"It will fail miserably," said Mike Demastus, a pastor at Fort Des Moines Church of Christ. "For Donald Trump, as a name-only Presbyterian, to be criticizing somebody else for their faith statements is laughable. This is a guy who can't even quote a Bible scripture to someone."
Several influential Christian conservative leaders in Iowa, even those who publicly back GOP candidates other than Carson, came to the defense of the Seventh-day Adventist Church on Monday.
Trump touched off the controversy when he said at a campaign rally in Florida on Saturday: "I love Iowa. And, look, I don't have to say it, I'm Presbyterian. ... Boy, that's down the middle of the road, folks, in all fairness. I mean, Seventh-day Adventist, I don't know about. I just don't know about." MORE
Dr. Benjamin Carson soars in the polls despite the fact that he continues to make politically incorrect statements. As a political outsider, he seems to be striking a cord with the electorate, particularly on the Republican Right. His positions on the so-called 'hot button' issues ever so often put him at odds with the mainstream of his party.
My track record at Hewlett-Packard is very clear. Together with the people of that great company, we took a business during the worst technology recession in 25 years. …We took a company and doubled it in size to almost $90 billion. We took the growth rate from two percent to nine percent. We tripled the rate of innovation to 11 patents a day. …And yes, indeed, we grew jobs, because we transformed a company that was falling behind and failing to one that was growing and succeeding.”
— GOP presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina, interview on Fox News, May 5, 2015
(This column has been updated to make it clear that questions about the statement were answered by Fiorina’s Super PAC.)
Fiorina is running for president in part on her record in the business world, as a former executive at AT&T, Lucent and Hewlett-Packard. On the surface, that might seem like a hard sell, given that she was fired as chief executive of HP less than six years after she took the helm in mid-1999. “Carly Fiorina’s time at the top of HP was a disaster” is the subhed for a Bloomberg articlethat recently appeared in The Chicago Tribune.
Still, Fiorina has her talking points, which are also echoed on her Web site: “Under Carly’s leadership, great things happened at HP: Doubled revenues; more than quadrupled its growth rate; tripled the rate of innovation, with 11 patents a day.”
So let’s check each of these claims as she framed them. The campaign directed questions to Fiorina’s Super PAC, Carly for America.
Hannity is what? A conservative - not a RINO insider?
So, as anyone with a memory can see, Carly Fiorina is just a hack. Give her enough exposure, and see will bomb like she did 5 years ago running against the most liberal Senator from her state, and as she did 15 years ago at HP. We do not need another bimbo.
RUSH: It was just 24 hours ago, ladies and gentlemen -- a mere 24 hours ago -- that I was behind this very Golden EIB Microphone informing you that I had come across a bit of news. The bit of news was that big-time Republican donors had ordered to take out Donald Trump in the debate last night.
We all made a mistake. We assumed that the orders went out to the candidates. But the candidates did not make one move toward taking Donald Trump out. The broadcast network did; the candidates didn't. I mean, let's review. The first question from Megyn Kelly to Trump was, "You've called women fat slobs, pigs, whatever," and he said, "No, just Rosie O'Donnell." The place starts laughing and so forth, but she's not amused, and she tells him, "No, it's more than that."
She keeps going on and on and on about it, and says, "Is this the right kind of temperament?" Whatever it was. Trump was clearly caught entirely off guard by it, and even today he said, "I'm not... I don't know when I've ever said this stuff." Who knows if he writes all of his tweets that he posts. You know, this is the danger that when you start going in the social media stuff and tweeting stuff and maybe you hire somebody to do it for you.
I happen to know Trump does not use a cell phone, folks. He does not do e-mail, for this very reason. I was told long ago when I first started playing golf with the Trumpster, he does not use a cell phone, or at least he doesn't do e-mail. I was kind of surprised, frankly, when I saw that he started tweeting. My first question is, "Does he write these tweets himself or does he have somebody on his staff doing it just because it's hip and it's hot and he wants a presence in it?"
Punch cartoon (1907); illustrates the unpopularity amongst Punch readers of a proposed 1907 income tax by the Labour Party in the United Kingdom. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Largely ignored by the news media is that in his 2011 book, “Time to Get Tough: Making America #1 Again,” the billionaire laid out a plan to completely transform the tax code, with a uniform proposal for all Americans to pay lower taxes.
Trump’s revenue prescription, which he labeled his 1-5-10-15 income-tax plan in the book four years ago, could form the basis for his campaign’s tax proposals.
In the book, Trump decried the current tax code: “Imagine your paycheck was 40 percent higher than it currently is. What could you do with 40 percent more wealth? How many jobs and opportunities for others could you create?
“The longer you really think about it the madder you will get,” he wrote, “especially when you consider the waste, fraud, and abuse the federal government traffics in as it inflicts its self-defeating policies on hard-working Americans.”
Here’s Trump’s proposed income-tax plan:
Those making up to $30,000 will pay 1 percent.
Income from $30,000 to $100,000 results in a flat 5 percent.
$100,000 to $1 million income will be taxed at 10 percent.
On $1 million or above will be taxed 15 percent.
“It’s clear and fair,” wrote Trump. “Best of all, it can be filled out on the back of a postcard and will save Americans big bucks on accountants and massive amounts of time wasted attempting to decipher the tax code.”
Donald Trump has emerged as the frontrunner in the race for Republican nomination according to a new poll of likely voters. Donald Trump is now the frontrunner in the Republican nomination race, according to a new poll. The tycoon has the backing of 15 per cent of likely Republican voters, a four point lead over Jeb Bush and Rand Paul, and six points ahead of Scott Walker, Marco Rubio and Mike Huckabee. Trump also has the largest share of second preference votes, according to the Economist/YouGov poll, with 12 per cent of candidates choosing him as a backup, over Scott Walker on eight per cent.
Jeb Bush, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio were selected as backup candidates by seven per cent of voters, while Mike Huckabee trails on six per cent. The shock lead for Trump has opened up three weeks after he launched his election campaign with an astonishing attack on Mexican immigrants. Promising to build a wall along America's southern border, he said rapists, drug dealers and killers were being allowed to flood into the country thanks to lax border controls.
While the comments led to several of Trump's lucrative business deals collapsing, it seems to have struck a chord with sections of the Republican voter base.
The poll shows Trump's approval rating is particularly high among Tea Party members, as two thirds of those who said they were backing him identified with the ideology.
Sharyl Attkisson is an unreasonable woman. Important people have told her so.
When the longtime CBS reporter asked for details about reinforcements sent to the Benghazi compound during the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack, White House national security spokesman Tommy Vietor replied, “I give up, Sharyl . . . I’ll work with more reasonable folks that follow up, I guess.”
Another White House flack, Eric Schultz, didn’t like being pressed for answers about the Fast and Furious scandal in which American agents directed guns into the arms of Mexican drug lords. “Goddammit, Sharyl!” he screamed at her. “The Washington Post is reasonable, the LA Times is reasonable, The New York Times is reasonable. You’re the only one who’s not reasonable!”
Two of her former bosses, CBS Evening News executive producers Jim Murphy and Rick Kaplan, called her a “pit bull.”
That was when Sharyl was being nice.
Now that she’s no longer on the CBS payroll, this pit bull is off the leash and tearing flesh off the behinds of senior media and government officials. In her new memoir/exposé “Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington” (Harper), Attkisson unloads on her colleagues in big-time TV news for their cowardice and cheerleading for the Obama administration while unmasking the corruption, misdirection and outright lying of today’s Washington political machine.
Former Democratic strategist Kirsten Powers described on Fox News Sunday how her conversion from atheism to Christianity altered her life, claiming that “Democratic politics” had been “[her] religion, to a certain extent.”
“I think my whole life had centered on Democratic politics,” she told Howard Kurtz. “I was very much in that bubble. I worked in the Clinton administration so I had all these friends from there, and then in Democratic politics in New York, so that’s what we sort of bonded over — that was our religion, to a certain extent.”
Powers described her gradual progression from left-wing secularism to devout Christianity, which she also recounts in a “coming out” piece for Christianity Today. “It was a real culture shock for me, and still sometimes is, honestly,” she said. “It was a world that was completely new to me. It was a world where most of the people I came in contact with were conservative. If I had a dollar for every time somebody said, ‘I don’t understand: how can you be a Democrat and be a Christian?’ I’d be a millionaire.”
In conventional political terms, Mitt Romney’s challenge in picking a VP presented a complex puzzle. With the GOP convention in Tampa less than a month away, he was running four to six points behind Barack Obama
in the national polls. Mitt was hurting with women, hurting with
Hispanics, hurting with blue collar whites. His standing in the
industrial Midwest and the West was shaky. The Republican base remained
unenthused by him and the middle of the electorate unimpressed. The
quandary was which of these maladies he should try to heal with his
running mate. For many members of the Republican smarty-pants set, one
thing was increasingly clear: Romney needed a game changer.
Romney didn’t see it that way, at least not at the start. When he
tapped longtime adviser and confidante Beth Myers to lead the search for
his VP, Mitt put forth two criteria and a precept. The criteria applied
to the candidates: that they be qualified and immediately perceived as
qualified to be Commander in Chief, and that there be nothing in their
background that could become a distraction for the campaign. The precept
applied to Myers and her assignment. When decision time came, Romney
said, he wanted to have a choice—not be informed, with the clock
ticking, that there was really only one viable option.
Myers set up her operation in a third-floor office on Boston’s
Commercial Street that became known as “the clean room.” Because the
Romney campaign’s servers were under continual assault by Chinese
hackers, the computers in the clean room were not connected to the
Internet. Myers insisted that the team be extremely cautious about what
they put in e-mail when using their regular computers. Ted Newton and
Chris Oman, two veep background checkers, concluded it was best to
communicate in code. Based on their junk-food-saturated vetting diet,
they called their undertaking Project Goldfish (after the
crackers)—ultimately giving each of the VP finalists an aquatic code
name. Myers’ plan was to have Project Goldfish completed by Memorial
Day. In April she presented Romney with a list of two dozen names, which
he whittled down to 11: Kelly Ayotte, John Cornyn, Chris Christie,
Mitch Daniels, Bill Frist, Mike Huckabee, Bob McDonnell, Tim Pawlenty,
Rob Portman, Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan.
English: Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Sen. Ted Cruz, who has led the tea-party wing of Republicans in
Congress to push for defunding of Obamacare, is an intelligent and
principled debater, says his old Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz.
Appearing Tuesday on CNN's "Piers Morgan Live,"
Dershowitz called the freshman Texas Republican "one of the sharpest
students I had, in terms of analytic skills. I've had 10,000 students
over my 50 years at Harvard. . . . He has to qualify among the brightest
of the students."
Since Nov. 6, there has been no shortage of opinions as to why
challenger Mitt Romney and the Republican Party failed to ouster
President Barack Obama. Pre-election divisions in the Republican Party
between moderates and conservatives have only widened since Romney’s
defeat and the party’s strategy for the future remains unclear, a source
of contention and heated internal & external debate.
many now wonder what the sobering 2012 election results means for the
right-leaning Tea Party, the champions of personal freedom and smaller
government who exploded on the political scene in the 2010 midterm
elections. The re-election of a progressive like Barack Obama would
seem to signal the end of the conservative Tea Party, but the movement’s
conservative leaders insist that last month’s election results only
vindicate the group’s message.
“The Tea Party is not a political party; it’s an informal community
of Americans who support a set of fiscally conservative issues,” says
FreedomWorks’ Matt Kibbe. “And when you take a look at the roster of
new fiscal conservatives being sent to Congress next year, it’s clear
our issues are winning.”
Indeed, although the Tea Party may be focusing the vast majority of
its ongoing efforts on local issues, the conservative movement has left
an undeniable mark on the national GOP establishment. The group’s
mantra of uncompromising fiscal conservatism and limited government has
remained a driving force in shaping Republican platform.
The Rev. Franklin Graham has a message for Christians who are unhappy with the results of the 2012 presidential election: You only have yourself to blame. In a recent interview
with CBN News Chief Political Correspondent David Brody, Graham said
that the majority of Christians simply don’t vote — inaction that has
dire consequences in local and national elections, alike.
“What is your message to folks who are wondering what just happened,
and it looks like they feel a semi hit them?,” Brody asked the faith
leader, clearly referring to the aftermath of the 2012 presidential
presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, left,
meets with Rev. Billy Graham, center, and his son Franklin Graham,
Thursday, Oct. 11, 2012, in Montreat, N.C. Credit: AP
Graham responded by noting that, based on statistics he’s seen, the
majority of Christians do not vote in America. With a dearth of
evangelicals heading to the polls, the son of the famed Rev. Billy
Graham said that the responsibility for an Obama re-election win is on
“God is in control, and if Christians are upset, they need to be
upset at themselves,” he told Brody. “We need to do a better job of
getting our people — the Church — to vote.”
Bob Barney forward: Just to remind those who think America has become a welfare state, we should also note that most Americans, and especially most white Americans simply do not vote because they do not believe that politics works. Unless that changes, minorities and minority views will reign.....
Voter turnout expected to be lower than 2008, US President's mandate ranges between 25-35%.
Here is some math the establishment hopes you never do. Take the popular
vote the newly elected president received, and see what percent of
voter turnout it actually makes up. You will find that out of all
eligible voters, the president is put into power with only between
25-35%. This isn't just with President Obama in 2012, but is a common
feature of most US elections, and many elections around the world.
Well, it is that time of year again and I will go out and make my prediction on who will win the presidency next Tuesday. Members of my family know what I am predicting today since last winter! I said back during the primaries that the establishment Republicans would not choose a true conservative to lead their party this year because they know they are going to win! Yes, you read that right. The establishment realizes, as I do, that even a born again rapist loving conservative clown could win the election against the most failed presidency of all time. Jimmy Carter looks like Lincoln compared to this moron-in-chief, and everyone knows it! So I said, that the last thing that Republicans want to win is another Reagan type Tea Party candidate, because honestly, they despise main street Americans and true conservatives more than they do Obama and leftists! So I predicted that the Republicans would do all they could do to make sure Palin would not run, nor would Huckabee, and that what conservatives would run, would knock each other out, allowing a liberal Rockefeller Republican to gain the nomination. If they thought for one minute that Obama was going to win, they would have all rallied around Rick Santorum or Representative Bachman and made sure that they got the nomination. They would do it to make sure that the Tea Party movement would die forever! Establishment Republicans, like Karl Rove HATE the Tea Party, or anyone who wants smaller government and a balanced budget. After all, it was Rove that gave us Obama, after insuring that the original moron, George Bush, got elected. I predicted in 2004, that Bush would destroy conservative Republicanism. With Rove's help, he did just that. Gave us the Depression, and Obama. It was the belief that a Republican would win, that these anti-American Republicans made sure Romney would get the nod. They knew Obama was going to lose.
Well, that is my prediction.... Obama will lose in a landslide. Here is the closet map I can find I agree with:
My fear is that the Republicans will once again, think they have a mandate, just like the Obama Democrats thought they had in 2008. They had NO MANDATE! Obama's win was an Anti-Bush vote, plain and simple! The people who make up middle America are totally disgusted with both parties and are trying to kill all of them by switching back and forth, like in my thesis below, that I first understood in 1976.
In 1976 I wrote a thesis in college on predicting elections in my senior year at the University of Connecticut. My brother was going to the University of Bridgeport studying to become a psychologist. I would during off times, sit in some of his classes. I became intrigued by an idea that I started to develop in my mind. That was to be able to predict national character the same way that psychologists predicted human behavior! I became intrigued in a psychological prediction method known as the Rotter I/E scale.
I should point out that I was WRONG in 2008, My prediction then was that Obama would lose. I guess I underated just how much the media would get in bed with the guy and like traitors to the American public, refuse to vet him, as every other president was before him. Obama cannot be vetted honestly and win a national election. He is a communist, and we are not yet ready to vote for a communist.... We will be someday, but not yet.
Overview of Theory When Rotter developed his Social Learning Theory, the dominant perspective in clinical psychology at the time was Freud's Psychoanalysis, which focused on people's deep-seated instinctual motives as determining behavior. Individuals were seen as being naive to their unconscious impulses, and treatment required long-term analysis of childhood experience. Even learning approaches at the time were dominated by drive theory, which held that people are motivated by physiologically based impulses that press the individual to satisfy them. In developing Social Learning Theory, Rotter departed from instinct-based Psychoanalysis and drive-based behaviorism. He believed that a psychological theory should have a psychological motivational principle. Rotter chose the empirical law of effect as his motivating factor. The law of effect states that people are motivated to seek out positive stimulation, or reinforcement, and to avoid unpleasant stimulation. Rotter combined behaviorism and the study of personality, without relying on physiological instincts or drives as a motive force.
The main idea in Julian Rotter's Social Learning Theory is that personality represents an interaction of the individual with his or her environment. One cannot speak of a personality, internal to the individual, that is independent of the environment. Neither can one focus on behavior as being an automatic response to an objective set of environmental stimuli. Rather, to understand behavior, one must take both the individual (i.e., his or her life history of learning and experiences) and the environment (i.e., those stimuli that the person is aware of and responding to) into account. Rotter describes personality as a relatively stable set of potentials for responding to situations in a particular way. (Read entire article, click here)
Rotter developed an Internal/External scale for people. Internals believe that they choose their destiny, and that God (if they accepted one) allows each one of us to choose our own destiny. An Internal type is ruled by very little chance, mostly it is their own choices that rules their destiny. Jews, Germans, Chinese, and especially WASPS (white Anglo/Saxon white people) score very high in the Internal scale. Most leaders of companies or even governments tend to score high on the Rotter I/E scale. Mediterranean , African, Slavic/Russian, and Arab people scored high on the External scale. Externals are fatalist that deem that fate is the major reason for their lives. God decides for them, or at least fate does. Catholicism and its adherents score very high in the “external” scale. The best way to describe an Internal is what is referred to the Puritan or Protestant work ethic… Work hard and you will succeed. WASP Americans built this country and score very high as Internal. Irish Catholics however, scores External! Therefore, do most black Americans, Latinos (with the exception of Cubans) and Muslims (again except for Pakistani Muslims that score very “Internal”).
I thought that our country and our elections could be predicted by the percentage of people who were Internal versus External. Republicans are Internals, Democrats Externals. I told Dr Gerson, head of UCONN’s PoliSci department what I wanted to write about. He could get me a meeting with Professor Rotter (who was so famous by now, I have since learned was an honor). Rotter liked my idea! He had already thought of it! He asked me another question however, that changed my entire thinking. He said, “you know there is another factor you are discounting in human nature”. “What was that,” I asked perplexed? Many people in a multi-cultural society like America are both Internal AND External, and they bounce back and forth between the extremes trying to find balance (this is called cognitive dissonance.) You know, the nun becomes a prostitute, the thief becomes a good cop, etc. All good novels rely on this basic human instinct of switching from one end of the pendulum to the exact opposite, never finding a balance. Rotter said, “America, due to our culture can never find the middle of the road, she swings from right to left without any formula.”
I was intrigued by him and wrote my thesis based on much of his teachings: I wrote, in short, that America will swing radically from the Right to the Left and back to right again, but because more External types are moving here and gaining in population, namely Latin, African and Muslims, each switch back to the right would be less aggressive than prior swings and eventually, we would become a totally external socialist nation like the Soviet Union.
At this same time in my life, by the way, I was learning the incredible truth about America’s national identity of being “lost” Israel of the Bible and that the God was real! Until 1976, I was an atheist, by 1978, I would never question again who God was and that He was! I would often question God in my struggles with Him, but never questioned again that God was not real! Part of this education was the realization that the United States (Israel in the Bible) was destined to be conquered by foreigners living among us that would eventually rule over us! This is found in Leviticus chapter 26, and now I understood that Dr Rotter gave me the method how God would accomplish it.
In 1976, I was a young Republican who supported Ronald Reagan over President Ford and I was not very popular in the party that year. Then again, neither was Reagan! When he lost to Ford, I realized that according to my new theory, Jimmy Carter, a liberal democrat would win the Presidency that year, but after him, America would swing back to a very Conservative mode. I predicted Carter in 76 and that Reagan most likely would be president by 80 or 84. When he won the nomination in 80, I predicted Reagan. I picked him again for 84. I predicted Bush in 88 and said that if he did not maintain Reagan’s policies he would lose in 1992! I would have been correct in predicting Bush losing in 1992 (because he did not lead as a Reagan Republican) and thought he might lose until Clinton won the nomination. I saw through Bill Clinton so much, I was positive that everyone else did too and that he could not win. It would not be until 96, I surmised, that the liberals would win again. The Perot factor was vastly underrated by me! Clinton won, I had egg on my face, but my theory was on target!
I predicted Clinton in 1996 and Bush II in 2000, thinking he unlike his dad was a real Reaganite. He was not and so I predicted that he could lose in 2004 if a MODERATE democrat ran against him. Lieberman would have beat him hands down! I predicted, on Racerap.com in 2004 that Bush was probably going to destroy the Republican party and that if Hillary got the nod, she would be president. We will see this tuesday if I am right or wrong.
If Jesus Christ were running for president, would the American
people elect Him to the highest office in the land? What kind of leader
would He be? What platform and constitution would He adopt?
Source: Shaun Venish
Jesus Christ's leadership skills are world-renowned, and He remains
one of the most respected leaders of all time. He is the ultimate model
of right leadership.
He is uncompromising but compassionate, diligent but patient,
knowledgeable but understanding, fervent but sympathetic, persevering
but persuadable, determined but easily entreated, persuasive but not
dictatorial, hospitable but not invasive, and self-controlled but not
He is the perfect leader with perfect integrity, compassion and love for all mankind (John 3:16 ).
He clothes Himself with perfect ethics, virtue, truthfulness and moral
righteousness. He treats others the way any of us would want to be
treated, with equal fairness, compassion and concern for all (Luke 6:31 ). He cares for the plight of the widows, elderly and disadvantaged (James 1:27 ).
His willingness to sacrifice Himself for the betterment of those
under His rule was dramatically established when He voluntarily followed
through with His and His Father's plan to offer up His own life for the
sins of all mankind (Hebrews 7:26-28 ; Revelation 13:8; Hebrews 12:2).
He resolutely confirmed His unwavering loyalty to God, His
government and His master plan while being cross examined by the Roman
governor Pontius Pilate just before He was sentenced to a brutal
scourging and painful death. "My kingdom is not of this world," He told
Pilate. "If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight . . .
but now My kingdom is not from here" (John 18:36).
With these kinds of leadership skills and a platform based on
biblical principles, He would boldly move society in a new, more
righteous and godly direction
The Bishop E.W. Jackson, founder of Chesapeake, Virginia-based Exodus Faith Ministries, recently
released a controversial video calling for African Americans to make a
mass exodus from the Democratic Party. Throughout the clip, Jackson
delivers stinging blows to both liberals and the African Americans who
continue to support them, while decrying what he sees as a “slavish
devotion to the Democrat Party.”
“They have insulted us, used us, and manipulated us. They have
saturated the black community with ridiculous lies,” he said, speaking
directly to the black community. ”They think we are stupid and that
these lies will hold us captive while they violate everything we believe
Jackson went into detail in the video, taking aim at the “unholy
alliance” that he sees between Democrats, faux-civil rights leaders and
“The Democratic Party has created an unholy alliance between certain
so-called civil rights leaders and Planned Parenthood, which has killed
unborn black babies by the tens of millions,” he proclaimed.
The businesses that support and lobby for so-called free trade are
always trying to wrap themselves in Ronald Reagan. But that’s false
because Reagan would not have allowed America to be cheated coming and
going by foreign countries.
Of course, Reagan was for international trade, but he did not see it
or use it as a steppingstone to global governance, accepting cheating by
foreign countries, rules set by panels of countries that hate and envy
us, or any vision of globalism. Reagan looked upon foreign trade as a
component of American economic and military superiority and as a vehicle
to bring down the Soviet Union, otherwise known as the “evil empire.”
Reagan stood for the United States maintaining a strong industrial
base not only because that translates into good jobs for Americans and
an expansion of the middle class. Reagan came from the generation who
understood that America’s World War II victory was based on our
tremendous manufacturing industry that overnight turned from producing
automobiles into military weapons and tractors into tanks.
Reagan signed a Buy America policy for federal highway and transit
projects. No way would he have approved building a Keystone XL oil
pipeline with steel pipe imported from a Russian-owned mill or a San
Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge assembled from steel sections made in
Moments after Mitt Romney’s landslide victory in the Florida Republican Primary, WND Editor Joseph Farah declared on national television that Florida U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio would not be a good selection for vice president because he’s not a natural-born citizen of the U.S., and therefore is not legally qualified to hold the office.
“Rubio’s not eligible … because he’s not a natural-born citizen,” Farah told Sean Hannity on the Fox News Channel. Read More>>>>
More questions are being raised about presidential candidate Mitt Romney's religion after it was revealed that he helped baptise his adamantly atheist father-in-law years after the man had died.
Edward Roderick Davies was Ann Romney's father and died in 1992 after living as a staunch atheist all his life.
Recently-discovered records show that, in keeping with their controversial tradition of posthumously baptising non-Mormons, a ceremony was held to invite Mr Davies into the Church of Latter Day Saints one year after he died.