Blurred Lines: When Guns Become Speech by JEFFREY A. TUCKER

/in , , , /by

Suing the government is always risky. It’s mostly unsuccessful. But the inventor of the first 3-D-printed gun (“The Liberator”) is forging ahead anyway. He has filed suit against the U.S. Department of State for forcing him to take down his digital files from the Internet.

The New York Times quoted several constitutional attorneys who believe that Wilson case is non-trivial and could possibly be decided in his favor. First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams told the Times: “On the face of it, it seems to me like a serious claim.”

The grounds he has chosen are interesting and compelling. He says that by forcing his data offline, the government violated his free speech rights. He did nothing but post a file type with digital content, essentially just a series of 1s and 0s

The State Department scrambled to find some old regulation to use to force it down. They scrounged up Cold War-era regulations concerning “International Traffic in Arms” — legislation designed to control the flow of arms from the U.S. to Soviet-bloc territories in Eastern Europe.

But Wilson never trafficked in guns. He didn’t even manufacture any with an attempt to market them, much less transport them across national borders. He merely shared an idea through the medium that is the primary vehicle for the exercise of speech in our time. How can a law designed to prevent guns exports pertain to the sharing of an idea?

What is the difference between a real gun and a digital model of a gun? Guns are physical, weighty, take up space, and subject to the constraints of scarcity. To be transported, they have to be packed and shipped.

But what if you can take the model for printing a gun and render it in an infinitely malleable, portable, reproducible, weightless file that can shared like an email? Anyone who obtains that file can print a functioning gun.

Under those conditions, a gun leaves the physical world to become part of the realm of ideas. To invent it, change it, and share it is no different from inventing, changing, and sharing any other idea. It is a human right. And that is precisely what the First Amendment seeks to protect. For any government to forbid it is to muzzle the freedom to think and to speak.

Wilson publicly posted his computer-aided design (CAD) files on a distributed network. He did nothing more. It’s a form of speech. But the government said no. Over the following two years, Wilson tried his best to comply with the regulations to which the government claimed he was subject, but never did receive a green light.

Meanwhile, this being the Internet, his CAD files migrated to a thousand other places online. Wilson very cleverly assured that this would happen by releasing his file with a compelling video that garnered massive media attention. Millions of downloads took place. Just days after the files had been posted, crowd-sourced improvements to his 3-D gun were all over the Internet, and YouTube was hosting video tutorials in how to print and assemble them.

The case really pushes us to think about the implications of government regulation in the digital age.

Over the last 20 years, we’ve seen the acceleration of a great migration of the physical world to the digital world. It began with messaging, moved to images, and then onward to sound files and movies.

With 3-D printing, potentially any object can be digitized and ported peer-to-peer anywhere in the world, making a mockery of production controls, consumer regulations, trade barriers, patents, taxes, and a thousand other government restrictions. With the migration of money from physical to digital, and from national to global, as with Bitcoin, the same new reality presents itself.

The more this revolution progresses, the more we become aware of just how outmoded our systems of government control really are. They were created in an analog age where all sources of economic value seemed to be instantiated exclusively into scarce, physical goods. When government sought to control them, they were really controlling physical things and persons. This is what government does well, by use of its monopoly of coercive control in a particular geography. Government is a uniquely analog institution.

But what happens in a digital age when the physical inhabits a digital space in which “things” become infinitely portable (regardless of borders), infinitely malleable (regardless of regulations), and essentially indestructible (regardless of how much coercion is used)?

Government experiences a loss of control. It becomes ineffective, outmoded, and obsolete. Inner contradictions begin to reveal themselves.

In a digital world, government attempts to control really amount to an intervention in fundamental civil liberties such as speech that nearly everyone believes must be protected.

The American left — which has long believed it could heavily regulate the “economy,” while leaving civil liberties intact — will have trouble making sense of this one. The American right — with its belief that free enterprise can live happily alongside censorship — faces a similar cognitive dissonance.

What’s beautiful in this case is that Cody Wilson knew of this tension all along, and his gun was designed to underscore the point: If you try to control the Internet, you are really attempting to control people in ways that are unconscionable. He is a student of the libertarian tradition, and his passions are fundamentally with the cause of human liberty. He is not a “gun nut” so much as a “human rights nut”; now he can fairly be said to be a free speech nut. Matters are playing out exactly as he had hoped.

Regulating in the world was much easier when we are talking about land, heavy machinery, and other things that take up space. It all comes down to who has the most manpower and firepower.

But when the truly valuable things in the world cross that great divide between material and merely intellectual, the balance of power shifts too. The cause of freedom has the advantage. This is the single most salient feature of the politics and economics of our time.

I truly hope that Wilson wins his case. But even if he loses, he has made his point: Either we shut down the progress of the world toward ever more sharing of information, or we stop trying to impose atavistic forms of coercion and control.

Meanwhile, I just Googled for CAD files of printable guns. In a fraction of second, 2,000 different models filled my screen. In some ways, Wilson has already won. You can’t stop the signal.

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Digital Development at FEE, CLO of the startup Liberty.me, and editor at Laissez Faire Books. Author of five books, he speaks at FEE summer seminars and other events. His latest book is Bit by Bit: How P2P Is Freeing the World.

Republican Congressional Leaders Grant Obama “Unconstitutional” Authority to By-Pass Congress in Approving Treaties

/in , , , , /by

On Tuesday the Republican leadership will encourage the House and Senate to vote to pass the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) Initiative; the bill is known as “Trade Promotion Authority” or TPA—when no one has even seen thousands of pages of Obama’s Secret Trade Bill —now the Republican leadership is saying “we will have to pass it to see what is in it”.  The Republican leaders are planning to give Obama “Carte Blanche” to enter into “Fast-Track Trade Treaties” in “total secrecy” eventually with future countries like Cuba, Iran, China, Russia, etc., because Obama will be able to add other countries to this agreement, which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, because it “short circuits the legislative process” which requires a two thirds majority vote of the US Senate to approve Treaties.  Republican leaders are planning to give Obama unprecedented power to curtail Congressional checks and balances on Treaties, even while they have been watching him for 6 ½ years, violate Federal Immigration Laws, the U.S. Constitution, and Freedom of Religion for members of the U.S. Armed Forces.

The TPA Bill has many damaging provisions, among them, it will allow millions of foreign workers to be given visas to enter the US at a time when 104 million Americans are unemployed, the TPA will open the way to import dangerous foods products that will negatively affect the health of unsuspecting Americans, according to Congressman Alan Grayson (R-FL-9) it will ship millions of American jobs overseas, it will “force the U.S.” to abide by UN & EPA business destructive unproven climate change regulations, will “force the US” to abide by the UN’s Small Arms Trade Treaty(ATT) which was voted down by the US Senate & violates the 2nd Amendment’s provision that allows American citizens to purchase and sell their small arms, and it will force the US Congress to abide by every UN Treaty that undermines the sovereignty of the United States.

The TPA initially embraces 12 nations including the U.S., Peru, Chile, Mexico, Canada, Japan, Vietnam, Australia, Brunei, Darussalam, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Singapore; however there is a provision in the agreement that allows Obama to add other countries in the future, like Cuba, China, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, Libya, Syria, etc.  The TPA is a secret Obama Law, like the secret Obamacare Law, that will allow the free flow of Mexican, South American, and Asian workers to enter the US (not only will the southern border remain wide open, but the U.S. will no longer have any borders “at all”, or any barriers to entry), the millions of new entering foreign workers will willingly work for exceptionally lower wages under substandard conditions.  Details in thousands of unread pages of this law have not been read or worked out, yet the Republican leadership is giving Obama “Fast-Track” authority to make any and all decisions in all and every treaty with the initial 12 countries and as many additional countries he decides on in the future without Senate ratification (all future trade treaties will no longer be subject to the Constitutional requirement of a two-thirds majority of the US Senate for ratification).  Republican leaders are enhancing Obama’s control of foreign policy, while making the Congress irrelevant.

In order to deal with the millions of Americans who will be losing their jobs because of the TPA Bill, under the radar, the Republican leadership of the House and Senate is crafting a bill to go along with TPA, known as the Trade Adjustment Assistance Bill to be passed on the same day the TPA Bill is passed—-it should more appropriately be entitled the “Put all American Workers on Welfare Bill Because of the TRPA Bill”.   That new Trade Adjustment Assistance Bill specifically targets workers and farmers who lose their livelihood, because of this “Stupid TPA Bill” being promoted by the Republican leadership in Congress, which result in millions of Americans losing their jobs because of what Obama will authorize in secret “Trade Treaties” with foreign countries that will effectively be devastating to the labor movement and jobs in the United States.

Once Obama uses his “Fast-Track” authority to agree with UN Regulations, Congress would not be able to modify or amend those TPP provision entered into solely  by Obama by himself, without Congressional involvement at all, and Obama’s individual decision would have the force of the “law of the land” under the U.S. Constitution.   This proposed “living agreement” by Republican leaders in Congress will seriously undercut the re-employment of 104 million unemployed Americans, because as a “living agreement“, it would leave the southern border of the U.S. to be even more porous than it is today, and will allow Obama to change immigration policy “at will” without Congressional approval—those proposed provisions of the TPA are absolutely UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  Republican leaders are approving the massive immigration of Illegal Aliens from Mexico and 12 other countries.

The Republican leadership will surrender its authority to write Federal Immigration Laws by passing TPA, thus enabling Obama to use his pen to simply authorize the importation of millions of non-Christian Asian, Japanese, Malaysian, Brunei, Darussalam, Singapore, and eventually Chinese and Iranian workers.  According to the Greek Catholic Relief Agency, for over 6 years, Obama has refused to allow any of the 300,000 Syrian and Assyrian Christian refugees in the Middle East to enter the US, while Canada has been resettling those Syrian and Assyrian Christians.  Obama’s has only been allowing the entry of Muslim refugees thru the UN Muslim Refugees Resettlement Program, and has been intentionally excluded Christians.  Now the Republican leadership is giving Obama the right to bring in millions of Asian immigrant workers who are also not of the Christian faith.

Obama has been resettling hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees in 195 cities across the nation without elected state and city officials being provided with specific details on who is being resettled in their cities, and without informing them who is going to pay for the health care, resettlement costs, transportation costs, education of refugee children, the welfare costs of refugee families, food stamps, and housing costs for hundreds of thousands of those Muslim refugees being brought into their communities.

Supporters of this aggressive secret Obama initiative include Democratic Progressives in Congress, Democratic Congressman Danny K. Davis who received an award from the Communist Party in 2012, David Cortright who is Obama’s close Chicago associate on the Committee for a Sane Nuclear policy (SANE), Communist Tom Hayden who is a member of “Progressives for Obama”, Democratic Congressmen in the “Hanoi Lobby” who are aggressively supporting normalization of relations with Cuba, Cora Weiss who is a strong supporter of Communism & a member of the Anti-War Movement, Adam Hersh from the liberal Center for American Progress, the left of center liberal media establishment, and the Democratic Progressive Caucus.  Those Leftists, Marxists, Progressives, and Communists, have been getting the very aggressive support of the Republican leadership in the House and Senate, who have been working with the Democratic Progressive Caucus in Congress to pass the TPA (the 70 member Caucus  includes Socialists, Progressives, Marxists, and Communists members of Congress).

The AFL-CIO Unions are on solid footing in their opposition to this “Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority”.  Responsible and clear thinking Democrats in Congress are against giving Obama  “Fast-Track” authority over this labor damaging bill, which will allow millions of new workers to enter the US, will force the Congress to abide by environmental protection standards that will restrict business development & job growth, will allow currency manipulation, and will allow millions of new Mexican Illegal Alien workers to legally enter & work in the United State.   The Republican leaders in Congress should use some degree of “Common Sense” and wait for 19 months, before they give the occupant in the Oval Office any trade promotion authority, and only if that trade authority is very limited.  Hopefully the new occupant of the Oval Office, unlike Obama, will be a pro-American president who supports and abides by the provisions of the US Constitution.

Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions has alerted the American people about the dangers of the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) speeding through Congress and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal that TPA would help push.  Senator Sessions said, “The president has circumvented Congress on immigration with serial regularity. But the TPA would yield new power to the executive to alter admissions while subtracting Congressional checks against those actions,” said in a “critical alert” dispatched by Senator Session’s office. Senator Sessions and several outside groups said Obama could change immigration policies between trading partners“at will” without any Congressional oversight.   “The plain language of TPA provides avenues for Obama and trading partners to facilitate the expanded movement of foreign workers into the U.S. — including issuing visitor visas that are used as worker visas,” said Senator Sessions.  The bases of that charge is a phrase in TPA calling it a “living agreement.” Sessions said that means that they can be changed after Congress approves them, and also that countries can be added in the future, including China.  “It leaves it open for a president to change it without Congressional approval,” warned Jessica M. Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies for the Center for Immigration Studies. “Congress should not surrender its authority to write immigration laws to either the executive branch, to trade negotiators, and definitely not to international trade tribunals,” she added.

The Republican Leadership of the House and Senate are planning to give Obama free rein with “Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority”, with full the knowledge of Obama’s very dangerous anti-American track record, and his pro-Marxist/Communist initiatives.  Even the most casual observer of Obama’s dangerous foreign policy initiatives can’t help but understand that, in the past 6 ½ years, Obama foreign policy decisions have consistently favored the enemies of the Republic like Radical Islamic Terrorists in Libya, Communist China, Communist North Vietnam, ant-America Iran, The Muslim Brotherhood, Chavez’s Socialist Venezuela, Castro’s Communist Cuba, and Putin’s Russia—they have all collectively and repeatedly expressed their intent to destroy the Republic as it was created by the Founding Fathers.

A newly elected pro-American Patriotic U.S. President would judiciously apply trade promotion authority negotiating by entering into separate Trade Treaties with 12 Asian and South American countries, while abiding by the provision of the U.S. Constitution that requires a two thirds majority vote of the U.S. Senate to approve each treaty.  The American people need to rise up and oppose Obama’s secret TPA Bill by calling their Senate representatives at (202) 224-3121 and by sending FaxGrams to their Senate and Congressional representatives telling them to reject Obama’s “Fast-Track” authority which will permit Obama to enter into and force the Congress to abide by all UN Treaties, and will also permit Obama to enter into future secret treaties with countries such as Cuba, China, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, Iraq, Syria, etc.—this most recent initiative by Republican leadership in the House and Senate, following their unwise funding of Obamacare and illegal Immigration & wide open border policies thru September 2015, is approaching insanity and would be akin to allowing the fox into the chicken coop.

Court: NSA’s Mass Surveillance Is Illegal: The 2nd Circuit strikes down bulk collection of U.S. phone records by JULIAN SANCHEZ

/in , , , , , /by

In a ruling certain to profoundly shape the ongoing debate over surveillance reform in Congress, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit today held that the National Security Agency’s indiscriminate collection of Americans’ telephone calling records exceeds the legal authority granted by the Patriot Act’s controversial section 215, which is set to expire at the end of this month.

Legislation to reform and constrain that authority, the USA Freedom Act, has drawn broad bipartisan support, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has stubbornly pressed ahead with a bill to reauthorize §215 without any changes. But the Second Circuit ruling gives even defenders of the NSA program powerful reasons to support reform.

McConnell and other reform opponents have consistently insisted, in defiance of overwhelming evidence, that the NSA program is an essential tool in the fight against terrorism, and that any reform would hinder efforts to keep Americans safe — a claim rejected even by the leaders of the intelligence community. (Talk about being more Catholic than the Pope!) . . .

A few notable points from the ruling itself: Echoing the reasoning of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board’s extremely thorough report on §215, the Second Circuit rejected the tortured legal logic underpinning both the NSA telephone program and a now-defunct program that gathered international Internet metadata in bulk.

The government had persuaded the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to interpret an authority to get records “relevant to an authorized investigation” as permitting collection of entire vast databases of information, the overwhelming majority of which are clearly not relevant to any investigation, on the premise that this allows NSA to later search for specific records that arerelevant.

As the court noted, this not only defies common sense, but it is wildly inconsistent with the way the standard of “relevance” — which governs subpoenas and court orders used in routine criminal investigations — has been interpreted for decades.

If every American’s phone records are “relevant” to counterterrorism investigations, after all, why wouldn’t those and other records be similarly “relevant” to investigations aiming to ferret out narcotics traffickers or fraudsters or tax cheats?

Past cases invoked by the government, in which courts have blessed relatively broad subpoenas under a standard of “relevance” only underscore how unprecedented the NSA’s interpretation of that standard truly is — since even the broadest such subpoenas fall dramatically short of the indiscriminate, indefinite hoovering the agency is now engaged in.

The court also quickly dispatched arguments that the plaintiffs here lacked standing to challenge the NSA program.

In general, parties seeking to challenge government action must demonstrate they’ve been harmed in some concrete way — which presents a significant hurdle when the government operates behind a thick veil of secrecy. Since documents disclosed to press by Edward Snowden — and the government’s own subsequent admissions — leave little question that the plaintiffs’ phone records are indeed being obtained, however, there’s no need for a further showing that those records were subsequently reviewed or used against the plaintiffs.

That’s critical because advocates of broad surveillance powers have often sought to argue that the mere collection of information, even on a massive scale, does not raise privacy concerns — and the focus should instead be on whether the information is used appropriately.

The court here makes plain that the unauthorized collection of data — placing it in the control and discretion of the government — is itself a privacy harm.

Finally, the court repudiated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’s strained use of the doctrine of legislative ratification to bless the NSA program.

Under this theory — reasonable enough in most cases — when courts have interpreted some statutory language in a particular way, legislatures are presumed to incorporate that interpretation when they use similar language in subsequent laws.

The FISC reasoned that Congress had therefore effectively “ratified” the NSA telephone program, and the sweeping legal theory behind it, by repeatedly reauthorizing §215.

But as the court pointed out — somewhat more diplomatically — it’s absurd to apply that doctrine to surveillance programs and legal interpretations that were (until the Snowden leaks) secret, even from many members of Congress, let alone the general public.

While the court didn’t reach the crucial question of whether the program violates the Fourth Amendment, the ruling gives civil libertarians good reason to hope that a massive and egregious violation of every American’s privacy will finally come to an end.

Julian Sanchez

Julian Sanchez is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, studying technology, privacy, and civil liberties, with a focus on national security and intelligence surveillance. Julian Sanchez is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, where a version of this post first appeared.

Texas and Kansas File Amicus Briefs Supporting Florida’s Lawsuit Against Expansion Of Obamacare

/in , , , , /by

AUSTIN – Governor Greg Abbott today filed an amicus brief in support of Governor Rick Scott and the State of Florida’s lawsuit against the Obama administration’s unlawful attempt to coerce the State of Florida into a massive expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Governor Abbott released the following statement:

“The federal government has overstepped its constitutional authority and ignored the Supreme Court’s decision in NFIB v. Sebelius, where the Court held that Congress could not coerce States into accepting a massive expansion of an already broken and bloated Medicaid program. The State of Texas will exercise its constitutional right to refuse Medicaid expansion, and we support the State of Florida’s effort to do the same.”

“[The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)] has threatened to withhold from Florida billions of dollars in Medicaid payments, and it has issued similar threats to Texas, Kansas, and others,” wrote Governor Abbott in the amicus brief. “These threats are surely just the beginning of a nationwide campaign to hold hostage federal waiver dollars in those States who are standing firm on their constitutional right to refuse the new Medicaid.

“No litigant should be put to the choice of surrendering its day in court against an agency that is violating the constitution, or facing unjustifiable retaliation by the same agency in the future. HHS’s public reasons for harassing Florida do not withstand scrutiny. The agency picked this fight with Florida in an unlawful attempt to isolate, intimidate, and coerce, [and] the court should grant Florida’s request for declaratory and injunctive relief.”

To view the amicus brief in its entirety, click here.

FBI under increased scrutiny for failing to prevent Garland jihad shooting

/in , , , , /by

They had Elton Simpson on their radar for years. But it is FBI policy in the Obama Administration not to acknowledge, much less study, the beliefs that motivate such attacks. The FBI training materials, by order of John Brennan and Barack Obama, do not mention Islam and jihad in connection with terrorism.

So how can the FBI distinguish between those who are genuine threats and those who are not?

They can’t, because such questions will turn on matters involving their Islamic piety — which is off limits for investigation.

“Mohammed Contest Attack an ISIS First in the US,” by Charlene Aaron, CBN News, May 5, 2015:

ISIS says it was behind the attack outside a contest in Texas featuring cartoons of Islam’s prophet Mohammed. It is the first time the group claimed to have carried out an attack inside the United States.

Meanwhile, the FBI is under increased scrutiny for failing to prevent Sunday’s attack after it had closely monitored one of the suspects in the shooting.

Federal agents had been monitoring 30-year-old Elton Simpson for possible terrorist ties for more than a decade.

Simpson and his roommate were shot dead after opening fire on a security guard outside the event.

In the past, FBI agents recorded Simpson talking about fighting “non-believers” for Allah and about plans to travel to Africa to link up with Islamist brothers in Somalia.

Five years ago, he was arrested for attempting to join an al Qaeda-affiliated group there.

Years spent investigating Simpson for terrorism ties resulted in three years of probation, placement on the no-fly list, and $600 in fines and court fees.

His attorney says he became increasingly agitated.

“I mean, I know that some of the statements that he made were, ‘If you die on the battlefield’ than you get, you know, whatever, the wives and things like that, but I think you hear that out of a lot of people. I mean, that’s a belief of the Muslim faith,” Kristina Sitton, Simpson’s attorney, said in 2011.

Simpson recently posted messages on Twitter about his dismay with his country.

Just minutes before Sunday’s shooting, he tweeted that he and a brother had pledged loyalty to ISIS.

“May Allah accept us as mujahideen [jihadists],” he wrote.

Though the FBI was aware of his social media rants, he was not under 24-hour surveillance.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Egypt: Five Christian children held for blasphemy – for insulting the Islamic State

Here we go: McClatchy suggests limits on free speech after Texas jihad shooting

Circumstantial Evidence

/in , , , , , /by

Benefit of the Doubt ConcelledImagine 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.

Writing 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.”

The Clintons have conspired and sometimes acted in direct contradiction of the law to rely on the concept of circumstantial evidence. Hillary’s use of her own private email server and her later destruction of that server is a classic example of this behavior. The high-paid speeches which Bill gave put him into a gray area of collusion, benefitting from the influence Hillary had as Secretary of State. Ultimately, the donations to their foundation by foreign governments rank far above a mere misdemeanor. It was too often just blatant bribery.

I fear that far too many Americans do not realize that our nation and its system of justice are on the cusp of encountering serious damage. Merely condemning the Clintons for what we know at this point is simply not enough.

What is needed is a widespread denunciation of their actions over recent years.

What is really needed is a decision by the Democratic Party to withhold the right to run in its primaries for the office of president, based on her actions deleting emails and accepting donation to the foundation.

The U.S. media needs to be more vocal that Hillary withdraw her candidacy.

Why would a media mute its criticism and a political party ignore the obvious revelations, even if deemed circumstantial evidence, of the corruption demonstrated by the Clintons? The Clintons have been given a free pass from the day they entered politics.

As Peggy Noonan, a Wall Street Journal columnist, has said, “We are defining political deviancy down.” That degrades the process by which we select and elect the men and women who are given the role and responsibility of lawmakers.

As Noonan notes of Hillary, “The story is that this is what she does, and always has. The rules apply to others, not her.” As recently as 2012, the State Department forced the resignation of a U.S. ambassador for “in part setting up an unsanctioned private email system.”

“In 1992 the Clintons were new and golden. Now, so many years later, their reputation for rule breaking and corruption is so deep, so assumed that it really has become old news. And old news isn’t news.”

Except when it is. When old news is an unbroken succession of wrong-doing it is incumbent on everyone involved with the present “campaign” by Hillary Clinton to be the next President to not avoid the stink that arises from both the earlier and most recent revelations.

“A generation or two ago,” said Noonan, “a person so encrusted in a reputation for scandal would not be considered a possible presidential contender. She would be ineligible. Now she is inevitable.”

Those earlier generations have been replaced by those more intent on celebrity than substance. They have the attention span of fungus. They lack any vision for America, having never really learned about or absorbed the lessons that the Greatest Generation and others passed onto us.

Are there enough of them to plunge America into the Clinton cesspool by electing her President? One can only pray that the answer is no.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

Just Another Race Riot

/in , , , /by

When you’ve lived over seven decades in America, the news about another race riot is really not news. It’s just another race riot.

The latest is Baltimore and the theme for this one is police violence against an unarmed black youth. This was the theme of the Ferguson, Missouri riots last year and has been a fairly common theme since the arrival of the new century fifteen years ago. Such events included riots in Cincinnati in 2001, the Oakland riots in 2009, and the two most recent.

A December 2014 article in Real Clear Politics by Jack Kelly put the statistics in perspective. “Young black males are 21 times more likely to be shot dead by police than are young white males, Pro Publica said. But because more than two-thirds of police officers are white and blacks commit about half of violent crimes, it stands to reason most police shootings would involve a white cop and a black suspect.”

Largely unreported is that “Black cops shot black suspects at essentially the same rate as white cops…”

For those of us outside of the black community and living in safe suburban zones surrounding our cities, the riots might as well be taking place on Mars. Why anyone would, as is often the case, destroy their own neighborhood, loot and burn down businesses (often black-owned) defies an answer.

Because riots offer television news dramatic images of violence and destruction, one can depend on coverage for a long as it lasts. Being photographed looting or engaging in violence against police and others seems to be one of the “perks” of rioting. Baltimore’s riot dominated the news on every channel Monday evening to the point one might conclude that nothing else of any importance was occurring anywhere in the world. The earthquake devastation in Nepal had to fight for the very few minutes of coverage it received.

AA - BaltimoreIt is astonishing to recall that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was able to lead many civil rights marches with so little violence, but it was the years concurrent with and following the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts in 1964 and 1965 that saw large riots such as several in 1964 in Philadelphia, Chicago, and New York. There were three just in New Jersey that year.

Having achieved the goals of the civil rights movement, historic federal laws, one might have concluded that rioting was no longer needed to call attention to the ills of the post-civil rights era.

You would have been wrong. The one that got national attention was in the Watts area of Los Angeles in 1965. The pattern continued with riots in 1966 and 1967. In April and May 1968 after Dr. King was assassinated, there were riots in 125 cities. The 1980s and 1990’s had their share of riots.

Just add Baltimore’s Freddie Gray’s name to the list of those who died either during an arrest or in police custody, sparking a riot. In the past the public generally backed the police, but now they are being depicted as undisciplined killers. The reality is that the police are the thin line of defense between us and the criminals whose job is theirs to arrest and detain. That occurs all the time. Police have more reasons to act in their own defense in a week than most of us will have in a lifetime.

As we learned from Ferguson, the original allegations against the police officer were totally false. Let it also be said that is not the only reason riots have occurred. A lot of them just seem to reflect feelings of alienation, anger, and dissatisfaction that bubble below the surface in black urban enclaves. Nothing is likely to change that.

So, as Baltimore cleans up the mess left behind by the latest riot, be assured that another is right around the corner somewhere. There is a core of law-breakers and angry blacks for whom virtually anything is excuse enough for a riot.

We had to pass through a Civil War to resolve the race-based ills of that era. Americans elected the first black American as President in 2008, but his race has not reduced riots during his time in office.

The lesson that we can draw from this is that, if you put enough people together in close proximity in a city where there is both wealth and poverty, where there are economic disparities between whites and blacks, you need only wait a while for the next riot.

Alan Caruba, 2015

RELATED ARTICLES:

NFL’s Benjamin Watson’s Facebook Post on Baltimore Riots Goes Viral: “God is our Only Hope”

Watch: Baltimore Riot Mom Is Mother of the Year

But, How Did We Come to This Cultural Transformation?

/in , , , , , , /by

Dr. Judith Reisman, Director of the Liberty Center for Child Protection, is joining pro-family leaders from across the country in opposing the newest fad, experimental “marriage”. The brief filed on behalf of Dr. Reisman and written by Liberty Counsel exposes the 67-year history of the “sexual revolution” spawned by a sexual psychopathic bi-homosexual pederastic sadomasochist, Dr. Alfred Kinsey (source Kinsey Institute). His famous sex “research” claiming 10% to 37% of men were/are homosexual, permeates today’s marriage debate.

Yet his subjects included 1,400 sex offenders, including criminals, pedophiles and pederasts who provided the data base on their sexual abuse of infants and children for Kinsey (source Kinsey Institute).

Thus the current notion that children are unharmed by sex with adults since they are sexual from birth published in Kinsey’s books on sexual behavior in tables below.

kinsey sexual abuse table

Allegedly timing “orgasms” but actually torture, as confirmed by Kinsey descriptions of said “orgasms”. Kinsey’s team continues to tout their finding that children are sexual from birth, proudly displaying a photograph donated to the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University. Dr. Reisman’s brief explains how this data chronicling the abuse of children such as the baby pictured above, and information provided by sex offenders, criminals and prostitutes is the basis for decades of social change, including the present request for the Supreme Court to dismantle natural marriage.

Dr. Reisman and Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel which wrote the brief, explain the genesis of the attack on marriage in a new documentary produced by Janet Porter entitled, “Light Wins: How to Overcome the Criminalization of Christianity.”

Mrs. Porter will be among the pro-family leaders gathering at the Supreme Court on the eve of the Court’s oral arguments on the marriage issue to represent the majority of Americans who want their voices to be heard and respected and the breakdown of the Judeo-Christian foundation of the country to stop.

RELATED ARTICLE: AP Poll: Religious freedom trumps gay rights

EDITORS NOTE: To learn more about the cultural impact of Alfred Kinsey click here.

Ryan T. Anderson’s Instant Analysis of Supreme Court’s Same-Sex Marriage Case

/in , , , , , /by

The Daily Signal caught up with The Heritage Foundation’s Ryan T. Anderson moments after Supreme Court justices concluded oral arguments on same-sex marriage.

Anderson, Heritage’s William E. Simon senior research fellow in American principles and public policy, spent the morning in the courtroom and shared his take with Jamie Jackson on the debate and Justice Anthony Kennedy’s questions.

Jamie_Jackson (1)Jamie Jackson

Jamie Jackson, a former Capitol Hill aide and TV journalist, oversees The Daily Signal’s multimedia and video content. Send an email to Jamie.

RELATED ARTICLES:

As Supreme Court Debates, 2016 Presidential Hopefuls Define Marriage Views

Conservative Lawmakers Speak Out on Supreme Court’s Same-Sex Marriage Case

Should GoFundMe and Christian Bakers Be Treated the Same?

The Key Supreme Court Briefs Supporting State Man-Woman Marriage Laws

Inside the Court: Judges Don’t Have a Crystal Ball on Marriage

Kentucky Court Says Printing Business Has Right to Deny Service for Religious Reasons

What Will Anthony Kennedy Do in Gay Marriage Case? Ryan T. Anderson Weighs In

Why We Need to Hear Bruce Jenner’s Story

Forcing States to Recognize Gay Marriage Could Increase Number of Abortions

U.S. Supreme Court of Perversion?

/in , , , /by

The U.S. Supreme Court wages in on the gay marriage attack on Christians.

RELATED ARTICLES:

After Bakers’ Fundraising Campaign Shut Down, Florist Who Rejected Same-Sex Wedding Faces Same Fate

Don’t Silence the 50 Million Who Voted for One Man-One Woman Marriage

State Says Bakers Should Pay $135,000 for Refusing to Make Cake for Same-Sex Wedding

What Will Anthony Kennedy Do in Gay Marriage Case? Ryan T. Anderson Weighs In

After Receiving Over $100K in Donations, Bakers’ Crowdfunding Page Shut Down

Have Blacks Declared War on Themselves?

/in , , , /by

It seems hardly a week goes by without another report of a seemingly innocent, unarmed Black male being killed by the police. I have written several columns about this issue and have received harsh criticism for writing them.

You have had recent killings by the police of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Eric Garner in New York, Oscar Grant in Oakland, Ezell Ford in Los Angeles and now Freddie Gray in Baltimore, just to name a few.

In many instances, police are shown to be guilty of using excessive force against Blacks; but based on the way local and state laws are written, an overwhelming amount of deference is given to the police. The legal standard in most cases to justify using deadly force is “a reasonable fear for one’s life.” Legally, that is an extremely low bar to meet.

So, Blacks must come to terms with this simple adage of the streets, “it’s not what you know, but what you can prove.” Most Americans will confess that that many of these policemen are out of control; but based on the law, the police can easily justify their actions.

This issue is easy to deal with; it‘s just a matter of getting consensus regarding what changes need to be made legislatively.

The more complicated issue that no one seems to want to deal with is the issue of what I call “Black culpability.” What is it that we, as Blacks, are doing to create an environment where Black lives are so devalued that we are viewed as expendable?

Here is an excerpt from a column I wrote last year during the Ferguson uprising.

“For the past 30 years, we have created images of Blacks in the most negative of lights. For those who would say it’s just music, it’s just a movie, it’s just a reality TV show; I say now there is just another Black body lying in the streets of America.

Before you go to war, the first thing that is needed is to create a psychological operations campaign (psy-ops). This is a tactic that the military uses to marginalize its targeted population so that when the troops are sent in to destroy this group, there is no public outcry.

Just look at how the U.S. military vilified and demonized former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and terrorist Osama Bin Laden before we set out to kill them. Upon their deaths at the hands of the U.S. military, the American people cheered because we had devalued and marginalized them before the American people.

I can’t help but ask the Black community, have we unleashed a psy-ops campaign on our own people?

In the horror movie series Frankenstein, Dr. Frankenstein did not set out to create a monster; but rather he was a scientist playing around in his laboratory. As a result of this experimentation, he created a monster that neither he nor society could control.

In a similar manner, one could argue that Blacks, specifically in Hip-Hop, have experimented in the laboratory called a recording studio; and by exercising their First Amendment Right of freedom of speech and expression through music, they have created their own version of Frankenstein.

In the beginning, like with Frankenstein, people marveled at this new creation and people were willing to pay to see and hear it. There was “Rappers Delight,” there was “The Message,” and there was “Fight the Power.” Then, the imagery and lyrics took a twisted turn under a perverted interpretation of the First Amendment called “keeping it real.”

Now, the establishment, especially the police, had become the enemy. Hip-Hop became a counter-culture movement that turned into a monster that could no longer be controlled. Women became “bitches and hoes,” men became hyper-sexualized thugs who were only out to force themselves on your daughters and to “get rich or die trying.” When rap music started, it was a verbal extension of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s in the spirit of the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; it was about the uplifting of our community and providing a voice to those often without a voice.

Then in the 1990s, rap took a more militaristic tone with the creation of “gangsta rap.” This too, was a verbal extension of the Civil Rights movement; but more in the spirit of Malcolm X on steroids. These artists represented those in the “hood” who felt trapped and abused by the system. They felt like no one cared about them and that life was about the here and now – immediate gratification; so screw the future. They wanted to “get theirs now.” They wanted to live fast, even if it meant dying young.

This ultimately led to the “thug” culture, personified by hit movies like Scarface, New Jack City and Carlito’s Way; each glorified the criminal lifestyle.

Then you had the crack epidemic of the 1990s with the violence that it brought into the hood. All these factors combined to create a narrative that Black life was worthless and Black youth brought no value to society.”

So again I ask the Black community, what have we done to make our lives so worthless in the eyes of the public? I think this is a conversation worth having.

RELATED VIDEO: Baltimore Riots Looting Protesters Freddy Gray – Protest Erupts In Chaos A Police Cars [RAW FOOTAGE]

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of black demonstrators pretending to be arrested in front of the Baltimore Police Department Western District station to protest against the death in police custody of Freddie Gray in Baltimore April 23, 2015. SAIT SERKAN/REUTERS

Marriage Debate Marches Into Nation’s Capital Ahead of Supreme Court Case

/in , , , /by

“As the debate over same-sex marriage heats up across the country, advocates for traditional marriage gathered in the nation’s capitol to make their voices heard. With the U.S. Supreme Court taking on the issue in a landmark gay marriage case in the coming weeks, The Daily Signal asked attendees of the 2015 March for Marriage—and some protesting the event—what’s next,” writes Alex Anderson and Kelsey Harkness for The Daily Signal.

Portrait of Alex Anderson

Alex Anderson

Alex Anderson is a news producer for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Alex.

Portrait of Kelsey Harkness

Kelsey Harkness

Kelsey Harkness is a news producer at The Daily Signal. Send an email to Kelsey.

RELATED ARTICLES:

After Bakers’ Fundraising Campaign Shut Down, Florist Who Rejected Same-Sex Wedding Faces Same Fate

Don’t Silence the 50 Million Who Voted for One Man-One Woman Marriage

State Says Bakers Should Pay $135,000 for Refusing to Make Cake for Same-Sex Wedding

What Will Anthony Kennedy Do in Gay Marriage Case? Ryan T. Anderson Weighs In

After Receiving Over $100K in Donations, Bakers’ Crowdfunding Page Shut Down

Ten things you need to know about the U.S. Supreme Court “gay marriage” case being heard April 28, 2015

/in , , , /by

On April 28 the US Supreme Court case will hear oral arguments for the case that will essentially decide whether “gay marriage” is a previously unknown “fundamental right” enshrined in the US Constitution, similar to the Court’s 1973 abortion ruling.

The US Supreme Court building will be ground zero for the latest assault on the nation’s culture.

What was once a fringe, unthinkable idea is now on the verge of being imposed on the entire nation.

What is happening? Here are ten things to know about this case:

1. How we got to this point

The popular sentiment against “gay marriage” in the United States has been overwhelmingly one-sided at the ballot box. Since 1998, 30 states have passed constitutional amendments banning it. Some of these amendments were passed by huge margins (as high as 80%). This appeared to everyone to be an insurmountable obstacle to the “gay marriage” movement.

After losing in state after state, the homosexual movement realized that it could never overturn these amendments legitimately. In very blue states, using massive amounts of money, they were able to successfully lobby legislatures and sway elections. But the amendments across the country were a problem.

So they decided to focus on perfecting the strategy that worked in Massachusetts in 2003: using the courts and hand-picked activist judges, along with very shrewd manipulation of the legal process and well-funded legal teams and political strategists. They crafted a plan to get the state amendments declared unconstitutional.

This strategy took advantage of the LGBT lobby’s well-funded propaganda push over the last few decades in law schools, law firms, and judicial chambers, as well as a fresh new generation of radical federal judges appointed by Barack Obama.

Starting with California in 2009, where a homosexual judge overturned the Proposition 8 vote, they soon picked up momentum. Across the country, the various cases began sailing through the state and federal courts largely unimpeded. It was quite frightening for all of us to watch.

Other factors helped keep it going. The almost universal unwillingness of the legal teams on the pro-family side to aggressively confront the other side’s arguments gave them a free pass on what could have been difficult issues to overcome. And a number of pro-gay “marriage” Democrat (and RINO Republican) Governors and Attorneys-General simply refused to properly defend the cases and/or appeal them after losing.

Using both state and federal courts, the LGBT lobby has now gotten activist courts to “overturn” 26 of the 30 state constitutional amendments. (Some of these cases are still being appealed.)

But on November 6, 2014, their string of successes hit a snag, as the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Ohio constitutional amendment. However, since this disagreed with the other Federal District Court rulings, it bumped the case up to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear it and make a broad decision.

2. How the 14th Amendment is used to push the radical agenda in the courts

In all these cases (as in countless other “progressive” legal challenges over the years) the radicals have used twisted interpretations of the US Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment to advance their agenda through the courts.

The Fourteenth Amendment says:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The “due process” and the “equal protection” clauses are the hammers used to smash the existing laws and constitutional amendments. Along with that, the LGBT lawyers start with the assumption (which our side does not refute) that “sexual orientation” constitutes a class of citizen (based on an immutable characteristic, etc).

Regarding the “equal protection” argument: They argue that “gays” are not allowed to marry the ones they love, but heterosexuals are. They say that “gays” are thus “demeaned,” made “second class citizens,” and kept “unequal” – and this causes them terrible harm.

They further argue that not recognizing “gay marriages” from other states is a violation of due process because of the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause.

Of course, this is all legal nonsense. The answer to their “equal protection” argument is simple: Under the law, every person can only marry someone of the opposite sex. The marriage laws apply to every person equally. No legal expert we’ve consulted has disagreed with us on that reasoning. And everyone gets the same “due process” under it. Unfortunately, to our knowledge these points are rarely used to buttress our side’s argument.

Furthermore, the “full faith and credit” clause was never meant to be used to alter the meaning of the word marriage (i.e., plural marriages, incestuous marriages, marriages to young children), but only the application to a marriage case (or a divorce, etc.,) where the meaning of the word marriage was commonly agreed upon. It’s pretty simple – unless you’re an activist judge.

3. What this case is specifically meant to decide

The case is officially named Obergefell v. Hodges, which is a consolidation of four “gay marriage” cases previously brought before the Sixth Circuit.

According to the court documents, this case addresses only two specific questions:

1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

On April 28, a total of 90 minutes is allotted for oral argument on question #1, and a total of 60 minutes is allotted for oral argument on question #2. As discussed above, in any normal circumstance this would be a no-brainer.

Not surprisingly, there have been dozens of amicus briefs filed for this case. (You can read them here.) Most of those filed by our side discuss the importance of marriage in society, the historical roots of marriage, how imposing “gay marriage” would divide the country, children needing a father and a mother, etc. None that we’ve seen actually addresses the two questions regarding the Fourteenth Amendment which this case is about. We can only surmise that people are assuming that the Justices are not actually focusing on strict constitutional law but on these unrelated issues.

4. The lawyers arguing this case on April 28

The competition to represent the pro-family side was definitely not as intense as for the “gay marriage side.”

Arguing for the pro-family side:  Eric E. Murphy is the current Ohio State Solicitor, who won the appeal before the Sixth Circuit after losing in District Court. John J. Bursch was Michigan State Solicitor from 2011-2013 and has argued eight times before the US Supreme Court. According to news reports, Bursch’s current firm, Warner Norcross & Judd, supports “gay marriage” and has refused to be involved in this case to help him.

Both attorneys have a good reputation for competence.

Eric E. Murphy, State Solicitor
Office of the Attorney General
30 East Broad Street, 17th Fl.
Columbus, OH  43215-3428
(614) 466-8980
eric.murphy@ohioattorneygeneral.gov

John J. Bursch
Michigan Dept of Attorney General
P.O. Box 30212
Lansing, MI  48909
(517) 373-1124
BurschJ@michigan.gov

Arguing for the homosexual “marriage” side:  Alphonse A. Gerhardstein is a prominent civil rights attorney from Cincinnati. Mary Bonauto is the celebrity lesbian attorney for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, who won the original Goodridge “gay marriage” case in Massachusetts in 2003. We at MassResistance know Bonauto well. She argued the lawsuit against us (unsuccessfully) in the infamous “Fistgate” case, and we have debated her on television.

We don’t know much about Gerhardstein. In our opinion, Bonauto is not particularly impressive.

Alphonse A. Gerhardstein
Gerhardstein & Branch Co. LPA
432 Walnut St., Suite 400
Cincinnati, OH  45202
(513) 621-0779
agerhardstein@gbfirm.com

Mary L. Bonauto
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders
30 Winter Street, Suite 800
Boston, MA  02108
(617) 426-1350
mbonauto@glad.org

(Contact information is from Supreme Court filings.)

5. Anticipated problems with our side’s arguments

The other side’s arguments rarely bother dealing with the strict constitutional meaning of the text in question. They are almost exclusively based on the assumption that “sexual orientation” constitutes a legitimate legal “class” of people who are “born that way,” and as such have innate rights as a “class.” The concept of a “class” of people is foreign to the text of the Constitution. But it has nevertheless been accepted by courts for decades and undoubtedly by a number of the Supreme Court Justices.

That concept must be vigorously confronted and debunked. Unfortunately, our lawyers have been afraid to do that. Instead they concede to it and attempt to make a persuasive argument within those absurd boundaries — i.e., every child needs a mother and father, marriage is an institution for procreation, etc. This strategy almost always fails.

Why does our side avoid a strong argument? The answer falls into two categories:

1. Fear of being accused of “animus.” Our lawyers have internalized the idea that any perception of “animus towards gays” in their arguments will alienate the Justices. After all, gays are a “class” of people. This forces out any discussion of anything that debunks that, such as the horrible medical consequences associated with homosexual behavior: diseases, addictions, mental health problems, domestic violence, lower life expectancy, etc. Or any suggestion that is an immoral, unnatural perversion. Or the proven damage to children raised in same-sex households.

2. Pandering to “rational basis.” There is an extra-constitutional concept that judges have the authority to overturn a law if it doesn’t appear rational to them. Whether or not it was “rational” to a legislature or to the people makes no difference. Thus, the LGBT lawyers simply state that it’s “not rational” to exclude the class of “gays” from marrying whomever they want. It’s been one the basis for overturning constitutional marriage amendments. Our lawyers fear being judged “irrational” if they bring up the uncomfortable aspects of homosexuality, so they stick to the “comfortable” arguments.

It’s about time to quit doing what doesn’t work. Our fear, unfortunately, is that the lawyers on our side have been working closely with pro-family establishment lawyers in Washington DC (and we all know who they are) who are anything but aggressive or confrontational on these issues.

6. When the Court will issue a decision

The Court will issue its ruling before its current term ends in late June – i.e., within two months.

7. Why Justices Ginsburg and Kagan must legally recuse themselves from this case

Federal law 28 U.S. Code § 455 states:

Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

In the past year Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan have performed same-sex “weddings.”  Ginsburg told people that the acceptance of same-sex “marriage” reflects “the genius of our Constitution.”

Kagan’s aggressive advocacy for LGBT “rights” goes back to her years as Dean of Harvard Law School (2003-2009), and is thoroughly documented in our MassResistance report.

Ginsburg and Kagan are unquestionably biased on this issue and by law mustdisqualify themselves from this case. Failure to do would call into question the legitimacy of the (feared) ruling on this case, at the very least. Furthermore, a near-universal interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “due process” clause(above) includes the right of impartial court proceedings. Having biased judges violates that.

Motion for Recusal. We have been informed that Attorney Andy Schlafly (son of Phyllis Schlafly) has drafted a Motion for Recusal, under section 28 USC 144,which will be filed by one of the state Attorneys-Generals in Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan or Kentucky who have standing in the case.  According to Mr. Schlafly, “This will be the first time in the history of our country that a Motion for Recusal will have been filed against U.S. Supreme Court Justices because the above codes are for Federal District Judges, yet the principle of recusal can be expanded to all federal judges including Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.”

8. Bill filed in Congress to remove the Court’s jurisdiction on marriage

It is possible for Congress to restrict the Federal Courts from hearing certain types of cases.

Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution gives Congress the ability to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and federal courts:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

In the case of marriage, this probably should have been done at least a decade ago. However, this past week, some action was started.

Rep. Steve King, (R-Iowa), filed a bill to block the federal courts, including the U.S Supreme Court, from hearing or deciding cases involving the definition of marriage.

Rep. King’s bill is titled Restrain the Judges on Marriage Act of 2015. “This bill strips federal courts of jurisdiction to hear cases related to marriage. The effect of the bill would prevent federal courts from hearing marriage cases, leaving the issue to the States where it properly belongs,” said Rep. King on his website.

Will the RINO Republican leadership in the US House and Senate go along with it? We will see. And then Obama must sign it …

9. The latest in the Court’s long history of illegitimate usurpation of power

The problem of the federal courts acting as unelected rulers — contrary to the intent of the Constitution — is not new. In 1861, in his first Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln condemned the Supreme Court’s power grab then:

If the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

Over the last several decades it’s only gotten further out-of-control.

In 2005, the Hoover Institution published a paper by Lino Graglia, a law professor at the University of Texas, titled “Constitutional Law without the Constitution: The Supreme Court’s Remaking of America” that described it very well. An excerpt from that article:

The central fact of contemporary constitutional law, however, is that it has very little to do with the Constitution. Nearly all the Supreme Court’s rulings of unconstitutionality have little or no basis in, and are sometimes in direct violation of, the Constitution. Their actual basis is nothing more than the policy preferences of a majority of the Court’s nine justices. The power to assert that the Constitution prohibits any policy choice of which they disapprove has enabled the justices to make themselves the final lawmakers on any public policy issue that they choose to remove from the ordinary political process and to assign for decision to themselves. Over the past half-century the justices have chosen to make themselves the final lawmakers on most basic issues of domestic social policy in American society. These include issues literally of life and death, as in the Court’s decisions on contraception, abortion, capital punishment, and assisted suicide; issues of public order, as in its decisions on criminal procedure, public demonstrations, and vagrancy control; and issues of public morality, as in its decisions on pornography and homosexuality. These are the issues that determine the basic values, nature, and quality of a society. In essence, the Court now performs in the American system of government a role similar to that performed by the Grand Council of Ayatollahs in the Iranian system: voting takes place and representatives of the people are elected as lawmakers, but the decisions they reach on basic issues of social policy are permitted to prevail only so long as they are not disallowed by the system’s highest authority.

That’s what we’ve been up against: Nine justices appointed for life who have made themselves the unelected legislators over us all.

10. Immense pressure from the homosexual movement

It’s difficult to describe the enormous amounts of money and sophisticated planning, political maneuvering, and pressure tactics that the homosexual lobby has used in this nationwide march through the federal courts. Millions of dollars have flowed to them from major US corporations and wealthy donors.  Adding to that is the flood of major media support (including even FOX News!) that the LGBT movement enjoys. Needless to say, it’s unbelievably one-sided.

On the other hand, most wealthy conservative donors have made their peace with the LGBT movement and have abandoned their support at a time when it’s needed most. And virtually no corporations donate money to the pro-family side of this issue.

The LGBT movement has used its resources and power very aggressively. In just the last several weeks, hundreds of corporations and high-profile politicians, including Republicans, have publicly told the Supreme Court that they want “gay marriage” imposed on America by the judiciary. Virtually the nation’s entire legal community now refuses to even engage cases involving challenges to “gay marriage” — an unprecedented turn of events.

Will this push a majority of the Supreme Court Justices over the top? In any other time in history, this case would have been laughed out of any courtroom. So anything is possible.

What do we do next?

By any objective measure, this whole case is a mockery of actual Constitutional law. Yet, the odds are that Ginsburg and Kagan will not disqualify themselves and enough of the rest of the judges will rule to force this insanity on all of America — and which among other things will surely lead to the further persecution of people of faith.

Should the worst happen, we’ll certainly have it rubbed in our faces as quickly as possible. As happened in Massachusetts in 2003, the first thing we will see will be adolescent screams of joy and jumping in the streets by the homosexual radicals, celebrated spectacularly in the mainstream media.

But what about our side? We have to fight back, that’s for sure.

What does that mean? There has been a lot of talk about pro-family “civil disobedience” and “taking to the streets.” But let’s be honest. When the Left threatens civil disobedience the local police schedule double shifts (often to protect them). But when we do it, nobody really pays attention. To most conservatives civil disobedience is not mowing your lawn for three weeks or posting strong articles on FaceBook – not exactly rioting.

And the legal system will surely come down even harder on anyone disobeying the new rulings, as well as state and local non-discrimination ordinances.

MassResistance has some ideas. But let’s hope the worst doesn’t happen.

Supreme Court to Rule on Same-Sex Marriage

/in , , , /by

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.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

Why There’s No Right to Gay Marriage in 6 Short Video Clips

/in , , , , , /by

On Thursday night, Ryan T. Anderson, the William E. Simon senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, participated in a debate about gay marriage. The Heritage Foundation Video Team assembled some of the key moments and exchanges from that debate here.

What true marriage equality is:

There are good arguments on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate:

Ever feel like the only difference between the New York Times and Washington Post is the name? We do.

Try the Morning Bell and get the day’s most important news and commentary from a team committed to the truth in formats that respect your time…and your intelligence.

Giving equal dignity to gays and lesbians doesn’t require redefining marriage:

Why does it matter if there’s both gay marriage and straight marriage?

Talking about Mark Regnerus’ studies about children and same-sex marriage:

On plural marriages:

Watch the full debate:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Gay Marriage: A Trojan Horse Movement Aimed at the Heart of Our Constitution [+videos]

Jim DeMint: Why You Should March for Marriage

Are Liberals Finally Rallying to Save Liberty?

Why States Should Get to Decide on Whether to Redefine Marriage