Same-Sex Marriage Decision to Be Revisited

Same-Sex Marriage Decision to Be Revisited

Photo Wikimedia Commons On June 26th, Fox News reported that the U.S. Supreme Court had announced that day, “It will hear the case of a suburban Denver baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple on faith-based grounds.” [Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission] It will in reality be deciding if discrimination laws trump the First Amendment. Coincidentally, it was two years ago, to the day, since the SCOTUS ruled 5–4 in Obergefell v. Hodges that state laws forbidding marriage of people of the same sex are unconstitutional. The majority redefined the meaning of marriage—based upon nonexistent provisions in the Constitution. By so doing, they had redefined the whole of human tradition and biology as well. Who knew courts had that kind of power? Clearly, such a decision belongs in the states, not in the hands of five unelected people. With one state legislature after the other allowing gay marriage anyway, there was no need for the High Court to usurp their rights. Ironically, the Congress could have preserved the states’ right to make that decision by simply passing a bill declaring that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction over the definition of marriage. Yes, a Congress with integrity would have seen this coming and would have used its the power to prevent it. “What?” you ask: “How dare you say the power of the Supreme Court is not Supreme! Daniel Horowitz, writing in Conservative Review, said: “Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the authority to regulate and limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court:...
Annoy a Liberal — Honor Calvin Coolidge on Independence Day

Annoy a Liberal — Honor Calvin Coolidge on Independence Day

True or false, did an American president actually consider one of his greatest accomplishments “minding my own business?” Keep reading. . . One of my favorite July Fourth traditions is remembering the life of our thirtieth president. Calvin Coolidge owns the distinction of being the only chief executive born on this day (July 4, 1872, and serving from 1923-29). Ideally, I would offer a brief biographical sketch followed by a few hundred words of well-crafted praise. But that wouldn’t be fair. . . I’ll offer a little but I don’t want to cheat readers out of the joy of discovering Calvin Coolidge on their own. His legacy is that rich and rewarding. Dr. Steven Hayward, the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Presidents from Wilson to Obama, grades the presidents primarily on their fidelity to the Constitution, as opposed to legislative advancements. He gives Silent Cal an A+ — the only president to win that honor! Most other historians would rather fawn over those leaders (Woodrow Wilson, FDR and, sorry, conservatives, Teddy Roosevelt) who grew the size and scope of the federal government. Coolidge, when he is mentioned at all, is remembered as a moral but ineffective leader who slept his presidency away. Coolidge was, indeed, a creature of routine. A country lawyer from Plymouth Notch, Vermont and later governor of Massachusetts, he exemplified, both in word and deed, those time-honored traits of self-reliance, hard work and living within your means. A man of simplicity and no pretense, he is among the last of those who recognized the limitations of presidential power, seeing the overreach of the federal...
Liberals and Wall Street– A Statist Love Story

Liberals and Wall Street– A Statist Love Story

Donald Trump became the first Presidential candidate in over 20 years with the courage to challenge the Wall Street financial power structure, when he pointed out the failures of our ‘Free Trade’ agreements. Free Trade is the Holy Grail of Wall Street and the Central Banks, which is the reason no candidate until President Trump has had the courage to even raise the issue, let alone actively negotiate with and compel other countries to give America terms more favorable to American workers. We know that liberal activists are supposed to hate Wall Street greed, and we know that Wall Street does not like President Trumps’ renegotiation of GATT NAFTA. We also know that Wall Street’s preferred candidate by money and deed was Hillary Clinton. Why then, are so many liberals angry about the defeat of the Wall Street candidate, Hillary Clinton, when they should be ecstatic at her loss? It was Hillary, who attached herself at the hip to Wall Street and the central banks, benefiting politically and personally, from their massive financial support and endorsement. Wall Street supported Clinton, and with good reason. It was Bill Clinton who signed Gatt Nafta, defining him as the greatest anti-labor President in American history. Free Trade has shipped much of our industrial base and over 1 million jobs overseas, to the benefit of Wall Street and corporate executives. It was Bill Clinton who signed Glass Stegal, freeing the central banks to create massive profits with massive corruption. It helped to set up the 2008 economic and real estate collapse. A disaster we show little sign of recovering from. Related: gop-rocks-georgia-handel-beats-ossoff-despite-dems-bigbucks-effort Democrats...
Gun Control Myths Reign Supreme on Facebook

Gun Control Myths Reign Supreme on Facebook

“Tell me how taking guns from law-abiding citizens keeps a criminal from killing someone with a gun?” She replied, “Not enough information.” It was the usual liberal banter; they really come out of the woodwork after a shooting. “There is no reason for anyone to have a gun that can shoot multiple times fast. I can see a rifle or a handgun, but an assault rifle? Maybe now the GOP will take gun control seriously. No one needs a semi-automatic or automatic gun except the military or the police. Maybe now they’ll get the NRA out of their pockets.” I know better, but I couldn’t seem to help myself. Clearly, they knew nothing about firearms, conservatives, or the NRA. So I casually popped into the thread to explain the difference between semi-automatic and automatic weapons, and how the term “assault rifle” is bogus. And we were off. Two hours later, I’m apoplectic. I’ve put up arguments, only to have someone named Chris tell me they’re illogical, try to shove a seriously flawed National Institutes of Health study down my throat, attempt to intimidate me with her lofty titles and affiliations, and, of course, browbeat me with the usual “conservatives are mean and heartless” narrative — HER faith group advocates for responsible gun control, after all. She told me she was a scientist, and I immediately thought she would be open to black and white statistical data, but no joy. This was a lost cause, and I had wasted my time and effort on someone who had no interest in learning something new. But my inner five-year-old wanted the last...
For the First Time in Over Half a Century, I have Hope that Cuba Will be Free

For the First Time in Over Half a Century, I have Hope that Cuba Will be Free

My early childhood experiences were filled with happiness. I lived in a paradise, which I naively believed would last forever. Our family owned a large sugar cane plantation in Cuba. We were well-to-do and lived quite comfortably. The freedom I enjoyed romping in the farm with my brothers and cousins, gave me the impression that I lived in paradise. My first encounter with one of life’s unavoidable obstacles came when I was just seven years old. I was sitting in my father’s lap in his rocking chair next to Mom’s rocking chair. My mother was crying uncontrollably and I did not know why. My father held me by my shoulders and looked into my eyes and said, “I will have to go soon. You must now be the man of the house and take care of your sister and mother and brothers.” I had no idea what he was talking about. But then through the window behind us, I heard a vehicle approaching. That fateful day on April 19, 1961, I saw a military Jeep, with an army truck following close behind it, pull up in front of my house. A dozen militiamen scrambled out the back of the truck with rifles and machine guns in the ready and proceeded to surround our house. Related: unintended-the-consequences-of-liberalism-part-one The Lieutenant in the Jeep pulled out his revolver from his holster, walked to the front door, and knocked loudly, with the butt of his gun on our front door. “Paco, we wish to speak to you.” A friend in the police headquarters had previously warned my father that they were coming to arrest...
United We Stand, Divided We Fail

United We Stand, Divided We Fail

Lately, scanning Facebook has become almost intolerable.  Everyone seems hell bent on shoving their diatribe in your face, in all caps, ad nauseum. I’m used to arguing with my liberal and progressive friends, and I fully expected their response, but I can barely stand the smug pomposity and preaching coming from the Right, and I am the Right.  Conundrum. I’ve become incredibly disillusioned and disappointed with fellow Conservatives. Currently, there seems to be three groups: those who cannot seem to move on from the primary “NeverTrumps;” the “Trump is the next coming of Jesus Christ himself” tribe, and the rest of us who are trying very hard to be intellectually honest in the face of a toxic political landscape. If only life really was black and white, as seen through the prism of the ForeverTrumps and the NeverTrumps — these two groups, who have such hatred and disgust for each other, have morphed into the nasal drone of Charlie Brown’s teacher: wha wha, wha wha wha, wha wha. Neither can see beyond their emotion, so their rantings are a waste of my time. I’ve recently blocked people’s content for the first time in eight years on Facebook. I mean, who needs it? It’s bad enough we face a constant barrage of leftist garbage and have to be ever vigilant against progressive intrusion and a government gone rogue. Do we really need to spend any more time on infighting over what is essentially, spilled milk? This obnoxious, “I’m better than you because I hate or love President Trump and all he says, tweets, or implies” is so…last year. It’s time to...