resists illegality not because her conscience is offended, but rather it is her conscience and religious beliefs that gives her the courage to stand against lawlessness. She is well aware that she could face the court’s sanction for disobedience of a court order, perhaps including civil or criminal contempt of court.  

However, Clerk Davis is bound by her oath to support the Kentucky State Constitution, and the United States Constitution – not as perversely and politically “interpreted” by the Supreme Court, or even by the Governor of Kentucky, but as she understands her oath to be. If it were to be otherwise, her oath would not be to support the Constitution, but rather a pledge of fealty to obey a higher government officer no matter how lawlessly that higher officer may behave.  

According to Romans 13:4, Clerk Davis is a minister of God for good, and not for evil. While she is elected by the people, she is to serve the people according to the laws of God and men. As a servant of God, she has no authority to implement a court ruling that is contrary to God’s law. According to God’s law, two people of the same sex cannot marry, marriage being reserved to only one human relationship, one male and one female in a lifetime committed union. See Matthew 19:4-5. As was true for the apostles Peter and John when brought before the Council in Acts 4 and 5, Clerk Davis must obey God, not men. Acts 5:29.

Therefore, Clerk Davis cannot resign, and cannot capitulate; but she must resist by interposing herself as a lower civil magistrate sworn to uphold the law, not just to do what a higher civil magistrate has ordered her to do. By resisting, Clerk Davis risks being held in both civil and criminal contempt, fined as well as being forcibly removed from office. But she will be blessed by God for her righteous stand embracing the rule of law, and resisting tyrannical power. And, Clerk Davis’ courage just might inspire those in authority to have the courage of what they claim to be their convictions and join in the resistance.  


Herbert W. Titus taught Constitutional Law for 26 years, and concluded his academic career as the Founding Dean of Regent Law School. William J. Olson served in three positions in the Reagan Administration. Together, they have filed over 80 briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court, and dozens more in lower courts, addressing important public policy issues. They now practice law together at William J. Olson, P.C. They can be reached at or

This article is part of a series on “Building Resistance to Same-Sex Marriage.” Please support this important work with a contribution to the U.S. Justice Foundation. Permission is freely granted to publish, copy, reproduce, distribute, or excerpt from this article for any purpose.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth