The Front Page Cover
~ Featuring ~
Dem senators grill Trump nominee over her faith
by David Limbaugh
.
15 States Sue Trump Over Rescinding DACA
by Political Editors: In America, we are witnessing a dangerous trend of elected leaders who spurn laws with which they disagree in favor of their own emotion-based “morals.” When Donald Trump rescinded Barack liar-nObama’s unconstitutional Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) executive order, several elected officials on both sides of the aisle seemingly lost all objectivity on the Constitution’s designed separation of powers. Their arguments amounted to emotional agonizing over the situation for these “Dreamers,” while little perspective was offered as to how this whole problem was created. Honestly, for those members of Congress blaming Trump, their ire is misplaced. They should be blaming themselves for not passing legislation and liar-nObama for unconstitutionally implementing a law they didn’t pass.
On Wednesday, attorneys general from 15 states filed a federal lawsuit against Trump over his DACA decision. While the merits of DACA may be debated, there is no debate as to the unconstitutional manner by which liar-nObama declared it the law. Now that Trump has moved to correct liar-nObama’s error, it’s laughable that these Democrat-controlled states are calling Trump’s action “unconstitutional.”
The lawsuit argues that Trump’s actions on DACA are “animus-driven,” unconstitutional and are driven by his desire “to punish and disparage people with Mexican roots.” In other words, their argument boils down to “Trump doesn’t like Mexicans, therefore its unconstitutional.” It’s ironic that these attorneys general who allegedly deal with issues of law and order on a daily basis are suing to maintain a “law” that was illegally created. They are undermining the very system they’re sworn to uphold, all to put Trump in check. They are assuming and promoting a double standard, but then again, what else is new? ~The Patriot Post
.
.
Just Three Years Ago Hypocrite
liar-Hillary Clinton Insisted Illegals Must Go Back
by rickwells.us
{rickwells.us} ~ As politicians of every type attempt to claw their way to the top of the “I love dreamers more than you do pile,” the irrepressible liar-Hillary Clinton was right there on the sleazier side of the pile... doing what she always does, pandering with the changing wind. While promoting her book Hard Choices, liar-Clinton conducted an interview in June of 2014 with CNN reporter Christiane Amanpour in which she had a much stricter view of what needed to be done with children, including those who fit the “DREAMer” description, who entered the country illegally. She said then that, “We have to send a clear message, just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay... http://rickwells.us/hypocrite-hillary-clinton-illegals/
.
Trump Admin Considering Demanding
Israel Give Back Key U.S. Military Aid
by Adam Kredo
{freebeacon.com} ~ The Trump administration is considering forcing Israel to hand back some $75 million in U.S. aid dollars that were awarded by Congress following a hotly contested effort by the liar-nObama administration to financially limit the U.S.-Israel military alliance... according to senior Congressional sources and others familiar with the situation. Congress allocated Israel an additional $75 million in U.S. aid last year, bringing the total package to around $38 billion, despite attempts by the liar-nObama administration to restrict Israeli efforts to lobby Congress in favor of greater funding for several key military projects. Lawmakers had objected to the Obama administration’s last minute Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Israel, which capped U.S. aid dollars to the Jewish state and included a provision barring Israel from requesting greater financial assistance from the U.S. Congress... http://freebeacon.com/national-security/trump-admin-considering-demanding-israel-give-back-key-u-s-military-aid/?utm_source=Freedom+Mail&utm_campaign=26b39d9104-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_09_08&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b5e6e0e9ea-26b39d9104-45611665.
Durbin Says He Worked Through Kushner
For Months To Get To Trump On DACA
by rickwells.us
{rickwells.us} ~ So much for the lawsuit claims by former DHS Secretary and UC president Janet Napolitano that President Trump developed his position on DACA on a whim... The No. 2 Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin, has been working his White House contact, fellow liberal Democrat Jared Kushner, hard, to press President Trump into coming around to their shared opinion, that illegal aliens should be given citizenship because they played no active role in their violation of our borders. They are playing an active role every hour they remain, but the only part they consider relevant are those they can use to help justify free citizenships. That one day they crossed the border is it. Provided they haven’t committed other serious crimes, every other day they have deliberately chosen to remain here simply don’t matter... http://rickwells.us/durbin-kushner-trump-daca/.
{theconservativetreehouse.com} ~ The United States called for a vote Monday on a U.N. resolution that would impose the toughest-ever sanctions on North Korea, a move that could lead to a showdown with the country’s biggest trading partner China and its neighbor Russia... The Trump administration adopted a totally new approach with this resolution, circulating an American draft Tuesday and setting a vote six days later. With previous sanctions resolutions, the U.S. spent weeks and sometimes months negotiating the text with China and then presenting a resolution to the rest of the Security Council for a vote. Several diplomats said the U.S. demand for a speedy council vote was aimed at putting maximum pressure on China and reflected Washington’s escalating concern over North Korea’s latest nuclear test, which its leaders touted as a hydrogen bomb, and its recent ballistic missile launch over Japan... https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/09/09/u-s-calls-for-unsc-resolution-vote-on-Monday/
U.S. Calls For UNSC Resolution Vote on Monday
.
Libtard Actress Jennifer Lawrence
Bashes Trump On Foreign Soil
by rickwells.us
{rickwells.us} ~ The interview with a libtard know-nothing who makes substandard, dull movies, Jennifer Lawrence, takes place with a non-American asking the questions... outside of America for the purpose of bashing America and President Trump. She had an option of answering or not and she chose to do so in a manner critical and demeaning of patriotic Americans who value our nation’s sovereignty and who, unlike her, choose to be informed and not to be slaves to her globalist comrades. The interviewer quotes the director of her latest waste of two perfectly good hours who said it’s a “mad time to be alive,” commenting herself “and there certainly is a sort of end of days feeling about it. For many people in America who would say, you know, perhaps it’s truer there at the moment than anywhere else.”...She show she has no brains of intelligences or knowledge. http://rickwells.us/libtard-actress-jennifer-lawrence-bashes-trump-foreign-soil/
.
.
by David Limbaugh
Dem senators grill Trump nominee over her faith
by David Limbaugh
{wnd.com} ~ It’s rich that rule of law-scoffing Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Dick Durbin grilled one of President Trump’s judicial nominees, law professor Amy Coney Barrett, for placing her religious beliefs above the law.
During Barrett’s appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Durbin asked her, “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?”
Apparently, Durbin thought he had Barrett dead to rights because of assertions she made in a law review article she co-wrote with her law professor in 1998 as a third-year student at Notre Dame Law School. In the article, “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases,” the authors discussed the question of whether “orthodox” Catholic judges and other judges morally opposed to the death penalty should sit in death penalty cases.
In these cases, the judges are faced with the dilemma of being bound “by oath, professional commitment, and the demands of citizenship to enforce the death penalty” while “also being obliged to adhere to their church’s teaching on moral matters.”
On reviewing the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings and the relevant federal statutes, the authors concluded that judges faced with such a dilemma should recuse themselves in applicable cases, thereby honoring their moral duty without violating their legal duty.
In an explanatory footnote, the authors explained they were using the term “orthodoxy” in a limited context to describe those following the church’s teachings on this issue. They were careful to note that they weren’t casting aspersions on the overall faith of Catholics who don’t adhere to the church’s teachings on the death penalty.
Seizing on the term, Durbin thought he would corner Barrett into admitting that she is an “orthodox” Catholic, presumably to impugn her as some Roman Catholic fundamentalist whose religious extremism would lead her to flout the Constitution. Durbin’s slimy distortion of Barrett’s unambiguous words revealed that he either hadn’t read her article or deliberately twisted her meaning. In this sleazy effort to entrap Barrett in a constitutional snare, Durbin landed himself in one of his own, because it is inappropriate for a senator to ask such a question of a judicial nominee, as the Constitution prohibits religious tests of any public officer.
Sen. Feinstein’s questioning was just as odious, as she upbraided Barrett for her Catholic faith, saying, “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.”
It’s particularly reprehensible for these secular-virtue-signaling senators to invoke their pernicious little trick bag to discredit Barrett because in her law review article, she explicitly addressed this very question and left no doubt that the law must control.
Indeed, the entire point of the article was to acknowledge and seek resolution for a judge’s dilemma in this very situation. Shamefully, the scolding senatorial duo intentionally ignored Barrett’s emphatic assertion that “judges cannot – nor should they try to – align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge.”
That is, Barrett unequivocally affirmed judges’ duty to the Constitution and the law and concluded that a judge may not superimpose her religious beliefs onto the legal system. The senators ignored that because it dispositively negates the impression they wanted to create with their questioning – that Barrett would subordinate the law to her religious beliefs.
Isn’t it comical that these two senators were feigning fealty to the rule of law when the Democratic Party advocates an activist judiciary, whereby judges make laws instead of merely interpreting them?
The senators are not concerned about the integrity of the law. They are just hostile to those with a decidedly Christian worldview, even if in this particular case the Catholic position happens to generally align with the politically liberal view on the death penalty.
Sadly, the modern liberal position concerning so-called church-and-state issues has become increasingly extreme. Liberals are no longer satisfied with their already bloated interpretation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which was originally designed to prevent the federal government from establishing a national church or religion. They’ve long been trying to remove most symbols and expressions of Christianity from the public square – even sometimes when the connection with the federal, state, county or local government is merely tenuous.
But now they are going even further, suggesting that the personal religious beliefs of public officials in any branch or level of government – not just the judiciary – should in no way influence their policy preferences. The absurdity of this should be obvious to any fair and reasonable observer. The policy preferences of every human being – and thus every public officeholder – are necessarily informed by his or her worldview.
Let’s just ask the senators whether their own worldview leads them to oppose the death penalty and, if so, whether that worldview would prevent them from following the law in death penalty cases. Better yet, would their worldview – religious or not – lead them to ignore and rewrite the law in any other areas, such as abortion, immigration, health care and taxes?
We know the answer. Ends-justify-the-means leftists, almost to a man or woman, have no hesitation in subordinating the law to their policy goals. It’s only when a Republican officeholder or nominee is openly Christian that they get worked up about this. But as usual, their simulated concern is misplaced, because Christian constitutionalists are the last people they need to fear in such cases. As adherents to the rule of law, they will not, no matter how religious or “orthodox” they are, ignore the law.
Despite their posturing, Durbin and Feinstein know that most liberal senators wouldn’t even face a dilemma in such cases. If the existing law doesn’t suit them and they don’t have the political clout to amend it through the proper legislative process, they’ll just ignore it as a bygone relic. They are fooling no one.
During Barrett’s appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Durbin asked her, “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?”
Apparently, Durbin thought he had Barrett dead to rights because of assertions she made in a law review article she co-wrote with her law professor in 1998 as a third-year student at Notre Dame Law School. In the article, “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases,” the authors discussed the question of whether “orthodox” Catholic judges and other judges morally opposed to the death penalty should sit in death penalty cases.
In these cases, the judges are faced with the dilemma of being bound “by oath, professional commitment, and the demands of citizenship to enforce the death penalty” while “also being obliged to adhere to their church’s teaching on moral matters.”
On reviewing the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings and the relevant federal statutes, the authors concluded that judges faced with such a dilemma should recuse themselves in applicable cases, thereby honoring their moral duty without violating their legal duty.
In an explanatory footnote, the authors explained they were using the term “orthodoxy” in a limited context to describe those following the church’s teachings on this issue. They were careful to note that they weren’t casting aspersions on the overall faith of Catholics who don’t adhere to the church’s teachings on the death penalty.
Seizing on the term, Durbin thought he would corner Barrett into admitting that she is an “orthodox” Catholic, presumably to impugn her as some Roman Catholic fundamentalist whose religious extremism would lead her to flout the Constitution. Durbin’s slimy distortion of Barrett’s unambiguous words revealed that he either hadn’t read her article or deliberately twisted her meaning. In this sleazy effort to entrap Barrett in a constitutional snare, Durbin landed himself in one of his own, because it is inappropriate for a senator to ask such a question of a judicial nominee, as the Constitution prohibits religious tests of any public officer.
Sen. Feinstein’s questioning was just as odious, as she upbraided Barrett for her Catholic faith, saying, “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.”
It’s particularly reprehensible for these secular-virtue-signaling senators to invoke their pernicious little trick bag to discredit Barrett because in her law review article, she explicitly addressed this very question and left no doubt that the law must control.
Indeed, the entire point of the article was to acknowledge and seek resolution for a judge’s dilemma in this very situation. Shamefully, the scolding senatorial duo intentionally ignored Barrett’s emphatic assertion that “judges cannot – nor should they try to – align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge.”
That is, Barrett unequivocally affirmed judges’ duty to the Constitution and the law and concluded that a judge may not superimpose her religious beliefs onto the legal system. The senators ignored that because it dispositively negates the impression they wanted to create with their questioning – that Barrett would subordinate the law to her religious beliefs.
Isn’t it comical that these two senators were feigning fealty to the rule of law when the Democratic Party advocates an activist judiciary, whereby judges make laws instead of merely interpreting them?
The senators are not concerned about the integrity of the law. They are just hostile to those with a decidedly Christian worldview, even if in this particular case the Catholic position happens to generally align with the politically liberal view on the death penalty.
Sadly, the modern liberal position concerning so-called church-and-state issues has become increasingly extreme. Liberals are no longer satisfied with their already bloated interpretation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which was originally designed to prevent the federal government from establishing a national church or religion. They’ve long been trying to remove most symbols and expressions of Christianity from the public square – even sometimes when the connection with the federal, state, county or local government is merely tenuous.
But now they are going even further, suggesting that the personal religious beliefs of public officials in any branch or level of government – not just the judiciary – should in no way influence their policy preferences. The absurdity of this should be obvious to any fair and reasonable observer. The policy preferences of every human being – and thus every public officeholder – are necessarily informed by his or her worldview.
Let’s just ask the senators whether their own worldview leads them to oppose the death penalty and, if so, whether that worldview would prevent them from following the law in death penalty cases. Better yet, would their worldview – religious or not – lead them to ignore and rewrite the law in any other areas, such as abortion, immigration, health care and taxes?
We know the answer. Ends-justify-the-means leftists, almost to a man or woman, have no hesitation in subordinating the law to their policy goals. It’s only when a Republican officeholder or nominee is openly Christian that they get worked up about this. But as usual, their simulated concern is misplaced, because Christian constitutionalists are the last people they need to fear in such cases. As adherents to the rule of law, they will not, no matter how religious or “orthodox” they are, ignore the law.
Despite their posturing, Durbin and Feinstein know that most liberal senators wouldn’t even face a dilemma in such cases. If the existing law doesn’t suit them and they don’t have the political clout to amend it through the proper legislative process, they’ll just ignore it as a bygone relic. They are fooling no one.
Comments