The Front Page Cover
"I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened"
.
Featuring:
Supreme Court
to Rule on Same-Sex Marriage
Alan Caruba
.
"Know who you are standing with"
"Show me your friends and I'll show you your future"
~~~lll~~~
.
Same-Sex Marriage Decision Hinges on Justice Kennedy 
Why Is SCOTUS Even Considering Same-Sex Marriage?
In the oral arguments over the Supreme Court case that may institute same-sex marriage nationwide, the Court appeared to split along its usual lines, with Justice Anthony Kennedy once again becoming the justice on which the whole decision rests. Like many, Hot Air's Allahpundit saw Justice Kennedy sympathetic to the arguments made by the pro-same-sex-marriage lobby. Allahpundit believes the Court will rule against traditional marriage; the only question now is by what vote. Nevertheless, some justices were cautious. For thousands of years, marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman. Then, the Netherlands changed its definition of marriage in 2001. "You're not seeking to join the institution," Chief Justice John Roberts said. "You're seeking to change what the institution is." He added, "One of the things that's truly extraordinary about this whole issue is how quickly has been the acceptance of your position across broad elements of society." The plaintiffs' attorneys have been practicing for months, running moot courts and rehearsing responses to Justice Antonin Scalia's style of questioning. The goal, The New York Times reported, is not just win, but "win big." If SCOTUS rules in their favor, then they already have. More... -The Patriot Post
.
National Guard, Curfew Quell Second Night of Baltimore Unrest
The rioting Monday night in Baltimore left 19 buildings and 144 vehicles burned, 20 police officers injured and 235 people arrested. But what we saw by dawn on Wednesday is that Tuesday's violence was subdued. Two thousand National Guard members and 400 state troopers enforced a 10 p.m. city-wide curfew. Baltimore was hesitant at first to crack down on the initial stages of unrest because many of the unruly were youth, but then the violence evolved. "When we deployed our officers yesterday, we were deploying for a high school event," Baltimore PD spokesman Capt. Eric Kowalcyzk said. "I don't think there's anyone that would expect us to deploy with automatic weapons and armored vehicles for 13-, 14- and 15-year olds."
Meanwhile, about 50 protesters were demonstrating in Ferguson, Missouri, last night when a man was shot in the lower leg. While it's not clear if the shooting is connected to the demonstrations, police threatened to use "chemical munitions" to clear the crowd. Later, a group set fire to trashcans and a portable toilet. Even after all this time, violence still lingers in the St. Louis suburb. However, Barack nObama wasn't about to say the riots are due to a malformed relationship between cops and citizens. No, for him, the problem is Republicans. He said at a press conference yesterday, "I'm under no illusion that out of this Congress we're going to get massive investments in urban communities … But if we really want to solve the problem, if our society really wanted to solve the problem, we could." Leftists believe the answer to everything is more money. More... -The Patriot Post
.
nObama: Congress Is Just Afraid of a Little Globalization
In pushing for a free-trade agreement with countries arrayed around the Pacific Ocean, Barack nObama has managed to enter the rare political situation of gaining opponents in both Democrat and Republican parties. Democrats, led by the likes of Elizabeth Warren, bray that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will hurt the middle class. Republicans, well, they have a right to be suspicious, because the administration that "led" the U.S. economy on its slowest recovery to date wants to negotiate a trade deal that will have huge economic implications. Furthermore, nObama is seeking approval for this treaty in a simple yes-no vote, a move that speeds up the negotiation process, but one that also cheapens Congress' role in negotiating treaties. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, nObama called the skeptics of the Trans-Pacific Partnership scared of a little globalization. After all, if the U.S. does nothing, then China will establish its trade agreements and earn influence over that corner of the globe. "What we can't do, though, is withdraw," nObama said. "There has been a confluence of anti-global engagement from both elements of the right and elements of the left that I think [is] a big mistake." There is a reason why the Constitution grants Congress the power to approve treaties, and the argument that we're running out of time is no excuse to trust the judgment of one man. More... -The Patriot Post
.
Since the very definition of marriage is up for grabs at the U.S. Supreme Court this week — SCOTUS entertained oral arguments Tuesday on a number of cases consolidated under the central issue of the un-constitutionality of states' ability to deny gay marriage — we thought this an appropriate point to interject reason into the debate, strengthened by an understanding of history — Constitutional history. Let's start with the basics: The Constitution of the United States has nothing to say about marriage, "gay" or otherwise. What does that mean?
Well, if you know nothing about civics, it means nothing. Unfortunately, that's the take the religiously zealous supporters of same-sex marriage are trying to foist off on the Supremes this week. Their approach, of course, doesn't admit to this, or even begin to touch on the truly core issue — Federalism — for the same reason abortionist supporters of Roe v. Wade did not: They would otherwise lose. Let's walk through this Matrix together, Neo.
The Constitution is the foundational legal document governing our nation. For almost 200 years it served as the backbone behind the body of laws under which the lowliest individual to the U.S. President operated. All of that changed with the Progressive Movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s, FDR's New Deal and a host of other progressive assaults on the concept of the Rule of Law. Wiser-than-the-rest-of-us progressives rejected this idea in favor of the arrogation that some people (read: them) are better suited to rule than others (read: you), and accordingly pushed to make the Constitution a "living, breathing document" (read: changeable to suit progressives' needs). The practical upshot of this "breathing" is that Rule of Law is all but a dead letter in our nation. But we digress. -The Patriot Post
.
WAIT. WHAT? HILLY CALLS FOR ‘RESTORING TRUST’ IN POLITICS
Facing a scandal that threatens to capsize her quest to return to the White House,Hilly Clinton debuted her first major policy speech since the official launch of her current campaign. Clinton focused on a call to end “mass incarceration” in America and denounced racial injustice in the legal system, but her focus was on the question of “trust” saying “we must urgently rebuild the bonds of trust and respect among Americans. …Restoring trust in our politics, our press, our markets.” That’s a pretty tall order for a woman who is now widely distrusted by the American electorate and facing accusations that she and her husband raked in part of their massive fortune through payola from people doing business with her State Department. Remember the last time Clinton spoke in so public a setting in New York, she was explaining that she had destroyed 31,000 emails from her time in office.
It’s quite a switch for Clinton to join President nObama and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., in anti-imprisonment crusade. Clinton has long heralded the tough-on-crime policies of her husband’s administration – laws credited with helping to end the bloody drug turf wars of the 1990s but blamed for a booming black prison population. Under the Clinton administration, federal prosecutors stepped up drug prosecutions and today, and today most federal inmates are behind bars for drug offenses. Facing pressure from her left and a skeptical black electorate, Clinton had no trouble making the reversal.
Clinton swung hard on the subject and seemed to score – at least with reporters. One called her speech “truly remarkable” and another called it “compelling.” But how about the issue of moral authority? Clinton is no doubt right that Americans, and not just black Americans, have lost confidence in the basic institutions of the Republic. What is unclear is how a woman who has been at the core of the bipartisan establishment for decades and is embroiled in what is only the latest corruption scandal of her long career can credibly claim the mantle of change. The candidate who is famous for shady dealing and intense secrecy doesn’t sound like the one to make the pitch for reform. -Fox News
Facing a scandal that threatens to capsize her quest to return to the White House,Hilly Clinton debuted her first major policy speech since the official launch of her current campaign. Clinton focused on a call to end “mass incarceration” in America and denounced racial injustice in the legal system, but her focus was on the question of “trust” saying “we must urgently rebuild the bonds of trust and respect among Americans. …Restoring trust in our politics, our press, our markets.” That’s a pretty tall order for a woman who is now widely distrusted by the American electorate and facing accusations that she and her husband raked in part of their massive fortune through payola from people doing business with her State Department. Remember the last time Clinton spoke in so public a setting in New York, she was explaining that she had destroyed 31,000 emails from her time in office.
It’s quite a switch for Clinton to join President nObama and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., in anti-imprisonment crusade. Clinton has long heralded the tough-on-crime policies of her husband’s administration – laws credited with helping to end the bloody drug turf wars of the 1990s but blamed for a booming black prison population. Under the Clinton administration, federal prosecutors stepped up drug prosecutions and today, and today most federal inmates are behind bars for drug offenses. Facing pressure from her left and a skeptical black electorate, Clinton had no trouble making the reversal.
Clinton swung hard on the subject and seemed to score – at least with reporters. One called her speech “truly remarkable” and another called it “compelling.” But how about the issue of moral authority? Clinton is no doubt right that Americans, and not just black Americans, have lost confidence in the basic institutions of the Republic. What is unclear is how a woman who has been at the core of the bipartisan establishment for decades and is embroiled in what is only the latest corruption scandal of her long career can credibly claim the mantle of change. The candidate who is famous for shady dealing and intense secrecy doesn’t sound like the one to make the pitch for reform. -Fox News
.
.1.
Proposal Could Allow Feds to Ban Book Critical of Hilly Foundation
(Lachlan Markay) - Hilly Clinton’s proposal to get money out of politics could allow the federal government to restrict or ban the publication of a book that has embroiled her presidential campaign in controversy, experts say...Clinton called for a constitutional amendment to “get unaccountable money out of” politics in an op-ed for the Des Moines Register published Monday. Her campaign did not respond to requests for additional details, but legal experts say similar efforts over the past two years would have profound effects on Americans’ free speech rights. Constitutional amendments introduced by Democratic senators in 2013 and 2014 could give the federal government the authority to prevent expenditures by a publisher, for example, to produce or publicize books critical of political candidates. http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-proposal-could-allow-feds-to-ban-book-critical-of-clinton-foundation/
.
2.
Marxist Democrats and the Return of the Hanoi Lobby
(Cliff Kincaid) - The main failure by top Republicans—and even many conservatives—is that they do not challenge President nObama as the Marxist he is, and they have no coherent alternative to his strategic plan of supporting America’s enemies...Reflecting the current mindset—that nObama is just a misguided liberal—Republican strategist Karl Rove failed to anticipate or understand the nature of the growing anti-nObama movement, and the potential it holds. He had predicted the GOP would pick up only six seats in the House, when the Republicans picked up 14 seats. He had predicted that Republican would win the Senate with 51 seats, when the actual figure turned out to be 54. Republicans like Rove do not understand the nature of the Democratic Party and how it has been taken over by Marxist forces. He had advised Republicans in 2008 and 2012 not to refer to nObama as a socialist. However, grassroots conservatives increasingly understand the dangers we are facing. http://www.aim.org/aim-column/marxist-democrats-and-the-return-of-the-hanoi-lobby/?utm_source=AIM+-+Daily+Email&utm_campaign=email050115&utm_medium=email
.
3.
Tehran’s on tear in Middle East
(Peter Brookes) - So much for those who were hoping that the recently concluded – but clearly unfinished – nuclear deal with Iran would serve as the basis for a replay of President Nixon’s historic opening to China...As the next phase of nuclear talks begins this week in Vienna, Tehran is on a tear. This time it’s in Yemen where news accounts report that a convoy of Iranian cargo ships may be headed for the war-torn country – where a Saudi-led coalition has conducted an air campaign that began in late March. It’s also been reported that Iran has moved some of its warships from its home waters in the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Aden off Yemen to conduct “counter-piracy” operations, according to Tehran. http://www.aim.org/guest-column/tehrans-on-tear-in-middle-east/?utm_source=AIM+-+Daily+Email&utm_campaign=email050115&utm_medium=email
.
4.
Christian Leaders Plan Civil Disobedience if Gay Marriage Legalizes
(Onan Coca) - The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments from both sides of the gay marriage debate, though it seems likely that only one or two votes are actually in question (Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts)...So, the question is, will the Supreme Court decide for gay marriage 5-4 (or 6-3), or against gay marriage 5-4. A large and vocal group of Christian leaders have written a letter pledging to stand against any decision to legalize same-sex marriage across the United States. The group promises civil disobedience and to present a united front to the ever growing assault on traditional marriage and Christianity. Some of the more well-known signers include; Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Franklin Graham, James Dobson and it was co-written by Mat Staver, the founder of Liberty Counsel, who told Todd Starnes, “We’re sending a warning to the Supreme Court and frankly any court that crosses the line on the issue of marriage,” Staver told me. He said that once same-sex marriage is elevated to the level of protected status – it will transform the face of society and will result in the “beginning of the end of Western Civilization.” http://eaglerising.com/17929/christian-leaders-plan-civil-disobedience-if-the-supreme-court-legalizes-gay-marriage/
.
5.
Hilly Equates Gun Owners With Terrorists
(Bob Owens) - Democrat Presidential candidate Hilly Clinton thinks that “gun free zone” signs work, twice claims that modern sporting rifles are “automatic weapons,” and states that owners of the most popular rifle sold in the United States today are a small group “that terrorizes the majority of people.”...The June 17, 2014 interview shows just how out of touch Clinton is with a nation where the majority of people in this country who favor gun rights. Clinton went on to bizarrely claim that those who do not bow to her views on gun control are “prone to violence.” http://linkis.com/bearingarms.com/GjRhw
.
6.
Trey Gowdy Destroys EPA Official Who Ignored Harassment
(rickwells.us) - John Reeder is the Environmental Protection Agency’s Deputy Chief of Staff. He’s also the latest bumbling, inept or corrupt government official to endure the sting of a round of Rep Trey Gowdy’s interrogations...Reeder is asked to explain his failure to ascertain that an employee he was vetting for a promotion, Peter Jutro, had repeatedly engaged in sexual harassment of other employees. It is a fact that was known to his immediate supervisor and was easily discovered by the Inspector General who investigated. The underlying theme for why the EPA official never discovered the abusive behavior, which Gowdy elicits in his typical unique fashion, is that Reeder never bothered to ask. One might expect questioning to be a major component of the EPA vetting process. Apparently,officials at the EPA are so accustomed to issuing edicts and dictates they’ve simply forgotten how to ask. http://www.rickwells.us/hostile-environment-no-protection-trey-gowdy-destroys-epa-official-who-ignored-harassment/
.
7.
Circumstantial Evidence
(Alan Caruba) - Imagine that you are the former Governor of Virginia, Robert F. McDonnell and his wife, Maureen, both sitting in jail after having been found guilty last year of public corruption for accepting golf outings, lavish vacations and $120,000 in “sweetheart” loans...Compared to the Clintons they are just two failed bit players. riting in the May issue of Commentary, Jonathan S. Tobin, a senior editor, noted the lack of a “smoking gun” in the case of just the latest Clinton scandals. “But what Democrats and all Americans should be asking about this argument is why some people get prosecuted for corruption on such circumstantial evidence while others are considered likely to be elected president.” “Just because a prosecutor isn’t likely to haul the Clintons into court over all these astonishing coincidences (or at least not so long as the Democrats control the Department of Justice), that doesn’t mean their behavior doesn’t smell to high heaven,” said Tobin. “The court in which the Clintons deserve to be condemned is that of public opinion.” http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/71569
.
8.
Jade Helm is Real - Texas on Guard as State Militia on Alert
(Michael Ware) - The mainstream media has ignored the news that a Special Operations Command was going to conduct exercises in seven western states this summer...Those who have reported this operation have been labeled as conspiracy theorists. Many have lied and or downplayed the event. However, in a time of growing divide and more mistrust than America has seen since the War Between the States, such activities seem very troubling to citizens. Now it seems that the mainstream has picked up the story, if nothing else but to calm the sheep. To pretend that this operation is preparation for some overseas operation is not very believable. If, then, the operation is set to take place to prepare the joint operation of military, federal and local law enforcement to take down dissidents, what is the actual purpose and where is it to be applied? What are they going to do that would make operations and coordination of seven states needed? That is what really needs to be the concern of the American people. http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/04/jade-helm-is-real-texas-on-guard-as-state-militia-on-alert/
.
9.
Britain told U.N. monitors of active Iran nuclear procurement
(Louis Charbonneau) - Britain has informed a United Nations sanctions panel of an active Iranian nuclear procurement network linked to two blacklisted firms, according to a confidential report by the panel seen by Reuters...The existence of such a network could add to Western concerns over whether Tehran can be trusted to adhere to a nuclear deal due by June 30 in which it would agree to restrict sensitive nuclear work in exchange for sanctions relief. Talks between six major powers and Tehran are approaching the final stages after they hammered out a preliminary agreement on April 2, with Iran committing to reduce the number of centrifuges it operates and to other long-term nuclear limitations. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/30/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKBN0NL09220150430
.
10.
Foreign Money Promotes Radical Islamist Agenda in Canada
(investigativeproject.org) - Millions of dollars are flooding into Canada from Gulf states to promote a radical Islamist agenda, according to testimony by the prime minister's national security adviser, the National Post reports... "I think it's fair to say, without commenting on the particular country of origin, there are monies coming into this country which are advocating this kind of Islamist extremist approach to life," Richard Fadden said Monday during a national security hearing concerning a new counter-terrorism bill. Fadden, a former director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, said that large sums of money are sent to religious-affiliated institutions in Canada to promote an "extreme Islamic jihadist interpretation of the Qur'an." http://www.investigativeproject.org/4837/foreign-money-promotes-radical-islamist-agenda-in
.Supreme Court
to Rule on Same-Sex Marriage
Alan Caruba
(factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com) - In 1973, the Supreme Court looked into the Constitution, found that it approved of abortion and overruled laws banning it. Other laws have since addressed late term abortions and those resulting from rape or incest, but killing human life in the womb has been lawful since then. According to the Guttmacher Institute from 1973 through 2011, nearly 53 million legal abortions occurred in the U.S.
. By dismantling the fundamental traditions and beliefs of a nation piece by piece, you ultimate will destroy it. Claiming this is done in the name of “love” or “equality” ignores the greater societal issues involved in marriage; the creation of families with mothers and fathers, and, indeed, the welfare of children raised in same-sex marriages.
. Abortion remains a moral issue in the minds and hearts of many Americans and now they are waiting to see how the Supreme Court will rule on same-sex marriage. As Ryan T. Anderson wrote in The Heritage Foundation’s publication, The Daily Signal, “There simply is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires all 50 states to redefine marriage.”
. “The over-arching question before the Supreme Court is not whether a male-female marriage policy is the best, but only whether it is allowed by the Constitution. The question is not whether government-recognized same-sex marriage is good or bad policy, but only whether it is required by the Constitution.”
. Anderson points out that “The only way the Court could strike down laws that define marriage as the union of husband and wife is to adopt a view of marriage that sees it an essentially genderless institution…” Marriage is all about gender and the union of opposites that is blessed by the community when a man and woman enter into it. To legalize same-sex marriage is to degrade the essential element of society, the keystone of family.
. What we are witnessing is the current high point in a long campaign to remove any obstacle to being homosexual and the right to marry another homosexual represents an important political goal for GLBT community. For them it’s not about the thousands of years in which all societies forbid the marriage between those of the same gender or the 227 years since the Constitution was ratified.
. Clearly the Constitution neither requires nor bans same-sex marriage. The thought of such a marriage would never have occurred to the Founding Fathers and the creation of a new nation had far greater priorities and responsibilities than same-sex marriage. Most such issues such as abortion were left to the states to determine. Even so, when the voters of California voted in 2008 to ban same-sex marriage, the courts there overturned it.
. We are witnessing a homosexual juggernaut that will settle for nothing less than their own interpretation of the relations between the sexes.
. When the Supreme Court hears the same-sex marriage case on Tuesday, April 28, it will be decided by a Court that is sharply divided between liberal and conservative points of view, but in the legal community, there is no argument that, as federal law states, “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
. That’s why the fact that in late September Justice Elena Kagan performed a same-sex “wedding” takes on tremendous importance. As documented by MassResistance.org, Justice Kagan has a long history of advancing homosexual issues and policies. A 16-page report leaves little doubt that she favors acceptance of homosexuality and transgenderism as “civil rights.”
. There is no way that Justice Kagan should join other Supreme Court judges to rule on this case. That would run counter to federal law and would be an arrogant dismissal of the most fundamental concept of justice before the bench.
. What we have learned thus far is that the practice of same-sex marriage has proven more a threat to the rights of those who are opposed to it for sincere religious reasons than for those demanding their services. If there is any justice left in America, a bakery or florist should be able to say no. Demanding that they act against their faith tells you a great deal of the homosexual mindset when it comes to their “rights.”
. I am utterly opposed to same-sex “marriage” for all the reasons the Bible and history provide.
. If Justice Kagan does not recuse herself from Tuesday’s case and her fellow justices do not demand that she does, the rule of law and justice in America will have suffered another serious blow.
.
.
('' YOUR OPINION IS IMPORTANT TO ME WHAT DO YOU THINK ? '')
Comments