The Front Page Cover
2016 The truth will set you free
Featuring:
Evangelicals Are Not the Boogeyman
David Limbaugh.
~~~
.
We're One Justice Away...
The passing of Justice Antonin Scalia left far more than a cloth-draped empty seat on the High Court's bench. It also left a docket of undecided cases with far-reaching implications for Liberty.
Chief among these are Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, challenging Texas abortion restrictions; Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell, fighting nObamaCare's contraception mandate; Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, arguing public employees should not be forced to support a public-sector union; United States v. Texas, challenging Barack nObama's executive order on immigration; and Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, questioning the legality of affirmative action in college admissions.
In any cases in which the justices already cast their votes but the decisions have not yet been made public, Justice Scalia's votes are now void. This may, for example, be the scenario for Friedrichs and Fisher, both of which were argued before Scalia's passing. How this will affect cases depends on the vote counts. If votes were cast and Scalia's vote does not affect the outcome of a case — for example, if he were a dissenting opinion or in a majority of more than five, then the cases will be decided by an eight-member Court.
If Scalia's passing means a 4-4 outcome, however, that's where it becomes tricky.
Some argue that a tie vote would uphold the lower court's ruling, but that's not necessarily the case.
Tom Goldstein, Supreme Court practitioner and SCOTUSblog.com writer, initially concluded a tie would mean the lower court's decision is "affirmed by an equally divided Court." He later said his conclusion was wrong and wrote, "There is historical precedent for this circumstance that points to the Court ordering the cases reargued once a new Justice is confirmed."
In other words, the Court may hear oral argument again in both Friedrichs and Fischer once a new Justice is confirmed — which may not be until next term.
As for cases yet to be argued this term, they will still be heard, but if the vote is tied, the justices may order the cases reargued at a later date.
In short, given what's at stake as a whole for life and Liberty, the importance of Scalia's untimely absence cannot be overstated. As we noted earlier this week, "[W]ith a series of 5-4 opinions from the High Court in recent years deciding the scope of our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, our First Amendment rights as pertains to political speech, the legal definition of marriage (and in the process putting our freedoms of religion, speech and assembly at risk), it is absolutely imperative that Republicans hold out for a strict constructionist in the mold of Scalia." -The Patriot Post
.
OPINION IN BRIEF
Larry Elder: "It’s one thing to disagree with the decision to go to war in Iraq. That, believe it or not, was once a minority view. According to a Gallup poll taken in March 2003, the night after the Iraq war began, 76 percent supported President George W. Bush’s decision. Two months after the invasion, a Gallup poll found 79 percent of Americans thought the war was justified — about half of those said, 'The war will be justified regardless of whether (weapons of mass destruction) are found.' But in the last GOP debate, Republican candidate front-runner Donald slump-Trump took things to a new level. He not only called the decision to go to war 'a big, fat mistake' (and, post-debate, proclaimed it 'a disaster') but also said: 'They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none, and they knew there were none.' ... Accusing a commander in chief, irrespective of his or her party, of knowingly lying to start a war is serious business. In the Iraq War, almost 4,500 U.S. service members died, to say nothing of the war’s cost. To claim that the Bush administration knowingly lied to start the Iraq War is to assert that the CIA was behind 9/11 or that O.J. Simpson was innocent of double homicide. Facts don’t matter. Lack of evidence means presence of proof."
-The Patriot Post
.
Hilly’s emails detail Afghan national’s ties to CIA Fox News: “One of the classified email chains discovered on Hilly Clinton’s personal unsecured server discussed an Afghan national’s ties to the CIA and a report that he was on the agency’s payroll, a U.S. government official with knowledge of the document told Fox News. The discussion of a foreign national working with the U.S. government raises security implications – an executive order signed by President nObama said such unauthorized disclosures are ‘presumed to cause damage to the national security.’ The U.S. government official said the Clinton email exchange, which referred to a New York Times report, was among 29 classified emails recently provided to congressional committees with specific clearances to review them. In that batch were 22 ‘top secret’ exchanges deemed too damaging to national security to release.” -Fox News
.
.
U.S. Cannot Protect Homeland From Iranian,
North Korean Missile Strikes
Adam Kredo.
Defense Secretary Ash Carter
.
{freebeacon.com} ~ The United States remains incapable of fully protecting the homeland from ballistic missile strikes from North Korea and Iran, despite spending billions to develop a missile defense system that remains unproven and unfinished, according to a government oversight report... The U.S. Missile Defense Agency, or MDA, continues to sink billions of taxpayer dollars into technology that is not proven to be capable of handling an onslaught of ballistic missile strikes from Iran or North Korea, according to the report, which was issued Tuesday by the Government Accountability Office. While U.S. military leaders maintain that the current system is likely to defend against “small numbers of simple ballistic missile threats launched from North Korea and Iran,” actual testing of the equipment does not back this claim, according to the report. http://freebeacon.com/national-security/us-cannot-protect-homeland-iranian-north-korean-missile/?utm_source=Freedom+Mail&utm_campaign=b487355309-WFB_Morning_Beacon_02_18_162_17_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b5e6e0e9ea-b487355309-45611665.
Iran’s Revealing Defiance of the U.S. and U.N.
Roger Aronoff
.
.
Evidence Shows That the Intel Chief Clapper Knew
ISIS Intel was Skewed
Kerry Lear
.
Clapper alleged to have known intelligence reports tampered with
.
{punchingbagpost.com} ~ Last September, it was uncovered that 50 or so intelligence analysts were having their ISIS intel reports altered by their superiors... Now some new light has been shed on the possible scandal. It seems that this “practice” has yet to stop and high-level officials may have been privy to it. Another set of allegations, separate from the complaints from last year, indicate that the director of the National Intelligence, James Clapper, was aware of the document tampering. These complaints came directly from a series of surveys conducted at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI,) but the agency did not investigate the claims because of the existing investigation. These survey responses were included in a large report released December for the review of national intelligence officials. These are not claims that should be taken lightly. Yet, Clapper claims to that he had no idea about these complaints or the tampering and deletion of ISIS intel documents by officials. “It is an almost sacred writ … in the intelligence profession never to politicize intelligence. I don’t engage in it. I never have, and I don’t condone it when it’s identified,” said Clapper to the Senate Armed Services Committee. http://punchingbagpost.com/scandal-exposed-evidence-shows-that-the-intel-chief-clapper-knew-isis-intel-was-skewed.
Arizona House Panel Approves Measure to
Reject Refugee Resettlement
Sarah Fisher
.
.
Low Blow: nObama White House AttacksSen. Chuck Schumer's 'Credibility'
Tiffany Gabbay
.
.
Personnel, Budget Cuts Leave Gaps
in U.S. Cyber Forces
Gidget Fuentes
.
.
It’s Time to Throw Out nObama’s Spending Levels
Paul Winfree.
.
Why Won’t Hilly Clinton Say She’s Not Lying?
Jeff Dunetz
.
.
Hamas Dances With the Devil
Paul Alster
.
.
Liberals Bewitched By Samantha Bee
L. Brent Bozell III 
Tim Graham.
Samantha Bee
.
{cnsnews.com} ~ The left is still in mourning over the retirement of Jon Stewart from "The Daily Show." One poor fellow at The Atlantic just wrote a piece that suggests he needs a grief counselor... "Slowly, though, it began to sink in: the dimension of our loss. Jon Stewart was gone — our sanity, our balance," James Parker wrote. "In nuking the news-givers, petarding the pundit class, he became one of the — became, in fact, the pundit/news-giver for a generation of viewers." Say what you will about his politics, Stewart was a jester giant, a comedy Cronkite, next to his successor, Trevor Noah. Never heard of him? We rest our case. http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/l-brent-bozell-iii/liberals-bewitched-samantha-bee.
.
Evangelicals Are Not the Boogeyman
David Limbaugh.
.
There are so many misconceptions about "evangelicals" -- from the definition of the word to the intentions of the people themselves -- but the most damaging myth is that we evangelicals seek a theocracy for the United States of America, which couldn't be further from the truth. I'll get back to that, but first a little background.
There are so many misconceptions about "evangelicals" -- from the definition of the word to the intentions of the people themselves -- but the most damaging myth is that we evangelicals seek a theocracy for the United States of America, which couldn't be further from the truth. I'll get back to that, but first a little background.
.
Recently I've had several people ask me what the deal is with Ted Cruz and "the evangelicals." The people inquiring are Christians, some even evangelicals. They ask, "What exactly is an evangelical, anyway?"
Recently I've had several people ask me what the deal is with Ted Cruz and "the evangelicals." The people inquiring are Christians, some even evangelicals. They ask, "What exactly is an evangelical, anyway?"
.
In our culture, the term is used rather loosely -- and, more often than I'd like, pejoratively. I'm seeing columns, blog posts and tweets galore suggesting in hushed terms that Ted Cruz adheres to some fringe philosophy that Christians must take over the world. It's not enough to accuse them of advocating a theocracy limited merely to the United States. No, world domination is their aim. This fear-mongering propaganda needs to be addressed and discredited.
In our culture, the term is used rather loosely -- and, more often than I'd like, pejoratively. I'm seeing columns, blog posts and tweets galore suggesting in hushed terms that Ted Cruz adheres to some fringe philosophy that Christians must take over the world. It's not enough to accuse them of advocating a theocracy limited merely to the United States. No, world domination is their aim. This fear-mongering propaganda needs to be addressed and discredited.
.
One tweet to me reads, "TedCruz is a theocrat. He is unbiblical & most Christians theologians/scholars believe he is a heretic. Cruz thinks he's Christ." Another asks, "Does Cruz want to be President or the 'Christian' Imam for the USA?"
One tweet to me reads, "TedCruz is a theocrat. He is unbiblical & most Christians theologians/scholars believe he is a heretic. Cruz thinks he's Christ." Another asks, "Does Cruz want to be President or the 'Christian' Imam for the USA?"
.
To laugh or cry?
To laugh or cry?
.
So, let's examine the meaning of "evangelical."
So, let's examine the meaning of "evangelical."
.
One respected dictionary defines it: "Of, relating to, or being a Christian church believing in the Bible as the sole source of religious authority, in salvation only through conversion and spiritual regeneration, and in the necessity of public witness to faith."
One respected dictionary defines it: "Of, relating to, or being a Christian church believing in the Bible as the sole source of religious authority, in salvation only through conversion and spiritual regeneration, and in the necessity of public witness to faith."
.
Many use the term loosely, as a synonym for protestant. More precisely, and in line with the dictionary definition, I'd say evangelicals are a subset of Protestants. They are Bible-believing individuals who believe in salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone. They believe that Christians are spiritually "born again," but only because the Bible says so, and not because they are snake-handling fanatics, as is sometimes assumed.
Many use the term loosely, as a synonym for protestant. More precisely, and in line with the dictionary definition, I'd say evangelicals are a subset of Protestants. They are Bible-believing individuals who believe in salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone. They believe that Christians are spiritually "born again," but only because the Bible says so, and not because they are snake-handling fanatics, as is sometimes assumed.
.
Part of the angst over evangelicals, I think, is based on the rise of the Moral Majority in the '80s, a coalition of mostly evangelicals who became political activists, not just on social issues but for all conservative causes.
Part of the angst over evangelicals, I think, is based on the rise of the Moral Majority in the '80s, a coalition of mostly evangelicals who became political activists, not just on social issues but for all conservative causes.
.
It wasn't only the secular left that reacted adversely to what came to be known as the "religious right" but also some socially liberal and even establishment Republicans, who enjoyed the religious right's electoral power but feared they would alienate moderates and independents.
It wasn't only the secular left that reacted adversely to what came to be known as the "religious right" but also some socially liberal and even establishment Republicans, who enjoyed the religious right's electoral power but feared they would alienate moderates and independents.
.
When you consider that evangelicals take fire from both sides of the political spectrum it's not difficult to understand how they've been so easily demonized and why misconceptions about their beliefs and intentions abound.
When you consider that evangelicals take fire from both sides of the political spectrum it's not difficult to understand how they've been so easily demonized and why misconceptions about their beliefs and intentions abound.
.
Contrary to popular belief, this nation was largely established by evangelical Christians, united in the unshakable belief that our liberties are God-given, and that the nation's founding documents are dedicated to preserving those liberties through a sophisticated scheme that limits governmental power to that end.
Contrary to popular belief, this nation was largely established by evangelical Christians, united in the unshakable belief that our liberties are God-given, and that the nation's founding documents are dedicated to preserving those liberties through a sophisticated scheme that limits governmental power to that end.
.
Indeed, Christians whose ancestors came to America for the very purpose of escaping religious persecution and seeking religious liberty founded the United States. And they enshrined that liberty in the First Amendment to the Constitution, in two separate clauses: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.
Indeed, Christians whose ancestors came to America for the very purpose of escaping religious persecution and seeking religious liberty founded the United States. And they enshrined that liberty in the First Amendment to the Constitution, in two separate clauses: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.
.
But historians have revised our history, and the conventional wisdom is that our liberties are owing to secular enlightenment influences. Christianity, they say, is intolerant, rigid and incompatible with freedom. To the contrary, Christianity undergirds, rather than undermines, our liberties. Christian precepts formed the intellectual underpinnings of American constitutional government. Even if French Enlightenment thinking had its run for a time, America experienced its "Great Awakening" around 1734, which was a nationwide Christian revival that re-energized America's spiritual flames and gave it a sense of unity. Its unique cultural identity was centered on Christian principles.
But historians have revised our history, and the conventional wisdom is that our liberties are owing to secular enlightenment influences. Christianity, they say, is intolerant, rigid and incompatible with freedom. To the contrary, Christianity undergirds, rather than undermines, our liberties. Christian precepts formed the intellectual underpinnings of American constitutional government. Even if French Enlightenment thinking had its run for a time, America experienced its "Great Awakening" around 1734, which was a nationwide Christian revival that re-energized America's spiritual flames and gave it a sense of unity. Its unique cultural identity was centered on Christian principles.
.
Most of America's Founding Fathers were strong practicing Christians, who believed that man was created in God's image and likeness, which means that man has intrinsic worth and dignity. It is that firm conviction that leads to the notion that man is endowed with inalienable rights -- that he has God-given liberties. The Biblical affirmation of man's inherent worth, then, is indispensable to the unique political liberty Americans have historically enjoyed.
Most of America's Founding Fathers were strong practicing Christians, who believed that man was created in God's image and likeness, which means that man has intrinsic worth and dignity. It is that firm conviction that leads to the notion that man is endowed with inalienable rights -- that he has God-given liberties. The Biblical affirmation of man's inherent worth, then, is indispensable to the unique political liberty Americans have historically enjoyed.
.
Don't believe fear-mongers who preach that evangelicals and other Christians seek to suppress liberties. You can be sure that precisely because of their Christian and biblical worldview, they are theocracy's worst enemy and liberty's best friend -- the people most committed to preserving our freedoms by honoring the Constitution, whose integrity must be protected to keep government power in check.
Don't believe fear-mongers who preach that evangelicals and other Christians seek to suppress liberties. You can be sure that precisely because of their Christian and biblical worldview, they are theocracy's worst enemy and liberty's best friend -- the people most committed to preserving our freedoms by honoring the Constitution, whose integrity must be protected to keep government power in check.
.
Don't misunderstand. Christians have a right, and, I would argue, a duty, to be engaged in the culture and in politics. They will advocate for issues in which they believe, like any other group, but they do not seek to suppress the freedoms, religious or otherwise, of anyone else. The same cannot be said, sadly, for some other groups.
Don't misunderstand. Christians have a right, and, I would argue, a duty, to be engaged in the culture and in politics. They will advocate for issues in which they believe, like any other group, but they do not seek to suppress the freedoms, religious or otherwise, of anyone else. The same cannot be said, sadly, for some other groups.
.
Comments