Saturday, July 4, 2015

What is so hard about building a border fence? It's just like building a highway. BUILD ONE.

http://www.freerepublic.com ^ | July 3rd, 2014 | 

Ok I was just thinking about our southern border.
We actually have two borders, but one is high priority, and the only person speaking up is Donald Trump, and Ted Cruz is also somewhat.
What in the world is so difficult about building a border fence?
It's not that complex. We have freeways which are far, far more complex, from coast to coast, in the north, in the center of the country, and in the south.
We have roads all over America, in every town, in every county, in all 50 states. All over the place.
We cannot build a fence, from Texas to California?

Why Two? The Question Gay Activists Cannot Answer

Christian Post ^ | July 3, 2015 | Michael Brown 

If marriage is not the union of a man and a woman, then why should it be limited to two people (or, for that matter, require two people)? Why can't it be one or three or five? What makes the number "two" so special if it doesn't refer to the union of a male and a female?
I have asked this question for years in various settings, from a campus debate with a professor to social media and from my radio show to writing, and I have not yet received a single cogent answer, since no cogent answer exists.
If "love is love" and "marriage equality" is the mantra, then why can't any combination of loving adults form a "marriage"?
How can anyone in support of same-sex "marriage" object to the goals of the Marriage Equality Blogspot that calls for "Full Marriage Equality," specifically, "for the right of consenting adults to share and enjoy love, sex, residence, and marriage without limits on the gender, number, or relation of participants"?
If you say, "But marriage has always been the union of two people," that is patently false, since polygamy has existed for millennia (and still exists in scores of countries) and, more importantly, throughout history, whatever number of people were involved, the fundamental requirement was not two people but a man and a woman.
If you say, "But polygamy is harmful to women and society," that is irrelevant, since if the people want to enter into marriage love each other (remember, love is love, right?), they should be allowed to.
Plus, polygamists have the ability to reproduce naturally and then join the children to their mother and father, which homosexual unions cannot do. And, speaking of harm, gay relationships are, statistically speaking, less stable than heterosexual relationships, while specific acts of homosexual sex, especially among males, have increased health risks.
Do gay activists really want to press the "harm" angle when it comes to polygamy?
As I wrote back in 2011, "it's a very short leap from polyamory to polygamy, and just as TV shows like Will and Grace helped pave the way for a more gay-affirming society, shows like Big Love and Sister Wives are helping to pave the way for a more polygamy-affirming society.
"Not surprisingly, in Canada, where same-sex marriage is legal throughout the country, Monique Pongracic-Speier, an advocate with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, has argued on behalf of polygamists that, 'Consenting adults have the right—the Charter protected right—to form the families that they want to form.' If homosexuals can, why can't polygamists?
"The logic really is quite strong: If someone has the 'right to marry the person they love,' as gay activists incessantly tell us, why shouldn't people have the right to marry multiple loving partners?"
That's why it's no surprise that the same day that the Supreme Court ruled to redefine marriage, Politico ran a story titled, "It's Time to Legalize Polygamy: Why group marriage is the next horizon of social liberalism."
And that's why it's no surprise that, within a week of the Supreme Court decision, the internet was buzzing with reports that, "A Montana man said Wednesday that he was inspired by last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage to apply for a marriage license so that he can legally wed his second wife."
As Nathan Collier, the man in question remarked, "It's about marriage equality. You can't have this without polygamy."
Ironically, gay "marriage" advocates like Jonathan Rauch fail to see the irony of their position when they argue that "Polygamy Isn't the Next Gay Marriage," since their redefinition of marriage is far more radical than that of the polygamists.
A man and a woman are physically and biologically designed for each other, carrying within themselves the unique components of sperm and egg (the fact remains that there's no such thing as a baby without a male and female involved), and so the two must come together as one to form a marriage.
The man and woman also share a unique complementarity emotionally and spiritually – have you ever heard the saying that "Men are from Mars and women from Venus"? – which is why the union of a man and woman is special, distinctive, and even sacred. And that's why the union of man and a woman has been recognized as "marriage" throughout the ages.
As cultural analyst Robert Knight remarked, "The term 'marriage' refers specifically to the joining of two people of the opposite sex. When that is lost, 'marriage' becomes meaningless. You can no more leave an entire sex out of marriage and call it 'marriage' than you can leave chocolate out of a 'chocolate brownie' recipe. It becomes something else."
And when it becomes "something else" it can become virtually "anything else," which is why polyamorists (along with polygamists) are also clamoring for their relationships to be legally recognized. As US News and World Report noted just three days after the Supreme Court ruling, "Polyamorous Rights Advocates See Marriage Equality Coming for Them."
That's why Eric Abetz, a senior government minister in Australia, recently warned, "if you undo the definition you then open up a Pandora's box and if you say that it is no longer an institution between one man and one woman you then do open up a Pandora's box."
To repeat, if your mantras are "Love is love" and "I have the right to marry the one I love," and if you really advocate "marriage equality," then why can't any number and combination of consenting adults join together in "marriage"?
If you say, "But that's not marriage," you have just shot yourself in the foot, since marriage has never been the union of any two people but rather the union of a man and a woman.
And so, just as surely as a male plug and a female plug are required to make a connection in the world of electronics, a male and female are required to have a proper marriage. Otherwise, it is not marriage, no matter what any panel of judge's rules.
That's why the fourth principle in my book Outlasting the Gay Revolution is "Refuse to Redefine Marriage," since once you redefine it, you render it meaningless.
So, once again, I ask the question to advocates of "marriage equality": Why two? If marriage is not the union of a man and a woman, then why should it be limited to two people (or, for that matter, require two people)?
I'm not holding my breath.

Donald Trump Wins in Battle Against Political Correctness!

Christian Post ^ | July 3, 2015 | 5:27 pm | By Jeff Crouere , CP Op-ed Contributor 

When Donald Trump announced for President, he made some strong statements about the immigration problems facing our nation. He said that Mexico was "bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists, and some, I assume, are good people." In essence, Trump noted that Mexico was not sending their scientists and scholars to America.
In his speech, he mentioned the while immigrants are taking jobs in this country; corporations like Ford are setting up plants in Mexico. To deal with the crisis, Trump vowed to build a border fence and have Mexico pay for it.
This kind of tough talk resonated with millions of Americans who have seen no action on illegal immigration for decades. In the latest New Hampshire, Iowa and national GOP polls, Trump has rocketed to second place. This shows that Americans are tired of the influx of illegal immigrants and the non-existent border security. They are tired of illegal aliens committing crimes, receiving federal benefits and taking jobs away from law abiding citizens.
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/donald-trump-wins-in-battle-against-political-correctness-141154/#Gg6B2WUm0TkspWOE.99
(Excerpt) Read more at christianpost.com ...

Pound Sand, Your Honor! More Americans Want States to Ignore Federal Courts!

The New American ^ | 03 July 2015 | Selwyn Duke 

While dissenting from the recent Supreme Court decision rubber-stamping same-sex “marriage,” Justice Antonin Scalia warned his colleagues that with “each decision ... unabashedly based not on law” the Court moves “one step closer to being reminded of [its] impotence.” And a new poll shows that another such step has in fact been taken, with more Americans supporting the idea that states should have the right to ignore federal court rulings. Writes Rasmussen Reports, “A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 33% of Likely U.S. Voters now believe that states should have the right to ignore federal court rulings if their elected officials [dis]agree with them. That’s up nine points from 24% when we first asked this question in February. Just over half (52%) disagree, down from 58% in the earlier survey. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided.”
This shift is clearly influenced not just by Obergefell v. Hodges (the marriage ruling), but also a late June ObamaCare decision so contrary to the “Affordable Care Act’s” text that Justice Scalia lamented to the Court, “Words no longer have meaning.” Not surprisingly, there was an ideological divide among poll respondents. As Rasmussen also tells us, “Fifty percent (50%) of GOP voters now believe states should have the right to ignore federal court rulings, compared to just 22% of Democrats and 30% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Interestingly, this represents a noticeable rise in support among all three groups. Fifty percent (50%) of conservative voters share this view, but just 27% of moderates and 15% of liberals agree.”
Also not surprisingly, this pattern basically reverses itself when voters are asked if Barack Obama should be able to ignore the courts when he wants to. As Rasmussen wrote in February after surveying voters on that question, “43% of Democrats believe the president should have the right to ignore the courts. Only 35% of voters in President Obama’s party disagree, compared to 81% of Republicans and 67% of voters not affiliated with either major party.”
As to the recent poll, Rasmussen writes that Republicans and conservatives being most likely to support state defiance of federal courts is perhaps “disturbing” because those groups “traditionally have been the most supportive of the Constitution and separation of powers.” But the reality is that these responses — conservatives advocating defiance of liberal courts, liberals advocating defiance for a liberal man, and Rasmussen indicating that the judiciary should have ultimate-arbiter power — reflect emotional reactions more than constitutional analysis.
First note that this gratuitous judicial-review power — where courts’ rulings on law are considered to constrain all three branches of government — isnot found in the Constitution. Rather, it was unilaterally declared by the Court itself in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision. In other words,Rasmussen’s supposition about the courts’ role does not align with constitutionalism.
But critics would say that this is putting it lightly. Justice Scalia wrote in his Obergefell dissent that the Court has actually become “a threat to American democracy.” And this just reflects what founder Thomas Jefferson warned when he said that if the Court was not reminded of its impotence, if it comes to be viewed as having ultimate-arbiter (judicial review) power, our Constitution will have become “a suicide pact.” As I wrote just last week:
Jefferson explained the problem with judicial review, writing, “For intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this [judicial review] opinion, to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation.... The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please.”
Jefferson also pointed out, correctly, that “Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.” …Judicial review is “a very dangerous doctrine indeed,” Jefferson warned in 1820, “and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
Jefferson also wrote that nullification — states’ ignoring of federal dictates — is the “rightful remedy” for all central-government usurpation of states’ powers. Of course, this includes plainly unconstitutional rulings by oligarchic federal courts.
Thus, the 50 percent of GOP voters polled this week are right — although perhaps without realizing that their position is constitutionally sound. States have recourse to the “rightful remedy” of nullification because the Constitution reserves most powers to the states, and the states are not bound to follow unconstitutional federal edicts. In fact, in order to adhere to the Constitution, state are duty bound not to enforce such edicts, but to declare them null and void at the state border.
Of course, this balance of power ensures a tug of war and some gridlock in government, but that’s how the state is kept small and freedoms big. If we want issues settled cleanly and quickly with the stroke of a pen, we can appoint a dictator.
Or an oligarchy — sort of like the Supreme Court has become.
If the Court is not frequently reminded of its impotence, the people will ever be reminded of theirs.

Related article:
Supreme Court Rubber Stamps Same-sex “Marriage” — Time for Nullification

A whole island pretending to be blind...: New book reveals how Greeks cheated THEMSELVES into ruin

DailyMail.com ^ | 3 July 2015 | Flora Drury For Mailonline 

Greece in teetering on the brink of ruin - and it is hard not to feel sympathy for the pensioners crying in the street and the mothers facing empty supermarket shelves.
Yet those reading a new book may find themselves feeling a little less compassionate towards the Greeks. It reveals an eye-popping catalogue of benefits scams and tax avoidance schemes that have robbed the public purse.
James Angelos' The Full Catastrophe: Travels among the New Greek Ruins lays bare the corruption which filtered through all levels of society - from the islanders who pretended to be blind, to the families who forgot to register their parents' death and the doctors who 'earn' just €12,000 a year - yet live in Athens' most exclusive neighbourhood.
It was the rumours of an 'island of the blind' which first bought Angelos, a journalist, to Greece in 2011.
He had heard that on Zakynthos, something like two per cent of the population were registered blind.
All was not quite how it seemed, however, and it transpired that 61 of the 680 'blind' residents were quite happily driving around the island.
In fact, an astonishing 498 of those 680 were not blind at all - or even partially sighted.
But being 'blind' had its advantages - in particular, the €724 paid in benefits once every two months, and a reduction in utility bills.
..........
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...

JUDICIAL WATCH: OBAMA AND HILLARY CLINTON CONCOCTED BENGHAZI VIDEO LIE WITH JIHADIST HELP!

Breitbart ^ | 7-3-2015 | Edwin Mora 

President Obama and Hillary Clinton likely made the decision to falsely tie an inflammatory anti-Islam Internet video to the fatal Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack that left four Americans dead in Benghazi, Libya, the chief of the conservative government watchdog group Judicial Watch (JW) told Breitbart News.

The president and then-Secretary of State Clinton sought the assistance from domestic and foreign jihadists in spreading the online video lie, added JW President Tom Fitton.

Breitbart News spoke to Fitton about newly released Benghazi attack-related documents pried out of the U.S. State Department under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by JW last September.

One of the document shows that the Pentagon received a request for military assets in response to the attack, but the Obama administration seemingly refused.

An email from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to top White House and other administration officials states, “OSD has received queries asking if military assets are being sent to either location [Libya and Egypt]. Have responded ‘not to our knowledge.’”

The Obama administration’s initial response explaining the cause of the attack was “immediately determined by top Obama White House officials” contrary to the president’s claim that it was based on intelligence available at the time.

Obama officials and the president himself linked an anti-Islam Internet video to the attack, saying it incited the terrorists who carried out the assault.

The president said the video link was gleaned from the “best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided.”

However, Fitton told Breitbart News, “We haven’t found any records that the video...
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

NBC’s ‘Today’ Mocks Michelle Obama’s Latest Food Police Push!

Newsbusters ^ | May 30, 2015 | Kyle Drennen 

On Friday, even the hosts of NBC’s Today had enough of Michelle Obama’s effort to micro-manage people’s food choices as they mocked the First Lady’s attempt to create a healthy version of s’mores.
At the top of the 9 a.m. ET hour, co-host Willie Geist explained: “So the First Lady of the United States, Michelle Obama, and the USDA have teamed up for this program called ChooseMyPlate.gov. It's an initiative proposing a makeover, for among other things, this classic campfire treat. So instead of graham crackers with chocolate and marshmallow, they propose graham crackers with, want-wa, strawberries and low-fat yogurt.”
Fellow co-host Tamron Hall declared, “it's not a s'more.” Natalie Morales pointed out: “And the s'more is not all that fattening to begin with. I mean, marshmallows have no fat, graham crackers are low fat, and one piece of chocolate is not going to kill you.” Geist replied: “Thank you. Amen, Natalie. Amen.”
Trying one of the s’more alternatives proposed by Mrs. Obama, Morales observed: “...they get a little soggy. Look at that, it’s falling apart....It falls apart in your hands.”
Geist noted: “So people are not pleased about this....@Texan tweeted, ‘Please tell Michelle Obama this is not a s'more. These are strawberry-yogurt-cracker sandwiches. Put this on a campfire.’”
He concluded: “I admire the First Lady’s initiative to make us healthier, I really do, but come on now. We're keeping the s'more the way it is.”
Here is a full transcript of the May 29 segment:
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...

Ted Cruz: The Constitution Wins

American Clarion ^ | July 3, 2015 | Bob Ellis 

(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), the most conservative presidential candidate for 2016, was recently interviewed by Hispanic TV channel Univision on a variety of subjects including the recent U.S. Supreme court opinion on counterfeit marriage. The interview turned out to be a great opportunity to inform the Hispanic community about the U.S. Constitution and conservative values.
The Univision Leftist interviewer Jorge Ramos seemed to think “love wins” (translation: “perverted lust wins”), but Senator Cruz said that (like any patriotic American) he would rather the U.S. Constitution wins.
He pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court opinion on counterfeit marriage was “fundamentally inconsistent with the Constitution. The Constitution leaves marriage for the states, from the beginning of our country.”
Ramos thought it was odd that Cruz had worked at the Supreme Court, yet wasn’t “respecting their decision.” So Cruz gave Ramos an education on the U.S. Constitution–an education so many people in the United States desperately need, and need to come to terms with.
Under our constitution, if you want to change the marriage laws, if you want ‘gay marriage’ adopted in your state, there is a method under the constitution to do that, and what that is, is you can try to convince your fellow citizens to change the marriage laws in your legislatures. That’s the way the constitution works, and it may be that New York and California would make different policy decisions than Texas and Florida. That’s the way our constitutional system should work.
Ramos tried to cite some Leftist polls claiming that most Americans now support counterfeit marriage, but Cruz pointed out some facts that are inconsistent with those polls.
Number one, forty states have adopted laws or constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage. Look, in the Hispanic community, our community values traditional marriage as the union of one man and one woman. That is very much the case in the Hispanic community…
And just a few years ago, California, not a conservative state, bright blue liberal California, they had a referendum state-wide on marriage, and a majority of Californians, when they had the opportunity to vote, voted in favor of traditional marriage. And you know who voted overwhelmingly in California for traditional marriage? Hispanics and African Americans.
Cruz pointed out that if the American really supported counterfeit marriage, they could have obtained government sanction for it democratically. But homosexual activists knew that wasn’t going to fly, so they took it to the courts where judicial activists could bypass democracy and the constitution and force it on the American people.
Ramos tried playing the “What if your daughters were gay” crap, and unlike a lot of gutless RINOs, Cruz laughed at the notion that conservatives do not love their families and others. He pointed out that when some homosexuals came out supporting his campaign, it was the Left that demonized and ostracized those homosexuals for supporting Cruz. Obviously, the “tolerant” Left isn’t nearly as “tolerant” as they would have gullible people believe.
Also during the interview, Ramos tried to sell Cruz on amnesty for illegal aliens or this “path to citizenship” amnesty crap, but Cruz wasn’t buying that either. When Ramos asked Cruz about the “path to citizenship” and President Obama’s illegal efforts to grant amnesty to illegal aliens, Cruz said
"It is inconsistent with the law. I support the rule of law."
Cruz pointed out that people come to America for many reasons, an important one being the rule of law. The rule of law, he said, is not followed in many countries, and what Barack Obama is doing is what dictators have done in other nations, i.e. violate the rule of law.
He said what he passionately supports is legal immigration, and his record shows that. Cruz said rule of law matters. If you cross the border illegally into Mexico, they would uphold their laws and deport such a person, and why shouldn’t the United States. Ramos could not answer why the United States should not do what other nations do with respect to upholding their borders.
Ramos accused him of not working for the Hispanic community because he doesn’t excuse illegal immigration. Cruz said that by working to uphold the laws that legal immigrants honored, he is working for the Hispanic community.
America desperately needs a president who understands the traditional values that produced this, the greatest nation in history, and not only understands those values, but passionately supports them and will unwaveringly defend them.
Obviously, Ted Cruz is such a man. He not only understands and supports traditional American values that work, obviously he is able to articulate those values clearly and politely–something few Republicans and virtually no Democrats will do anymore.
Liberalism (both the “straight” version offered by Democrats and the “lite” version offered by the “Republican” establishment) are killing his nation like poison. Ted Cruz wants no part of embracing that poison, and neither do I.