The Front Page Cover
"I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened"
.
Featuring:
The High Court’s Disunited State
Peggy Noonan
.
"Rise up together as one voice"
"Be careful where you stand"
~~~lll~~~
.
nOBAMA’S IMPERIAL PRESS CONFERENCE President nObama was not pleased by the questions offered at one of his rare press conferences.
CBS reporter Major Garrett’s question, asking whether the president was “content” with a deal that left American hostages in Iranian hands, was met with a scathing “you should know better.” The president then told Garrett what he should have asked.
Later, nObama seemed to be wrapping up as he deflected a question about accused rapist Bill Cosby’s presidential medal by saying that he was intolerant of rape in general. But then nObama, as is not his usual practice, opened the floor to questions rather than sticking to a pre-selected list of reporters. But nObama only wanted questions relating to his Iran deal: “I just want to make sure that we’re not leaving any stones unturned here.”
There were many, many stones that were never touched, let alone turned over. What does the president think about the scandal consuming his longtime benefactor, Planned Parenthood? Is his administration reconsidering its policies on sanctuary cities? How does he account for the meagre success in training fighters against ISIS? Does he have concerns about the revelations that Hilly Clinton used campaign operatives to plot policy on Libya? Does he regret his Libya policy given the unraveling of that country subsequent to U.S.-backed regime change? Does he believe that the government’s data is secure in the wake of the most devastating hack in history? Does he hope that Vice President loose lips Joe Biden does indeed mount a presidential campaign? What advice has he given or would he give loose lips Biden? You get the idea…
A press conference is when a public figure opens himself or herself to questions from reporters, not a verbal press release with reporters present as props.
And for reporters who didn’t like this new low-water mark for presidential accountability, keep a close eye on the 2016 frontrunner who, with the help of nObama’s communications team, is plumbing new depths. -Fox News
CBS reporter Major Garrett’s question, asking whether the president was “content” with a deal that left American hostages in Iranian hands, was met with a scathing “you should know better.” The president then told Garrett what he should have asked.
Later, nObama seemed to be wrapping up as he deflected a question about accused rapist Bill Cosby’s presidential medal by saying that he was intolerant of rape in general. But then nObama, as is not his usual practice, opened the floor to questions rather than sticking to a pre-selected list of reporters. But nObama only wanted questions relating to his Iran deal: “I just want to make sure that we’re not leaving any stones unturned here.”
There were many, many stones that were never touched, let alone turned over. What does the president think about the scandal consuming his longtime benefactor, Planned Parenthood? Is his administration reconsidering its policies on sanctuary cities? How does he account for the meagre success in training fighters against ISIS? Does he have concerns about the revelations that Hilly Clinton used campaign operatives to plot policy on Libya? Does he regret his Libya policy given the unraveling of that country subsequent to U.S.-backed regime change? Does he believe that the government’s data is secure in the wake of the most devastating hack in history? Does he hope that Vice President loose lips Joe Biden does indeed mount a presidential campaign? What advice has he given or would he give loose lips Biden? You get the idea…
A press conference is when a public figure opens himself or herself to questions from reporters, not a verbal press release with reporters present as props.
And for reporters who didn’t like this new low-water mark for presidential accountability, keep a close eye on the 2016 frontrunner who, with the help of nObama’s communications team, is plumbing new depths. -Fox News
.
.
TAKE FIVE: KEYSTONE TO A SENATE FLIP?
It’s time to start picking the next Senate. Democrats are hoping to flip five seats red to blue to win back control of the Senate from Republicans next year. And we’ve asked for your help in picking what the top five battlegrounds of 2016 will be.
Fox News First readers think the most vulnerable GOP-held seats are 1)Pennsylvania, 2) Illinois, 3) Wisconsin, 4) Florida and 5) New Hampshire. -Fox News
It’s time to start picking the next Senate. Democrats are hoping to flip five seats red to blue to win back control of the Senate from Republicans next year. And we’ve asked for your help in picking what the top five battlegrounds of 2016 will be.
Fox News First readers think the most vulnerable GOP-held seats are 1)Pennsylvania, 2) Illinois, 3) Wisconsin, 4) Florida and 5) New Hampshire. -Fox News
.
.
IS A TRUMP-CRUZ PACT TAKING SHAPE? Donald Trump met with the man who has become his best defender, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, at the billionaire’s eponymous tower in Manhattan. Trump said ahead of the meeting he didn’t know why the Texas senator wanted to meet with him. Cruz, meanwhile, has expressed positive sentiment toward Trump since Trump began his presidential campaign despite his controversial comments.
In another move towards building alliances within the GOP, Cruz’s campaign also sent a memo to the other GOP campaigns asking them to oppose the polling standards for Aug. 6 Fox News debate in Cleveland, Ohio. Cruz’s pollster suggested requirements that would disqualify every current public poll according to the memoobtained by Politico.
“You know, I like Donald because he is brash, he is bold and he speaks the truth. He stands up to Washington. It's what I have tried to do in my time of public office…and I in particular salute Donald Trump for focusing on the problem of illegal immigration.” – Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, on “The Kelly File” -Fox News
In another move towards building alliances within the GOP, Cruz’s campaign also sent a memo to the other GOP campaigns asking them to oppose the polling standards for Aug. 6 Fox News debate in Cleveland, Ohio. Cruz’s pollster suggested requirements that would disqualify every current public poll according to the memoobtained by Politico.
“You know, I like Donald because he is brash, he is bold and he speaks the truth. He stands up to Washington. It's what I have tried to do in my time of public office…and I in particular salute Donald Trump for focusing on the problem of illegal immigration.” – Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, on “The Kelly File” -Fox News
.
.
.
UN Security Council endorses Iran nuclear deal
{foxnews.com} ~ The U.N. Security Council has unanimously endorsed the landmark nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers... The resolution, co-sponsored by all 15 council members and adopted Monday morning, also authorizes a series of measures leading to the end of U.N. sanctions that have hurt Iran's economy. Is this a way for nObama to working around congress?
.
It Would Be 'Presumptuous' to Go to Congress Before Going to UN
{Daniel Halper} ~ Secretary of State hanoi John Kerry defended the nObama administration's decision to take the Iran deal to the United Nations before the U.S. Congress votes on it... hanoi Kerry made the remarks in an interview this morning on ABC News: The ABC reporter, Jon Karl, asked, "But the bottom line, the UN is going to vote on this before Congress gets to vote on this?" "Well, they have a right to do that, honestly. It is presumptuous of some people to say that France, Russia, China, Germany, Britain ought to do what the Congress tells them to do," said hanoi Kerry. "They have a right to have a vote. But we prevailed on them to delay the implementation of that vote out of respect of our Congress." hanoi Kerry is a liar and should never be trusted. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/kerry-it-would-be-presumptuous-go-congress-going-un_993595.html
.
Will Christian Universities Fold under Pressure from Man...
{Matt Barber} ~ It’s by design. As I, and others, have repeatedly warned, the establishment of so-called “gay marriage” as a newfangled federal “right,” and the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment simply cannot coexist in harmony... Things diametrically at odds cannot possibly occupy, with any coherence, the same time and space. The secular left is tripping over itself right now to prove my point. In the wake of last month’s Obergefell v. Hodges opinion – an opinion that somehow divined a top secret “constitutional right” for Patrick Henry to “marry” Henry Patrick – liberals are now demanding, as both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito predicted, that Christian university’s immediately abandon recognition of, and obedience to, God’s unequivocal natural sexual order, and adopt, instead, the new pagan orthodoxy.
.
Anti-Military Obstructionist McCain Refused To Sponsor House Bill...
{/rickwells.us} ~ In what is clearly a preemptive excuse designed to cover his backside following the murder of five service members in Chattanooga, John McCain issued a statement saying, “long before the Chattanooga attack... we had been working to clarify a post commander’s authority to allow carrying of personal firearms.” Rep Louie Gohmert (R-TX) is asked, “Why didn’t the Pentagon act on this long ago?” He speaks to John McCain specifically, saying, “John McCain is a war hero for what he suffered during the Vietnam War, but he’s certainly no hero for what he’s been stopping. We couldn’t find a single senator that would bring the same amendment [to arm military personnel]. We got it as a part of the National Defense Authorization Act. The Senate is now negotiating with the House on that final bill. They would not, not one single Senator would bring that amendment to the Senate floor, John McCain didn’t want it.” He adds, “So I am thrilled that John McCain is at least verbalizing that he wants to allow our military to protect themselves. That has not been his position in the past.” They also address a tweet from a viewer which addresses the fact that John McCain twice voted against body armor as well. http://rickwells.us/rep-louie-gohmert-anti-military-obstructionist-john-mccain-refused-to-sponsor-house-bill-to-arm-military/
.
Anytime Anywhere Iran Inspections – With Proper 24 Day Notice...
{rickwells.us} ~ White House National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said on April 6th of this year, the Iran nuclear equivalent of “if you like your plan you can keep your plan,” that there would be “anytime anywhere” inspections of Iranian Nuclear sites under the sweetheart giveaway deal... Now that the historically pathetic arrangement is being offered to the American public for the ceremonial approval of the lapdogs in Congress, we see that there is an asterisk following the “anytime anywhere” language, referring us to the small print which reads, “Gotcha.” In the first video below, Rhodes tells the first lies, followed by Kerry and Moniz telling more, insisting that they never suggested that we would have immediate inspections, that 24 days is the same thing as anytime, and that “except on military bases” is synonymous with anywhere. I told you hanoi Kerry is a liar and should not be trusted. http://rickwells.us/anytime-anywhere-iran-inspections-with-proper-24-day-notice-in-permitted-areas-but-ben-rhodes-said/
.
hanoi Kerry Admits “Arms and Missiles” Were “Thrown In... 
{theconservativetreehouse.com/} ~ Yet somehow it was “out-of-bounds” for the U.S. to throw in the release of U.S. hostages. This admission by Secretary hanoi Kerry is reflective of two things:.. #1) The administration was desperate to come away with a deal, any deal; and #2) Affirming what nObama has stated – the weapons being released (under the lifting of the embargo) will come from China and Russia – and the only way to stop those arms from reaching Hamas will be to engage shipments from Russia and/or China, which opens up another entire can of worms regarding regional stability and U.S. interests…Unreal.
.
Congress Passes a Bill to Allow Conceal Carry on Military Bases
{gopthedailydose.com} ~ Today, following passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2016... which included an amendment offered by Congressman McCaul (R-TX), Congressman Carter (R-TX), and Congressman Rigell (R-VA) which grants authority to military base commanders to allow concealed carry of firearms on military installations, either for personal defense or as a force multiple, if they deem it necessary, Congressman Michael McCaul issued the following statement. http://gopthedailydose.com/2015/07/19/breaking-congress-passes-a-bill-to-allow-conceal-carry-on-military-bases/
.
nObama Released TOP IRANIAN SCIENTIST as Part of Nuke Deal...
{gopthedailydose.com} ~ nObama was defending his nuclear deal with Iran when Garrett asked him about the US hostages in Iran... nObama: I got to give you credit Major for how you craft those questions. the notion that I’m content as I celebrate with American citizens languishing in Iranian jails. … Major, that’s nonsense and you should know better. Of course, that is exactly what he did. The nObama administration did nothing to free American hostages during their talks with the Iranian regime. Now we know…nObama released a top Iranian scientist as part of the deal but left the Americans to rot in hell in Iranian prisons. http://gopthedailydose.com/2015/07/19/video-obama-released-top-iranian-scientist-as-part-of-nuke-deal-left-americans-to-rot-in-hell/
.
Clinton Slips Up On Marxist “Must Work Equally” Mandate
{rickwells.us} ~ Hilly Clinton is hoping for a repeat of history, with the blackness novelty vote that swept Hussein nObama into office being reformatted into the worn-out hagness movement... providing her with the same type of thoughtless and shallow “historic” voter response. In her speech at the Iowa Democrat Hall of Fame Dinner, Clinton tried to build enthusiasm and applause for her rapid fire listing of government entities and employment categories but the audience just wasn’t feeling it. The result was a long, empty and pathetic screech to crescendo. Aside from not inspiring the crowd to respond, Clinton herself didn’t sound as if she cared about her own message or believed any of the words she was saying. The career criminal and political insider who is as much a part of the problem as any other individual on the political landscape professed, “I am running for everyone who’s ever been knocked down but refused to be knocked out.” Are we to believe that Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick all took a knee? http://rickwells.us/clinton-slips-up-on-marxist-must-work-equally-mandate-reminds-dems-of-her-only-qualification/
.
National Security Expert Slams Hilly’s Claim to Intimidate Americans
{Rachel Stoltzfoos} ~ Democratic presidential candidate Hilly Clinton put her willingness to defend the Constitution in serious doubt when she promised Islamic countries the United States government would intimidate Americans... who violate their free speech code, national security expert Stephen Coughlin told The Daily Caller News Foundation. As Secretary of State, Clinton promised an international Islamic organization in 2011 that the United States government would “use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming” to intimidate Americans who improperly criticize Islam or Muhammad. “An official of the United States, in an official communiqué, went to a foreign land to commit to a foreign leader that the United States Government would engage in the extra-legal practice of intimidating American citizens in the exercise of what is otherwise their protected free speech rights under the First Amendment,” Coughlin told TheDCNF.
.
.
The High Court’s Disunited State
Peggy Noonan
.
.
In Loving v. Virginia, in 1967, the high court struck down prohibitions on mixed-race marriages. That too was decided unanimously.
In Loving v. Virginia, in 1967, the high court struck down prohibitions on mixed-race marriages. That too was decided unanimously.
.
Unanimous decisions tend to quell dissent; they confer an air of inarguable legitimacy, even inevitability. Whatever your own views, you as a citizen must acknowledge that nine lawyers, presumably skilled interpreters of the Constitution who hold different judicial and political philosophies, were able to agree on the charged issue at hand. Unanimous decisions rob opponents of arguments.
Unanimous decisions tend to quell dissent; they confer an air of inarguable legitimacy, even inevitability. Whatever your own views, you as a citizen must acknowledge that nine lawyers, presumably skilled interpreters of the Constitution who hold different judicial and political philosophies, were able to agree on the charged issue at hand. Unanimous decisions rob opponents of arguments.
.
Landmark decisions based on narrow splits reflect a continuing breach.
Landmark decisions based on narrow splits reflect a continuing breach.
.
Not fully acknowledged in the past days of celebration on one side, and profound reservation on the other, is that the court in Obergefell v. Hodges was split 5-4 on same-sex marriage, and that the dissenting opinions were truly remarkable. They were fiery and in some cases colorful, but they also showed a court divided on the essentials of the Constitution. Most strikingly, some of them included ominous warnings.
Not fully acknowledged in the past days of celebration on one side, and profound reservation on the other, is that the court in Obergefell v. Hodges was split 5-4 on same-sex marriage, and that the dissenting opinions were truly remarkable. They were fiery and in some cases colorful, but they also showed a court divided on the essentials of the Constitution. Most strikingly, some of them included ominous warnings.
.
Chief Justice John Roberts scored what he sees as the court’s grandiosity and overreach.
Chief Justice John Roberts scored what he sees as the court’s grandiosity and overreach.
.
The petitioners in the case had “strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness” that same-sex couples should be allowed to “affirm their love and commitment” through marriage. In the past six years voters or legislators in 11 states and the District of Columbia had revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex. The highest courts in five states “decreed the same result.” Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved “considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view.”
The petitioners in the case had “strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness” that same-sex couples should be allowed to “affirm their love and commitment” through marriage. In the past six years voters or legislators in 11 states and the District of Columbia had revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex. The highest courts in five states “decreed the same result.” Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved “considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view.”
.
But the high court has stopped that “vibrant debate.” The majority has “enacted their own vision of marriage.” In effect they are “stealing this issue from the people,” which will make “a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.”
But the high court has stopped that “vibrant debate.” The majority has “enacted their own vision of marriage.” In effect they are “stealing this issue from the people,” which will make “a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.”
.
“The Constitution itself says nothing about marriage,” the chief justice observed, so that states are “free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.” The majority has taken an “extraordinary step” in ordering every state to license and recognize same-sex marriage. The court’s decision is “an act of will, not legal judgment.” It “omits even a pretense of humility,” instead moving on a desire “to remake society” according to what it calls “new insights.”
“The Constitution itself says nothing about marriage,” the chief justice observed, so that states are “free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.” The majority has taken an “extraordinary step” in ordering every state to license and recognize same-sex marriage. The court’s decision is “an act of will, not legal judgment.” It “omits even a pretense of humility,” instead moving on a desire “to remake society” according to what it calls “new insights.”
.
“The truth is that today’s decision rests on nothing more than the majority’s own conviction that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry because they want to,” the chief justice argues. “The Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?”
“The truth is that today’s decision rests on nothing more than the majority’s own conviction that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry because they want to,” the chief justice argues. “The Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?”
.
That grandiosity endangers the Court’s very legitimacy, which rests on public respect that “flows from the perception—and the reality—that we exercise humility and restraint in deciding cases according to the Constitution and the law.”
That grandiosity endangers the Court’s very legitimacy, which rests on public respect that “flows from the perception—and the reality—that we exercise humility and restraint in deciding cases according to the Constitution and the law.”
.
The Obergefell Court is “anything but humble or restrained. Over and over, the majority exalts the role of the judiciary in delivering social change.” They act as if “it is the courts, not the people, who are responsible for making ‘new dimensions of freedom . . . apparent to new generations.’ . . . Those who founded our country would not recognize the majority’s conception of the judicial role.”
The Obergefell Court is “anything but humble or restrained. Over and over, the majority exalts the role of the judiciary in delivering social change.” They act as if “it is the courts, not the people, who are responsible for making ‘new dimensions of freedom . . . apparent to new generations.’ . . . Those who founded our country would not recognize the majority’s conception of the judicial role.”
.
And the decision raises serious questions about religious liberty. Every state that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically has, “out of respect for sincere religious conviction,” included accommodations for religious practice. There are none in this decision. The majority “graciously suggests” that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. “The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to ‘exercise’ religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.”
And the decision raises serious questions about religious liberty. Every state that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically has, “out of respect for sincere religious conviction,” included accommodations for religious practice. There are none in this decision. The majority “graciously suggests” that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. “The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to ‘exercise’ religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.”
.
Finally, and “most discouraging,” the majority felt “compelled to sully those on the other side of the debate.” “Americans who did nothing more than follow the understanding of marriage that has existed for our entire history”—including the tens of millions who voted to reaffirm their state’s enduring definition of marriage—are depicted as having disparaged and inflicted “ ‘dignitary wounds’ upon their gay and lesbian neighbors. These apparent assaults on the character of fair-minded people will have an effect, in society and in court.”
Finally, and “most discouraging,” the majority felt “compelled to sully those on the other side of the debate.” “Americans who did nothing more than follow the understanding of marriage that has existed for our entire history”—including the tens of millions who voted to reaffirm their state’s enduring definition of marriage—are depicted as having disparaged and inflicted “ ‘dignitary wounds’ upon their gay and lesbian neighbors. These apparent assaults on the character of fair-minded people will have an effect, in society and in court.”
.
Justice Antonin Scalia put his criticism in populist terms. His message seemed a warning to the court. “Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers of the Supreme Court. . . . A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”
Justice Antonin Scalia put his criticism in populist terms. His message seemed a warning to the court. “Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers of the Supreme Court. . . . A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”
.
Those lawyers are “select, patrician, highly unrepresentative.” All studied law at Harvard or Yale, four are natives of New York City, eight grew up on the East or West coast, “only one hails from the vast expanse in-between.” Not a single Southwesterner, nor a genuine Westerner, not even a Protestant. The “unrepresentative character” of the court would mean nothing if its members were “functioning as judges.” But in this case they are not. This “judicial putsch,” Justice Scalia writes, is the product of “hubris”—“sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall.”
Those lawyers are “select, patrician, highly unrepresentative.” All studied law at Harvard or Yale, four are natives of New York City, eight grew up on the East or West coast, “only one hails from the vast expanse in-between.” Not a single Southwesterner, nor a genuine Westerner, not even a Protestant. The “unrepresentative character” of the court would mean nothing if its members were “functioning as judges.” But in this case they are not. This “judicial putsch,” Justice Scalia writes, is the product of “hubris”—“sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall.”
.
Justice Clarence Thomas composed a ringing aria on the subject of dignity. The majority, he says, believe they are advancing the “dignity” of same-sex couples in their decision, but they don’t understand what dignity is or where it comes from. Dignity is “innate”; the government is “incapable of bestowing” it. “Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved.”
Justice Clarence Thomas composed a ringing aria on the subject of dignity. The majority, he says, believe they are advancing the “dignity” of same-sex couples in their decision, but they don’t understand what dignity is or where it comes from. Dignity is “innate”; the government is “incapable of bestowing” it. “Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved.”
.
If the government cannot bestow dignity, “it cannot take it away.”
If the government cannot bestow dignity, “it cannot take it away.”
.
Justice Samuel Alito warned the decision “will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy.” The majority compared the traditional definition of marriage to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women: “The implication of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.”
Justice Samuel Alito warned the decision “will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy.” The majority compared the traditional definition of marriage to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women: “The implication of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.”
.
Thus “by imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas. Recalling the harsh treatment of gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turnabout is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds.”
Thus “by imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas. Recalling the harsh treatment of gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turnabout is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds.”
.
You can hardly get more ominous, more full of warning, than these opinions, which should be read in full.
You can hardly get more ominous, more full of warning, than these opinions, which should be read in full.
.
Comments