PJ Tatler

The PJ Tatler

Greek PM Calls for Referendum on Bailout While EU Denies Extension

Saturday, June 27th, 2015 - by Rick Moran

How far has Greek Prime Minister Alex Tsipras wandered from reality? Tsipras has called for a referendum on the “take it or leave it” offer from Greece’s creditors, targeting July 5th for election day.

But Greece will default on a $1.6 billion payment to the IMF on July 1. And the EU, fed up with Tsipras’s posturing and arrogance, have refused to grant Greece a one month extension on the IMF terms.

So if the Greek parliament approves a referendum, by the time it’s held Greece will be in default.

What Tsipras is looking for is ammunition to use in his argument against the terms of the bailout. He claims that since the Greek voters elected him and his far left Syriza party earlier this year on a platform to end austerity and go back to the good old days of spending lavishly on the welfare state, that the rest of Europe should bow to the voters of Greece and give him more easy money.

Not unexpectedly, the rest of Europe looked with astonishment at this argument and have been telling the PM for months that he has no choice but to make the required reforms in order to receive the rest of the $260 billion bailout and perhaps negotiate another.

But Tsipras refuses to face reality and now, the endgame is playing out.

Reuters:

Athens asked for an extension of Greece’s bailout programme beyond Tuesday, the day it must pay 1.6 billion euros to the International Monetary Fund or go bust.

But the other 18 members of the euro zone unanimously rejected the request, freezing Greece out of further discussions with the European Central Bank and IMF on how to deal with the fallout from a historic breach in the EU’s 16-year-old currency.

The swift rejection was a startling demonstration of the degree to which Tsipras had alienated the rest of the currency bloc with a final-hour announcement that upended five months of intense talks.

The Eurogroup of finance members shut Greece’s Yanis Varoufakis from a meeting in Brussels and issued a statement without him, accusing Athens of breaking off negotiations unilaterally.

“The current financial assistance arrangement with Greece will expire on June 30, 2015, as well as all agreements related to the current Greek programme,” it said, making clear its refusal of a grace period to hold the vote.

Varoufakis said the refusal to provide an extension “will certainly damage the credibility of the Eurogroup as a democratic union of partner member states”.

The euro zone finance ministers met in Brussels for what had been intended as a final negotiation for a deal.

But after they were blindsided by Tsipras’s surprise middle-of-the-night announcement that he rejected their offer and would put it to voters only after Tuesday’s deadline, one after another said all that remained to discuss was “Plan B” – how to limit the damage of default.

“We have no basis for further negotiations,” German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said ahead of the meeting. “Clearly we can never rule out surprises with Greece, so there can always be hope. But none of my colleagues with whom I’ve already spoken see any possibilities for what we can now do.”

Finland’s Alexander Stubb called it “potentially a very sad day, specifically for the Greek people. I think with the announcement of this referendum we’re basically closing the door for any further negotiations.”

With most Greek banks closed for the weekend, there was no sign of panic on the streets of Athens. Government officials said there was no plan to impose capital controls that would limit withdrawals.

But police tightened security around bank teller machines as lines formed at some in the darkness almost as soon as Tsipras’s early hours televised speech was finished.

The Bank of Greece said it was making “huge efforts” to ensure the machines remained stocked.

After years of going right up to the edge of default only to come up with a bandaid to kick the can down the road a few more months, Greece and the EU have come to the end of the road. Don’t expect a surprise acceptance of the terms by Tsipras at the last minute. His far left deputies in parliament are adamantly opposed to the reforms the EU is proposing, making it impossible for his party to remain in power if he does as the EU wants.

Read bullet | Comments »

Conservatives Should Rejoice at the Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage Ruling? Are You Kidding Me?

Saturday, June 27th, 2015 - by Michael van der Galien

My colleague right here at PJ Media, Scott Ott, wrote an article yesterday in which he argues that conservatives should “rejoice at the Supreme Court same-sex marriage ruling.” His argument is quite simple: the Bible shouldn’t be legislated. In the end, government should withdraw from the marriage business altogether, and this ruling allows conservatives to call for that.

Although I agree with Scott that neither the federal government nor individual states should issue marriage licenses — marriage is something between people and possibly between two people and their God, not between them and their government — that doesn’t mean conservatives should “rejoice” at the illegal SCOTUS decision.

The opposite is true, even. This case wasn’t about same-sex marriage, but about federalism. The idea behind federalism is that the individual states gave the federal government certain powers. The 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution then says that all those powers not delegated to the federal government are left to the states.

Nowhere in the Constitution did the states give the federal government any power over marriage; not to define it, and not to forbid states from doing so. This means that the 50 states can do whatever they want. If they don’t want to define marriage they can do so; if they do want to do so, that’s perfectly fine too.

SCOTUS’ decision isn’t problematic because it allows gays to marriage as such. It’s controversial and extremely troubling because it destroys federalism — the system America is built on.

I’ve argued for a long time that conservatives and libertarians have to choose a different approach to marriage: argue for completely pulling the government out of people’s personal relationships. No more subsidies or what not for married people, only for individuals. If they are married, fine, to the government they’re still individuals. This also means that individual states have to stop giving marriage licenses to married couples. Those who want to marry can do so in a private setting, in church, a synagogue or a mosque. However, if they get anything from the state government it should, at most, be a civil union contract. Churches that want to “marry” gay couples can do so, those who don’t want to do that are also free to follow their conscience. In either case, no government has anything to do with it. 

None of that, however, means that SCOTUS’ ruling should be celebrated by anyone. If the court respected the Constitution it should have said that this issue is left to individual states, and that they can do whatever they want. Like Justice Roberts, his colleagues could’ve argued that they’re in favor of legalizing gay marriage on a state level, but that it’s none of the federal government’s business.

Read bullet | 27 Comments »

It’s Not a Supreme Court, It’s a Voting Bloc Plus a Couple of Justices

Saturday, June 27th, 2015 - by Michael Walsh

When you go in to every weighty decision with four of the five minds needed already already made up, you have a winning advantage every time:

The Supreme Court term that is nearing its end shows how silence can signal success. With a notable paucity of dissents and not a single word to say about same-sex marriage, health care or housing discrimination, the court’s liberal justices prevailed in almost every important case in recent months.

“It looks like the ground under First Street is slightly tilted to the left,” said Carrie Severino, a former law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas and a conservative commentator, referring to the court’s address.

The four liberal justices — Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor — were content to sign on to Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion that preserved a key piece of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.

They similarly joined Justice Anthony Kennedy in his clarion-call opinion that gave same-sex couples the right to marry across the country and in another 5-4 ruling that upheld an important tool used by the Obama administration to win hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements of claims of housing discrimination.

Their conservative colleagues criticized each other — Scalia even asserted in his same-sex marriage dissent that California native Kennedy is not a true Westerner — and thundered on about the unchecked power of unelected, life-tenured judges. But the liberals spoke not a word.

They didn’t have to.

 

Read bullet | Comments »

Media Bias? What Media Bias, Gay-Marriage Division

Saturday, June 27th, 2015 - by Michael Walsh
The Times is so proud

The Times is so proud

The Washington Post has a vivid photo roundup of how the front pages of the nation’s newpapers played yesterday’s utterly foregone Supreme Court decision. Click on the link.

Read bullet | 8 Comments »

Is There a Real Solution to the Lawlessness of the Supreme Court?

Saturday, June 27th, 2015 - by Rick Moran

Senator Ted Cruz has penned a powerful article appearing in NRO that states the case for dealing with the lawlessness of the Supreme Court.

The time has come, therefore, to recognize that the problem lies not with the lawless rulings of individual lawless justices, but with the lawlessness of the Court itself. The decisions that have deformed our constitutional order and have debased our culture are but symptoms of the disease of liberal judicial activism that has infected our judiciary. A remedy is needed that will restore health to the sick man in our constitutional system.

Rendering the justices directly accountable to the people would provide such a remedy. Twenty states have now adopted some form of judicial retention elections, and the experience of these states demonstrates that giving the people the regular, periodic power to pass judgment on the judgments of their judges strikes a proper balance between judicial independence and judicial accountability. It also restores respect for the rule of law to courts that have systematically imposed their personal moral values in the guise of constitutional rulings. The courts in these states have not been politicized by this check on their power, nor have judges been removed indiscriminately or wholesale. Americans are a patient, forgiving people. We do not pass judgment rashly.

Judicial retention elections have worked in states across America; they will work for America. In order to provide the people themselves with a constitutional remedy to the problem of judicial activism and the means for throwing off judicial tyrants, I am proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution that would subject the justices of the Supreme Court to periodic judicial-retention elections. Every justice, beginning with the second national election after his or her appointment, will answer to the American people and the states in a retention election every eight years. Those justices deemed unfit for retention by both a majority of the American people as a whole and by majorities of the electorates in at least half of the 50 states will be removed from office and disqualified from future service on the Court.

Why would a Constitutional conservative like Cruz propose something that flies in the face of the intent of the Founders with regards to lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court? As Cruz correctly points out, it was believed that impeachment was a strong enough antidote to judicial tyranny at the time, although the Jeffersonians, who were always suspicious of the Supreme Court, concluded early on that impeachment wasn’t enough of a deterrent.

The reason we don’t elect Supreme Court justices is because they are supposed to be above politics. This has always been a rather fanciful idea given that there are probably no more avid readers of the polls than SCOTUS. They already bend to political winds. How much more would that be true if they faced recall elections?

Even a proposal like Cruz’s to hold a “retention vote” every 8 years would bring up the same problems we would encounter with electing justices in the first place.  But if the justices aren’t going to decide cases dispassionately based on Constitutional principles anyway, perhaps Cruz is right that it’s time to hold the Supreme Court justices accountable to the people.

Read bullet | Comments »

Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush: OK, Federalism Is Dead, Let’s Move Along Now

Saturday, June 27th, 2015 - by Michael van der Galien

Screen Shot 2015-06-27 at 11.05.10Senator Marco Rubio and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush have responded to SCOTUS’ illegal same-sex marriage ruling by saying that it’s now time to move on. Here’s the senator from Florida:

“While I disagree with this decision, we live in a republic and must abide by the law. As we look ahead, it must be a priority of the next president to nominate judges and justices committed to applying the Constitution as written and originally understood…

“I firmly believe the question of same sex marriage is a question of the definition of an institution, not the dignity of a human being. Every American has the right to pursue happiness as they see fit. Not every American has to agree on every issue, but all of us do have to share our country. A large number of Americans will continue to believe in traditional marriage, and a large number of Americans will be pleased with the Court’s decision today. In the years ahead, it is my hope that each side will respect the dignity of the other.”

Jeb Bush basically feels the same. 

“Guided by my faith, I believe in traditional marriage.  I believe the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to make this decision.  I also believe that we should love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments.  In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side.  It is now crucial that as a country we protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate.”

In other words: Jeb says he’s personally against gay marriage, and believes it should be left to states to define the concept of marriage, but now that SCOTUS has issued its ridiculously illegal ruling, it’s time to move on and start talking about other issues. Or, as Hot Air summarizes it:

Both Floridians seem to concede that the fight against gay marriage is over and that the party should focus on protecting religious liberty from antidiscrimination challenges going forward. No more empty chatter about marriage amendments, no Huckabee-esque bluster about how the Supreme Court can’t make law or whatever. The closest either of them get to suggesting that gay marriage might yet be undone is Rubio hinting, very vaguely, about future Supreme Court appointments, but that’s pie in the sky. It’s unlikely in the extreme that even a conservative Court will revisit today’s ruling anytime soon. He and Bush are waving the white flag here and nudging the party to pivot to defending religious Americans’ right of freedom of association.

This is an easy copout by two men who are so afraid to alienate the donor class that they’re willing to throw all their principles in the dustbin. How is it possible that these two so-called conservatives refuse to understand that this ruling isn’t about same-sex marriage, but about federalism?

Conservatives can’t let SCOTUS get away with this decision, not because they hate gays (they don’t by the way), but because the 10th Amendment has just been nullified. Whether you support or oppose the legalization of gay marriage, that should worry you and be reason to declare war on the Supreme Court.

Read bullet | 14 Comments »

VIDEO: Watch Hattie McDaniel’s 1940 Oscar Acceptance Speech

Saturday, June 27th, 2015 - by Michael Walsh

Time to stop the madness:

YouTube Preview Image

Read bullet | Comments »

Liberals Celebrate ‘Gay Equality’ While ISIS Throws 4 Gays From Rooftops

Saturday, June 27th, 2015 - by Michael van der Galien

While American liberals were celebrating SCOTUS’ illegal decision forcing gay marriage upon all 50 states – and thereby nullifying the 10th Amendment – ISIS threw 4 gays from the roof of a building.

Screen Shot 2015-06-27 at 11.10.24

As always, a crowd had gathered to watch the brutal mass murder:

Now, I’ve got a question for my liberal friends: why is it that you pretend that gays are persecuted in the United States (which isn’t and wasn’t true at all, they’re able to live together, have relationships, and do whatever they please), while you – at the same time – ignore what’s going on in ISIS’ self-declared radical-Islamic caliphate where homosexuals are literally thrown from buildings?

Ah, never mind, I know the answer: because that would be “intolerant.” Right. Sorry, I forgot for a moment that killing gays is perfectly fine if you’re a Muslim extremist, but refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding is discriminatory if you’re Christian.

Screen Shot 2015-06-27 at 11.18.18

Read bullet | 6 Comments »

The Great Confederate Payback: ‘Like the End of the Soviet Empire’

Saturday, June 27th, 2015 - by Michael Walsh

And so the Great Confederate Payback begins:

Vandals have targeted monuments dedicated to the leaders and soldiers of the Confederacy, painting the slogan “Black lives matter” on memorials in a half-dozen states where the landmarks stand tall in parks and outside government buildings.

The graffiti reflects the racial tension that permeates post-Ferguson America, more than a week after a white man was accused of shooting and killing nine black congregants at a Charleston, South Carolina, church.

What? One might better say that there is a kind of anarchic madness loose in the land, that hasn’t been seen since the days of the Salem witch trials.

Michael Allen, a lecturer in American culture studies at Washington University in St. Louis, compared the vandalism to the toppling of statues in Russia at the end of the Soviet empire. ”If the monuments are strong statements of past values, defacing them is the easiest and loudest way to rebuke those statements,” Allen said.

This is what comes of letting the Left control academe.

One of the defaced monuments was the Confederate Memorial in St. Louis’ Forest Park, 10 miles from Ferguson. The same graffiti was reported on memorials in Charleston; Baltimore; Austin, Texas; Asheville, North Carolina; and Richmond, Virginia. No arrests have been made.

And they won’t be, either. Meanwhile, the madness spreads…

The dean of Washington National Cathedral is calling for the removal of stained-glass windows that depict the Confederate battle flag. The Very Rev. Gary Hall issued a statement Thursday saying windows in the church honoring Confederate Gen. Stonewall Jackson and Gen. Robert E. Lee should be removed. Both windows depict the Confederate flag.

The cathedral installed the windows in 1953. Hall says the cathedral’s leadership at the time thought recognition for the Confederate leaders would foster reconciliation. But Hall says celebrating the lives of the Confederate generals and flag now does not promote healing or reconciliation, especially for African-Americans. Hall says the Confederate flag has become the primary symbol of white supremacy.

Things will get worse before they get worse.

 

 

Read bullet | 38 Comments »

ISIS Using U.S. TOW Antitank Missiles in Latest Syrian Offensive

Saturday, June 27th, 2015 - by Patrick Poole

Just days after Western analysts were updating their obituaries for ISIS after the group’s setback in Tel Abyad, which is about 100km north of the ISIS capital of Raqaa, ISIS has lashed back with two offensives: a small-scale raid on Kobane on the Turkish/Syria border, and against Hasakah in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Syria.

And pictures distributed by multiple outlets show ISIS using U.S-.made TOW BGM-71 antitank missiles in their assault on Hasakah.

This situation map from Friday shows the current placement of regime, Kurdish and ISIS forces:

UN estimates are that the current fighting has displaced 60,000 people:

Sadly, some of those fleeing Hasakah include Assyrian and Armenian refugees who took refuge in Hasakah earlier this year when ISIS made a push against Christian villages along the Khabur River.

Even more disturbing is that ISIS is using captured U.S.-made TOW missiles in their assault on Hasakah:

Many of the TOW missiles that remain in Syria that were originally provided to so-called “vetted moderate” rebel groups over the past year have fallen into the hands of ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, Al-Qaeda’s official affiliate in Syria.

For more than six months I’ve been reporting here at PJ Media about the continued loss of these U.S.-provided weapons to forces hostile to the U.S.:

Dec 2:US-Backed Syrian Rebels Ally with Al-Qaeda in South, Surrender CIA-Supplied Weapons in the North

Dec 14: Report: Al-Qaeda Using CIA-Supplied TOW Anti-Tank Missiles in Northern Syria

March 3:U.S.-Backed Syrian Rebel Group Collapses, U.S.-Supplied Weapons End Up in Al-Qaeda Hands

March 24:Video Shows Al-Qaeda’s Jabhat al-Nusra Using U.S.-Provided TOW Anti-Tank Missiles in Syria

June 8: Video Shows ISIS Using U.S. TOW Anti-Tank Missiles in Capture of Palmyra

With the Iraqi army losing 2,300 US-provided Humvees to ISIS, and other reports indicating that ISIS has also obtained 40 M1A1 tanks, 74,000 machine guns, and 52 M198 Howitzer mobile gun systems, with increasing numbers of U.S. personnel flooding back into Iraq (now more than 3,500), it only seems to be a matter of time before the U.S. military will eventually be confronted with ISIS forces armed with U.S.-provided weapons.

When that happens, who will hold the Obama administration and GOP leadership accountable for the predictable blowback from their Syria and Iraq policies?

Read bullet | 17 Comments »

Defense Secretary Gave This Answer to U.S. Soldier Who Asked for Plan Against Boko Haram and Al-Shabaab

Friday, June 26th, 2015 - by Bridget Johnson

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter was addressing members of the U.S. Army stationed in Grafenwoehr, Germany, today when he got a terrorism question from a soldier.

“Sir, I’d like to know, what is the Department of Defense plan of action when it comes to the increasing threat posed by Al-Shabaab and Boko Haram in West Africa?” an Army specialist asked.

“Yeah. Both Boko Haram and Al-Shabaab are serious terrorist organizations,” Carter replied. “They are — are — terrorize not only their own countries, but the continent of Africa. And this is one of these things that if you leave it unchecked, it will go worldwide, including to the United States. So it’s a real concern to us.”

Shabaab has been recruiting in the United States for years, including among the Somali community. A former Beltway cabbie, Liban Haji Mohamed, was placed on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists list in January for recruiting for Shabaab in Northern Virginia. A new Shabaab video released this month shows white fighters in the Somali terror group.

“Some of them, as we see elsewhere around the world, are renaming themselves, taking — taking the ISIS brand or some of the ISIS playbook and trying to modernize themselves. Because both those groups have been around for a while,” Carter continued.

Boko Haram formally pledged allegiance to ISIS in March.

“But they’re cruel. They’ll stop at nothing. And our — and we are in the fight against them. Our principal way of doing that is to help others who are either the African nations, which we — where we try to help train and equip and so forth their militaries better to deal with that,” Carter said. “And in some cases, we’re helping allies — the French, for example, on the African continent, to combat these groups.”

“But you know, make no mistake, they’re — they’re as dangerous as terrorists in the Middle East. They just happen to be in Africa, but what they do to people and what they’re prepared to do to people, what their aspirations are, are not really very different.”

Nigeria has asked for greater help fighting Boko Haram. The U.S. has offered some aid but has been critical of what it says are human rights violations committed by Nigerian forces hunting down Boko Haram members.

Read bullet | Comments »

Barack Obama Takes the Charleston Funeral from the Sacred to the Profane

Friday, June 26th, 2015 - by David Forsmark
Barack Obama

President Barack Obama sings “Amazing Grace” during services honoring the life of Rev. Clementa Pinckney, Friday, June 26, 2015, at the College of Charleston TD Arena in Charleston, S.C.. Pinckney was one of the nine people killed in the shooting at Emanuel AME Church last week in Charleston. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

 

All week, the relatives of the slain in Charleston insisted “this is not about politics,” when asked about topics like the Confederate flag or gun control. They turned the topic to the faith of the fallen and the forgiveness to be found in Christ.

That ended Friday when Barack Obama showed up, fresh from his victory lap on gay marriage

Obama paid tribute to the grace of God early in this speech that looked as though, for about ten minutes, it might actually be worthy of the event.

Obama allowed that “God works in mysterious ways,” and paid tribute to how the expressions of forgiveness for what he kept irritatingly referring to as “the alleged killer” brought the community together.

I was even willing to give him a bit of a break on supposing that Emanuel AME Church was a sacred place because it was a place for social justice, because I don’t really expect him to think it’s a place where people found Jesus, and that was what gave them the strength to act as they did in the wake of unfathomable grief.

For a minute, I thought he had actually learned a little something from the Christian witness in Charleston.

I could even stomach his cheap jumping on the Confederate flag bandwagon for a minute, as long as he stayed on the grace of God bandwagon too.

But, as Barack Obama implied in his Marc Maron interview, unity just isn’t in his DNA. So after all that, the community organizer — the Divider in Chief – went to work.

We got a laundry list of America’s continuing sins. A reference to the myth of Republican voter suppression being by far the most egregious, because he knows it’s a lie from the pit of Hell and in no way true.

And how Johnny gets a call back for a job, but not Jamal.

Then came a long spiel on gun control, even while he admitted that not a single one of his proposals would have prevented what happened at the prayer meeting at Emanuel AME Church.

Read bullet | 19 Comments »

Jeb Bush Disappointed in SCOTUS Decisions, Would Consider Breaking Filibuster To Get Rid of O-Care (Video)

Friday, June 26th, 2015 - by Debra Heine

On Hugh Hewitt’s radio program this afternoon, 2016 presidential candidate Jeb Bush expressed his disappointment in both of the big Supreme Court decisions of the last two days. And he said that he would consider breaking the filibuster — as the radio host suggested — to repeal and replace ObamaCare.

“I’m disappointed in both decisions,” Bush told Hewitt. “And it’s important, I think, to think about going forward what kind of judges we need particularly on the highest court in the land. And I’ve given that some thought, because I was governor of Florida. And when I was governor, we tried to find people with a proven record of judicial restraint, and people that were committed to enforcing the Constitutional limits on government authority. In essence, what I’m saying is I think we need to have people that have not just theoretically, but have had a proven record of not legislating from the bench. And these are talented, smart people, but these two decisions are really disappointing.”

Asked how he would avoid appointing another stealth lib like David Souter, Bush answered, “I think the way you do it is that you focus on people that are qualified to be Supreme Court justices that have a proven record of judicial restraint. And so I think you have to be all in to fight for people that have a record, because today in America, the minute you have a record, you’re subject to attack. But that’s the best way to prove that someone has a consistency in their view of, in terms of judicial philosophy.”

Both Hewitt and Bush had high praise for Chief Justice Roberts even though they didn’t agree with his ObamaCare decision.

“He’s an old colleague of mine,” Hewitt said.  ”I disagreed with him yesterday, I agreed with him today. But I know he’s a man of absolute integrity, and that his arguments are always reasonable, even when I disagree with him. Is he still a model for you going forward as he was for President George W. Bush?”

“Well, I liked one of his rulings, and I didn’t like the other,” Bush answered. “But he is a person of unimpeachable integrity and great intelligence, and I’ve met him a few times. And he’s an impressive guy for sure. I think going forward, where we’re left as it relates to the marriage issue is it’s important for all of us to stay engaged, because I think what we need to do is try to make sure that religious freedom and conscience is protected, and also have a society that is just and loving that doesn’t discriminate. And I think if we can’t figure out how to do that, then we’re in a heap of trouble as a nation. I think we can do it, but it’s going to require a lot more than just this ruling to sort this stuff out.”

 One of the things the ruling left to be sorted out, Hewitt noted, was the tax-exempt status of institutions that reject other than marriage between one man and one woman. He asked Bush if he thought that tax-exempt status was in danger, and Bush predicted that the issue is “not going away for awhile.”

“It wasn’t a definitive ruling that protects the universality of religious freedom,” Bush said. “So I think there’s going to be a period of time where this is sorted out with other court cases. I think when you, I think tax-exempt status is probably more protected than work-related issues, or this is, there’s varying degrees of this. This is going to be something that’s not going away for a while, and I think we’re big enough as a country to make sure that we have, that we respect people in long-term, loving relationships, and that we allow people to act on their religious faith, not just to have them, you know, have their private views that they can have in their own house or in the pews of their church, but they can act on their sense of consciousness. And if we do that, you know, we’ll protect the first freedom as well as just not being a society that organizes itself around discriminating people.”

 Regarding the ObamaCare decision, Hewitt asked Bush if he would ”invoke the Reid rule and break the filibuster” in order to repeal and replace Obamacare.

Bush was hesitant to embrace that idea, but he didn’t rule it out, saying he ”would certainly consider it.”

YouTube Preview Image

YouTube Preview Image

 

Read bullet | Comments »

The Right’s Valley Forge

Friday, June 26th, 2015 - by Rick Moran

Three massive hammer blows were delivered to the right in the last 48 hours by the US Supreme Court and in reading some conservative reaction to the decisions, you could be forgiven for believing the American experiment was on its last legs. Mike Huckabee says he will not “acquiesce” to the law, while Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton says that no matter what SCOTUS says, the definition of marriage will never change. George Will says that John Roberts helped “overthrow” the Constitution.

Upholding subsidies for the Affordable Care Act, granting a nationwide right for gay marriage, and ruling that housing policies that have a disparate impact on race are unconstitutional — even if no discrimination is intended — is a triple whammy for conservatives and the rule of law. How can there be limits on government power when the final arbiter of limits doesn’t see any? The decisions seem surreal.

The Supreme Court decisions play out against a backdrop that includes the contretemps over the Confederate flag and the assault on America’s heritage.  It seems that all the furies in the world have descended to bedevil the right heading into the 2016 presidential election.

I am not arguing against the validity of most of the points made by conservatives about any of these controversies.  But what if the court decisions and flag controversy had come down over a three month period instead of 48 hours? Would the sense of doom and gloom be as pronounced on the right as it is today?

Perhaps it’s time to recall the words of Thomas Paine in his essay “The Crisis,” published December 23, 1776 following a series of unmitigated disasters that befell the Continental Army.

THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value.

We’ve all read those words a million times, usually in a context where it is believed all hope is lost and that we should bow to the inevitable. Paine would have none of it,  and chastised some of his fellow countrymen for prematurely throwing in the towel.

But perhaps Paine himself would have despaired if those setbacks experienced by the Continentals would have happened in a few days rather than over 6 months. Conservatives are literally reeling from an avalanche of bad news, compounded by hysteria and blame tossing over the killings in Charleston. Is it any wonder that many on the right have declared the American experiment to be nearly a failure?

Even the low point of the Revolutionary War turned into a reason for optimism. We all know the story of Valley Forge, the worst winter of the war, where thousands perished of the cold, disease and hunger. But in the midst of the suffering, there arrived a somewhat comical Prussian officer named Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, who presented himself as a general but really held the rank equal to captain in the Prussian army.

Von Steuben set about training the American army in the European tradition — a deficiency that had prevented the Continental army from engaging in a stand up fight with the redcoats. In this, he was successful beyond anyone’s dreams — including Washington’s. The regulation drill instilled a sense of pride and professionalism in the notoriously individualistic American soldier and was evident at the next big engagement of the war, the Battle of Monmouth. After initial setbacks, the Americans rallied and nearly won the day.

Conservatives certainly don’t need a pep talk from anyone. But recognizing the situation  and dealing with the consequences rationally is far better than giving into despair.  To believe that constitutional government is lost or the rule of law overthrown isn’t logical. Our Constitution has withstood a lot more than anything that John Roberts and Barack Obama can throw at it. It may be a little tattered and frayed around the edges. It may be disrespected and ignored in some cases. But the structures that the Founders built and that have stood the test of 227 years are still sound and ready to be redeemed.

We wouldn’t be an exceptional country if we weren’t capable of reinventing ourselves as often as we have in the past. The present will become past soon enough and a reordering of history is not out of the question. It may not mean that Obamacare will go away or gay marriage declared illegal again. That is highly unlikely. But it may be more realistic to believe that we can return to the path laid out by our Founders in the Constitution that the Supreme Court has so cavalierly wandered away from.

 

 

Read bullet | 62 Comments »

Obama: Country Must Fight ‘Impulse to Call Johnny Back for a Job Interview But Not Jamal’

Friday, June 26th, 2015 - by Bridget Johnson

President Obama delivered the euology for slain pastor and South Carolina state Sen. Clementa Pinckney with thoughts on racism today and a rendition of “Amazing Grace.”

Obama admitted he didn’t know Pinckney well, but said the legislator “encouraged progress not by pushing his ideas alone but by seeking out your ideas, partnering with you to make things happen.”

The accused shooter at the Emanuel AME Church, Dylann Roof, committed “an act that drew on a long history of bombs and arson and shots fired at churches, not random but as a means of control, a way to terrorize and oppress, an act that he imagined would incite fear and recrimination, violence and suspicion, an act that he presumed would deepen divisions that trace back to our nation’s original sin,” the president said.

“Blinded by hatred, he failed to comprehend what Reverend Pinckney so well understood — the power of God’s grace,” he said, adding “this whole week, I’ve been reflecting on this idea of grace.”

“We may not have earned this grace with our rancor and complacency and short-sightedness and fear of each other, but we got it all the same… For too long, we were blind to the pain that the Confederate Flag stirred into many of our citizens. It’s true a flag did not cause these murders. But as people from all walks of life, Republicans and Democrats, now acknowledge, including Governor Haley, whose recent eloquence on the subject is worthy of praise, as we all have to acknowledge, the flag has always represented more than just ancestral pride. For many, black and white, that flag was a reminder of systemic oppression and racial subjugation.”

Removing the Confederate flag from the grounds of South Carolina’s capital, Obama argued, “would not be an act of political correctness. It would not an insult to the valor of Confederate soldiers. It would simply be acknowledgement that the cause for which they fought, the cause of slavery, was wrong. The imposition of Jim Crow after the Civil War, the resistance to civil rights for all people was wrong.”

But, the president continued, “I don’t think God wants us to stop there” at just taking flags down.

“Perhaps it causes us to examine what we’re doing to cause some of our children to hate. Perhaps it softens hearts towards those lost young men, tens and tens of thousands caught up in the criminal-justice system and lead us to make sure that that system’s not infected with bias, that we embrace changes in how we train and equip our police so that the bonds of trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve make us all safer and more secure,” he said.

“Maybe we now realize the way a racial bias can infect us even when we don’t realize it so that we’re guarding against not just racial slurs but we’re also guarding against the subtle impulse to call Johnny back for a job interview but not Jamal, so that we search our hearts when we consider laws to make it harder for some of our fellow citizens to vote.”

Obama also resurrected his calls for more gun control, stressing “for too long, we’ve been blind to the unique mayhem that gun violence inflicts upon this nation.”

“The vast majority of Americans, the majority of gun owners want to do something about this. We see that now,” he said. “And I’m convinced that by acknowledging the pain and loss of others, even as we respect the traditions, ways of life that make up this beloved country, by making the moral choice to change, we express God’s grace.”

The president added it would “be a betrayal of everything Reverend Pinckney stood for, I believe, if we allow ourselves to slip into a comfortable silence again.”

“Once the eulogies have been delivered, once the TV cameras move on, to go back to business as usual. That’s what we so often do to avoid uncomfortable truths about the prejudice that still infects our society.”

Southern history, Obama added, “can’t be a sword to justify injustice or a shield against progress. It must be a manual for how to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, how to break the cycle, a roadway toward a better world…. That’s what I felt this week — an open heart. That more than any particular policy or analysis is what’s called upon right now, I think.”

Obama then broke into singing “Amazing Grace,” with the organ player at the capacity service joining in.

Read bullet | 67 Comments »

U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: SCOTUS Ruling on SSM A ‘Tragic Error’, ‘Profoundly Immoral and Unjust’

Friday, June 26th, 2015 - by Debra Heine

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops released a strongly worded statement following the Supreme Court’s ruling today that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, calling the decision a “tragic error” that is “profoundly immoral and unjust.”

Written by USCCB president Abp. Joseph E. Kurtz of Louisville, Kentucky, the missive condemns the decision from start to finish, arguing that it is not rooted in truth and, like the Supreme Court’s decision on abortion, will eventually fail.

Regardless of what a narrow majority of the Supreme Court may declare at this moment in history, the nature of the human person and marriage remains unchanged and unchangeable. Just as Roe v. Wade did not settle the question of abortion over forty years ago, Obergefell v. Hodges does not settle the question of marriage today. Neither decision is rooted in the truth, and as a result, both will eventually fail. Today the Court is wrong again. It is profoundly immoral and unjust for the government to declare that two people of the same sex can constitute a marriage.

The unique meaning of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is inscribed in our bodies as male and female. The protection of this meaning is a critical dimension of the “integral ecology” that Pope Francis has called us to promote. Mandating marriage redefinition across the country is a tragic error that harms the common good and most vulnerable among us, especially children. The law has a duty to support every child’s basic right to be raised, where possible, by his or her married mother and father in a stable home.

Jesus Christ, with great love, taught unambiguously that from the beginning marriage is the lifelong union of one man and one woman. As Catholic bishops, we follow our Lord and will continue to teach and to act according to this truth.

I encourage Catholics to move forward with faith, hope, and love: faith in the unchanging truth about marriage, rooted in the immutable nature of the human person and confirmed by divine revelation; hope that these truths will once again prevail in our society, not only by their logic, but by their great beauty and manifest service to the common good; and love for all our neighbors, even those who hate us or would punish us for our faith and moral convictions.

Lastly, I call upon all people of good will to join us in proclaiming the goodness, truth, and beauty of marriage as rightly understood for millennia, and I ask all in positions of power and authority to respect the God-given freedom to seek, live by, and bear witness to the truth.

Religious leaders are now bracing themselves for the onslaught of cases that test the bounds of religious freedom.

Read bullet | Comments »

Obama: Gay Marriage Proponents Should ‘Revere Our Deep Commitment to Religious Freedom’

Friday, June 26th, 2015 - by Bridget Johnson

President Obama lauded today’s 5-4 ruling at the Supreme Court in favor of same-sex marriage as a civil rights victory while the White House Twitter avatar — and Valerie Jarrett’s — went rainbow.

The “slow, steady effort” of activists was “rewarded with justice that arrives like a thunderbolt,” he said in Rose Garden remarks.

Obama said in 2004 that he didn’t believe marriage was a civil right, and expressed opposition to same-sex marriage over the next several years until his self-described “evolution.”

“This ruling will strengthen all of our communities by offering to all loving same-sex couples the dignity of marriage across this great land,” he said today. “In my second inaugural address, I said that if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well. It is gratifying to see that principle enshrined into law by this decision.”

The president gave himself a back-pat for refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court and for ending “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”

“I know that Americans of good will continue to hold a wide range of views on this issue. Opposition, in some cases, has been based on sincere and deeply held beliefs. All of us who welcome today’s news should be mindful of that fact and recognize different viewpoints, revere our deep commitment to religious freedom,” Obama said.

“But today should also give us hope that on the many issues with which we grapple, often painfully, real change is possible. Shift in hearts and minds is possible. And those who have come so far on their journey to equality have a responsibility to reach back and help others join them, because for all of our differences, we are one people, stronger together than we could ever be alone. That’s always been our story.”

Obama said the people who worked toward marriage equality “slowly made an entire country realize that love is love.”

“What an extraordinary achievement, but what a vindication of the belief that ordinary people can do extraordinary things; what a reminder of what Bobby Kennedy once said about how small actions can be like pebbles being thrown into a still lake, and ripples of hope cascade outwards and change the world,” he said.

“Those countless, often anonymous heroes, they deserve our thanks. They should be very proud. America should be very proud.”

 

 

Read bullet | 33 Comments »

Menendez to Kerry: Hey, Did You Happen to Notice All Those Red Lines from the Ayatollah?

Friday, June 26th, 2015 - by Bridget Johnson

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) dropped a line to Secretary of State John Kerry, who landed in Vienna today for the final Iran nuclear negotiations ahead of a Tuesday deadline, to see if the top diplomat just happened to notice Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s red lines.

Khamenei’s speech on state television, which was tweeted to the English-speaking audience, demanded that “all financial and economic sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council, the U.S. Congress or the U.S. government should be lifted immediately when we sign a nuclear agreement,” that “inspection of our military sites is out of the question and is one of our red lines,” and that freezing Iranian research and development “for a long time, like 10 or 12 years, is not acceptable.”

Only days before, Menendez noted to Kerry, the Iranian parliament voted to ban access to military sites, documents and scientists as part of any future deal with the P5+1 countries.

“These demands are unacceptable – they presuppose that the government of Iran will act in good faith, when it has shown itself in the past to be an untrustworthy negotiating partner,” Menendez wrote. “The Iranian regime had spent decades deceiving the international community, it stands in violation of its international commitments, and it continues to deny the International Atomic Energy Agency access to its facilities and answers to questions about its nuclear-related military activities.”

“Given Iran’s past deceptions, the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program must not be lifted until the Iranian regime has demonstrably met their obligations under any prospective deal. Furthermore, significant limitations on research and development and resolution of military dimensions of Iran’s program, through access to scientists, documents and places and anytime, anywhere inspections are critical to the viability of a nuclear agreement with Iran.”

Menendez reminded Kerry that the secretary of State has repeatedly said “no deal is better than a bad deal.”

“A deal that allows sanctions to be lifted before Iran’s government meets their obligations, without intrusive inspections to safeguard against a continued covert nuclear program, and that leaves Iran as a threshold nuclear state, is a bad deal that threatens the national security of America and our allies, and must be rejected,” said the senator, who has been a thorn in the administration’s side leading Democrats against any deal that gives dangerous concessions to the Islamic Republic.

“I ask that you clarify whether these newly-imposed Iranian conditions are understood to be objectives that must be met at the P5+1 negotiations for any agreement to be achieved. If Iranian negotiators intend to adhere to the provisions demanded by Ayatollah Khamenei and Iran’s parliament, I urge you to suspend the current negotiations with Iran.”

Read bullet | Comments »

Hillary Clinton, Who Opposed Gay Marriage Until 2013, Is Totes ‘Proud’ of Today’s SCOTUS Ruling

Friday, June 26th, 2015 - by Debra Heine

In a series of tweets that should win the Pander-Bear award for most pathetic pandering in presidential  politicking, Hillary Clinton bravely celebrated the Supreme Court’s “historic” ruling on same sex marriage:

Clinton, of course, didn’t “evolve” on marriage until 2013. She went from being a staunch supporter of traditional marriage to being absolutely giddy about it within the span of two years.

As Conor Friedersdorf noted in the Atlantic a year ago, Hillary ran for president in 2008 openly opposing gay marriage. And she didn’t “evolve” until it became crystal clear that the political winds had shifted in the opposite direction.

In a primary, Clinton could be forced to explain a longtime position that a significant part of that Democratic political coalition now views as suspect or even bigoted. Most famously, the Silicon Valley left forced the ouster of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich for a 2008 donation he made to an anti-gay-marriage ballot initiative. That same year, Clinton ran for president while openly opposing gay marriage. If she is to be believed, she also opposed gay marriage as recently as 2013, long after a majority of Americans already held a more gay-friendly position. Would the subset of Democrats who thought 2008 opposition to gay marriage should prevent a man from becoming CEO in 2013 really support the 2015 presidential campaign of a woman who openly opposed gay marriage until last year?

I can’t blame the media too much for failing to make Clinton explain her past “bigoted” position. Since she announced her candidacy in April, an avalanche of Clinton scandals  have given them more than enough to write about.

But we mustn’t underestimate the average Democrat voter’s capacity for hypocrisy and double think. That’s what will pull her through in the end.

UPDATE:

Via Twitchy:

Senator Hillary Clinton in 2004 spoke forcefully in favor of traditional marriage, calling it “a sacred bond between a man and a woman, a bedrock of civilization stretching back into the mists of time, and the main purpose of marriage is for raising children.”

 

Read bullet | Comments »

Why Conservatives Should Rejoice at the Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage Ruling, and Then Do This…

Friday, June 26th, 2015 - by Scott Ott

Obergefell v. Hodges ruling SCOTUS declares same-sex marriage a rightConservatives and Republicans should welcome today’s Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges [text] which recognizes same-sex marriage as a “right,” and thus, under the 14th Amendment, applicable against the states. They should thank God for the blessing of being freed from the shackles of government, but only if they plan to act on this Divine opportunity.

Our gratitude is for a kick in the pants from God, though it be delivered by the boot of a heathen court. Perhaps it will finally spark us to reclaim our heritage of individual rights. 

Of course, this really isn’t about today’s SCOTUS ruling. We should have done this long ago. We should utterly remove government from our intimate relationships. Nothing in our Constitution or Declaration of Independence requires government to incentivize or reward or restrain mutuallyvoluntary intimate relationships. There are only two kinds of rights protected in the Constitution, and they both apply against the federal government: the rights of the states, and the rights of the People. Neither of those is contingent upon whether, or whom, you marry. 

For too long now some of my conservative brethren (and sistren) have sought to use the power of government licensure, regulation, benefits and taxation to incentivize the Biblical view of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Of course, any one who has ever loved enough to pledge fidelity for life might wonder why any incentive is needed — a bridal bridle, perhaps, to rein in the straining suitor, but a goad seems superfluous.

Yet, conservatives have gone beyond incentivizing marriage, to defining it statutorily, seeking to specify a scope that matches the one God uses, which Biblical Jesus-lovers know is ultimately a picture of Christ and His church. But this use of government force to mandate or restrict marriage is not a Biblical injunction — unless you would pretend that our government of, by and for, the People, is like unto the Mosaic theocracy.

When conservatives try to use the force of government to favor their Biblical or moral views, they err in the same fashion that Leftists and Progressives do when they push to institutionalize their idols of amorality and sin.

The New Testament is a portrait of grace, mercy, forgiveness, redemption and new beginnings. Jesus didn’t nail the Decalogue (10 Commandments) to the doors of the Curia Cornelia (the seat of the Roman senate). Jesus called on his disciple to believe in Him, to put down your sword, to sell what you have and give to the poor, to take up your cross, to lay down your life and to follow Him.

The Apostle Paul, through whose pen flowed the greater part of the New Testament letters, was transformed upon meeting the resurrected Christ. The old Saul got changed from a man who hunted down law-breakers to compel their submission (or witness their stoning), into a man, Paul, who knew that obedience flows from gratitude for the love of Christ. He realized, like a bolt from the blue, that Jesus fulfilled the letter and spirit of the law through his life, and Jesus paid the penalty for law-breakers through his brutal death. The law is no longer our slave-master, but a tutor to bring us to Christ…to bring us to the point where we understand that God’s holiness cannot be approached through human effort. It took an act of extreme mercy to shred the veil of the Temple from top to bottom, and thus to open a way for us into the Holy of Holies, the very presence of God.

The point is, that you shouldn’t expect the heathen to adhere to the Bible, nor should you enlist the government to compel them by force to do that which you embrace by grace alone. I know there are all kinds of secular arguments about marriage as the cornerstone of a stable republic. Some are useful, but none require the force of government to achieve.

Read bullet | 79 Comments »

Yet Another ‘Known Wolf’: France’s Beheading Terrorist Was Well-Known By Authorities, But No Action Was Taken

Friday, June 26th, 2015 - by Patrick Poole

Yassin Salhi, the suspect in a beheading at a factory owned by an American company near Lyon, France, had been known to authorities for his connections to the Salafist networks in the area since 2006.

Reports indicate that authorities were well-aware of his increased radicalization over the past two years.

The victim appears to be Salhi’s former employer:

Here’s a rough timeline of events related to the attack, via Le Monde and France24:

  • A person rammed a car into the premises of a factory owned by U.S. company Air Products in the town of Saint-Quentin-Fallavier, triggering an explosion.
  • Police have said a decapitated head was found at the site, along with a flag bearing Arabic writing, although there was uncertainty about how the man was decapitated and where. The head was also covered in Arabic writing, according to authorities and media reports.
  • The attacker got out of the car to go into the factory and attempt to cause more explosions.
  • Firefighters arrived to hear him shouting “Allahu Akbar!” (Allah is great)
  • They managed to surround him and keep him there until police arrived to arrest him.

French President François Hollande said that this was a terrorist attack:

YouTube Preview Image

The plant is owned by an American company, Air Products:

Here is a map locating the village near Lyon where the attack took place:

Salhi’s contacts with French authorities go back to 2006:

BRTL-France notes that French security service DGSE had two notes from May 2014 noting Salhi’s increased radicalization and a “brutal” change in his appearance, along with two of his friends. They reportedly wanted to create an Islamic institute in Besançon:

As regular readers of PJ Media will recall, since last year I’ve been reporting on what I’ve termed the “known wolf” terrorism problem: when terror suspects are already known to law enforcement authorities prior to committing an attack.

Here’s a recap of my “known wolf” terror reporting:

Oct. 24, 2014: ‘Lone Wolf’ or ‘Known Wolf’: The Ongoing Counter-Terrorism Failure

Dec. 15, 2014: Sydney Hostage Taker Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Syndrome

Jan. 7, 2015: Paris Terror Attack Yet Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Syndrome

Feb. 3, 2015: French Police Terror Attacker Yesterday Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Syndrome

Feb. 15, 2015: Copenhagen Killer Was yet Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Terrorism

Feb. 26, 2015: Islamic State Beheader ‘Jihadi John’ Yet Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Terrorism

Apr. 22, 2015: Botched Attack on Paris Churches Another Case of “Known Wolf” Terrorism

May 4, 2015: Texas Attack Is Yet Another Case of ‘Known Wolf’ Terrorism

This was also the subject of a Capitol Hill briefing I gave back in late January sponsored by the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET):

YouTube Preview Image

I discussed “known wolves” in this interview with my colleague Erick Stakelbeck at CBN News. You can watch that video on the next page.

Read bullet | 9 Comments »

New al-Qaeda Magazine Warns of ‘New Pearl Harbor’ with ‘Game-Changer’ Military Strategy

Friday, June 26th, 2015 - by Bridget Johnson

Al-Qaeda relatively new — yet gruesomely active — chapter in southeast Asia debuted the second edition of its English-language magazine today, with slain American jihadist Adam Gadahn as the cover boy and occupying nearly every one of its 92 pages.

It also included a warning about what al-Qaeda sees at a “game-changer” in future attacks.

Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent dubs their magazine Resurgence — just as long and slick as al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s Inspire, which has inspired American jihadists with tutorials such as the pressure-cooker bomb directions used by the Boston Marathon bombers.

AQIS’s special summer issue is dedicated to the longtime al-Qaeda operative Gadahn, who was killed in a U.S. airstrike earlier this year, and other recently killed al-Qaeda members including AQIS deputy emir Ahmad Farooq, who have “increased our resolve to carry on the mission” for which they “sacrificed” their lives.

It also raises the death of USAID contractor Warren Weinstein, a longtime al-Qaeda hostage killed in January in a U.S. drone strike. President Obama admitted the strike a few months later.

“By intentionally killing its own citizen (Dr. Weinstein), the American government has once again proved itself to be a stubborn and arrogant enemy of Islam which prefers the assassination of its citizen to the release of a single innocent Muslim woman being unjustly held in American captivity: Dr. Aafia Siddiqui,” the magazine writes, noting the “Lady al-Qaeda” who has also been sought by ISIS in exchange for slain hostage James Foley.

“Not only is Obama responsible for the politically motivated killings of Dr. Weinstein and [Italian hostage] Lo Porto, he is also deceiving his nation by claiming that this was ‘accidental’. We don’t have any doubt that the criminal silence of the American government regarding Dr. Weinstein and its refusal to negotiate the terms of his release were motivated by the desire to see him dead, even if this should necessitate an ‘inadvertent’ drone strike which could be used to explain away his killing as a ‘tragic accident’.”

They claim Weinstein was treated well by al-Qaeda, with a “sumptuous diet” including “salmon on a daily basis.” They also claimed that al-Qaeda spent 80,000 rupees a month on 73-year-old Weinstein’s heart medicines and dietary needs.

The magazine hails Gadahn’s “contribution to Jihadi media” as “undoubtedly one of the major achievements of his life.”

“It would hardly be an exaggeration to say that he was a one-man media team; script-writing, recording, translating, dubbing, editing, and producing speeches and documentaries on his own. His ability to improvise and make the best of available resources was remarkable.”

The magazine claims Gadahn was almost captured alive in Karachi on two occasions. Gadahn moved to Pakistan from Southern California in 1998, and Resurgence claims that 9/11 hijacker Hani Hanjour asked him about U.S. airline security in 1999.

The rest of the issue features a massive interview with Gadahn in which he talks about being homeschooled because “there is no doubting the facts that schools—particularly American public schools—are one of the leading causes of the corruption of children’s minds, values, morals, manners and health.”

“Don’t forget, it’s the American school system which considers pizza to be a vegetable, men and apes to be descended from a common ancestor, and sex outside marriage to be OK as long as it’s ‘safe’!” Gadahn said in a pages-long argument for homeschooling. “So protecting us from such evils and negative influences is probably the main reason my parents didn’t send me or my siblings to school.”

He said he was introduced to Islam through his counterculture parents dabbling in every religion as he grew up. Gadahn said his full conversion didn’t cause any “real problems” with his family, except when his grandfather asked him to fetch some beer.

Gadahn spoke of meeting Muslims with an “affinity for jihad” in Southern California, including the local Muslim Brotherhood and “Jama’at-i-Islami-type brothers who were affiliated with a nationwide organization called ICNA (Islamic Circle of North America).” He said his “turn to jihad” began in 1996.

“I think I was motivated by two things in particular which are common to almost all those who mobilize: the urge to help and defend persecuted and oppressed Muslims wherever they might be, and the urge to help in the establishment of the Islamic state,” Gadahn says. “…Frankly, I was afraid that if I remained in America I would sooner or later leave my religion.”

Gadahn returned to the U.S. for a year after his initial training, and admits he was tempted to conduct a terrorist attack.

“When I heard Clinton—the American president—announce that American forces had carried
out missile strikes against camps run by Shaykh Usama (pronounced ‘Yu-sama’ by the hillbilly in the White House), I was overcome by rage and actually considered taking my grandfather’s gun and opening fire at some of the local government buildings (the Santa Ana, California federal building and courthouse, in particular), but since the gun in question was nothing more than a .22 caliber revolver, I quickly decided against it, which was probably for the better, because if I had gone ahead with the idea, it would have been a low-casualty, low-impact operation (to say the least).”

Gadahn explained he held onto his American passport to help facilitate “jihad work,” and urged jihadists to not burn theirs “out of misguided zeal and optimism.” However, he did tear up his passport in a 2007 video. By that time, he noted, he couldn’t travel on it anyway.

He also outlined what still distinguishes al-Qaeda from other terrorist groups: “its global/international reach and membership,” “its focus on fighting America, the Crusader West and the Jews,” “its lack of a written ‘aqeedah (doctrine/creed) or manhaj (methodology) which every prospective member has to agree to before joining,” “its recognition of the importance of public relations for the Mujahideen and of winning and preserving popular support of the Muslim masses,” and “its particularly close ties with
the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan [Taliban].”

Gadahn also slammed ISIS: “It has become clear that there are elements in this group—and in its senior leadership—who have little or no respect for the sanctity of Muslim life, and for whom declaring a Muslim to be outside the fold of Islam and spilling his blood is as easy as saying ‘al-Salaamu ‘Alaykum’!” He said they’ve deviated from the teachings and methodology of al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and violated Ayman al-Zawahiri’s “General Guidelines for Jihadi Work.”

“…The important thing I want all our brothers and sisters to remember is that if this ‘caliphate’ is defeated or destroyed or reaches a dead end, or if they see this ‘caliphate’ do things which no Muslim can support or condone, it in no way means a failure or setback for the noble and legitimate goal of restoring the Caliphate, because simply put, this self-appointed ‘caliphate’ is not the Caliphate for which generations of Mujahideen and martyrs have been working.”

Gadahan advised would-be jihadists thinking of running off to join the Islamic State to instead “carry out armed attacks against the enemies at home.”

He called a recent plot by Pakistani naval officers to attack American ships at the behest of al-Qaeda “a real game-changer.”

“It’s just a matter of time before the lions of Allah make good on their threats and carry out a new Pearl Harbor, with all that entails in terms of devastating consequences for what is euphemistically called ‘international stability’ (read Crusader hegemony),” Gadahn says.

“The use of domestic weaponry and machinery to attack targets of the Crusaders, Zionists and their allies—and the ease with which it could be adopted and imitated by others serving in all branches of the military, not just the Pakistani military but also other militaries in the region and world.”

He notes that the Pakistani officers weren’t al-Qaeda when they joined but were won over. “There is no shame or harm in failing: rather, the real shame and loss is in not trying. The story of Jihad is a story of successes followed by failures and failures followed by successes, and who knows: perhaps history will eventually remember this operation the same way it remembers the first attempt to bring down the World Trade Center.”

Gadahn’s message to Muslims: “While our enemies are evil and depraved, they aren’t stupid, and when choosing the targets of their aggression, they usually start with the weakest links in the chain, which are the peaceful and pacifistic types.”

Thus, he said, “hurry up and join the caravan” of jihad.

Read bullet | 8 Comments »

Justice Kennedy: Same-Sex Marriage Bans Violate Equal Protection, ‘Harm and Humiliate Children’

Friday, June 26th, 2015 - by Bridget Johnson

Same-sex marriage is legal nationwide after the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that prohibiting gay unions was similar to prohibiting interracial marriage.

“The Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the opinion. “For example, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12, invalidated bans on interracial unions, and Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 95, held that prisoners could not be denied the right to marry.”

Kennedy wrote that four principles “demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples.”

“The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy… A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals,” he said.

“A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education,” and current marriage laws “harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couple.” Plus, the justice added, the right to marry is not “less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children.”

“Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.”

Finally, Kennedy opines, “this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order… it is demeaning to lock same-sex couples out of a central institution of the Nation’s society, for they too may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage.”

The right of same-sex couples to marry is also enshrined in the 14th Amendment, he added, with current marriage laws causing “a grave and continuing harm, serving to disrespect and subordinate gays and lesbians.”

“Since same-sex couples may now exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States, there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.”

Dissenting justices John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito each wrote their own opinions, offering slightly different reasons for their objection.

Scalia said he wrote his own opinion, given a stamp of approval by Thomas, “to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.”

“The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws,” Scalia wrote. “So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage.”

“It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact-and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create ‘liberties’ that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention.”

Read bullet | 32 Comments »

Supreme Court Forces Gay Marriage Upon All 50 States: Federalism Is Dead

Friday, June 26th, 2015 - by Michael van der Galien

The Supreme Court has just ruled that gay marriage has to be legal in all 50 states. Although I personally support the right of gays to marry, this is an incredibly bad decision.

The “right” of gays to marry has never existed. It isn’t protected by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In fact, because of the 10th Amendment this issue (marriage) is completely left to the individual states. In other words, marriage is none of the federal government’s business; it’s up to individual states to decide whether to legalize it or not.

Combined with yesterday’s ruling on ObamaCare (read my article on that one here), we can only conclude that federalism is no more. America is now a centralized country, comparable to individual European states.

Federalism is dead. And that’s all because of the robed Houdinis who have taken America hostage. These men and women in black have decided that text of laws and the Constitution no longer matter.

Read bullet | 37 Comments »

Obama Dead Wrong on American Gun Violence, Researcher Claims

Friday, June 26th, 2015 - by Walter Hudson

Before the dead were buried from the cowardly murders of nine black people by a white supremacist in South Carolina, President Barack Obama politicized the tragedy to advocate for gun control. The president claimed in remarks to the press that Americans “will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries.”

Economist and researcher Dr. John Lott took issue with that claim in a recent New York Daily News article. He wrote:

Obama overlooks Norway, where Anders Behring Breivik used a gun to kill 67 people and wound 110 others. Still others were killed by bombs that Breivik detonated. Three of the six worst K-12 school shootings ever have occurred in Europe. Germany saw two of these — one in 2002 at Erfurt and another in 2009 at Winnenden. The combined death toll was 34. France and Belgium have both faced multiple terrorist attacks over the past year.

After adjusting for America’s much larger population, we see that many European countries actually have higher rates of death in mass public shootings.

Lott provides more statistics to prove his point. He disputes the notion that stronger gun controls would somehow reduce mass public shootings.

Obama advocates expanded background checks. But background checks clearly would not have stopped either the Newtown or Charleston killings. In one case, the killer got his weapon from a relative; in the other, he appears to have passed a background check . Besides, such mass shootings are also almost always planned long in advance, giving the attacker plenty of time to figure out how to obtain a gun.

Lott thus acknowledges the role humans play in their actions. If someone wants to kill, they will find the means. Legal restrictions on weapons only disarm those who obey the law.

How difficult is it to keep weapons out of the hands of would-be attackers? The terrorists who attacked in France this January were armed with handguns, Kalashnikov rifles, an M42 rocket launcher, 10 Molotov cocktails, 10 smoke grenades, a hand grenade and 15 sticks of dynamite. So much for the laws prohibiting all of these items.

The drive to ban guns only emboldens and enables those who would harm the innocent.

There is a common thread: Many of these attacks occur in places where general citizens can’t carry guns. According to one of his friends, the Charleston killer initially considered targeting the College of Charleston but decided against it because it had security personnel.

This logical behavior on the part of attackers is common. It is abundantly clear from diary entries and Facebook posts that the shooters last year in Santa Barbara, Calif., and New Brunswick, Canada, passed on potential targets where people with guns could stop them.

Obama’s stance on gun control, shared by many including the presumed Democrat frontrunner to replace him Hillary Clinton, places law-abiding citizen in jeopardy. The real answer to mass public shootings is stated simply in the title of John Lott’s book – More Guns, Less Crime.

Read bullet | Comments »

African ‘Economic Migrants’ Disappointed in France

Friday, June 26th, 2015 - by Michael Walsh

Life’s a bitch:

Against the odds, Hamed Kouyate has achieved his childhood dream of escaping African poverty and reaching the wealthy heart of Europe. But like many fellow migrants who endured a clandestine odyssey marked by toil and terror, the teenager now questions whether he’s just gambled his life on a cruel illusion.

“Europe has no gold or diamonds for me. I’ve had to sleep rough and go without food for days since arriving in France. Nothing has been as I thought it would be,” the 18-year-old says as he walks along the riverbank in the Parisian suburb of Creil, three years of travel and more than 5,000 meandering miles (8,000 kilometers) from his Ivory Coast home. “I regret leaving Africa. I would not recommend this route even to my worst enemy.”

The “migrants” enter through the soft underbelly of Europe, via Italy, Greece or Serbia, and then, once inside the passport area, try to make their way to the richer countries of the north. Rather than turn them back, however, the Europeans re-settle them among the indigenous population.

European Union leaders have agreed to relocate 40,000 migrants from Italy and Greece to other EU countries over the next two years, in an effort to share the burden of a growing migrant crisis. EU President Donald Tusk said the agreement was reached after an overnight summit early Friday, to show “solidarity with frontline countries.”

French President Francois Hollande said the EU will also resettle 20,000 refugees, “essentially from Syria and Iraq, who at this moment are in camps and who will be reinstalled in Europe.” The migrant crisis has caused tensions among EU countries.

The AP has been tracking some of them:

Since January, The Associated Press has followed a 45-member group of West Africans as they traveled by foot and cramped smugglers’ vehicles from Greece to Hungary via the Balkans. The route, accessed from a Turkey clogged with refugees fleeing Islamic State barbarism, is already the second-most popular way to gain illegal entry to the 28-nation European Union and its two biggest destinations: Germany and France. Unprecedented waves of Asian, Arab and African migrants are taking the slow, grueling route in preference to a sea crossing from North Africa, the quicker but reckless path to Italy. Thousands making that journey have drowned in the Mediterranean over the past year.

That trauma was all supposed to be worth it, the travelers kept telling themselves with each brutal setback. By April they finally reached Hungary, from which they could travel by jitney cabs and public transport links within the largely passport-free EU to Germany and France. The vast majority of the West Africans reached their destinations by May, having paid a series of Asian and African smugglers more than 5,000 euros ($5,500) to cover every link in the chain from Turkey to the EU’s eastern frontier.

While Germany has proven to be comparatively generous to arrivals, France is posing a tougher test. Neither permits the asylum-seekers to work while their cases are under review, but Germany gives the newcomers often high-quality housing in bucolic suburban settings along with monthly payments in the low three figures. Kouyate, by contrast, says he has received a single 40 euro ($45) payment in France, where he has bounced from sofa to bedsit to park bench and back again.

This will not end well for anybody.

 

Read bullet | Comments »

Ehud Barak: ‘We Could Defeat ISIS in Two Days’

Friday, June 26th, 2015 - by Michael Walsh

The former prime minister of Israel, a former commando himself, speaks truth to the other Barack:

Former prime minister and defense minister Ehud Barak was interviewed by Russian media outlet RT on Friday. He stated that it is he belief that the Islamic State “is not strong” and with an appropriate response, it would be possible to suppress and destroy ISIS within a matter of days. ”I think that ISIS is successful to a certain extent because they are not facing a concentrated effort to destroy the organization,” said Barak, adding “Technically they aren’t that strong- they are made up of only about 30-40 thousand people.”

“Basically, what they faced in Ramadi (a town in central Iraq that was occupied by ISIS) and elsewhere in Iraq are armies that don’t want to fight. When an army doesn’t want to fight, you don’t need much experience to win,” said Barak. ”ISIS has never fought a real battle,” he added.

History shows, from Omdurman to the Yom Kippur War, that when Arab “armies” go up against trained fighting forces, they always wind up on the short end of the stick. All it requires to defeat them is the will to do so. But it’s clear that the man named Barack Hussein Obama in the White House has absolutely no intention of doing so.

 

Read bullet | 8 Comments »

BREAKING: Muslim Terrorist Attack in Lyon

Friday, June 26th, 2015 - by Michael Walsh

France has an even bigger Muslim problem than England:

Police told French news agency AFP that a suspected Islamist attacker pinned a decapitated head covered with Arabic writing to the gates of a gas factory in eastern France on Friday, before being arrested.

One person has been killed in a suspected terror attack at a factory near Lyon in southeastern France, a local government official said Friday. Another person is currently in police custody and is suspected of involvement in the attack, Joelle Huillier, a local politician, told CNN’s French affiliate BFMTV. He is being questioned by police, she said.

A source cited by BFMTV said a decapitated head had been put in front of the company, next to which was found an Islamist flag. CNN has not been able to confirm the report. A man described as a witness, whose name was given as Patrice, also told BFMTV that a group of men carrying Islamic flags forced their way into the factory, beheaded a person and targeted gas tanks.

Le Monde newspaper cited unidentified sources as saying that two individuals rammed a vehicle into the building, causing the explosion. Banners in Arabic that haven’t yet been examined were found at the scene, the paper added. The Paris prosecutor’s office said its anti-terrorist section was opening an investigation into crimes related to a terrorist enterprise.

Until Europe stops “opening investigations” into the ongoing attack against what used to be called Christendom and starts dealing with the root of the problem — an ancient, alien, antithetical culture in the midst of one of its periodic invasions — this sort of thing will continue. But at this point, some nations like France, Sweden and Britain would apparently rather be put to the sword than admit their liberal “principles” have been wrong.

UPDATED: The attack is apparently ISIS-related. The war in Iraq/Syria has now come to both Europe and America.

Also read: 

Ehud Barak: ‘We Could Defeat ISIS in Two Days’

 

Read bullet | 14 Comments »

After Uber Bans Guns, Uber Driver Robbed at Gun Point

Friday, June 26th, 2015 - by Liz Sheld

Nobody could have seen this coming.

Only two weeks ago, the start-up transportation company Uber formally banned their drivers and passengers from possessing firearms in their cars.

Apparently a criminal in Queens, New York, did not get the memo. Or maybe he did get the memo. Can you think of a better mark than someone you know is unarmed and cannot defend himself?

The 30-year-old driver for the app-powered car provider was on 67th Ave. and Burns St. in Rego Park just after midnight when he stopped for a 22-year-old customer.

After agreeing on a price, the suspect jumped into the front seat, flashed his rifle and demanded the cabbie’s money, cops said.

It sounds like the criminals don’t follow the rules, doesn’t it?

This unfortunate story illustrates the reason why it is so important that people who chose to do so, should remain free to use a firearm for self defense.  The criminals — the rapists, murderers, robbers — don’t follow the rules or obey the laws.

 

 

 

 

 

Read bullet | Comments »

Robed Houdinis: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America

Friday, June 26th, 2015 - by Michael van der Galien

Shortly after the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the text of the ObamaCare law didn’t really matter and that it means whatever the anti-constitutionalists want it to mean, senator Ted Cruz made an epic speech on the Senate floor in which he blasted these “robed Houdinis.”

“Today’s decision in King v. Burwell,” Cruz said, “is judicial activism. For the second time in just a few years, a handful of unelected judges has rewritten the text of ObamaCare in order to force that failed law upon millions of Americans. The first time, the court ignored federal law and magically transformed a statutory penalty into a tax. Today these robed Houdinis have transmogrified a federal exchange into an exchange, quote, ‘established by the state.’ This is lawless.”

Strong words, but he wasn’t done yet. He quoted Justice Scalia — one of the few reliably conservatives on the bench — who said that “words no longer have meaning if an exchange that is not established by a state, is established by the state.” Justice Scalia continued, as quoted by Cruz: “We should call this law SCOTUSCare.” Cruz: “I agree. If this were a bankruptcy case or any other case of ordinary statutory interpretation, the result would have been 9-0, with the court unanimously reversing the Obama administration’s illegal actions. But instead, politics intervened.”

The senator from Texas and candidate for president added:

“If those justices want to become legislators, I invite them to resign and run for office.”

In recent months, some conservatives had put their hopes on the Supreme Court, hoping the nine justices there (or at least a majority) would uphold the law and the Constitution. Radio show host Mark Levin warned against that from day one. He said, time and again, that the Supreme Court — or any other court for that matter — couldn’t be trusted. These “men in black” have done more to destroy the Constitution than any other branch of government, the presidency included. After all, it’s SCOTUS’ job to intervene when a president goes too far. Instead, these political activists have done their best to uphold every single unconstitutional act by the president and Congress.

That’s why it’s time to promote a book: Men in Black, How the Supreme Court is Destroying America. You can find the book on Amazon and the audio version on the Apple Store.

My advice to you: buy it. It’s a great book by Levin​. In it, he explains that SCOTUS has worked to destroy the Constitution for decades already. Yesterday’s ruling is just one of many examples of such illegal behavior.

Read bullet | 8 Comments »

Walker Will Announce ‘Intentions’ Week of July 13th

Thursday, June 25th, 2015 - by Stephen Kruiser

Will he or won’t he?!?!?

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker said on Thursday he will announce the week of July 13 whether he will seek the Republican U.S. presidential nomination in 2016.

“The week of the 13th is when we will be likely to make our announcement as to what our intentions are,” Scott told Fox News.

Walker is in second place among the large field of Republican presidential candidates and expected entrants, trailing front-runner Jeb Bush, a former Florida governor, in an average of polls compiled by RealClearPolitics.

Polling may have Walker behind Jebster, but it’s early and Jeb has had a big head start in press coverage. However, based on the number of hit pieces on Politico alone, it’s clear that the Wisconsin governor scares the lefties far more than Bush 3.0 does. All he’s done is electorally abuse them for four years, after all.

Walker should be the last candidate who isn’t from the polling fringes to enter the race, as Chris Christie is expected to jump in next week.

Lament the size of the field all you want, but if the Republicans are going to defeat another “historic” candidate that the MSM is trying to elect, the nominee will have to be very, very battle tested.

Like Scott Walker.

Read bullet | Comments »

State Dept: ‘Yeah, Hillary Didn’t Give Us All The Emails’

Thursday, June 25th, 2015 - by Stephen Kruiser

Forgetful grandma is forgetful…

Hillary Clinton did not give the U.S. State Department at least 15 emails from her personal server from her time as secretary of state, the department said on Thursday, undercutting her claim that the 30,000 emails she provided were a complete record.

The State Department learned the email record was incomplete after U.S. lawmakers investigating the deadly 2012 attack on diplomatic staff in Benghazi, Libya, were given several previously undisclosed emails discussing Libya by Sidney Blumenthal, an old friend and informal adviser to Clinton.

“There are … a limited number of instances 15 in which we could not locate all or part of the content …,” the State Department official said in an email. “The substance of those 15 emails is not relevant to the 2012 attacks in Benghazi.”

So…they don’t have the emails but they know what isn’t contained in them?

Mmmmkay.

Prepare for Mrs. Bill’s flying monkeys to hit the airwaves blathering on about it being “only” fifteen emails and “no big deal” for the next week or so.

It only takes one email to cover the details of a Clinton Global Slush Fund agreement, by the way.

This failure to completely comply is classic Clinton stuff. They’ll dismiss it and immediately cast her as a victim of a witch hunt, which in Hillary’s case is a most apropos use of the phrase.

Either way, she said she turned them all over and she didn’t. So she lied.

Again.

Read bullet | Comments »

TX Republican Babin Introduces ‘SCOTUSCare Act’

Thursday, June 25th, 2015 - by Stephen Kruiser

An idea whose time has come.

A Texas Republican is taking aim at the Supreme Court after its 6-3 decision upholding Obamacare subsidies with a new bill requiring the justices and their aides to purchase coverage on the law’s exchanges.

Rep. Brian Babin is seeking co-sponsors for the bill, titled the “SCOTUScare Act of 2015” — which refers to a quip from Justice Antonin Scalia’s scathing dissent.

“As the Supreme Court continues to ignore the letter of the law, it’s important that these nine individuals understand the full impact of their decisions on the American people,” the freshman Republican said in a statement. “By eliminating their exemption from Obamacare, they will see firsthand what the American people are forced to live with!”

Sure, it’s political theater, but so is most of what goes on in Washington. At least this is grandstanding that makes a little point.

It also identifies at least one Republican who gets it.

Side note: as John Roberts uses Obamacare to flush America down history’s toilet, Antonin Scalia may be the last great conservative folk hero.

Read bullet | 13 Comments »

Love Her or Hate Her, Ann Coulter Warned Us About John Roberts 10 Years Ago

Thursday, June 25th, 2015 - by Stephen Kruiser

After conservatives took another gut punch from black-robed Obamacare cheerleader Chief Justice John Roberts, many of us were left wondering just what in the heck is wrong with this guy. After all, these Republican appointees to the Supreme Court are supposed to be on our side, right? They can’t all be David Souter.

It turns out that Ann Coulter sniffed another Souter-esque betrayal in the offing ten years ago:

After pretending to consider various women and minorities for the Supreme Court these past few weeks, President Bush decided to disappoint all the groups he had just ginned up and nominate a white male.

So all we know about him for sure is that he can’t dance and he probably doesn’t know who Jay-Z is. Other than that, he is a blank slate. Tabula rasa. Big zippo. Nada. Oh, yeah … We also know he’s argued cases before the Supreme Court. Big deal; so has Larry Flynt’s attorney.

But unfortunately, other than that that, we don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever.

I know it is all the rage in this era of hypersensitive feelings for some conservatives, and almost all moderate Republicans, to bristle at everything Coulter says and be dismissive of her because she has a knack for tossing out an outrageous headline-grabbing comment. Here’s the thing about her: she’s right a lot of the time.

Sure, I’ve got to deduct a lot of points for her flip-flop to become a Romney champion in 2012 but a lot of people were drunk on wishful thinking then (present company excluded). Other than that, she makes a lot of sense.

So maybe pay just a little more attention to her from now on.

And pray that Antonin Scalia lives to be 148.

More on Ann Coulter at PJ Media:

Ann Coulter Was Right to Tweak Libertarian Voters 

Read bullet | 55 Comments »

Hillary Loyalist McCaskill: But Don’t You Guys Know How Socialist Bernie Is??

Thursday, June 25th, 2015 - by Bridget Johnson
YouTube Preview Image

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) expressed frustration that the media isn’t talking about just how far to the left Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) exists.

An avowed Clinton supporter, McCaskill charged on MSNBC that “the media is giving Bernie a pass right now.”

“I very rarely read in any coverage of Bernie that he’s a socialist,” she added of her Senate colleague.

“I think everybody wants a fight and I think they are not really giving the same scrutiny to Bernie Sanders that they’re giving certainly to Hillary Clinton and the other candidates. She’s gonna win this as soon as I think they begin treating him like a serious candidate instead of ‘oh my gosh, it’s so great we’ve got a fight in the Democratic Party!’”

“Any other candidate that had the numbers that Hillary Clinton has right now would be talked about as absolutely untouchable, and all of a sudden ‘oh, Bernie, Bernie, Bernie!’” McCaskill continued. “I think Bernie is too liberal to gather enough votes in this country to become president. And I think Hillary Clinton is going to be a fantastic president.”

Sanders got to fire back later on Bloomberg. “I find it surprising that she says the media doesn’t refer to me as a socialist — there’s no article I’ve seen that doesn’t refer to me as a democratic socialist.”

“To my knowledge this is the first time a colleague has attacked me; you’ll have to ask Sen. McCaskill why.”

This could be why: Sanders is gaining on Clinton in both New Hampshire and Iowa.

Read bullet | Comments »