Category Archives: Congress

Judicial Tyranny: Dissenting opinions on Supreme Court’s ruling on homosexual marriage

Supreme Court 2015

Yesterday, by a razor-thin margin of one, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 5-4 in favor of the absurd notion of same-sex marriage. Henceforth, homosexual couples must be allowed to marry in every state of the disunion.

The five (names in pink above) are Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor — 3 Jews (Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan) and 2 liberal Catholics (Kennedy, Sotomayor). The four dissenters (names in blue) are John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas — all Catholics.

But the 5-4 vote actually should be 3-4 because two justices who voted in favor of same-sex marriage, Ginsberg and Kagan, should have recused themselves (or removed by Chief Justice John Roberts) due to conflict of interest, both having performed homosexual marriages. Title 28, Part I, Chapter 21, Section 455 of the U.S. Code reads (source):

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

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority’s opinion (source):

“The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation…. No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were,” Kennedy wrote. “It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. … They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”

“”It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it”?

Homosexual British actors Derek Jacobi and Ian McKellen, who star as swishy bitchy gay lovers in the British sitcom Vicious and are the grand marshals of this Sunday’s Gay Pride March in Manhattan, immediately put a mockery to that.

McKellen (l) and Jacobi (r)

McKellen (l) and Jacobi (r)

In a Vine posted to BuzzFeed’s accounts, the two celebrated the court ruling with a mock marriage proposal from Jacobi to McKellen, although Jacobi already has a “husband,” Richard Clifford, with whom Jacobi registered their civil partnership in March 2006, four months after civil partnerships were introduced in the United Kingdom.

The four dissenting justices’ minority opinions deserve to be known. Here are excerpts (source).

From the dissenting opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas:

[T[his Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be….

Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition. Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.

The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are? …

Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer….

The Constitution itself says nothing about marriage, and the Framers thereby entrusted the States with “[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife.” … There is no dispute that every State at the founding—and every State throughout our history until a dozen years ago—defined marriage in the traditional, biologically rooted way. The four States in these cases are typical. Their laws, before and after statehood, have treated marriage as the union of a man and a woman….

This Court’s precedents have repeatedly described marriage in ways that are consistent only with its traditional meaning…. Allowing unelected federal judges to select which unenumerated rights rank as “fundamental”—and to strike down state laws on the basis of that determination—raises obvious concerns about the judicial role….

The majority’s driving themes are that marriage is desirable and petitioners desire it. The opinion describes the “transcendent importance” of marriage and repeatedly insists that petitioners do not seek to “demean,” “devalue,” “denigrate,” or “disrespect” the institution. Ante, at 3, 4, 6, 28. Nobody disputes those points…. As a matter of constitutional law, however, the sincerity of petitioners’ wishes is not relevant.

When the majority turns to the law, it relies primarily on precedents discussing the fundamental “right to marry.” … None of the laws at issue in those cases purported to change the core definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman…. These precedents say nothing at all about a right to make a State change its definition of marriage, which is the right petitioners actually seek here…. Neither petitioners nor the majority cites a single case or other legal source providing any basis for such a constitutional right. None exists, and that is enough to foreclose their claim….

Same-sex couples remain free to live together, to engage in intimate conduct, and to raise their families as they see fit. No one is “condemned to live in loneliness” by the laws challenged in these cases—no one. Ante, at 28. At the same time, the laws in no way interfere with the “right to be let alone.” …

In sum, the privacy cases provide no support for the majority’s position, because petitioners do not seek privacy. Quite the opposite, they seek public recognition of their relationships, along with corresponding government benefits. Our cases have consistently refused to allow litigants to convert the shield provided by constitutional liberties into a sword to demand positive entitlements from the State…. Thus, although the right to privacy recognized by our precedents certainly plays a role in protecting the intimate conduct of same-sex couples, it provides no affirmative right to redefine marriage and no basis for striking down the laws at issue here….

It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” ante, at 13, why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” ante, at 15, why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” ante, at 22, serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?…

The majority’s understanding of due process lays out a tantalizing vision of the future for Members of this Court: If an unvarying social institution enduring over all of recorded history cannot inhibit judicial policymaking, what can? But this approach is dangerous for the rule of law. The purpose of insisting that implied fundamental rights have roots in the history and tradition of our people is to ensure that when unelected judges strike down democratically enacted laws, they do so based on something more than their own beliefs. The Court today not only overlooks our country’s entire history and tradition but actively repudiates it, preferring to live only in the heady days of the here and now….

The legitimacy of this Court ultimately rests “upon the respect accorded to its judgments.” … That respect flows from the perception—and reality—that we exercise humility and restraint in deciding cases according to the Constitution and law. The role of the Court envisioned by the majority today, however, is anything but humble or restrained. Over and over, the majority exalts the role of the judiciary in delivering social change….

Nowhere is the majority’s extravagant conception of judicial supremacy more evident than in its description— and dismissal—of the public debate regarding same-sex marriage…. What would be the point of allowing the democratic process to go on?

Those who founded our country would not recognize the majority’s conception of the judicial role. They after all risked their lives and fortunes for the precious right to govern themselves. They would never have imagined yielding that right on a question of social policy to unaccountable and unelected judges….

The Court’s accumulation of power does not occur in a vacuum. It comes at the expense of the people. And they know it…. When decisions are reached through democratic means, some people will inevitably be disappointed with the results. But those whose views do not prevail at least know that they have had their say, and accordingly are—in the tradition of our political culture—reconciled to the result of a fair and honest debate. In addition, they can gear up to raise the issue later, hoping to persuade enough on the winning side to think again. “That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work.” …

But today the Court puts a stop to all that. By deciding this question under the Constitution, the Court removes it from the realm of democratic decision. There will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public significance. Closing debate tends to close minds. People denied a voice are less likely to accept the ruling of a court on an issue that does not seem to be the sort of thing courts usually decide…. Indeed, however heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause….

Today’s decision…creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority— actually spelled out in the Constitution. Amdt. 1….

Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage…. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage…. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.

Perhaps the most discouraging aspect of today’s decision is the extent to which the majority feels compelled to sully those on the other side of the debate…. By the majority’s account, Americans who did nothing more than follow the understanding of marriage that has existed for our entire history—in particular, the tens of millions of people who voted to reaffirm their States’ enduring definition of marriage—have acted to “lock . . . out,” “disparage,” “disrespect and subordinate,” and inflict “[d]ignitary wounds” upon their gay and lesbian neighbors…. These apparent assaults on the character of fairminded people will have an effect, in society and in court.… Moreover, they are entirely gratuitous. It is one thing for the majority to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray everyone who does not share the majority’s “better informed understanding” as bigoted….

If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it. I respectfully dissent.

From the dissenting opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas:

I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy….

Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of marriage. Many more decided not to. Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work….

When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so….

But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its “reasoned judgment,” thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect….

Thus, rather than focusing on the People’s understanding of “liberty”—at the time of ratification or even today—the majority focuses on four “principles and traditions” that, in the majority’s view, prohibit States from defining marriage as an institution consisting of one man and one woman. This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy….

[T]his Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans19), or even a Protestant of any denomination…. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.

But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since….  They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.

The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic…. Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. “The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.”23 (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.) Rights, we are told, can “rise . . . from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.”24 (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?) … I could go on. The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational pop philosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.

From the dissenting opinion by Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia:

The Court’s decision today is at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our Nation was built. Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits. The Framers created our Constitution to preserve that understanding of liberty. Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a “liberty” that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect. Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government. This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it.

The majority’s decision today will require States to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages entered in other States largely based on a constitutional provision guaranteeing “due process” before a person is deprived of his “life, liberty, or property.” I have elsewhere explained the dangerous fiction of treating the Due Process Clause as a font of substantive rights. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 811–812 (2010) (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). It distorts the constitutional text, which guarantees only whatever “process” is “due” before a person is deprived of life, liberty, and property. U. S. Const., Amdt. 14, §1. Worse, it invites judges to do exactly what the majority has done here—“‘roa[m] at large in the constitutional field’ guided only by their personal views” as to the “‘fundamental rights’” protected by that document….

By straying from the text of the Constitution, substantive due process exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority. Petitioners…ask nine judges on this Court to enshrine their definition of marriage in the Federal Constitution and thus put it beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire Nation. That a “bare majority” of this Court…is able to grant this wish, wiping out with a stroke of the keyboard the results of the political process in over 30 States, based on a provision that guarantees only “due process” is but further evidence of the danger of substantive due process….

The majority claims these state laws deprive petitioners of “liberty,” but the concept of “liberty” it conjures up bears no resemblance to any plausible meaning of that word as it is used in the Due Process Clauses….

Even assuming that the “liberty” in those Clauses encompasses something more than freedom from physical restraint, it would not include the types of rights claimed by the majority. In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement….

Whether we define “liberty” as locomotion or freedom from governmental action more broadly, petitioners have in no way been deprived of it. Petitioners cannot claim, under the most plausible definition of “liberty,” that they have been imprisoned or physically restrained by the States for participating in same-sex relationships. To the contrary, they have been able to cohabitate and raise their children in peace. They have been able to hold civil marriage ceremonies in States that recognize same-sex marriages and private religious ceremonies in all States. They have been able to travel freely around the country, making their homes where they please. Far from being incarcerated or physically restrained, petitioners have been left alone to order their lives as they see fit….

Instead, the States have refused to grant them governmental entitlements. Petitioners claim that as a matter of “liberty,” they are entitled to access privileges and benefits that exist solely because of the government. They want, for example, to receive the State’s imprimatur on their marriages—on state issued marriage licenses, death certificates, or other official forms. And they want to receive various monetary benefits, including reduced inheritance taxes upon the death of a spouse, compensation if a spouse dies as a result of a work-related injury, or loss of consortium damages in tort suits. But receiving governmental recognition and benefits has nothing to do with any understanding of “liberty” that the Framers would have recognized….

In a concession to petitioners’ misconception of liberty, the majority characterizes petitioners’ suit as a quest to “find . . . liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex.” … But “liberty” is not lost, nor can it be found in the way petitioners seek. As a philosophical matter, liberty is only freedom from governmental action, not an entitlement to governmental benefits. And as a constitutional matter, it is likely even narrower than that, encompassing only freedom from physical restraint and imprisonment….

The majority’s inversion of the original meaning of liberty will likely cause collateral damage to other aspects of our constitutional order that protect liberty.

The majority apparently disregards the political process as a protection for liberty…. In our country, that process is primarily representative government at the state level, with the Federal Constitution serving as a backstop for that process. As a general matter, when the States act through their representative governments or by popular vote, the liberty of their residents is fully vindicated…. What matters is that the process established by those who created the society has been honored…. The definition of marriage has been the subject of heated debate in the States. Legislatures have repeatedly taken up the matter on behalf of the People, and 35 States have put the question to the People themselves. In 32 of those 35 States, the People have opted to retain the traditional definition of marriage…. That petitioners disagree with the result of that process does not make it any less legitimate. Their civil liberty has been vindicated.

Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect…. In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well. Id., at 7. Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples. The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability….

Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process—as the Constitution requires—the People could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process. Instead, the majority’s decision short-circuits that process, with potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.

Perhaps recognizing that these cases do not actually involve liberty as it has been understood, the majority goes to great lengths to assert that its decision will advance the “dignity” of same-sex couples…. The flaw in that reasoning, of course, is that the Constitution contains no “dignity” Clause, and even if it did, the government would be incapable of bestowing dignity. Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate. When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” they referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and therefore of inherent worth. That vision is the foundation upon which this Nation was built. The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away….

Our Constitution—like the Declaration of Independence before it—was predicated on a simple truth: One’s liberty, not to mention one’s dignity, was something to be shielded from—not provided by—the State. Today’s decision casts that truth aside. In its haste to reach a desired result, the majority misapplies a clause focused on “due process” to afford substantive rights, disregards the most plausible understanding of the “liberty” protected by that clause, and distorts the principles on which this Nation was founded. Its decision will have inestimable consequences for our Constitution and our society. I respectfully dissent.

Statue of Liberty in tears

H/t FOTM’s MomOfIV

In sorrow,

Éowyn

The Washington Cartel

WND

Ted Cruz unleashed: ‘Washington Cartel’ conspires against Americans

In this 40 minute speech, Ted Cruz lifts the cover off Washington’s dirty dealings. He reveals the endless conspiracy game in the capitol city.


U.S. News & World Report: Americans have lost confidence in everything

Citing a recent Gallup Poll, the White House reporter for a major news magazine, U.S. News and World Report, is saying out loud what many of us in the alternative media have felt for some time — the American people’s confidence in just about every institution in politics and society is at an all-time low.

That fall and continuing erosion of trust, in turn, has grave implications for the health and viability of democracy.

In an article for U.S. News and World Report on June 17, 2015, Kenneth T. Walsh writes:

Americans have little confidence in most of their major institutions including Congress, the presidency, the Supreme Court, banks and organized religion, according to the latest Gallup poll.

Here are the findings of the recent Gallup Poll:

  • Congress: Only 8% have confidence in Congress, down by 16 points from a long-term average of 24% – the lowest of all institutions rated. The rating is about the same as last year’s 7%, the lowest Gallup has ever measured for any institution.
  • Presidency: 33% have confidence in the presidency, a drop from a historical average of 43%.
  • Supreme Court: 32% have confidence in the Supreme Court, down from 44%.
  • Banks: 28% have confidence in banks, down from 40%.
  • Big Business: 21% have confidence in big business, down from 24%.
  • Organized labor (read: labor unions): 24% have confidence in organized labor, down from 26%.
  • News media: 24% have confidence in newspapers, down from 32%. 21% have confidence in television news, down from 30%.
  • Police: 52% of Americans saying they are confident in the police compared with 57% who have been confident in the police historically. The drop in public esteem for the police is the result of police being widely criticized in recent months for alleged abusive tactics toward African-Americans, which resulted in the deaths of several black men.
  • Organized religion: 42% express confidence in organized religion, down from 55%.

The only exceptions to the above decline in confidence are:

  1. Military (which Obama systematically is undermining and destroying with his LGBT agenda and purges of top leaders): 72% of Americans still have confidence in the military, up from a historical average of 68%.
  2. Small business (the butt of Obama’s derision: “You didn’t build that!”): 67% of Americans express confidence in small business, up from 63%.

Given the decline in confidence in so many institutions, it is not surprising that only 28% of Americans are satisfied with the state of the nation2004 was the last year Americans’ satisfaction with the way things are going in the United States averaged better than 40%.

A Gallup spokesman said in a news release:

“Americans’ confidence in most major institutions has been down for many years as the nation has dealt with prolonged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a major recession and sluggish economic improvement, and partisan gridlock in Washington. In fact, 2004 was the last year most institutions were at or above their historical average levels of confidence. From a broad perspective, Americans’ confidence in all institutions over the last two years has been the lowest since Gallup began systematic updates of a larger set of institutions in 1993. Americans continue to show lower levels of confidence in most of the major institutions central to U.S. society, with only the military and small business getting ratings in 2015 that are above their historical averages. That speaks to the broader dissatisfaction Americans have with the state of the nation more generally over the past decade as the U.S. has faced serious economic, international and political challenges. Americans have tended to be more confident in U.S. institutions when the economy has been strong, such as in the mid-1980s and the late 1990s and early 2000s. Although Americans are now more upbeat about the economy than they were in 2008-2013, they are not yet convinced that the economy is good, given that their assessments of national economic conditions remain more negative than positive.”

Walsh concludes:

All in all, it’s a picture of a nation discouraged about its present and worried about its future, and highly doubtful that its institutions can pull America out of its trough. In a political context, the findings indicate that the growing number of presidential candidates for 2016 will have a difficult time instilling confidence in a skeptical electorate that they have the answers to the country’s problems.

elections have consequences

~Éowyn

Busted! President of Washington NAACP is white

There was a time when, desperate to escape the scourge of racism, half- or part-blacks in the U.S. would pretend to be white.

Nowadays, it’s just the opposite.

With incentives like Affirmative Action and racial quotas, Americans who are part black identify themselves as “African American,” ignoring the “white” part of themselves.

Take Obama for example. He’s bi-racial: half black, half white. But Obama defines himself as black, and is celebrated by Democrats and the media as black.

Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren

Then there’s Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-NH), the darling of the Left, who looks wholly “white” with blonde hair and blue eyes, but claims to be a Native American, specifically a Cherokee.

Interestingly, she didn’t self-identify as Native American until she was 38 and climbing the law professor ladder. It was then that she claimed to be 1/32 Cherokee and so received “Affirmative Action” “diversity” benefits. When questioned about her Cherokee heritage, other than two recipes she offered in a 1984 cookbook, Pow Wow Chow, which she claimed to have been passed down to her through the Five Tribes families, Warren insisted that she didn’t need to provide documentation of her Cherokee ancestry because family “lore” backs her up.

Now, the president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in Spokane, Washington, is revealed to be not a “colored” or black person, but white.

Rachel Dolezal

Jeff Humphrey reports for KXLY4 that on Thursday, June 10, 2015, the City of Spokane announced it’s investigating whether Rachel Dolezal, president of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP, had violated the city’s code of ethics in her application to serve on the citizen police ombudsman commission.

Dolezal is chair of the independent commission, in addition to being an adjunct faculty member at Eastern Washington University and president of the NAACP local chapter. On her application to serve on the commission, she identified herself as African-American. But public records, including Dolezal’s own birth certificate, list her biological parents as Ruthanne and Lawrence Dolezal of Montana. The Dolezals said Rachel is their biological daughter and that they are both white.

Ruthanne and Lawrence Dolezal

Mayor David Condon and City Council President Ben Stuckart said in a joint statement: “We are committed to independent citizen oversight and take very seriously the concerns raised regarding the chair of the independent citizen police ombudsman commission. We are gathering facts to determine if any city policies related to volunteer boards and commissions have been violated. That information will be reviewed by the City Council, which has oversight of city boards and commissions.”

On the NAACP Spokane Facebook page, a picture was posted earlier this year showing Dolezal and an African-American man who was identified as Dolezal’s father.

On Wednesday, KXLY4’s Jeff Humphrey asked Dolezal: “Ma’am, I was wondering if your dad really is an African-American man.”

Dolezal answered, “I don’t understand the question, I did tell you [that man in the picture] is my dad.

Humphrey asked, “Are your parents white?” At that point, Dolezal removed the microphone, ended the interview and walked away.

KXLY4 was interviewing Dolezal about several hate crimes she’s reported over the last several years. Most recently, Dolezal said she received a packet of hateful letters and pictures at the NAACP post office box in North Spokane. Her accusation led to rallies of support for her outside Spokane City Hall. Police say whoever placed the mail must have had access to the box, as it was not processed through the regular mail. Dolezal denied any implication that she was responsible.

Dolezal says she’s been the victim of eight documented hate crimes in Idaho; a public records request filed by KXLY yielded just three reports. Each was closed by police because of insufficient evidence to prosecute.

Rachel Dolezal as young girl

FOTM’s Three Percent recently did a brilliant post on the new media-concocted popularity of transgenders. With tongue firmly in cheek, he confessed that he’s a new type of “trans” — a “transrace” who “feels” he’s another race stuck in the wrong body. (See “Bruce Jenner is transgender? I’m a transrace!“)

Expect that to be Rachel Dolezal’s defense. /sarc

And why not?

How is claiming to be another race stuck in the wrong body any different from claiming to be another gender stuck in the wrong body? America has devolved to the point where hard facts like our DNA and chromosomes no longer matter; it’s all about how you “feel.” If you “feel” you’re a woman, even though your body is that of a male, then it’s your body that’s mistaken, because your “feelings” are all that matters.

Rachel Dolezal is the rotten fruit of post-modernism’s deconstructivism that maintains there are no objective truths. Instead, truth is relative and subjective.

We have been warned about relativism.

Nearly three thousand years ago, the prophet Isaiah sounded a warning about the confusion and disorder that are engendered by relativism: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20)

In our times, author Michael Novak warned about the political dangers of a society that holds truths to be relativist and subjective:

“During the next hundred years, the question for those who love liberty is whether we can survive the most insidious and duplicitous attacks from within, from those who undermine the virtues of our people, doing in advance the work of the Father of Lies. ‘There is no such thing as truth,’ they teach even the little ones. ‘Truth is bondage. Believe what seems right to you. There are as many truths as there are individuals. Follow your feelings. Do as you please. Get in touch with your self. Do what feels comfortable.’ Those who speak in this way prepare the jails of the twenty-first century. They do the work of tyrants.”

 

Theologian Lesslie Newbigin is blunter still. In The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, Newbigin writes: “The relativism which is not willing to speak about truth but only about ‘what is true for me’ is an evasion of the serious business of living. It is the mark of a tragic loss of nerve in our contemporary culture. It is a preliminary symptom of death.

H/t FOTM’s MomOfIV

~Éowyn

Leader of U.S. veterans coalition renews Patrick Henry’s call to liberty

I am an American citizen

Below is the Memorial Day speech delivered by my friend John J. Molloy, Chairman of the National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition, at the Ride For Freedom Rally (of biker veterans) in Rainelle, West Virginia, on May 23, 2015.

John Molloy

Brothers & Sisters,

Though it is customary over the Memorial Day weekend to render flowery speeches about our departed veterans who sacrificed their lives for our freedom, this will not be one of them.

This year marks the 240th anniversary of the commencement of the Battle of Lexington (though some may argue that the Revolution began at the Battle of Point Pleasant, here in West Virginia). This year is also the 70th anniversary of the defeat of the Nazis and Tojo in World War II. Each event a high point in our nation’s history. However, it also marks a sad anniversary, the 40th anniversary of the fall of Saigon to the North Vietnamese, when the lives and sacrifices of American and allied South Vietnamese soldiers were disgracefully discarded by cowardly politicians.

Since that fateful day in April 1975, it appears that our armed forces have rarely been permitted to fight to win. Then as now, ridiculous rules of engagement do not permit our fighters to engage the enemy, even when being shot at, without first getting authorization.  Well, new flash! The purpose of our armed forces is supposed to be ‘kill people and break things’. Hearts and minds are won though victory and fear. We should be generous in victory, but not before.

The fact that our political leaders have abrogated all our past sacrifices is obvious.

The National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition was established to resolve those issues important to those of us who served in, as well as those who support veterans of Vietnam, the First Gulf War and all of America’s subsequent wars. The issues include:

  • Prisoners of war (POW) and missing in action (MIA)
  • Agent Orange
  • Gulf War illness
  • Homeless veterans
  • Veterans employment/unemployment
  • Veterans health care/V.A. hospitals

However, efforts to resolve these issues are meaningless if Americans lose their freedom. Upon entering our nation’s armed forces, we swore to defend the United States of America from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Without freedom, we can resolve nothing.

Consequently, it is the primary objective of the Coalition — and the 70 veterans organizations and the over quarter of a million veterans it represents — to support those measures that will ensure the freedom, safety and security of the United States of America, which this administration is not ensuring.

Unlike most veterans organizations, the Coalition is not a veterans service organization. It is a political/educational organization that evaluates and endorses candidates for political office, by determining if they are capable and willing to not only support those issues of concern to veterans, but most importantly, abide by their oath of office should they be elected. Unfortunately, those who fail to abide by their oath outnumber those whom the Coalition has endorsed, and even some who the Coalition has endorsed have succumbed to the dictates of this administration and congressional leadership.

It is because of this administration’s sympathy toward those who would destroy us politically, economically and militarily, as well as the weakness and complicity of many senators and representatives, that America is now at great risk. America is besieged on all sides whether by racial-ethnic unrest, illegal immigration, Islamic terror, and even an Ebola outbreak. But this administration and the liars who support it expect us to believe that our greatest problem is climate change. They think us to be idiots and treat us accordingly. I think that I can safely assure you that this cannot continue without a reckoning. And I suspect that this administration wants it to occur so that it will be provoked into subduing us.

One only needs to look at some of our leaders to see where America is headed. Obama has failed to subdue ISIS, uses executive action to provide amnesty to illegal aliens, refers to those killed by Muslim terrorists at Benghazi as “bumps in the road,” and refers to the Fort Hood massacre as workplace terror.

Well, who are his advisors and senior cabinet members?

  • Jeh Johnson, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), who praises the Muslim Brotherhood.
  • Valerie Jarrett, White House senior advisor, an Iranian Muslim who treats our senior military leaders with disdain.
  • John Brennan, CIA chief, who is a Muslim.
  • Gen Clapper, Director of National Security, who is a moron.
  • Mohamed Elibiary, senior member of the DHS Security Advisory Council, who is an advocate of Hamas.
  • Eric Holder, U.S. attorney general (2009-2015), who wanted to take away our second amendment rights and supports the rioters who defy our police.
  • Loretta Lynch, Holder’s successor who wants to nationalize our police forces.
  • Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s advisor, whose father and brother are senior members of the Muslim Brotherhood.
  • Al Sharpton, the race baiter and agitator who defends criminals against legitimate law enforcement.

So what can we do?

Here, I must take the liberty of referring to and paraphrasing a famous speech made in the Spring of 1775, the eve of the American War for Independence.

“They tell us, sir, that we are weak, unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be next week or next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed and when members of the FEMA or DHS or the “federal protective agency” (formerly, the police) invade every house?

Shall we gather strength by irresolution or inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope until our enemies have bound us hand and foot?

We are not weak if we make a proper use of those means by which God has placed in our power. Millions of people, armed in the holy cause of Liberty, in such a country as we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battle with us.

This battle is not for the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, and the brave. Though in 2016 an election by peaceful means is desirable, there is that possibility that it may not be achievable, in which case there will be no retreat but submission or slavery.

Our chains are forged and heard on the streets of Washington, D.C. If war is inevitable to preserve our freedom, then let it come!

Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? I wonder, at times, whether we are not already there.”

******************************************************

Now friends, it may soon be up to us to prevent those freedoms which were defended by our forefathers whom we memorialize this weekend, from being lost.

These freedoms must be passed on to our descendants. However, they must not take these freedoms for granted. They must be willing to join our efforts.

Though many hope that the presidential election of 2016 will resolve America’s problems, of that I would not be too confident.

Last year, we gave a vote of no confidence to Obama when we obtained Republican majority in the Senate and retained the Republican majority in the House. Unfortunately, the leadership of those whom we elected are weak and, I daresay, treacherous. In addition, with the possibility of illegals casting ballots and the continuation of election fraud, we would be foolish to place confidence in an election that may truly be rigged or be a shallow or empty victory.

In either case whether we like it or not, hope rings hollow and achieves nothing. If ISIS or rioters were to attack our homeland, if our government attempts to disarm us, we cannot defeat them with hope. Unfortunately, based on what appears to be on the national horizon, the ultimate solution may be Bullets rather than Ballots.

As Patrick Henry said so admirably at the end of his speech that Spring day 240 years ago:

Give me Liberty or Give me Death!!!!

Patrick Henry

For Patrick Henry’s speech, “Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death!,” at the Second Virginia Convention on March 23, 1775, in Richmond, Virginia, go here.

In Liberty,

~Éowyn

Dr. Seuss says No

A quickie guest-post from our Gen iYer, Justin.

Dr. Seus

And here’s my quickie!

dog pees on O

~Éowyn

Wayne Allyn Root on the GOP Dream Team

Wayne Allyn Root

The GOP keeps bringing a knife to a gun fight. The result is we’re getting killed. We’re getting killed even after we won the most historic landslide in modern history. It’s time to change strategy.

The media tells us to play nice, be ‘gentlemen’ and compromise. Look where it’s gotten us – a bankrupt country with over $18 trillion in debt and income taxes at the same level as bankrupt socialist Greece. Worse, the labor force participation rate is at all-time lows and more businesses fail each day than open.

We are facing the end of the America Dream and death of the greatest middle class in world history because we have played nice, acted like gentlemen and compromised. We’re standing around acting like “gentlemen” while Obama turns America into Detroit. Like that movie “Network” it’s time to open our window and scream “I’m not going to take it anymore!”

It’s time for a “GOP dream team” of street fighters to take on the evil that is destroying America by making us all dependent on big government. It’s time to kick ass and take no prisoners.
It’s time to get behind one nominee and then name our entire team and announce what that team will do to save the US economy… the middle class… and the American Dream.

It’s time to inspire passion and enthusiasm by showing we stand for something. That something is smaller government, lower taxes, less spending, pay down the debt, and giving more power to the citizens. Let the liberal media try to call that “extreme.” The American people will vote for that vision.

Liberals and the media told us we’d lose if we ran an “extremist” like Ronald Reagan. Instead, he won in two historic landslides. Since then, every milk-toast moderate we’ve run, George HW Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney lost.

The key to victory is the passion, energy, intensity and enthusiasm of your base, combined with inspiring independents and undecided voters by painting a picture of hope, prosperity and patriotism. You have to get people excited. Being “moderate” doesn’t excite anyone. Although it’s a little early for me to endorse anyone, here is a look at a potential “GOP DREAM TEAM.”

Scott Walker as the GOP presidential nominee. Here’s a man from the Midwest, without a college degree, with a blue-collar mentality. Here’s a man who fought the money and manpower of every union in America…and won. Not once, not twice, but three times in blue state Wisconsin. He didn’t do it with kindness. Despite death threats against his wife and children, Scott Walker never gave an inch. He turned a $3 billion deficit into a billion dollar surplus, then handed the money back to the taxpayers. That’s a fighter. That’s courage. That’s a leader with a spine, who won’t fold when the biased-liberal media tries to slander and destroy him. Walker’s a man bringing a bazooka to a gun fight.

His choices for Vice President are plentiful. The GOP bench is fantastic and diverse from Latino men like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio…to women like Carly Fiorina, Governor Susanna Martinez and Governor Nikki Haley…to Libertarian heroes like Rand Paul…to a brilliant African American brain surgeon like Dr Ben Carson…to a genius policy wonk like Governor Bobby Jindal. The list is long.

We’ve been governed by inept political hacks for far too long. It is time for a dream team of experienced, committed adults who will kick ass and never fold when the going gets tough. The GOP Presidential nominee needs to name his entire dream team.

Do that and we’ll put the fear of God into liberals and the media. Here is how we differentiate ourselves, paint a picture of hope, and inspire our base! Here is how we win 270 electoral votes.

NAME OUR DREAM TEAM:

Attorney General of the United States – Ted Cruz. Let’s put a true defender of the Constitution in a place where he can do just that. Can you imagine the fear we’ll drive into the heads and hearts of law-breaking liberals and Marxists. No compromise, no mercy.

Treasury Secretary – Rand Paul. Put a Libertarian in charge of the economy, taxes and the IRS. Watch the US economy enjoy the greatest expansion in history with a true, free market Libertarian in charge. Rand Paul is a fighter. No compromise, no mercy.

Defense Secretary- Allen West. Here’s the man born to stand up for the honor of the military and defend the greatest nation in world history. No compromise, no mercy.

Secretary of State- you’re going to love this one: Donald Trump. Rather than weaklings afraid of their shadows, turn the world’s greatest, pit-bull negotiator loose on our adversaries like China and Russia. Let him negotiate the nuclear deal with Iran. No compromise, no mercy.

Chairman of the Federal Reserve – Dr. Ron Paul. The first father-son cabinet team will stand up to, audit, and rein in the Fed before the Fed destroys our economy. Ron Paul’s entire life has been preparation for this. No compromise, no mercy.

Homeland Security Secretary – Trey Gowdy. Protect our borders with common sense. No compromise, no mercy.

ICE- Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Need I say more?

Health & Human Services Secretary – Dr. Ben Carson. Here’s the guy born to dismantle Obamacare. No compromise, no mercy.

Labor Secretary- Darrell Issa. A street fighter who will stand up for America’s workers, not union bosses. No compromise, no mercy.

Energy Secretary- Sarah Palin. You want jobs? Take the shackles off and drill baby drill! No compromise, no mercy.

Commerce Secretary- Herman Cain. A brilliant businessman and unabashed capitalist who will get American working again. No compromise, no mercy.

Special Economic Advisors – Mitt Romney, Jack Welsh, Steve Wynn, Carly Fiorina and Donald Trump (doing double duty). Put politics aside and put people who understand business in charge of the economy. No compromise, no mercy.

Education Secretary- Bobby Jindal. Here’s the brightest guy in the room, bar none. Put him in charge of taking on the teachers unions with creative ideas to turn around our failing education system. No compromise, no mercy.

Now, a personal plug… put me, Wayne Allyn Root, in charge of the Small Business Administration. Small business is the economic engine of America. I know how to motivate, inspire and empower the millions of mom and pop businesses on Main Street, not Wall Street. I stand for giving power to small business, not the welfare state or illegal aliens. No compromise, no mercy.

This is how you win an election- by exciting and inspiring Americans with an experienced, all-star GOP Dream Team that actually stands for something- America first!

And…

This is how you tell liberals to go to hell.

Wayne Allyn Root, a former Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee, is one of the most popular political and media stars in America. His columns and commentaries are read at the biggest political & news web sites in America- including FoxNews.com. He makes regular appearances at Fox News Channel, and hundreds of radio stations across the country. Wayne is a Capitalist Evangelist, entrepreneur and small businessman, home-school dad, best-selling author, and Tea Party Libertarian conservative. His web site: http://www.ROOTforAmerica.com